LIVESTREAM: The Impact of Vergara v. California on the Future of Education—A National School Choice Week Event—10pm ET/7pm PT

|

Tune in tonight for a livestream straight from Reason's L.A. headquarters at 10pm ET/7pm PT.

Last year, a landmark education case took aim at laws protecting bad teachers–and the students won. Vergara v. California reaffirmed the fundamental right of every student to learn from effective teachers and have an equal opportunity to succeed in school, paving the way for teacher accountability and greater choice. In his ruling on the case, The Honorable Judge Rolf M. Treu noted that "All sides to this litigation agree that competent teachers are a critical, if not the most important, component of success of a child's in-school education experience. All sides also agree that grossly ineffective teachers substantially undermine the ability of that child to succeed in school."

Tonight's discussion will feature Vergara plaintiff Julia Macias and her family as well as others involved in the legal proceedings. We'll also screen Reason TV's new video on this historic case.

Check back here or at Reason TV's YouTube channel for the video.

NEXT: Herbert Hoover's vice president, Charles Curtis, was American Indian

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 would have attended, but I can’t make it anywhere by 6PM. Maybe next time.

    1. To be clear, the event started at 7, the open bar started at 6.

      1. To be clear, the event started at 7, the open bar only part that mattered started at 6.

        1. Exactamundo

  2. The post on Andrew Sullivan leaving blogging that Reason should have written but didn’t.

    http://pejmanyousefzadeh.net/2…..-sullivan/

    1. The worst part of Andrew Sullivan is that he constantly changed his mind on major issues, but it always seemed as if he changed his mind for unworthy and somewhat disgusting reasons.

      He was a massive supporter of Bush, the Iraq War, and Israel. When Bush started talking about a defense of marriage amendment, suddenly Sullivan turned against everything that Bush favored, including policies he’d been applauding six months earlier.

      Then there’s the issue with Israel. Sullivan adored Israel for years and suddenly and rapidly turned against them. Why the sudden shift? Well here’s Sullivan talking about Israel in 2012:

      We give the Israelis everything they ask for and they give the US nothing in return. In fact, they have operated as a foe, not friend, greeting Obama with the Gaza assault, deliberately destroying Obama’s Cairo outreach to the Arab-Muslim world with their settlement policy, confirming every conspiracy theorist in the Middle East, and in a particular moment of hubris, the Israeli prime minister lectured the US president in front of the cameras in the Oval Office as to what US policy should be. My view is quite simply that Netanyahu, in alliance with neocons and Christianists, has had one main policy these past four years: getting rid of Obama so he can control Greater Israel for ever and get the US to bomb Iran for him.

      I personally think he turned against Israel because Netanyahu is mean to Obama, which would be pathetic.

      1. Greater Israel? Are you fucking kidding me? I’m surprised Sullivan didn’t find a way to fit in the whole baking matzo with unbaptized children’s blood thing.

        1. My favorite part is this:

          greeting Obama with the Gaza assault

          Uh…what? Does Sullivan think Israeli bombed Gaza to undermine Barack Obama?

          That’s a conspiracy theory right up there with Trig Palin.

          1. Well, Irish. I hope you are wearing a neurological condom, because this is going to blow your mind.

            The phrase “G-A-Z-A S-T-R-I-P” has 9 letters.
            Netanyahu’s first name is Binyamin, or in English, Benjamin.
            Benjamin was the 13th child of Jacob.
            9+13 is 22.
            What is the significance of that you ask?
            That’s right.
            “22” is a popular song by Taylor Swift.
            The name “Taylor Swift” has 11 letters.
            1+1 is 2.
            2 + 11 is 13.
            The number of words in the phrase that will appear on the Whore of Babylon’s forehead is 13.
            A Jewish boy can be a bar mitzvah at the age of 13.
            Do you see it now?
            Benjamin was the 13th child of Jacob.
            1+3 equals 4, which is the number of years per Presidential term.
            Barack Obama has served 2 terms.
            2 x 4 = 8.
            8+ 13 = 21.
            Barack Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, and Andrew Sullivan are 3 people.
            21 plus 3 is 24.
            24 divided by 8 is 3.
            A triangle has 3 sides.
            Andrew Sullivan is Illuminati Confirmed.

            1. Careful, or you could end up famous in not a good way.

            2. /slow clap

            3. /thunderous applause

              Fuck this slow clap shit

      2. That is not it. Bibi dislikes Obama because Obama won’t be his hand puppet like Dumbya was. Bibi was all about the PNAC coalition – the US takeover of the Middle East.

        1. God you are a fucking retard.

          1. Fuck the entire Middle East. They don’t deserve shit from us. Fuck you too – you interventionist asshole.

            1. You love the middle east or anything else Obama tells yout to. Go suck his cock back on Kos retard

        2. Booosh BAAAADDDD … Obama GOOODDDD .. Duhhh, look at me, I’m a ruh-ruh-ruh-ruh retard … I got a retard spoon … Durrrrrrrr

          1. Iraq War BAAAADDDD … Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan GOOOODDDD.

            Idiot.

