Reason Roundup

Dems to Talk for 6 (!) Hours About Climate Change on CNN Tonight

Plus: occupational licensing, Hong Kong, school choice, social media spies, and more...


What's a worse TV programming idea than six straight hours of Democratic campaigners talking climate change? Honestly, I'm not sure. But this is the fresh hell that CNN has planned for America this Wednesday night. And while, sure, you can choose not to tune in to this particular political pageantry, there's no avoiding its fallout, as Democratic 2020 candidates compete to outdo each other with grand regulatory plans.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) wants a plan similar to the "Green New Deal" proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and company. It would entail an initial $3 trillion investment over 10 years. That's the same price tag we see for Sen. Cory Booker's (D–N.J.) plan, which includes $50 billion for an Environmental Justice Fund and a promise to plant 100 million trees.

Julián Castro's plan would cost $10 trillion and includes a plank to dismantle "environmental racism," which is:

a type of discrimination where communities of color and low-income communities are forced to live in close proximity to environmentally hazardous or degraded environments, such as hazardous waste sites or pollution. To that end, Castro said he'd propose new civil rights bills like requiring all federal actions be reviewed for environmental and health impacts on low-income and marginalized communities.

Joe Biden's plan is cheap in comparison, at a projected $1.6 trillion.

Biden, Booker, Castro, and Warren will all appear as part of the CNN climate extravaganza starting tonight at 5 p.m. EDT, along with Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.), Beto O'Rourke, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), and Andrew Yang.

"Most candidates have the goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, although some aim to accelerate by a few years to 2040 or 2045," notes CBS News. "Many candidates also hope to cut emissions by half by 2030 and get to net-zero emissions for electricity by that year," and all have vowed to rejoin the Paris Climate Accords.


An update on the Hong Kong protests: 


How occupational licensing impedes criminal justice reform. "Across the country, more than 10,000 regulations restrict people with criminal records from obtaining occupational licenses, according to a database developed by the American Bar Association." The Washington Post details how these laws—pushed as ways to protect public safety—are an unnecessary, crony-capitalist mess that is thwarting efforts at rehabilitation for the formerly incarcerated.


  • New North Carolina legislative districts are "significantly tainted in that they unconstitutionally deprive every citizen of the right to elections for members of the General Assembly conducted freely and honestly to ascertain, fairly and truthfully, the will of the People," a state court just ruled.
  • Justin Amash stands alone.
  • Sigh. Same:

NEXT: Brickbat: Teaching Them a Lesson

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. Six hours? Are they not serious about the issue?

    1. Hello.

      I’d rather watch The Housewives of some city than the DNC babble about system change.

      I may have to pierce my ear drums but whaddya gon’ do?

      1. Watch Family Feud instead?

        1. I draw the line at Steve Harvey.

        2. You’ll hear more facts from the feud than the debate.

          1. Even with Steve reading the wrong card

            1. That’s a lot of hot air!!!

      2. WE DIDN’T LISTEN!!!!!!

        Or watch. Haha.

    2. How long does it take to demand that the proles must freeze in the winter and roast in the summer and are tied to within 20 miles of their homes?

      1. The demand only takes a few minutes, but it must be bolstered by hours of sob stories about baby polar bears, islands tipping over, etc.

    3. The SS Minnow was lost in half that time!

    4. Anyone old enough will remember Democrats used to run telethons for themselves on ABC TV. They ran about 20 hours. They had to pay off the debts they ran up from fucking up the sixties to nominating George McGovern. They had plenty of free celebrities so you didn’t have to watch Hubert Humphrey tap dancing.

      1. Before my time but sounds hilarious to watch desperate Lefties.

  2. Klobuchar is seeking to boost her pathetically unviable presidential campaign by getting in on the “Big Tech” bashing popular among Republican nationalists and Democratic populists alike.

    She is such a weasel – she’s pissed at the thought of Harris getting the AG nod if a Democrat wins.

    1. Harris may not get the nod but she’s still sitting pretty with the AG gig.

      Lucky her.

      And America.

      1. Harris is still my first choice for President (or at worst, tied at #1 with Warren) but I’d settle for her as AG. I think in that position she could help bring back forced busing for racially integrating public schools.


        1. Harris/Warren for President!
          Make America Stupid Again!

    2. Just gave me nightmares. The trial against the undercover journalist who exposed baby part sales starts today. Brought by Harris. This after Harris’ office was outed for working with planned parenthood to draft a law making it illegal to expose abortionists in California.

      1. Harris is a nasty fucking piece of work.

      2. >>>a law making it illegal to expose abortionists in California.

        challenge accepted.

  3. Another $3.6 billion is being diverted from U.S. Department of Defense projects to pay for Trump’s border wall.

    That could buy a lot of $400 hammers.

    1. The hammers only cost $2.50 each.
      Where do you think the CIA gets it payroll?

  4. Walmart takes a meaningless stand for gun control

    Most people conceal carry not open carry, so whatever Walmart. Nothing like bowing to pressure from people who don’t even shop at your stores.

    Sam Walmart would likely not agree with this strategy to cave to pressure from gun grabbing Lefties.

    1. Progs will still hate Wal-Mart.

      1. Yeah but a lot of soft on guns Repubs and regular Dems will continue to shop there. Whether this is Gillette level stupidity, I don’t know.

        1. I dont know any gun owners that used Walmart. There’s 5 gun shops within a couple of miles of me, they are always packed. Walmart never even has staff at the gun counter in the same area.

          1. In rural areas, Walmart may be the only store close by. At least that is what National Propaganda Radio said this morning.

            1. Nazi Propaganda Radio

            2. If there are enough people in the area to justify a Walmart, there are enough to justify a gun store (economically justify).

