A.M. Links: U.N. Approves Iran Nuclear Deal, New Poll Shows Support for SCOTUS Term Limits, Federal Judge Blasts State Department Over Hillary Clinton Records

|

  • Credit: Library of Congress

    The U.N. Security Council has approved the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran.

  • North Korea says it has no interest in reaching an Iran-style nuclear deal with the U.S.
  • According to a new poll, a majority of Americans say they support 10-year term limits for Supreme Court justices.
  • "FBI agents have found evidence that Chattanooga shooter Mohammod Abulazeez was following a radical American member of al Qaeda online in 2013, as well as pages of writing that showed the young man was suicidal and looking for a way to absolve what he considered were his sins, according to a representative of Abdulazeez's family."
  • U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon had sharp words for the State Department over its handling of Freedom of Information Act requests pertaining to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. "I want to find out what's been going on over there. I should say, what's not been going on over there," the judge said. "The State Department, for reasons known only to itself … has been, to say the least, recalcitrant in responding."
  • Fun Fact: In 1990 the National Rifle Association backed socialist Bernie Sanders over the incumbent Republican in the race for Vermont's seat in the House of Representatives.

New at Reason

Brickbat: School Days 
by Charles Oliver

It's Time We Learned from Sin Taxes' Impressive History of Failure
Advocates of new sin taxes would prefer to repeat same mistakes.
By J.D. Tuccille

San Francisco's Private Police Force
The City by the Bay has a second, private police force…with a better record than the government cops.
By Edward Stringham

Privatizing Marriage Is a Terrible Idea
It won't end the culture war but will lead to even more government interference in families.
By Shikha Dalmia

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

NEXT: The Unbearable Smugness of John Kasich

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. North Korea says it has no interest in reaching an Iran-style nuclear deal with the U.S.

    Just reaching the U.S. with a nuke?

    1. Hello.

    2. More like Tokyo

  2. 74) Thinking about the spacecraft out past Pluto, and the new funding for the search for ET life, I’m reminded how little humanity really knows about?well, anything. We’re just at the beginning. I mean, Semmelweis didn’t figure out doctors should wash their hands until 1847! We still don’t know if cholesterol, caffeine, different fats and vitamins, various bacteria, etc., are good or bad for you or in what amounts. It’s amazing to me how much of medicine is really only guesswork, or how medicines interact, and as for how our brains work we know really practically nothing beyond the very basics. And that’s for our own bodies, and what we know about our planet is hardly greater. Our knowledge of the core of the earth is scanty and the more I hear about global warming the more I realize we know next to nothing about climatology. Even in our own societies we know little about the causes of crime, inflation, the business cycle, how to order our governments. Everybody thinks they know, but nobody knows enough to convince anybody else. As for beyond earth, we can barely survive in outer space environments, our ability to propel ourselves around our solar system is slow, unsafe, and primitive. It’s just last week that we even have good pictures of all the major bodies in our own solar system, we’re only beginning to assemble decent star maps. If we do encounter extraterrestials, they will consider us to be mere infants.

    1. SO it is sermonized, so it shall be written….

    2. “We still don’t know if cholesterol, caffeine, different fats and vitamins, various bacteria, etc., are good or bad for you”

      Bloomberg disagrees.

    3. Inflation is caused by printing money.

      1. Inflation is printing of money.

      2. So you’re saying we should rely solely on coinage?

        1. Make the strip clubs more interesting.

        2. “So you’re saying we should rely solely on coinage?”

          I’d rather discuss Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

          It’s safer.

          Additionally, I think that “Zwicky”” is a great name.

          1. Dark matter? Dark energy?

            You’re talking Racist Nazi Physics!

        3. No, you can inflate coinage as well be debasing the precious metal content.

      3. The value of the currency is roughly what it can get you divided by how much of it there is. Inflation can come from an increase in the denominator (print more money) or a decrease in the numerator (less productive activity being done in that currency). The latter is how currencies can lose value faster than the central bank’s printing alone would seem to indicate, e.g. in Zimbabwe or Venezuela.

    4. Humility is an important virtue. Climatologists, astrophysicists, and CAGW acolytes could use some.

      1. But then we wouldn’t be entertained with articles about Greenland melting, water 8ft high and rising, and the hottest year on record (or in history, whatever they like to use these days).

    5. Speaking of New Horizons and new funding for the search for ET, if the Panspermia hypothesis is true, if the building blocks for life, or perhaps very primitive life itself evolves first in space, and then latter is seeded on planets life Earth, then our entire solar system might be covered in very primitive microbial life, and we can’t even see it. Every celestrial body that is even remotely habitiable might have life on it this very moment, Mars, Europa, Callisto, even the tidal forces between Charon and Pluto could warm the icy interiors of those bodies, making them a home for life.

      How stunning would it be to find out that not only other life exists out there, but it was everywhere all around us, and we were blind to it?

      Hell anyone familiar with the Viking lander knows that some of the scientists that designed the experiment to search for life still believe to this day that they found it.

      Why does the scientific community seem almost hostile to this idea? Honestly based on how little we know it’s just likely to be true as all these places being void of life is.

    6. We’re three steps out of the cave with a lot of toys.

      1. Do the toys cast shadows?

          1. #DarkMatterLives

            /Zwicky

      2. Three? My, you are being generous today.

    7. What’s more, we have, apparently, yet to invent the paragraph break.

  3. One perk of older age? Fewer catcalls

    Sure, there are plenty of reasons besides my age that street harassment has waned over the years. I’m more likely to be walking around with my four-year-old daughter than not these days, and hopefully even harassers have some sense of propriety. And as women get older they’re less likely to put up with nonsense; I’ve become much more likely to scream at and shame catcallers in recent years, a much different tact than my teen years, when I would just shrink into myself.

    There’s a freedom to that ? I wouldn’t trade my quiet morning walks for the hellishness of my teen years for anything. But when you’re brought up to feel that the most important thing you can be is attractive to men, the absence of their attention ? even negative attention ? can feel distressing. Have I reached my “last fuckable day” already, at 36 years old?

    1. “I’ve become much more likely to scream at and shame catcallers in recent years,”

      She sounds charming. I bet her marriage is going great.

    2. I am confused, is she complaining that she gets catcalls or that she does not?

      1. Yes. Because she is mentally ill.

      2. She’s complaining [full stop].
        Very charming, indeed.

      3. She’s not complaining about the lack of attention. SOCIETY is making her FEEL like she ought to complain about the lack of attention; she’s complaining about that.

      4. She knows, even though she denies it, that attractiveness draws both the attention of the people she wants and those she doesn’t. If she’s getting less catcalls it means that their will be a proportional drop in attention from the people she wants attention from. All the perks of being a young woman are going away, but her ideology won’t let her admit that there were perks in the first place, so she’s left to complain about it in a very round about way.

        1. That’s the shitty part of being a feminist. If you’re a lesbian, then you’re golden, but if you’re straight, then you’re stuck being attracted to the people you have railed against. Sane Straight men wouldn’t want to touch you with a 10 foot pole. Some construction workers might get their dick wet, but even they know not to stick their dick in crazy.

          1. They just carve out exceptions to the rule for the men they like. “All men are sexist raping monsters, except for my boo who walks on water and farts rainbows” At least until ‘boo’ pisses them off, then he’s just another sexist raping monster to be destroyed without guilt for the cause. It’s pretty freeing, actually. All relationship issues are the fault of society not yourself, and the people in your in group are a thousand times more awesome for overcoming the evils of society.

    3. Have I reached my “last fuckable day” already, at 36 years old?

      Not if you are taking care of yourself and are not a raving lunatic.

      1. “not a raving lunatic.”

        You must be new

        1. Relatively speaking. If you are between, say, a 4 and a 6 on the crazy/hot matrix my guess is most men won’t be too put off by that.

      2. Yep. My wife is 36, and on her worst days, she looks like she’s almost old enough to buy booze.

        1. My wife is 48, quite lithe and still wears the same jeans she did in high school, and actually is prettier now than when we married 20 years ago, with long strawberry-blond hair and a face that she seems to have grown into. I’d be ecstatic except she has a terrible temper that seems reserved only for me.

          Oh well, take the good with the bad I guess……

    4. Have I reached my “last fuckable day” already, at 36 years old?

      Ima say “No”.

    5. the hellishness of my teen years for anything

      “Sister, I have no idea how you survived!

      /Victim of Taliban girl’s school attack, ISIS sex slave and Boko Haram kidnap victim

    6. This may be anecdotal, but I worked in construction on and off for a few years in my teens. I never once saw the classic catcall. I even spent time hanging out with city workers and never once saw them catcall a girl. At best they nudged the other guy or made remarks in private.

      This idiot makes it sound like every single time she steps out someone whistles at her. Two things. One, don’t flatter yourself honey. And two, I forgot. Oh, I don’t believe her.

      1. Maybe they’re mistaking her for their dog.

      2. I get the impression that it happens a lot more in some places than others. I’ve certainly observed catcalling in New York city and in some southern European cities. I don’t know if it commonly happens to the extent she describes, but it’s not completely made up. And I can only imagine that it gets pretty damn irritating to say the least.

        1. I don’t know, I’ve spent plenty of time in Manhattan, and I have never seen any catcalling. Maybe it happens in some of the poorer neighborhoods in the Bronx or Brooklyn, but from my experience it just isn’t very common.

          1. I bet it’s not common.

            But what do I know?

            No one ever cat calls me.

