Webathon

Donate to Reason Right This Second, Because Ron Bailey Needs a New Hovercraft!

|

It is Day Two of Reason's annual week-long Webathon, which means PLEASE MONEY US RIGHT NOW, PEOPLE WHO ARE READING THIS FOR FREE ALL THE TIME! 

Reason

It also means we have a next eligible non-bachelor up on our senior staffer Webathon auction block: Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey. He loves robots! And hypothetical digital babies (though his feelings on actual babies are less enthusiastic.) Ann Coulter wants to drown him! What more do you need to know?

Would you be more willing to help us meet our Webathon goal of raising $200,000 this week if we told you that we were going to spend the money on a new hovercraft for Ron? (We're not.) (We might.) 

Ron has literally given everything he has to Reason since joining the mothership back in 1997. Why, he once shared his entire genome with the Internet, as part of a brilliant defense of trusting individuals with their own genetic information.

Bailey reads academic journals for fun, which is kind of kinky, and then translates them into English so that the rest of us can enjoy learning stuff like "Both Gay and Heterosexual Marriages Are Equally Stable," "Immigrants Are Less Criminal Than Native-Born Americans," and "Famine No More: The World of Plenty Lies Ahead."

And who among us does not feel his heart swell with joy when it's time for the monthly "Global Temperature Trend Update"?

Bailey is the only Reason staffer worth fully trusting to greet our new robot overlords. I mean, think about it.

And stay tuned for Ron's forthcoming book, The End of Doom, which will drop even more good-news bombs on grumpy civilians, causing some seriously great collateral damage for capitalism. DON'T OVERTHINK THE METAPHOR, DONATE TODAY.

 

In conclusion: Mo' money, mo' Bitcoin, mo' Bailey. 

NEXT: NYPD Chokehold Cop Not Indicted in Death of Eric Garner

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. I resent the implication that anyone is reading this for free. There are like 10 paying sponsors on every page.

    1. And that costs you something? Also, ad-blocker plugins.

  2. If it weren’t for the current donation campaign, I’d be soliciting donations to cyborg SugarFree. It’s a good cause.

    1. I’ll donate as long as he becomes some kind of gamma-powered mechanical monster, with freeway on-ramps for arms and a heart as black as coal…

      1. He’s already there with the heart. But okay, sure. Whatever you want. Just send money.

    2. I will be made into a monster for the cause.

  3. Can we donate for Ron to get an atomic wedgie instead? BECAUSE I WILL.

    1. Or at least ditch the mom jeans?

      1. I will accept an atomic wedgie, a Charlie horse, or a Texas Chili Bowl. Nothing else.

        1. Not even the dreaded Rear Admiral?

          1. Not real or brutal enough.

        2. What about a Gang-bang Indian Burn?

        3. Pink belly?

          1. A proper pink belly, that turns purple for the next two weeks.

  4. Reason doesn’t make a dime off of it’s online readership. Just like Google, Facebook, Yahoo, CBS, NBC, ABC, and Clear Channel don’t make any money from their customers either!!!

  5. That’s not the uber-cool, man-in-black character I saw on < i The Independents earlier this season.

  6. I’ll send him a new and so-cool thermometer that changes the baseline whenever it suits its narrative.

    1. Will it be rectal?

      1. +1 buttplug.

    2. I’ll donate one of my old hockey sticks.

  7. If I get that Kochtopus job I applied for today, I’ll be donating to reason via my bosses.

  8. Ron Bailey? Let me donate right away!

    (start at 8:30)

    https://reason.com/reasontv/201…..ortion-w-r

    1. The 80% line is my favorite! As if having a large enough statistic automatically makes you right in a moral or scientific discussion.

      Wanna know something else? 100% of people die. So why not just look the other way if someone kills one. I don’t see any reason giving rights to something that is just going to die anyway…

      1. though his feelings on actual babies are less enthusiastic.

        Who would have guessed?

    2. Meh. Bailey is a great addition to this site.

      I don’t think Bailey is a principled libertarian. He is a science wonk who lets statistics and experiments guide his rather pragmatic world-view. This led him to make un-libertarian conclusions vis-a-vis Vaccinations and Climate Change. And his disinterest in moral foundations has made discussions about Abortion pretty much useless.

      That said, Bailey does make this site better by miles. First, his foundation flaws aside, the level of scientific reporting is not only pretty good, it is usually pretty interesting. Second, he often engages commenters in good faith in the threads, which is pretty damn classy for a guy who often says disagreeable things.

      It is important to challenge our ideas and while I think he is periodically wrong, Bailey at least tries to stand behind facts. He doesn’t emote disagreement, he debates like a man. I’d love to have a beer with the guy and debate endlessly, and that is probably criteria A1 for me when judging the value of opinion writers for sites like this.

