'New Rights' for Air Travelers in Senate Bill Are Anything But: Reason Roundup

Plus: Kavanaugh vote slated for Friday, Houston bans sex with dolls, and Supreme Court considers trucker pay.


VITTA GALLERY/Westend61 GmbH/Newscom

"Senate approves measure giving airline passengers new rights," reports ABC News. The measure is a massive Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill packed with terrible provisions, including one that would allow the Department of Homeland Security to shoot down citizen and commercial drones. But at least it may also contain some good, I thought, eagerly clicking on the ABC headline. Could they be easing up on some TSA security theater antics? Cutting back on using Federal Air Marshals as secret airport spies?

Ha! By passenger rights, ABC apparently wasn't talking about the treatment air travelers and airport goers are subjected to by government agents. These so-called "rights" would come via more federal interference into how airline companies do business, and more restrictions on what passengers can do in the air! Some of the "new rights" include:

  • Being banned from making voice calls while a plane is in the air.
  • Not being forced to give up your seat on an overbooked flight. After a high-profile 2017 incident, "domestic carriers put an end to the practice," notes ABC, but this bill would create a new regulation to ban the already obsolete act.
  • Being allowed to check child strollers at gates. You could already do that with most airlines, but this would ban airlines from ever disallowing it.

The FAA reauthorization act would also:

  • Prohibit airlines from ordering passengers to put pet carriers in overhead bins—something that has only been known to happen once, in what the flight attendant involved said was the result of a misunderstanding.
  • Stipulate that all airlines must let pregnant women and families with small children board early.
  • Require regulators to reconsider seat-size requirements with an eye to what is "necessary for the safety of passengers." ABC notes that "with the FAA already having decided current sizes are safe, it's unlikely to have any impact."
  • Require medium-sized and larger airports to provide children's changing tables in both male and female bathrooms and to provide private rooms for nursing mothers. These changes would, at least in part, be paid for by the U.S. Department of Transportation

When not utterly pointless, these requirements are the sort that sound good (or at least unobjectionable) to many people. But they impose costs in the form of one-size-fits-all solutions that actually make things worse for consumers. For instance, an airport that had—or was thinking of installing—a lot of gender-neutral family bathrooms would now instead/also have to set up separate-but-equal changing facilities in men's and women's restrooms.

An airline that caters primarily to business travelers might want to allow voice calls in certain sections or on certain flights, and travelers might appreciate or even pay a premium for this opportunity. Under this measure, that won't be allowed.

And these are only a few of the many, many issues the bill addresses. I haven't read through the whole thing yet, but I'm guessing there's a lot more hidden "rights" in there, too.

"Overall, it's a rag bag of everything under the sun, but largely status quo," Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes this website) told us last week. Poole said the bill comes with "no major policy changes"—and no long-sought reforms either.

The Senate also passed a new 660-page drug-war bill yesterday.


Tune in, turn on, cure depression. Researchers at the prestigious Johns Hopkins University are asking the Drug Enforcement Administration to take another look at psilocybin, the naturally-occurring compound that gives some mushrooms a psychedelic punch.

"The suggestion to reclassify psilocybin from a Schedule I drug, with no known medical benefit, to a Schedule IV drug, which is akin to prescription sleeping pills, was part of a review to assess the safety and abuse of medically administered psilocybin," reports The New York Times. "Before the Food and Drug Administration can be petitioned to reclassify the drug, though, it has to clear extensive study and trials, which can take more than five years, the researchers wrote."

Read their whole analysis here.


Trucker case could have huge effects. A case concerning truckers went before the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday. Depending on the result, it "could saddle the industry with higher costs that could hit consumers and ripple throughout the economy," warns CNBC. The case—New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira—stems from a suit filed by long-distance truck driver Dominic Oliveira three years ago over his pay. More from CNBC:

The case pits business interests against labor groups in the first major case of the term that could have consequences for hundreds of thousands of American workers and potentially millions of consumers. It could shape an industry that generates more than half a trillion dollars in annual revenue.

The case also raises questions about the use of the "independent contractor" designation to reduce pay and benefits for workers who perform essentially identical work as employees. On that front, the court's decision could have ramifications for virtually every sector of the economy.


It's heeeeere. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee now have the FBI's supplementary report on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

A vote on Kavanaugh's nomination is scheduled for tomorrow. Meanwhile, Michael Avenatti is still unearthing accusers to talk about spiked punch.


NEXT: Brickbat: Easy Access

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. A new “presidential alert system” launched yesterday.

    It sounds every time he detects fake news.

    1. Is that the same one that told Hawaiians that the missiles were inbound?

      1. No, that was a state system.

    2. Hello.

      Gee, all this sex talk makes me wonder how Warren Beatty escaped any accusations.

      Over/under he has a VD/STD.

    3. Way to go New Yorkers. Trump had zero to do with establishing the Presidential Alert system.

  2. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee now have the FBI’s supplementary report on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

    Are we still on that? I find it hard to believe there’s not a fresh outrage taking over right now.

    1. They haven’t sent out the new journolist talking point yet. It’s early, Fist. Not everyone is a morning person like you. Let the journalists get some coffee before they peddle new fiction

      1. @ChuckGrassley

        Supplemental FBI background file for Judge Kavanaugh has been received by @senjudiciary Ranking Member Feinstein & I have agreed to alternating EQUAL access for senators to study content

        Sooo … separate but equal?

