Reason Roundup

Planned Parenthood Succeeds in Getting Missouri's 8-Week Abortion Ban Blocked, but Rule Against Race- or Sex-Selective Abortion Remains in Place

Plus: North Carolina sues eight more e-cig companies, Tulsi Gabbard fails to meet debate threshold, and more...

|

A day before Missouri's ban on abortion after eight weeks of pregnancy was scheduled to take effect, the law was partially blocked by a federal court. In the decision, U.S. District Judge Howard Sachs chastised Missouri legislators for passing a law deliberately designed "as a protest" against Roe v. Wade and other Supreme Court decisions that support abortion access.

The new Missouri rule, signed into law in May, would have imposed criminal penalties on doctors who perform abortions after the eight-week deadline.

"While federal courts should generally be very cautious before delaying the effect of state laws, the sense of caution may be mitigated when the legislation seems designed, as here, as a protest against Supreme Court decisions," wrote Sachs in his Tuesday ruling.

The hostility to, and refusal to comply with, the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence is most obviously demonstrated in the attempt to push 'viability' protection downward in various weekly stages to 8 weeks.

Sachs is one of several federal judges to recently rule against states' strict new abortion regulations, sometimes called "heartbeat bills," which ban the procedure after just a few weeks. Ohio and Mississippi have had similar regulations preliminarily blocked in federal court (in July and in May, respectively).

The judge "denied a full preliminary injunction on technical grounds, but his ruling achieved what he called the 'desired result' sought by Planned Parenthood for now," reports NPR.

"What little abortion access in Missouri is left, will stay in place for the time being," said Alexis McGill Johnson, acting president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in a statement. "In the meantime, we cannot ignore the part of this law that remains in place, which allows politicians to interfere with the patient-provider relationship."

Sachs left in place a portion of the law that bans getting an abortion because of the sex or race of the fetus or because it has been diagnosed with a genetic disorder such as Down syndrome.

You can read the full decision here.


FREE MINDS

Follow the power. When looking at the current crusade against a law known as Section 230, Elliot Harmon of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, reminds us that it's important to note who's calling for the statute's demise:

The next time you hear someone call for Congress to gut Section 230, the law that shields online platforms from liability for hosting most speech created by others, ask yourself a quick question: Would the reform this person is asking for affect their ability to use the Internet? If the answer is no, then ask yourself who would be harmed. You'll start to notice that the marginalized communities affected the most are systematically excluded from debates over Section 230.

This isn't surprising, writes Harmon:

The entire history of censorship shows that it magnifies existing imbalances in society, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not. In the same way that a bill intended to fight traffickers made the problem worse, attempts by social media platforms to restrict extremist speech frequently silence the people trying to document and fight violent extremism. That's not a hypothetical: there are many, many stories of Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter taking down important work to document human rights violations under their anti-extremism policies.

People in power want to frame Section 230 as "a gift" to tech companies. But "Section 230 isn't a gift to big internet companies," notes Harmon. Rather:

It's a gift to rural LGBTQ teenagers who depend every day on the safety of their online communities. It's a gift to activists around the world using the internet to document human rights abuses. It's a gift to women who rely on dating apps to meet people more safely. Yes, Section 230 is the First Amendment of the internet, but it's also the Fourteenth Amendment of the internet. Section 230 says, "You are legal here."



FREE MARKETS

Following the filing of a lawsuit against Juul, North Carolina will sue eight more e-cigarette companies. State Attorney General Josh Stein announced the lawsuits Tuesday, accusing the companies of "aggressively targeting children" and not requiring "appropriate age verification when selling these dangerous and addictive products." Across the country, e-cigarette companies face increasing pressure to comply with the impossible standards of attention-courting attorneys general.


ELECTION 2020

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Tom Steyer out of Democratic presidential debates. "If the candidate they support loses, nearly four in 10 said they would have little or no confidence that the election had been conducted in a fair-and-square way," according to a new USA Today/Suffolk University poll. More findings:

Those expressing doubts crossed partisan lines – 30% of Republicans and 45% of Democrats – although they identified different threats to the electoral process.