            1. Only we haven’t left.

              I just captured your entire essence in one post. That’s all there is to you, a simple minded partisan hack.

              1. Because leaving 2500 support troops in Iraq is EXACTLY like a blitzkrieg of 250,000 troops who napalm and destroy entire city populations.

                1. Nor is it EXACTLY like ‘I’m going to bring the troops home now’.

                2. We seem to be doing a lot more than supporting lately.

        3. That is not it. Bibi dislikes Obama because Obama won’t be his hand puppet like Dumbya was. Bibi was all about the PNAC coalition – the US takeover of the Middle East.

          Then why were the Israelis opposed to the Iraq war?

          Dave Kopel accurately points out in that article that Israel’s foreign policy has very little in common with American neo-conservative ideas and that the two often conflict. So if the Bush Administration’s foreign policy was neo-conservative, how could he have been a puppet for the Israelis when their policies were often in conflict?

          1. Dont pick on the retard with facts.

          2. The Bushpigs thought Iraq would be a quick kill with Iran and Syria folding soon after. They said so in documents.

            Really I should say Cheneypigs. Dumbya was their useful idiot who got elected by saying Jesus was his favorite philosopher.

            And flyover bumpkins loved him for it.

            1. Palin’s Buttplug|1.29.15 @ 8:29PM|#
              …”And flyover bumpkins loved him for it.”

              Why do turds like you lick Obo ass?

            2. So in other words, Irish just made you look like a fool with an actual citation, completely demolishing your statement, and whoosh there go the goalposts. I’d like to see you, just once, actually be intellectually honest, admit that you were full of shit and that your point got shown to be the farce it was, and maybe show some introspection when you’ve, again, been proven to be making things up.

              1. You are a fool. All Irish produced was a qoute by an Israeli who thought Iran was more of a problem than Iraq was in 2001.

                The Cheney plan was to destroy them both by eliminating the weaker Saddam first.

                1. Doesn’t matter you’re still fucking wrong. It is well known to non-ignoramuses that the Israeli government was wary of deposing Sadaam.

                2. Really? Here’s the article cited in the paper:

                  “Israeli officials warned the George W. Bush administration that an invasion of Iraq would be destabilising to the region and urged the United States to instead target Iran as the primary enemy, according to former administration official Lawrence Wilkerson.

                  Wilkerson, then a member of the State Department’s; Policy Planning Staff and later chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, recalled in an interview with IPS that the Israelis reacted immediately to indications that the Bush administration was thinking of war against Iraq. After the Israeli government picked up the first signs of that intention, Wilkerson says, “The Israelis were telling us Iraq is not the enemy ? Iran is the enemy.”

                  Wilkerson describes the Israeli message to the Bush administration in early 2002 as being, “If you are going to destabilise the balance of power, do it against the main enemy.”

                  The warning against an invasion of Iraq was “pervasive” in Israeli communications with the administration, Wilkerson recalls. It was conveyed to the administration by a wide range of Israeli sources, including political figures, intelligence and private citizens.”

                  Quoting a primary source (a Bush admin official) pretty much is damning to your argument.

    2. That was pretty excellent.

    3. Hilarious:

      Never heard of him. Was he a writer or something?
      Anyway, America’s libertarians are sure glad he’s gone. I’m guessing by the comments at Reason.com that he was at least as bad as Stalin, if not Dave Weigel. But how long to keep hating him? While he’s still breathing? Ten years after he’s planted in his grave? For all eternity? Libertarians hold grudges forever, so I’m thinking all eternity. What do you think?

      This was posted in the comments on that blog post by ‘Ted S.’ Of course, it’s not actually Ted S – It’s Kizone Kaprow pretending to be Ted S, who he is comically obsessed with.

      When you’re attacking Reason on an unrelated blog post by impersonating one of the commenters, it’s pretty clear you’ve gone insane.

    1. Oh, and she was arrested for “resisting arrest”.

      1. An arrest for “Resisting Arrest” without a legitimate reason for arrest should auto-drop and produce an assault and unlawful imprisonment charge against the cop.

        /end dreaming

        1. Either that or the universe turns itself inside out and winks out of existence.

      2. I thought she was arrested for Obstruction.

        Yeah, I know…but, still.

    2. She’s lucky that the cops didn’t shoot the both of them because they ‘feared for their safety’. And nothing else happened.

      1. The sick thing that a few people actually defend this behavior is quite frightening. Fortunately, most seem outraged. But how long will Americans just be outraged and nothing else happens?

    3. “A uniform does not give anyone license to bully people out of their constitutional rights,” he said. “If police are able to do this to a deputy public defender in front of her client, I can only imagine what is happening out on the streets.”

