Army Making Major Personnel Cuts, Muslim Groups Help Rebuild Black Churches, Last Cosby Show Re-Runs Pulled: A.M. Links

|

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: This Student Waited to Pull Over, So Cops Charged Him with Eluding Arrest*

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. The U.S. Army is set to cut 40,000 troops and 17,000 civilian workers over the next two years.

    Troops created or saved.

    1. If you like your troops, you can keep your troops.

      1. well, you can keep your support of them.

    2. Imma call bullshit on these cuts…

      “in a document obtained by USA TODAY”

      The Army has contingency plans in place for making those type of cuts, but they also have contigency plans in place to invade Canada or defeat an invading army from Mexico.

      Krugman’s alien invasion? They got it covered.

      Zombies (or greek immigrants)? Done and done.

      The chance of executing these contingencies? As thin as Sarc’s taste in “women”.

    3. I have a relative in the Army who has slowly turned into a Progressive during his Army stint. I wonder if he’ll have to get a non-tax consuming job or if he’ll be able to play the game well enough to keep consuming taxes.

    4. Hello.

      Over 300 comments? You couldn’t wait until I get back?

      You bastards.

      1. Didn’t you hear me , the Army is invading Canada.

        Hide in a basement, it will be over quick.

        The occupation will last for years, though.

      2. I got a good mind to join a club and beat you over the head with it.

  2. Baylor University, the largest Baptist University in the world, has quietly updated its sexual conduct policy to stop prohibiting “homosexual acts.”

    Can fire and brimstone be far behind?

    1. If by fire, you mean “dicks”? And if by brimstone, you mean “butts”?

      Then yes, fire and brimstone will soon be “behind”.

      1. THAT DOESN’T EVEN MAKE SENSE.

        1. Or, it makes SO MUCH sense that it has left you in a state of shock. Just relax and put your head between my knees and it will pass….um… your knees, that is.

    2. first dancing and now this?!

      1. I think it was first drinking, then dancing, and now this.

      2. I think it was first drinking, then dancing, and now this.

  3. Anyone interested in a having a Whine-Free Wednesday?

    1. What fun would that be?

      1. Yeah, I didn’t think it would be very popular.

    2. Anyone interested in a having a Whining-About-SugarFree Wednesday?

      1. No, he probably likes that.

      2. Sure…. “That darn SF can’t link properly!!!!!”

      3. I’m just so mean.

        1. SF whines about himself… that’s just tasteless.

          1. Mental self-abuse complements the physical.

        2. You’re so vain, you prolly think these lynx are about you…

      4. sheesh, do we always have to whine about something fer crissakes!

        1. Stop whining and start … whining!

          1. #whiningiswinning

          2. #whining!

    3. Fuck you, SugarFree, you’re harshing my morning buzz!

      1. ‘morning buzz’ … now there’s a lifestyle I could embrace.

      2. Go back to your crocheted hammock, Grandpa!

        1. Get off my lawn!

    4. Uuugggh, doooo wee hafff tooo…..

    5. No! Because I prefer the British spelling!

    6. Can I still have some cheese?

  4. Riley the Dog and Giant George used by North Korean TV to prove the West’s decadence

    more

    1. “The west has so much food they can keep dogs as pets?”

      1. In “Escape From Camp 14”, Shin Dong-Hyuk describes when he first crossed over to China after escaping from the prison camp where he’d grown up, he came to a house where there was meat in a bowl on a porch. He didn’t understand why, but ate it anyway, describing it as the best meal he’d had in his life up to that time. Only later did he realize it was food for a dog or cat and that what the Chinese fed their pets was better than what humans in the NK prison system get.

      2. Yeah, I imagine this backfiring like the Soviets propaganda which showed factory parking lots full of worker-owned cars, and workers all wearing decent shoes.

        1. I think it was Tito who permitted “Dallas” to be screened under his regime because it showed the decadence of the upper crust, but the people saw that even the handyman had luxuries they did not have access to…

          1. Close – it was Nicolae Ceau?escu

          2. I think it was Ceacuscu. But once everybody noticed that even the redneck handyman could afford his own pickup truck, then the whole system came tumbling down.

          3. And the rich people lived way better than Ceausescu, even! Except for the gymnast rape (or was that his son?). JR Ewing never go to rape a gymnast.

            1. JR Ewing had a genie, he could have any woman he wanted.

              /Magic is rape.

  5. …the government has released a “safe selfie guide” to “warn citizens against undue risk for a memorable picture.”

    There’s no Russian word for YOLO.

      1. That’s one way to guarantee that a bear will rip your windows out sometime during the night.

      2. How does that guy still have hands?

        1. This comment was perfect:

          Make Mr. Hungry Bear a friend for life
          [Your life mileage may vary – bears being bears…]

          1. Also good:

            This is obviously fake as Putin is not riding this bear.

    1. Doesn’t surprise me. Given how technologically backward and superstitious Russia is I’m surprised Russians don’t think that cameras can steal their souls. Heck, I’m surprised when they can tie their shoelaces without an alcohol-related fatality.

      1. Given how technologically backward and superstitious Russia is I’m surprised Russians don’t…

        My wife was using 4g for internet access in Moscow a long time before consumer plans were being offered for it here, but yeah, they’re really technologically backward

        1. Oh,come on. Did she notice that if you go five feet outside of the city limits you’re in the 19th century?

      2. Russia is what happens when an entire country runs out of fucks.

  6. A New York man who says he was rendered impotent after jailers refused to treat his six-day, prescription drug-induced erection settled with the city for $750,000 on Monday

    SFW story

    1. 52-6

  7. 69) Here’s a story in a genre I’ll call “person not hurting anybody but we’re going to fuck with him anyway.” Apparently this dude in West Virginia has been keeping two deer as pets for the past year. Once the sheriff’s office heard about this, they dispatched a deputy to release his pets into the wild. He’s raised them since they were fawns?I wonder how they’ll do without his care? The pictures in the associated article in the Washington Post show this is a rural area, so it’s not like he was disturbing anybody else. He was happy, no evidence he was mistreating the deer or anything. So why would anybody care? How can there even be a law against this?

    1. So why would anybody care?

      Pigs Deer?

      1. ok, what the heck. Where did my ‘greater than’ go?

        1. Server Squirrels love greater than signs dontchaknow

          1. Probably have a big stash of them buried outside Reason HQ.

        2. HTML characters are always treated as HTML characters, regardless of context.

          1. sounds like old technology

            1. Type [alt]62 =

              Type [alt]242 = ?

              type [alt]175 = ?

              1. well, fuck…

                Pigs ? deer is more true anyway.

          2. …but you can type &lt; and have it display < , but &gt; will never display the greater than symbol.

            1. Oh yeah? Prove it!

    2. The deer, like everything else, are the property of the King, so of course the King’s Men will not allow a mere peasant to keep them.

    3. He’s raised them since they were fawns?I wonder how they’ll do without his care?

      How will those on welfare do without the money we throw them? Hence, perpetual welfare.

      We treat the bears in Yellowstone with more respect – we don’t feed them so they don’t lose their ability to be self sufficient.

      1. That’s a bit of a non-sequitur. We don’t feed the Bears, because they are apex predators, and the last thing we want is predators that have no fear of humans.

        1. Even worse, apex predators who look to humans for food.

          1. I’ve heard that Yellowstone rangers have a quick method for telling different species of bears apart (if for some reason it’s unclear): you just climb a tree.

            If it’s a black bear, it will climb up after you.
            If it’s a grizzly, it will shake the tree until you fall out.

            1. When you go into bear country, the rangers recommend you wear bells and carry pepper spray. The bells will keep you from suprising a bear and the ppper spray can be used in case of emergency.

              Also keep watch for bear sign. Black bears leave hand size prints and their scat has remnants of roots and berries in it. Grizzleys leave prints bigger than a man’s foot. Their scat has a strong peppery odor and often has little bells in it.

          2. Homo sapiens are apex predators as well.

            1. Timothy Treadwell would like a word.

  8. Muslim non-profits are raising money to rebuild recently burned black Southern churches.

    They just want God to be in hock to Allah.

  9. “Once-upon-a-time Reason staffer Dave Weigel, currently at Bloomberg, will be re-joining The Washington Post as a political reporter.”

    Does that mean he won’t have time to grace us with his presence anymore?

  10. “The U.S. Army is set to cut 40,000 troops and 17,000 civilian workers over the next two years.”

    I guess that explains all the stuff on Facebook and email from conservative friends and acquaintances about how ‘Under Obama the US military is now the smallest it’s been since…..Let’s make our military strong again!!!’

    1. I apparently “won” a free subscription to National Review. First issue in my mailbox called for raising defense spending to 10% of GDP at all times, because the Ruskies and slants are gonna own the world otherwise. Followed by a steaming pile of outright lies about NSA surveillance in a piece accusing Rand Paul of torpedoing our best tool to fight terrorism. Into the trash it goes… Buckley was hardly a libertarian, but that rag has gone WAY downhill since he was around. It’s kind of sad.

        1. Krugman sez: not enough.

        2. Because we need to be more like Rome, obviously….

      1. What’s so magical about 10%? Why not 15%? Or 20%? Don’t we want to keep the world safe for democracy? How can he do that if we’re only spending ten percent of our GDP on the military?

        1. Well the number, IIRC, was a compromise in the mind of the author, based on splitting the difference between the ideal spending level of the immediate post-WWII period (the height of American superpower) and our ostensibly unprecedented miserly 3.5% currently.

          1. GAH! If you are over 3.5%, you had best be in an all out war. 3% should be more than enough. If you had a decent procurement system, it could go well below that.

            1. All-out war is the goal I believe.

            2. Apparently 600 billion dollars doesn’t buy what it used to. Given the rousing success of the half trillion dollar and counting F35, which can’t outmaneuver the F16 it’s replacing, you could forgive a person for being skeptical that more money is apt to solve whatever ails the military in the hardware and preparedness departments.

              1. It’s not designed to out-maneuver the F-16, for the twentieth time.

                1. But it can’t even fly – or fire its gun – or drop a bomb – or anything!

              2. The lack of maneuvarability doesn’t bother me.

                Attack aircraft don’t have to be maneuverable; they do however have to be able to get a weapon in a location where it can hit a target.

                The use of the F-16 as an attack platform was fucking imbecillic. The F-16 can’t loiter. It is so fast that the pilot’s picture of what he’s hitting and where friendlies are and what’s happening on the battle-field is coming from radio transmissions and whatever tactical datalink is being used these days. It also really can’t carry that big of a payload.

                The F-16 started life as an air defense fighter. It’s job was to protect friendly air bases against air attacks, freeing up F-15’s for the missions needed to achieve air superiority. Yes, in the 40+ years since it came off the drawing board, changes to engines, avionics and its weapons systems have made it into a very different animal. But the medium bomber role it presently performs is very much a round hole into which the square peg of a light fighter is being hammered.

                If the U.S. wants a medium bomber/attack aircraft, dogfighting ability should be one of the lowest priorities to the other aspects needed for a combat aircraft.

              3. Check out “War is Boring” blog. David Axe has been all over this story. Amazing coverage.

                The funny thing is that the guy who predicted the abject failure of the F-35 says that we don’t need super speedy and maneuverable dogfighters – just a command (potentially bomber-like) ship with ROBUST sensors and ordinance (long-range) and some X-47 drones for mop-up and we should be able to handle any fighter combat scenario.

                Now if the Navy kills the X-47 we may be in trouble…

        2. How the Hell else is the government going to afford to buy extra M-1 tanks to give to the Pleasantville Police Department?

        3. What about 9.11%?
          Very symbolic and all.

          1. [stands up and salutes while humming Star Spangle banner]

  11. The last cable station airing re-runs of The Cosby Show has announced that it will stop doing so in light of Bill Cosby’s (alleged!) serial rape habit.

    That explains why I can’t find any Roman Polanski movies on tv!