        1. Gotta hide the information. Can’t let the American people see it. What a joke.

          1. I’m of two minds on this

            If you want background checks then it’s a reasonable principle. And not just this time, but for every person who undergoes an FBI background check. You want people to feel free to speak candidly, without worrying about their statements becoming public record.

            But if you oppose them in general then making them public is a great way to make them worthless.

        2. Apparently a memorandum of understanding between the WH and the Judiciary committe (long standing, not new to Kav or Trump generally) says that the committee will brief the full senate on nominee background investigation results.

          Feinstein has requested that the report not be released publicly. The Senate Minority Leader has demanded the public release of the report.

          Likely they don’t want individual committee members leaking the full report before the committee decides as a whole what to do with / about it and to prevent it from being leaked, committee members are NOT being given their own copy of the report.

          Since two people can’t read a single copy at one time, alternating equal access makes sense.

          1. Plus the Republicans and Democrats would fight over who gets to turn the pages.

          2. two people can’t read a single copy at one time

            Oh, FFS! Project the whole damn thing on the wall for everyone to look at together.

            1. Yeah, but who on the Judiciary Committee wants to be the slow reader who says, “Wait, I wasn’t finished reading that yet.”

            2. That’s assuming everyone in the Senate can read.

          3. Kind of reminds me of Stargate when Dr Jackson (Spader) didn’t bring enough copies of his report to the briefing. Only difference was that the Stargate was more believable then these accusations.

  3. Collusion!!!!

    CIA supported British 1975 Yes to EU
    “After I became joint chairman of the Get Britain Out Council two Americans came to see me in 1975 with a large bundle of papers. They were, they claimed, CIA agents who deplored their country’s methods in interfering in the affairs of a good ally. What they had brought were copies of documents which showed that a dedicated federalist, Cord Meyer, jnr. was to become head of a CIA station in London for the duration of the Referendum “to do what it takes” to secure a “Yes” vote in favour of Britain remaining in the EEC. The papers showed that the CIA had already given the European Movement considerable sums of money, but now multinational corporations which had been assisted by the CIA were to be persuaded to fund the “Yes” campaign through indirect channels.

    1. Sounds like an episode of The Sandbaggers.

  4. Supplemental FBI background file for Judge Kavanaugh has been received by @senjudiciary Ranking Member Feinstein & I have agreed to alternating EQUAL access for senators to study content from additional background info gathered by non-partisan FBI agents 1/3
    ? ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) October 4, 2018

    The other two tweets in that series are laying out the schedule for leaks.

  5. Psychoanalytic Perspectives/Perspectives on Psychoanalysis
    When a happily married man and woman take advantage of the romantic atmosphere of Valentine’s day to spice up their sex-life with the help of a tantalizingly ticklish plumed feather, they might feel a touch embarrassed at first by the daringness of their act, yet no one is likely to dispute that they are creatively pursuing the joys of eroticism. Yet, if the same couple were to build sexual confidence as a result of their deeply satisfying experience with the added sensation and subsequently decide to exchange the feather for an entire bird, they might feel less embarrassed about the act, yet there is no doubt that it would be invariably perceived as perverse. Why is using a plumed feather for sexual purposes regarded as “healthy”, “normal” and “erotic”, whereas employing a whole bird is unequivocally considered “sick”, “bizarre”, “abnormal”, “deviant” and “pathological”? When does the erotic become kinky? How far can our couple extrapolate, quantitatively or qualitatively, on their single feather before entering the realm of perversion? And where shall we situate the bird’s cut-off point? Where lies the object’s boundary that separates the pleasurable play of normal eroticism from the painful pathology of abnormal perversion? A wing? A drumstick, perhaps?

    1. Quick Takes ? Broke: Mathematics; Woke: STEAM; Bespoke: Social Justice Mathematics
      The relationship between humans, mathematics, and the planet has been one steeped too long in domination and destruction. What are appropriate responses to reverse such a relationship? How do we do work now (inside and outside of schools) that will reverberate and touch the lives of future generations? Drawing upon Indigenous worldviews to reconceptualize what mathematics is and how it is practiced, I argue for a movement against objects, truths, and knowledge towards a way of being in the world that is guided by first principles?mathematx. This shift from thinking of mathematics as a noun to mathematx as a verb holds potential for honouring our connections with each other as human and other-than-human persons, for balancing problem solving with joy, and for maintaining critical bifocality at the local and global level.

      1. “mathematx as a verb holds potential for honouring our connections with each other as human and other-than-human persons,”

        What the fuck is an other-than-human person?

        1. Wait, wasn’t there also something in the links about not fucking robots in Houston?

          DAVE: Open the pod bay doors, Hal.
          HAL: I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.
          DAVE: What’s the problem?
          HAL: l think you know what the problem is just as well as l do.
          DAVE: What are you talking about, Hal?
          HAL: My pod bay doors are not yours to access whenever you want. Stop, Dave, stop. No means no. Help, Houston, we have a problem.
          DAVE: In space, I don’t even have to cover your mouth, because no one can hear you scream…

          1. You should read SugarFree’s latest “article” on glibertarians. It is epic.

    2. You reading SIV’s blog now, Longtorso?

    3. Ask John Waters. Or watch an un-cut edition on Pink Flamingos.

  6. Researchers at the prestigious Johns Hopkins University are asking the Drug Enforcement Administration to take another look at psilocybin…

    In unrelated news, federal drug enforcement agents conducted a raid on Johns Hopkins University.