      2. That’s the part these guys never get. Progressive hate cannot be satiated.

        1. See the CS Lewis quote about moral busybodies.

    2. Walmart…will end the sale of handgun ammunition

      1) “Yeah! *That’ll* show those AR-15-shooting motherfuckers!”

      2) “We have to do *something*, and this is *something*, so we’re doing it.”

      1. RE: bullet 1…

        They’re ending the sale of handgun ammo and short-barrel rifle ammo. That means .223.

        It seems like an odd way to define what they will no longer sell since an SBR is defined by barrel length (or overall length) and not ammo. Walmart clarified that they’re basically looking to sell shotgun shells and larger rifle ammo (stuff that you might actually consider “high powered”.

        Considering the fact that there are commercially made .308 SBRs on the market, does that mean Walmart is going to stop selling .308?

        1. But, .223 isn’t a SBR caliber. A2-style AR-15’s have 20″ barrels. Even M4-style ARs have 16″ barrels. Neither are what could accurately be described as an SBR.

          1. .223 is a caliber used for SBRs. You correctly note that there are lots of guns that fire .223 that aren’t SBRs. That makes the point about how describing the ammo they will stop selling as SBR ammo doesn’t make sense.

            Walmart specifically mentioned .223 as ammo that they will no longer sell.

    3. “Most people conceal carry not open carry, so whatever Walmart. Nothing like bowing to pressure from people who don’t even shop at your stores.”

      I have visited many open-carry States, and also live in one. Occasionally I have seen someone (who wasn’t hunting), open carry in the back-country. Outside of the occasional gun-show, parades, or other special events, I can count the number of folks I have seen open-carry on one hand.

      1. Open carry is relatively rare, to the point that when I see someone carrying I notice. Of course the benefit of concealed carry is that even if I’m not carrying, nobody can be sure.

      2. This. I know lots of people that conceal carry. I know of one person, who’s a friend of a friend of a friend I’ve met maybe 5 times that open carry’s.

    4. Sam Walton might not agree with the strategy of caving to pressure from gun-grabbing Lefties, but when the gun-grabbing Lefties include the Republicans in Congress and the Republican in the White House, maybe it’s time to cut your losses and drop a problematic and unprofitable line of goods. I’m pretty sure Walmart knows the woke community are not their customer base and maybe the singling out of the open-carry rule is a wink-and-a-nod to their actual customer base that they may be standing in the choir but they’re just mouthing the words.

      1. Their ban on certain ammunition and their call for more gun control laws trump’s any other message they were sending. Bye-bye Walmart.

    5. Maybe most people, but I work at one (half suburb, half rural) and probably see 3-4 people a day open carrying a handgun on their hip. So it was pretty common.

  5. “Another $3.6 billion is being diverted from U.S. Department of Defense projects to pay for Trump’s border wall.”

    Ugh. This is another example illustrating why I prefer the neocon GOP of the early 2000s to the alt-right white nationalist version of today. That $3.6 billion would be better spent in Afghanistan.


    1. That $3.6 billion would be better spent in Afghanistan, buying poppies.

  6. Hong Kong’s Carrie Lam formally withdraws extradition bill

    The strategy is to defuse the protests and then arrest everyone involved individually. Much easier than mass roundups of dissenters.

    1. Not to disagree, but since when has China had a problem effecting mass roundups of dissenters?

      1. Everyone is watching this time. They prefer to do their roundups in Mongolia where there are no cameras.

      2. They still do it and the Uighars are a prime example. The Chinese were trying to cover it up.

        Plus, Hong Kongers have been free in their lifetimes. The Uighars not so much.

  7. “Law enforcement authorities, like everyone else, are required to use their real names on Facebook, and we make this policy clear,” a Facebook spokeswoman told the Associated Press in response to queries about Homeland Security agents creating fake accounts.

    Are Homeland Security Agents “law enforcement”? I would hope they wouldn’t give entry level Federal workers any enforcement responsibilities. The dishwasher at the local Chinese buffet is more important than a Homeland Security Agent.

    1. Are you thinking of TSA agents/screeners?

  8. Biden, Booker, Castro, and Warren will all appear as part of the CNN climate extravaganza…

    All that hot air is not going to help.

    1. Will Biden forget which planet is warming?

  9. California city tests buzzy campaign idea for income

    STOCKTON, Calif. (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang wants to give cash to every American each month.

    Susie Garza has never heard of Yang. But since February, she’s been getting $500 a month from a nonprofit in Stockton, California, as part of an experiment that offers something unusual in presidential politics: a trial run of a campaign promise, highlighting the benefits and challenges in real time.

    Garza can spend the money however she wants. She uses $150 of it to pay for her cellphone and another $100 or so to pay off her dog’s veterinarian bills. She spends the rest on her two grandsons now that she can afford to buy them birthday presents online and let them get the big bag of chips at the 7-Eleven.

    This is why UBI is ridiculous. People who get it spend it on luxuries like $150 cell phone bills and $100 vet bills.

    Remember, Stockton, Commifornia declared bankruptcy in 2012. Its why these cities should not get bankruptcy protection and be forced to dissolve. The county can handle the services it wants to pay out.

      1. I hate hate the mobile site.

        *or maybe we could let people have more cash each month by, I dont know, tax decreases?

        1. +1000

        2. Tax decreases will explode the deficit! What are, some kind of anarchist? The government, and all the children, will starve! The rotting corpses in the streets will smell and give off methane and CO2. And we just can’t have any more GHGs!