In the crowded Democratic contest, former Vice President Joe Biden retained a wide lead, at 32%, up 2 percentage points from the USA TODAY/Suffolk poll taken in June. But Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren moved up 4 points to second place, at 14%, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders dropped 3 points, now at third place with 12%. […] If the election were held today, 41% said they would vote for an unnamed Democratic nominee, 39% for Trump. Ten percent said they would vote for a third-party candidate and another 10 percent were undecided."

Neither Gabbard nor Steyer reached the 2 percent threshold in either this poll or a Quinnipiac poll released today, meaning neither has qualified to take part in the next round of debates.


QUICK HITS

  • Prager University continues to be puzzled by the First Amendment.
  • Hawaii is destroying hemp crops for containing slightly over the permitted limit of THC.
  • Sweden violated the European Union's General Data Protection Rule by testing out facial recognition technology at a school in an effort to monitor student attendance.
  • What's going on with Boris Johnson? The new British prime minister is all over American news this morning after suspending meetings of Parliament just a few days after all the members got back from summer recess. "The suspension of Parliament will shorten the amount of time Members of Parliament have to attempt to block a no-deal Brexit before the current deadline," reports CNN. "Johnson has said Britain will leave the EU on October 31, with or without a deal."

NEXT: No Qualified Immunity for Kim Davis

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. Prager University continues to be puzzled by the First Amendment.

    Why are these amendments so inconvenient.

    1. They arent puzzled by it. Just the opinion writer at WSJ and ENB which didnt read the Prager U brief who are puzzled. They arent arguing for protection 1a but merely mention the spirit of 1a as a founding principle. It is not their actual legal argument.

      The summary is just shit journalism.

      1. I’d like to read that brief because if you’re right, this would be the second time Reason writers were puzzled over first amendment arguments.

        1. Sᴛᴀʀᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ғʀᴏᴍ ʜᴏᴍᴇ! Gʀᴇᴀᴛ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ sᴛᴜᴅᴇɴᴛs, sᴛᴀʏ-ᴀᴛ-ʜᴏᴍᴇ ᴍᴏᴍs ᴏʀ ᴀɴʏᴏɴᴇ ɴᴇᴇᴅɪɴɢ ᴀɴ ᴇxᴛʀᴀ ɪɴᴄᴏᴍᴇ… Yᴏᴜ ᴏɴʟʏ ɴᴇᴇᴅ ᴀ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴀ ʀᴇʟɪᴀʙʟᴇ ɪɴᴛᴇʀɴᴇᴛ ᴄᴏɴɴᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴ… Mᴀᴋᴇ $80 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴀɴᴅ ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ $13000 ᴀ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʙʏ ғᴏʟʟᴏᴡɪɴɢ ʟɪɴᴋ ᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴏᴛᴛᴏᴍ ᴀɴᴅ sɪɢɴɪɴɢ ᴜᴘ… Yᴏᴜ ᴄᴀɴ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʏᴏᴜʀ ғɪʀsᴛ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ʙʏ ᴛʜᴇ ᴇɴᴅ ᴏғ ᴛʜɪs ᴡᴇᴇᴋ
          pop over to this website …….. Read More

      2. It is not their actual legal argument.

        What is their actual legal argument?

        1. Frankly, it should be YouTube’s fraudulent representation of their Terms of Service/Community Guidelines (or whatever term they use) as they can’t seem to apply them universally.

          1. So contract enforcement? I don’t understand why they keep bringing up the First Amendment.

            1. Again, that (contract enforcement) would be MY argument, its a far easier bar to clear and applies to private entities (unlike the 1A).

              I don’t know what their actual legal argument is, I’m too lazy/apathetic to read the brief, but I don’t believe the above strategy is the one they’re pursuing.