      HATE SPEECH!

    4. A San Francisco deputy public defender was handcuffed and arrested at the Hall of Justice

      That kind of shit would never have occurred at The Hall of Doom!

  3. More proof that everything the left says is a lie. Turns out it was anthem communists who were black listed in Hollywood. No kidding.

    http://www.libertylawsite.org/…..narrative/

    And note the paralels between how these scumbags felt about England when they were fightimg the Nazis and how they feel about Israel now.

    1. Anti communists.

      1. Well, they DID have stirring anthem.

        1. I prefer this version:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHomETco0MI

          Ever heard of Nikolai Lenin?

          http://youtu.be/_4yjAb6eoCw?t=3m33s

          Holy crap, what stupid mistake to leave in!

          1. I like that version too because I can try to follow along with the Russian. But mine has that wonderful take-over-the-world animation at the end.

            1. If you smart asses would get over yourselves and bother to read the link, you won’t regret it.

              1. I did read the link, and I liked it. So there.

  4. In the most dramatic split, 88 percent of the scientists surveyed said it is safe to eat genetically modified foods, while only 37 percent of the public say it is safe and 57 percent say it is unsafe. And 68 percent of scientists said it is safe to eat foods grown with pesticides, compared with only 28 percent of the general public.

    Ninety-eight percent of scientists say humans evolved over time, compared with 65 percent of the public. The gap wasn’t quite as large for vaccines, with 86 percent of the scientists favoring mandatory childhood shots while 68 percent of the public did.

    Eighty-seven percent of scientists said global warming is mostly due to human activity, while only half of the public did. The figures for scientists are slightly different than past academic studies because of wording of the question and the fact that AAAS members include many specialties, but they tell the same essential story, said Pew associate director Cary Funk.

    Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.c…..rylink=cpy

    The public are morons in every case.

    1. Why? Because they disagree with scientists? Or because they disagree with the members of the American Academy of Scientists (by the way, membership in that organization is open to anybody who wants to be in it)? Did you actually bother to read the survey? My guess is that I already know the answers to these questions.

      Just for your information, 23% of those “scientists” they surveyed are retired. 16% are currently students (13 full time, 3 part time). So almost forty percent of respondents are either no longer engaged in research or currently students. The majority of those surveyed (50%) are medical, agricultural, or biological scientists so I’m kind of puzzled as to what good background they have in global warming. 9% are social and behavioral scientists, who really have no background to discuss global warming.

      There is no data on how the data were collected nor are there any controls shown for confounding variables. In other words, your study sucks. Then again, I doubt you even bothered to read it. You just cherry picked a newspaper story.

  5. Spot the Not! This round will feature Ted Kennedy

    1. The greatest threat facing our country today are not from foreign religious fanatics but from domestic religious fanatics.

    2. Dad, I’m in some trouble. There’s been an accident and you’re going to hear all sorts of things about me from now on. Terrible things.

    3. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.

    1. Obviously number 2.

      You’re losing your touch. I expect better from you.

      1. Holy fuck, number 2 is real.

        You’re a master, Derpetologist. I take back what I said about you.

        1. You dirty cheater!

          Oh well. I did my Muttley laugh when I read your “obviously” comment.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKm5xQyD2vE

      2. Cant be true. Ted Kennedy’s dad was dead by the time of Chapaquidick

        1. The quote is in Teddy’s obit from Newsweek:

          http://www.newsweek.com/ted-kennedy-obituary-78957

          Joe Kennedy was still alive at the time.

          1. You are sure finishing off Ted’s career.

          2. Yeah, he died the following November. For some reason I thought he died in 65.

    2. 1

    3. 2 — Joe Kennedy was already on his deathbed when Robert was killed in 68, so I doubt he had a heart to heart with Ted over Chappaquiddick in 69.

      1. Oh fuck, that’s what I get for not refreshing.

      2. You beat me to it

    4. And the Not was #1.

      Congrats to Dances-with-Trolls. You have a choice of Lena Dunham plushy, the complete works of Sheldon Richman, or being sprayed with skunk.

      1. The third prize. I’ll take the third prize.

      2. Lena Dunham plushy,

        The correct term for a Japanese sex pillow is daimakura.

        1. What’s the correct term for a Japanese pillow you don’t have sex with?

          1. a Japanese pillow you don’t have sex with?

            No such animal.

            1. So they don’t have Lena Dunham in Japan?

      3. Complete works of Richman, print format, plz. Tinder costs money.

  6. Lest anyone believe the #2 quote is fake, it is repeated in Newsweek’s obit for him:

    http://www.newsweek.com/ted-kennedy-obituary-78957

  7. Obama Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch: Waterboarding is torture and it is illegal

    http://www.politico.com/story/…..14678.html

    Good start.