    1. UBI has been tried on multiple scales, the latest in Mississippi. It is batting zero in helping its recipients.

    2. Besides which, it is NOT “universal”:
      “…The city chose 125 people who live in census tracts at or below the city’s median household income of $46,033….”
      If it were “universal”, the population of Stockton would have tripled by now.

      And then the focus of the “test”:
      “A team of researchers is monitoring the participants. Their chief interest is not finances but happiness. They are using what they call a “mattering scale” to measure how much people feel like they matter to society.”
      Does free money make you happy?

      1. Where do I send my cell phone bill each month?
        To the mayor, or the city council?

        1. Uh! They send you their cell phone bills.

    3. “In the 1960s and 1970s, Republicans Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney oversaw four guaranteed-income experiments scattered across the country when Rumsfeld, later a defense secretary, was director of President Richard Nixon’s Office of Economic Opportunity and Cheney, the future vice president, was his deputy.

      The program had some hiccups, including a woman who spent all the money on alcohol and a man who went into debt buying expensive furniture for his government-subsidized apartment, according to a 1970 New York Times story. But the experiment concluded that the money did not stop people from working and led Nixon to propose expanding the program, which ultimately did not pass Congress.””

      I find that funny.

      1. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are RINOs as we know from your info and how they acted in office.

        Both are fine with big spending, neo-conservatism, and government power. The GOP platform still does not endorse these strategies.

  10. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $58.4 billion

    He’s down almost a billion dollars this year. As Koch / Reason libertarians, we know a healthy economy means the top 10 wealthiest people on the planet should be getting richer, not poorer. The #DrumpfRecession is clearly to blame.


    1. Better still, #VoteDemocratToHonorStalin
      That should do it.

  11. Justin Amash stands alone.

    The tree that refuses to bend…

    1. The cheese stands with him.

  12. We live in an age of idiotic moral panics.

    1. Or talented politicians and media:

      The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H L Mencken

  13. Michigan is banning flavored e-cigarettes.

    The great thing about this country is that innovators are always coming up with new great things to ban.

  14. Global heating made Hurricane Dorian bigger, wetter – and more deadly

    No scientific evidence to support this claim but Propagandists gotta Propagandize.

    Nobody says anything about less hurricanes during the season after 2000.

    1. Isn’t Dorian already down to a 2 and likely a one before possibly hitting my state’s coast Friday?

      1. Yeah, but it did beat the hell out of The Bahamas.

    2. Bigger, wetter – and more deadly

      You had me until the end there…

      1. “Species 3: Coastal Copulation”

    3. It’s a weird claim to make. Seems to me that in the climate system, everything affects everything else. Nothing is simple cause and effect. So whatever climate change there is is one cause among many of every weather event.

      1. Which is why it’s almost impossible to model weather. One thing to note from all the Dorian coverage is that the models can’t even accurately predict the strength or direction a few days out of a hurricane that already exists.

        Climate data, in terms of macro trends, might be easier to model, but certainly the amount of error in predictions decades from now should be taken into account. Politicians tend to latch onto favorable results and never mention the lack of statistical significance of those results. Shutting down debate in the scientific community is a way of ensuring that those results never get shared to the general public. Which is why shutting down debate is about as un-scientific as it gets.

        1. “Any movement that calls itself ‘scientific’ but fails to nurture opportunities for the testing of its own beliefs (most obviously when it murders or imprisons people who disagree with it) is not a scientific movement.”

          -Steven Pinker p393 in Enlightenment Now.

  15. “Congratulations to ‘online disinformation’ alarmists who gave implicit approval to this new Pentagon initiative to ‘detect malicious intent and prevent viral fake news from polarizing society'”

    Michael Tracey is a discredited #TrumpRussia denialist. Like Glenn Greenwald, he should quit journalism in shame and apologize to serious thinkers like Rachel Maddow who got the story right.

    1. Rachel Madcow would thank you, but she’s going back to the asylum for some more shock therapy.
      Apparently, her lobotomy didn’t work out as well as she would’ve liked.

  16. Judge Orders White House To Restore Brian Karem’s Press Credential – Update

    Hey, this is an “Ends Justify the Means” type situation here.

    1. It’s an obama appointee who has quite a few notable egregious decisions. He was also the FISA judge who had to excuse himself half way through the Flynn trial.

      Heiterally believes the 1a grants access to corporate press members to the White House grounds. It is such an idiotic assertion.

      1. Actually, he hung it on due process.

        You see, having rules of conduct and an appeals process isn’t enough. Saying that reporters had to have “professional conduct” is too vague.

        And yelling that you want to “take it outside” is a threat, but not actually a threat if they don’t actually start throwing punches.

        Yes, this is what the decision turned on. Because they didn’t strictly define exactly what behavior counts as unprofessional, they can’t enforce it at all.

        They couldn’t get rid of CNN’s Acosta because they didn’t have “due process” of appeals and such – so they added that…. and now they still don’t have due process.

        Makes me wonder if they would have found such a due process exception for someone like Alex Jones.

        1. The 1a decision was on putting restrictions on hold until trial completes.

          Agree with the rest. The injunction was offered up on 1a.

    2. The White House should just stop having press conferences then, if courts think they can tell them who can and can’t attend. It would be too petty for most Presidencies, but it seems right in Trump’s wheelhouse.

      1. No need for press conferences anyway; use technology like oh, say twitter – – – – –

      2. I bet some judge would rule they have to have press conferences

      3. Who watched White House press conferences before Trump? They were always a waste of time for everyone involved.

    3. If Karem not having press credentials for the WH violates HIS (not Playboy magazine or CNN)’s 1A rights…how does ME not having one not do the same for me?

      1. He argued that it violated his 1A rights, but the judge only ruled on the due process issue. I guess even this judge realized the absurdity of the 1A argument.

