Watch Matt Welch on Red Eye at 3 a.m. ET

Topics include Hillary's contempt, Christie's extremism, rapey TV, censored anti-censorship, and so forth


I will be appearing on Fox News Channel's wondrous Red Eye program at 3 a.m. ET with guest-host Brooke Goldstein, guest-guests Joe DeVito and Jonathan V. Last, and regular Andy Levy (see his great Reason TV interview here). We will discuss Hillary Clinton's contempt for being cross-examined, Chris Christie's contempt for "civil liberties extremists," Snoop Dogg's ill-informed endorsement, an anti-censorship event's cancellation of a Mohammed-insulting play, a controversial Game of Thrones rape scene, and many other subjects.

NEXT: Silk Road Judge Seems Interested in Harm Reduction Argument in Ulbricht Sentencing

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Color me fucking shocked.

    2. I’m still waitin’ but I wouldn’t be surprised if true. If so, I wonder what Waco’s beef with the motorcyclists is? Did they stomp some cop MC recently?

      1. You wouldn’t be surprised that the police shot and killed nine people at once? That does not happen often.

  1. “regular Andy Levy”

    Not good enough. We demand TV’s Andy Levy.

  2. How about Hillery’s contempt for the law?
    It pretty much seems that she has destroyed evidence even if it was not damaging evidence and while IANAL, I’m also pretty sure that would land me or you (or Nixon) in deep trouble.

    1. It would be banana republic enough it were merely a former first lady, US senator, and sec of state were able to get away with such obvious levels of corruption without getting brought before a trial.

      But this person is also the odds on favorite to become the next president. Even if the nation comes to it’s senses and prevents that from happening, the very fast we’re having this conversation now is evidence of our certain doom.

      1. As a said before, the Argentinization of American politics.

      2. *its* and *fact*


      3. *its* and *fact*


  3. Matt, if you don’t land us some candid shots of Joan Nosuchinksee, I’m considering my hypothetical contribution to reason hypothetically wasted. If any geeky journalist has a shot, it’s you.

  4. You Know Who Else didn’t want rape to be depicted?

    1. My Mom, when I wanted to watch Born Innocent when I was 12

  5. Just when I start thinking that my comparisons to Der Morgen are over the top I see that Reason’s own staff are still buddy-buddy with Dave Weigel.…..nt_5310092

    1. Parts of the staff have always been Weigel-esque. It’s like the WSJ having a resident liberal on the ed page. Or the NYT having someone on the ed page who thinks that maybe communism isn’t really perfect for America.

      It’s important to have a bar in which to delineate those who refuse to use arithmetic.

      1. Parts of the staff have always been Weigel-esque.


        1. Just bad at math, really.

    2. Christ, get a life, man.

      1. What, so Reason employees are beyond criticism?

        1. “These people are chummy with a colleague!” is criticism? OK then.

          They’re also quite nice to MSNBC pundits, if you can believe that.

          1. A lying journolister colleague you mean

            1. And doing that after being accused of being too leftist…

  6. So is Nick a Keynesian now?…

    Absent serious, cataclysmic events such as World War II, the government shouldn’t spend more than it takes in. And after cataclysmic events end, any increases in spending should be ratcheted down sharply and quickly, as happened after World War II.

    1. Well, if Keynesians actually supported what Keynes said, that might make him a Keynesian.
      To be clear, he’s merely holding Keynesians to their word, so, no, he’s mocking them.

    2. And this one doesn’t even make sense. WWII deficits were not Keynesian stimulus, they were war spending.

      1. Rant:
        Keynes said ‘have the gov’t go into debt and spend money to run up demand when times are tough, cut gov’t spending and taxes when things get better’.
        It might actually work, and if it did, who is to gripe? It’s like socialism; if it really worked, it would be wonderful!
        The problem is that neither work, and in their ‘not working’ they deliver far more harm than the alternative, which is what we propose.
        “They” (the both of them) propose utopia. “They” deliver misery, since “they” are both based on the assumption that people will act in ways other than their best interest.
        Libertarianism is based on the presumption that each of us is really, really interested in getting a good deal in whatever, and the other guy is, too. And, amazingly, we both do!
        Socialism (communism) and Keynesianism are based on the presumption that some of us are morally superior to the rest of us and they should be found, selected and chosen to lead us!
        And the people who believe such crap should be run out of town on a rail (if the rail is cheap enough).

        1. There’s also the fact the Keynesianism told the politicians what they wanted to hear (Spend!) and they conveniently ignored the parts that they didn’t want to hear (Cut!).

      2. He used WWII as an example of a “serious, cataclysmic event[]” you know.

        1. Who did, Keynes or Nick? It’s a fucking war. Wars cost a lot of money, and Nick is saying it is acceptable for the government to run a deficit in such an extraordinary circumstance.

          Not for the purposes of “creating demand,” but for fighting a damn war.

          Do you disagree?

  7. H&R seems to be pulling hard to the left lately. You might want to put ‘er up on the alignment rack.

  8. Matt, I hope you are dressed appropriately.

    And by that, I mean top hat, monocle, sword cane, and opera cape.

    Twirly mustache and eeevil laugh completely optional.

    1. Thanks to an insanely long and beautiful hockey game tonight, I’ll be up late enough to watch this.

  9. What, no 3am attire review?

    GILMORE, I am disappoint.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.