            1. I am a goofy, slightly balding (seriously, you can barely notice it) white male, and I have been catcalled a few times. Once was from a large African-American woman who drove up alongside me and told me that I had sexy calves, and then pulled into her driveway a few hundred feet up, got out of her car, waited for me to jog past and smacked her lips and went “mmmm-hmmmm.”

              I was not traumatized.

                1. Close, HM. Your video was funnier.

                2. Is that what the 80s was like?

                  1. The 80’s were more like this, actually.

              1. I was at the Braves World Series victory parade got groped by a late teen/early 20 something woman.

                I was shocked but not traumatized.

          2. I’ve heard catcalling a grand total of once. It was in Italy, and it was targeted at my mother and me. The construction workers decided mom was sexier. We decided they were worried she’d kick their ass if they said anything too risqu? about me. I must have internalized misogyny because I think the incident was a slightly funny anecdote not a traumatizing experience.

          3. Worked construction in Kansas from age 15 until about 22 or so. Never heard/saw any of my coworkers catcall anyone. I strongly suspect that, even if we were inclined to do so, the fact that we were building houses in well-to-do neighborhoods kept us minding our Ps and Qs. There’s a sign in the yard with the builder’s phone number on it if anyone wants to complain, and there were usually only 6-12 guys working on a house. Maybe it’s easier to catcall in NYC because the worker is anonymous or protected by the union, but anyone ticking off the neighbors at my job would have likely gotten fired.

            I (and another guy) got catcalled once by a couple ladies once, but when we started walking over to talk to them, they drove off.

      3. I’m in the same boat. I used to be a roofer. What the fuck am I supposed to say when I’m 100 ft up in the air? Capital knocker ladies.

      4. I’ve been in NYC for 10 years. I’ve seen some shameless ocular patdowns by skeezy guys, and the occasional “catcall” like in that video (black men saying “hey girl, looking good tonight”), but I think that’s it. I’m sure it happens, but I have not observed any kind of epidemic.

    7. I do not know about you guys, but I am very turned on by her in this photo. (perhaps nsfw as there is some salty language on her shirt).

      1. Could be Taylor Swift in a few years.

        1. Rich,

          Big Jugs will not tolerate any T-Swizzle negativity. Cease and desist.

          1. Oh, you mean the singer who is BFF with Lena Dunham now.

            1. If Swizzle wants to hangout with a tattooed potato, that is her prerogative.

              1. For you Mr. Juggler:

                http://www.cosmopolitan.com/en…..t-concert/

      2. She looks like she’s smiling through her tears. Hawt

      3. Jessica: Can I keep my sweater on while you fuck me? It comforts me.
        Crusty: Whatever honey. I just need a hole or two. I’ll be done and gone in a few.

        1. I misrepresented Crusy.

          Jessica: Can I keep…blah, blah.
          Crusty: I don’t care. I just need a hole or two. I’m almost – grunts – done.
          Jessica (tears): Can you pass me a tissue?
          Crusty: Gotta go.

        2. Rufus, that stupid sweatshirt would enhance your sexual vigor. Do it for the patriarchy!

          1. Well, the message of the T-shirt is quite clear to me. If you’re part of the Patriarchy you’ve got a “date” with the lady, correct?

            1. I read some of Jessica Valenti’s article to which Lord H. provided a link and I think some of her experiences weren’t what I would label catcalls but rather sexual harassment (or worse). She seems to have encountered some very unsavory men early in her life, which no doubt has adversely (and perhaps only naturally) colored her outlook.

              I recommend the article for the perspective it provides.

              1. What constitutes catcalling? If she is walking down the street and some men go “looking good,” that is catcalling. If it escalates and she is followed and harassed, then it is harassment.

                The one aspect of catcalling that is not usually discussed is that the men doing the catcalling are non-white men. Is she more intimidated/violated because the men are non-white? Is that what heightens her internal threat matrix? If the staff of Vox harassed her, would she feel differently?

              2. And that’s the problem with linking to articles, trying to get to the meat of the matter often misses out on the more subtle points the author is trying to make.

                1. Good points. LH, and it is my guess that it is probably why you and others provide the links – so the rest of us may look further into what you’ve already read.

    8. ‘Have I reached my “last fuckable day” already, at 36 years old?’

      No. You’re fuckable. But the lipstick does say a bit of crazy.

      Whether or not you’re good bed I don’t know. Judging by your writing, maybe it can swing only two ways – either you’re wild or an inactive zucchini.

      1. “inactive zucchini”

        Great album name. Or band name, whichever.

        1. Inactive Zucchini and the Cool Cucumbers

          1. I’m picturing a really funky kinda progressive rock sound. That or a really shitty hipster band. Hopefully the former.

            1. More than likely the latter tho.

      2. either you’re wild

        Yes, but she defines “wild” as pegging you before going off to her latest cuckolding appointment*.

        *It’s extra dirty when you make an appointment, like those doctor’s appointment cards with the date and time written on them.

    9. Is it her age or her haircut? I bet it’s her haircut.

      1. Her haircut and the fact that her shirt is covered in cat hair.

      2. Yeah, I don’t get why older women go with short hair. It isn’t attractive.

        1. No one likes the “mom-do” but the moms. That is why I call them “hair-don’ts.”

        2. ^^^This. I went round and round with my wife about it. She finally saw the light and let it grow again.

        3. They do not care enough about that to bother taking care of long hair.

    10. “But when you’re brought up to feel that the most important thing you can be is attractive to men”

      This is an unfortunate way for a child to be raised, if true, but how are you making it any better for your daughter by obsessing about your attractiveness as much as you imply that your parents did? Just because there are people who think that a woman’s value is solely about how attractive she is doesn’t mean you need to feel the same way.

      1. A complete lack of agency. There are plenty of social cliques that value women for more than just looks. Go find one, lady! This woman is no different than the guy bitching about his “really hard” part-time job and the fact that he can’t afford to go to college because his rent is too high.

    11. That’s sort of like this gem from a few years ago, where a middle aged woman who at best could be described as 4 or 5 out of 10, if you’re feeling generous and just got out of a 20 year prison term, was bemoaning that women everywhere hate her because she’s so damn beautiful. Her victim mentality and her ego are one and the same.

  4. …and looking for a way to absolve what he considered were his sins, according to a representative of Abdulazeez’s family.

    I don’t think he was thinking that sin absolution all the way through.

      1. +72 virgins and 28 young pre-pubescent boys

  5. NOT SALON!!!

    What I learned about letting my wife cuckold me as a sensitive, squishy feminist!

    http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/0…..inism.html

    “…after much soul-searching about why the idea of my wife having sex with other men bothered me I came to a few conclusions: Monogamy meant I controlled her sexual expression, and, not to get all women’s-studies major about it, patriarchal oppression essentially boils down to a man’s fear that a woman with sexual agency is a woman he can’t control. We aren’t afraid of their intellect or their spirit or their ability to bear children. We are afraid that when it comes time for sex, they won’t choose us.”

    Probably a legitimate fear for him….

    1. But, but…you’re married! The whole point of marriage is that you control your wife’s “sexual agency”, and she yours!

      1. The more I think about it, the more I think his wife is looking for a man to have sex with who is masculine enough to say, “I don’t want you having sex with other men.”

        1. If there is one thing I know about women it is that they do not want their man to feel jealous and territorial in any way.

    2. To call him a fag is a disservice to all the hardass fags out there. He’s a pussy whipped straight guy.

    3. To call him a fag is a disservice to all the hardass fags out there. He’s a pussy whipped straight guy.

      1. ONE MORE TIME!!!!

        1. Come the squirrel revolution, you’re first against the tree.

          1. I’m afraid the berkley people are in the way.

    4. The guy is a loser.

      1. Yes. A masterpiece of understatement, but , yes, he is.

      2. My favorite part is how he claims that he gets laid too, but all the specifics he gives are about his wife banging people. That makes me think he isn’t really getting laid.

        And then there’s the part where his wife falls asleep at a boyfriend’s apartment without telling him and won’t return his calls.

        That relationship is pretty fucked.

        1. Think that should read:

          where his “wife” falls asleep at a boyfriend’s apartment

          Seems a little more accurate like that.

        2. Yeah.

          It’s much easier for a girl to get laid then it is for a guy to go out and get a partner for the night. Unless you call a hooker.

          The part about her not calling him only points to her character and state of mind. Dude is pulling mental gymnastics trying to cover up for a girl who is basically a cunt.

          1. That’s why – in the horrific eventuality that I found myself in this situation – I wouldn’t be calling attention to it…

    5. It’s not patriarchal oppression, it’s evolution. Men do not want to get stuck raising another man’s offspring. I thought liberals believed in science.

      1. Men do not want to get stuck raising another man’s offspring.

        Except for all those honorable, upright stepfathers. But hey, fuck them, right?

        Alphayoloredpillswagneg!

        1. Unknowingly raise another man’s offspring, I should have said. In my defense the context was adultery.

        2. I read in People Magazine that children raised by non-biological fathers are almost never abused and do so well in life. And it’s a magazine entirely about people, so you know it’s true.

    6. Leave her where the guitars play.

    7. I’d like to know if the girl is hot.

      1. Pretty sure she falls on the bad side of the crazy/ hot matrix if she’s leaving her husband at home while she’s banging random dudes.

        1. Random dudes named Paulo.

          Paulo!

    8. My first thought: What a useless tool.

      My second thought: That’s what she said.