        1. “What does ‘professional’ mean?” sounds like the question a totally serious judge would ask.

          I guess all guidelines for decorum are, de facto, unconstitutional.

    1. I wouldn’t exactly call yelling “nuh-uh! You guys are terrible!” a strong response that demonstrates Trump winning.

  17. How long does it take to demand that the proles must freeze in the winter and roast in the summer and are tied to within 20 miles of their homes?

  18. “Most candidates have the goal of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050”

    “Net-zero emissions”? What does that even mean? I suspect it’s like Elton John’s giving to charity to counteract his private jet fumes.

    1. It means killing everyone with socialist policies so they no longer emit carbon with their breath.

      1. And we shouldn’t look at how the very Socialist Eastern bloc’s environment looked when compared to the West when the Wall came down…

    2. It means they think they can pass a law to solve a problem that requires developing engineering solutions that may not be practicable or even possible.

      They do not understand the limitations of government that a dark age ruler like King Canute knew.

    3. No, it means you send a big check to one of Al Gore’s carbon offset companies.

      Oil companies be damned, that’s where all the juice on this topic is coming from. Every crony capitalist in the world understands that carbon regulations are the biggest chance for building a new pie to slice up and hand out since the invention of war.

      1. ^^ This

      2. It’s not really about global warming, it’s about remaking the economy. The architect of the GND said so.

        If they are really serious about combating climate change as they see it, they should drop the remake the economy part. Which is more important, combating climate change, or remaking the economy? I’ll bet it’s the latter.

    4. Net zero means they don’t count the CO2 where the carbon originated in biological materials. I.e. Good CO2 vs bad CO2.

      The gross production is still positive.

      This is what passes for science with the AGW crowd.

    1. Is Cleopatra considered a Biblical bombshell?

        1. Slide her the salami

        2. was a good u2 b-side

      1. Two rather important figures in Roman history immolated themselves over her.

        One of the reasons Julius Caesar was assassinated was that he was seen as too besotted with her, and Octavian poisoned the people against Anthony was that he was willing Roman provinces to his children with her.

        1. Bitch set them up?

        2. Caesar and Antony snaked that babe.

      2. Bathsheba. She played David like Clapton plays guitar.

      3. I don’t know if Cleopatra was a bombshell, but I’ve read where Bethsheba (and my favorite, Jezebel) was.

        1. And do not forget Abishag the Shunammite who they brought to King David to keep him warm at night in his old age.

          Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin; and let her stand before the king, and be a companion unto him; and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat.’ Kings 1

    2. Apparently the story is all wrong. The giant was likely blind and weighted down with armor which made him a sitting target for a weapon that had equivalent stopping power of a .45 caliber pistol.

      1. If you’re trying to discredit the Bible by saying that it’s ridiculous to think that a boy could take out a warrior by hitting him in the head with a rock at sling speed, you’re going about it all wrong.

        There are all sorts of seemingly unpossible things in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Why pick on something that is clearly possible? In addition to that, . . .

        If we lived in a society where literacy may have been confined to a small section of society, there are certain things average people would know about George Washington anyway through the retelling of his exploits. We’d know that George Washington crossed the Delaware and defeated Hessian mercenaries at the Battle of Trenton. We’d also know, from oral history, that Washington once skipped a silver dollar all the way across the Potomac.

        That story about Washington skipping that silver dollar across the Potomac seems to have grown in the retelling. I’ve been to Mount Vernon. I’ve seen the Potomac there. Considering other homes that date from Washington’s time along the river, the Potomac seems to be about the same size it was in Washington’s day. There’s no way any human being could skip a silver dollar all the way across that river. Furthermore, it’s my understanding that silver dollars didn’t exist in Washington’s day, casting further doubt on the claim that Washington skipped one all the way across the Potomac river.

        Just because Washington probably never skipped a silver dollar all the way across the Potomac, however, doesn’t mean that he didn’t exist or that he didn’t cross the Delaware and defeat a Hessian army at the Battle of Trenton. Likewise, the essence of the story of David would be no less reliable–even if killing a man by hitting him in the head with a rock at sling velocity were somehow an unlikely story. Claro?

        1. I read somewhere (don’t remember where) that a lot of the stories about George Washington e.g. chopping down the cherry tree and then telling his father “I cannot tell a lie” were in a biography published soon after his death, and the publisher admitted that many of the stories were “apocryphal”.

          1. This is the way myths are made. In the early ancient world, when the printing press didn’t exist and maybe even before writing existed, it was all about oral history–people telling each other stories. The tales get taller in the retelling, and before you knew it, you’ve got the gods of the Celts or whatever.

            I think of it this way:

            The purpose of science is to discredit theories. The purpose of experiments is to look for evidence that discredits a theory. A theory is always in danger of being discredited in the future because of new evidence that hasn’t become available yet, but the theories that are mostly likely to be true are the theories that have survived the most and best scrutiny. You may find evidence that the particulars of Einstein’s formulations are wrong in some way, but in doing so, if your evidence doesn’t discredit the theory that nothing moves faster than the speed of light, discrediting everything else but the theory that nothing moves faster than the speed of light actually strengthens the case for the validity of the theory. We certainly can’t dismiss the heart of the theory when the evidence only suggests the theory should be revised.

            Ancient history works the same way.

