Marijuana

Jeff Mizanskey Is Serving Life in Prison for Marijuana

Rapists and murderers come and go, but he's there for the duration.

|

Jess Mizanskey
Aaron Malin

As I prepared to leave home for my interview with Jeff Mizanskey I looked up the address of the prison where he is held. In disbelief, I typed the characters into the GPS on my phone.

8200 No More Victims Road.

Jeff Mizanskey is serving a life sentence without parole for marijuana. He has been in prison since right after I was born 21 years ago. Jeff is the only person in Missouri sentenced to die behind bars for marijuana, a victim of the state's rather unique three strikes law.

A prison guard escorted Jeff into the visiting room where I had set up for our interview. As he walked in and introduced himself, I was struck by just how much he reminded me of my grandfather (he has grandchildren of his own). Jeff is soft-spoken, calm, and articulate, and holds an interesting perspective on his sentence. His perspective is balanced between accepting his fate as a punishment he earned and at the same time being unable to shake the nagging feeling of unfairness that comes with spending life behind bars while murderers are released.  

Jeff has watched dozens of convicted rapists and murders, housed in his cellblock, walk out the doors as free men over the past 21 years. Many have re-offended and were sent right back to prison. Meanwhile, Jeff has completed over a dozen rehabilitation programs while incarcerated, and now mentors other inmates to convince them to learn from his past. He doesn't hesitate to acknowledge the mistakes he has made, but feels strongly that his punishment was disproportionate to his crime.

Missouri's three strikes law landed Jeff his life without parole sentence. Around half of states have some type of three strikes law on the books. In almost all of these states the statutes apply to violent crimes—murder, rape, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. In Missouri, Jeff racked up all three strikes without ever committing an act of violence. He was a working class guy with a small side gig as a low-level pot dealer. He never hurt anyone, never brandished a weapon, and never sold to children.  

Jeff calmly told me his story from across the table in the visiting room. The guard stared at the floor as he half-listened from thirty feet across the room.

Strike one came in 1984 when Jeff sold an ounce of marijuana to a close relative, who at some point gave or sold it to an undercover police officer. The relative told police where he got it in exchange for leniency, and his testimony was enough to get a search warrant of Jeff's home. The half-pound of pot found during the search landed him with his first felony conviction and five years probation.

Strike two came in 1991. Police again received information from an informant that was sufficient to obtain a search warrant of Jeff's home. This time, they found less than three ounces of cannabis, but it was still more than the one and a quarter ounces needed to trigger a felony charge. Unable to afford the legal fees necessary to fight the charge in court, he pleaded guilty for the second time.

Just two years later, Jeff gave a friend a ride to a motel. The friend was there to buy a few pounds of pot from a supplier, who was once again working with the police and had helped them set up a sting operation. Jeff accompanied his friend into the motel room and allegedly handled a package of marijuana during the transaction. He was arrested with what would end up being his third strike as they left the parking lot. Jeff has been in a cell at the maximum security Jefferson City Correctional Center (JCCC) ever since, nearly 21 years and counting.

The JCCC is an impressive complex. As I drove up to the facility on a sunny summer morning last month, the first thing I noticed was the facility is enormous. The sheer size of the massive campus, which sprawls hundreds of acres and imprisons thousands of human beings, was stunning. I'd seen smaller universities. Hell—on my way down, I'd driven through smaller towns with fewer people.

Jeff is housed with rapists and murderers because of his life sentence, but the prison guards don't treat him like one. When I first entered the facility, I was assigned a prison guard escort. After he lightly searched my interview equipment for contraband, we began navigating the dozen or so remotely controlled doors between the prison entrance and the visiting room we'd be using. On the way there, the guard made small talk and asked whom I was interviewing. When I told him about Jeff he didn't mince words about the failures of our judicial system. I could certainly understand how keeping Jeff in a cage would just feel silly to a guy who deals with violent criminals every day.

During the interview, the guard stayed on the other side of the room from the table where the interview was taking place. There were no restraints on Jeff—he was free to walk into the visiting room freely and shake my hand. Near the end of the interview, the guard briefly left us alone in the visiting room. It was clear that despite being assigned to live with rapists and murderers, Jeff did not fit in with violent offenders.

I asked Jeff about his future. He told me calmly that all of his appeal options have been exhausted. Unless the Governor of Missouri grants Jeff clemency and sets him free, he will likely die there. He will never know his grandchildren, or his great-grandchild on the way, outside the walls of the sprawling Jefferson City Correctional Center.

As I drove away from the prison, down the very visibly marked No More Victims Road, I thought about the man, and the horribly cruel irony, that I was leaving behind. Unless the Governor of Missouri intervenes and grants clemency, Jeff will die behind bars at 8200 No More Victims Road, having never victimized anyone in his life.

Outraged by Jeff's life without parole sentence for cannabis? You can contact Missouri Governor Jay Nixon to ask him to grant clemency here.

X

NEXT: Video: P.J. O'Rourke on Millennials vs. Baby Boomers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Letting this dangerous criminal out of jail would send the wrong message to the voters of Missouri.

    Compassion is weakness.

    1. Treason is good. Just ask a DEA traitor.

  2. When I start wavering from libertarian purism on the Drug War, I see a story like this, or a story about SWAT teams busting into someone’s home to look for dope, and I wonder if the govt can really be trusted with monitoring the populace’s chemical habits?

    1. Out of curiosity, what do you mean by “waver from libertarian purism” and what would lead you to feel that way?

      You never struck me as being particularly susceptible to libertarian peer pressure.

      1. We’re all susceptible to libertarian peer pressure.

        Now put on the glasses!

        1. Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me!

          (did i get it right? too oppositional, or not enough? please, your feedback means so much to me)

        2. Nice They Live reference.

        3. Now put on the glasses monocle!

          FTFY

          1. No, you really didn’t.

            1. Since, of course, we’re already wearing monocles.

      2. I’m not 100 percent sure about the harder drugs – if I thought the govt could be trusted to handle this problem without setting babies on fire or stealing property without trial, I might be for some restrictions on adult use.

        1. The main reason I’m in the “legalize it all” camp is that I don’t even think government knows which drugs are worth controlling. Categorizing drugs as hard is non-trivial. People use it interchangeably to describe drugs with addictive potential or drugs with possible health effects.

          It ends up meaning not much more than “drugs my local news station and PD think are super bad.”

          1. For example, psychedelics. There’s no consistent answer to whether those are hard or soft drugs. They can cause psychosis and schizophrenia, and require a lot of judgment in how you use them. They also have less than zero addictive potential and some have centuries of safe traditional use.

            I have a suspicion that as the studies come in showing that psychedelics and related drugs like MDMA have tremendous psychiatric potential, statist assholes are going to remind us that shrooms are a public health issue, since we’ll be paying people’s mental health bills if they eat a bucket of bad shrooms and become a regular Coast to Coast AM caller. Therefore, the only responsible thing we can do is to arrest anyone who gives a cubensis to friend before a show, and throw them both into cement rape cages. For society.

            1. since we’ll be paying people’s mental health bills if they eat a bucket of bad shrooms and become a regular Coast to Coast AM caller.

              What are you talking about? That sounds hilarious! I’d be happy to subsidize that through a private charitable foundation.