    9. Monogamy meant I controlled her sexual expression, and, not to get all women’s-studies major about it, patriarchal oppression essentially boils down to a man’s fear that a woman with sexual agency is a woman he can’t control.

      Projection alert!

      Maybe monogamy for non-grievance studies majors has more to do with commitment, trust, love, and perhaps a spiritual union, and not about sexual control?

      He should feel free to be a loser beta male, but he can’t project it on everyone else.

    10. patriarchal oppression essentially boils down to a man’s fear that a woman with sexual agency is a woman he can’t control

      Yep. Control over assets and children has NOTHING to do with it.

      Serious question: if a sports car is a man’s way of compensating for his small penis, what is the feminists’ way of compensating for her oppressed womb?

      1. A volvo?

      2. Gaining 50 lbs?

      3. 23 pairs of Jimmy Choo’s?

    11. Can we just be honest and say that this guy isn’t actually married? It may be some sort of cohabitation arrangement with kids, but it’s just friends with benefits at the core. (NTTAWWT) The whole point of marriage (at least in my POV) is for him to “control her sexual expression” and she his. If you don’t fit that definition, you still can have a loving relationship, but don’t delude yourself into thinking that you’re married.

  6. The State Department, for reasons known only to itself … has been, to say the least, recalcitrant in responding.

    Because it can?

    1. Because it knows that the judge may graduate from sharp words to a stern warning or perhaps even a harsh rebuke but empty threats and hollow rhetoric do not a prison make.
      .
      “Judge Alex Kozinski asked Vienna if his boss, Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris, wanted to defend a conviction “obtained by lying prosecutors.” If Harris did not back off the case, Kozinski warned, the court would “name names” in a ruling that would not be “very pretty.” See, now that’s some sharp words – one of your prosecutors is a lying piece of shit attempting to pull off a fast one in my courtroom and if you continue down that path I might actually publish the name of the lying piece of shit. And Kozinski is widely known as as bad as it gets in the world of exposing lying piece of shit prosecutors. I shudder to think what soft on lying pieces of shit prosecutors looks like.

  7. The poll showed broad understanding of the court, with 68 percent saying they knew justices are appointed, not elected, and 60 percent saying they knew the appointments are for life.

    Who are these who are so wise in the ways of politics?

  8. Block Yomomma refuses to fly the flags at half-staff in honor of our slain sailor and Marines, so the mayor of Easton, Pennsylvania took the initiative and went ahead and did it himself. Good for you, Sal Panto.

    1. Best single moment of this administration was when the sequester happened and Obama tried to barricade the various monuments on the mall and a bunch of old, pissed-off WW2 vets dumped those barricades at the White House gates. Fucking PRICELESS!!!

      1. local news covered that. best line was at the WWII memorial:

        Park Service: “i’m sorry, this park is closed.”
        Vet in wheelchair: “so was Omaha beach”

        1. Jesus, are you trying to make me have patriotism?

      2. That was Obama at his assholic heights.

    2. His name is…..BLACK POTSIE.

      1. ROFLMFAO

    3. yeah, I love that America flew flags at half mast for Mandela though.

      1. He’s finally giving the country the giant middle finger that he’s wanted to his entire life.

        1. And well he should! How DARE we elect him president TWICE~!!! How is he supposed to deal with that?!

  9. In Berkeley, protesters get naked to try to save trees

    An estimated 50-75 people took part in a staged protest today at a eucalyptus grove on the UC Berkeley campus, many of them stripping naked in doing so, to make clear their opposition to a proposed FEMA-funded tree-clearing program in the East Bay hills.

    The event was orchestrated by the Tree Spirit Project whose mission is “to raise awareness of the critical role trees play in our lives, both globally and personally.” Jack Gescheidt, who founded the project, does this partly by taking fine-art photographs of people, often naked, communing with trees and nature.

    Warning: naked people from Berkeley

    1. I wood.

      1. *squints at Slammer with a manly, Clint Eastwood style glare*

    2. Next years story, “Berkeley trees have mysterious deadly infection, scientists baffled at this new disease”.

      1. they gotz teh Tree AIDS

    3. fine-art photographs of people, often naked, communing with trees and nature.

      So he takes pictures of people fucking trees then?

    4. naked people from Berkeley

      Nice band name.

    5. Chainsaws will cut flesh as easily as they do trees – don’t stop, the protesters will cease to be an issue one awy or another.

      1. Great, now all logging equipment is going to be subject to subpoena

    6. You can’t just get a gunt like that from the store. Gunts of that quality have to be grown with love.

      1. I think you misspelled ‘cunt’.

        1. No, “gunt” is the word. Look it up, I dare you.

          1. Fuh.

            /immediately regrets taking on dare.

            1. Rufus, I can’t believe you haven’t been here long enough to know better. These people are not your friends, obviously.

    7. So, you cannot leave your child your car for a few minutes while you run into the store, but you can hump a tree with your naked children and that is okay?

      1. Forget it Crusty, its Berkleytown.

    8. A lot of the comments say these hippies don’t know anything because eucalyptus trees are an invasive species. It’s great when they eat their own

      1. Like when they rail on about honey bee populations in North America declining, it’s always fun to point out honey bees are an invasive species imported to North America by Europeans in the 1600s.

        1. Yep. I think native bees (wild? non GMO bees?) way outnumber the honey bees. Just not as productive, but I’m sure the native plants do fine with native bees.

          1. Not only do they outnumber the honeybees, but they’re also not declining in population the same way the honeybees are.

    9. Those look like pretty cool trees. I’d be sad to see them go. But there do seem to be good reasons to remove them. And they are an invasive species. I thought hippy enviromentals were supposed to be against that sort of thing.

      1. Eucalyptus trees can explode when they catch fire. It is actually part of their strategy. Their underground elements survive the flames to regrow, but their oiler uppers encourage the spread to destroy their rivals. California is a wildfire zone, if allowed to keep going, the eucalyptus could take over the state.

    10. “And for every tree you cut down, we remove another piece of clothing!”

      “Ahh, we give up!”

    11. Communing with trees? How the fuck does one commune with a tree? The same way you have a conference with some sunflowers?

      1. “I’ll be with you in a minute – I am having a staff huddle with some thistles!”

        1. Ouch, that sounds painful!

      2. Don’t be hasty, now.

  10. …a majority of Americans say they support 10-year term limits for Supreme Court justices.

    The right because of the Obamacare rulings and the left because they want the Ginsburglar out of there so Obama can replace her before a Republican gets the chance.

  11. How Ayn Rand Became Libertarians’ Sociopathic Pixie Dream Girl

    But what makes Rand interesting has never been her work, which is universally middling. Instead, it’s the reactions her work inspires, especially from the kind of socially awkward white men who seem disproportionately drawn to libertarianism and for whom Rand is a mascot of sorts. The Randian view of the world is pitiless, cruel?”Whenever there’s a sneer of disgust at the disadvantaged, the ghost of Rand is hovering near,” Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig writes in The New Republic.

    See also: the sneer of disgust at women, embodied neatly in Milo Yiannopoulos’s review of Ideal for VICE. Yiannopoulos pays scant attention to the actual book, beginning instead by complaining that the same liberals who beg for more female writers and female lead characters don’t give Rand her due. He manages to work in references to Beyonc?, E.L. James, and, in a particularly odd aside, GamerGate, the purpose of which seems to be little more than an opportunity to label the barrage of death threats received by videogame writer Anita Sarkeesian simply “criticism” and to make the point that people were mean to Ayn Rand about her sex life, too.

    1. The people who write these articles. Have they ever either read any of Rand’s books, or have they ever talked to an actual libertarian? I’m genuinely curious.

      1. It would be nice if any critics of libertarianism were familiar with any libertarian thinker other than Ayn Rand. Most libertarians that I know (myself included) have never even read Rand’s works. Calling her a libertarian is a bit of a stretch anyway.

        1. a bit of a stretch?!?

          She *hated* libertarians. She supported *Nixon* fer crissakes!

      2. I think some have. Maybe what pisses them off is that so much of their language comes from her villians.

      3. They had a flame war online with one a few years ago and knew a guy at their previous job who wasn’t suppportive of the ruling class – and no they don’t read icky books.

      4. “The people who write these articles. Have they ever either read any of Rand’s books, or have they ever talked to an actual libertarian? I’m genuinely curious.”

        No and I’ve personally never met a libertarian who held up Ayn Rand as some kind of idol. They spend enormous amounts of time attacking someone who most libertarians don’t care that much about anyway.

        1. I think some people stumble into questioning the idea of the total state when reading her novels, but she’s hardly the pinnacle of libertarian scholarship. Other than out-and-out Objectivists, I don’t know any libertarians who cite her for anything other than references to looters and comparisons to her looter characters. Despite her attempts to pen some actual philosophy, she was a novelist, not a philosopher, not in any rigorous sense.

          Personally, I read her books long after I self-identified as a libertarian.

          1. The money speech is as good a layman’s explanation of why it exists as any you will find.

        2. Roderick Long tries to work out Randian ethics (as part of a broader Aristotelian project), and I think Walter Block says he rereads Atlas every year (yeesh!). Those are the only libertarian thinkers that come to my mind as taking Rand “seriously.”

          Of course, the Rothbardians hate her, and the more utilitarian strains of libertarians have no use for her philosophy.

    2. In case Irish is around, the article has an Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig reference.

      1. And it’s one of her classically shitty lines too:

        “Whenever there’s a sneer of disgust at the disadvantaged, the ghost of Rand is hovering near”

        Has Bruenig ever written a sentence that wasn’t terrible?