    1. Did he manage to bang Lisa Bonet when she was in her prime?

      1. Angel Heart was good for a throbbing Bonet. See, even her name is a dime store joke.

    2. That’s totally different. Roman Polanski is a European artist.
      Bill Cosby is a drug-crazed American Negro.

      1. Don’t forget the target audiences too. Polanski’s films are for sophisticated people, Bill Cosby’s TV show and comedic routines, for the proles.

        1. Bill Cosby also expressed ungoodthinkful political views.

          1. ^This. Cosby was against the Left’s treatment of blacks. He certainly deserves the scrutiny and shame that he’s getting. But I doubt it would have happened had he not been an “uncle Tom” to the Left.

            1. Perhaps if he wore his victim card like a badge of honor, the left would have kept things a little quieter.

          2. I am seeing more and more articles that are calling him out for this. The idea doesn’t seem to be that Cosby did things that were truly criminal, but that he was disgracefully, unforgivably hypocritical for being sleazy in his private life, while portraying “America’s favorite Dad” on TV and moralizing about family values in public.

            Before his hit 1980s TV show (and perhaps even later, I lost track) Cosby was (in-)famous for hanging out at the Playboy mansion. His reputation was never squeaky-clean. The wild parties at that place — involving sex, drugs, and rock and roll (or jazz, now and then) — were legendary. It was customary for people there (and those who wanted to live the “Playboy lifestyle”) to liberally mix sex and drugs. I suppose some of the men used drugs to incapacitate women, whom they desired. But was Cosby one of those? I think it is more likely that he relied on his celebrity to do the heavy lifting in attracting his companions, and the drugs only as an ingredient in subsequent “partying” that was inevitably sexual. He probably plied his companions with liquor, too. Clearly such behavior could not be called “gentlemanly,” but it was common in the culture of the time, especially among the celebrity set. Cosby is getting flamed for it — when many other celebrities, who were his contemporary peers as cads, are spared — because he dared to contradict the leftist party line after rehabilitating his image.

  12. Trinity Western law school accreditation denial upheld by Ontario court

    An Ontario court has upheld the Ontario law society’s refusal to accredit a B.C. Christian university’s yet-to-open law school.

    Trinity Western University had asked the Divisional Court in Ontario for a judicial review of the Law Society of Upper Canada’s decision, but the court dismissed the application Thursday.

    The university’s covenant forbids sexual intimacy outside heterosexual marriage, which has led to similar legal battles for the university in other provinces.

    The cases pit religious freedoms against same-sex equality rights, with each side saying one is discriminating against the other.

    1. Canada…where bad ideas are field-tested before being brought to the USA.

      1. Erm, ahem. It was Americans style socialism that was imported into Canada. Canada was more individualistic than the USA at one point before the grubby ‘greater-do-gooders’ invaded thanks to Americans and their socialist ideas.

        /Gently slaps Notorious on the side of the head

        1. Nah, if it was American, the Canuckistanis never would have embraced it, due to their anti-American prejudice. They probably got it from Europe.

          1. When all else fails blame the Quebecois.

          2. I used to think that, then I started visiting Reason and saw where the stupid shit is coming from. I mean, $15 minimum wage is now a thing with our socialists, and they certainly didn’t pick it up from Europe. Nor, of course, did they think of it first. Likewise gay marriage, rape culture, war on women etc. I’m not sure if they ever had their own ideas – multiculturalism maybe? Certainly until 50s all their ideas came from Europe.

  13. “The last cable station airing re-runs of The Cosby Show has announced that it will stop doing so ”

    What the-? The *show* didn’t do anything wrong.

    1. Tell that to the Dukes of Hazzard

      1. Or neither did the… BAH I’ll wake up one of these hours

      2. Hang on now – everyone knows colorful rags are dangerous.

    2. That’s so Raven!

    3. I must say though, it’ll be tough to think of Dr. Huxtable the same way next time I see an episode, if it ever happens again.

      1. Those sweaters he wore were designed to, along with the drugs, induce a hypnotic state in his victims.

        The Cosby Code has been deciphered!!

    4. The scandal about that is that he got away with it so long. He only was outed after he exhibited the wrong politics. Had he not done that, Hollywood would have happily continued to cover up for him.

      1. Exactly. He seems to have made many a white progressive uneasy by claiming that black people are capable of succeeding on their own–that is, without progressive help and our tax monies.

      2. Quaaludes or benadryl are not rohypnol.

        The man sounds like he was a pig, but I’ve not seen any evidence (yet) of rape.

    5. The show is suspected of being associated with a crime, and thus must be seized.

  14. “The last cable station airing re-runs of The Cosby Show has announced that it will stop doing so in light of Bill Cosby’s (alleged!) serial rape habit.”

    At least we still have the Dukes of Hazard.

    1. Remake it The Dukes of Moral Hazard. Starring Greenspan and Bernanke. Imagine Yellin in some Daisy Duke cut offs.

      1. No thanks.

      2. I just puked up my entire breakfast, four cups of strong coffee.

      3. Imagine Yellin in some Daisy Duke cut offs.

        You.are.evil

        1. For some reason, that sentence you referenced to just makes me see a blur like when they can’t get a release for a bystander on ‘Cops’.

          Everytime I try to read it, I just hear ‘la-la-la…”

  15. The Obama Presidency Playlist

    President Barack Obama is the only American president you could reliably trust to DJ a party. (Bill Clinton’s sax swag is hardly a marvel.) Politics aside, it might be a while before the United States elects another president whose cultural compass is as fresh and youthful as Obama’s. An elder member of the Hip-Hop Generation (at 53, he’s still younger than Chuck D), he’s the first sitting president to endorse American music made in the 21st century. In his two terms, President Obama has modernized, diversified, and redefined what the United States considers Americana.

    In addition to healing the planet and turning back the tides…

    1. “it might be a while before the United States elects another president whose cultural compass is as fresh and youthful as Obama’s.”

      This is probably the funniest thing I will read today, and it works in several ways.

    2. “is the only American president you could reliably trust to DJ a party.”

      Unfortunately, that’s about all I’d trust him to do.

    3. If only you could reliably trust him to do anything more substantial

    4. “My name is Jimmy Carter and I’m running for President. I’d like to introduce you to my friends, the Allman Brothers.”

      Carter has stopped off at recording sessions with Dickie Betts in Macon, played host to Southern rock bands in the governor’s mansion, and attended Capricorn’s annual outdoor barbecue.

      In early 1974 Bob Dylan visited Carter during his tour with the Band. Walden set this one up, too, but Carter took things a stage further by quoting Dylan in his acceptance speech at the aforementioned Convention this year.

      Using lines from It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleeding), Carter told the cheering delegates at Madison Square Garden: “We have an America that, in Bob Dylan’s phrase, is busy being born, not busy dying.”

      And then Ronald Reagan usurped the throne and doomed the nation to a long national nightmare of scratchy Lawrence Welk and Kay Kayser Edison cylinders.

      1. Because government is the culture, doncha know.

      2. Related:

        Jimmy Carter: ‘Jesus Would Approve Of Gay Marriage’

        “I think everybody should have a right to be married,” he said, “regardless of their sex.”

        He went on to note that he would “draw a line” at the government being able to force a church to perform gay marriages against its leadership’s will.

        “But those two partners should be able to go to the courthouse or to another church and get married,” he asserted. “That’s no problem.”

        1. Civil gay marriage? I’m pretty sure Jesus would say “give unto Caesar”. Christians aren’t responsible for making godless institutions act as though they are godly. Then again, most Christians can’t distinguish between sin and morality.

          1. Christians aren’t responsible for making godless institutions act as though they are godly.
            Agreed

            Then again, most Christians can’t distinguish between sin and morality.

            Care to explain this one?

    5. Actually, I don’t see him being able to DJ.

      Nor do I find him all that cool. He tries sure, but he ain’t.

      1. Pretty sure he’d just spin chapters from his audiobooks.

        1. …while wearing mom jeans.

    6. he’s the first sitting president to endorse American music made in the 21st century.

      1. How many presidents have we had in the 21st Century?

      2. While GWB’s tastes ran to the 70/80s, he did listen to (endorse) contemporary music.

    7. “In his two terms, President Obama has modernized, diversified, and redefined what the United States considers Americana.”

      They misspelled sodomized, defenestrated and redacted.

  16. Judicial Watch: New Documents Reveal DOJ, IRS, and FBI Plan to Seek Criminal Charges of Obama Opponents

    (Washington, DC) ? Judicial Watch today released new Department of Justice (DOJ) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) documents that include an official “DOJ Recap” report detailing an October 2010 meeting between Lois Lerner, DOJ officials and the FBI to plan for the possible criminal prosecution of targeted nonprofit organizations for alleged illegal political activity.

    The newly obtained records also reveal that the Obama DOJ wanted IRS employees who were going to testify to Congress to turn over documents to the DOJ before giving them to Congress. Records also detail how the Obama IRS gave the FBI 21 computer disks, containing 1.25 million pages of confidential IRS returns from 113,000 nonprofit social 501(c)(4) welfare groups ? or nearly every 501(c)(4) in the United States ? as part of its prosecution effort. According to a letter from then-House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, “This revelation likely means that the IRS ? including possibly Lois Lerner ? violated federal tax law by transmitting this information to the Justice Department.”

    1. Maybe Dave Weigel will be investigating this story in his new role at WaPo?

    2. Koskinen defines creepy. The man looks like a lizard.

    3. The only good thing I can spin from this (from an administration side) is: Nearly every 501(c)(4) organization’s information was included, so they didn’t target conservatives entirely. Of course my devil’s advocate side is screaming that a reasonably college educated bureaucrat would know enough to cover their ass by sending over way more information than just the targeted conservative organizations.

    1. 403 Forbidden

      1. She youed the link.

      2. Bollocks, I used the Reasonable extension button thingy

        http://popbitch.com/home/2015/…..e-painting

        1. I already have a butthole painting…

          in my underwear.

  17. Oregon pharmacists will be able to prescribe birth control

    Requiring only a 20 question screening survey. If the sketchy guy at CVS gets out a speculum, run.

    1. “Ma’am, I’ll need you to step over here…”

      1. The self-test stirrup table set up next to the blood pressure machine?

    2. I’d like to see him recommending birth control.

  18. Confess an unpopular opinion: Re-watched The City on the Edge of Forever last night and I’m more convinced now that it is an extremely overrated episode of Star Trek.

    It isn’t even the best time travel episode of TOS. That should go to All Our Yesterdays.

    1. Was All Our Yesterdays the one with Mr. Atoz? Where Spock ate meat and liked it? That one was okay, but you if Sitting on the Edge of Forever was over your head you can just say that. No one will think less of you.

      1. The “It’s just above you” or “you’re not ___ enough to understand its nuances” type arguments usually lower my opinion of people who try to play them by orders of magnitude.

        You lucked out by already being in low regard that it doesn’t change how I’ll treat you.

        1. If you didn’t understand my argument you can just say so. No one will think less of you.

          1. The argument of the people who have no ground to stand on and can’t make a semi-coherent chain of bullshit.

            Nice to see you staying in character.

            1. If you don’t understand my character and so on…

          2. This is starting to look like a Cytotoxic v John argument…

            1. Are you not entertained?

            2. Which got to be like Bo arguing with himself.

      2. Yeah, where they find the doomed planet with the time travel library. I thought it was a great episode in almost every way.

        The premise was solid and made sense. The guy who played Mr. Atoz was good. Giving Kirk the action B plot where he has to escape a medieval witch trial was amusing, and Spock developing normal human emotions and falling in love (without getting high on spores this time) gave the episode some poignancy, even if it isn’t as tragic as Kirk letting Edith Keeler die.

        1. thinking about that one and other episodes…they seemed to pack so much into an hour.

    2. Mariette Hartley in sexy fur versus Joan Collins. No contest.

      1. I think it is pretty clear Spock gets laid in that episode. Which is a bit odd since how big was that cave?

        Was Bones just sitting around off camera watching/listening or what?