              1. The market provides!

                1. Well, is it really our problem if she can’t get her old hippy husband to shave or take a bath?

                2. Wow. Down the rabbit hole.

              2. I hate when that happens.

            2. They can cause psychosis and schizophrenia

              Hey Jack Webb, you left out delusions of the ability to fly, staring at the Sun until you go blind, and eating California cheeseburgers

              1. Sigh.

                No, they really can precipitate schizophrenia and psychosis if you’re at risk of developing them. Not that it’s a normal side effect.

                It’s more of a warning along the lines of “if you know you have heart problems, maybe snorting a line of Addy isn’t for you.”

                1. Drugs can precipitate the first break of schizophrenia but they don’t cause it, that’s an important difference. People with schizophrenia are going to develop that first psychotic break, usually between ages 18 and 21, from some stress to their system — sometimes it’s drugs, sometimes it’s a death in the family, a breakup of a long relationship, or going away to school. But the disease will come out at some point, it’s just a matter of when.

                  1. People with schizophrenia are going to develop that first psychotic break, usually between ages 18 and 21, from some stress to their system — sometimes it’s drugs, sometimes it’s a death in the family, a breakup of a long relationship, or going away to school. But the disease will come out at some point, it’s just a matter of when.

                    Interesting. My Aunt had it. I remember her being a very happy, normal teenager. She went to college and came back completely fucked up. My family always blamed drugs, but who knows?

                    Sad story. Ended up killing herself with a deer rifle.

                    1. Sad story. Ended up killing herself with a deer rifle.

                      I’m sorry, but I have to ask. Did she commit suicide, or did she go hunting and get Dick Cheney’d by accident?

                    2. No, it was suicide. This will sound terrible, but it was probably better that way. Her life was completely miserable for years.

                  2. All I was trying to get across is that there are some real risks that people should be aware of and take into account.

                    I’m pro-psychedelics for most people, but if you think you’re at risk of psychosis, there’s a chance that therapy and different drugs with are a better choice than needlessly poking at your neural soft spots with chemical sticks.

            3. They can cause psychosis and schizophrenia

              There is no evidence for that. It seems more plausible that all they do is trigger symptoms in people with preexisting mental disease.

              1. I agree with this. My language could have been clearer.

        2. I’m not 100 percent sure about the harder drugs

          I see you have much to learn about liberty, weedhopper. Do you own yourself, or does the state own you?

          1. Pretty sure the Vatican owns him, but rents him out to this site at good price, and with no interest to boot.

            1. Yeah, the only true libertarians are atheists. We should kick him out of the club.

              1. That was like an Olympic level long-jump to conclusion there Francis.

                1. Well, if not the religious, we certainly need to kick those anti-immigration people out of the club.

                    1. “This is also a position taken by the International Society for Individual Liberty [(ISIL)!?!?]”

                      Oh crap, oh crap, he’s onto us guys. Any week now Abu Bakr is going to start throwing copies of Atlas Shrugged from mosque rooftops.

                    2. I just wish they would name their children something obvious, so we could know who the dangerous ones really are.

                      Jamal Al-Deathbomber Murdershishe would probably be on the list.

                  1. Maybe just the anti-liberty people. But hey, keep tossing stuff, something’s bound to stick.

                    1. Well, I think you must all agree, we absolutely, positively need to throw out the anti-abortion people. Those good for nothing bastards.

                    2. Certainly your throwing arm is getting tired? You don’t need another Tommy Johns.

                    3. Well, yeah, except that the NAP might actually protect the unborn, just sayin that one could interpret it in that way.

                    4. Abortion is like animal cruelty laws or IP, it’s something the NAP doesn’t by itself solve (or rather, as you say, you reasonable people can differ on whether the NAP applies in some way to fetuses, embryo’s, chimpanzees, etc.). Libertarians can be on either side of that issue comfortably I think, though I do note that many, if not most, prominent libertarian groups tend as an empirical matter to be pro-choice.

                      I think immigration restrictionists are in a tougher situation. Some pretty basic, fundamental freedoms are involved (freedom of movement and association). Most professed libertarians that support immigration restrictions make some kind of utilitarian argument that while it’s not ideal to use state force to restrict those liberties in the long run some pragmatic concern trumps that. I think that’s a suspect from the start, if we are going to make that argument why not make it for other restrictions on liberty (you see the tip of that in some of the musings on drugs here).

                      As to religious people, of course they can be libertarians. I myself am an example of that. Francis and PM just have burrs in the saddle and are not what we would call amenable to making fine distinctions.

                    5. Francis and PM just have burrs in the saddle and are not what we would call amenable to making fine distinctions.

                      Just in case you haven’t noticed, distaste for your “fine distinctions” is hardly confined to two people here. Even folks like Epi and Sevo who probably outshine you in their personal hatred for socons (but certainly not in your paranoia – rest assured you remain unmatched on that front) think you’re an asshole.

                    6. Sevo and Epi are also not much known for playing nice with anyone who disagree with them, right?

                    7. On immigration, doesn’t your position pre-suppose the concept of a “world citizen?” I’m not trying to red herring you on one-world gubmint conspiracy theories I just wonder why a citizen of one nation should bear the costs associated with the importation of the citizenry of a failed nation-state (or even one “not as good”). And if we are all in agreement that taxation is deprivation of property, why should a libertarian support policies that clearly are a continued if not expansive threat to that property?

                    8. I have no more problem with people being anti-abortion than with people being sluts, homosexual, homophobic, matriarchal, mysogynist, atheist, or even Catholic.

                      Libertarianism isn’t about being pro or contra something, it is about not imposing your beliefs and preferences on others.

                    9. I don’t understand how that distinction seems to get lost so much here.

                      Abortion is a particularly good example of this problem. Libertarians are supposed to live and let live, for the most part. But pro-life libertarians seems to think that abortion should be illegal. It reeks of a massive amount of cognitive dissonance, to me.

                      I’m all for people screaming on the street corners about how abortion is der derbil. But actively saying we should outlaw it? What the fuck, guys?

                    10. But actively saying we should outlaw it?

                      From a libertarian perspective, should we outlaw murder?

                      IF, I repeat, IF the fetus is a person, it has the right to live. Killing it is murder.

                      If it isn’t a person, the rights of the host should obviously take precedence.

                      I have no problem with thinking there should be a law IF you could somehow prove the fetus is a person. They can’t, of course. Which is precisely why there is no “libertarian” position on abortion.

                    11. That’s a position I hadn’t really considered.

                      We could use the WHO guidelines, and assume that at 22 weeks it becomes murder.

                      Although that is still rather arbitrary, I think. I don’t have a good answer. Until it comes out of the person carrying it, the baby’s life is the choice of the mother, perhaps?

                      In fact, we could use that as a new form of sanctuary! As long as part of me is inside my mother (no matter what age I am) then I can’t be arrested!

                2. That was like an Olympic level long-jump to conclusion there Francis.

                  Haven’t you been pretty explicit in the past in saying that Eddie, by virtue of his being a SOCON!!!! fails the purity test, along with 99% of the rest of the commentariat (looking at you too now, Frisco)?

