Reason Roundup

Warren Says She's 'Open to Decriminalizing Sex Work'; Klobuchar Still Says No Way

Plus: Democrats talk LGBTQ equality, California cracks down on mini-shampoo, and more...


Warren signals potential shift on sex worker rights. Two presidential candidates, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D–Minn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), made statements on sex work decriminalization yesterday.

While unveiling her Securing LGBTQ+ Rights and Equality Platform, Warren brought up the issue unprompted, tweeting that she was "open to decriminalizing sex work," that "sex workers, like all workers, deserve autonomy," and that sex workers "are particularly vulnerable to physical and financial abuse."

"The criminal justice system should work to ensure safety for all," Warren followed up. "My plan to reform our criminal justice system recognizes that LGBTQ+ individuals—particularly LGBTQ+ people of color—face unique risks and are disproportionately harmed, and takes steps to reform the status quo."

Speaking of status quo: Asked about the issue during a CNN town hall last night, Klobuchar still situated sex-work decrim as something that would harm children and women. Klobuchar said she opposes decriminalization because it would encourage human trafficking.

Klobuchar's answer is no surprise; she's a former prosecutor who has been behind some of the worst sex-work-related legislation in Congress over the past few years.

But Warren has been no good in this realm, either. Not only did she vote for FOSTA (almost everybody did), but she sponsored legislation that would encourage banks and other financial institutions to terminate sex workers' business accounts.

Journalist Melissa Gira Grant reached out to the Warren campaign, asking: "Does 'open' mean 'support'?" She was told, "It means she is open to it."

Still, the fact that this has become even this much of a prominent and mainstream issue still signals a positive shift. For perhaps the first time, leading politicians are framing sex worker rights and the decriminalization of prostitution as matters of harm reduction, labor rights, criminal justice reform, and LGBTQ concerns instead of just using the language of victims and criminals, enslavement and empowerment, human trafficking, or morality.

At least four other candidate for the Democratic nomination—Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) and Sens. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), Kamala Harris (D–Calif.), and Cory Booker (D–N.J.)—have all made statements about decriminalizing sex work, though their statements haven't always been very clear.

Gabbard told Buzzfeed (to little fanfare) way back in March:

If a consenting adult wants to engage in sex work, that is their right, and it should not be a crime. All people should have autonomy over their bodies and their labor.

Booker also said unequivocally that "sex work should be decriminalized." After hedging on the issue at first, Booker in June told Buzzfeed:

As a general matter, I don't believe that we should be criminalizing activity between consenting adults, and especially when doing so causes even more harm for those involved.

The real question here is what will make sex workers safer and reduce exploitation, and abundant evidence points to decriminalization.

Harris claims to be for decriminalization, but in the same breath talks about arresting prostitution customers, making her part of a growing number of people trying to co-opt sex-worker-friendly language to push a carceral and generally anti-prostitution agenda. The only reason this contingent professes for disfavoring arrest of sex workers themselves (under certain circumstances) is by portraying all or at least the majority of them as victims—thereby making those who patronize, employ, or interact with them in any economic capacity (including landlords, websites where they advertise, hotels where they rent rooms, and so on) legally liable for these associations.

Sanders has been vague, saying things like "decriminalization is certainly something that should be considered" while still framing it almost entirely in term of sex trafficking:

It is a complicated issue. I think nobody wants to do anything which increases the horror of sex trafficking in this country, so it's an issue that has to be discussed. It is a complicated issue, but my promise to you is it's an issue that I will discuss, and we will hear from all sides and come up with the best solution that we can.

For what it's worth, neither the president nor Congress can directly "decriminalize sex work," as prostitution is not a federal crime.

Getting rid of laws surrounding commercial sexual activity between consenting adults is up to cities and states. Still, there are a number of ways that the federal government could incentivize states to do so, starting with putting to a stop to current federal law-enforcement pressure and incentives to intensify sex stings. It could also, for a start, repeal harmful federal laws related to prostitution, such as last year's FOSTA and the (still very much enforced) 1910 Mann Act.


Dispatches from the presidential LGBTQ equality forum. Nine Democrats running for president appeared on the televised CNN forum last night. The topics covered include the Equality Act, violence against transgender women and youth, the ban on transgender troops, and more. Reporter Chris Geidner offered a solid rundown on Twitter of what happened. Start here:

In other news from the forum:


Cities are banning fast-food drive-throughs. Their reasons are as diverse—public safety, car concerns, promoting weight loss—as they are silly. NPR reports:

Minneapolis became the latest city to pass an ordinance banning the construction of new drive-through windows. Similar legislation restricting or banning the ubiquitous windows has also passed in Creve Coeur, Mo.; Long Beach, Calif.; and Fair Haven, N.J.