      1. Does it have unlibertarian views on climate change? is there a libertarian view on climate change? is there a libertarian view on science?

        1. I don’t think there is a particularly libertarian view on climate change or science. Facts are facts. There is certainly a libertarian view on appropriate government response to climate change

        2. He has advocated for a Carbon Tax, I believe, which is ultimately paying numerous kleptocratic (and otherwise) governments for damaging property they do not own (assuming you believe as he does that venting C02 into the air is damaging to an extent that deserves recompense). I don’t believe that is a conclusion well founded on libertarian principles. *shrug*

          I don’t think there is a libertarian view on science. Libertarians should apply the facts at hand- some scientific and some otherwise and use them to advise decisions made on libertarian principles. Science cannot tell us whether or not a government should get money for carbon usage. Science cannot tell us whether or not it is ok to force people to inject themselves with foreign substances. Science cannot tell us when a developing fetus ought to be granted the rights against non-aggression of any other human being. Bailey has looked at the science and concluded that, pragmatically, the benefits of (say) forced vaccination on the public demand coercion. This is why I said he let’s pragmatism trump libertarian principles.

      2. remarkably- I don’t think he’s a real Scotsman either.

      3. Yeah, this. Bailey is a good science reporter, which is rare, and if not a perfect libertarian, he’s on the right side on most things, at least.

    3. So wait, are you saying that you don’t approve of abortion?

  9. In the “That Doesn’t Sound Good” department:

    Ukrainian PM reports accident at nuclear power plant:

    Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk said on Wednesday an accident had occurred at the Zaporizhye nuclear power plant (NPP) in south-east Ukraine and called on the energy minister to hold a news conference.

    “I know that an accident has occurred at the Zaporizhye NPP,” Yatseniuk said, asking new energy minister Volodymyr Demchyshyn to make clear when the problem would be resolved and what steps would be taken to restore normal power supply across Ukraine.

  10. What happened to the old hovercraft?

    1. Its full of eels.

      1. You say that like it’s a bad thing.

    2. he swapped it for Exxon shares. and didn’t disclose it to joe.

  11. Just a reminder to everyone (Yeah, I’ll shut up eventually about this), amazon has a donation scheme at smile.amazon.com. You link it to Reason Foundation and point-five percent of most purchases you make through that site will go to them as a donation. For those unwilling to give money during this drive, it is a way to easily get money to a good magazine while doing something you’d normally do anyways.

    1. I do Amazon Smile, but another libertarian organization benefits from my shopping habits.

  12. Eh, you get a new hovercraft, and the next thing you know it’s full of eels. Not really worth it.

  13. Monbiot was on the Dianne Rhem show talking about his new book. I’d love to see Bailey review it. How much to I have to donate to make that happen?

    1. She is just the worst. I listen to a lot of NPR, but I usually have to turn her off. Not because of her voice, but because she is the most deferential, sycophantic interviewer ever.

      1. YES! She never asks a difficult question or expresses any doubts about her interviewee’s premise.

        Monbiot said people don’t like wolves because they can read our minds and see into our souls- and she just agreed!

        1. So Larry King on the radio?

    2. Dianne Rhem

      That woman’s voice makes me want to commit suicide.

  14. My nipples explode with delight.

    1. Stop flicking them so hard.

    2. Brother Theodore? Is that you?

  15. And who among us does not feel his heart swell with joy when it’s time for the monthly “Global Temperature Trend Update”?

    Me.

    1. Last month was the seventh warmest month in the history of all months.

      It was also the third coldest month.

      It was extra dark, too.

  16. Hi matt and Katherine :

    Sorry, I’ll decline. If I must pay for science writing my preference is that such writing be done by actual scientists and not a economist turned writer for Forbes. There’s a reason why the series Cosmos was hosted by pot smokers like Neil degrasse Tyson and–earlier– by Carl Sagan. It’s because they know what they ‘re talking about. I do infact donate to pbs.

    I’d seriously consider making a donation to reason because I think the idea that the government should be limited is an important and appropriate idea. It’s the sad sack right-wing apologia on this website that prevents me from writing a check. I suppose that’s okay as my financial resources don’t begin to approach those of the Kochs and scaifes. It’s all important in this plutocracy to know who writes your checks so I understand the underlying rationale for the material that is published here. I’d just wish and would write a check for something a bit more courageous. Good luck with your funding!

    1. I’m sorry, who are you again ?

    2. Smoking pot, makes you a scientist! You are a deep thinker!

    3. american socialist|12.3.14 @ 3:56PM|#
      “Hi matt and Katherine”

      Hi Dipshit!
      Pay your mortgage yet? Still letting everyone else pay if for you, sleazebag?
      Still licking mass murderer ass?

  17. What no obligatory Ginger remarks? Oh wait…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.