    1. Gee Shreek loves Obama’s nominee for AG. Let me get my surprised face.

      No one gives a fuck shreek. Really, no one on here cares. Go take your meds and pass out in your own vomit already.

      1. I didn’t know a fucking thing about her until I saw that link.

        So far she is better than John Assrot or Alberto the Nazi Gonzalez.

        Low bar though. She could still suck.

        1. Obama wants her. That is all you needed to know. We get it shreek, she is a gun loving, classical liberal like you are.

          1. Damn you, you stupid dick. You brought up a good point so I did some research.

            She told Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, that she doesn’t agree with Obama’s previous comments that the drug is similar to smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol — and that she opposes legalizing its use.

            “I can tell you that not only do I not support the legalization of marijuana, it is not the position of the Department of Justice currently to support the legalization,” she said. “Nor will it be the position, should I be confirmed as attorney general.”

            http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/28/…..index.html

            Well, she lost my support in five minutes.

            1. Whatever retard. You only know how to do one thing, suck Obama’s dick. Stop pretending otherwise.

              1. John, you must have a fantasy about a black man cuckolding your wife. You talk about their dicks a lot.

                1. No Shreek. I don’t fantasize about it. But since you do it so much, how is it? Is it fun? Do you do it to make him happy or is it something you really enjoy yourself?

                  1. John, you are wrestling with a pig.

                    1. I know. You shouldn’t pick on the retarded kid even if he is a nasty little bastard who tortures pets and sets fires. Leave it to the professionals.

        2. Boy there’s a shock. She’s a huge fan of asset forfeiture, not that a fan of President “you didn’t build that” would be troubled by that.

  8. I have largely stopped reading the National Review over the last few years. But Kevin D. Williams seems to be a definite improvement over there.Liberalism, a lifestyle so great it should be mandatory.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..williamson

    1. Charles C.W. Cooke is awesome, but a lot of readers of National Review hate him because he’s an outspoken atheist that doesn’t mindlessly adore the police.

      Also, in addition to being gorgeous, Katherine Timpf is hilarious.

      2. Mansulting
      This is when a man says something really mean to you. You know, like, the opposite of a broplimenting. Mansults are worse than insults because each one is another brick being added to the fortress of the patriarchy that surrounds you every day no matter how hard you try to fight it with hashtags on Feminist Twitter.

      8. Manterrogating
      This is when a man asks you to explain anything or questions anything you say. This is included but not limited to being asked to explain contradicting lines of thought or provide any actual facts or evidence to support your claims. A real man knows the only acceptable thing to do is to blindly accept anything that comes out of a woman’s mouth rather than to continue gender disparities by manterrogating her.

      Unfortunately, they no longer have Mark Steyn, who was 90% of what was good about National Review. The fact that he got jettisoned basically for telling one of his editors to stop being a pussy doesn’t speak well of the editorial staff at NR.

      1. I wouldn’t call her gorgeous, but she is cute. When they lost Stein and Derbyshire, they got a lot less interesting.

        1. I don’t know why I find her so attractive, but I think it has to do with the glasses.

          It takes confidence to wear these motherfuckers without seeming completely ridiculous.

          Also, Derbyshire’s firing from National Review was absolutely warranted and they didn’t have much of a choice. The guy is an active racist in a way that I wouldn’t want to be associated with if I was trying to be a serious political magazine.

          Derbyshire is an interesting writer though, despite his moral failings, because he’s got such an interesting background that gives him a unique perspective. He’s got a math background you don’t see from a lot of writers and he also got beat up by Bruce Lee in Return of the Dragon.

          1. I understand why they did it, they just were a lot poorer for having to do it.

            1. I read his personal site sometimes but whew he can be trying on certain issues.

        2. Derbyshire on China = great

          They dumped him because of his “race realism” horseshit.

          1. Specifically, they dumped him for this fucking article he wrote for Takimag which contains slivers of genius like this:

            (10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).

            (10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
            /blockquote

            (10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

            (13) In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.

            1. Like I said, he was kind of asking to be fired, especially with the part where he argues that you should use “well socialized” black people for social advancement.

              That goes way beyond politically incorrect. I don’t think anyone other than outright racists could defend that article.

              1. I don’t get 10c. Is there some sort of racial weather report one can peruse in which one can glean such information as to the percentage of likeliness that on a particular day an amusement park is going to attract a larger than usual number of Black attendees?

                1. MLK day. Hide yo wife, hide yo kids.

      2. Is Mark Steyn that gay Brit who fills in for Rush (Praise be unto him) Limbaugh?

        1. Yes, we know you’re a homophobe with a bizarre and possibly diseased obsession with Rush Limbaugh. No need to continuously remind us.

          1. Maybe I just hate Brits who move here and try to go all authoritarian on Americans.

            Steyn is that.

            1. *Canadian, genius. Glad to see you know so little about the person you’re whining about.