They should heed the lessons of cities that have already tried this:

Obesity rates went up, not down, after South Los Angeles banned new stand-alone fast-food restaurants and drive-through windows, according to research published in the journal Social Science & Medicine in 2015. Sturm, the lead author, notes that the rates of overweight and obesity continued climbing in the three years following the ban.

"We need to be careful not to overstate what these bans can do," says Sturm. "If we want to lower obesity and want people to be healthier, [drive-through bans] are not going to achieve that."


  • Meanwhile, in Trumpworld:


NEXT: Californians Are Fleeing the State's Progressive Policies

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. California banned hotels from providing miniature shampoo bottle and other travel-size toiletries.

    Mom-and-pop sundries shops are saved.

    1. Hello.

      Democrats on sex trade….as I see it. Doesn’t matter who gets attributed here because they’re all illiberal jackasses and not about reasoning like a spineless NBA official or Steve Kerr:

      Booker: I want people to pivot on how they think about fags. You know when you look at a cereal box and tell yourself, ‘I can be the Lucky Charm leprechaun and be President?’ Well, that’s how I want you to view me. I’m like a Lucky Charm Spartacus and I will fight for the pot of gold for all Americans…..except wypippo. But all Americans!

      Warren: All sex workers deserve a living wage this is why I will up there wages to $15 an hour….or per job. Whatever. I will also ensure sex robots don’t take over the market. I think. Sounds kinky come to think of it (looks over to Bernie with demure grin).

      Sanders (looks away): My thoughts on the sex trade….but first a card trick! Watch me pull a hat out of this rabbit!

      Klobuchar: Think Kamala is a bitch? I will arrest you all.

      1. Booker: I want people to pivot on how they think about fags.


    2. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. AGc If You too want to earn such a big money tehn come and join us.

      CLICK HERE►►

  2. You can watch them making Rudy the fall guy for this in real time.

    He’s a full participant in that.

    1. Out of a sense of honor and sacrifice for the greater good, or just that he is especially loose-talking for a lawyer.

    2. It’s genuinely baffling to me to see all these wealthy and prominent lawyers who are apparently utterly terrible at understanding the legal consequences of their own actions (I mean, not just the rightward ones like Cohen and Guiliani, but Avenetti as well).

      I have to assume that their original success stemmed from connections and government largesse, because they couldn’t possibly have been doing well at lawyering in the private market.

  3. Rand Paul on Syria pull-back: “If we can save one American soldier from losing their life or limbs in another senseless middle eastern war, it is worthwhile. @realDonaldTrump knows this. Yet the bloodlust of the neocons knows no bounds.”

    1. Ooops. Link hier.

      1. Rand Paul is an alt-right extremist.

        Reason: ‘We can’t get people to come to our side with Rand Paul!”

      2. Ooops. Link hier.

        “Ray McKigney” appears to be a closet-German.

    2. Ugh, Rand Paul is awful. He can talk all he wants about neocons and their alleged “bloodlust.” The fact is, the neocon GOP of the early 2000s never did anything as depraved as Drumpf’s draconian war on immigration.


  4. …she was “open to decriminalizing sex work,” that “sex workers, like all workers, deserve autonomy,” and that sex workers “are particularly vulnerable to physical and financial abuse.”

    One of many candidate sentiments that will slip President Warren’s mind.

    1. That’s her plan.

    2. With these Democrats and their bogus promises, we would be looking forward to plenty of candidate X vs president X videos.

      Not a lot of those about Trump, I note.

      1. I mean, there’s plenty of possibilities (Afghan pull-out, for example) or hell, there’s even a lot of opportunities to show what he said earlier as president (earlier that week, often) versus his later actions. But people have gotten so used to this it’s stopped being newsworthy to a certain extent.

        I do certainly agree that that’s not a uniquely Trumpian thing by any means. Plenty of candidates from either team have done so, they’re just usually slightly more circumspect about violating their own campaign promises.

    3. Red Herrings all the way down.

  5. *Former prosecutor* Amy Klobuchar is not open to decriminalizing sex worker. This is me not being AT ALL surprised. You’re never going to get a cop to sign off on “stop arresting women just because they had sex”.