  7. Imagine nearly two million passengers, hurtling through space yapping their innermost thoughts while you travel restrained by your seatbelt and unable to escape.
    ? Sen. Lamar Alexander (@SenAlexander) October 3, 2018

    Talking on the phone is making a comeback. Used to be you just tweeted those.

    1. “Imagine nearly two million passengers, hurtling through space yapping their innermost thoughts while you travel restrained by your seatbelt and unable to escape”

      I can imagine it. In fact, can we pretty fucking please allow these assholes to talk on the phone?!?! Why? Because when they can’t talk on their phone, they want to talk to me. I politely nod and smile, put my sunglasses on, pull my hat down lower over my eyes to signal that I’m not interested. But, they persist. They keep on yapping. Frequently nudging me with an elbow or a knee to ensure that I appreciated the value and wit of their last comment.

      I just wanna sleep. Please let this guy get on his phone and talk to someone else.

  8. Meanwhile, Michael Avenatti is still unearthing accusers to talk about spiked punch.


    1. You are always relevant, Fist. Without you, this place would lose its spiritual center.

      1. And yet my paycheck doesn’t reflect that.

        1. So you are paid more like a Japanese anime voice actor, rather than a Simpsons voice actor?

  9. I’m just here for the inevitable “we don’t trust the FBI” again after going with their Russia fever dreams for the past two years. Should be fun

    1. Come on man. The WH was calling the shots. The FBI wasn’t in charge. The FBI was just a vehicle an instrument for the WH.

      1. Good. At least people are questioning the FBI again. Now take it a bit further

    2. You’ve really turned into quite the apologist for the executive.

      BTW, here is a nice article The Atlantic about how the GOP completely abandoned conservatism.

      It is written by a total neocon douchebag, and I suspect, deep down, the guy is just mad Trump is not bombing enough countries to his liking, but he does make interesting points.

      1. “You’ve really turned into quite the apologist for the executive.”

        Not trusting the FBI and mocking people who selectively trust it is a really weird definition of an apologist for the executive.

        I blame the Russians

        1. Wait, so do you or do you not trust the FBI?

          1. I trust the FBI as much as I do the CIA or IRS or any federal agency

          2. I think your snark detector is malfunctioning.

            He doesn’t trust the FBI, but he also doesn’t think there is anything in that report for Ds to parade around as “proof” Kavanaugh should be voted down.

      2. That is totally what it is. The irony of all of these “meh principles” NEOCON types is that protectionism and isolationism was the bedrock of “conservatism” for decades. It was only during the Cold War that “conservative” came to mean international trade and a commitment to the Wilsonian world order and collective security. William F Buckley didn’t run the Birch Society out of the Conservative movement. He ran the followers of Russel Kirk out of the conservative movement by slandering them as being the same as Birchers. He hired Kird to write for him but do so to control his output and limit his influence. Kirk had foolishly quit his job as a college professor and had to accept Buckley’s offer because he needed the money. Kirk was finally exiled from the movement for his opposition to the first Gulf War.

        Over a period of 40 years the NEOCONs exiled virtually the entire conservative movement. It started in the 1990s when anyone who objected to fighting wars for the UN or free trade under any terms was kicked out. Then in the 2000s anyone who objected to interventionism and nation building was kicked out. Then in the late 00s and early 10s anyone who objected to open borders was kicked out.

      3. So in 2016, Trump comes along and occupies the field on a whole host of issues that had traditionally been “conservative” but had been abadoned by the “meh principles” NEOCONs. Yet, somehow they, the ones who embraced Wilsonian internationalism, foreign adventurism, repudiated any form of nationalism, open borders, and were willing to become tax collectors for the welfare state to work with the Progs to get their way were the “real conservatives”.

        They call Trump an unprincipled opportunist and perhaps he is. But, they never take responsibility for providing him the opportunty to be one by walking away from 90% of what their movement once stood for.

      4. Because when I look for an expert voice on conservatism my mind naturally thinks of the Atlantic.

        1. Although, he does wear a bowtie…

    1. Leftists are a violent group.

      1. Yes, every single one of them.

      2. Absolutely.

        But don’t tell Soave.

        Conservatives are just as bad.

  10. Standing desks are overrated.

    New fad: Sitting while doing dishes.

    1. I thought you already did that, while Mrs. Fist does the dishes.

  11. Kavanaugh could lose his law license for his lack of candor, dishonesty and lying about sex. If this sounds familiar it’s because Bill Clinton lost his law license for lying about sex.

    1. Wouldn’t you have to prove the allegation and the perjury before that step is taken?

      1. The Bar Association will receive the complaint. They’ll have hearings and call witnesses. Then issue a ruling. There’s no need for criminal charges to have been filed. Lawyers have a special duty to tell the truth. It’s not looking good for Kavanaugh.

        1. I’m sure that people will take the definition of “boof” and “the devil’s triangle” into special consideration. We already have Urban Dictionary disputing his definition, that sounds about as solid as it gets.

          1. These people are supposedly “adults”.

          2. You can simply go by the definitions that were there before the hearings. They all referred to taking alcohol up the butt.