                  1. PM, from the ‘if I keep saying it enough it makes it true’ movement.

                    1. No, but seriously, you’ve quite literally said that the majority of the people posting at Reason.com are socons, republicans, or religious-right. You’ve certainly said as much about Eddie.

                      Bo, from the ‘it’s not a lie if you believe you’ movement.

                    2. Why don’t you supply a shred of evidence for what you say instead of keep saying it?

                    3. Well, google doesn’t database Reason comments in a real intuitive way and we don’t have individual post histories, but here’s the first result for this search string

                      I am glad you agree that there are a lot of people here [reason.com] more Republican conservatives than anything else.

                      Since I have been a libertarian I have seen conservative Republicans try to co-opt libertarian individuals and organizations. The Kochs recently tried something like this with Cato… Reason, much like Cato, has resisted this co-optation at the level of editors and commentators, but it seems like something like that is going on at the level of the comments pages.

                      Of course, anybody that’s been here longer than this morning can think of a dozen other instances of you trotting out the same line of bullshit right off the top of their head. You don’t seem real shy about it when you’re doing it, I don’t know why you insist on denying it after the fact.

                    4. ‘there are a lot of people here that are conservative Republican more than anything else’ = ‘99% of the rest of the commentariat’ or ‘the majority of the people posting at Reason.com are socons, republicans, or religious-right.’ Wow, you’re just terrible at distinctions, or you are willfully misrepresenting my statement. Are you that dishonest and disengenous?

                    5. I would think a person with your capacity for, uh, “fine distinctions” would probably recognize hyperbole in the first case. The second isn’t a mischaracterization of anything you’ve ever said here, including the extremely-small one-post sampling I posted from a 2-second google search which includes your paranoid ranting about a Koch conspiracy to co-opt Cato for the “conservative Republican” cause.

                    6. The Koch controversy is pretty well known inside baseball in libertarian circles, it was no paranoid conspiracy.

                      Now back to your dishonesty; even in your second iteration of your lie you claimed that I said a majority of posters here were some brand of conservative. I challenged you to back up your claim and you put up a statement by me that ‘a lot’ of posters here were ‘more conservative Republican than anything else.’ In other words you couldn’t support your claim, and instead of acknowledging your mistake as any honorable person would, you engage in dishonest spin. That’s about the sum of you PM

                    7. The Koch controversy is pretty well known inside baseball in libertarian circles, it was no paranoid conspiracy.

                      Among delusional paranoid nutbars who characterize the Koch bros as “conservative Republicans” and suggest the presence of alleged GOP-sympathizing right-wingers in the comment sections of libertarian websites is proof of their influence, you’re probably right. The “controversy” was a lot more dry than that in reality, even in “inside baseball” libertarian circles. Of course, something could probably be said here about the wisdom of fringe minority movements cannibalizing themselves in the cradle with absurd purity tests, but it would clearly be lost on you.

                      even in your second iteration of your lie you claimed that I said a majority of posters here were some brand of conservative. I challenged you to back up your claim and you put up a statement by me that ‘a lot’ of posters here were ‘more conservative Republican than anything else.’

                      I’m not going to dredge through a thousand pages of scattershot google search results to find something more specific to nail you on something that every person who’s been here longer than this morning knows is true, that just happened to be the first result that demonstrates your standard line of bullshit in the broad sense. And hat about sums you up, Bo.

                    8. There’s more just in that thread, but I’m bored of reading it now.

                    9. And none of it supports your statement. I think there are a lot of Republican types that comment here, but not a majority or 99% as you have claimed here, and you can’t show any evidence I’ve said otherwise, but continue to double, triple, and quadruple down caught in your own innaccuracy or dishonesty (take your pick). None of my comments you’ve quoted (after saying you were not going to do so anymore, pretty clear sign of your obsession) amount to more than ‘there’s a lot of Republicans here.’

                    10. None of my comments you’ve quoted (after saying you were not going to do so anymore, pretty clear sign of your obsession) amount to more than ‘there’s a lot of Republicans here.’

                      Except where they very specifically do. I helpfully bolded those portions for you knowing your penchant for fine distinctions pedantry. I expected you to wave off those multiple references to “most of the responses”, “much more common”, “more people here”, etc, as specific references to that thread and/or the people in that thread, but I didn’t think even you were mendacious enough to outright deny your own fucking words right there in black (er, orange) and white, but you never do cease to impress me in that regard.

                    11. Your mendacity is stunning. I mean, perhaps since you are the same fellow who took me saying ‘there are a lot of people here that are conservative Republican more than anything else’ to mean ‘99% of the rest of the commentariat’ are conservatives or ‘the majority of the people posting at Reason.com are socons, republicans, or religious-right,’ I should expect you to argue that, for example, ‘persons like you are so much more common on Reason than persons like me’ means that too.

                      You can’t have that poor of a grasp on grammar and semantics, it’s got to be willful mendacity.

                    12. This is EXACTLY the kind of pedantic bullshit people despise you for.

                      Everyone reading this realizes that PM didn’t literally mean 99%. He was exaggerating for effect.

                      Yet, you seem to think arguing minuta somehow invalidates his legitimate points.

                      He has you, hands down, and you’re trying to shift the argument away from the fact that you’ve been soundly whipped by whimpering about an insignificant inconsistency in his phrasing of the argument.

                      Grow up and admit you’re wrong.

                    13. I’m sure if I had said this or that 99% of the time you’d be giving me the same benefit of the doubt, right Francis?

                      Of course it’s moot, PM’s statement is unsupported even in its less hyperbolic iteration.

                      I’m sorry if you too don’t understand how the English language works. If any of those comments mean ‘the majority of the people posting at Reason.com are socons, republicans, or religious-right’ then POINT IT OUT.

                    14. Can’t point it out, Francis?

                    15. If any of those comments mean ‘the majority of the people posting at Reason.com are socons, republicans, or religious-right’ then POINT IT OUT.

                      I did. The bolded portions of your text VERY FUCKING SPECIFICALLY refer to majorities. Not “some”, not “many”, not “a lot”. Unlike the first post of yours that I cited where you said there are a lot of people here [reason.com] more Republican conservatives than anything else., you didn’t bother with weasel words in any of the subsequent posts, which is why I selected them specifically. You outrightly said that there were more right-wingers/republicans commenting at Reason than there were mainline libertarians. You were probably most specific about it here:

                      The very fact that you find John’s disagreement with Reason to be accurate and refreshing or that the Koch Brothers and their Cato takeover was a harmless or good thing, and that I do not, kind of supports my overall point. To the extent one identifies with libertarianism and adheres closely to the closest thing to a libertarian line there is, one is going to be concerned and appalled at such things, but of course if you lean Republican in your libertarianism, it is ‘all good’ as people say.

                      OK, fine, but allow me to remain puzzled as to why persons like you are so much more common on Reason than persons like me.

                      It’s right fucking there for everybody to see.

                    16. In what mendacious or confused universe does ‘a lot’=’most?’

                      A LOT of people here are MORE Republican conservatives than anything else.

                      Are you really reading that to mean ‘a lot more of the people here are Republican conservatives than anything else?’ That’s incredible.

                    17. In what mendacious or confused universe does ‘a lot’=’most?’

                      Wouldn’t it be convenient if those other 6 references I posted from that thread (and, as I said, there’s actually more, I just got tired of reading them) didn’t exist, and that original quote was still what we were talking about?