        1. Sounds like the ghost of Tom Joad.

    3. Seems like there might be something about this in the JATNAS Gospel. Ah, yes, here it is:

      13) Everybody talks about reading Ayn Rand in high school as the cause of their Damascene conversions to libertarianism, but a girlfriend gave me “The Fountainhead” to read in the 11th grade and I certainly didn’t glean whatever libertarian message it had to offer. Mostly, I was trying to figure out the message contained in why she gave the book to me. (Does she want me to rape her like Howard Roark? Can that be right?) No, the book that caused me to re-examine, and eventually, reject the liberalism my schooling had inculcated in me was “Parliament of Whores” by P.J. O’Rourke, which I read in college, and soon after all his other books too. Unlike Rand, O’Rourke is funny and punchy and not afraid to take shots at his own side when warranted. Heck, even my middle and high school reading of Robert Heinlein’s books probably did more to prepare my mind than Rand ever did. To tell the truth, I think Ayn Rand’s writing turns off more potential libertarians than she converts.

      1. Rand is more valuable for her takedown of cronyism and collectivism than she is for her defense of capitalism and individualism.

      2. Rand is a writer with a Sludge Factor right up there with Dreiser. But less talented. I have never gotten through more than 10 pages of anything she’s written.

        In my case, as with many, the ground was made fertile by Heinlein, then the seeds were planted by Hayek, Friedman, and Sowell.

    4. socially awkward white men

      Sounds more like a description of a liberal journalist than a typical libertarian.

      1. See post above about awkward feminist guy coming to terms with being cuckolded…

    5. Ayn Rand, the libertarian that leftists love to criticize because the strawman arguments against her come prefabricated and free with your membership in the socialist weasel club.

      1. Ayn Rand, the anti-libertarian that leftists love to criticize because the strawman arguments against her come prefabricated and free with your membership in the socialist weasel club.

        FTFY

      1. “I was entertained by this satirical article, but they forgot to put it behind a paywall to extract a return on the infrastructure investment. No stars

    6. Jill Filipovic is almost as big of a fan of libertarianism as Ayn Rand was.

  12. The U.N. Security Council has approved the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran.

    I hope they at least read it first.

    1. They need to launch it to see what’s in it.

  13. Florida man, 72, shot in buttocks by ‘crazy’ drunken man while protecting sea turtle habitat

    A 72-year-old former Marine who was shot while guarding a sea turtle nest in Florida with his own gun is recovering from the wound and does not regret bringing a loaded weapon to protect himself and the special habitat.

    “I figured if I showed a handgun that would be enough to diffuse any situation,” Stanley Pannaman, 72, told the Daily News. “People may be nuts but they aren’t crazy. I didn’t realize I would be dealing with a crazy guy.”

    1. “I didn’t realize I would be dealing with a crazy guy”

      Wait, he lives if FLA and doesn’t realize Florida Man is crazy?!?!

  14. Intoxicated air traffic controller found shirtless, unconscious on floor of control tower

    He also reportedly argued with officers about the “public” part of “public intoxication.” Dude. DUDE. Semantics seem to be the least of your problems, especially since the police report noted that you were wearing “a black robe and house shoes” when you were arrested AT WORK.

    You know who else wears a black robe at work?

    1. The grim reaper?

    2. Your friendly neighborhood necromancer?

    3. Tulpa got a job as an air traffic controller?

    4. Emperor Palpatine?

    5. Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

    6. Dark Helmet?

  15. Okay, from the numbers, evidently, my jokes and sarcasm didn’t get my message out to the commentariat readership (I know more of you people read my work), so I will have to keep shilling Lucid Blue (And Other Tales Too) until reason asks me to stop, or you are entertained.

    You vill be entertained!

    /end snark

    My problem is finding the people who bought and enjoyed the first two books. There were a lot of them (judging by the available feedback and sales numbers), but no way to reach them directly. If you, or anyone you know, for whatever reason, enjoyed the other works in the series, do let people know. If you haven’t read the series, the first two books will be marked down for a week starting tomorrow. It’s the perfect time to start. (Just remember to buy the full-priced new book, because I’m trying to turn a profit here)

    And yes, I am confident that you will be entertained… whether you like it or not.

      1. Yay! Someone noticed the cover inspiration!

    1. Plucked the first two off Amazon yesterday.

        1. What’s the business model for kindleUnlimited. You get a percentage of $0.00?

          1. Amazon sets up a monthly fund. The author’s share is determined based upon the number of normalized pages read from their work by KU subscribers. The fund is then divided among total number pages read for the month and allocated thusly.

            (The old process was by the borrow, but people gamed the system with really short pamphlets that triggered a full-priced share just by being opened. So Amazon changed to reward authors who held readers’ attention)

    2. Amazon is terrible for letting people know stuff. “you bought these two books from the series, and there’s another one? Nah, no way you are interested in knowing that.”

      1. On the other hand, it has recommended to me that I buy “Shadowdemon”.

  16. If you’re going to die…

    Chinese Woman, 30, Found Guilty Of ‘Assaulting Police Officer With Her Breasts’

    Ng Lai-ying was taking part in a demonstration against parallel trading on the streets of Yuen Long in March this year when the incident is said to have took place.

    The 30-year-old claimed that Chief Inspector Chan had tried to grab her bag but instead touched her left breast.

    However, Inspector Chan insisted that it was Lai-ying who bumped her breasts onto his arm before falsely accusing him of assault.

    The magistrate sided with Chan, telling Lai-ying: “You used your female identity to trump up the allegation that the officer had molested you.”

    1. Sounds like the Chinese cops are taking a page from American cops’ playbook.

    2. FINALLY, a Trump post!

      1. Anyone got a strong enough liver to turn this into a drinking game?

  17. Toshiba inflated profits by $1.2 billion with top execs’ knowledge: investigation

    Toshiba President and Chief Executive Hisao Tanaka and his predecessor, Vice Chairman Norio Sasaki, were aware of the overstatement of profits and delay in reporting losses in a corporate culture that “avoided going against superiors’ wishes,” the investigating committee said in a report filed by Toshiba to the Tokyo Stock Exchange.

    The overstatement was roughly triple Toshiba’s initial estimate. Sources have said Tanaka and Sasaki would resign in the coming months and most of the board would be replaced to take responsibility for the shortcomings.

    The report said Tanaka and Sasaki had set operating profit targets that the heads of divisions were required to meet, applying pressure by hinting at withdrawing from areas that underperformed.

    1. You know who else withdrew from areas that underperformed?

      1. Ron Jeremy?

        1. Shut the interwebz down for today…its over.

      2. Henry VIII?

      3. Donald Trump?

  18. Tennessee rampage suspect went to Qatar in 2014: sources

    The man suspected of killing five members of the U.S. military in Tennessee last week was in Qatar at least once during a 2014 trip to the Middle East, according to two U.S. government sources who said reasons for the stopover were still unknown.

    U.S. investigators are trying to piece together Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez’s travels to the region to see if he was radicalized by a militant group such as Islamic State. But they have no evidence he was in contact with militant groups or individuals.

    On a seven-month trip to visit family in Jordan, it is uncertain how long he may have spent in the Qatari capital, a political crossroads in the region. Qatar is home to jihadist supporters as well as a U.S. air base.

    1. Thanks for the warning, I will be sure to wear my codpiece this summer.

      1. Come again?

        1. Yes, he would like to be able to do so!

    2. If that’s true, maybe we should be taking this global warming stuff a little more seriously.

  19. Indian Woman Beheaded For ‘Witchcraft’

    A number of states have brought in special laws to try to bring to a halt such crimes.

    Have they tried making it a hate crime?

    1. They’ll bring in safeguards involving making sure the “witch” actually weighs the same as a duck.

      1. Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?

    2. You would think a general law about murder would cover it, no need for special laws.

    3. Are witches a protected class?

    4. The victim’s name sounds Bodo, but I can’t find any news article that lists the name of her tribe. Some tribes in the northeast (not necessarily the Bodos) are still culturally isolated and have messed up practices.

      1. I blame Bobby Jindal…or Hindu Nationalists.

        /Dalmia

  20. North Korea says it has no interest in reaching an Iran-style nuclear deal with the U.S.

    Wait, what was that thing we did with them when Clinton was president? Oh right…

    In 1994, faced with North Korea’s announced intent to withdraw from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires non-nuclear weapon states to forswear the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons, the United States and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework. Under this agreement, Pyongyang committed to freezing its illicit plutonium weapons program in exchange for aid.

    Following the collapse of this agreement in 2002, North Korea claimed that it had withdrawn from the NPT in January 2003 and once again began operating its nuclear facilities.

  21. Bernie Sanders’ moment of truth: These are the political fights he could win right now

    After some unfortunate tone-deafness dealing with a protest from #BlackLivesMatter activists at Netroots Nation ? something the campaign is already working to correct ? Sanders rallied audiences in Phoenix, Houston and Dallas over the weekend. At the Phoenix Convention Center, the notably young crowd has gotten to know the democratic socialist’s positions so well (probably from his applause lines being tweeted on the campaign Twitter feed) that they repeated them in real time, like lip-synching at a concert. He has captured the imagination of a segment of the population who feels ill-served by the narrowness of our politics.