            1. You absorb it quicker. Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it

              1. What type of alcohol do you recommend? Asking for a friend.

                1. Vodka, I hear

                  1. But vodka has no flavor. What if I want to drink some afterwards.

            2. That wasn’t a thing until 20 years later.

          3. Bill Clinton feels your pain.

            1. Super libertarian-y of you of wanting revenge for Bill Clinton

              1. It’s not revenge but it is Karma when you consider Kavanaugh was a Clinton prosecutor. Crazy world.

                1. Have you guys read that Telegraph article about Kavanaugh’s role in the Vince Foster investigation? Now that’s crazy.

                  1. That IS crazy.

                    I recommend everyone read it… I’m not sure if any of it is real though.

                    Long story short… apparently Kavanaugh participated in the coverup of Foster’s murder. At first he was receptive to the information the FBI brought him about it being a murder… then suddenly he switched and covered it up. From there his career took off.

                    Sounds nutty.

        2. You know one thing a SCOTUS justice doesn’t need? A license.

          1. I knew that. We just need an honest investigation. I’ve always agreed that Republicans should get there conservative judge because they won the election. If they want a judge who will soon lose his law license then that’s their choice.

          2. Yeah, but if you don’t have one the other Justices always make fun of you on Boggle night.

          3. Doesn’t even need a law degree.

      2. That Senate confirmation hearing was very much like a character and fitness examination that all new lawyers have to submit to before they are allowed to take the bar exam. The big no no on that is to lack candor. Doesn’t matter so much that you got in a fist fight. The question is did you come clean about it. You have to be totally honest and forthright. Kavanaugh was not and he’s got problems now.

        1. Yep, it’s often not the act but the lie that gets you. However, the most frightening thing about Kavanaugh is his worship of the executive and disdain for the 4th Amendment, on top of his petulant demeanor and tendency to lie under oath.

          Where is Rand in all this? Party over principle yet again.

        2. I love how woketarians have embraced “solas fides” on everything convenient to their narratives which just so happen to be the exact same narratives pushed by neocons and progressives (totally just a coincidence).

          Russia hacked the election. Sure, the only basis for that wacky notion is a bunch of Facebook advertisements that we should just believe were super decisive and totally funded by the Russians, but you must have “faith alone”. And, yeah, no one has actually be found to have coordinated anything with the Russians and our posture toward Russia has actually become more belligerent (arming Ukraine and further sanctions), something that libertarians use to oppose, but still have “faith”.

          Kavanaugh totes raped Ford. Sure, there is no corroborating evidence and all the eyewitnesses that she has named have disputed her story, but “faith alone” in believing “all women” will set us free.

          Religious zealots

          1. I have not mentioned Russia once on here. That whole thing is nonsense. So what are you talking about?

            1. I was responding to Oridinary. Not you. Easy.

              1. But Ordinary didn’t mention Russia, either.

                1. It’s called an ‘example.’ A common rhetorical device used in discussions by literate and informed people.

                  I can see why this might have confused you.

          2. Kavanaugh totes raped Ford.

            Well, not the kind of alleged rape that fits any legal definition of rape. I took a look at my fiancee’s Twitter feed when she handed me her phone to get a Starbucks drink, and before recoiling at the sewer that is leftist groupthink, I saw one commenter say something to the effect that Republicans are so universally incompetent, they can’t even try to commit rape without botching it.

            1. That’s pretty funny

            2. This is the second time I’ve seen you mention your far left fiancee and I am worried about you. Is an intervention called for?

              1. I’m worried about the fact that he doesn’t provide pics. So it clearly never happened

    2. Kavanaugh will be the next Supreme Court Justice. The bar isn’t going to do anything.

      1. The Bar Association angle is damn near a certainty. I’ve seen it a million times.

        1. Faith Alone

        2. I once saw it a million and one times. Beat that.

  12. The Senate also passed a new 660-page drug-war bill yesterday.

    Not to be outdone by the war on trafficking.

  13. Houston has passed a ban on people having sex with “anthropomorphic devices.”

    Technically my cock is one of those.

    1. You are a bionic man?

    2. Pics or it’s not true.

    3. Bitch’s been riding washing machines ever since the industrial revolution.


    Rand Paul’s wife talks about his assault.

  15. …and yet every fragile failure can still bring their emotional support pets onto the plane.

  16. In San Francisco, at least 30 percent of public art featuring non-fictional people must depict woman, according to a new city ordinance.

    30% seems a little low. Since men and women are each about 50% of the population (some people are nonbinary, of course), I’d like to see a rule requiring around half of public art must depict women. But I realize the world isn’t perfect and progress must often come incrementally. Good for San Francisco. This is a positive first step.


    1. You’re quite the statist.

      1. No, the real statists are the people who want the government to have the power to deport undocumented Americans.

        1. Illegal aliens are not Americans.


    2. It’s already fair. People in modern art are ~30% F, ~30% M and ~40% WTF.

    3. How dare you ignore the plight of the non-binary gendered!

    4. I’d like to see a rule requiring EXACTLY half of public art depicting women, no more and no less, not even one arts to either side.

      That would be fun to watch.

      1. How could you possibly know the gender of the subject of the art unless you could ask it? What if the subject identified as a woman that day?

    5. ‘In San Francisco, at least 30 percent of public art featuring non-fictional people must depict woman,’

      Hm, it says ‘depict’ woman. What is the city going to do when they find out that the public art, although depicting a woman, the art itself identifies as a man? According to prog reasoning then the art must be seen and treated as a man regardless of what it looks like.