                    18. Oh, so you admit you were totally wrong with that first attempt, right?

                      Well, I’m afraid the same guy who make that mistake can be suspected of making similar ones in his other claims.

                      “why persons like you are so much more common on Reason than persons like me.” and “Then I started to see how people broke on the usual issues that see left and right libertarians divide (abortion, immigration, gay rights) and noticed there were a lot more of the other kind around here.”

                      Both of these are replies to IT, and I talk about how my views reflect the more mainstream libertarian thought on them which is derided as ‘cosmotarian’ but that there are more posters who break the other way THAN THERE ARE ‘COSMOTARIAN’ POSTERS LIKE ME (all caps for your limited comprehension).

                      “the fact that more people here would agree with an acknowledged Republican on this issue” I know you’re not given to qualifying distinctions, but note the ON THIS ISSUE

                      “It is like it has become some way-station for Republican-lite wanderers.”

                      This comment doesn’t say anything about a majority, just that these wanderers hang out here.

                      There’s your vaunted ‘proof.’ None of them say what you want them too, what you set out to show. Not a one. Given your first attempt, which you yourself seem to have finally though with no honor given up on, I really shouldn’t have even have taken the time to specifically address them.

                      You’re either ESL, mendacious, or both.

                    19. It doesn’t matter Bo. It doesn’t matter whether you believe it’s 99% or 51% or 49%. You aren’t an asshole based upon the percentage. You are an asshole for continually harping on the same bullshit meme. (and for your pedantry)

                    20. I think its about 30%, and I don’t harp on it anymore than lots of people harp on other things, including the supposed liberal, cocktail party cosmotarianism of our Reason hosts. None of that seems to upset you.

                    21. None of that seems to upset you.

                      Bullshit.

                      I call them on that bullshit as well. I’ve said it here dozens of times. There is no such thing as right/left libertarianism. There is only libertarianism and how far you stray from it.

                    22. Yea I have to second that…

                    23. If, as you argued repeatedly, your viewpoint is that of mainstream libertarianism, and if, as you argued repeatedly, commenters on Reason.com who oppose your viewpoint outnumber those commenters on Reason.com who support your viewpoint, that would indicate that “the majority of the people posting at Reason.com are socons, republicans, or religious-right”. Or, to be needlessly specific, “the majority of the people posting at Reason.com are Republican-sympathizers or right wing-sympathizers who are not libertarians”.

                      You can’t have that poor of a grasp on grammar and semantics, it’s got to be willful mendacity.

                      I’ll just leave this here

                    24. In that conversation I’m talking to Immaculate Trouser (one of the many posters here, btw, that will acknowledge they do not consider themselves libertarians but rather something closer to conservatives). I’m talking to him about how many more people on Reason.com and at time specifically in that thread, would agree with John on this or that issue rather than myself or Reason writers. That doesn’t say the majority of posters on Reason.com are conservatives, just that there are a lot of them and a lot more of them than libertarians who ‘lean left’ as I describe in the conversation you’ve been selectively quoting from.

                    25. Btw, in the order that I quoted them, your responses were in reply to:

                      Palin’s Buttplug

                      From the Tundra

                      Cytotoxic

                      The Immaculate Trouser

                      It’s not like you only mentioned it once or twice.

                    26. Wow, you’re just terrible at this.

                      You can’t find anywhere where I say a majority of posters here are Republican conservative types. What you did find was where I said that there were a lot of posters here who were more conservative Republicans than anything else, or that there were more posters like IT (conservative Republican) than like me (which I say in that conversation is more of the ‘cosmotarian’ strain of libertarianism). That’s not ‘a majority.’

                    27. You can’t find anywhere where I say a majority of posters here are Republican conservative types.

                      I actually did. 6 of them. Just in one thread. And there’s more there for the plucking. And I accurately predicted your deflection ahead of time. You’re as predictable as the sunrise.

                      What you did find was where I said that there were a lot of posters here who were more conservative Republicans than anything else, or that there were more posters like IT (conservative Republican) than like me (which I say in that conversation is more of the ‘cosmotarian’ strain of libertarianism). That’s not ‘a majority.’

                      Let’s revisit this:

                      If, as you argued repeatedly, your viewpoint is that of mainstream libertarianism, and if, as you argued repeatedly, commenters on Reason.com who oppose your viewpoint outnumber those commenters on Reason.com who support your viewpoint, that would indicate that “the majority of the people posting at Reason.com are socons, republicans, or religious-right”. Or, to be needlessly specific, “the majority of the people posting at Reason.com are Republican-sympathizers or right wing-sympathizers who are not libertarians”.

                    28. Note that you absolutely did not say or suggest in any of my quoted responses that yours was “more of the ‘cosmotarian’ strain of libertarianism”

                      What you specifically said was:

                      To the extent one identifies with libertarianism and adheres closely to the closest thing to a libertarian line there is, one is going to be concerned and appalled at such things…OK, fine, but allow me to remain puzzled as to why persons like you are so much more common on Reason than persons like me.

                    29. You can, and evidently will, spare no dishonesty in trying to make that mean something other than what it plainly means. It’s out there, people can make up their own minds. I’m done playing with you.

                    30. Bo Cara Esq., you claim that the Koch brothers are socons plotting to take over the libertarian movement? The Koch brothers, supporters of gay marriage, pot legalization, non-interventionism, and limiting police power? And for what? For the vast political influence the libertarian movement wields?

                      I can’t quite tell whether you’re simply deranged, some kind of left-wing troll, or a shill. Either way, GTFO.

                    31. Uh, the Kochs did try to take over the Cato board, and they have a known preference toward a right-libertarian alliance. That doesn’t mean they’re socons, but it’s a real thing.

                    32. Don’t distract these people with facts.

                      Former long time Reason writer and then Cato employee on the Koch-Cato incident:

                      “I don’t generally subscribe to the popular caricature of the Kochs as supervillains. For a lot of progressives, the Kochs now serve the same function as the Liberal Media does for conservatives: The shadowy elite cabal whose pernicious influence explains why your own common sense views aren’t universally embraced, as they otherwise would be by all right-thinking Americans. Obviously, I don’t buy that, and in any event, of all the ways wealthy people use money to influence politics, openly sponsoring ideological advocacy seems by far the least pernicious. So if this were ultimately just about an ego contest between the pretty-rich guy (Cato President Ed Crane) and the insanely rich guy (megabillionaire Charles Koch), I’d be content to keep my head down and scribble away without too much regard for what the nameplate on the top-floor corner office reads. Nothing personal, Ed.

                      Unfortunately, it’s fairly clear already that rather more than that is afoot. As my colleague Jerry Taylor lays out over at Volokh Conspiracy, after years of benign neglect, the Kochs have suddenly decided to use their existing shares in the Institute to attempt to pack the board with loyalists, several of whom are straight-up GOP operatives.”

                      http://www.juliansanchez.com/2…..on-letter/

                    33. Uh, the Kochs did try to take over the Cato board…

                      Undisputed.

                      …and they have a known preference toward a right-libertarian alliance.