            I see little reason to believe that Achilles’ mother made him almost entirely invincible by dipping him into the river Styx by his heel, but I don’t see why there couldn’t have been a famous warrior named Achilles who fought in the war against Troy. I see no reason to believe that Henry V made a “St. Crispin’s Day” speech the way Shakespeare wrote it, but I also see little reason to doubt that Henry V won the Battle of Agincourt. Contemporary sources, archaeology, etc. all support the theory that Henry V won the battle of Agincourt–rather than dismiss it. Shakespeare’s speech was just a fabrication, but that’s no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

            One of the things history, anthropology, and archaeology have confirmed, over time, is that in order for stories to thrive and survive in preliterate societies, there can be some kind of actual event or person to initiate that kind of attention and become part of the oral history. Again, imagine we’re in a preliterate society, and think what it would take for a story like the Twin Towers coming down on 9/11 to gain currency across generations. We’d need to disprove more than whatever exaggerations cropped up in the retelling to overcome the evidence that for a story to gain currency across generations like that, something like 9/11 probably happened.

            Looking back thousands of years, we might never know the truth with absolute certainty, but that’s also true of science, where theories are only believed tentatively–until new evidence becomes available that either confirms or discredits them. Some theories come with a higher degree of confidence than others. The theory that the earth orbits the sun rather than vice versa enjoys a higher degree of certainty than the theory that David slew Goliath because one has enjoyed more and better scrutiny than the other. That being said, even basic math comes with a degree of uncertainty outside of pure theory. I say that 2+2=4, but I may have counted wrong, there could be a typo in my source data, etc., etc.

            1. Robert Jordan covers the development of myths and legends in his Wheel of Time series, based on the premise that time is cyclical with each “Age” ending is some cataclysm that pushes what had been history into legend.

              In his series, the prior Age had all sorts of well documented, but not at all understood, fantastic wonders. But he also included myths from the prior Age (so two cataclysms ago) about the giants Mosk and Merc who fought in the sky with lances of fire, and of Salya, who rode to the moon on an eagle of fire, thus placing his stories many thousands of years on future earth.

              That’s what myths an legends look like, real events transformed to be more fantastical over time, but still readily recognizable to people from the period, even if inaccurately.

          2. And yet most facts about Obama are still state secrets.

        2. The thing about David and Goliath that truly strains credulity is that two warring nations would choose a champion and allow that single combat to decide the outcome.

          I know it is an extremely popular trope in literature and folklore, but if two nations came to an impasse, and at lest one leader felt he had a clear military advantage and a victory offered benefits that made the war worthwhile, I cannot imagine him abiding by the single combat outcome.

          Sure, for small tribal disputes about who gets the best upland grazing land I could see two related chieftains wagering the outcome on a combat game. But at the city state and larger level? Not terribly likely.

          1. “The thing about David and Goliath that truly strains credulity is that two warring nations would choose a champion and allow that single combat to decide the outcome.”

            Sometimes, Biblical stories get even more convoluted with the retelling–sort of like people maintaining that the Children of Israel built the pyramids when the Bible just says they were making bricks–that could have been used for anything. People know the ancient Egyptians built pyramids and they know the Children of Israel were being forced to make bricks, so they add two and two together and come up with twenty-two.

            I don’t believe the story says they agreed to cede the battlefield to whomever lost the one on one contest. The best warrior in one side calling out the best warrior on the other for one on one combat is a common motif throughout ancient stories. It was often seen a trial by ordeal between two armies’ gods–which is what was happening here. Achilles vs. Hector is one example. Sir Gawain vs. the Green Knight would be another. Hell, Joe Louis vs. Max Schmeling at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin probably qualifies, in a more modern context. This is also why we have a Super Bowl.

          2. We also used to have Duels. 9/10 times it was simply a personal insult that needed to be dealt with to keep social order and limit Defamation because of serious consequences.

            Maybe 1/10 times it was two people who represented groups and an insult was traded that required a Duel to keep social order. The groups don’t fight but let their representative fight it out.

            Wars tended to have fighting representatives of groups fight it out while women and some elites stayed behind.

            1. Except for the Aztec. Their elites were pretty badass.

              1. +10

          3. Wasn’t there a Roman and Celtic battle decided like that? The Roman actually won and the Celts just went away.

        3. Jesus christ Ken. I don’t care one way or the other if the story actually happened in real life. I was simply relating something I had heard about how the traditional understanding of that story is misinformed because slings were exceptionally powerful and accurate weapons for their time and Goliath was an especially vulnerable target because of his lack of mobility and poor eyesight. David was better armed and his victory was not exactly surprising which turns the whole moral of that story on its head.

        4. “If you’re trying to discredit the Bible by saying that it’s ridiculous to think that a boy could take out a warrior by hitting him in the head with a rock at sling speed, you’re going about it all wrong.”
          Just for the record – – Goliath was killed by God.
          1st Samuel 17:45-46
          45 David said to the Philistine, “You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the Lord Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This day the Lord will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head.

          1. I’m not sure what your point is, but if you’re trying to say that David didn’t kill Goliath with a sling and a stone, . . .

            “49 And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth.

            50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.

            51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. “


            David hit Goliath in the head with a stone from his sling, and when Goliath fell on this face, David drew Goliath’s sword and cut off Goliath’s head with it.

            Extra Credit:

            Only a boy named David
            Only a little sling
            Only a boy named David
            But he could pray and sing
            Only a boy named David
            Only a rippling brook
            Only a boy named David
            But five little stones he took
            And one little stone went into the sling
            and the sling went ’round and ’round
            And one little stone went into the sling
            and the sling went round and round
            and around and around and around and around and around and around and around
            And one little sling went up in the air
            And the giant came a tumblin’ down

            —An example of Oral History

      2. The story is almost certainly more-or-less completely fabricated.

        2 Samuel 21:18–19 has the otherwise-unknown Elhanan slay Goliath. Since the books of Samuel were almost certainly written by a member of David’s dynasty, probably a child of Solomon, it seems pretty clear that David’s people claimed the victory over Goliath for David as part of the general beatification of David that is one of the main points of the first several books of the OT.