              1. *Canadian, genius. Glad to see you know so little about the person you’re whining about.

                It’s even worse than that. Steyn’s one of the greatest free speech advocates currently active in the media and has consistently opposed many aspects of the surveillance state and is critical of police militarization.

                He’s too interventionist internationally and has some socially conservative beliefs I find distasteful, but Steyn is about as far from an authoritarian as you’re likely to find.

                All PB knows is he hosts for Rush Limbaugh sometimes, therefore he must be the enemy.

                1. Oh, I’m aware. Buttplug, the apparent ‘rationalist’ is calling the guy who dealt with the Canadian Human Rights Commission for saying mean things about Islam in Maclean’s an authoritarian. Hell, I don’t agree with a lot of Steyn’s policy concepts either, but to call him ‘authoritarian’ is just profoundly stupid.

                  1. And like I said before, this is just more of Buttplug’s pathetic social signaling. He needs to constantly shitting on people he believes to be his inferiors to preserve his fragile ego. He obsesses over empty cultural icons and associations.

                  2. Steyn is an Aborto-Freak. An authoritarian to the core.


                    “Why does anyone think Europe needs huge numbers of Muslim immigrants?” Steyn replied, “Supposedly to keep their welfare state in business, because they are the children that Europeans couldn’t be bothered to have themselves. One third of German women are childless. If you just take your average, dopey Western feminist at a university campus in North America today, and she’s concerned about patriarchy, [she thinks that by] forming a pro-life club you’re forcing your backwards, patriarchal views on her. If she thinks you’re the big, stern, dominating patriarch, she ought to wait twenty or thirty years in the average Canadian city. She’ll be figuring out what the people in Amsterdam and Brussels and Malmo and Paris are beginning to figure out right now?that there’s a whole, far more motivated breed of patriarch that’s going to be walking around those cities. That’s what the dopey, clap-trapped, cobwebbed 1960’s feminist doesn’t get?that abortion is an indulgence and the indulgence only works for a generation or two before a bunch of other people take over and rebuild the future you weren’t interested in building for yourselves.”

                    He is probably a neo-Nazi too. Although I have not found written evidence of that yet.

                    1. “He is probably a neo-Nazi too. Although I have not found written evidence of that yet.”

                      You realize there’s a preview feature? Think of it as a diaper for your mouth. Keeps people from seeing the shit that comes pouring from it.

                    2. He’s rolling after snorting a few lines of coke. It’s like Agile Cyborg; however, instead of being entertaining and occasionally thought-provoking, it’s just shrill and obnoxious.

                    3. I hate those goddamn Aborto-nista authoritarians most of all.

                      Jim DeMint rednecks I call them. They hate freedom.

                    4. Ah, so abortion is your policy that constitutes ‘authoritarian’ eh? Yeah, those authoritarians are well known for their constant defense of free speech.

                      We get it Buttplug, all you can do smear and call names. “He’s probably a neo-Nazi, but I don’t have evidence!” Nice to see how you assume something and then try to rationalize it. All that Mr. ‘Rationalist’ can do is emote and signal, then try to poorly piece together evidence. But please, continue to randomly throw out words you don’t understand the basic definitions of.

                    5. So Mark Steyn has beliefs on abortion which are in line with about 45-50% of the American public.

                      You’re right. He’s practically Hitler.

                      I’d also like to point out that Steyn’s entire argument there is that if Westerners don’t have enough kids to maintain western liberty, western culture will be supplanted by a vastly more authoritarian Arabic culture.

                      So his argument against abortion in that case is that westerners having kids to pass their culture to is a hedge against a type of authoritarianism that will otherwise consume the west in the future.

                      I think there are several flaws with the argument and that Steyn is being too apocalyptic (which is a continual problem with him, although it makes him entertaining), but even in that quote he’s arguing against authoritarianism.

                      Obama’s vastly more of an authoritarian than Mark Steyn is and it’s not even close.

                    6. I’d also like to point out that Steyn’s entire argument there is that if Westerners don’t have enough kids to maintain western liberty, western culture will be supplanted by a vastly more authoritarian Arabic culture.

                      I agree with this paragraph so much I am quoting it.

                      But as Sam Harris says you don’t condemn a gutter religion like Islam by joining another gutter religion like Xtianity. You can’t win by out reproducing them.

                      You fight for Open Society like I/we do.

                    7. You fight for Open Society like I/we do.

                      You have yet to show that you are anything but a sniveling, broken little narcissist.

                      But as Sam Harris says you don’t condemn a gutter religion like Islam by joining another gutter religion like Xtianity.

                      How dare people have religious beliefs! Yep, what a grand supporter of ‘Open Societies’ you are. Again, more pathetic social signaling. “Look, I’m using the term ‘Xtianity’, I’m so fucking edgy.”