                      Certainly debatable. They’ve been more active in Republican party politics than Democratic party politics, to the extent that reflects a right-libertarian preference. But they also donate heavily to causes that the mainstream Republican party vigorously opposes. Characterizing the Kochs as “conservative Republicans” is objectively wrong.

                    34. I wasn’t characterizing them as conservative Republicans, and I didn’t see where/if Bo did. I see their preference toward a right-libertarian alliance since 1980 as being a pragmatic decision, and probably the correct one.

                  2. (looking at you too now, Frisco)

                    Unless you are an anarchist, everybody fails the purity test (myself included).

                    Most all of us have issues that conflict with pure libertarianism. Eddie tries to to merge libertarianism with his faith. It works on many issues but not at all on others. After talking with Eddie, I believe he is more libertarian than he is socon. It’s a matter of degree. How big are your exceptions and how many do you make.

                    There is no problem pointing out the inconsistencies in their arguments. That’s just good debate. The difference between myself and Bo, is that I can accept folks as libertarian even though they may not be great libertarians and I welcome their contributions rather than blathering constantly about how the commenters here are simply socons and have no value.

                    Applying purity tests is counter productive to the cause. I’d rather have guys like John and even Dunphy 75% in our camp (and not necessarily always agreeing with them) than not in our camp at all.

                    1. You want as many Girondins as you can muster for when the Jacobins come a-callin’.

                    2. I welcome such people too Francis. In fact, I’ve worked with my local Tea Party organization quite a bit.

                      The difference between you and me is really that you are willing to forgive deviations from right leaning people much more so than left leaning people, while I’m not. In that, I’m much closer to the current and traditional positions of Reason magazine and its writers. From time to time I marvel at how many people posting here are of your type rather than mine, that upsets people like you and PM, and you get all riled up and sloppy(er) in your anger.

                    3. The difference between you and me is really that you are willing to forgive deviations from right leaning people much more so than left leaning people

                      Lol. Never underestimate Bo’s capacity for self-parody.

                    4. It’s the truth PM, something I more and more realize is anathema to you.

                    5. Well then, in the spirit of reciprocity: show your work. It’s ironic that I have to ask you to produce evidence of the impure right-wing apologists among us since you never, ever ever ever ever ever would say any such thing, but…

                    6. As I said. It’s a matter of degrees. Not that either side is basing its position on libertarian principle, but on the whole, the “right” has more overlap with libertarianism (on an issue by issue basis) than the “left” does. THAT, is why you see what you do.

                      If your goal is to sway folks away from the Teams to libertarianism, you will make more headway focusing on the right than the left.

                    7. For now, yes. But this was absolutely not the case ten years ago, and before Reagan, neither the right nor the left made for good political partners.

                    8. To clarify, I do think that an alliance with the right makes much more sense right now, since right and left correspond better to libertarianish and statist than they ever have in my lifetime. This may be the only way to get a liberty vs. state vote on a federal ballot in a way that average voters can recognize.

                      That said, left culture is not intrinsically more collectivist than right culture, and we need to be able to recognize what potential leftist allies look like.

                    9. And I still don’t get why so many commenters here are so suspicious of potential LGBT allies.

                    10. And I still don’t get why so many commenters here are so suspicious of potential LGBT allies.

                      Because SOCONZ!!!!!(!!!!)!!!!! /Bo

                      With that out of the way, because a lot of the modern gay rights movement is pretty antithetical to liberty, primarily freedom of association. Same reason guys like Goldwater opposed the CRA of ’64 after vehemently supporting prior civil rights legislation. For example:

                      http://www.hrc.org/campaigns/e…..nation-act

                      http://www.americanprogress.or…..workplace/

                    11. modern gay rights movement is pretty antithetical to liberty, primarily freedom of association

                      That’s effect, not cause. There are buckets of LGBT issues that libertarians can contribute to, like police profiling, legal gender changes, and trans healthcare exclusions.

                      “How do we punish business owners who do not kowtow sufficiently?” is a major LGBT issue because progressives are setting the agenda, not because it’s that important to us as individuals.

                    12. “How do we punish business owners who do not kowtow sufficiently?” is a major LGBT issue because progressives are setting the agenda, not because it’s that important to us as individuals.

                      Probably true, but when a lot of people think “gay rights”, they think of things like non-discrimination legislation and public accommodations since, as you say, that happens to be the most public face of gay issues at the present time. To answer your question, I think that’s why some commenters here, and libertarians more generally, are “suspicious of potential LGBT allies”.

                      I’d also note that health care exclusions (whether for gay partners, transgenders/transsexuals, or for anybody else) don’t really fit into libertarian ideology, since libertarians are in favor of free market health care where insurers and doctors are free to have whatever conditions, exclusions and restrictions they wish. It’s entirely possible that a contingent of libertarians might wish to privately lobby insurers on their coverage exclusions in some parallel universe where the industry is actually privatized. There also may be a contingent of libertarians in the same parallel universe that simply doesn’t care, or that actually support certain coverage restrictions, e.g., due to religious beliefs. Contra Bo, they can all equally be libertarians as long as they do not initiate force against each other, either directly or by government proxy.

                    13. The trans healthcare exclusions I’m thinking of are the ones that specifically exclude all transgender healthcare from coverage by insurance policies. These are extremely common, and when you can expect to spend $300-500 a month plus gods only know what else on medical care on top of your insanely expensive healthcare premiums, and when your HSA has been neutered… it’s pretty terrible.

                      Right now the left has this sewed up. All they have to do is have DHS issue yet another directive making trans healthcare required on all policies. They will thus buy the trans community for decades. Yes, it’ll take five years to see a specialist, but it’ll be FREE!!!!1!!1

                      It infuriates me that they can create a mess like this, then be credited as heroes for fixing it. I’d like for the libertarian community to be there to point out a better way.

                    14. You’ll find that many of the same commenters that break with Reason on gay rights also do so on immigration rights and abortion rights. Interesting that, no?

                    15. You’ll find that many of the same commenters that break with Reason on gay rights also do so on immigration rights and abortion rights. Interesting that, no?

                      Stop representing abortion as a libertarian issue. That is simply not the case. There is no libertarian position on abortion. PERIOD!

                    16. Actually, the LP and Reason have been pro-choice since their inceptions. I don’t claim that settles the matter of abortion and libertarianism (I wrote about that here today), but it’s interesting that so many of the people who post here disagree.

                    17. Actually, the LP and Reason have been pro-choice since their inceptions.

                      Nonsense! If they are pro choice it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH LIBERTARIANISM. It’s an opinion they hold outside the philosophy.

                      The NAP cannot be applied because it is impossible to know when the lump of cells becomes a person with rights. You can believe or guess or be told by your priest to believe one way or the other, but libertarianism offers no solution to the dilemma.

                    18. “It’s an opinion they hold outside the philosophy.”

                      Now looks who’s being the Arbiter.

                    19. Now looks who’s being the Arbiter.

                      Yeah, the NAP is.

                      Apply the NAP to abortion. To do so, you must first make an assumption…either:

                      The fetus is a person.

                      or

                      The fetus is not a person.

                      An unknowable thing.

                    20. “Yeah, the NAP is.”

                      That’s all I’ve ever said myself on these things. Funny that.