    Those are the among the easiest convictions.

    1. If they cant get women to stop.having sex they will start passing laws making it impossible to give consent and arrest the men instead.

  6. Facebook is already fielding accusations of 2020 election interference.

    Warren wishes Facebook users weren’t so gullible (to others’ claims).

  7. “sex workers, like all workers, deserve autonomy,” and that sex workers “are particularly vulnerable to physical and financial abuse.”

    Amy Klobuchar is against all those things – she’s used to carrying water for the cops like Kamala. Right now it’s a two horse race between Amy and Kamala for the AG job, and every freedom loving citizen should be very afraid.

  8. I actually like Beto’s idea of removing the tax-exempt status of religious groups that oppose marriage equality.

    Of course conservatives will pounce with dumb questions like “Does that mean Islam shouldn’t be tax exempt?” But that’s just silly. The idea that Islam is homophobic is a racist right-wing smear.


    1. They are not afraid of homo’s, they just throw off roof tops.

      1. I believe the correct term is “Free flying lessons”

    2. Silly, Islam is a culture, not a religion.

    3. It would be a good idea if they removed the tax exempt status across the board or approved it across the board. Selective application of a tax exempt status to selected religion is a form of state recognized religion in my view.

      As always, Beto is for the worst option.

  9. Cities are banning fast-food drive-throughs.

    Does no one else think it’s odd they somehow claim the authority to do so?

    1. We should ban banning.

    2. Well they voted for it, which means a majority of the idiots on the city council thought it was a swell idea. If I owned a place with a drive through I’d move it directly to the next suburb and try to find real estate on the curb across the street from border of Minneapolis.

    3. I dunno. There’s lots of precedent for zoning laws and building codes having been used this way. Not that novel.

    4. Gosh, it’s possible to get fat from Starbucks Frappuccino’s and pastries. But those aren’t fast food!

    5. Other than the libertarians, you mean? Not really. As far as most people care to think about it, government is basically a magic wand. that can legislate literally any outcome. Unfortunately that seems to include the legislators themselves.

      As to the specific legal authority they claim to accomplish this, it’s through zoning law (that pernicious devilry we all know and hate). So when they say they’re banning fast food drive-thrus, strictly speaking they’re banning new ones. Generally speaking you can’t affect existing structures through changing zoning laws (in certain ways – it’s a complicated subject) but their are some other ways they could at least attempt to hamstring the operation of existing ones through ordinance if they’re really serious about it.

      I suspect they’ll just ban new ones, since the existing guys will probably give them money to do it and not make a fuss, and then the politicos will claim victory and call it a day. At least, until the next time they need a stupid non-issue to stump around on to raise their profile or make it look like they’re doing something.

  10. Prostitution decriminalization efforts in D.C. are moving forward…

    How will this affect the lists that madams keep?

  11. O’Rourke’s proposal would violate the constitutionally protected rights not to have a government benefit denied based on religious exercise or viewpoint.

    Without your AR-15’s, try to stop him.

    1. Get used to identity politics being the law if you elect any of the loony tune Dems.

      So 14A be damned if you oppose gay marriage the tax laws re different. And a lib packed SCOTUS would be OK with it.

      But yea sure go Warren because Orange Man Bad and he’s picking on Quid Pro Joe!

      1. I have literally never voted for anyone from the red or blue teams. I have more self respect than buying into their false dichotomy would permit me.

  12. I realize it’s the internet and the 21st century and all that, but has modern “journalism” been reduced to just cutting and pasting stupid threads from Twitter? It got old really, really fast.

    1. This is the morning links not journalism. Its entire purpose is to chum the waters and get the commentariat into a feeding frenzy.

      1. We’re gonna need a bigger boat.

      2. Then she should probably work harder, because all it rally makes anyone want to do is vomit.

      3. this is Reason not journalism lol

    2. Yup. But only because all modern human expression has been reduced to forwarding and liking and cutting/pasting.

    3. Well, no, often there is copy and paste straight from press releases.

  13. Some Splinter staffers, however, said they’ve been laid off. Deputy editor Jack Mirkinson tweeted, “Splinter is shutting down and we’re all being laid off,” and staff writer Sam Grasso wrote: “I’m getting laid off.”

    I guess Splinter journalists do get some great scoops.