        1. He’s a doctor dammit!
          He likes to watch.

      2. Could a brother get a fucking link over here?!?!?

    3. I think people like it because it shows Kirk’s personal side. It’s not my favorite episode, but I’ll put it in the top 10. The episode with the Gorn is the most entertaining, and my kids like it too.

      1. The best episode will always be the underrated The Doomsday Machine.

        1. ^^^This………..and of course, “Mirror, Mirror”.

        2. 1. Balance of Terror

          2. The Doomsday Machine

          3. Errand of Mercy

          4. A Piece of the Action

          5. Amok Time

          1. O.K. I’ll play:

            1. The Doomsday Machine

            2. Mirror, Mirror

            3. Balance of Terror

            4. Wink of an Eye

            5. The Tholian Web

            1. No one is saying Space Seed in their top five? Interesting.

              1. I feel less compelled to give it recognition in my Top 5 because it got its own movie sequel.

                Montalban owns every scene, but the end fight was just bad. Embarrassingly bad.

            2. Actually I’m embarrassed that I forgot “Mirror, Mirror”. I’d put it 4th, and remove Amok Time.

        3. The Doomsday Machine isn’t underrated. Everyone knows it is the best episode not utilizing planet sets or location shooting. It’s written by Norman Spinrad too. He’s not a total jerk like Ellison.

          1. It’s underrated if everyone everywhere doesn’t agree it’s the greatest.

        4. The one about the planet eating cornacopia?

          So good, they made it into a movie…twice.

          ST:TMP and STIV:TVH were both doomsday machines coming to destroy earth.

          The best was either “The Trouble with Tribbles” or “The Empire Strikes Back”

      2. Kirk’s womanizing is all just a plot to make his one true love jealous:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCC0OaU8ndA

    4. If I confessed that I hate Star Trek, is that the more unpopular opinion in these commentz?

      1. I’m not sure if my stance is worse – I liked it once, then I grew up.

        I never found the original series all that entertaining, and the communist drivel that infested TNG overwhelms my nostalgia barrier now that I notice it.

        1. Hate was probably a strong word to use, but growing up I had one friend who watched it and I knew of no one else who did. Then I started reading Reason comments, and I felt like I was missing out on something, until I tried to watch it again…

        2. Early season TNG is almost unwatchable because of how badly written it was. Then Roddenberry croaked, they stopped trying to make the space Jews the antagonists, introduced the Borg and started writing episodes that made Starfleet and the Federation look bad.

          TNG makes TOS look better in comparison, IMO. In TOS money clearly exists, Starfleet is obviously a military force first with peacetime exploration purposes second, you can drink on duty and make racist remarks towards your ship’s First Officer, and the women wear miniskirts.

          1. I would say that the average TOS episode is better than the average TNG episode, but the top 5 TNG episodes are better than the top 5 TOS episodes.

            TNG had sooooo many “random border squabble on random planet” episodes.

    5. Allow me to confess an even *more* unpopular opinion: Star Trek TOS sucks. And Wrath of Kahn is the best of the movies. And Nick of Time is the better Shatner appearance in The Twilight Zone.

      1. If you take away the nostalgia factor would anyone think TOS was superior? It’s incredibly ham handed and silly if you take it de novo. What makes it great is like what made the Wright Brother’s plane great, but I wouldn’t want to fly from here to Miami in that plane.

      2. CORRECTION: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is the greatest of all movies everywhere.

        1. +1 Chrysler Cordoba

          1. +1 rich corinthian leather

          2. ^^^ with Rich, Corinthian leather.

  19. There’s so much derp in this pearl clutching, misinformed article from Slate about the Texas Supreme Court striking down oppressive licensing regulations for ‘eyebrow threaders’, but I think this encapsulates it:

    “Texas Could Become an Even More Dangerous Place”

    http://www.slate.com/articles/…..rn_to.html

    1. Could the pants shitting get any more hilarious? Depends

      1. Its so unintenionally hilarious. Forget shark attacks, in Texas people are now free to practice eyebrow threading with less than 750 hours of training! Run!

        1. Next thing you know, them negresses are going to start weaving hair without having cosmetology licenses. Then after that it’s cats and dogs living together.

      2. I see what you did there

      3. I see what you did there: Depends

        1. Remember to refresh. Remember to refresh.

    2. I love how he condescends to Willet over what he apparently views as a quaint but simple point of view, then goes on to give the most grade-school pig tailed little girl view of the legislative process. No self awareness whatsoever.

  20. Muslim non-profits are raising money to rebuild recently burned black Southern churches. “We want for others what we want for ourselves: the right to worship without intimidation, the right to safety, and the right to property,” the groups said.

    But moderate Muslims are a myth!

    1. They’re obviously not real Muslims, duh.

    2. No one ever said they were. But so what? Yeah, not every Muslim is a nut. That fact, however, says nothing about the ones who are.

      1. Not every Muslim is a nut, but that doesn’t change what the Koran teaches at all, which is what critics of Islam usually criticizes.

        1. See? Called it.

          1. Called what exactly?

            1. @ 9:15

      2. It’s almost as if people are all individuals! Even within a religious tradition!

        1. I’m not.

    3. They’re faking it, I bet they’re gonna use the money for bombs and terrorizms and shit.

      1. And fried chicken. But I can’t blame them for that.

        1. I love Halal Fried Chicken, but when those places start popping up in your neighborhood it’s time to go find somewhere else to live. They are the harbingers of ghettoization.

    4. What the fuck are they going on about “right to property”? Are these Muslim liberterians?

    5. Some Nazis were very into promoting the humane treatment of animals. And to think there are those who criticize Nazi ideology and the more notorious practices of that ideology’s adherents.

  21. A group of Chicago activists have filed a lawsuit against three suburbs to try and[sic] force stricter gun-control measures.

    Because, while shooters won’t obey no-shooting laws, they will most definitely obey no-guns laws.

    1. And don’t worry about it. I am sure no judge will find a right to “dignity” or “safety” that overrides people’s right to bear arms. That could never happen. Next you will be telling me that judges will find a right to a marriage license.

    2. FTA: A group of civil rights activists on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against three Chicago suburbs to force them to take stricter gun-control measures to stem the flow of weapons into the city’s crime-ridden neighborhoods.

      They’re anti-civil rights activists.

  22. Open borders folks are oddly quiet about the murder in San Fransisco. The correct open borders response is that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and we don’t take away fundamental rights from people after they have served their debt to society. Therefore, we are sorry this happened but it would have been immoral and a violation of this guy’s rights to deport him.

    If you are not willing to say that now when it is hard, then don’t tell me open borders are a moral issue because you clearly don’t think they are and just say so as an easy way to bludgeon your opponents.

    1. I’ll say it now. Why wouldn’t I? For example, I think if a native serves his time he should be able to exercise his usual rights, including 2nd Amendment rights. If someone in that situation then used a gun to kill someone should I back away from that?

      1. That is right, criminal aliens should not be deported and those with criminal records should not be barred from entering the country. That is the proper position. Good luck with that.

        1. Lots of open borders supporters believe in stopping the migration or deporting those with criminal records. I don’t necessarily think so, especially if the person has served their time. You punish bad actions and actors not the liberties of everyone.

          1. Lots of open borders supporters believe in stopping the migration or deporting those with criminal records.

            Then they are hypocrites. If free movement is a right, you don’t lose it just because you are convicted of a crime in a nation you were not born. If we can deport criminals, we can deport any alien and immigration is a policy issue not a moral one. It is of course perfectly fine to support more immigration. But if it is a policy issue, then you can’t call your opponents immoral or say opening the borders is a moral imperative every time you lose an argument.

            1. Even things that can be rights can be restricted in light of bad behavior. I’m curious, do you think there is a right to keep and bear arms? If so, would you therefore be against any restriction on, say, John Hinckley buying a or certain firearms if he were released today? Does that make you a hypocrite if you do?

              1. Bo this is the classic example of a fine logical distinction you are too simple minded to understand. But I will give you one try and one try only.

                If freedom of movement is a right, then there is nothing special about where you are born. The fact that I was born here gives me no more claim on living here than anyone else. Therefore, if I as a native am not deported or deprived of my right to move across the border when I am convicted of a crime, neither should an alien.

                If you believe in open borders, deporting a criminal back to where they were born is no different than Texas sending a criminal back to Vermont and telling them they can’t come back. Texas can’t do that because people have a right of free movement within the US. The open borders position is the same it just takes it to the entire world.

                1. So you totally dodged the analogy. Nice.

                  1. Yes Bo. I knew you were too simple to understand it. it is possible that you are just that dishonest. But it really doesn’t matter since t he effects are the same.

                    1. So you totally dodged the analogy. Nice.
                      Keep on dodging, I can keep on cut n pasting!

                    2. Who is this?

            2. If free movement is a right,

              And it is.

              1. On property you own sure. On my property or property I own with others, not so much.

                1. ” I own with others”

                  The collective property. Awesome

                  1. That’s pretty much what the US commons are. Would it be much better managed if it were private ? Sure. Is it largely unconstitutional ? Of course. It is however our collective property.

                    I don’t get to swim in the pool and use the golf course of the big HOA next to me. I suppose if I purchased a house there and paid the huge HOA fee’s I would get that privilege. As it stands it’s their shit. Are you arguing that “right of free travel” somehow trumps basic property rights ?

    2. Just like they have been awfully quiet about Rotherham.

      1. Why should open borders supporters be particularly concerned about Rotherham? Some people who exercise basic freedoms are going to do bad things. The libertarian response has long been to respond to the bad things done, not the freedoms.

        1. of course they shouldn’t. There is no evidence that anyone in the world is anything but a reasonable freedom loving Libertarian who just wants to open a free range organic food truck while driving for UBER at night. And there is absolutely no symbiotic relationship between open borders and liberal multicultural PC. Nope. One has nothing to do with the other. Nothing to see here.

          1. So you’re saying we should change our principles for political popularity’s sake? If that’s true we should start by supporting the minimum wage, that’s crazy popular!

            1. So you’re saying we should change our principles for political popularity’s sake?

              As long as it bitchslaps those SWJs! — John.

            2. Yes Bo. If your principles result in monstrous consequences, you need to rethink them. That is the difference between being a reasonable human being and being a fanatic.

              1. My principles result in liberty John. I can see how you find that monstrous.

                1. The liberty result from those principles was the freedom to turn girls into sex slaves. Granted the principle apparently was “brown people are not to be held accountable”.

              2. John, this is exactly the argument my brother uses in support of gun control.

                1. I imagine once you clear away superficially partisan differences he and John would have a lot in common.

                2. And your brother is an idiot redacted. The results of gun control have been monstrous. The results of gun ownership have been anything but.

                  The whole “but my principles” argument is nothing but a final stand after you have lost. And the monstrous effects of the policy are always inflicted on someone else never the person yelling “but principles”.

        2. Because many people they let in did horrible things in an organized and systematic way to the native population. And the authorities did nothing because they have a political agenda to show what a great idea open borders are.

          1. Open borders doesn’t and never necessitates support for bad actions by people who exercise the freedom in question anymore than support for gun rights or free speech necessitates support for people who rob others at gun point or engage in true threats. I can easily denounce any outrages in responses by the Roterham authorities while still supporting freedom of movement.

            1. It’s like you are just unable to see it.

              The gun control supporters are wrong because the policies and ideas they support are DEMONSTRABLY proven to have a negative impact.

              What they say, how they rationalize, does not matter.

              The policies that lead to Rotherham are likewise demonstrably proven to be detrimental.

              A person who adheres to priciples without examining them, without reaffirming their truth and usefulness always is a zealot.

    3. I have tried hard not to pay attention, but it sounds like this guy was deported multiple times instead of doing hard time for felonies. Combine this with San Francisco’s idiotic policies and he pretty much had permission to do anything short of murder.