                    8. Also, the irony in a supposed ‘rationalist’ taking lines from pop culture atheists like they’re scripture.

                    9. ‘Xtianity’ is the new more polite me. I coined the term “Christfags” many use here.

                      I hate religion. I am the ultimate secular capitalist Hayek/Rand reader.

                      Religion is the opiate of the disillusioned.

                    10. Religion is the opiate of the disillusioned.

                      Hilarious coming from the delusional.

                      Don’t worry Buttplug, just keep repeating your mantra and psalms.

                      I hate religion. I am the ultimate secular capitalist Hayek/Rand reader.

                      Yeah, just keep repeating that to yourself. If you believe hard enough, it might come true.

            2. Palin’s Buttplug|1.29.15 @ 9:51PM|#
              “Maybe I just hate Brits who move here”…

              Naah. You’re just a fucking ignoramus, turd.

      3. I see Cooke followed up his flaying of Palin with a take down of Huckabee:

        http://www.nationalreview.com/…..harles-c-w

        Best line: Huckabee is essentially attempting to become to the Right what the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson have become to the Left: namely, a proxy figure who can be used as shorthand by the lazy and the lost to signify their allegiance to a set of cherished cultural values.

        1. So science, long abandoned by conservatives, is a “cultural” value now?

          Not surprised. Conservatives hate empiricism.

          1. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a glorified planetarium attendant whose popularity on the left has nothing to do with any scientific credentials on his part.

            Yes, upper-middle class white English majors who can’t even spell ‘astro-physics’ claiming to be ‘pro-science’ is based on cultural preening rather than any actual interest in science on their part.

            1. Tyson is also, based on a lot of his comments, utterly ignorant of history.

              My favourite thing to do with the ‘I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE’ crowd is to ask them to explain the Planck constant and its relation to quantum mechanics. Outside of actual scientists, never got a good answer.

              1. It is basically the amount of energy a particle “jumps” in a quantum jump.

                1. Eh, I’d push for further explanation. Mostly because I’m trying to make the person as uncomfortable as possible. Other questions include what are Lagrangian points and converting temperatures to Kelvin (which really is an easy one).

                  1. That’s not fair. As a time traveler, you came from a time when every schoolkid will have a stationary mass, temporal displacement unit powered by two top-spin, dual positive singularities that can produce a standard off-set Tipler sinusoid on their desk.

                    The educational technology of 2015 just isn’t as good as yours will be.

                    1. Hey, I’m from alternate timeline nuked Florida, if I can do it you downline folks can.

                  2. I’m not sure that being able to convert numbers or define terms makes one scientifically literate. I majored in history in college and even did some graduate level work (not that I ever used those credentials in my career) and ran into far too many fellow history buffs that thought what made you a historian was being able to name the date that various events happened as opposed to taking historical information, synthesizing it, and coming up with an analysis of meaning.

                    I think the larger issue here is that most of these folks that say how much they love science only love it when it seems to back up their preconceived notions and makes them feel superior to the great unwashed masses. I’m more concerned that someone can look at a study that supposedly proves something and realize that it’s actually a pile of garbage. In other words, that they understand how science actually works (i.e. propose a hypothesis, construct an experiment, and refine/discard the hypothesis based on the results).

              2. At this point, I doubt Tyson could either. According to his CV, his last research article that was published in a peer-reviewed journal was in 2008, and he wasn’t even the principal investigator. It seems he hasn’t done anything academic in quite awhile, content on being a “science popularizer”, as opposed to contributing original research to expand the body of knowledge that comprises his discipline.

              3. My favourite thing to do with the ‘I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE’ crowd is to ask them to explain the Planck constant and its relation to quantum mechanics.

                Still the best ass kicking regarding those I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE idiots.

                Any time I see people on Facebook simultaneously liking “iCarly, One Direction” and “The Pauly D Project” while also liking fucking loving science, it raises some red flags. The problem is, people who claim to “fucking love” science don’t.

                What you actually “love” is photography, not science. Below are a handful of posts from “I fucking love science:” The page is comprised mostly of pictures of space, Neil deGrasse Tyson, pop-science junk, worn out memes, Neil deGrasse Tyson and thinly veiled political agendas.

                The reason people say there are 8 planets is because there are 8 planets. A casual reader coming away from this post might conclude that this is one of those “ah-hah!” moments that the Internet is famous for, where “EVERYTHING-YOU-THOUGHT-YOU-KNEW-WAS-WRONG,” except it isn’t. Pluto, Haumea, Makemake, Eris and Ceres aren’t “planets.” You don’t get to “choose 8 or 13 planets.” And there aren’t “13 if you know them all by name.” Your ability to name planets has no bearing on whether or not they exist.

                1. If you think geeks are so sexy or cool, bang one. Go to any university and find a computer or physics lab at 2AM and take your pick. Until then, go commit cultural fraud someplace else, and take your phony “I fucking love science” group with you.

                  nice

            2. Irish with the perfect summation of NDT.

              1. I think NDT is far more than a glorified planetarium attendant, and there aren’t many people who can say that Carl Sagan tried to recruit them to Cornell for undergraduate studies.