    1. Splinter? Never heard of it.

  14. Booker had an excellent response to the Pulse massacre.

    Cory Booker to a man who was at the Pulse shooting and lost friends there: “I will elevate, as President … an office on hate crimes and white supremacy to make sure it is a presidential-level effort to protect our country as a whole.”

    Don’t believe the Islamophobic spin that the Pulse massacre was an example of “Islamic terrorism.” In fact, it was a textbook right-wing white supremacist hate crime.

    1. Are you on hallucinogens or something ?

      1. He is Poes law in action.

      2. Aren’t you? It’s truly the mark of an Open Border Libertarian. That and a leather jacket.

    2. love it.

  15. Reason has gone off the edge. Legalizing sex workers is my most important issue NOT. What a dumb shit!

    Warren has a whole bunch of other “libertarian” ideas like a wealth tax and a 90% income tax bracket but she’s for legalizing hookers so that’s it!

    1. So, Reason is obliged to only publish things you are interested in?
      Do you actually think this is some kind of endorsement of Warren? Or are they just not allowed to say anything positive about any Democrat candidate ever?

    2. How dare ENB cover comments that a Presidential contender made yesterday on the subject that is ENB’s normal beat?!??! We’d all be better off if Reason just grabbed one of their many, many articles talking about Warren’s shitty economic ideas and republished it every 4-6 hours.

      The fact that a presidential contender would actually offer mild support for the concept of legalizing sex work (even if it’s extremely tepid support) is actually news. The fact that a candidate for president has shitty economic ideas is in the same category as death and taxes.

      1. I for one don’t mind her beat. If anything, it keeps readers informed about a topic that matters to a segment of the population even if it’s marginal or inconsequential to others.

    3. “My Body, My Choice” is libertarianism in four words. Do I own my body or not? Does the State exist to serve the Individual or the other way around? Who has the ultimate say in what’s for my own good?

      Odd that Democrats in general start foaming at the mouth in rage when you bring up the subject of what women should be allowed to take out of their bodies but when you start talking about what they should be allowed to put in, they’re suddenly all sorts of full of ideas.

    4. It’s kinda ENB’s “beat”. She writes about the topic a lot.

    5. Orange Man Bad
      Red herring good.

  16. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $59.3 billion

    Even after making over $400 million yesterday, our billionaire benefactor is still down over $100 million this year. And it’s not just Mr. Koch who’s suffering. Of the top 30 richest people on the planet, 4 of them have lost money this year. 4 of them!!!

    When only 26 of the 30 wealthiest people are prospering? Well, according to Koch / Reason libertarianism that’s a clear sign we’re in a #DrumpfRecession.

  17. Another great example of tolerant liberalism last night. Including throwing piss on people who dont share your views, isolating small groups of people to assault with large groups, calling random downtown pedestrians nazis and threatening them, attacking police officers, stealing barrier fences, and committing arson. But remember, it was the Tea Party that were violent terrorists.

    1. Both political sides cherry pick examples of their opponents worst behavior. Both sides have some atrocious behavior to be cherry picked.

      Still, most liberals, and conservatives, are decent people.

      1. Both sides, eh? Huh. In 5 minutes I could find you at least a dozen examples of Antifa thuggery. No way you could do the same re: TEA Party rallies. (Don’t even think of bringing up that bullshit spitting-on-the-congressman fabrication.)

        You’re full of shit.

        1. Well, your handle is “Freddy the Jerk”, so you’ve lived up to it.

          Fine. Go on telling yourself that liberals are the bad guys and conservatives are the good guys.

          1. No examples huh? Are you having trouble with your Internets or can we just conclude you’re full of shit and just engaging in whataboutism?

            1. I’m engaging in a pretty common libertarian view, in the comment section of a libertarian blog. I would think it a familiar viewpoint and not needing a lot of explanation.

            2. But here’s an example, anyway, of a liberal organization focusing on some of the worst behavior of the conservative fringe:


              1. Ok, so apparently you’re having difficulty with reading comprehension. Let me see if I can spell out things using easy-to-understand words:

                The guy at the top of this thread ironically (that kind of means “mockingly”) said antifa is engaging in the kinds of bad stuff that used to be said to happen at TEA Party rallies (picture your playdates). You didn’t like that mocking because you said “nuh huh, both sides are just as bad”. I then asked you to give me some examples of TEA Party rallies happening like antifa gatherings.