      1. And Reason has been a huge cheerleader for sanctuary cities. I guess it is too much to ask that they have some integrity and admit that yes there are downsides to their policies. Much easier to talk about what a racist that Donald Trump is than do that.

    4. Open borders folks are oddly quiet about the murder in San Fransisco. The correct open borders response is that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and we don’t take away fundamental rights from people after they have served their debt to society. Therefore, we are sorry this happened but it would have been immoral and a violation of this guy’s rights to deport him.

      Sounds about right. Yes, it’s not a popular view, but that’s pretty much how I see it.

      1. It is in fact an utterly crazy view that would never garner any support. To get around this fact, open borders advocates just lie and pretend they don’t really hold that position or that their policies don’t necessarily lead there.

        1. John is apparently in favor of whatever opinions poll well.

          1. No. I don’t believe that there is a right to cross a border. I am just pointing out the cowardice and mendacity of those who do.

            1. Yes, you’ve not made all kinds of implied and explicit comments about how out-of-line-with-popular-opinion open borders principles here at all.

              Sheesh, talk about mendacity.

              1. Tulpa, You are an idiot. And I was the last person on here who would indulge you and was dumb enough to think you could ever learn. Well, I am done. So give it up. Go somewhere else. Your work here is done.

                1. I’m not Tulpa, and lots of people are interacting with me today John. Again, is this your day to be wrong about absolutely everything? You might want to take the day off and stay inside then.

        2. o get around this fact, open borders advocates just lie and pretend they don’t really hold that position or that their policies don’t necessarily lead there.

          Wow, so now you’re lying about me to my face so that you can call me liar?!?

          Really, John?

          1. Show me one pro open borders politician or journalist who is saying that.

            And I was not talking about you in particular but open borders advocates in general. You have told me on multiple occasions how anyone claiming the right to enforce borders is retarded. So clearly anyone who thinks that guy should have been deported is retarded. That is what you think. And I really wish more open borders people were honest like you are. It would likely settle this issue a lot faster.

            1. First show me an open borders politician!

              I don’t think I’ve ever heard of one that was more than a dog catcher.

              1. If Obama doesn’t qualify, no one ever could.

                1. The guy with the record number of deportings?

                  It really is your wrong about everything day…Stay away from sharp things my friend.

                2. Obama most definitely is not an open borders guy.

                  Is he permitting haitians to land in the U.S? How about the quotas for Asians and Europeans? Is he advocating reducing them?

                  The record number of deporations during the first 6 years of his presidency speak volumes.

                  He’s an anti-colonialist, yes. He clearly is hoping to create a hispanic underclass in the U.S. that will perceives themselves as dependent on state aid and will thus vote for progressive politicians, yes.

                  But his devotion to open borders is about the same as his devotion to the rule of law.

                  1. he record number of deporations during the first 6 years of his presidency speak volumes.

                    Stop reading Shreeks posts and taking them seriously. He didn’t deport anyone. He just started counting people turned away at the border as “deported”.

                    The bottom line is your position is that the country has no right to stop anyone from entering the country, no matter how dangerous. But it is anyone who claims otherwise who is “retarded”. Like I said, good luck with that position and please encourage others to advocate it.

                    1. We’re not talking about my views, which I’ve amply expounded upon without the prevarification you have accused me of.

                      You moved the goalposts and said your claim about the open borders types lying were the politicians and journalists. I asked you to giv eme an example. You said Obama, which is fucking laughable.

                      Open borders is an unpopular position. I don’t know of a single politician on the national level who supports it. I don’t know of a single top tier journalist who supports it. I actually don’t know of any politician who supports it at all, although I suspect that one could dig through the 100,000+ elected officials in the U.S. and find a bunch of city councilmen or mayors that support it who have escaped my notice. And my guess is that they will all turn out to be commies anyway (since libertarians are rarer in the pool of elected officials than unenslaved infidel chicks in the islamic caliphate), who lie their asses off about everything.

                    2. There are a bunch of noisy advocates of open borders here. With the possible exception of cytotoxic (I have him blocked like Bo, so I’m not 100% certain but I think he’s the kind of dogmatic objectivist who would deny negative outcomes to his rational policies), the overwhelming majority of us are up front about our position, the utilitarian consequences etc.

                      So stop lying about us, or find the politicians that you said where the people you were referring to when you made your original comment implying that all open borders supporters were lying fucks.

  23. Have to applaud the alt-text for this post.

    *opera applause*

    1. seconded!

    2. I find your lack of *narrows gaze* disturbing.

    3. A+.

    4. It is excellent.

  24. Reports say gun used in SF homicide belonged to Federal agent

    The gun used in the killing of a San Francisco woman in a case that gave new political prominence to the issue of illegal immigration belonged to a federal agent, a source with knowledge of the investigation told CNN.

    Kate Steinle was shot to death on July 1 on one of San Francisco’s busiest piers.

    The San Francisco Chronicle reported the weapon was stolen in a car burglary in June, citing sources close to the investigation.

    Some of the sources said the .40-caliber pistol was apparently not the agent’s official gun.

    Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, the man accused in Steinle’s killing, told CNN affiliate KGO-TV that he fired the weapon, but it was an accident.

    In the interview, Lopez-Sanchez said he found the gun wrapped inside a T-shirt before it accidentally went off.

    1. If only that gun were secured in a safe!

      1. with a trigger lock!

        1. and still wrapped in a shirt.

    2. In the interview, Lopez-Sanchez said he found the gun wrapped inside a T-shirt before it accidentally went off

      Unpossible. CA passed strict gun control measures to eliminate accidental discharge.

      1. We’re not discussing yes means yes right now

        1. +1 ejaculation

    3. Bureau of Land Management at that.

    4. I can hear the sighs of disappointment of gun controllers from my window.

    5. I’m betting Lopez-Sanchez actually found the gun in the car he burgled.

      1. I’m not. Is there a local police report for a burglary of a conveyance listing a stolen personal firearm ?

        Or did the agent only report it “to his superiors” at the feds yesterday?

        1. Like a cop’s going to admit that his drop gun got stolen.

          Right….

  25. The Chinese debt bubble is popping with a vengeance, and of course, central bank clowns are utterly astonished.

    1. I’m trying to enjoy my schadenfreude before the repercussions hit me.

      1. I’ve already priced in my schadenfreude.

    2. Of course they are. They keep thinking they can repeal the laws of human nature, every damn time.

    3. I don’t think I have enough popcorn in my doomsday stash to last through all the hilarities that are sure to come.

    4. They are gonna need bigger hard drives to hold all those zeroes they are about to conjure out of thin air.

    5. Well, yeah. Central planners are always astonished when things do not go according to plan. Not only are they always astonished, but they always fail to see how the results are often a product of their good intentions.

    6. I have several neighbors who work for the world bank. I have been saying for years China was going to collapse under the weight of its debt and property bubbles. They always looked at me like I was some kind of witch doctor.

      1. How could they not see it? It’s been obvious for a long time now. Anyone who has ever worked in China could see the cronyism and irrational exuberance, always a toxic financial combination.

      2. Then they are all fools. China’s economy has been built on a foundation of piles and piles of debt, with terrible investments in real estate and people taking out loans to buy stocks, but a lot of financial folks thought the Chinese government would be able to control everything. Not this time. The Chinese bubble that is going to pop will have profound effects on global finance. It’s going to be like witnessing a Formula 1 crash: it’s horrible but you don’t want to look away.

        1. Then they are all fools.

          Well yeah, they’re top men at the world bank.

    7. And people think the Greece situation is going to cause problems. That is nothing compared to the shitstorm that China’s stock market collapse may unleash.

      1. It will make the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis seem mild.

        1. We can hope animal protein prices drop.

    8. This is a correction. There’s big money to be made buying back in at the bottom*.

      *whenever that may be

      Trading was halted for more than half the companies listed. The Chinese central bank’s playbook will be the same as our FRB’s. Maybe include some shootings.

    9. I’d like to go to Hong Kong and Macau towards the end of the year. I wonder how the Chinese debt bubble bursting will mean for Hong Kong and Macau. Mainlanders like use them to get money out of China.

      1. Macau has already taken a hit. Something about limits on government officials. Hong Kong is awesome.

  26. Mr Burns is back! Harry Shearer signs $13 million deal to return to The Simpsons after quitting earlier this year

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..-year.html
    Everyone has a price.

    1. Fox should’ve just taken the opportunity to cancel the show.

      1. It will keep going as long as people watch it. The records set by the Simpsons will not be broken for a long time, if ever.

          1. True. I didn’t think of that. And I think they were younger when they started.

          2. Though I haven’t watched that show since Chef left.

            1. You didn’t like their stance on scientology either?

              1. I just liked Chef.

    2. Excellent!

    3. “Smithers, what’s wrong with Crippler?”-Mr. Burns

      “He’s getting up there in age, sir. He’s been with us since the Nixon administration.”-Smithers

      “Ah, yes. I remember when he bagged his first hippie. That young man didn’t think it was too groovy”-Mr. Burns

  27. Professor who left University of Memphis in disgrace over racist tweets is hired by neighboring college – which CELEBRATES her anti-white views
    Sociology professor Zandria Robinson tweeted that she did not want her daughter to attend a university with ‘snotty privileged white’ students
    She left University of Memphis in disgrace, went on to tweet similar views
    Now she has been hired by Rhodes College which applauded her
    Some of her future colleagues have decried the new hire as ‘crazy’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..views.html
    Racism is to be celebrated if you hate white people. Principals, not principles.

    1. It’s not like this lady didn’t take a hit having to go from UM to this tiny school.

      1. How do you know she didn’t get a raise?

        1. I guess that’s possible, I’m just thinking a big school like UM pays more.

          1. Quite often the small private schools that charge the students and arm and a leg pay their staff very well.

    2. I’m waiting for Tumblr to boycott Rhodes College for hiring someone who believes in freedom of association. (and disassociation).

    3. I posted this yesterday and no one commented besides SF.

      1. Maybe I’m the only one that hasn’t blocked you yet.

        /paranoia

        1. Who you talking to?

          1. Beats me.

        2. Hasn’t blocked who yet=)

          1. Hey!

    4. Rhodes is a better school*. That’s like a promotion.

      *costs more, hot rich chicks

      1. Rhodes is was a better school*.

  28. Woman attacks her boyfriend in a drunken rage after he refused to have sex with her earlier in the day
    Tabatha Lee Grooms, 35, from Augusta, Georgia was taken into custody
    She is accused of hitting Carlos Rodrecus Grace, 30, for refusing sex
    She then viciously punched her mom in her left eye during the attack
    Police said Grooms declined to answer police questions about the fight
    She has been charged with simple battery and family violence and is in jail

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..r-day.html
    One look at that face and I almost threw up. View at your own risk.

    1. That’s just nasty.

    2. “Gollum want that there precious, y’all”

      1. Gollum?! Christ, see looks like one of the orcs or goblins…

    3. Meth’s a hell of a drug.

    4. AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

      I will never be able to unsee that!!!!!!!!

      1. Can’t say I didn’t warn you.

  29. ‘You’re the prettiest girl but I get turned on by someone slimmer’: Woman shames ‘shallow’ Tinder date in open letter after being told she was TOO FAT to fancy

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..fancy.html
    She looks fine to me.

    1. To thick for me. I’d have swiped left.

    2. Oh no! Somebody didn’t like me! I’ll turn it into a national pity party!

    3. I wonder if she’d get any sympathy if the guy had said “You’re the prettiest girl but I get turned on by dick”. You’re not entitled to other people’s lust, you twat. You’re just a chick version of a Nice Guy.

  30. Double-shot of John pron!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..-body.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..ingle.html

    View at your own risk!

    1. From first article–part of a campaign to prove that there is no right or wrong kind of ‘fat’ body

      Mission failed, I’m not sure about “right kind”, but they definitely proved there is a ‘wrong kind’.

  31. “Once-upon-a-time Reason staffer Dave Weigel, currently at Bloomberg, will be re-joining The Washington Post as a political reporter.”