    2. The WSJ continues to be puzzled by the Paywall Amendment.

      1. They’re a private company. They can do whatever they want.

        1. This aisle is for 15 items or less… so gtfo.

          1. Bzzt, felony word crime. 15 items or fewer.

    3. Hello.

      Prager gets its videos demonetized and restricted. Many other channels too. If you think it’s a policy or algorithm quirk I disagree. Youtube wants to be a publisher and platform at the same time. Prager wants some equal application of policies. There’s a lawyer on youtube who constantly gets demonetized the second he reviews ‘sensitive’ stuff.

      I know. Those snowflake conservatives amirite?

  2. Hawaii is destroying hemp crops for containing slightly over the permitted limit of THC.

    Burning them perhaps?

    1. Controlled burns in an enclosed space.

      1. Divided up into many small quantities.

      2. The legal limit is 0.4% THC. It would take a lot of burning to get high off of this. It also isn’t Hawaii’s choice. The recent farm bill requires states to come up with a disposal plan for any hemp plant >0.4% THC. Farmers refer to it as spoking hot. Burning is the most common method of disposal.

    2. Texas recently allows for .3% or less hemp, so if you get caught with pot just say it could be hemp and make them test it if they want to prosecute you.

      See: https://youtu.be/VHNrMH5ZbOM

  3. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Tom Steyer out of Democratic presidential debates.

    So we’re finally able to get Russia out of our elections.

    1. I would never vote for Gabbard, but she’s the only interesting candidate. Sanders is a massive doormat who refuses to push the war issue, even though it’s obvious at this point that the nominee will be either Biden or Warren.

    1. On the other hand chanel is now replacing female models with trans men.

      1. I could never really tell one way or the other.

    2. According to Reason though, boycotts don’t work though, so obviously it isn’t because they insulted, what, 3/4ths of their customer base?

    3. That was a close one!

  4. Sweden violated the European Union’s General Data Protection Rule by testing out facial recognition technology at a school in an effort to monitor student attendance.

    It didn’t work anyway because all Swedes look alike.

    1. Damn squareheads. (Disclaimer I’m Norse and Danish, so I can use this derogatory nickname for fellow Scandinanavians the same as blacks using the N word right?).

      1. don’t forget toe head

        1. Dirty Scandi icebacks

    2. IMHO … fvck the European Union.

    3. That’s why they need HAL 9000 to tell them apart. Duh.

  5. Cities Are Saying No to 5G, Citing Health, Aesthetics—and FCC Bullying

    Let’s just go back to throwing stone tablets at each other.

  6. State Attorney General Josh Stein announced the lawsuits Tuesday, accusing the companies of “aggressively targeting children”.

    Does Juul advertise on Saturday morning cartoons? (do they even have Saturday morning cartoons?)

    1. Saturday morning cartoons aren’t a thing anymore, bro. Now they’re just cartoons.

      1. That’s a shame. The kids I know today like to watch YouTube videos of other kids playing video games. It’s fucking crazy.

        1. thank god at least one of us is thinking about the children

          1. Someone has to take Epstein’s place, and Bill isn’t up to the job, so to speak, but is ready to take Bob Dole’s role.

            So I’ve heard.

        2. As a kid, I watched people do all kinds of things that I was interested in and wanted to emmulate/learn from a professional. Nothing crazy about that at all. I watched Cal Ripken play ball or Bob Ross painting.

          1. same reason people watch poker or any type of sport on TV its always good to watch someone who knows what they are doing

        3. The kids I know today like to watch YouTube videos of other kids playing video games.

          ^ This. Get it I do not.

        4. They’re not watching kids playing video games, they’re watching hot chicks have nipple slips who’re pretending to play video games.

  7. “The new Missouri rule, signed into law in May, would have imposed criminal penalties on doctors who perform abortions after the eight-week deadline.”

    It should have imposed criminal penalties on “doctors” who perform abortions at any point in time. Outrageous!

    In all seriousness, Reason’s framing of this issue leaves much to be desired. There are many pro-life libertarians (such as myself) who recognize that, if a small government is to exist, one of its few duties is to protect the lives of its citizens.