                      Btw-that doesn’t necessarily settle the issue for a lot of libertarian thinkers, check this out for this view:

                      http://bleedingheartlibertaria…..tarianism/

                    21. The point is that the legality of abortion does not really depend on the personhood of the fetus for libertarians. Even if fetuses are persons, they’re simply unfortunate enough to have mothers that prefer to kill them than compromise their bodily autonomy. Such abortions may be immoral, but they should not be illegal.

                      That presumes an awful lot and glosses over volumes of ethical and legal intricacies that are debated in both libertarian and mainstream circles regarding the issue. The personhood of the fetus is very important to the legality of its destruction, because it’s important to the ethics of it, and the ethics drive the legality.

                    22. —Stop representing abortion as a libertarian issue. —–That is simply not the case. There is no libertarian —-position on abortion. PERIOD!

                      Yes, there is. A person, whether male or female is entitled to bodily autonomy and should not be forced to provide life support to another human.

                    23. You’ll find that many of the same commenters that break with Reason on gay rights also do so on immigration rights and abortion rights. Interesting that, no?

                      Indeed. . Hmmmmm.

                      Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. . .

                    24. neither the right nor the left made for good political partners.

                      Agreed, but it’s easier to take over a party than it is to build one from the ground up. And if that’s the plan, it’s easier to convince Team Red that people’s sexual orientation is none of their business than to convince Team Blue that free markets help the poor more than welfare.

                    25. I understand the practicality of that approach, but both teams are large, loose alliances of disparate groups. There’s nothing about the hijack-the-GOP strategy that precludes pulling in allies from the traditional Dem groups.

                    26. There’s nothing about the hijack-the-GOP strategy that precludes pulling in allies from the traditional Dem groups.

                      As soon as either team realizes they agree with the other they will immediately reverse course. For that reason, among many others, co-opting either political party on anything more than an issue-by-issue basis is a long shot.

                    27. There’s nothing about the hijack-the-GOP strategy that precludes pulling in allies from the traditional Dem groups.

                      Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. I think there are a (not insignificant) number of people who are Democrats because “social” liberty is their primary area of concern. Get them. And if you can possibly convince some that economic freedom is better (Bono), get them too.

                    28. Imagine a world where we’ve had a completely successful Rand Paul presidential term, and “Real liberals vote for Paul” become completely viable rhetoric. Who can we pick up?

                    29. I’d rather have guys like John and even Dunphy 75% in our camp (and not necessarily always agreeing with them) than not in our camp at all.

                      SPLITTER!

                    30. I infer from Bo’s writings that many of us aren’t as much libertarian as we are anti-left, and that once the GOP takes control of both houses of Congress and the White House, we’ll simply stick our heads in the sand whenever state power is expanded and/or abused.

                      I doubt that will be the case.

                    31. I’m sure there will be plenty if criticism from the people I’m thinking of, but the kind of criticism conservatives often give the GOP.

                    32. I’m sure there will be plenty if criticism from the people I’m thinking of, but the kind of criticism conservatives often give the GOP.

                      Yes, the only thing more damning than their lack of criticism will be their actual criticism. Everybody knows that your true, hardcore commie crypto-republican-socon-libertarian will always deny it. If only we had some kind of test to flush them out…

                    33. Yes, and when liberals criticize Obama for not being liberal enough, it shows that liberals are not liberals.

                      Or something. Your grasp on logic rivals your grasp on truth and accuracy.

                    34. Great analogy to an argument that nobody made.

                      Your grasp on logic rivals your grasp on truth and accuracy.

                      You flatter me.

            2. You mean like MoveOn.org owns you but rents you out to this site at a good price?

          2. He’s a Papist, a man in a silly hat owns him, who in turn is owned by a magical threesome in the sky.

            1. You know who else had silly white hats?

              1. The Chefe de Cozinhas?

              2. Your mom?

            2. Rod Steiger.

        3. “…if I thought the govt could be trusted to handle this problem without setting babies on fire or stealing property without trial, I might be for some restrictions on adult use.”

          Yeah, me too maybe…and that is a big maybe. We don’t live in that world though, we live in one where they do set babies on fire and steal like mad. I would rather have addicts dying in the streets than guys in ski masks kicking in doors and shooting people down in their pajamas.

          1. Just for the record, I’m going to go right ahead and say that whatever I put into my own body, or anyone else puts into their own body is none of the states or anyone else’s fucking business, period. There are NO exceptions to that.

            1. Just as I own myself I do not own anyone else, and therefore cannot coerce them as to what they do with their own bodies.

              1. I thought it was right there in the NAP, I’m not sure where all of this ‘wavering’ is coming from. Must be a new campaign by the government where they’re putting magical statist dust in all the crops. Good thing I’m immune to it I guess.

                1. It’s probably because you have some transgenic cat DNA.

                  1. Cats are definitely the coolest animals, so I’m ok with that.

                  2. Is that site like The Onion, or are these people serious?

                    1. I know, right? They had me until the Nyan cat. Some of the stuff on there is brilliant, like anything involving the gay agenda.

                    2. This sort of tipped me off that it’s a satire site:

                      Marijuana Menace

                      They’re here. They’re all around. Anonymous and indistinguishable from your average Joe. They’re your local marijuana addicts and they’re waiting for just the right moment to pounce on your children.

            2. That includes vaccines or the lack of as well? From HM’s post above it seems some would argue that a person loses their right to “freedom of movement” because without the vaccine they pose a credible health threat.

              1. ^^^ Replying to Hyperion:
                Just for the record, I’m going to go right ahead and say that whatever I put into my own body, or anyone else puts into their own body is none of the states or anyone else’s fucking business, period. There are NO exceptions to that.

              2. I mean, I see a difference. I’m not weighing in right now on vaccines, but you can’t really catch a drug addiction by working in the same office with someone who has one and you don’t even know about it.

            3. OK Hyperion, you are correct. I have said the same thing myself many times.

              What was mentioned was ‘some restrictions on adult use’. I would not have a problem with restricting people from shooting up in the mall food court, or teachers lighting crack pipes in classrooms. While we are at it we can restrict people from driving stoned.

              You want to get high in your home? Knock yourself out. In the real world some reasonable restrictions might be needed.

              Again, you are correct. It is no one’s business what I ingest into my own body that I own and they fuckin’ don’t. Still, some restrictions might be in order.

              1. I don’t think there is such a thing as a FEDERAL reasonable restriction. I don’t even like the idea of a STATE reasonable restriction.

                I think restrictions should be handled at a local level. If a school doesn’t want a teacher smoking crack in the classroom, then fine. I’m also okay with Crack Teacher High. I wouldn’t send my kid there, but I’m sure there are plenty of people that would, if for nothing but the novelty.

                The smaller the governing body, the better suited it is for passing laws.

            4. The hiccup in this is that we have a gubmint that mandates that these decisions and any negative outcomes be subsidized by us. That is the definition of externalizing an effect. I’m all for across-the-board legalization. I just think it should be tethered to Suth’s point that those that abuse or OD should be left to die in the streets by the government (that does not include private/charitable funded operations however).

        4. I’m not 100 percent sure about the harder drugs

          How many people have you personally known in your life who used “hard” drugs? I have known a few drug users in my life. Very few of them are dangerous to anyone but themselves and ultimately those that are dangerous are that way anyway.