    Well, obviously, they need someone who intuitively understands libertarians to explain us to their progressive readers.

    And who understands progressives more intuitively than The Weigel? They all think we should set ourselves on fire, too!

    1. Well, obviously, they need someone who intuitively understands libertarians to explain us to their progressive readers. want cake.

      FIFY

    2. Weigel is the go-to guy for covering the gun-toting radical racist anti-government right. His colleagues admire his fearless courage.

  32. I was just in the neighborhood of the eastern time zone and thought I’d say hi.

    1. Some of us manage to comment when the sun rises or west

      1. That’ll make more sense when I’ve had more coffee.

        1. or should be out. Swype text via phone fucks things up more than coffee.

      2. I’m usually up early enough, but the links frenzy is usually when I’m showering and driving. If I participate, I’m late for work, but if I wait until I get to work it’s already dying down.

      1. Rochester, NY.

        Going wine tasting in my ancestral homeland of the Finger Lakes in a bit.

        1. Salt potatoes & spiedies! Salt potatoes & spiedies!!

          (spiedies are more south – like, Binghamton, but you may be able to find some)

          1. I was just talking with my aunt who is in town from LA about white hots and salt potatoes.

        2. You probably know what spiedies are, given that it’s your ancestral homeland and all. See my question below re: melatonin. Good thing I don’t have to diagnose any code today.

        3. My uncle has a vineyard up around Rochester somewhere. I don’t know anything more about it than that, but if you see an old Italian named Mike who likes to talk about investing, you may have found him.

  33. Holy shit, that Greece article about why conservatives should root for them is painful:

    “This is just wrong. American conservatives should be able recognize a Tea Party when it happens. And Syriza is just that, a revolt of taxpayers against unbelievably corrupt cronyism in the European Union.”

    The EU is horribly corrupt. Syriza has communists as part of their party. If the Greeks wanted to ‘revolt’ against the cronyism of the EU, they should have done so by electing politicians who agreed not to join. The Greeks loved the corrupt EU in the days of milk and honey when the EU’s alleged stability allowed them to borrow more money than they ever could have borrowed based on their own economy’s fundamentals.

    1. “That’s a sick joke. The creditors are the ones acting without consequence. Essentially, the solution to asset bubbles and debt in Europe has been to abolish risk for multinational banks, by putting all of the debt on the heads of taxpayers in countries along the periphery of the union. In other words, the profits generated by the European Union are internationalized, given to elite bankers no matter how terrible their financial decisions were. The costs of these bad decisions are then nationalized, transferred almost entirely to some insecure country’s taxpayers. First it was Ireland, now it’s Greece.”

      Yes, and they SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS WHEN THEY JOINED THE EU. This problem was actually foreseen by Margaret Thatcher 20 years ago who warned about it and the Greeks cooked their books to join a monetary union anyway.

      1. The author tries to hard to absolve Greece. Both parties are at fault here. I expect the bankers to take a serious haircut, and Greece to go back on the drachma and suffer for a good while.

        The lesson needs to go both ways.

        1. There is certainly a lesson to be learned by the EU. That, lesson, however, does nothing to absolve Greece and really has nothing to do with Greece. The bottom line is that Greece destroyed itself. No one made them run up that debt. Their fate is entirely their own. Whatever mistakes the EU made in giving them the money in no way absolves Greece of its full responsibility for its current condition.

        2. I agree…no generation should be able to strap unborn generations with debt to fund lifestyles (i.e., pensions). Some capital spending might be different…future generations get to use bridges for instance. Lifestyles, no.

          1. Unfortunately unborn generations don’t vote.

        3. Of course, the forgotten man is the European taxpayer that will be backstopping the banks.

          1. The European Parliament at least acknowledged them yesterday as they roasted Tsipras.

            “How can you tell Bulgaria that Greece can’t countenance any further cuts, when in at least five EU countries the standards of living are lower than Greece?”

            http://www.nationalreview.com/…..is-tsipras

  34. So, in last night’s debate about right-to-die legislation, A Serious Man asserted that in any circumstance in which a person wants to end their life due to a medical condition, they will already have a prescription for painkillers which they can use to overdose themselves. That’s just not true. See: degenerative diseases.

    Plus, even if you have the medication, making plans to die in the company of your family and friends probably exposes them to legal liability in some jurisdictions. So, they will have the joy of one day being surprised by your lifeless body, instead of having had a chance to say goodbye.

    1. +1

      People who talk about freedom but are against the right to take your own life set off an automatic flag in my book. The first thing you own is yourself, everything else flows from that.

      1. People who talk about freedom but are against the right to take your own life set off an automatic flag in my book. The first thing you own is yourself, everything else flows from that.

        Agreed. The only “issue” in my mind is what type of consent should be required.

        1. Most of the argument yesterday centered on a doctor’s role in that suicide.

          John and Cyto went full botard.

          /never go full botard

      2. The problem with that is you have to make one’s right to life alienable, and keeping that restricted to certain circumstances will be difficult, if not impossible.

    2. any circumstance in which a person wants to end their life due to a medical condition, they will already have a prescription for painkillers which they can use to overdose themselves

      That might be the single dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever heard in my life, leaving aside how cruel it would be to force somebody to die in violent convulsions from taking crappy drugs for the job, or fuck up the attempt barfing up their pills.

      I’d have given anything in the world to have been able to give my dad a quick morphine overdose to end his suffering rather than give him just enough to mitigate the pain of suffocating to death over the course of a couple hours while he died of respiratory failure (in a fucking ICU, mind you).

      1. PM,

        I am very sympathetic to your desire to end your father’s suffering. If you have the right to kill your father to end his suffering, who else does? I am pretty sure there are a lot of parents of disabled kids who feel the same way and would, though it would be a hard choice, do the same thing given the chance.

        The problem is that if the law says “yes PM you can go ahead and kill your father”, where does it draw the line? And when did the government sanction to kill once given, ever not get out of hand? We start out with cases like yours and it just sounds so compassionate and moral and we end up giving doctors and families the right to kill the unfit or anyone seen as a burden.

        1. In my particular case, he likely could have been wakened from his drug-induced stupor long enough to obtain his consent to such a procedure, and may even have had just enough strength left to do it himself, which he certainly would have if given the chance. A fact he made abundantly clear during his life, and in his medical directive.

          And in any case, no current or proposed law would have authorized me to perform the procedure myself. But, acting as his legally designated medical proxy, I could have had the option of doing so in consultation with his doctor, in the exact same way that I authorized the withdrawal of his medical treatment. The outcome was not in question either way.

          1. Your case really isn’t assisted suicide. Your case is ending treatment. You consult with the doctor and he agrees that the situation is hopeless and consistent with the medical directive you stop treatment.

            These laws go into situations way beyond that. They say your father could have three months earlier, assuming he had a really bad prognosis, and said, “please kill me”. That is a totally different situation.

            1. His case seems to be about not just ending treatment, but going out on his own terms (the father).

            2. These laws go into situations way beyond that. They say your father could have three months earlier, assuming he had a really bad prognosis, and said, “please kill me”.

              The particulars of my dad’s case didn’t involve any lingering terminal illness (he spent a week in the hospital deteriorating from sepsis until he had a massive heart attack, from which he was revived, and spent the next 2 weeks dying of cardiomyopathy and ventilator dependent respiratory failure), but I also have no problem with those cases. Here again, absent medical intervention, the patient is going to die anyway. The only question there should be whether the doctor feels ethically comfortable with providing the drugs and/or administering them.

              On another note, in the absence of substance controls, you wouldn’t need a doctor to dole out suicide drugs, and you could sidestep the issue entirely if the patient were competent and healthy enough to go obtain the drug(s) themselves. The only thing that a prohibition on “medical” suicide does is force patients to use much less compassionate methods to achieve the same ends. Essentially what you’re saying is that taking a one-way walk into the woods with a .357 or suffering for months in a hospital bed are both okay, but taking a slightly different dosage of the drugs you’re already receiving on your deathbed is tantamount to death camps.

              1. +1

              2. No PM. What I am saying is that you taking your own life, by whatever means is something completely different than my taking it, even if you do ask me to do it. You taking your own life does not require the government saying it is okay for some people to take the lives of others. So there is no slippery slope to go down.

                And yes, the problem is the control of drugs. The solution to that problem is end the drug laws not give doctors sanction to murder their patients. There are enormous consequences to that idea that “but my family member is suffering” doesn’t answer.

                It is a shame Bo or Tulpa or whoever the fuck he is showed up to shit all over the thread, because it would be nice to have had a reasoned conversation about this.

                1. John, everyone that is disagreeing with you is saying the same thing as I am, so it’s pretty transparently pathetic you suddenly invoking the ‘oh noe, Bo is Tulpa and he’s pooping on our thread!’

                  1. John, everyone that is disagreeing with you is saying the same thing as I am, so it’s pretty transparently pathetic you suddenly invoking the ‘oh noe, Bo is Tulpa and he’s pooping on our thread!’

                    So true.

                  2. No Bo. We are having a reasonable conversation that you are fucking up. And Jordan is whining about because he is losing. That is about it.

                    1. Keep eliding and tossing John, eliding and tossing. It’s funny at least, and good for everyone to see your inherent statism so unvarnished from time to time.

                2. John,

                  No offense, but you are ignorant of the law you’re disputing. Since I had the privilege of being a Washington State voter when the issue went to referendum, I’m very familiar with the process involved. First, using the term “assisted suicide” is a misnomer with regard to the present US laws on the matter, because the doctor IS NOT permitted to administer drugs. The doctor is only permitted to supply drugs to the patient, which the patient must administer themselves, and even then, only after the patient has consulted with multiple physicians, been given a prognosis of less than 6 months to live, and given written and oral consent multiple times to multiple people. The Oregon law is about equally byzantine.

                  Here in the states, we’re not talking about “physician-assisted suicide” in any meaningful sense of the term. In the absence of drug controls that require a physician to intervene between a patient and a drug supplier, the need for these laws would be obviated.

                  But even if we were talking about actual physician-assisted suicide, I would still disagree with you. There is no “slippery slope” in giving someone without the means to exercise their right to die the ability to permit a proxy to do it for them, any more than there is in giving someone without the means to exercise their medical judgment the right to permit a proxy to act on their behalf (up to and including permitting them to die by withdrawal of treatment).

    3. Sometimes life is hard. Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t necessarioy mean you have the physical or the material ability to do it. The world only owes you the right to do it not the ability. We should not give people the legal sanction to kill. Does that policy have downsides? Sure it does. But every policy has downsides. The issue is which is worse, the pain associated with the few cases you describe or sliding down the slippery slope of state sanctioned murder? Looking at the results in Europe, the choice seems very obvious.

      1. Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t necessarioy mean you have the physical or the material ability to do it.

        Presently you’re not afforded the right, let alone the means. You’re not entitled to the labor or products of anyone else, but absent the legal proscription, I suspect it wouldn’t be prohibitively difficult to find a competent doctor to prescribe and/or administer the right medications to end a human life. And that’s a decision that should be made by the doctor and the patient in accordance with their respective consciences. You’re a fucking fascist.

        1. Two things. First understand that you are never going to get a generalized right to suicide. You may think you should and you may be right but that is not what these bills do and not something that is ever going to happen. What you will get is a right to “assisted suicide” meaning the right to commit suicide if a doctor thinks you are sufficiently sick or worthless. So the result of these laws isn’t going to be an increase in liberty. The result is going to be a generalized dehumanization of the sick and disabled. A healthy person is too valuable to let commit suicide but the sick and disabled can don’t matter and can do what they want. That is not a place we want to go.

          Second, whether the doctor gives you the drugs or shoots them into your arm, he is still a party to your death. And saying he can do that is giving someone the legal sanction to kill. And as I say above, that never ends well.