    1. Also, the original Roe v Wade was based on their knowledge of viability back in the early 70’s. Nearly 50 years have passed. I suppose re-examining what we know now is a step too far…

      Didn’t one of the justices say he’s not qualified to say when life begins? Because courts now seem to believe that yeah, he — above all others — is qualified.

      1. Everything you said.

    2. Reason assigned today’s Roundup to a pro-abortion radical. You had no expectation of a nuanced take on the issue.

    3. if a small government is to exist, one of its few duties is to protect the lives of its citizens.

      WTF is that even supposed to mean pre-viability? I think life begins at conception – but that is entirely theoretical. Until viability, there is no possible separation between ‘life of fetus’ and ‘life of mother’. Anyone who ignores that is not possibly ‘pro-life’ – just a self-righteous asshole.

      AT viability (roughly 22-24 weeks), separation of those two issues is possible – and the cost (not just delivery but all the medical costs that that child will accrue for the next few years) is probably half million dollars per – dropping down to maybe $50-80k by 37 weeks. Of course, deferring that separation from 24 to 37 weeks also however means forcing the woman who does not want to become a mother into a form of slavery.

      I have respect for a putatively ‘pro-life’ person to make their case with all the complexity and expense that the issue involves in the real world – maternity care FOR THE POOR (and no the US does NOT have that right now – ours is in fact equivalent to Third World levels), paid time off if the mother can no longer work as the pregnancy progresses, transferring ALL the preemie costs from that mother to ‘society’, and some form of uncoerced ‘parental property transfer’ (and yeah that phrase makes me gag – yet more potential ‘humans are property’ slavery) from birth mother to adoptive. At that point, I personally will tend to choke at all the intrusiveness – and default reluctantly to oppose that – but at least I would have respect for the person making that case.

      The final fact however is that not one ‘pro-life’ state has EVER done a damn thing on any of that. The only individuals I have ever run across who make that case have been Catholic and identify as Christian socialists – IOW not in the US. Which means ‘pro-life’ in this country is nothing but a label that the self-righteous apply to themselves as a way of breaking their arms in order to pat themselves on the back. Which makes that philosophy – and those advocating it – contemptible.

      1. There is obviously a possible separation of the life of the little one and the mother, or abortion wouldn’t happen.

        The late Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have been viable if he fell out of his chair.

        If every child aborted in the US were brought to term and placed with an adoptive family, there would be still plenty of families waiting, in perpetuity. I will show you the stats if you like.

        If I invite you out to sea, and then change my mind and kick you out of my boat 100 miles out to sea, have I murdered you? Show your work.

      2. Of course, deferring that separation from 24 to 37 weeks also however means forcing the woman who does not want to become a mother into a form of slavery.

        No. Just no.

        If you do something like ski and go into it knowing that there’s a chance you might break your leg, and you DO break your leg, it isn’t ‘slavery’ to make you wear a cast.

        So when you do something that’s for making babies, and you go into it knowing that, whether you rely on safety equipment or not, you know there’s a chance you’ll make a baby. But you decide to do it anyway.

        That was your choice. Right there. You made it.

        The choice of killing a person– that you forced to be there –because their existence will inconvenience you should not be a choice that’s on the table

        1. So when you do something that’s for making babies

          Well golly – sex education is yet ANOTHER part of the abject failure of the pro-life side to deal with the real world here.

          A combo of puritanical embarrassment and tyrannical hectoring about the subject is a pretty good way of ensuring that little knowledge gets transmitted and that sex becomes a form of rebelliousness. Hmm – wonder why both our teenage pregnancy AND abortion rates are so much higher than most developed countries?

          But hey – I guess keeping on with the tyrannical hectoring post-facto with a complete absence of self-awareness is yet another way to break one’s arms while patting ones back.

          1. Sex ISN’T for procreation?

            Not sure you should be lecturing on sex ed.