          Alcohol is no worse than cocaine or heroin. Many, many people destroy their lives with it. Many people use it and do not destroy their lives.

          Were George Washington and William Wilberforce moral men? How were they able to use opiates for decades and remain who they were? Simple. Drugs don’t make people do anything. They simply lower inhibitions making people more willing to do what is already in their hearts. When nobility is in your heart, even decades of opiate usage does not diminish it.

          1. The “hardest drugs” I’ve had are LSD and DMT. The most dangerous drugs I’ve had are alcohol and ADD drugs I’ve been taking since second grade.

            Think about how remarkably similar Adderall and meth are in effect and chemistry. One is associated with exploding trailers, and the other with getting a grad degree. That’s not because one is safer than the other.

            Everything that alters our brains has an inherent danger, and we invent cultural responses to help mitigate that.

  3. Isn’t it great to live in a free country? (Is it possible to die from excessive sarcasm?)

    1. No. More state power, please!

  4. And in Grrrl power news, from the She The People section of the Washington Post:

    “Nobody really noticed, but Hillary Clinton has made the boldest comments on Ferguson and race

    “By Nia-Malika Henderson August 29

    “…Whereas most Democrats and Republicans, and eventually President Obama, addressed the militarization of the police, Clinton actually went there on an issue that most avoided: racism and the criminal justice system….

    “Her statements in many ways echo those of Sen. Rand Paul’s who also imagined himself as Michael Brown, mouthing off at a cop as a teen, but with a very different outcome based on race. Both Paul and Clinton went further in their statements than Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Obama, who in his third statement on Ferguson, touched on black crime rates, and only allowed that there might be sentencing disparities and differential treatment for blacks in the criminal justice system.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..-and-race/

    1. Well,she’s right. Although I would have to say their (Paul and Clinton) reasons for,saying what they said differ greatly. Paul has been saying this for years and has been clamoring for sentencing reform…while Clinton only did so,when she saw her potential 2016 opponent be well-received and her silence panned.

    2. Hillary Clinton, the understated provocateur who makes thoughtful statements about what she really thinks. Uh huh.

      1. If I’m going to read implausible fan fiction, I’m going to read that one with the Kitty Pryde/Hermione tribbing scene, not one about an alternate universe Hillary, thanks very much.

        1. I don’t want “tribbing” in my searvh history, but I’m guessing it’s dirty.

          1. I don’t want “tribbing” in my searvh history

            Oh yes you do.

          2. Ctrl+shift+p

            Welcome to a whole new internet.

            1. Real libertarians support the Tor project.

              1. I was so disappointed with Darknet marketplaces. Just drugs, drugs, drugs, gun, drugs, drugs, fake id, drugs, drugs, drugs. There were only a few listing that were really interesting. One intriguing service was some dude who claimed he could buy an airplane ticket and rent a hotel room for you with an assumed name.

                1. People are playing it too safe because the infrastructure is still developing. I hope that by the time stuff like OpenBazaar take off, we’ll see some really bizarre stuff.

                  I can’t wait until I can buy my Randian rape fantasy role plays using Darkcoin over a completely distributed commerce system.

                  1. Before you hire a Randian sex role play service, be sure to read the reviews. There’s no point in getting pseudo-raped by the guy who you paid to “fix your marble mantlepiece” if he can’t give an engaging half-hour monologue on the nature of human reason as pillow talk. It ruins it if he learned everything from SparkNotes and a few Salon pieces.

              2. You mean the Tor project that is being dismantled and co-opted by the NSA?

                That Tor project?

            2. You’ve printed your way to a new intertoobs?

              1. It’s ctrl+shift+n if you’re on Chrome, but nobody of any consequence uses Chrome.

                1. You mean incognito. I use Chrome, IE, and Firefox. Depending on what I’m doing at the time.

      2. Well, the new emperor also has no clothes, but we need to get busy determining how to imagine that she does.

      1. A Skrull or a Durlan?

          1. Now those were some big headed scientists.


  5. Libertarian ideology is the natural enemy of science

    Whether the issue is climate change, healthcare or gun control, libertarians are on a permanent collision course with evidence

    Have a fun Sunday, y’all!

    1. Gun control is science?

      1. Bo, you moron. If you can’t read the clear scientific evidence showing that gunshot wounds are often fatal, then there’s no helping you.

        http://bit.ly/1qScnZa

        1. Dihydrogen monoxide kills more people than guns. We should ban it.

          1. And it’s almost always in people’s systems when they rape children or make microaggressive statements. It at least needs some common sense regulations on its possession and usage.

            1. At the very least, we need our leaders in Washington to initiate a national conversation about it.

    2. Progressive thought process:
      1) Is thing X bad?
      %) O*^R&^RFIVYTOMGBANBANBANBANBAN!!!!1!!1

      1. The progressive thought process:
        1) Emotional reaction!
        2) Quick! Reverse engineer some contorted “logic” to justify what I feel!

        1. According to Hume and Haidt that’s everyone’s thought processes

          1. I don’t know who Hume and Haidt are, nor do I care.

            There is a difference between reacting and responding.

            The above is reacting. That’s what animals do.

            Responding involves ignoring your emotions and making a thoughtful evaluation. That’s what human beings do.

            Unfortunately, many human animals never graduate to human beings.

            You and Tony are great examples.

            1. Sevo, when did you change your handle? And how did you get the old sarcasmic to give up his name?

            2. You don’t know who David Hume is?

              That Kant be right.

              1. It is strange that the so-called “father of conservatism” would go unrecognized here of all places, ain’t it?

          2. It’s not totally dissimilar from how neural tissue works, either.

        2. According to Hume and Haidt that’s everyone’s thought processes

        3. The conservative thought process:

          1) Don’t think
          2) Act out in the most destructive way possible.
          3) Blame everyone else for the resulting disaster.
          4) Repeat

          1. Libertarian thought Process:

            1)Meh

          2. The progressive thought process:

            1) Feel
            2) Act out in the way best-suited to expand the scope of the state
            3) Blame the inevitable failure upon constraints upon state power
            4) Repeat

      2. “Progressive thought process”

        Contradiction in terms.

    3. You gonna throw that grenade and then just leave?

      1. Sheesh that’s like saying hello as you crop dust someone’s desk.

        1. Is that when you pee, poop, or slather the desk in cocaine?

          1. All three but in the reverse order.

    4. Whether the issue is child rape or child slavery the conservative psycho’s are always in agreement….. they want more.

  6. Well, I see that none of you understand the ‘New Science’.

    I guess I’ll have to mansplain it.

    You see, in the old science, back in the dark ages when we let people say whatever they wanted to without it being a hate crime and there were no swat teams to protect the children, science was like this willy nilly haphazard thing where: You saw an effect or event, like ripples in the water of a pond, or tree leaves moving in an invisible force, and you started trying to determine the cause through observation and experimentation. Then you came up with this silly thing called a hypothesis that proposed the explanation for whatever phenomenon. What an unguided mess!

    Now, in the bold New Science, you see an effect or event and you with your new divine predetermined guidance, you determine that the cause is global warming and you only need to figure out why it’s global warming. We’ve came a long way baby! But you unenlightened deniers are always causing trouble by trying to stick with the old unenlightened science.