                And here we are. No examples, unless you’re intending to conflate several severely brain-damaged SPLC Nazi boogymen posting on freaking Twitter with what’s happened at any given TEA Party rally.

                You, sir, are an idiot.

                1. Not having trouble with what you think. I have been having trouble with conservatives and Trump apologists dominating the Reason comment sections lately.

                  Trying to express a libertarian viewpoint to counterbalance that trend. Not even saying pro-liberal things, just speaking out against conservative and liberal excess. Getting verbal abuse from Trump fans that resent libertarian views expressed on a libertarian site.

                  1. Trump fans? So my pointing out the stupidity of your Antifa vs. TEA Party makes me a Trump fan? I’m either to buy your nonsense hook, line and sinker, or I must have a Trump poster on my wall?

                    You’re no libertarian. You’re a simpleton.

  18. Still no mention at reason that 2 more of the president’s men are in jail for more campaign finance crimes, this time directly related to ukraine? Odd.

    1. So when do the Clintons go to jail?

      1. Not being in the White House is like solitary confinement for Hillary. It’s practically a literal concentration camp.

    2. Jeff thinks the president is Giulliani. Fucking hilarious.

    3. The other irony is that baby Jeffrey attacks this story yet was always silent and defended democratic presidents who committed much worse.

      The Clintons and other prominent democrats were in the chinese pockets for decades. Obama with millions in foreign donations.

      But baby jeffrey believes in the use of election process crimes to go after only one side, and then projects the other side as wanting to lock up opponents.

      1. Al Gore was a freakin bagman for the Chicoms. But yeah, foreign interference with American politics is something that started with Trump.

        1. “But Teacher, he did it too!”

          1. You dont understand how arguments work do you jeffrey? Some of us dont give a shit about process crimes regarding elections because we support the 1a and dont believe there should be campaign limits. This includes us not giving a fuck about the millions in free press foreign media gives Democrats openly and willingly.

            It is you who see a political opponent partake in the same behavior your preferred candidates do and want to lock him up.

            This isnt both sides dumbfuck. It is you wanting to make politics a crime. Trump, perry, Steven’s. Need I go on? And as a reminder, Clinton didnt have his politics criminalized, it was rape and lying on the stand.

            Do you understand now dumbfuck jeffrey?

          2. He did it first.
            He did it the most.
            He did it the longest.
            But yeah Orange man bad.

          3. You ignorant slob. Way to completely miss my point.

      2. Look, Democrats can receive donations of unknown provenance but as long as they make sure to have no controls on who donates and claim ignorance of where the donations came from it’s no big deal. Right?

        As I recall, the big response from Obama’s donations was ‘he’s a genius for using the internet!’

        I guess the standards are different when you’re a Republican.

        Another thing I think is a bit odd is that Obama went after leaks and ‘whistle blowers’ with the full force of the state and no one blinked an eye.

        1. People absolutely “batted an eye” after Obama went after whistleblowers. It was one of the main criticisms of him around these here parts. Trump has his own personal attorney apparently getting to weigh in on state department staffing decisions and foreign policy, all to further his boss’s re election campaign. The State department works for the people of the US, not King trump and his reelection llc.

      3. It’s always “but Hillary” with you Trumpies. Can’t you defend the man’s actions on their own? Probably not.

        1. Baby jeffrey, you’re such a dumbfuck. Why do you bother?

        2. You can’t defend Hillary’s actions on their own, why should Trump be different?

          1. Why would I defend Hillary? I’m not participating in logical fallacy.

    4. Well, they just provided a forum for you to mention it in their comments section.

    5. It’s like the Trump administration is a geopolitical “Ocean’s 11” except all 11 people are Ralph Wiggum from “The Simpsons.”

      — Rex Huppke (@RexHuppke) October 10, 2019

      More proof the left can’t meme. Vice President Clancy Wiggum and Ralph sitting on the board of Burisma is clearly the superior analogy. The bumbling misfit criminal thugs that Huppke’s looking for are Kearney, Jimbo, and Dolph.

  19. So a woman’s right to choose is limited to choices that result in the death of a child? No choice about what to do with her body the rest of the time?
    Look at what politicians do, not what they say.

  20. “Warren signals potential shift on sex worker rights. ”

    Is it ok to call her a ‘nasty woman’?

    1. Magician states ‘Look over here at this shiny object’ while continuing with subterfuge

  21. Continuing our discussions from earlier this week about how increases in productivity lead to rising living standards, I came across some interesting information from the EIA.