        Chronicles explains this contradiction away by claiming it was Goliath’s brother who was killed by Elhanan, and the King James emends 2 Samuel 21:18–19 to add the word “brother.”

        1. That is the most likely explanation according to biblical historians. It cements David’s claim to the throne and paints his predecessor Saul as incompetent.

          The sling having greater range and quite lethal for the time in the right hands is not implausible. Goliath need not even need to have been killed by the shot, just incapacitated. David takes a sword and cuts off the head of Goliath in the story.

    3. Quite a bit of overreach in that one.

      Their logic is: “Because ancient Gath had thicker than normal fortifications, Israelis who saw the ruins of this city assumed Giants!”

      That’s really, really thin.

      1. I read it to assume that thicker fortifications meant larger walls needed to support large people. Maybe they were thicker to support MORE MEN, or to better protect against siege weapons battering rams and catapults), or to better protect against tunneling under the fortifications.

        1. The archeologists are excited because they are finding evidence of the move from small villages to walled stone towns.

          I agree that the thickness of the walls probably does not mean much other than that the inhabitants had the resources to build sturdier stone walls.

          Side note since this got me interested I do not think they had catapults in 1000bce at least not there. This was late Bronze Age.

          Walled cities were pretty difficult to assault which explains why people went though all the effort to build them. Siege was probably the best option if you could not get in through the gates.

          Near 12 centuries later when the romans took Jerusalem it was primarily by siege. They did build ramparts and used battering rams. It was fire that sealed the cities fate.

          It looks like a cool site. If I ever get back there again would love to see it.

          Anyway this stuff gets me interested so just passing along what I learned.

  19. There’s a Chinese app called “Zao” that’s generating a lot of news coverage over privacy issues at the moment, but the interesting thing thing about the app to me isn’t the privacy concerns. It’s what the app can do regardless of whether it invades people’s privacy–it puts “deep fake” in the hands of the masses:

    “SHANGHAI (Reuters) – ZAO – a new Chinese app that lets users swap their faces with celebrities, sports stars or anyone else in a video clip – racked up millions of downloads on the weekend but swiftly drew fire over privacy issues.

    Consumers sign-up for ZAO with their phone number and upload images of their face, using photographs taken with their smartphone.

    . . . .

    They can then choose from a range of videos of celebrities on which to superimpose their face, and share the videos with their friends.

    In addition to Chinese celebrities, other famous faces on the app include Leonardo DiCaprio and Marilyn Monroe.


    Among the privacy concerns, there are questions about the company storing people’s faces on their servers–and those faces being used in any kind of video they or the Chinese government wants. Regardless of whether that’s a real problem, the day is soon approaching when it will be easy to insert anyone’s face into any video and make it seem real.

    It isn’t just the government creating video of you perpetrating an act of arson. Your spouse will be able to generate video of you doing all sorts of awful things–for the benefit of a divorce court. Meanwhile, if you thought fake news was a problem in 2016, the next Pissgate Memo won’t need to rely on text. I suspect we’ll have competing videos of various presidential candidates perpetrating degenerate sex acts on barnyard animals.

    The only solutions from a news perspective may be 1) news organizations competing with each other on their integrity again, but that boat is probably already FUBAR, and 2) would include blockchain technology. It may be that we can only trust video in the future if it has been authenticated with blockchain technology by the photographer. It’ll probably take a major incident to make news video creators start doing that, but a major incident seems inevitable.

    Half the people in this thread are thinking about how funny it would be to put Liz Warren’s face on a pig-fucker right now!

    1. Don’t respond to this guys…

      Ken’s account was hacked by a DNC operative working on behalf of AOC to fend off the coming release of a sex tape from a particularly raucous post-fundraiser get-together. Because it isn’t what she’s doing as much as who she’s doing it to that is the story, they are trying to get out in front of it with these “deep fake” stories, pushing them on every network and throughout social media.

  20. Chinese people find Trump ‘perplexing and exhausting’ on trade war, says state-run TV host

    Sounds like a Boehm article.

    “Orange Man bad, perplexing, and exhausting, says Boehm”.

    1. Yes, and according to the gospel of Boehm, what Trump does has no objective and no context. Trump is the unmoved mover, his acts born of the cosmos–the Greek god of tantrum throwing. And we’re to believe in this world that’s being painted because Boehm has painted it. To believe otherwise is madness!

  21. Julián Castro’s plan would cost $10 trillion

    “For starters, of course. If storms are still bad in a few years we’ll have to charge more.”

  22. Castro said he’d propose new civil rights bills like requiring all federal actions be reviewed for environmental and health impacts on low-income and marginalized communities.

    *Please* let him call one of his bills the “Not In THEIR Backyard Act”.

  23. Atlanta Fed model pares U.S. third quarter GDP view to 1.7%

    Markets IMPLODING at 1.7% GDP growth!!

    *Cue Boehm Orange Man bad articles

    1. 1.7% GDP isn’t too bad. But Trump is going to struggle to campaign on 1.7% GDP.

      1. Haha. Lowest Black American unemployment in over 60 years is the winner!

        To borrow a quote LBJ (member of the Party of slavery): Trump will have those Americans voting Republican for two hundred years.

        1. Why do you think they are race-baiting so hard? It has been 30 years since those scales should have fallen from their collective eyes. But there is an entire industry of scale-glue installers fighting that result.

        2. So Kaye is still working then? Good.

          1. Republicans often say that the Democratic Party takes black voters for granted. They are right.

            Uh-oh. Black American women discussing not voting for Democrats.