          1. Bullshit, John. You could use that same goddamn argument to say that nobody should be allowed to sell guns, because someone might use them to kill themselves. Because after all, wouldn’t the gun seller be a party to the death by your standards?

            The laws aren’t about doctors deciding who should die and who should not. The law is about the patient. The patient deciding when they should die is the definition of liberty.

          2. What you will get is a right to “assisted suicide” meaning the right to commit suicide if a doctor thinks you are sufficiently sick or worthless.

            There’s no provision in the proposed laws for the “or worthless” clause. Consent of the patient is required, almost to the point of absurdity. The WA and OR statutes are so byzantine to fully comply with, I’d be surprised if most patients pursuing the option don’t die while they’re waiting for the proper authorization.

            Second, whether the doctor gives you the drugs or shoots them into your arm, he is still a party to your death.

            No more than a gun dealer is party to your death if you blow your brains out with it, in the former case. In the latter case, the functional difference between instructing a doctor to allow you to die of your disease and giving you a drug to accelerate the process is nil. The outcome is already fixed. No doctor should ever be required to do so, but if they are willing to do so with the informed consent of the patient, there’s no excuse for prohibiting that, black helicopters notwithstanding.

            1. No more than a gun dealer is party to your death if you blow your brains out with it,

              Sure but so what? Yeah, if I come to you and say “let me buy a gun I plan to kill myself” and you sell it to me, you are a party to my death. Understand that we are not talking about me buying a gun and then later using it to do something. This is me telling you, ‘give me that so I can do this.”

              Think of it this way. If I came to you and said, “let me borrow you gun, I am going to go home and murder my wife” and you gave it to me knowing that is what I am going to do, you don’t think you bear any responsibility for the death of my wife?

              Just stop it already.

              1. What you need to stop is the total eliding of the different moral calculus in situations with consenting parties and those without (your ‘murder my wife’ analogy).

                1. What you need to stop doing Bo is stop shitting on the threads with all of your illogic and simple mindedness. You are incapable of doing anything beyond crude logic and too stupid and dishonest to get any better. No one is going to engage you. Just go away and let the adults talk.

                  1. John, is today your day to be wrong about absolutely everything?

              2. Well, I’m also of the opinion that the gun dealer in those cases shouldn’t face any criminal liability either, so I think this is just a case of talking past each other. I don’t think it’s the bartenders fault if you go get shitfaced either, regardless of what you do afterwards, even if you told the bartender you were there for the express of getting shitfaced. I’d also be fine with the gun dealer telling you to get the fuck out of his store, or the bartender cutting you off. Responsibility should be personal, not collective.

                1. John would probably require you to go to a judge to see if you really should be allowed all those drinks at the bar. We need some third party due process on these decisions!

                2. Well, I’m also of the opinion that the gun dealer in those cases shouldn’t face any criminal liability either, so I think this is just a case of talking past each other.

                  If I know you are going to use the gun for a crime and I give it to you, that makes me an accessory. Again, we are not talking about me giving you a gun and having no idea what you are going to do with it. This is me giving it to you for the purpose of enabling you to commit a crime. That makes me an accessory and always has and should. Your bartender analogy doesn’t work. He doesn’t know you are going to drive. We are talking about very specific knowledge here, not “oh I sold you or gave you something that you later used in a crime”.

                  You are confusing the issue, which is understandable given that Bo is shitting all over the thread and making the conversation so hard.

                  1. Pathetic, as he’s making the same points and analogies I’m making. That’s hardly surprising because they come readily to mind to a non-statist.

                    “use the gun for a crime”

                    The question begging is pretty incredible.

          3. My grandmother, who died Thursday, just went through this. Fuck you and your “sympathy,” John.

            1. Yeah CN, we make policy and big decision based on the emotional pleas of grieving relatives. That is totally a great way to run a railroad.

              I guess if she had been killed by a drunk driver and you wanted to shoot anyone caught drinking and driving we should do that too.

              1. John, If your principles result in monstrous consequences, you need to rethink them. That is the difference between being a reasonable human being and being a fanatic.

        2. You want to make the right to life alienable. Good luck keeping that genie contained once you let it out of the bottle.

      2. “The world only owes you the right to do it not the ability.”

        And why then do I not have the right to ask someone else to administer a lethal dose of morphine in the event that I cannot do so myself? This is a bizarre argument.

        “The issue is which is worse, the pain associated with the few cases you describe or sliding down the slippery slope of state sanctioned murder? Looking at the results in Europe, the choice seems very obvious.”

        You’ll have to explain to me how it is state sanctioned murder if the person requests that they die. It is state sanctioned suicide.

        1. Sure you can. But they are killing you. And last I looked killing someone was a crime. So in order for them to say yes, the government has to say “yes in some circumstances it is okay to kill someone”. Good luck with that.

          1. So in order for them to say yes, the government has to say “yes in some circumstances it is okay to kill someone”.

            Um, they already say that.

            1. Only in self defense or the death penalty. This is not self defense. And the death penalty is only administered after years of due process, not the word of the person doing the killing that the victim consented.

              This is something totally different.

              1. not the word of the person doing the killing that the victim consented.

                It’s not currently the case in any legal assisted suicide law that the doctor’s word is sufficient to authorize the killing of the patient. You don’t have to take the doctor’s word for it, you can consult the dozens of layers of documented consent the patient is required to give. You’re substituting your hysterical imaginings for the actual state of the law.

                1. It’s not currently the case in any legal assisted suicide law that the doctor’s word is sufficient to authorize the killing of the patient. You don’t have to take the doctor’s word for it, you can consult the dozens of layers of documented consent the patient is required to give.

                  So. That is still not the same as the due process associated with a shop lifting case much less a death penalty case. In fact, it is not due process at all. I don’t care how many papers you have to sign, that is not the same as an objective third party fact finder determining the person is competent and not being coerced.

                  I don’t care how many bibles and notaries you line up, there is no way in hell this won’t get out of hand. It has gotten out of hand every single place it has ever been done. You sound like a fucking Prog. This time it will be different. We have layers of forms!!

                  1. Wow, you really have no clue about the law you’re denouncing.

                    1. The requirements for this are more stringent for that of wills John. The patient has to make the request orally and written in front of two witnesses, and then to his doctor and another physician, and then *again* 15 days later. Then remember all that happens is the doctor gives him the prescription for pills that he can decide (or not) to take.

                      Your take is incredibly statist at heart, that the guy should appear before a judge and what, plead his case that he really, really wants to do this and the judge should decide if he really does and should be allowed to? There’s a saying about slavers around here that comes to mind right now.

                    2. Your take is incredibly statist at heart, that the guy should appear before a judge and what,

                      Yeah, it is real statist of me to think that perhaps people shouldn’t be killed without some kind of due process.

                      If you are going to be stupid and mendacious, could you at least be funny like shreek?

                    3. The person is not ‘killed’ John, the doctor gives them a prescription. Some take it, some don’t. Apart from your statist philosophy you don’t even have the basic facts down, as has been pointed out several times by several people here by now. That you keep repeating your line is what’s truly stupid and/or mendacious at this point.

                    4. John, I can’t believe you’re being so fucking retarded here that you’re putting me and Bo on the same side. Can you seriously not differentiate due process for a criminal being killed against his will and taking the express word of a patient to end his life? There’s no “due process” involved, because there is no one on trial! Same reason you don’t have to go get a judge to sign off on a DNR.

                    5. It’s just that my pooping on the thread has upset him so PM!

                    6. Can you seriously not differentiate due process for a criminal being killed against his will

                      You are assuming that the person is actually consenting. We don’t know that. The problem is what do you do in a case where the person isn’t competent or is being coerced or didn’t even consent at all? In those cases, it is murder. Well, how do we know that?

                      The problem is that you are being as simple minded as Bo here and missing the deeper issue. You assume that every case involves perfect consent. That is not the problem. The problem is every case doesn’t and we have to make sure that the people who are being coerced or are unable to consent are protected. So it is a due process issue.

                      I don’t know how else to explain it. But I know you are smarter than Bo, so I think you should understand though he certainly won’t.

                    7. See how he totally elides your point about the DNR?

                    8. You are assuming that the person is actually consenting. We don’t know that.

                      We do when they tell us. There is no “assisted suicide” statute that doesn’t require express consent of the patient. There is no other situation where the express consent of the patient would not be adequate to carry out their wishes. You want to build in an exception here where we presume that everyone is lying and must “prove” in a court of law their personal feelings, as if that were even possible.

                    9. We do when they tell us. There is no “assisted suicide” statute that doesn’t require express consent of the patient. T

                      Consent, no matter how “express” is not valid if the person is coerced into giving it or lacks the state of mind to understand what they are doing. All you are giving me is a stack of papers and bibles saying it was okay to murder someone. That is nice and all, but the bottom line is they are dead and we only have your word and some papers to know if it is good enough.

                      You are just begging the question and assuming the consent was valid.

                    10. It’s not begging the question to presume that several layers of consent are valid. It’s begging the question to presume in the face of all evidence that those several layers of consent are not valid. There is literally no other area of law where consent is treated that way, and if it were, you would rightly be in conniptions over it, because it would be absurd. You don’t have to have a criminal every time someone enters a contract, or makes a will, or makes a medical directive, or refuses medical care. This is absolutely no different, no matter how much you want to abuse reality to try and carve out an exception for it.

                    11. *don’t have to have a criminal trial

                    12. It’s begging the question to presume in the face of all evidence that those several layers of consent are not valid.

                      You are begging the question because you assume those layers are valid. If you trust paperwork that much, why not start sending people to jail based on paperwork alone? Why not dispense with a trial and just let some top man look at the evidence and decide the truth? That is what you are arguing here.

                    13. I guess you’re not real familiar with written confessions and guilty pleas? You do realize that a trial is dispensed with in those cases, right? Because we, you know, take the word of the defendant. And here again, there’s a key difference: we conduct trials to find guilt, not to torture sick people to satisfy your conscience as to their true feelings. You don’t need Jack Bauer to take the rubber hose to grandma to make sure that the three doctors to whom she had to give written and oral consent more than once, and on separate occasions, didn’t conspire to set her up to save Medicare a few bucks or to profit her layabout son in law. If you don’t trust multiple written consents, then you don’t believe in any form of contract law. Here again, this is NEVER an issue in ANY other case. If anybody was suggesting what you’re suggesting with regard to any other type of legal consent you would rightly denounce them as ignorance nutcases. You’re just married to this moral bugaboo with such devotion that you want to find an exception where none exists.

                    14. guess you’re not real familiar with written confessions and guilty pleas?

                      Sure I am. And the person has to actually be there and under oath and the judge can question him to make sure the person is actually guilty.

                      No one goes to jail on paperwork alone. Stop it. Or tell Bo to stop hacking your account.

                    15. If all you want is the formality of dragging a dying patient into a court room so that a judge can rubberstamp their consent in the same way that they do a guilty plea in a criminal trial, I’d be willing to indulge it at the expense of thinking you’re an asshole for requiring it of them. Other than inconveniencing people who are already suffering and infantilizing them beyond the point that the current law already does, I don’t think it would make one iota of difference.

                  2. Also:

                    I don’t care how many bibles and notaries you line up, there is no way in hell this won’t get out of hand. It has gotten out of hand every single place it has ever been done.

                    75 or so people a year in Oregon take advantage of the state’s “assisted suicide” law. 700 or so people a year in Oregon kill themselves otherwise. Can you point out which of these cases was a travesty of justice?

                    1. 75 or so people a year in Oregon take advantage of the state’s “assisted suicide” law. 700 or so people a year in Oregon kill themselves otherwise. Can you point out which of these cases was a travesty of justice?

                      They have only done it for a while. And do you have any evidence none of them are? You are awfully cavalier with other people’s lives. Imagine if Obama said “drone strikes resulted in the deaths of 75 people, do you have any evidence any of those people were not terrorists”. Would you find that burden shifting acceptable? I think not so why do you do it here.