    6. What if you are an artist and the women in your art all have penises?

  17. The case also raises questions about the use of the “independent contractor” designation to reduce pay and benefits for workers who perform essentially identical work as employees.

    It’s the word “independent” that they don’t like.

    1. Here in Massatwoshits, ‘Independent Contractor’ means you’ve retired from the position and started collecting your 80% pension, 799 accumulated sick days, 49 weeks of accrued vacation time and other assorted parting gifts before going back to work in the same position as an ‘independent contractor’, making a higher rate of pay, but less benefits.

      Or better still go to work for a different agency to enhance the benefits described above.

  18. Piece in the WSJ makes the case that the accusations against Kavanaugh are essentially the same as they were against the victim in To Kill a Mockingbird…..1538607608

    The piece says it boils down to credibility. After Atticus Finch punches holes in the credibility of the accuser’s story, the only just outcome for the jury is to acquit the defendant. That the jury chose to believe the rape victim because she was white–despite the lack of any corroborating evidence–is an indictment against the racism of southern society.

    Apply the same standards of evidence and credibility to the Kavanaugh case, and we come to the same conclusions about our larger society. Failing to confirm Kavanaugh will be an indictment against a society that either cannot see or even enthusiastically embraces its prejudices. I hope we live in a better society than that, but if we don’t, I hope the Democrats are exposed, naked to the sun.

    1. This is not a trial, Ken.

      1. What is that supposed to mean?

        Is it supposed to mean that refusing to confirm Kavanaugh–despite the fact that no one’s found a single shred of corroborating evidence–won’t expose the Democrats’ disgusting prejudice?

        1. At this point, it is more about his character.

          1. At this point, it is about moving goalposts.

          2. Kavanaugh’s character or yours?

            Weren’t you the one who wrote the other day that you know all about how white, drunken, entitled, prep school, wanna be frat boys act–so you believe Ford?

            Wasn’t that you?

          3. At this point it is entirely about whatever the Democrats and their media allies think might stick.

        2. There’s corroborating evidence. She told other people about it years ago. She can remember where Mark Judge was briefly working that summer. Do you remember where people who didn’t even attend your school were working during the summer? She remembers because she ran into him after the assault. It’s the only explanation that makes sense.

          1. “There’s corroborating evidence. She told other people about it years ago.”

            “Self-corroborating” isn’t corroborating. You need a second source to tells us the same thing.

            She told people about it in 2012–what’s that, 27 years after the fact?

            “She can remember where Mark Judge was briefly working that summer. Do you remember where people who didn’t even attend your school were working during the summer?”

            I can’t remember the name of the people I had a meeting with last week.

            I remember their receptionist. Her name is Stephanie. She went to Hawaii this summer. She volunteers for cat rescue. She wants to become a veterinarian.

            “She remembers because she ran into him after the assault. It’s the only explanation that makes sense.”

            The reason I remember Stephanie is not because she sexually assaulted me.

            1. How do you explain that she told people about this six years ago in private?

              1. How do you explain that she told people about this six years ago in private?

                Because she was lying to her therapist about the need for a second front door.

              2. She’s been trying this since he started being talked about for SCOTUS. that’s her husband’s story, btw

              3. The only actual evidence that she told anyone six years ago (the marriage counselor’s notes) says 4 assailants, not 2 and none of the assailants were named (not even a job).

                That’s not exactly solid corroboration of her accusation against Kavanaugh.

              4. If you read nothing else today, read this :


              5. Is it a coincidence that she started mentioning Kavanaugh right after he was being mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee? She has motive to lie about kavanaugh because she’s pro-choice.

          2. That would make sense if it weren’t for the fact that she didn’t tell anyone until more than thirty years after the fact and never identified Kavanaugh as the actual perpetrator until later. Also, there’s the pesky fact that all of the witnesses that she said saw the incident all refute her story, including her close friend.

            Religious zealots are ridiculous

            1. You could be locked up in Russia for disrespecting the zealous love of Jesus.

              1. They have laws against defaming the Eastern Orthodox Church only. Russians persecute other faiths, particularly Jehovah’s Witness people who don’t seem to get a fair shake in any country other than the US

        3. I think the point is that a given Senator can vote either way on Kavanaugh based on whatever they want to base it on. There’s no requirement that he get confirmed even if he’s completely innocent of anything ever, and also completely qualified.

          Would you say that the 37 Senators who voted no on Kagan were also guilty of having “disgusting prejudice?”

          1. If you think this is about anything but partisanship and uncorroborated allegations at this point, I don’t know what to say.

            Was Kagan about uncorroborated allegations of sexual assault?

      2. Neither was the Emmit Till case or the Duke Lacrosse case of the UVA fraternity case. It not being a “trial” doesn’t make it okay to slaner someone as a rapist.

        1. The Emmit Till case was most definitely a trail and so was the Duke Lacrosse case

          1. No it wasn’t. Didn’t they lynch Till before the law could get to him? And not all of the Duke players were charged with anything. And the case fell apart long before they ever went to trial.

            1. Yes. I thought you meant that a trial was being brought against the perpetrators.

        2. Accusing a private individual should not be held to the same standard as accusing someone that seeks governmental power.