    Among liberal millennials in their formative political years, Sanders offers truth-to-power rhetoric that speaks to the disappointments of the Obama years, on issues like Wall Street’s power, the takeover of government by the wealthy and the need for single-payer universal health care. Sanders’ path for sustaining real change is entirely based upon bottom-up organizing. “The key mistake of the Obama Administration,” Sanders said last year to Bloomberg, “was to more or less disband the grassroots network that he had put together to get elected.”

    Salon – duh who else

    1. “that they repeated them in real time, like lip-synching at a concert”

      well that’s not creepy. not at all.

    2. was to more or less disband the grassroots network that he had put together to get elected

      Um, Organizing for America??

    3. This is sounding too much like the Obama craze.

      Is there something in the water? Or does it have something to do with adolescence/young adult credulity?

  22. Ladies and germs, this is why Hillary will be your next President.

    1. That’s a chilling statement

    2. Oh, she’s cool (maybe cool isn’t the right word anymore). I want to vote for her.

      Anyway, don’t they know that you don’t use a wide angle lens for faces? She looks like she’s looking into a funhouse mirror.

  23. According to a new poll, a majority of Americans say they support 10-year term limits for Supreme Court justices.

    This aligns nicely with the suggestion I had yesterday on an amendment that all laws become null and void every x number of years (I suggested 24), and would need to be passed again via individual vote or otherwise be stricken. Supreme court terms could also automatically end at the same time.

  24. Even cheating dirtbags deserve privacy: The Ashley Madison hack shows we’ve reached peak sex shaming

    Can we please get someone to make a chart or a list or some other matrix that clearly defines how a public shaming ought to proceed? I’d like it based on hard data, factoring the severity of the person’s transgression, the extent of his or her hypocrisy and, ultimately, containing a clear protocol for what the limits of that individual’s social punishment should be. Now that Ashley Madison’s client base has allegedly been compromised, we’re going to need it.

    We are truly living in a glorious age of humiliation. You’d probably have to go back to the Plymouth colony to find another time when pointing fingers and potentially ruining lives and families was such a strenuously pursued social occupation.

    something something reap what you sow

    1. While I don’t have a ton of sympathy for adulterers, this was theft. Like you say, even dirtbags have rights.

    2. Meh. There are plenty of people who are in sexless or loveless marriages. I can’t blame them at all for cheating.

      1. Which is the cause, which the effect?

        1. Who knows. It depends on the circumstances. You can’t judge people without walking a mile in their shoes.

          1. Not throwing stones, but maybe cheating doesn’t address the underlying problem.

            1. Of course it doesn’t but maybe there is no way to solve the underlying problem? I am not going to say cheating is good. It is not. But, it may be the best of the bad available options. I have more respect for people who cheat but stay in their marriage to give their kids a stable home than I do for people who break up their marriage and stick their kids with all of the horrible effects of divorce because they are not happy with their spouse.

              Neither is ideal but the one is certainly worse.

              1. Eh, I disagree. My parents didn’t have infidelity issues, but it was certainly better for me and my brothers once they divorced. All the stress and strain on the marriage was released in 6 months, and we all came out of it better (except my mom, but that’s a different story that is only partially related to the divorce). Not that grades are the only factor of measuring success, but I went from a B student to an A student overnight, mostly because I didn’t have two parents taking out their marital frustrations on me.

                1. Again,

                  Every circumstance is different. But, overall kids whose parents don’t divorce do better than those whose parents do. Are there some parents whose relationships are so dysfunctional that even divorce is better? Sure. But a good number are not that bad and are harming their kids by divorcing.

                  1. Are there some parents whose relationships are so dysfunctional that even divorce is better? Sure. But a good number are not that bad and are harming their kids by divorcing.

                    There are plenty of divorcees who escalate their war against their ex when divorced though the only real connection they have left, the kids.

                    As a general rule, being a child of divorce sucks.

                    I absolutely agree. My wife’s parents divorced and completely rocked her world. I’m certainly not blind to the common case of divorce sucking. However, to this day my wife and her sisters have as hard of a time stomaching the infidelity (why wasn’t this family good enough for you?) as they do the divorce (why did you abandon us?) .

                    My entire point being that infidelity sucks for the kids, too. Kids, especially teenage kids, aren’t idiots. They can tell when something is going on, and infidelity can affect their relationship with their parents in a different way than divorce. I don’t think that I can automatically jump to the conclusion that divorce is worse than infidelity.

                    1. Sure infidelity sucks. I didn’t say otherwise. My point is that it is often the best of a set of bad options.

                2. There are plenty of divorcees who escalate their war against their ex when divorced though the only real connection they have left, the kids.

                  As a general rule, being a child of divorce sucks.

    3. I would bet some of the people on there are in open marriages and would rather not have their business out their for anyone to see. In any manner sure some of those people are dicks but that is really is nobodies business but theirs.

    4. We are truly living in a glorious age of humiliation.

      Did any of these people deserve the internet mob’s humiliation?

      Climate “deniers”.
      Sir Tim Hunt.
      Tea Party limited-government types.
      Christian bakers.
      Memories Pizza.

  25. Fun Fact: In 1990 the National Rifle Association backed socialist Bernie Sanders over the incumbent Republican in the race for Vermont’s seat in the House of Representatives.

    That’s not too surprising actually. The NRA has supported a lot of Democrats over the years.

    1. That’s really the secret of their effectiveness. They have one issue they push, and it doesn’t matter if your are R or D or whatever, they will support you if you support gun rights, and oppose you if you don’t.

      1. If only Bernie had come out to NN15 holding a musket over his head, like Chuck H. did.

  26. Should ‘Libertarian Parents’ Be Strict Or Permissive? or Idiot writes stupid article about parenting:

    They often begin by asking what “libertarian parenting” would look like. Naturally, they then imagine parents being analogous to government and children being analogous to citizens. Unsurprisingly, they conclude that, on libertarian grounds, parents should interfere as little as possible in the lives of their children. Some even propose organizing the household on market principles.

    For example, advocates of libertarian parenting might argue that children should always get paid for chores and that parents should never say, “Because I said so!” to their kids. With the best of intentions, they believe that what we might call “laissez-faire” parenting will create children who will be more likely to support a laissez-faire society.

    I think they are deeply mistaken for several reasons.

    First, there is the empirical evidence from psychology. Psychologists distinguish among a number of parenting styles, but the major ones fall on a spectrum from most involved to least:

    authoritarian
    authoritative
    permissive
    neglectful

    1. Newsweak is still around?

    2. They often begin by asking what “libertarian parenting” would look like.

      Mostly what parenting looks like now.

      For example, advocates of libertarian parenting might argue that children should always get paid for chores and that parents should never say, “Because I said so!” to their kids

      I don’t see why either of these are that odd or uniquely libertarian.

      1. If children get paid for chores, they should get charged room and board. I think in the end they’ll end up in debt to the parents.

      2. the whole thing reads like a bizarre ad lib.

      3. i don’t know about this, but i plan on withholding FICA from my son’s allowance so he gets the concept before he earns a paycheck.

    3. Are there any critics of libertarianism who actually understand what libertarianism is?

      1. If these boards are anything to go by, most libertarians are critics of libertarianism too.

      2. No. Apparently libertarianism should impact your parenting style for some reason, even though all libertarianism is related to is a system of governance.

        1. No. Apparently libertarianism should impact your parenting style for some reason, even though all libertarianism is related to is a system of governance.

          I thought libertarianism was related to interpersonal relations, not only governance. The NAP doesn’t necessarily concern government.

          1. The NAP is a basic moral principle. Libertarianism is how the NAP applies to government and politics. That’s how I think of it, anyway. Others may differ.

        2. No. Apparently libertarianism should impact your parenting style for some reason, even though all libertarianism is related to is a system of governance.

          It can, if you choose to allow it to impact your parenting style. For instance, “because I said so” is the parental version of “FYTW.”

          I think that there are some things that can be gleaned from libertarianism and applied to parenting, but most of the self-identified libertarian-inspired parents I’ve encountered are very preachy to their kids, and have zero structure to their kids’ learning.

      3. I doubt those critics really understand what it is that they themselves believe in any coherent fashion, much less libertarianism.

    4. “children should always get paid for chores and that parents should never say, “Because I said so!” to their kids”

      Apparently, I am not raising my kids as a libertarian should.

      1. As a minarchist, the moment the kids wanted internet connecting devices, I told them that they should have no expectation of privacy, and that all communications were subject to arbitrary oversight and censorship, but in most other respects they lived in a ‘nightwatchman state’.

        I also told them that it was *my* house, and therefore, they were subject to *my* rules. They get food and protection from the elements in exchange for behavioral compliance and completion of modest chores.

        This has had two major outcomes. One, they pretty much do as they’re told, and two, they really want to get out of the house and off to a college that’s at least 250 miles away, as soon as possible. The eldest seems to be evolving to be a reasonably freedom-focused liberal arts wonk, the younger looks like he’s veering into an authoritarian, trainee state-attorney.

        So I’m batting about .5 at the moment.

        1. Eh…I was an Assistant State’s Attorney for some years…and a military officer.

          I am an increasingly libertarian minarchist now.

    5. Libertarians simply want the government to treat adults like adults. But this is coming from the perspective of those who see government as society’s parent, and as such it is supposed to treat us all like children. So of course they don’t get it.

    6. Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective. This article first appeared on the Anything Peaceful blog of the Foundation for Economic Education site.

      You realize the author is not an idiot at all, right?

      1. Well, he seems kind of like an idiot to me given that he’s trying to project a political philosophy into a parenting method. Turning a political philosophy into an all encompassing system of living seems like a pretty bad idea to me.