                      And in the Netherlands they started with ‘kill the sick’ and it is now “kill the depressed’

                      http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..ssion.html

                    2. So you don’t know the difference between physician assisted suicide and euthanasia as practiced by the Dutch and OR/WA. Let’s add that to the list.

                    3. And in the Netherlands they started with ‘kill the sick’ and it is now “kill the depressed’

                      No, they started with “allow the sick to obtain drugs to kill themselves” and it is now “allow the depressed to obtain drugs to kill themselves”. There is nothing objectionable about that. Anybody ought to be free to obtain those drugs. There is no evidence in that article of people being murdered.

                    4. Notice how time and time again it’s pointed out to him that it involves a doctor giving a prescription to a patient that the patient can decide to use *or not* yet he continues to repeatedly elide and not acknowledge that fact and go on using the term ‘killing,’ ‘killing’, ‘killing.’ At this point it’s hard to tell if there was ever anything but mendacious trolling going on for him.

                    5. Imagine if Obama said “drone strikes resulted in the deaths of 75 people, do you have any evidence any of those people were not terrorists”

                      I’m not asking you to prove a negative, you’re the one who introduced the hypothetical. I’m content to assume that the people who asked their doctor for suicide drugs in accordance with the burdensome regulations of the Oregon law probably wanted to die, in the same way I’m content to assume that the 9/11 hijackers who flew planes into buildings were probably terrorists. This is only ambiguous in your mind, where no one can be trusted to convey their true feelings when the topic is the ending of their life. Given that mindset, I’m baffled how you feel any patient is competent to direct *any* of their end of life medical treatment, including withdrawal of care or DNR orders.

                      (cont’d)

                    6. The Oregon law predates the Netherlands law, btw, and so far doesn’t seem to have devolved into state-mandated death camps. FWIW, as someone with a family history of depression, I also wouldn’t be morally offended by depressed people offing themselves by whatever means they wish (including doctor-provided pharmaceuticals, if they can find a compliant doctor). If your doomsday scenario of state-mandated, state-enforced, coerced killing of the infirm ever unfolds, I’ll be right there on the front lines with you calling for the overthrow of the state itself. But until there’s any evidence that’s happening, I’m happy to allow people to get access to drugs to kill themselves through a doctor when they ask for it repeatedly in writing (which, again, shouldn’t even be necessary).

                    7. That is awfully nice of you to agree to try and undo the damage after it is done. I am sure the people who are murdered thanks to this would appreciate that if they were not dead.

                      Again, you sound like a socialist. Just because socialism has failed horribly in every other case, doesn’t mean it won’t work this time. And if it doesn’t, you will be right there to help.

                    8. That is awfully nice of you to agree to try and undo the damage after it is done. I am sure the people who are murdered thanks to this would appreciate that if they were not dead.

                      Being hypothetical and imaginary, it’s hard to gauge precisely how they’d feel I guess. I’m sure the very much real people suffering through months of painful terminal illnesses are equally thankful to you for the mercy you extended to the hypothetical imaginary victims of government death squads by dictating the terms of their death to them.

                      Just because socialism has failed horribly in every other case, doesn’t mean it won’t work this time.

                      You’ve still yet to demonstrate in what way “assisted suicide” laws have “failed”. Your overactive imagination sees a greedy nephew or Medicare functionary robo-signing consent forms (after consultation with multiple doctors, in compliance with the law) for all of the whopping 75 people who opt to get a prescription that doesn’t need to be refilled, but you haven’t actually shown any instance where this is the case.

          2. “”yes in some circumstances it is okay to kill someone”.”

            In the circumstances where all parties are acting voluntarily, well, yeah.

            If we legalized drugs then the government would, in some circumstances, be saying it is OK to take drugs. etc.

            1. If we legalize BDSM practices the government would be saying it’s ok to assault people in some circumstances!

              1. Boxing should be banned as well.

                1. Like most statists John doesn’t see anything that special about consent. It doesn’t change anything!

                  1. It takes a village to give consent, obviously.

                    1. Yeah Jordan. Giving people the right to kill someone is just no big deal. You people are like trained seals. Just put the right buzzwords in front of you and you will bark. You refuse to see that once someone helps you die, it is no longer just your right to die it is also their right to kill you. You are arguing for the right to murder just so long as the victim consents. And the same people who rightfully see a slippery slope around every corner, somehow can’t understand how the government saying it is okay for doctors to kill their patients could ever get out of hand.

                      It is just another example of how all people of all ideologies can be stupid.

                    2. For the love of Pete, the doctor just writes the person a prescription John!

                      At this point its’ just mendacity.

                    3. Fuck off Bo. Seriously fuck off. All you are doing is shitting on the threads. My giving you a gun knowing you are going to use it to murder someone makes me an accessory to the crime. I hope to God you are not actually in law school or if you are you are flunking out, because you are quite literal the dumbest law student I have ever seen.

                    4. You can see John stopped long ago even attempting to rebut. He’s stepped in it now, and ad hominen is all he’s got.

                    5. John, do you notice how Bo no longer replies to my comments? Notice how my branches on the comment tree are remarkably Bo free?

                      It’s because I ruthlessly refuse to read anything she writes or interact with her in any way.

                      It’s actually quite easy. Just refuse to acknowledge she exists, and she wanders off to trouble some other poor sap.

                      She will never honor any request to “fuck off”. She is too impolite and inconsiderate of others. But if you refuse to interact with her, she will not get the pleasure she derives from being a mendacious cunt from writing at you, and will turn her attention to people who will pleasure her.

                    6. The little homophobia from our resident ‘anarchist-international law stickler’ is especially sweet

                    7. You are arguing for the right to murder just so long as the victim consents.

                      Similar to the “can you sell yourself into slavery?” conundrum, the consent of the “victim” means that, by definition, no murder is taking place.

                    8. You’re wasting your time PM, John doesn’t get the moral import of consent at all.

                    9. Similar to the “can you sell yourself into slavery?” conundrum, the consent of the “victim” means that, by definition, no murder is taking place.

                      No, you can’t sell yourself into slavery because you can as a human being always revoke your consent. And if you can revoke your consent, you are not a slave. If you say that you can sell yourself into slavery such that you can’t revoke your consent, then you are saying that you can make yourself no longer a human being, since every human being has the right to revoke their consent to something. And you cannot change what you are.

                    10. You’re not free to revoke your consent when doing so violates a legal agreement, at least not without penalty. Your response here pretty much sums up the issue for you though. You don’t believe consent exists unless it can be reneged on. Death being irreversible as it is, obviously that would be impossible. I don’t share that outlook.

                    11. You’re not free to revoke your consent when doing so violates a legal agreement, at least not without penalty.

                      Then you don’t think people have inalienable rights. There is nothing special about a “legal agreement”. If they can sell themselves into slavery by contact, they can sell themselves into slavery by Constitution or election too. If the entire country voted to end the right to due process, would you think that every person who voted for it no longer has the right? They voted for it and agreed to it didn’t they? Not the people who objected but the ones who supported it.

                      Inalienable means “nontransferable” or “incapable of being repudiated”. So PM, either change your position or admit you don’t believe in inalienable rights.

                    12. “Then you don’t think people have inalienable rights. ”

                      So all you’ve done today, in classic troll fashion, is ignored and dodged any counter-analogies people have brought up, but in case you’re not totally trolling today, how do your view here apply to the right to refuse treatment, John? You can’t revoke that one after you invoke it successfully either.

                    13. Inalienable means “nontransferable” or “incapable of being repudiated”. So PM, either change your position or admit you don’t believe in inalienable rights.

                      By your logically contorted definition whereby a simple employment contract or confidentiality agreement would constitute a total and complete violation of one’s “inalienable rights”, you’d be correct to say that I don’t believe in “inalienable rights”. By any standard definition though, I do believe in inalienable rights. Most especially the inalienable right to one’s life, and the corresponding ability to dispose of it in whatever way one sees fit, up to and including taking a handful of pills, which by legal necessity (for inexplicable reasons) must be provided by a doctor.

                    14. PM,

                      Those contracts would, if breaking them sent me to jail. I can always break those contracts. I won’t go to jail or be punished. I would just have to compensate you for any damage my breaking them did.

                      You neither understand the definition of the term nor understand what a contract is and how it is different than slavery.

                      Stop listening to Bo. He is making you stupid.

                    15. I never suggested violating a contract would send you to jail (not directly, anyway). If you’re going to skip any substantive analysis and just insult me, at least take the 5 seconds to read what I wrote – it was neither lengthy nor complex.

                      The slave contract has been a fun libertarian thought experiment since time immemorial. It’s barely even tangentially related to what we were discussing. The TL;DR version is: if you don’t believe you can consent to anything permanent (which you explicitly stated you don’t), then obviously your conclusion on the issue of assisted suicide is predetermined. Easy peasy. I don’t share your premise.

                    16. I never suggested violating a contract would send you to jail (not directly, anyway).

                      If the contract doesn’t force you to remain a slave, then it is not a slave contract. I am not a slave if I can leave.

                    17. “since every human being has the right to revoke their consent to something”

                      Not a fan of marriage vows I guess.

      3. “The world only owes you the right to do it not the ability.”

        The world owes you the right to contract with someone else to do that, surely.

        1. No more than it owes you the right to sell yourself into slavery. Depends on whether you believe all rights are subject to contract, or that some are inalienable.

          1. Thank you. That is exactly the point. And further, once you involve another person, it is not just your right to be a slave or die it is also the other person’s right to enslave you or kill you.

            1. More mendacity, the doctor doesn’t ‘kill’ you by writing you a prescription that you can take or not. There’s progressives that would blush with that vague notion of causation.

              The slavery analogy also fails, because an inalienable right is one that cannot be taken away from the possessor by another. That doesn’t apply to the decision to end your life, because as long as you made the decision it’s final and irrevocable in that your life is over while with slavery you remain alive and able and empowered to revoke the initial decision.

    4. Plus, who even cares about all of those arguments? If you want to kill yourself because you’re sick, the government should not put any hurdles in your way. Basic individual freedom means the right to die.

      1. This, of course. But even on the particulars of current assisted suicide laws, John is wrong here.

      2. The problem with that is once you get someone to do it for you, it is no longer just your right to die. It is also their right to kill you. That is what you people refuse to understand.

        1. “you people”

          lol

        2. It is also their right to kill you.

          Which does exist…. unless you think that self-defense isn’t a justifiable homicide. It’s not unprecedented to have a right to kill somebody.

          1. Sure it exists but this isn’t self defense. Self defense is self preservation.

    5. …Well this is another embarrassing moment in commenting history.

  35. With selfie-related deaths on the rise in Russia, the government has released a “safe selfie guide” to “warn citizens against undue risk for a memorable picture.”

    Is “stop being a bunch of drunks” #1?

    1. Is “stop being a bunch of drunks” #1?

      Kristen! Do you realize the diluting effect of mixing in such unrealistic suggestions into the guide? The Russians will ignore the whole thing, rather than skipping forward to the things they are realistically capable of doing.

  36. Disney to produce stand-alone Han Solo origin movie

    The first film in the new Star Wars franchise isn’t even out yet, and already details are emerging about more of them.

    On Tuesday, The Hollywood Reporter wrote that Christopher Miller and Phil Lord, the duo that directed The Lego Movie, are working on a Han Solo origin film set to be released in 2018 as part of the Star Wars anthology series.

    Disney, which bought LucasFilm in 2012 for $4 billion, confirmed the movie, in a statement with comments from the directors: “We pledge ourselves to be faithful stewards of these characters who mean so much to us,” said Miller and Lord.

    The Han Solo movie will be part of a standalone anthology series, the first of which, Rogue One, comes out in 2016. Separately, the first film in the new trilogy, Episode VII: The Force Awakens, comes out in December of this year.

    They should really Abrams-it up with a time travel plot so they can needlessly shove Harrison Ford into it.