    2. “Let me tell you, if I wanted to do nothing with China, our stock market, our stock market would be 10,000 points higher than it is right now but somebody had to do this,” D. Trump today.

  24. “en. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) wants a plan similar to the “Green New Deal” proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) and company.”

    So a government takeover of the economy, killing off Hawaii entirely, AND stopping cow farts.


    1. Someone has to pay for Tulsi bitchslapping Kamala…

  25. “Climate activists struggle to convince Dems that green isn’t just for whites”
    “Oakland Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee, who has supported the environmental movement for four decades, said climate activists haven’t connected the dots between how the planet is changing and how blacks have a 19% higher cancer death rate than whites.”

    Just guessing here, but I doubt the very small change in average temperature has zero to do with cancer rates, but then Lee is about as fucking stupid as you can get and still draw a breath.

    1. Lee said the issue was clear at the Democrats’ national meeting in San Francisco last month, when those pushing a climate-themed presidential debate were “99.9% white people.” Most of those lined up to speak against the idea were people of color, she said.

      “See?! Climate change is making POC *stupid*!”

      1. Katastrophic Klimate Khange!

  26. Interesting decision on North Carolina districts. Interesting, because it was the courts that inspired the bizarrely jerrymandered districts in the first place.

    Back before we had a post-racial society (remember that – way back before we were the most racist nation in the history of the earth?), the courts were ordering that districts be constructed to ensure that African American candidates would be elected by making majority African-American districts. So NC complied by tying the African American areas of Charlotte with the African American areas of the Triad – nearly a two hour drive away.

    Of course, this accomplished that stated goal. But it also concentrated every democrat in the state into a couple of districts, leaving everything else republican majority. Something that it took democrats several years to understand as their doom.

    So it is interesting that the courts are now worried about political party affiliation, rather than race.

    Something makes me think that they have only been worried about political outcomes the entire time – and it is all down to which party you think is “fair” in determining which kind of jerrymander is the good kind.

    1. It always amazes me that any kind of gerrymandering is acceptable, let alone mandated. How is it not absolutely outrageous that voting districts are explicitly and openly created to get particular results in elections?

      1. Elbridge Gerry

        Gerrymandering, named after Elbridge Gerry is as old as the United States of America. Some says it the most political thing you can do.

        1. Court appointments are a close second – – – –

      2. How else would you do it, though? it’s an essentially political question.

        1. You could potentially do geometric shapes (rectangles and squares) to include similar population numbers but some districts will always complain.

          Its why apportionment of House seats is always going to be political.

          1. Yeah, I agree. I used to think that some regular pattern would work, but that could probably be gamed by a clever enough person.

            1. More constraints on how they can game it would at least be good. Right now they can just do whatever they want and everyone shrugs. I’m mostly surprised that voters don’t seem to give a fuck that politicians work to make your vote matter as little as possible and to create “safe” seats.

              1. Their own party fights over it. The opposing parties fight over it. Voters fight over it. The courts fight over it.

                While not perfect, House districting has more eyes on it than many political actions.

                1. Then you have Democrats decrying gerrymandering in races for GOVERNOR of a state.

                  1. Haha. I remember seeing that too.

                    2020 presidential candidate Seth Moulton blamed the 2018 loss of Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams on gerrymandering.


          2. Busing. Busing is always the answer.

            1. Nice one.

              Imagine if you suggested that Democrat voters be bused into their voting district. Haha. That would be so hilarious.

      3. My proposed anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment:

        No District shall be drawn that does not cover at least half of its state’s land area inside east-west lines through the northernmost and southernmost points of the District, and north-south lines through the easternmost and westernmost points of the District.

      4. What exactly is the Constitutional role of districting? Objectively, I would think the idea is to make your representation as logical as possible. For me, that would be geographic areas that are related and thus face similar issues that can be combined for national representation. Districts need to be redrawn because demographics change, but any districting based on a political outcome cannot possibly be good. I have never seen a problem with a majority R or D district. People vote, to an extent, with their feet. But I hate it any time I see a nonsensical district that doesn’t make sense from the perspective of people living here. I live in PA and there’s a lot of criticism of new court drawn maps because they based the district lines on giving everyone a “fair” chance to win and not based on which regions belonged together and didn’t. Just because the shapes were a bit weird didn’t mean they were bad and just because one party won a bit more than the other doesn’t mean the maps were biased.

        Ex. it would be incredibly stupid to exclude Northeast Philadelphia from the rest of the city just because it’s a bit more R than the rest of the city. Philadelphia is Philadelphia; or is it? Because the Northeast was acquired when land was cheap and it has more in common with Cheltenham and Jenkintown than Center City or Fairmount.

    2. +100

      Census 2020 will be the final nail in the coffin for the Democrat Party. Blue states will be giving Red states House seats and have zero say in how Red states gerrymander the Congressional Districts.
      That and Black Americans are fleeing the Party of slavery with not enough illegal immigrants to backfill the membership rolls.

      1. As of the Census 2010, Texas gained 4 seats/Florida +2/Arizona, Georgia, Washington, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah +1.

        Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania -1/New York and Ohio -2.

        Its just going to get worse for Blue states.

        1. Except those Red states are turning brown.

          1. Not Texas, South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia.

            Arizona and Nevada are just fucked because of their proximity to Commifornia.

            Plus, there are some states that as they lose a few hundred thousand Lefties will turn from Blue to purple/red. Colorado is run by those Lefties around Denver. Minnesota and Wisconsin are always right there on the fence.

            1. Wait there are blue people? Check their sats.

              Unrelated factoid.