    The amount of electricity used by the average person in the U.S. increased by some ten times between 1950 and 2010. Much of this is attributable to the introduction of consumer products like cheap air conditioning units, computers, etc. For 60 years, the wealthier people became, the more electricity they used–and that assumption has become dogma to environmentalist looking at the developing world. However, that increase in electricity use per capita all changed around 2010. Around that year, much to the chagrin of authoritarian environmentalists and socialists who like to masquerade as environmentalists, electricity use per capita started dropping in 2010–and it’s continued to do so since.

    This puts the EIA (under the Dept. of Energy) in a tough spot with environmentalists because in making their projections for future electricity use, they need to incorporate the fact that energy use in the United States is actually falling per capita and that’s despite economic growth and increases in population.

    “In EIA’s recently released Annual Energy Outlook 2019 (AEO2019) Reference case, projected residential . . . purchased electricity consumption grows more slowly than the number of households or total commercial floorspace. As a result, electricity intensity—the amount of electricity consumed per household or square foot of commercial floorspace—decreases by an average of 0.3% per year . . . from 2018 through 2050.”


    In the verbiage, they try to justify future drops in electricity consumption per capita by citing standards set by federal bureaucrats like them. Libertarian capitalists, on the other hand, understand that consumers really don’t need the government to tell them that spending less to get more is better.

    In fact, since 2010, the largest factor impacting energy efficiency appears to be the adoption of LED lighting–which is reflected in their projections of future electricity consumption. New light bulbs are certainly changed more frequently than new refrigerators, washing machines, and air conditioners, etc. Meanwhile, there’s no reason to believe that past energy efficiency standards, imposed by the government on appliances, suddenly kicked in 2010 like they never did before–and the EIA’s own projections in my link show energy savings from lighting dropping 51% between now and 2050 compared to electricity used for laundry and dish-washing increasing by 15%.

    One of the other contributing factors is surely people moving to more temperate climates. Consumers can and do save money on their heating bill by moving from the northeast to North Carolina or Texas, and that becomes especially true for retired people on fixed incomes.

    Any way you slice it, we’re talking about consumers making choices that save them money and manufacturers competing with each other to find more and better ways to achieve the same result with less resources. This formula for increased productivity is the primary means by which living standards increase over time–and there is no good reason to believe the same principle isn’t at work beyond our borders.

    The point is that trade and capitalism are the solution to our problems. Embarrassing climate alarmists, anti-trade buffoons, and Malthusian socialists is just icing on the cake.

    1. Are you saying that those slow to start filled with mercury government mandated twisty light bulbs aren’t the reason we are not all dead already?

      1. I’m no expert on the ins and outs of light bulb regulation, but I think the feds wanted us all to buy fluorescent rather than LED.

        Regardless, no, consumers don’t need the government to tell them that it’s better to get more for less.

        Incidentally, invertebrates are smart enough that they don’t need the government to tell them to pursue the resources they need by investing the least amount of effort either.

        1. Incidentally, invertebrates are smart enough that they don’t need the government to tell them to pursue the resources they need by investing the least amount of effort either.

          That level of basic intelligence is why when the government has to carrot-and-stick you into doing something you otherwise wouldn’t do, it’s invariably something stupid.

        2. I’m no expert on the ins and outs of light bulb regulation, but I think the feds wanted us all to buy fluorescent rather than LED.

          Actually, the feds don’t exactly care but CFL bulbs don’t meet most efficiency standards throughout the US. However, it doesn’t really matter. Companies like GE stopped making the CFLs a few years ago. They aren’t as cheap as the incandescent and aren’t cost competitive with LED.

  22. “Warren Says She’s ‘Open to Decriminalizing Sex Work’;”

    She also says she’s an indian who got fired for being pregnant.

  23. Has Warren signed off on The Green New Deal?

    Has Warren signed off on Medicare for All?

    If Hugo Chavez were a new American politician running for president of the U.S. in his first campaign–and he declared his support for decriminalizing prostitution–I’d give him the finger anyway for being an authoritarian socialist.

    Liz Warren is an authoritarian socialist, and so what she says about prostitution shouldn’t make any difference to libertarian capitalists. Give her the finger. If it’s any consolation, the Green New Deal and Medicare for All is likely to be hard on prostitutes too.