                I will agree with you that his popularity has gone to his head, and this is too bad because there was a time where he wasn’t political, and really just wanted to try and drum up support for NASA and human space exploration.

                1. I think NDT is far more than a glorified planetarium attendant, and there aren’t many people who can say that Carl Sagan tried to recruit them to Cornell for undergraduate studies.

                  Yeah, I overstated the point and should be more respectful of his actual accomplishments.

                  Sometimes it’s difficult to remember he hasn’t always been a clown given that his career today consists mostly of serving as a cult figure for badly educated, scientifically illiterate urban bumpkins who use their worshipful adoration of NDT as evidence of an intellect they do not possess.

                  That isn’t entirely his fault, and he’s certainly done some good work, but his entire public persona has done immense damage to actual science by allowing idiots to declare themselves ‘pro-science’ without actually having to, you know, learn anything.

                  1. He didn’t retract or admit he was wrong recently when the Free Beacon called him out for making up quotes from Bush and other false scenarios Stephen-Glass style, and that annoyed me because he knows better.

                    Cosmos had so much potential but it got lost in the cult of personality, as apparently does everything else.

                  2. Yeah, I overstated the point and should be more respectful of his actual accomplishments.

                    I’ll be as bold to say that you were right on the money in your first statement. For all the talk of him being a brilliant astrophysicist, he’s the director of a museum whose, to date, has a total number of research publications is 13 (5 of which he was the principal investigator).

                    Now, I don’t criticize him for focusing more on being a popularizer of science. That’s the actual description of his job. But people talk about him as if he were a modern-day Einstein, which is absurd.

                    Even if you judge him solely as a science popularizer, compare his impact on the field with Richard Feynman’s. It’s no contest. Feynman managed to make a career of writing many books for laypeople, while still publishing more than 10 times the amount of Tyson’s academic research articles, many of which advanced the field. And still maintained his teaching career. And travel to Tuva. Has Tyson been to fucking Tuva? I didn’t think so.

                    1. Even if you judge him solely as a science popularizer, compare his impact on the field with Richard Feynman’s.

                      More people know who Tyson is than Feynman, as much as I wish I was wrong, so your “impact on society” argument doesn’t fly.

                      Feynman was one of Tyson’s biggest influences. But they exist in different era’s.

                    2. so your “impact on society” argument doesn’t fly.

                      Read my comment again. I didn’t use the term “impact on society”, I wrote “compare his impact on the field”, referring to the field of physics, of course. Has Tyson contributed to anything to astrophysics as integral as Feynman’s Nobel Prize-winning work in quantum electrodynamics?

                    3. I did.

                      I quoted it.

                      “if you judge him solely as a science popularizer,” was the point I was arguing, not whether or not he had a greater impact in the field of astrophysics. I think Tyson himself would admit his publishing credits aren’t anything special. But that’s not what you said.

                    4. I should have been clearer then. I was referring to the fact that Feynman also gained fame as a well-known science popularizer, and that despite that he still managed to pursue ground-breaking research at Caltech.

                      And while not as prolific or as influential on the field as Feynman, but just as well-known as Tyson, I would argue that Carl Sagan was another primarily science popularizer who managed to author a much greater amount of original research (according to Wikipedia the number is 600) than Tyson has.

                      Now, I’m not saying Tyson isn’t smart. What I am saying is that people, in general, overstate the accomplishments of his scientific career. And even compared to other scientists who turned popularizing science, as opposed to focusing on research, his scientific career isn’t that distinguished.

                    5. In terms of his scientific career I completely agree with that, and as I said I would imagine Tyson would too.

                      That being said I would think that both Sagan and Feynman would be proud of Tyson for Cosmos and his other TV series in terms of his ability to reach a wider audience. Feynman especially.

                      It’s true that some put him on a pedestal and that’s a shame because it does appear to have gone to his head.

                    6. Indeed. I don’t fault Tyson for doing his job. I would expect the director of a planetarium to focus his energies exactly where Tyson has focused them. Getting back to the original topic, how many of the ‘I Fucking Love Science’ crowd could name an actual working astrophysicist? If you showed them of a photo of this guy, could they identify who he was, much less his contribution to the field?

                      Now, I’m not claiming any familiarity with Merritt’s work, but I also don’t adopt the posture of being an enlightened secular “skeptic” who is so intellectually and morally superior to those redneck religious climate-denyin’ fundies either, as the IFLS folks are wont to do.

                    7. How much does he promote himself as a genius? Does he ever make self-deprecating jokes to enlighten the masses that his career is almost entirely popularization?