  8. Johnson has said Britain will leave the EU on October 31, with or without a deal.

    Always let Johnsons pull out.

    1. That’s my Johnson. Always pulling out.

    2. What is Johnson spewing?

    3. Johnson’s position has hardened.

    1. This is consistent. They wanted to work with Al Qaeda in Syria to fight ISIS. War boners make strange bedfellows.

      1. America allied with the USSR to fight the Nazis. This even after the USSR signed the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact with Germany and stole land from Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Finland.

        1. And after we invaded them under Wilson.

  9. “Sachs left in place a portion of the law that bans getting an abortion because of the sex or race of the fetus or because it has been diagnosed with a genetic disorder such as Down syndrome.”

    What a bunch of science-denying nonsense. The sex of a fetus is literally impossible to determine. Sex is determined by how people identify — not by chromosomes or anatomy. And clumps of cells cannot identify as anything.

    #ILoveScience
    #StandWithPP
    #SaveRoe
    #SUPER-PRECEDENT

    1. Hi, Bill Weld.

  10. Sweden violated the European Union’s General Data Protection Rule by testing out facial recognition technology at a school in an effort to monitor student attendance.

    “Bueller? Bueller?” doesn’t work anymore?

  11. Yes, Section 230 is the First Amendment of the internet, but it’s also the Fourteenth Amendment of the internet. Section 230 says, “You are legal here.”

    BUT PEOPLE ARE SAYING THINGS I DON’T LIKE.

  12. Well it is nice of the judge to once again rule on the theory of animus of law creation instead of ruling of the merits. That is totes how our legal system is set up, especially for conservative legislation.

    1. Why, it’s almost as if the legislature thinks it’s the law-making branch of government! The nerve!

  13. Boris Johnson asks Queen to suspend Parliament

    Garbage Island flexes its Monarchy muscles.

    1. Boris Johnson must not have seen Bohemian Rhapsody. Garbage movie.

      1. They didn’t even cover Queen writing the soundtrack for Flash Gordon. They pretty much omitted one of their greatest achievements.

        1. Most biopics are trash, particularly if they get Oscar nominations. There are, of course, major exceptions (Lawrence of Arabia, Raging Bull, and the like).

          First Man, which came out last year, was extremely underrated. Beautiful movie.

        2. He’ll save every one of us, stand for every one of us

  14. Following the filing of a lawsuit against Juul, North Carolina will sue eight more e-cigarette companies.

    Ouch.

    1. NC still a large producer of tobacco?
      Asking for a friend – – –

      1. It. Was. The. Dukes. It. Was. The. Dukes.

  15. “People in power want to frame Section 230 as “a gift” to tech companies. But “Section 230 isn’t a gift to big internet companies,” notes Harmon.”

    It is literally a gift of legal exceptions and exclusions for a favored entity that has been stretched to also cover contract claims (Meagan Murphy). It is the definition of a gift to a favored entity.

    You can support 230 and its potential benefits without lying.

    1. +1 – nobody, reason definitely included, seems willing to make an intellectually honest case for or against it. It’s all either transparent shilling for Big Tech’s regulatory crave outs or trying to get leverage over Big Tech by pretending it requires some form of content neutrality.

  16. A day before Missouri’s ban on abortion after eight weeks of pregnancy was scheduled to take effect, the law was partially blocked by a federal court.

    Partial bill abortion.

    1. Orange man bad. Breitbart uses orange on their site. Therefore Breitbart bad.

      1. I think they’re all upset because orange is the color of the LP.

    2. HE WILL BRING US TOGETHER!!!

      While it was said about about the Covington kid (wrongly), Beto has the most eminently punchable face in human existence.

  17. “Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Tom Steyer out of Democratic presidential debates.”

    Steyer’s pro-impeachment activism is a good example of the rule that #BillionairesKnowBest. I’m sorry to hear his campaign never caught on.

    But I’m glad Gabbard didn’t make it. After all, she’s Putin’s favorite Democrat. And I will never forgive her for that shamelessly dishonest attack on Kamala Harris.