    1. The Green New Deal and Medicare For All… hard on prostitutes? Those policies are sicker than I thought.

      Warren is an authoritarian socialist. Shocked she would allow anyone agency over their body.

    2. Eh. Not being one to defend the journolists at Reason, but the dem. clowns’ newly libertarian positions on prostitution *is* something worth noting as a zeitgeist marker.

      No one here — not even Tony — is stupid enough to think anything will actually come of their newfound enthusiasm for the B-girl trade.

      1. Yeah, I’m always a little perplexed by some of the commentariat’s stance that Reason mentioning a thing is somehow an endorsement of the thing (or person).

        I agree with you entirely that it’s rather unlikely that Warren or anyone else from the blue team is really going to make concrete moves towards ending the sex work prohibition. But it’s definitely newsworthy that most of them have made noncommittal noises in that direction, and that the apparent front-runner is willing to take one of the friendliest stances towards it. It’s very reminiscent of weed legalization stances circa 2008.

        I’m not sure we’ll see the same rapid shift in political stances we saw there – I think the population of those who perform/patronize sex work is probably a lot smaller than the population of regular marijuana users. (If you have data on that subject in either direction, I’d love to see it, by the way.) But I do think that sex workers have been smart about how they’ve framed the issue, and at this point I expect them to eventually be successful. Well, as successful as the weed legalization guys have been, which is to say, broad public support with a confused and sometimes counterproductive government response to it.

    3. “Hard on prostitutes”…… and people of color. Don’t forget that. Lizzie didn’t forget. She never does. Never pander without mentioning that. People get upset. Like at Chris cuomo.


  24. Gawker heir Splinter is shutting down.

    I hear there’s growth opportunities in learning to code.

    1. The amount of tension that can be sustained between journalists who think they control the Overton window and the fact that people increasingly tune them out is nothing short of incredible.

      In fact, the effort to force the Overton window to approximate their own sense of political correctness may be driven by fear of unemployment. If you get fired, it’s not like there’s a big selection of industries looking to hire people who hate half of their consumers.

      It’s a conundrum!

      If you limit your appeal to only white, middle class, heterosexuals who hate themselves, your audience can only grow so large–and you’re competing with all the other media organizations who are targeting that shrinking demographic. And it is shrinking! After all, Millenials join the work force, have kids, and move to the suburbs–becoming what you hate–eventually.

      On the other hand, once you establish yourself as a hater, why would anyone not trying to compete for the attention of that shrinking pool of a demographic hire you?

      Yeah, learn to code. That’s what they really should do.

      1. What they’re probably afraid of is that they’ll have to move back to whatever red-state burg they grew up in, and won’t be able to brag anymore about living in DA BIG CITY to their fellow status-grasping friends.

        Look at the dipshit who got fired from the Des Moines Register recently for maliciously defaming the guy who donated $1 million in beer donations to a hospital for tweets he made as a teenager. He was one of the dopes who got sliced during the Buzzfeed layoffs, and had to settle for getting a job back in Iowa where he grew up, and it was obvious how much he hated having to do so.

        A lot of these people just end up migrating from clickbait farm to clickbait farm in a desperate bid to stay in NYC or LA. Since the venture capital for these efforts appears to be drying up, and you can’t make money off of free content, there’s going to be a lot of unemployed “journalists” who will have to figure out something different.

        Maybe they can go to Syria and help the Kurds fight the Turks.

        1. Isn’t there a market for media that isn’t driven by the standards of people who are bat-shit insane on social justice?

          “According to Nielsen data (per Adweek), the reboot posted 1990s-like TV ratings, with a weekly average of 20 million total viewers. That jaw-dropping number was enough to beat out NBC’s Sunday Night Football (19.6 million total viewers), which routinely tops the year-end most-watched list. We’ve been covering television for a long time, and that is truly impressive.”

          They shut down a popular show at a time when cord cutting is devastating the industry. They’re cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Broadcast media is being saturated with programming that appeals to a narrow audience of social justice warriors–and it’s not just the news.

          You can’t seen Norm MacDonald on the Tonight Show anymore–because he stuck up for Roseanne? People love Norm MacDonald!

          That’s just one example.

          We’re living in the 1950s again.