                    8. That’s not exactly what I was looking for, but if those are his most insightful quotes…

                    9. If you ask adults how many teachers ? out of the scores in elementary, middle school, high school, college and graduate school ? made a singular impression on who and what they are, it’s never more than three or four teachers. Everybody else is a distant second to this set.

                      That’s an extremely odd distribution of teaching talents. But the weirdest thing is that this hard upper limit exists independent of years of education. That’d mean that having teachers make a “singular impression” decreases your chance of getting a PhD. The whole thing is remarkably stupid for physicist.

                    10. I’m really not a fan of this ‘popularization’ of science. Science got along fine when the masses were far more ignorant and brutish than today. Lious Pasteur didn’t need adulation for what he did. I think pop science is poisoning real science ex turned Nature and other over-rated elite journals into pop-science mags.

                2. He’s the Paul Krugman of science.

    2. Pretty spot-on if a little over-the-top but that’s what he does. I stopped reading NR because I got sick and tired of “K-Lo”‘s anti-gay (sorry, “pro marriage”) crusade.

      1. I can’t stand her. I didn’t mind the anti gay crusade as much as her constant anti-porn anti-everything whining and scolding. My God, I wish someone over there would take one for the team and get that woman laid.

  9. Sniper thread update: Still getting steady trickle of comments. Up to 691.

    1. You mean the jackland ace Tony vortex of stupid didn’t devour the entire thing?

      1. Nope, it’s still getting others, some comments even well thought out in addition to nonsense ones.

        1. Sweet, now Underzog just put in an appearance.

          The author is an evil, self hater. The Nazis wouldn’t allow self haters in the death camps; etc., (yes “Reason,” there really were death camps) because they didn’t believe there were Jews low enough to be like Sheldon Richman (even though Jews were regarded as lice; etc., by the Nazis). The Nazis were wrong. There are self haters and Nazi enthusiasts such as ex KKK leader, David Duke, refer to them.

          Saddam Hussein modeled himself directly after Stalin (whom Murray Rothbard called peaceful and unwar like in addition to having the perfect Libertarian foreign policy) and indirectly after Adolf Hitler, whom Libertarians believe was unfairly maligned over the death camps that they believe do not exist. And you guys say I’m crazy. Be careful, the man with the white coat and net is looking for you Libertarians.

          1. That is some fine trolling. The lost stuff of legend.

  10. Motley Crue bassist Nikki Sixx announced the group will play a song onstage if and when the Patriots win the Super Bowl.

    If the Seahawks don’t win now, there will be no doubt, God hates America.

  11. In It Could Always Be Worse news via England:

    POLICE wish to speak to this man (right) after derogatory comments about Islam were made on a bus.

    The incident, described as a public order offence by police, allegedly happened on the 576 Halifax to Bradford bus, between 10pm and 10.20pm on Thursday, January 8.

    The man is said to have got on the bus and sat directly behind an Asian man, before muttering his comments.

    The suspect is described as white, aged 40 to 50, about 5ft 8ins tall, and was wearing a black woolly hat and black jacket that m

    1. He muttered comments about Islam to an “Asian man”. The contorted language of that article is appalling.

      1. “Asian” is English journalism-speak for “Pakistani”.

        1. I know. It is just ridiculous. Who do they think they are fooling?

          1. Well, they wouldn’t want to invoke thoughts of the P-word.

    2. As a big Anglophile I am really sad to see England lose the plot so comprehensively.

      1. I’m neither -phobe nor -phile, but when wife and I visited the UK last Autumn, it seemed a quaint and somewhat backward colony of the US, worshiping a ‘royal family’ for pete’s sake!

    3. Person exercising a basic human right on a bus? A modern Rosa Parks. Oh, he’s wearing a woolly hat? Never mind. (Psst, woolly hat means “white”)

      1. woolly hat means “white”

        Does it?! Because that would be darkly humorous.

        1. Wear a woolly hat and you can walk through some neighborhoods at night. I’d suggest skipping the black face, though.

  12. Your daily multy-kulty reminder: Muslims killed Dracula!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q1mZsVQFGM

        1. Now we just need a way to fit in Lena Dunham and the 7th seal shall be broken!

  13. Steve Sailer on Malcolm Muggeridge in Rice’s student paper in 1979:

    He recalled his socialist upbringing, his undemanding teaching job at the University of Cairo (his students spoke no English, were always on strike, and were perpetually stupefied by hashish), and reporting for the Manchester Guardian. He now believes “news” should be renamed “nuzak,” since Walter Cronkite and the newspapers bear the same relation to news as Muzak to music.

    Nuzak needs to become a thing, now.

    1. That’s Nuzak to me

  14. via Mediaite

    Rap mogul Suge Knight is wanted tonight by the LAPD after allegedly killing someone he ran over in his car while on the set of a movie. According to TMZ, he got into a fight right outside his car with two individuals.

    1. Individuals? Those are the worst kind of people!

    1. Drunk toddlers.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.