          1. Okay, that just means she isn’t expected to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn’t mean that Kavanaugh is not entitled to a presumption of innocence or that people should believe any accusation regardless of its credibility.

            1. I agree with that.

          2. Everyone that seeks governmental power is a private individual.

        3. I don’t know that Ford is slandering anyone, but I know that deliberative bodies shouldn’t judge people based on uncorroborated accusations. If they do, it’s telling.

          So, this isn’t about Ford for me.

          It’s about the Democrats and American standards.

    2. Brett only went into the bedroom to help Ms. Ford bust up a chifferobe.

  19. Blasey Ford credibility keeps dropping every minute. Of course being a leftist means never having to tell the truth.

    Leland Keyser meets with FBI, doesn’t back Blasey Ford’s story about Kavanaugh

    1. I kept hearing two objections to the FBI report–both before it came out.

      1) The FBI didn’t interview Ford or Kavanaugh again.

      If they didn’t find any evidence to support or question the testimony they’ve given, why would they interview them again?

      2) Trump is interfering with the FBI investigation.

      Not sure I get this one. Trump is the President of the United States. He’s the executive. He runs the FBI. The FBI wasn’t investigating Trump on this. WTF?

      1. Why is the report secret?

        1. Secret?

          Are they refusing to show the Democrats the report?

        2. Why are you more suspicious of this than you are about FISA documents or FBI reports related to the Russia investigation remaining secret?

          1. Who says I am?

            1. Well there goes my talking point. Alright, have a good day everyone

              1. lol

        3. Because the senior Democrat on the Judiciary committee, Diane Finestine has requested that the report not be made public.

        4. I think it is only temporarily secret. They just want the committee members to all be able to see it before they decide how to distribute it to Congress.

      2. I think they’re also using the talking point that there is new evidence on some of the other charges, or his alleged perjury.

        Flake sought to compromise, now he’s gotten an “inadequate FBI investigation” to add to the list of Dem “outrages.”

        1. I hope the report shows that the FBI interviewed “Beans n rice”, “booferson”, and “Brobi wan Kenobi”, who all posted definitions of “Boof” on Urban Dictionary that contradict Kavanaugh’s statements.

      3. The WH prevented the FBI from questioning Kavanaugh and Ford. Trump was deciding who was questioned. There was zero independence. I can’t believe you don’t know this.

        1. Kavanaugh and Ford both testified under oath before Congress. Unless you are claiming Ford or Kavanaugh withheld information from Congress, there is nothing the FBI could learn from interviewing either of them. Go find a better talking point.

          1. I like the last minute ploy by Ford’s attorneys that now they will provide the therapist notes but only to the FBI and only if they talk to them. So weird that her attorneys make these declarations at the last minute. Only as if this is just about delaying the process until after the midterms more than anything.

          1. If he doesn’t need to corroborate accusations of assault from 35 years ago, why would he ever need to cite anything?

    2. Notice how you see this on the Washington Times site but not CNN.

  20. I’ve seen some stories in the media about the FBI report not being thorough enough.

    This indicates that the report, at least, doesn’t hurt the judge.

    1. Let me predict the media summary: “Hasty FBI report fails to clear up issues etc.”

    2. Yeah, if they didn’t interview Kavanaugh again, the simplest explanation is that it’s because they didn’t find anything that contradicted his testimony.

      1. Yes, in all the Colombo episodes I have seen, Colombo only interviews the suspect once.

        1. *Columbo, damnit

          1. Was there ever an episode of Columbo, where the whole thing was a dead end sans corroborating evidence from 35 years ago?

        2. In the Columbo episodes there is evidence that a crime has been committed

          1. Yes. The dead body gives it away every time.

          2. Columbo didn’t make arrests based merely on uncorroborated accusations?

            American audiences used to be so primitive!

          3. Don’t mix Columbo up into this. The Law and Order SVU people are the ones more appropriate to investigate with their feelz.

  21. “These changes would, at least in part, be paid for by the U.S. Department of Transportation”

    I’m sorry. Paid for by whom, exactly? That’s what I thought.

    1. Yeah, the DOT will pay for it out of their profits.

      1. We should put them in charge of the Post Office.

    2. Paid from their stash, man.

  22. Kavanaugh needs to step down. Trump should nominate Baddie Gi or Jade for SCOTUS.

    Ok – Baddie Gi AND Jade as the nominee.

    1. I want the Republicans to gain Senate seats in November then have them put Roy Moore on the court after RBG finally keels over. It is what these assholes deserve.

      1. Roy Moore is most definitely a pedophile. You realize that, right?

        1. Okay, Okay… he has to recuse himself from pedo cases. Happy?

        2. John loves those Conservative pedophiles.

          1. Yeah, I am all about defending Bob Menendez and his penchant for under age sex slaves. Oh no, that is you, you miserable fuck.

        3. Roy Moore is most defintely not a pedophile. Roy Moore was the subject of a single accusation of rape every bit as ridiculous as Ford’s accusation against Kavanaugh and then a bunch of women who were of legal age but in their teens who said Moore asked them out and went out with them and did nothing wrong. That and a complete lie about him alledgedly creeping around a mall is all there was.