        1. Yeah. I fail to see how one’s desire to be treated as an adult by government relates to how one raises a child. Children are not adults.

        2. Did you read his article?

          When libertarians think about parenting, we should not be asking, “What sort of parenting appears to be implied by our ethical and political views?” Instead, we should be studying what psychologists know about child development and seeing how that aligns with the aptitudes and attitudes we know are necessary for a free society. We shouldn’t want parenting to be libertarian; we should want to parent in ways that produce children who have the skills they need to value and sustain liberty.

          Be a good parent and you’ll produce good citizens. That’s literally all he’s saying.

          1. As a libertarian parent I am doing my best to raise my child to be an adult who deserves to be treated as an adult. If that’s what he’s saying, then I guess I agree.

          2. We shouldn’t want parenting to be libertarian; we should want to parent in ways that produce children who have the skills they need to value and sustain liberty.

          3. None of them read his article. I’m literally the only person here who should object to it, because:

            Obedience to legitimate authority, which includes following rules, is not anti-libertarian.

            Check your premises, bitch?parents are no more legitimate authority than the state.

            1. “None of them read his article. I’m literally the only person here who should object to it”

              https://reason.com/blog/2015/07…..nt_5455856

              you are the worst!

            2. Nikki,

              I love you but have you lost your mind? Parents pay the bills. If I pay the bills my authority is legitimate. If you want to come live in my house and eat my food, you do it under my terms.

              Yes, children do not have the ability to leave, but sometimes life is like that. If you were broke and sick and living in my spare room were your only option to living on the street, would that make the rules of living in my house illegitimate? No. Your ability or lack of ability to support yourself has no affect on the legitimacy of me making rules concerning my property.

              Moreover, I know you think having children is evil, but it is necessary to propagate the species and some people do like having them. Just how in the hell are parents supposed to care for children if they have no authority over them? Have you ever been around a child? They have no experience, no idea how to control their emotions, and no idea how to act, unless someone shows them. And you can’t do that without rules.

              You really are in your own way as crazy as Liberty Mike or Cytoxic. Wow

              1. Just how in the hell are parents supposed to care for children if they have no authority over them?

                Eventually, the children will get to return the favor.

                1. So what gaijun? Part of caring for a child is teaching them how to act and giving them the tools and knowledge necessary to make it through society. I don’t see how you do that without any authority over them. If you never make any rules and raise your child as a wolf child from birth, you have been a pretty neglectful parent.

                  1. I’m not disagreeing with you…just stating the obvious that those in another’s care–child or elderly parent–will have to submit to the care giver’s authority at some level. And for me, better the caregiver be a relative than a faceless government authority.

              2. If you want to come live in my house and eat my food, you do it under my terms.

                That’s not how parents’ relationship with children works. The kids don’t “want to come live in [their] house.” They’re forced to do so. The whole relationship is nonconsensual.

                1. That’s not how parents’ relationship with children works. The kids don’t “want to come live in [their] house.” They’re forced to do so. The whole relationship is nonconsensual.

                  Yes. They forced to do so by circumstances just like if you were sick and broke you might be forced to live in my spare room. The fact that you don’t want to be there but lack the means to leave doesn’t mean you don’t have to live by my rules.

                  It sucks to be a kid Nikki, but again, sometimes life is like that. It doesn’t last forever.

              3. And besides, “necessary to propagate the species” is, again, something you need to check your premises about. If you believed, like I do, that existence is worse than nonexistence, you wouldn’t want to do that, and you’d think the people who liked doing it were doing something…wrong.

                We all know I am radical on this.

                1. And besides, “necessary to propagate the species” is, again, something you need to check your premises about. If you believed, like I do, that existence is worse than nonexistence, you wouldn’t want to do that, and you’d think the people who liked doing it were doing something…wrong.

                  You don’t believe that or you would kill yourself. Don’t hit me with sophomore philosophy Nikki. Been there and done that. I have Schopenhauer and he was wrong. If non existence is preferable to existence, then you rationally should seek the better state. And there is one way to do that, end your life. You can’t say your fate of having to exist is preferable to not when you every day by choosing not to end your life choose existence over non existence.

                  If you think the children who might have existed but don’t because you have chosen not to have them are better off, then why are you not the same? And if you are better off not existing, why do you still exist? Do you just like misery?

                  1. John, there is extensive philosophical literature on why it’s perfectly logical to believe nonexistence is preferable without actually killing yourself, starting with the fact that part of what makes existence bad is the physical and psychological difficulty in killing yourself. However, for legal reasons it is not something I am willing to discuss in writing.

                    And the funny thing about “it sucks to be a kid”?it’s far worse to be an adult. Which is part of what makes the whole system so twisted.

                    Besides, even if you think existence is a net positive, it doesn’t mean your kids consented to live with you or know you. I don’t understand any part of the hubris that lets parents initiate and maintain that kind of relationship.

                    1. I am completely familiar with that school and it is irrational horseshit. And there is nothing legally that stops you from killing yourself. Sure it is against the law but it is not like the cops can stop you or can undo it after it is done. People do it all of the time. You just don’t do it because you prefer to live rather than die. And don’t tell me that is just your instinct. As a human being you are perfectly capable of ignoring that instinct and ending your life if you choose to.

                      Being is preferable to nothingness. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t exist or would quickly stop existing if we did.

              4. Well, very few children under the age of 12 or so would ever want to leave their parent’s care and authority, or even consider the possibility. In the teenage years, the question gets a bit more tricky. At that point most people are (or at least have the capacity to be) capable of making their own way in life. I think most children and teens still benefit from parental guidance, but it is a legitimate question how much authority a parent should really have. There is very little difference between a 17 year ol and an 18 year old. If there is going to be a legal distinction between child and adult, you ahve to draw a line somewhere. But if that line is drawn, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the 17 year old’s rights are being violated by being subject to parents’ guardianship when a few days can completely change the situation as regards legal rights.

                1. Zeb,

                  I think that is a different question. The issue you raise is not whether parents should have authority over their children. The issue you raise is whether a 16 year old is really a child. And I think the answer is no and we are much worse off for how we have initialized people by considering them children until they reach a ridiculously old age.

            3. Check your premises, bitch?parents are no more legitimate authority than the state.

              This is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. Who then is the legitimate authority figure to raise children? Co-legitimacy with a random person acting with the authority of the state? Idiotic.

              1. People are retardedly quick to assume this is a statist argument.

                1. I don’t think it is a statist argument Niki. It is fucking nuts but it is not statist. The state has nothing to do with my authority over my property of parents’ moral responsibility to raise the children they create.

                2. People are retardedly quick to assume this is a statist argument.

                  The idea that there is no legitimate authority frightens them.

                  1. It’s not my fault life sucks, Sug.

                  2. The idea that there is no legitimate authority frightens them.L

                    So you are telling me that I have no authority over my own life and own property? If you show up at my house and move in and start eating my food, I have no legitimate authority to kick you out or make you live by my rules if you want to stay? If there is “no legitimate authority” I don’t.

                    Are you that fucking retarded SF? The idea of “no legitimate authority” doesn’t frighten me. It makes me laugh that anyone could be so stupid as to think such or be so confused and state obsessed that they think that claiming there is such a thing as legitimate authority necessarily implies the state.

                    1. You have rights and they are not the same as authority, John.

                    2. We are now arguing semantics SF. I have both rights and authority. My rights are things that I can do. My authority is things I can force you do to, like leave my property or act a certain way when you are on it.

                    3. Are children your property or are they just people you won’t let leave your property?

                    4. They are just people whom circumstances prevent from leaving. Their inability to leave doesn’t diminish my authority over them while they are there.

                      It is like the example I give Nikki. If you are sick and broke and the only choice you have left is either move in with me or live on the streets and likely die, that doesn’t mean I have no authority over you if you are going to live in my house. Your inability to leave doesn’t mean I no longer own the house or no longer have the authority over you when you are there. When you get the ability to leave, you of course are free to do so, just like kids are.

                    5. I think you are still missing Nikki’s point. Not that you would ever agree with it in any case.
                      It’s nothing to do with the state. It is that no human being has the authority to force anyone else to do something. Practically, if you think that bringing a child into existence and shaping them to be what you consider a good person is a positive thing, then obviously you will need to wield some authority over them. But Nikki seems not to believe that to be a real good.

                    6. .. better the children should be exposed and left on some public land, somewhere, to test their mettle.

                      A sort of “tragedy of the commons“.

                    7. It is that no human being has the authority to force anyone else to do something.

                      Which is of course insane. If you are on my property, I have the authority over you while you are there. It is not unlimited authority but it is authority since I have the ability to throw you off if you don’t do what I say.

                    8. If you are on my property, I have the authority over you while you are there.

                      I’m not sure if I agree with that. You have the right to ask someone to leave your property. And if they don’t, you have the right to remove them by force. But I don’t think that is the same as having authority over them. With a child you say “my house, my rules”, but you also can compel them to stay in your house, under your rules. Maybe it is not a significant distinction, but i like distinctions.

                    9. I only can compel them Zeb because they are not capable of living on their own. Let say you are suffering from dimensia and move into my house because you have no other place to go. Can I stop you from going out of the house and wandering in traffic? Sure I can.

                      Just because my authority over you as a fully functioning adult doesn’t extend to not letting you leave, doesn’t mean my authority over someone who is not but whom I have assumed the responsibility of caring for doesn’t extend to that.