  18. “Prager University continues to be puzzled by the First Amendment.”

    Try doing actual journalism and read the actual brief from PragerU and not a shoddy opinion of the suit. They talk about the spirit of the 1a, they are not arguing for 1a protections from google.

    Seriously getting old.

    1. Isn’t the spirit of 1A that Congress shall make no law? I don’t see what bearing it has with respect to Google at all.

      1. But, but, but didn’t Reason admonish Google for instituting a policy against political talk in the workplace? Isn’t that a 1st amendment violation or something?

        1. That article just argued that conservatives should lie back and enjoy their marginalization, otherwise everyone else will get censored.

  19. China using LinkedIn to recruit Americans, claims US spy catcher

    Potential employees became suspicious when “fwee driver” was included as a benefit of employment.

    1. I don’t think there is anything satanic about the HK protesters, but I haven’t been following it too closely.

  20. The new Missouri rule, signed into law in May, would have imposed criminal penalties on doctors who perform abortions after the eight-week deadline.

    You know, I support a woman’s choice to get an abortion. However, how fucking long does it have to take between “oh no, I’m pregnant!” and “I don’t want this baby”?

    1. 24 months

    2. Most reasonably self-aware women find out they are pregnant by week 5-7. Course there are also steps AFTER ‘I don’t want this baby’. Like saving up for an abortion, taking time off work, etc.

      Two-thirds of abortions occur before roughly week 8. Ninety percent before week 13. 1% after 22 weeks (virtually all cuz of some serious health issue that arises later). These laws are aimed squarely at poor women and doctors who serve them.

      1. It looks like it’s aimed at stopping certain kinds of murder.

    3. This is basically the same argument gun controllers make for outlawing assault weapons

      1. Wut?

      2. Which amendment states the right to an abortion?

  21. Section 230 reflects a simple, common sense principle: If you break the law online, you should be the one held responsible, not the website where it happened.

    So, what’s the problem?

    1. “Common sense”

    2. People don’t like the outcomes of freedom?

  22. ——-TV ADS——
    My last month’s online earning was $17593 just by doing an easy job online. Easiest home based online job to earn extra dollars every month just by doing work for maximum 2 to 3 hrs a day. I have joined this job about 3 months ago and in my first month i have made $12k+ easily without any special online experience. Everybody on this earth can get this job today and start making cash online by just follow details on this website……..

    ════HERE►►► __MORE INFORMATION__

  23. “The suspension of Parliament will shorten the amount of time Members of Parliament have to attempt to block a no-deal Brexit before the current deadline,”

    Parliament: you have to give us time to come up with a new reason to not do anything yet.

    They need to hold a meeting to set the agenda for a meeting where they’ll discuss what to have ready for the next meeting. At some point, someone needs to pull the trigger do something.

    1. I like my Brexit hard, just like ______ likes his/her ______.

      1. Boris, Johnson

  24. Hostility to tyranny and usurpation is objected to most keenly by the representatives of tyrants and usurpers.

  25. “my body my choice”

    If only they really meant that.

    1. You can really extend it to just about anything too. A baker uses his body to bake and decorate a cake, for instance.

  26. “libertarians for government control of speech” has been one of the more surprising outcomes of the Trump era so far.

    1. has been one of the more surprising outcomes of the Trump era so far.

      Left-wing Democrats for corporate control of speech has been the other one.

  27. funny protesters “my body my choice” except when it comes to drugs, vaping and guns etc……

    1. I believe the use of a body is required to pay a tax.

  28. If you haven’t watched that new Dave Chappelle Netflix Special “Sticks & Stones”… drop what you are doing and watch it immediately.

    It’s gold.

    1. Guess I’ll have to pirate it.

    2. I like my job so I’m not about to get fired for Dave Chappelle.

      1. Pssh, pussy.

    3. Vice media hates it. So it’s probably solid platinum.

  29. My great-grandfather was a missionary in Shanghai, and my grandfather was born on the journey from the US. This was in the days of horse and buggy. The journey took months, and both of his parents almost died along the way. My grandfather lived long enough to take a commercial flight from Los Angeles to Hong Kong.