          I was listening to Jim Cornette the other day on his podcast. I’m not a wrestling fan, but listening to Cornette talk about anything is fucking hilarious. He was talking about how the WWE tried to go all #MeToo by getting some women in the Wrestling Hall of Fame. Stephanie MacMahon, in particular, thought of the Fabulous Moolah as a grandmotherly figure–but she dominated women’s wrestling going back the carney years of the 1940s. Of course, she should be the first woman in–she’s the Vince Lombardi of women’s wrestling!

          The Fabulous Moolah is dead now, but the things she’s been widely accused of doing to the girls she had under contract in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and beyond doing makes Harvey Weinstein look like a boy scout–and pimping her girls out and dumping them on the street when they refused wasn’t the worst of it.

          What does that have to do with anything?

          The social justice warriors of today are a lot like the people who sold us the Leave it to Beaver image in the 1950s. You set up this idealized image of an entirely socially just person–but hardly anyone in the world can really live up to that image. What we need is heroic women who wrestled back when professional wrestling was still an on-the-road carney act–and acted as moral exemplars of social justice the whole time!

          That doesn’t exist. They try to put these people up like they’re the new heroes because they were women surviving in a man’s world–but it always ends in tears because there isn’t anyone who can live up to that standard. Leave it to Beaver was fiction. No one ever acted like that–certainly not when the doors closed–and so is the social justice standard.

          1. Women’s wrestling is pretty stupid anyway. It’s always been a bathroom break segment even during the tits-n-ass years of the late 90s-late 2000s. The only good female wrestlers I ever saw were the Jumping Bomb Angels. Even Becky Lynch and her Female Stone Cold act got stale fast.

            1. One of the problems the Fabulous Moolah apparently had was that because women wrestlers couldn’t draw a crowd on their own, she had to pimp out her wrestlers to the local territory owners to get her wrestlers booked on the ticket.

              Like I said, I don’t watch women wrestlers, but from what I’ve seen of it recently, the women wrestlers may the most interesting to watch they’ve got going.

              Sasha Banks is fun to watch.

    2. They should’ve tried changing their name to Sphincter first.

  25. Warren Says She’s ‘Open to Decriminalizing Sex Work’; Klobuchar Still Says No Way

    Who knew we are electing a Queen!

    1. Cory Booker isn’t polling well, so we probably won’t

  26. >>she was “open to decriminalizing sex work”

    Fauxcahontas needs love too.

  27. Churches should lose tax exempt status period. Government shouldn’t be subsidizing religion.

  28. “sex workers, like all workers, deserve autonomy,”

    Autonomy, like Uber drivers? Forced union members?

    1. How are Sex workers er Prostitutes er Whores a federal concern anywho? The most they can do is eliminate the Mann act.

      1. FOSTA would like a word with you. Also the nineteen thousand federal task forces engaged in child sex trafficking . . . prevention.

  29. “”are particularly vulnerable to physical and financial abuse.” ”

    How is decriminalizing going to get rid of abusive pimps? Since it is illegal there is much more leeway for the prostitutes. Take the counties that legalized it as a prime example. You have to be licensed, bonded, and have to pass tests. No drugs, no std’s, etc. Throw in the costs of a brothel permit and your average street walker doesn’t benefit. This is only going to benefit the hottest girls that can bring in the most cash.

    I’m sure ENB is in favor of this because she didn’t think about the fines and penalties resulting from prostitution without a license, prostitution without a permit, prostitution in an area not zoned for it, etc. Don’t even get me started on taxing it. Holy shit… Half of these girls are so dim they would think a 1040ez is a sex position.

  30. Well thank God we’re sending more troops to Saudi Arabia, can we now stop talking about the few we hid behind a tree in Syria?

    1. And let me hasten to add that Trump’s forthcoming statements on the issue will be a Good Thing, as I have no desire to be wished into the cornfield.

  31. “California banned hotels from providing miniature shampoo bottle and other travel-size toiletries.”

    I just stayed over in Japan. I stayed at 4 different lodgings, all provided Shampoo, Body Wash and Conditioner in large bottles with pumps. Do you really need a private small bottle of shampoo?

    1. Need has nothing to do with the problem here. It would be a pretty shitty world if we only had things that we needed.

      1. I feel like we’re the only actual libertarians in the whole commentariat, Zeb.

        If the LP ever thinks it’s gonna tip over the usual ~1%, it’s gonna have to contend with the fact that apparently even the people who profess to be fans of unfettered freedom are nasty, brutish statists in their hearts. I suppose maybe that’s what it was trying to do with that joker Weld. Ugh.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.