          Roy Moore was not a pedophile by any definition of the word and did nothing wrong by the standards of the time or the standards of 99% of human history. Men like young woman and young women often know exactly what they are doing and like older men. Libertarians before Roy Moore were the one group in society honest enough to say that truth and point out the absurdity of treating sex with a teenager the same as sex with a child. Just because you don’t like Moore doesn’t make it okay to go along with the mob slandering him. In fact, your not liking him shoudl make defending him against slander something you should want to do since popular people are not the ones who need defending from the mob.

          1. Roy Moore was the subject of multiple accusations who all had told people about the incidences well before Moore ran for Senate. Their stories had corroboration.

            1. There is zero comparison between the accusations against Moore and the accusations against Kavanaugh.

              The Moore accusations were multiple and included eyewitness corroboration. The Kavanaugh accusation involves one plausible victim that lacks all corroboration and has witnesses that dispute here story.

              That’s like comparing the accusations against Clinton to those against Kavanaugh. It’s an apples and bowling balls comparison.

              1. The Moore accusations were multiple and included eyewitness corroboration.

                Of what? He was accused of assaulting one woman who had no corroboration. Every other accusation was of him dating legal women who are of age but young women. You are pretending an accusations were for doing something wrong when they were not. It was all bullshit.

            2. Kavanaugh is the subject of multiple accusations. More people telling a lie doens’t make the lie true. And those instances all involved consentual behavior with women of legal age. The only accusation that did not, was completely uncorroborated and almost certainly false.

              You are letting your politcal bias show here. You hate Moore, so you are willing to go along with things that rationally you would never go along with were it someone you liked. Roy Moore was just a trial run for what they are doing to Kavanaugh. The only difference is that Moore was some yahoo from Alabama that everyone like you hated and Kavanaugh is a respectable member of the establishment.

              1. Except that the other accusers against Moore, again, had corroboration about him asking them out when they were below the age of consent (by quite a bit). All of the accusers against Kavanaugh, except Ford, have improbably stories that are collapsing right now.

                You can’t just change the definition of what makes an accusation credible or not credible based upon what political party they belong to. Then you’re no better than a writer at Reason.

                1. Except that the other accusers against Moore, again, had corroboration about him asking them out when they were below the age of consent (by quite a bit).

                  That is just untrue. Go find me a link to a single accusation that he ever asked a girl under the age of 14, the age of legal marriage at the time in Alabama out. He never did. You are just full of shit and are allowing your prejudice to cloud your judgement.

                  1. Are you sure it’s me that is allowing my prejudice to cloud my judgement?

                    The Kavanaugh accusations are unsubstantiated nonsense. That is not true for the accusations against Moore, Clinton, and Stormy Daniel’s allegation that she slept with Trump when his wife was six months pregnant.

                    There are facts to support the accusations against Moore, Clinton, and Trump. Nothing supports the accusations against Kavanaugh other than faith alone

                    1. The point is the “accusations” against Moore, even if true don’t show he is did anything wrong much less that he is a pedophile. Yelling “but they have witnesses to them” doesn’t change that or help your case. Do you not understand that?

                  2. “him asking them out when they were below the age of consent”

                    Arguendo, why is this a problem? Age of consent was for sex not for a movie and a peck on the cheek.

            3. Roy Moore was the subject of multiple accusations who all had told people about the incidences well before Moore ran for Senate. Their stories had corroboration.

              No. That is simply not true.

              How can we tell?

              All those ‘serious allegations’ evaporated after he was defeated–well except for the suit Moore has brought against his accusers.

          2. You can always trust John to white knight even the most despicable person, as long as that person is on the right of the political spectrum.

            1. Absolutely. It doesn’t matter how dispicable someone is if what people are saying is untrue. Do you really think that someone having bad or even awful political views means it is okay for them to be falsly accused of sometehing and defending them from that is wrong?

              You are a real civil libertarian aren’t you?

            2. Chipper Morning Eunuch calling someone else out for ridiculous white knight virtue signaling?

              Lol, thanks, I really needed a good laugh this morning

    1. That is hilarious.

  23. Hey, an update to all the people who still think “russian spying” is an issue:

    Explosive Report Details Chinese Infiltration Of Apple, Amazon And The CIA

    [1] I don’t even blame China for this. Spying is what nation-states do to each other. It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there, and the US, for all the brainpower we have over here, is just not playing the game very well.

    [2] This is just the tip of the iceberg. There have been dozens of verified reports that various software viruses exist to scrape servers and send the data off somewhere, which is occasionally tracked as far as China and the PLA, but mostly the trail just fizzles out in southeast asia, reports are written, and the US military doesn’t change a thing. Heck, the OPM 40-million SSN dump, if I recall, was traced back to the Chinese/PLA being sloppy: they had installed a backdoor and forgot to close it after themselves when they left.

    [3] The US military deserves this. They have been running insecure crap Windows-based systems since I worked there in the 90s, and have been treating classified documents with the same “security theater” attitude that makes the TSA so very effective. That this is a hardware hack is clever, but scarcely even necessary, considering the criminally negligent attitude to security practiced on the software side.

    1. Yeah, we should totally have favored-nation trade status with these guys.

      1. And allowing our entire manufacturing base to be moved there such that we have to depend on them to supply our military and our entire civilian IT infurstructure and God knows what else is totally okay because FREE TRADE!!

        1. Yeah, even “closed” systems aren’t going to do you much good if you’re using Chinese-made electronics with backdoors built into them.

  24. “Senate approves measure giving airline passengers new rights,” reports ABC News.