    1. Is Hayden Christensen free? What about Taylor Kitsch?

    2. Why don’t they do a Bobba Fett one? they could talk about the origins of his father? Why hasn’t this been done, you could also throw in a funny talking lama for the kids.

      1. They are doing a Boba Fett movie. Josh Trank was set to direct it, then dropped out, but presumably they’re looking for a new director to take it on.

  37. I don’t remember seeing this on Reason last month, and I don’t see it in the FBI tagged articles:

    FBI behind mysterious surveillance aircraft over US cities

    The FBI is operating a small air force with scores of low-flying planes across the country carrying video and, at times, cellphone surveillance technology ? all hidden behind fictitious companies that are fronts for the government, The Associated Press has learned.

    The FBI asked the AP not to disclose the names of the fake companies it uncovered, saying that would saddle taxpayers with the expense of creating new cover companies to shield the government’s involvement, and could endanger the planes and integrity of the surveillance missions. The AP declined the FBI’s request because the companies’ names ? as well as common addresses linked to the Justice Department ? are listed on public documents and in government databases.

    1. Maybe the tinfoil hatters weren’t so far off.

  38. Screens are killing teh children

    Texting looms as the next national epidemic, with half of teenagers sending 50 or more text messages a day and those aged 13 through 17 averaging 3,364 texts a month, Amanda Lenhart of the Pew Research Center found in a 2012 study. An earlier Pew study found that teenagers send an average of 34 texts a night after they get into bed, adding to the sleep deprivation so common and harmful to them. And as Ms. Hatch pointed out, “as children have more of their communication through electronic media, and less of it face to face, they begin to feel more lonely and depressed.”

    1. Talking pictures are going to be the death of this country.

      Although I join the Old White Man Brigade in lamenting the effect its having on spelling and grammar.

      1. I try not to be a grammar nazi, but when I read something my niece wrote in the 8th grade I wept.

        Then again, is that texting/screen time or shitty public schools?

        1. Children are very capable of understanding “different styles for different applications.” Hell, we learned print and cursive, and when to use each. I blame the shitty schools.

      2. Texting 24 year old girls does kill my brain cells. At least until I manage to get nudes outta the deal.

        1. I’m 24 and don’t have the patience. I would rather just sleep with them.

        2. Seems like a lot of work for what you can get out of a google search.

  39. I have a couple of unrelated questions (unrelated to libertarianism, ass sex,, Mexicans and cocktails; and unrelated to each other)

    Question the first: melatonin? I’m trying to sleep without drug inducement (as in, diphenhydramine). It’s not working well because it’s summer and summer is Satan’s revenge on us all and I can’t sleep.

    Question B: can any of you cunning linguists recommend a non-academic, non-Bill Bryson book on the development of language? I’m interested in the topic from a genetic and geographical point of view. Like, how/why did language develop, and how did it spread, and how are different languages related to each other. I find Bryson’s book on the English language to be ridiculously non-factual.

    1. HM should be able to help with question B. I believe everyone else here addresses question A with alcoholism.

      1. Or weed.

        1. Deep dish and squatting.

        2. That’s one of the things I’m letting go. I’m trying to reduce the things in my life that may be making me fat.

          1. Giving up on your romantic hopes for John?

            1. I guess, especially since I already have a father and am not in the market for another. 😉

              1. I’ve managed to find many a woman who enjoys dating older men. That said, I’m not really that old.

                1. Pretty sure he’s actually younger than I am. It’s more his personality I’m talking about.

              2. I am pretty sure we are about the same age Kristen. I am always nice to you. Why are you insulting me?

                And by the way, word is you are already fat.

    2. Melatonin works. Sometimes I’ve had to take two to knock me out, but it invariably stops my insomnia within an hour.

      Vol 1 of Larry Gonick’s Cartoon History of the Universe is pretty funny and has a great bibliography in the back.

      1. Taking it a bunch of nights in a row can sometimes cause you to start sleeping not so good again, though. You do build up a tolerance. For me, it works best as a way to get my circadian rhythms back on track, not so much keep them there.

        1. Agree with this one. Shoot for one night a week. Two wont really do any harm. But ff you take it all the time though you’ll need it for sleep.

          I’ve never had any side effects from single uses though. Just made me sleepy at the correct time.

    3. (as in, diphenhydramine)

      just mix it into the Jello-brand pudding. She’ll never know. /Cos

    4. Melatonin works for some people but not others. For me, if I take some melatonin it will make me drowsy in about 20 minutes and I seem to sleep pretty well on it for times when I am having insomnia. It may not work for you but it’s definitely worth a try.

    5. The best linguistics book for the popular reader is this

      http://www.amazon.com/Empires-…..+languages

    6. I use 9mg of Melatonin a night – it doesn’t make me sleep all the way through the night, but it does help.

      Buy a bottle of 3mg pills and try a dose of 3 or 6mg first… and then bump it up if it doesn’t work.

    7. People I know love melatonin but take very low doses. I skew towards valerian or kava as my sleep troubles are mostly anxiety/ruminating related.

    8. “I’m interested in the topic from a genetic and geographical point of view. Like, how/why did language develop, and how did it spread, and how are different languages related to each other.”

      More related to the written word, but a very good read:
      “Alphabeta”, John Man
      (and I see Amazon is out of stock)

      1. Now I see only one of Amazon’s suppliers is out of stock.
        Let’s see if the link shrinks:
        http://www.amazon.com/Alpha-Be…..,+John+Man

    9. Q First: As a large guy (6’1″ 290lbs) who used to be 80lbs skinnier, I find it much harder to fall asleep now than I did when I was in shape at 205lbs. Now it’s all about managing the few hours before bed so that i’m in the best position to sleep. I find that walking or doing some other outdoor activity at 6 or 7 pm helps a ton! It doesn’t have to be much, but I have to be moving for about 30 minutes, and it has to be outside. If I eat anything fried/oily/greasy after 5pm, I guarantee that I’ll have a hard time getting to sleep. In fact, any large dinner sends my body the wrong message. I try to bias my meals toward a light breakfast, heavy lunch, and light dinner.

      Regarding melatonin: I try to avoid stuff like that because it’s a bandaid on a bullet wound. It’s great for that night that you NEED to get to sleep, but you’re just patching over the real issue, which is that your metabolism is out of whack. As you begin to re-regulate your metabolism, you shouldn’t need melatonin.

      Disclaimer: I’m not a doctor, or anything remotely resembling a doctor. I’m a (soon to be) lawyer and an engineer who suffers from sits-all-day-itis and struggles to fall/stay asleep at times.

  40. Once-upon-a-time Reason staffer Dave Weigel, currently at Bloomberg, will be re-joining The Washington Post as a political reporter.

    they must have a butt that needs plugging.

    1. I guess his beclowning of himself on journolist has been forgiven.

      1. The Journolist issue wasn’t the problem for the WaPo, getting caught was the problem. I guess they figure it has sufficiently blown over.

      2. Is there such a shortage of shitty journalists that Weigel can still get a job?

  41. Did anyone else see Slate’s hilarious article about how a Texas Court striking down a law requiring people to take 750 hours of training to engage in eyebrow threading is going to kill lots of people? It’s like a mad lib of mindless, regulatory state cliches:

    “hreading eyebrows can be a dangerous business. Without proper sanitation, threading?a form of hair removal that uses thin strings to shape eyebrows?can spread highly contagious bacterial and viral infections, including flat warts, pink eye, ringworm, and staph. For that reason, Texas required threaders to undergo 750 hours of training in order to practice their craft professionally, the same amount of training that other cosmetology specialists must receive.”

    That’s 31 days of training to teach people to use basic sanitation. This should take like a week.

    Also, the article is actually called ‘Texas is about to get even more dangerous.’ Even more. That Texas, man, it’s like Pol Pot’s killing fields.

    1. It is impressive that I manage to shave every most mornings and not kill myself.

      1. Razors are known to cut flesh, and the neck area has several arteries that, if opened, can prove fatal in a matter of seconds. You need at least 1200 hours of training to make sure you avoid slitting your own goddamn throat.

    2. This should take like an week hour.

      Srsly. I’m the world’s biggest slob, but I don’t need more than an hour to be taught how to use clean threads and discard old ones.

    3. [The court] granted itself the power to strike down any health and safety laws it deems “oppressive.”

      Do these people really think judges don’t have a prerogative to strike down unlawful statutes? If the government had a policy of murdering people in groups X, Y and Z, would they have to “grant themselves” the power to deem those acts unlawful? God damn it progressives are so fucking stupid and disingenuous that it actually hurts.

    4. It never occurred to the writer that cosmetology’s 750 hour training requirement does not equate to lives saved or superior product.

    5. Texas is also where a lot of abortion clinics closed in the face of new health and sanitation regulations, right? Wild guess: the author doesn’t think that was rational, considered legislative action.

  42. Conservatives should root for Greece? REALLY? An out of control socialist government makes promises it can’t keep, borrows money it can’t and won’t pay back; then hurls insults at those that lent them the money. On top of that demands another 30 billion while they consider if they want to change thier lifestyle a little. Someone should explain to the world that Socialism does not work. And why is everyone focused on Greece when each citizen only owes 25,000 in national debt. We Americans each owe 48,500 in national debt. Now that is real news

  43. “Greek debt was not forgiven, and in fact it has been made worse in the last five years, despite some insufficient creditor haircuts in between.”

    *cough* WHAT?
    It was not “forgiven”, but ‘creditors got haircuts’?
    If the Greeks want to ‘revolt against the EU’, they can simply turn around and leave. By now, the markets are discounting remaining Greek debt as sunk costs.
    Let’s not try to turn a tantrum into a debate; the Greeks are simply screaming at Mommy for more money.
    Wear boots when reading that pile, or your feet will stink later.

  44. And no schadenfreude for Ellen Pao?

    “Reddit previously shut down some of its pages, including one titled “Fat People Hate,” for violating its harassment rules. The company struggled to convince users it was merely “banning behavior, not ideas,” as many viewed it as a step that crossed the censorship line.
    […]
    “I mean it when I say we screwed up, and we want to have a meaningful ongoing discussion,” Pao’s apology continued”
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money…..=ansCNBC11

    Hmmm. Think that might be the royal “we”?

    1. If anyone is ever not sure what “bitch face” is, read this article.

      1. In her case it is “incompetent bitch face”.

        1. Hey, we need to cut her some slack! She IS trying to promote (snicker) Social Justice (ha, hah, hah) after all (HAH, HAH, HAH, snurkle….my RIBS hurt….)

          1. Funny how Social Justice suddenly became less important when supporting it required her to lose her job and salary. Ellen really cares right up until doing so requires her to put her sorry ass on the line.

    2. That makes my day. These people can be stopped. You just have to stand up to them.

      1. Just like those bullies who dared to burn a flag in the proximity of a violent biker gang.

    3. I just realized that the only time I ever go to redditt is when someone interesting is doing an AMA.

      Does anybody here hang out there too? What do they have that’s interesting?

      1. I’ve been to reddit maybe 10 times ever. If I wanted to watch a bunch of teenagers verbally spar about [insert bullshit topic of the day], I’d spend more time there. Supposedly some of the sub-reddits are really interesting, but I always found the SNR (signal-to-noise ratio) to be entirely too low for my enjoyment.

  45. Once-upon-a-time Reason staffer Worthless human stain Dave Weigel

  46. Paul Deen in trouble again because her son did “brownface” to be Ricky Ricardo for an I Love Lucy theme

    Seriously, people are outraged by this?

    Nobody is outraged when Dave Chappelle, Key & Peele, or the Wayans brothers do whiteface and make fun of white people (I think they are funny and do not offend me). But there is outrage over this? Ridiculous double standards

    1. Isn’t every woman with a spray-tan doing brown-face?

      1. More like Orange face

        1. You’re going to make John Boehner cry.

        2. Doing the Boehner.

  47. “Once-upon-a-time Reason staffer Dave Weigel, currently at Bloomberg, will be re-joining The Washington Post as a political reporter. “

    Who?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.