              There are actual blue people. A famous case of the Fugate family in Kentucky who were various shades of blue was documented in Kentucky in the 1800s. They were otherwise in good health. They had a rare genetic trait of a hemoglobin pathway enzyme deficiency in which methemoglobin is not converted to hemoglobin. They had blue blood instead of red. It is still a real thing although rare.

              The show will restart in 5…4…3…

  27. “What’s a worse TV programming idea than six straight hours of Democratic campaigners talking climate change?”

    Anything starring Lena Dunham?

    1. Everything else on CNN?

    2. Tony TV.

      Its pretty much him discussing how he would love for Hillary to turn him gay…again.

    3. I anxiously await to see what the viewership is like in hour 6. Will it exceed 5 digits?

    4. Watching Grays Anatomy reruns on Netflix with my wife on my night off because I handed her the roku remote and said you pick?

      Ok the Dem debates are worse. If you are married you know why.

  28. I’m gonna go right ahead and judge a book by its cover and assume that dude in the pic wearing a ‘Climate revolution’ t-shirt doesn’t share my outlook on, like, everything.

  29. dude gets some tail.

  30. When they complain about being “forced” to live near unattractive things, they’re not complaining about environmental racism because there is no such thing. We don’t build power plants and mines on the basis of who it upsets the most. What they’re referring to is outright Marxism; they don’t like that being poor has consequences and land that’s cheap for development is often cheap for living too, so they want to steal your income and actually force you to live in certain areas so we can all be equally upset.

    Fuck Castro, send him back to Mexico.

    1. Yeah, it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with where it’s affordable to live for poorer people. Treating every disparity as if it is deliberate, malicious discrimination is silly.

  31. Klobuchar is seeking to boost her pathetically unviable presidential campaign by getting in on the “Big Tech” bashing popular among Republican nationalists and Democratic populists alike.

    I think you mean to say Republican and Democratic populists.

  32. San Francisco officials brand NRA a ‘domestic terrorist organization’

    Commifornia city declares NRA a Domestic Terrorist Organization. Most of the USA declares Commifornia jurisdictions Domestic Terrorist Organizations.

    Guess which means more?

    This is how Trump got reelected.

  33. AOC, Pressley vow to help pay bail for counterprotesters arrested at ‘Straight Pride’ parade

    Evidently outside Portland, Police don’t let Lefty violence go without a reply.

    1. Progs astonished to learn that assaulting peaceful people and police is not covered by the First Amendment.

    2. I love how the Republicans are more responsible for the alt-right et al than the Dems are for antifa while Dems are FUNDRAISING for antifa.

  34. Boehm, DOW Jones back up to 26,326.81 as of 9/4/2019 at 1249 EST.

    DOW Jones record high of 27,359.16 as of 7/15/2019

  35. Just to clarify – Carrie Lam didn’t actually *withdraw* the controversial extradition bill – she’s *proposed* doing that at the next legislative council session which doesn’t meet again until October. It would take a majority of the legislative council to approve the widrawal of the bill and three-fifths of them were pretty much hand-picked by Beijing who wants the bill. So basically in exchange for stopping the protests NOW, she’s said that she’ll propose doing something over a month from now to a body that she has no control over and is controlled by the people who want the bill the set off the protests in the first place.

    1. “On matters of principle, not an inch will be yielded,” Mr. Xi said, “but on matters of tactics there can be flexibility.”

      That’s some Confucian shit right there.

      1. It certainly is. Donald Trump wrote The Art of the Deal. A Chinese General long ago wrote The Art of War. Only one of those is a classic still studied and used in the military, business, and politics.

    2. “Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.”
      -Tu Mu variant of Sun Tzu’s “Show him there is a road to safety…”

  36. What’s the over under on how many times the word “fuck” is used and is it possible for anyone to count and remain living?

  37. “Dems to Talk for 6 (!) Hours About Climate Change on CNN Tonight.”

    I’d rather spend six hours on the rack in a torture chamber with Torquemada.

  38. Ethically, morally and legally a wealthy persons life has no more value than anyone else’s.

    Logically it follows that the wealthy have no more right than anyone else to disproportionately pollute the earth. Yet this is exactly all that carbon trade schemes accomplish.

    The wealthy pay meagrely (to them) to disproportionately pollute. Being wealthy is about owning more and bigger stuff, consuming and playing more extravagantly.

    The construction and upkeep of several mansions has a much larger carbon footprint than that of a single bungalow.

    The lives of all their servants and maintenance personnel dedicated to their extravagance all have carbon footprints.

    Their factories and all the workers that pump out cheap disposable crap that must be continually replaced often made of plastic simply to maximize their wealth have carbon footprints.

    Wealth = Carbon Footprint

    So have Democrats spent 6 hours vilifying wealth?

  39. “What’s a worse TV programming idea than six straight hours of Democratic campaigners talking climate change?”

    Probably the fact that they’ll never mention China, which produces almost twice the carbon emissions of the U.S., and which has almost doubled emissions in the last 10 years, while U.S. emissions have dropped 10%.

    They’ll probably skip over India, as well, although they’re also doubling their emissions every decade, and, at current rates of increase, will surpass U.S. emissions in less than 10 years.

    1. Who cares.

      Like India or China is not billions of people making choices every day. Like they are are stupid natives to be managed.

      As if an Indian or Chinese individual getting better makes me worse.

      Carbon emissions. That will not be a problem once you open markets. More efficient appliances, cars, light bulbs already are there. Open up the market stop idiot trade wars and barriers.

      1. Bullshit.

        While the motive is profit, everything and everyone that can’t defend themselves will suffer from the greed of others.

        Only regulations, like a constitution, can protect the vulnerable in a civilization.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.