    1. New Science is much, much bigger than catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, Hyperion.

      The New Scientist is always exploring new frontiers. The New Scientist sees an opportunity to expand the frontiers of state, and formulates a hypothesis that justifies the expansion. He gets a grant from the state to demonstrate his hypothesis. He explains to other New Scientists that he has found a new gravy train, and they peer review his research. Then the peer reviewers conduct research, and explain to yet other New Scientists about their new gravy train. The New Science process repeats until there is 97% consensus among New Scientists. (Of course, the old scientists can safely be ignored in determining the extent of consensus. Not only is their practice of New Science deficient, they don’t get grant money from the state to conduct research. And if any should get a grant from a private source, their work can safely dismissed as tainted by corporate interests regardless of its validity under old science.) At this stage, it is established New Science, the time for debate is over, and the frontiers of state can be expanded.

      This is not at all limited to Climate Scientology.

  7. Salmon Cannon

    “Ever since rivers have been dammed, destroying the migration routes of salmon, humans have worked to create ways to help the fish return to their spawning grounds. We’ve built ladders and elevators; we’ve carried them by hand and transported them in trucks. Even helicopters have been used to fly fish upstream.

    But all of those methods are expensive and none of them are efficient.

    Enter the salmon cannon.”

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesa…..f-a-barrel

    1. We have truly entered an age of wonder.

      1. These are the days of miracle and wonder
        This is the long distance call
        The way the camera follows us in slo-mo
        The way we look to us all
        The way we look to a distant constellation
        That’s dying in a corner of the sky
        These are the days of miracle and wonder

        1. +1 Graceland

    2. So, let me get this straight. We can still have dams which collect water for the population to drink (and water their desert lawns) and provide energy to peoples homes, and we can find technological solutions to environmental problems caused by dams?

      You mean we can have both?

      Unpossible!

      1. There’s literally oceans of fresh water deeper down in the earth. Time to frack up some of that untapped water supply and watch the proggies freak the fuck out once again that we’re able to resolve another of their doom scenarios without raising taxes on the rich.

        1. You can’t use technology! That’s cheating!

        2. Like the Ogallala aquifer?

    3. This. . .is. . .AWESOME!

      We should port this to other wildlife.

      We should have Beaver Cannons! Wolf Cannons! Platypus Cannons!

      This could be the beginning of a new evolutionary cycle, as mankind teaches wild animals to fly!

    4. I wish they’d aim that cannon at my freezer.

  8. So why didnt I ever think of that? Wow.

    http://www.Crypt-Anon.tk

  9. It sure is nice of you guys to throw MNG junior’s stick for him.

  10. The governor is a traitor as is everyone involved with the prosecution of Jeff’s case. They all need excused from the gene pool ASAP.

    America will never be free until the religious puritan traitors that wage war on fellow citizens over a plant are executed as they deserve.

  11. I just wrote Governor Nixon.
    Hope Jeff Mizanskey gets to hang out and play with his grand-children before he dies.
    I really have little faith left in our judicial system.
    What a bunch of irrational bullshit.
    Justice System??
    Apparently the word “justice” is optional.

  12. Charles Manson, OJ Simpson, and Mark David Chapman are all eligible for parole and have more hope of eventual release than Jeff Mizanskey. That says it all about our criminal “justice” system.

  13. I really, REALLY want to send Nixon a letter explaining about how he was born with two dicks, one hanging off of where his nose should be, and one stuffed up his ass, and how he can seriously go and stick his dicknose into his ass and get fucked by both of his dicks at the same time.

    But I also don’t want to be raided by a swat team and savagely beaten to death. Decisions decisions. . .

  14. I went to the Governor’s website and put my word in for a pardon, citing Missouri’s motto: Salus populi suprema lex esto (Latin “The health of the people should be the supreme law,” “Let the good of the people be the supreme law” or “The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law”). The gov. Jay Nixon, is a law and order Democrat, so I don’t know if there’s anything short of blackmail that would get this done. This guy had his hands on what, two pounds of weed, bastards don’t ask why when somebody screams, “Up against the wall, motherfucker!”
    At this point, I really wouldn’t mind being that guy.

  15. ITT: Bo has another stupid and tedious argument with two people he (and no one else, including the two people involved) characterizes as ‘conservatives’. Nothing of value is learned.

    BTW Bo, I’m neither a conservative nor a Republican. I’ve voted for Ls more than anything else and my last Presidential vote was for Gary Johnson. Didn’t vote for GWB either time, nor for John McCain. Registered as an R briefly to vote in a primary, and went back to being unaffiliated. As I’ve said in the past, my difference with libertarianism is philosophical in nature, not taxonomic. Difference between a puma and a lion rather than the difference between a dodo and a lion. This is of course something I’ve stated repeatedly and which you’ve consistently mischaracterized.

    Not that you care, but it’s another of a series of mischaracterizations that I felt needed to be corrected; the others have been adequately documented above.

    1. The more Bo posts here, the less likely he gets the A in law school he needs to get on law review (and thus, have any chance at all of having a job).

      If we distract him even just enough to get him to an A- in his classes (and with the kind of logic he uses here, I can’t imagine he’d get up there, but let’s accept it arguendo), he’ll ruin his own career.

      Kind of fun!

  16. This is such a sad story.

    Rapists and drunk drivers who kill don’t even get life like this guy and he poses absolutely no threat to others.

    Take a bow Missouri. Medieval law at its finest.

  17. while i feel sorry for this dude i cant help but wonder what the hell he was thinking. He knew the law and he knew the consequences. I like to smoke a little weed on occasion too but if i ever got arrested for possession i promise you i would be done. Yes hindsight is 20/20 and if he had it to do again im sure he would make different choices. The fact remains that after the second charge it was time to make sure jail would never happen again. Life is about choices and he is living with his.

    1. Perhaps, but the point is the law is ridiculous on this issue.

  18. well the law is the same for everyone in that state, at least at that time. Habitual criminal laws are on the books for a reason.
    I sympathize with this guy but apparently he had no respect for the law of the land. the law millions of people had no problem obeying. He is where he belongs

    1. while i feel sorry for this dude … I like to smoke a little weed on occasion … the law millions of people had no problem obeying … He is where he belongs

      Yeah, it’s a shame the cell blocks are full of drug criminals, there’s just no room left for slavers like you.

    2. The law of the land that a majority don’t agree with. You know, democracy and stuff.

  19. Olivia . you think Elaine `s st0rry is inconceivable, last week I bought a top of the range Ariel Atom since I been earnin $9671 thiss month and-over, ten-k this past-munth . it’s by-far the most comfortable work Ive had . I began this six months/ago and immediately began to bring in more than $71, per hour .
    Get More Info——- http://www.jobsfish.com

  20. Sebastian . I just agree… Helen `s artlclee is astonishing, I just bought Chevrolet when I got my cheque for $6747 this-last/month and would you believe, ten k last-month . without a doubt it is the nicest work Ive had . I actually started 8-months ago and straight away made myself over $78, p/h .
    100% free registration——- http://www.jobsfish.com

  21. I am absolutely amazed at how terrific the stuff is on this site. I have saved this webpage and I truly intend on visiting the site in the upcoming days. Keep up the excellent work. Freedom app

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.