                    10. It’s nothing to do with the state. It is that no human being has the authority to force anyone else to do something.

                      I don’t have the authority to force you to leave my property? People have the authority to force others to do lots of things, given the right circumstances. And I would agree with Nikki’s point, if it made any sense. So stop being condescending.

                  3. The idea that there is no legitimate authority frightens them.

                    It doesn’t frighten me, I would just like to know who is the legitimate authority if not the parents, and why.

                    1. The idea is that there is no legitimate authority, period. Anarchists are kind of weird, but pretty consistent. Authority is the privilege to use force outside of the constraints on non-aggression to get other people to do what you want them to do.

                    2. Yeah, but in practice, you have to use some form of coercion with kids, in one form or another; whether it’s putting them on a gruel-and-crusts diet, threatening them with clowns, or telling them that no, no matter what they think, that they’re *not* adopted after all, sometimes you have to compromise your own principles.

                      And really, (and unfortunately) kids need to learn to be able to function in reality. Where they have to bow and scrape to authority when the need arises.

                    3. So then, parents don’t have legitimate authority over their children, because no one can have legitimate authority over another, but exercise it anyway, presumably for biological purposes?

                    4. Well, personally, I believe I *do* have legitimate authority over my kids, for a number of reasons.

                      I’m socially responsible for their behavior up until their majority.

                      * If they commit acts of aggression upon others (vandalism, assault, theft), I’m responsible under the law, and as a consequence, I must become an intermediary for their behavior. It’s not a situation I find optimal, but then, reality often is not optimal.

                      * I have to exercise authority over them to ensure they eat their broccoli, and ensure their diet conforms to government guidelines,
                      * I have to direct them to (and ensure that they do) attend school, despite their (legitimate) criticisms of its utility.
                      * I have to ensure that they come in the store with me and not sit unattended in a stationary vehicle, in case the sun comes out and burns them to a crisp, even if they have bottles of water.

                      There are a million and one legal and social strictures upon me which dictate that I must exercise authority over these young people, because if I do not do so *they* will suffer at the tender hands of another entity which seeks to exercise a far greater authority over them. This would be the case if they were adopted (or for that matter, fostered).

                      The exercise of “Illegitimate authority” over those kids is in order to avoid the tender embrace of an even more illegitimate authority.

                      It’s tyranny all the way down :/

          4. Same as Molyneux.

      2. He may not be an idiot generally but I don’t really see how any ideology should impact how you raise your children.

        1. It shouldn’t. Just like he says in the article.

          1. Can we replace Skenazy with Horowitz, please?

          2. It seems to me he confuses “libertine” with “Libertarian”. Libertarian is a political not a personal ideology. You can live your life by a very strict moral or ascetic code and still be a “Libertarian” because how you live your life does not necessarily mean you think the government should force others to live a certain way.

            1. You can live your life by a very strict moral or ascetic code and still be a “Libertarian” because how you live your life does not necessarily mean you think the government should force others to live a certain way.

              John, sometimes you say it better than I could ever dream of saying it.

              1. Thank you. Really.

    7. “advocates of libertarian parenting might argue that children should always get paid for chores”

      Unless your kid pays rent and buys their own groceries, they do.

    8. “advocates of libertarian parenting might argue that children should always get paid for chores”

      Unless your kid pays rent and buys their own groceries, they do.

    9. This is his concluding sentence:

      We shouldn’t want parenting to be libertarian; we should want to parent in ways that produce children who have the skills they need to value and sustain liberty.

      Seems reasonable to me. In fact, seems dead-on.

      1. Agree, good conclusion. How that translates into everyday issues like a bedtimes or chores is going to vary depending on the kid the home, etc. I think just talking to your kids about money, jobs, responsibility is more important than if you pay them for chores.

        Also, this is the site where I read all the free range kid articles isn’t it?

        1. I think just talking to your kids about money, jobs, responsibility is more important than if you pay them for chores.

          This!

    10. While I disagree with him in how he classified Baumrind’s typology of parenting styles from “most involved to the least”, I do agree that the authoritative parenting style leads to the best outcomes.

      1. Be strict at first, give them privileges as they earn them. And by the time they’re 14 or so, it’s too late to change what kind of person you’ve made.

        1. And by the time they’re 14 or so, it’s too late to change what kind of person you’ve made.

          Which is why we need to bring back patria potestas.

        2. Yeah. At some point you have to learn that sometimes circumstances and life is unfair and can’t be changed.

        3. And by the time they’re 14 or so, it’s too late to change what kind of person you’ve made.

          The marshmallow study suggests that you’ve done much of your influence by age 4.

    11. For starters, just refrain from hitting your children and you’re already one step ahead of most parents.

      1. Depends on the kid. Some kids you could beat to death and it would have no effect on them. Some kids, especially boys, only respond to at least the threat of physical violence. That shocks our delicate sensibilities but it is true. It is why boys raised by single mothers have on the whole so much poorer outcomes in life than ones raised by two parents. Without the threat of physical violence, a lot of boys just don’t respect their parents.

        1. My goodness, John, it’s almost like you are suggesting that human beings are violent creatures by nature!

          1. It is almost as if we are animals or something. It is funny how people will in one breath swear on the gospel of evolution and then in the next breath claim human beings and children are these naturally nonviolent pure creatures corrupted by society. Have you ever watched an animal mother with its offspring? Especially a predator and social animal like a dog? The mothers can get a bit nippy with the puppies because the puppies are naturally aggressive and that is all they understand. Humans are not that much different.

        2. Yes the most defenseless group of humans in existence are the ones who require threats of violence and regular beatings.

          1. There’s a big difference between beating a child and getting their attention with a slap upside the head.

            1. It’s all hitting, no matter the euphemism. I’ve never hit my kids and I’m always being told how respectful and polite they are. Hitting children is cowardly and lazy, to put it nicely.

              1. With you on that, FS

              2. I didn’t say I do it or advocate it. I’m just saying that you’re making a false equivalence by characterizing all hitting as “beating.” I do remember one time, once mind you, my stepson was really out of line and I got his attention with a quick tap on the head. Not enough to hurt or even mess up his hair. I immediately regretted it, but it worked. I had his full attention.

                1. Regular physical contact will cause the child to shut down and see the parent as unloving. The occasional swat when the child needs to pay attention will cause the child to pay attention and try to figure out why this situation was so different. Personally, I think the only two times physical contact is useful are when the child is in imminent physical danger (3-year-old tries to run into the street) or when the child is openly defiant to command and punishment.

        3. I don’t buy that using violence on your children is ever necessary. Maybe an occasional smack on the butt when young to get their attention.

          I could be wrong, but that’s what I’m going with for now. If I look at the people I knew growing up and consider which ones had parents who would wup their asses when they misbehaved, I really don’t see any positive correlation with better outcomes later in life. If anything, there is a slight negative correlation.

          1. And a well documented lowering of IQ to name but one correlation.

            1. I think that a lot of people who defend using violence on children are people who don’t want to consider that maybe it did them some harm when their parents did it to them. And I suspect that the older children who “need” physical correction probably only do so because they learned early in life that that is how you know that your parents are serious and you’d better do what they say.

            2. And a well documented lowering of IQ to name but one correlation.

              I think it’s very hard to separate the occasional swat from child abuse in those studies. I have a hard time believing that the occasional spanking is going to have a statistically significant effect on IQ. OTOH, It seems perfectly plausible that children in abusive situations would not have high IQs.

          2. I don’t buy that using violence on your children is ever necessary

            Do you not see

            Maybe an occasional smack on the butt when young to get their attention.

            That these two sentences are directly contradictory?

    12. What does libertarian parenting look like?

      How about free range, street smarts, natural consequences, leaving newsletters from F.I.R.E. and IJ lying about the house, leaving Freedom From Speech by Greg Lukianoff on the kitchen table (later used to turn opposing views into mush for a classroom project), leaving the I-PAD open to H & R *gasp*, and…what started it all…leaving Liberty Versus the Tyranny of Socialism, Controversial Essays by Walter E. Williams on the kitchen table.

      Just strategic placement.

      1. Reading “Rainbow Fish” as a bedtime story, but then explaining why impoverishing yourself to ‘buy’ friends is a stupid strategy.

        1. Or, as happened at our house not too long ago, telling Baby Girl that we would absolutely not participate in the Elf on a Shelf phenomenon because we don’t support surveillance as a means of behavior control.

          Compromise…just play hide and seek with my battered old elf…all the fun…none of the soft indoctrination.

  27. Rand Paul with a woodchipper. Which one of you is Rand, admit it.

    1. First, that’s fucking awesome. Second, the tweet right below the picture was from Bronies for Hillary and said Hitler was libertarian. I leave the thought process behind that statement as an exercise for the reader.

      1. They’re bronies, they’re not capable of higher thought functions.

    2. Bronies for Hillary ?@BenghaziExpert ? 2 ??2 ???
      ??????
      @RandPaul @FoxNews @BillHemmer Hitler was libertarian

      Nice comment section there.

      1. And I got some kanji through. WTF.

        1. Dammit…still can’t post cao ni ma….

          1. You seem more a PM links guy, HM. Alarm go off early?

    1. Do you have one that doesn’t go through twitter? Twitter doesn’t work at work.

  28. The volume of Arctic sea ice increased by a third after the unusually cool summer of 2013. Researchers say the growth continued in 2014 and more than compensated for losses recorded in the three previous years. Wha-wha-WHAAAA?