    I mention this in reference to Space X’s successful test of its Starhopper vehicle, yesterday, which is meant to serve as a vehicle to ferry cargo and passengers back and forth between the earth and an orbiting space station, back and forth between the moon and an orbiting space station, or back and forth between the surface of Mars and a ship orbiting Mars.

    I appreciate that the degree of difficulty in getting me on a flight to The Mars Sheraton is significantly higher than getting Grandpa on a flight to Hong Kong, but Grandpa may also have benefited from a lesser degree of government, its squandering of resources, and its perverse incentives getting in the way. That latter benefit was on full display in a tweet from NASA, yesterday:

    “At @NASAStennis, technicians are lifting and installing a replica of the @NASA_SLS core stage in preparation for the SLS Green Run test — and the launch of #Artemis 1. Learn more!”

    https://twitter.com/NASA_Marshall/status/1166493104414908417

    1. They tweeted this two hours after Space X’s successful take off and landing of their Starhopper yesterday, using Space X rockets that outperform SLS in every way–including cost. In fact, the development costs are an excellent indication of how far NASA has fallen behind. Space X is already taking off and landing with privately funded rockets where NASA hasn’t even tested publicly funded versions yet, and, what’s more, according to Ars Technica, the SLS rocket has cost the U.S. taxpayer more than $14 billion since 2011.

      https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/starhopper-aces-test-sets-up-full-scale-prototype-flights-this-year/

      I appreciate that Space X has relied on government contracts for a lot of its work, but replacing government with private, profit-seeking contractors who can do a better job than the government for less cost to the taxpayers is a primary goal of libertarianism, and Space X has certainly done that. Not a penny of that $14 billion should ever have spent on NASA’s SLS rockets, and I don’t see why a sunk cost fallacy should stop us from cutting off funding completely right freaking now.

      If and when I set foot on Mars, it’ll be in spite of NASA’s best efforts–not because of them.

      1. Why do you want to go to Mars? Aren’t women from Venus?

        1. There are two obvious reasons behind everything everyone does.

          Why does my girlfriend wear a pleather miniskirt to a baptism?

          1) Because she wants to.
          2) Because she can.

          The reason I want to go to Mars is because I can’t.

          If I ever go to Mars, it’ll be for the same reasons Donald Trump wears his hair like that or the Fed raises the discount rate.

          1) Because I want to.
          2) Because I can.

  30. If the election were held today, 41% said they would vote for an unnamed Democratic nominee, 39% for Trump. Ten percent said they would vote for a third-party candidate and another 10 percent were undecided.”

    Which really means we’re looking at about a 50/49 split with 1% other.

    1. Which means another four years of Trump.

      Because in 2015, that question elicited nothing but gales of laughter at the idea that Trump would be getting ANY voters at all.

  31. Following the filing of a lawsuit against Juul, North Carolina will sue eight more e-cigarette companies. State Attorney General Josh Stein announced the lawsuits Tuesday, accusing the companies of “aggressively targeting children” and not requiring “appropriate age verification when selling these dangerous and addictive products.” Across the country, e-cigarette companies face increasing pressure to comply with the impossible standards of attention-courting attorneys general.

    Gee. Juul, owned by tobacco, is succeeding in drumming up heavy regulations on vaping and is putting up enormous signs in 7-11s saying how dangerous their product is.

    It’s almost like it’s a loss leader by tobaco to crusb competition by pressing busybodies into service. “You know what else has nicotine? Hitler! I mean, cancer-causing cigarettes!”

  32. If the election were held today, 41% said they would vote for an unnamed Democratic nominee, 39% for Trump. Ten percent said they would vote for a third-party candidate and another 10 percent were undecided.”

    Ahh, the meaningless ‘cardboard cutout’ poll.