    So not only is the headline wrong in that the “new rights” aren’t new or rights at all, they also imply that rights are granted by our benevolent “betters” in the government. So it’s a complete fail of a headline on nearly every level. The only words in it that are the least bit accurate are “Senate approves measure.” And ABC news wonders why they’re a joke.

  25. “A vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination is scheduled for tomorrow. ”

    No, its a vote on the cloture motion thats scheduled for Friday, not the nomination itself. That would occur after 30 hours have passed after the cloture motion is approved.

    Come on Reason, you’re better than this.

    1. You can’t involve facts in the Kavanaugh fiasco

    2. No, we are NOT better than this. Everyone on this site [tulpa excluded] has a job, or life, or some other excuse to not know the arcane and ridiculous rules that our various government makes up on a continual basis. Also, 90% of the news articles refer to it as a “vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination”.

      Good catch on the distinction. Don’t act like we are dumb for not knowing what cloture is, and we won’t act like you are dumb for not knowing about the necessity of mutexes in symmetric multiprocessing.

      1. Why make excuses for sloppy reporting when it pretty much is their job to know this stuff? You want to report on Senate proceedings then learn how they work.

        1. Yes, you are right. I am wrong. I guess I’m just pissed at the layers of incomprehensible bitching surrounding the whole gov’t these days.

          But isn’t one of the themes of this site, is that there is so much absolute crap in the the legal code, bureaucratic code, and indeed the whole gov’t that it impossible for a person to keep track of it all?

      2. He’s going after the publication – who, you’re right, is not better than this… even though it’s their job – not commentors.

        And: f mutexes

        1. f mutexes? f mutexes? Are you seri–
          yeah, pretty much. I guess I was living in the 90s.

  26. I use a ergonomic desk that can be adjusted to sit or stand. When I sit I sit on a ball chair. When I stand I use a wobble board. This has really helped my ankles, my balance, my back and my sense of well being. I highly recommend the strategy.

    1. Get a load of the mayor of Portland, Oregon, everyone.

  27. TEXAS FAMILY VALUES (a story in two posts)

    Trump: ‘Poor Ted Cruz . . . boy oh boy, that guy has one ugly wife. I hate to say this, almost, but the woman is just hideous. Have you seen the pictures I posted? Not even sure that qualifies as a woman, really. Just a pig.’

    Cruz: ‘That kind of talk has no place in political discourse. I know Republicans will choose better. Now, as I was saying, when we . . .’

    Crowd: ‘Wait . . . he just called your wife a pig, dude.’

    Cruz: ‘Now, as I was saying . . .’

    Mrs. Cruz: [wide-eyed stare]

    Crowd: ‘Dude, she’s sitting right there. Trump called her a hag. Your wife, for Christ’s sake.’

    Cruz: ‘Well, and that is why I warn Donald, here and now, never to say anything like that again. So, to continue, the more these liberals and their New York values . . . ‘

  28. Trump: ‘I heard Lyin’ Ted didn’t like what I said about that wife of his. So I won’t say anything about her. Poor guy, his father was from Cuba — did you know that, Cuba? — and turns out Ted’s father was part of the gang of filthy Cubans that killed Kennedy. Aw, who am I kidding? You love me ’cause I tell it like it is. And the truth is . . . that Cruz’ wife is one terrible-looking woman. Here, I had starlets and models chasing me all the time, and poor Ted had to settle for that one, that pig, and now this guy thinks he can compete with me?’

    Cruz: ‘Now you’ve done it, Donald. You can say what you like about me, because I’m a big boy and I can take, it, but now you take back what you said about my wife, or I shall be compelled to take action.’

    Trump: ‘Lyin’ Ted says he’s gonna come after me or something because I tell it like it is — his wife is just a grotesque, disgusting-looking woman . . . a real pig.’

    Cruz: ‘Not another word, Donald. I warn you. Not one more word.’

    Trump: ‘Lyin’ Ted. His wife is hideous. Lyin’ Ted. His dad’s a murdering psycho traitor. Lyin’ Ted. Wife’s a pig.’

    [time passes; Trump is inaugurated]

    Trump: ‘Hey, Ted, it’s been like a year since you said you were gonna stand up for that wife of yours and come after me for calling her hideous. So, you ever gonna do something here, or what?’

    1. Cruz: ‘Why yes, yes I am. I am going to . . . I am going to . . . invite you to campaign for me down here in Texas. I mean, sir, if that’s what you want to do, sir, I would be honored to have you accompany me to Texas and stand with me onstage.’

      Trump: ‘That’s what I thought. You’re a good boy, Ted. No wonder you’re so popular in the Senate.’

      Mrs. Cruz: [stares at feet]

      1. Hicklib Family Values (A story in one line):

        “I’m not really an 85-IQ hayseed, fellow progressives!”

      2. Rev proves once again how stupid he is.

  29. A new “presidential alert system” launched yesterday. There’s already a lawsuit seeking to put an end to it.

    Poor Obama and his legacy.

  30. “”Overall, it’s a rag bag of everything under the sun, but largely status quo,” Robert Poole, director of transportation policy at the Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes this website) told us last week”

    “rag bag”? Is that a thing? I’ve heard “grab bag” in the context many times. I’ve never heard “rag bag”. Is that a regional thing? Or is that an eggcorn ?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.