    1. Meanwhile, the latest excuse for the cult is that the missing heat their models predicted but can’t be found is in the ocean and will result in increased ocean temperatures and (wait for it) melting sea ice and rising sea levels.

      http://www.theguardian.com/env…..scientists

      The warming of the oceans due to climate change is now unstoppable after record temperatures last year, bringing additional sea-level rise, and raising the risks of severe storms, US government climate scientists said on Thursday.

      The annual State of the Climate in 2014 report, based on research from 413 scientists from 58 countries, found record warming on the surface and upper levels of the oceans, especially in the North Pacific, in line with earlier findings of 2014 as the hottest year on record.

      Global sea-level also reached a record high, with the expansion of those warming waters, keeping pace with the 3.2 ? 0.4 mm per year trend in sea level growth over the past two decades, the report said.

      1. Global sea-level also reached a record high, with the expansion of those warming waters, keeping pace with the 3.2 ? 0.4 mm per year trend in sea level growth over the past two decades, the report said.

        Does anybody know how they measure sea level? Surely they don’t do it from any landmass. Landmasses are often moving. Do they have some way to measure from the center of the earth? Or maybe the circumference at the equator? Otherwise, I call bullshit on the notion that they can even know what the sea level is doing.

        1. That’s a good question. I think it is based on an average of readings from lots of tide gauges all over the world. It’s not perfect since land does move, but taken as a long term average, i think it is meaningful. The specific numbers may be somewhat arbitrary, but you can measure how it changes on average.

        2. If you were to stand on the ocean shore and try to measure sea level with a ruler, you would find it to be impossible — the level changes by the second (waves), by the hour (tides) and by the week (planetary and solar orbit changes). To get around this, scientists try using tide gauges. A tide gauge is a large (1 foot [30 cm] or more in diameter), long pipe with a small hole below the water line. This pipe is often called a stilling well. Even though waves are changing the water level outside the gauge constantly, they have little effect inside the gauge. The sea level can be read relatively accurately inside this pipe. If read on a regular basis over a time span of years and then averaged, you can get a measurement of sea level.

          You can see that getting an accurate reading (for example, down to the millimeter level) is extremely difficult. Satellites are now used as well, but they suffer from many of the same problems. Scientists do the best they can, using extremely long time spans, to try to figure out what the sea level is and whether or not it is rising. The general consensus seems to be that the oceans rise about 2 millimeters per year.

          http://science.howstuffworks.c…..ion356.htm

          You can’t measure sea level down to the millimeter level. So claims that sea level is rising 3.2 mm per year cannot be verified.

          1. You can do a long term average which tells you something about the trend. But it is still bullshit if someone claims that this year sea level rose 2 mm, or whatever.

            Whatever the cause, it is a useful thing to know about when planning development and infrastructure near the ocean.

          2. In the past (1970’s) one method that was considered was by measuring the gravitation at sea level at a specific point. Given that the imaginary column of oceanic crust, mantle and core between the instrumentation and the center of mass of the earth was considered ‘practically’ consistent, the only variable was the column of water from the sea floor to the observer.

            The practical problem was that the measured variation was small, even ignoring the fact that all those constants were provably variable (salinity of seawater, inhomogeneity of mantle material, variation in ‘high tides’) etc.

            Given that on a global scale, the world is a somewhat squishy oblate spheroid, where the earth’s surface itself is deformed by the passage of the moon, even satellite measurements need to be looked at with some skepticism. When people talk about millimeter-per-year changes, they’re ignoring the fact that you can’t deliver that level of precision with the inherent accuracy of their instrumentation.

            Ultimately it is, as you guess, what’s happening is that some doofus is reading off the scale painted on a meter rule nailed to a post stuck in the harbor.

          3. That’s one of the articles that I looked at, John. It seems that there is a lot of gross measuring going on, that is then broken down mathematically to give them the bogus numbers that they peddle.

            I think Zeb is right, that averages over years of assessment can give a ballpark view of sea level change. But there are still planetary effects on the oceans that should come into view when measuring to the mil. Jupiter may have a major effect on earth’s oceans–for example–when we’re talking about mils.

        3. You weigh the earth…drain it…then weigh it again

          1. I lol’d.

            It is the volume of the oceans that ultimately matter. But then they need to measure the proportion of fresh water and how it’s changing.

  29. Second Video Of Planned Parenthood’s Baby Organ Trafficking Scheme Surfaces

    Gatter also said that while it is clearly a “violation of protocol” to alter the medical procedure used on a patient for the purposes of harvesting organs, she views those that as a “specious little argument” against the process.

    Later in the video, Gatter and the prospective buyer finally agree on a price for aborted fetal remains.

    “But you know, the money is not the important thing for me,” Gatter says after agreeing to a price of $100. “But it has to be big enough that it makes it worthwhile for me.”

    “Let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, then it’s fine,” Gatter says. “If it’s still low, then we can bump it.”

    “I want a Lamborghini,” Gatter concludes.

    1. These videos are so bad they cannot be spun by the elite media types.

      1. Why would the staff be embarrassed by these revelations?

        It’s just a clump of cells, that the abortion providers have found have some commercial value.

        It’s no different to running a diner and finding someone’s prepared to pay for your waste cooking oil, when you thought you’d have to pay someone to get rid of it for you.

        To be fair, they should use the proceeds from the sale to reduce the cost of the termination to the woman. After all, she cultivated the product.

        /left libertarian

        1. Putting aside the question of the morality of abortion (yeah, I know, good luck with that), that seems quite reasonable.

          1. I’m not watching awfully closely, but the more interesting issue is – what level of suppression of the story is going on, and what are the abortionists doing about the revelations.

            You’d think that if they really believed the whole ‘clump of cells’ narrative, they’d own the issue and criticize the people being bribed for what amounts to taking ‘small change’. But that doesn’t seem to be happening, from what I can see.

            1. I really can’t stand anyone involved. I think abortion should be legal, but I am so fucking sick of the bullshit that most people who agree with me on that are peddling.

      2. They can however be ignored.

        1. ^This.

          Nothing exposes media bias more than the coverage of abortion issues.

      3. Parts is parts. It worked for McD’s.

    2. It’s sickening. I don’t even want to listen to any more of it. It’s not that the tissue has any sacred value. What sickens me is the cavalier attitude toward killing fetuses for hire.

      1. Planned Parenthood is evil. And the reality is abortion, at least after the first trimester, is infanticide. It just is. I don’t understand how anyone can look at an ultrasound or understand the science of fetal development and say that it is just a inhuman clump of cells until it is born. It is totally irrational. And most infuriating of all, the people who do that have the nerve to claim that anyone who disagrees with them is just some irrational religious nut, as if religious has anything to do with the facts in front of their face.

        1. What else would you expect of an organization conceived and developed by a committed eugenicist.

      2. I am pro-choice up to the point of viability, but I absolutely want Planned Parenthood completely defunded.

        I don’t want my friends with moral objections to abortion to have to subsidize this organization through their tax dollars. (I don’t think taxpayers should be subsidizing _any_ private organization, but the moral objections of religious people are too big to ignore.)

      3. I happen to be mostly pro-life–but I’m also anti-government intervention.

        My wife is a NICU nurse who has seen the viability age of neonates drop from about 38 weeks to 22 weeks during her career. There has been enormous innovation in respirators and other equipment that has made it possible to take a 22 weeker and keep them alive until they fully mature. It will inevitably go much lower. Planned Parenthood’s days are ultimately numbered.

        1. Planned Parenthood’s days are ultimately should be numbered.

          FTFY

        2. I am inclined to agree with you. The strict pro choice abortion on demand at all phases of the pregnancy is just totally unsustainable.

          It is not even a choice issue anymore. Birth control is widely available and so is the morning after pill. How in the hell can anyone claim they are denied the choice of not being pregnant because they can’t have an abortion given all of the available options to prevent getting pregnant in the first place?

          Rape? Take a fucking morning after pill.

        3. I got this very wrong–my wife informs me. The viability when she started was 28 weeks and it now is 23 weeks. And 23 is a fuzzy edge in that not all neonates can survive out of the womb at 23 weeks.

  30. Ow to make en oumlet. I’ve been making one of these two types every morning for months now, and I’ve almost got the fancy shaky type down. It’s hard to do right.

    1. Really bad comment positioning, coming right after Injun.

      1. I know, right? Jesus, Warty, CONTEXT.

    2. My main question is: how do you add other ingredients and still get the omelet to behave. But he answers this with the second omelet.

      Will have to try this me?ana.

      1. It takes a lot of practice and a lot of butter. You want the pan hot enough that the butter bubbles as soon as you put it in the pan, but not so hot that it burns.

        1. I find that it’s easier to avoid the butter burning by using unsalted butter. Obviously, you then need to season the omelet.

        2. Generally, this is easier to do on a gas range with a cast-iron pan. If you try to sustain a temperature like that on an electric range with a thin, shitty pan, you’ll burn the butter in about 3 seconds flat.

        3. So, do you put your ingredients in at the very end–as he does in the second omelet? Of do you put them in earlier so they can warm up?

          1. as he mentions in the second example.

          2. I sautee the filling first, put it aside, then put it back in at the end.

            1. Thanks. That’ll work.

  31. Totally OT and apropos nothing whatsoever, I finally found some ammo that my CZ 75 Compact wouldn’t accept.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you: “Tulammo Maxx
    Not only wouldn’t the gun go properly into battery, when it did fire I find that it may be the dirtiest ammo I’ve ever fired.
    We need a guns and ammo ‘sticky’ thread here.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.