    1. What I found striking is that with the current field of candidates, 41% still prefer the “unnamed” Democrat.

      1. Well, 41% did vote for Mondale in 1984.

  33. I like the law makers who passed the Missouri bill to explain what is an abortion based on the race of the fetus. Race is not a defined scientific concept it is a social construct. How does this work? A middle class white couple comes to the doctor and tells them that their progress values means that they only want a baby if it is black. Really is this what we are talking about?

  34. “The entire history of censorship shows that it magnifies existing imbalances in society, sometimes intentionally and sometimes not.”

    Removing section 230 has nothing to do with censorship. No one is censoring anyone. Making someone liable for content posted on websites is not censoring someone. Preventing citizens from buying their own domains and hosting their own websites would be censorship. Anyone can go and do that and be liable for what they post on their own websites. What we currently have is a free-for-all and when it comes to damages those hosting the content and distributing it to the world hold up their hands and say “It wasn’t me. I didn’t do nuffin’.” while they sell advertisements and users data to marketing companies.
    It’s the small platforms too. In fact, the smaller platforms that are shielded from liability due to CDA 230 are hosting the worst stuff and since they don’t have to worry about things like investors or advertisers there isn’t public pressure that would make them conform more to society’s standards. They can host murder and suicide videos, post credit card info, post sensitive data, and just say “CDA 230! YOLO!” all while instructing their users to post using virtual private networks, linking to them, and making money if they purchase the premium version.
    If 230 goes people can still say what they want on the internet by making their own websites. Social media won’t take the risks so they won’t let you post unless they screen everything. Not as many people will hear you, but that’s not censorship.
    If CDA 230 protects a website that documents human rights abuses against the LGBT community then it also has to protect a website that attempts to enlist and educate people about perceived threats to the world caused by the Jews. If 230 goes those sites can still exist, but we can sue if the site is used for illegal or nefarious purposes. Guess which site is most-likely to get sued?
    As of now nothing can happen.

  35. “”If the candidate they support loses, nearly four in 10 said they would have little or no confidence that the election had been conducted in a fair-and-square way,” according to a new USA Today/Suffolk University poll. More findings:”

    You mean rigging the primaries in 2016 as thoroughly as humanly possible makes some people question the legitimacy of the primaries in 2020? SHOCKING.

    …and, no, the Dems aren’t doing this fair or square. They know who they want and they know that the candidates won’t bitch too much.


  36. Sachs left in place a portion of the law that bans getting an abortion because of the sex or race of the fetus or because it has been diagnosed with a genetic disorder such as Down syndrome.

    Umm…a few things here.

    A) Does this mean that ‘her choice’ does have limits?

    B) How do you determine if an abortion was due to the sex or race of the baby? Looking at the statistics, one might think abortion is mostly something that minorities do. Does that qualify?

  37. لودو ستار الاصدار القديم للايفون:
    انتشرت بعض الألعاب الالكترونية الجديدة التي تُحاكي الالعاب القديمة بطريقة مبتكرة صُممت للتسلية وقضاء وقت الفراغ، مثل لعبة لودو ستار، لكن التعاطي مع هذه الألعاب بين فئة المراهقين وصل إلى حد الإدمان فأصبحت تفصل الفرد منهم عن واقعه الاجتماعي.

    وأدى تطبيق لودو ستار القديم لضعف نمو التواصل الإيجابي لديه وعزله بين جدرانها مع مجموعة من الرفاق في العالم الافتراضي، ففي الوقت الذي أسهم الإنترنت في عزل الشباب ووحدتهم فإن هذه الألعاب السائدة ضاعفت المشكلة.

    بشكل عام فإن طريقة اللعب على لودو ستار القديم للايفون ليس صعبا فكل ما عليك القيام به هو إلقاء النرد والتحرك حسب الرقم الذي يظهر على النرد و من يصل اولا فانه يربح و لكن هناك عدة أوضاع في هذه اللعبة قد تجعل طريقة اللعب أصعب قليلا.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.