Reason Roundup

Tulsi Gabbard Overtakes Kamala Harris in New Poll as Layoffs Hit Cash-Strapped Harris Campaign

Plus: New York City bans foie gras, new Reason podcasts, and more...


Harris support down to 3 percent in latest poll. The campaign to make Kamala Harris the Democratic nominee for president is now laying off dozens of campaign aides and making other cuts, as the California senator spirals downward in the polls and her campaign spends more than it brings in. The candidate's campaign manager will also see a pay cut.

"Harris is not the only candidate facing a cash crunch with more staffers than she can probably afford," writes Alexi McCammond at Axios, "but these layoffs are not a good sign for someone polling in the top five." McCammond notes that while the Harris campaign raised $11.8 million last quarter, it spent $14.5 million.

News of the layoffs came on the same day as a new national poll showing how far the senator's support—which reached double digits over the summer—continues to slip.

The USA Today/Suffolk poll sees Harris tied with businessman and universal basic income enthusiast Andrew Yang at 3 percent among Democrats likely to vote in their primaries or caucuses. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii)—whose recent-ish mini-spike started after she called out Harris's criminal justice record—came in just above them, with 4 percent.

As Politico's Zach Montellaro points out, this means Gabbard is just one poll away from being allowed into November's Democratic debate. She is "also halfway through the polling threshold for December. Also notably, [Harris] still hasn't qualified for December, needing one more poll."

Joe Biden still led among poll respondents, at 26 percent. This was followed by Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (17 percent), Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (13 percent), and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (10 percent). Other candidates all registered at or below 2 percent.


Nobody wins when social media censors more. When talking about online censorship of "adult" content, "it's key to center sex workers," writes Chingy Le Gay at MTV News. But the issue also has much wider implications for free expression on the internet.

In my own experience using social media to explore and document my relationship with sexuality and queer womanhood, I have seen my own photos and memes removed or disappeared multiple times. The deleted posts have ranged from including the word "dyke," which is how I sexually identify, to photos where I'm engaging in consensual BDSM while being fully clothed. Two photos in particular—a headshot of me wearing a gag, and one showing my ex-fiancé spitting in my mouth—were flagged as violating community guidelines by "featuring nudity," though no such nudity existed. When I posted about this issue, several queer content creators expressed their own frustrations with similar experiences.


New York City just banned foie gras. The ban goes into effect in 2022, per a decision made by the New York City Council on Wednesday. The New York Times reports:

New York City will join California in prohibiting the sale of foie gras, the fattened liver of a duck or goose, over animal cruelty concerns.

"New York is the mecca of dining in the world. How is it possible that New York doesn't have foie gras?" said Marco Moreira, executive chef and owner of Tocqueville, an acclaimed French restaurant near Union Square, which offers an appetizer of foie gras from the Hudson Valley. "What's next? No more veal? No more mushrooms?"…

The bill bars the sale of foie gras produced by "force-feeding birds," with each violation punishable by a $2,000 fine. But not all foie gras comes from ducks or geese that have been force-fed, and determining whether foie gras was illegally produced may present an enforcement challenge.

Under the law, it will be assumed that all foie gras came from duck or geese that have been force-fed unless "documentary" evidence is provided to the contrary.


  • In Syria, "waves of American troops are pulling out under President Trump's order" every day, reports The New York Times. But "at the same time, a separate wave of American troops from the opposite direction is pouring back in."
  • Andrew Yang exhibits some realism in an interview with The Hill: "I've been on board with impeachment ever since it's been put forward, but we have to face facts where you still are looking at a Republican majority in the Senate."
  • New documents link CIA-supported groups to murder and other atrocities in Afghanistan.
  • Protecting and serving:

NEXT: Halloween Is Supposed To Be (a Little) Scary

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. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii)—whose recent-ish mini-spike started after she called out Harris’s criminal justice record—came in just above them, with 4 percent.

    I blame Facebook and Russia.

    1. Hello.

      Reason engages in cultural appropriation!!?!?

    2. -1 for redundancy.

    3. Hillary Clinton was right. The Republicans are grooming Tulsi for third-party run.

  2. …writes Chingy Le Gay at MTV News.

    That sentence fragment makes no sense! MTV News?

    1. No sense, perhaps; but that is one great moniker.

  3. “New York is the mecca of dining in the world. How is it possible that New York doesn’t have foie gras?”

    They’ve found something more delicious: prohibition.

    1. Fines, thick juicy fines!

    2. Geese deserve whatever they get.

      1. all the geese love *you*, Zeb.

    3. Under the law, it will be assumed that all foie gras came from duck or geese that have been force-fed unless “documentary” evidence is provided to the contrary.

      That sounds a bit like ‘guilty until proven innocent’ – how does that square with typical due process and other legal concerns?

      1. Are you serious? “Guilty” is a concept in criminal trials. Is the duck accused of a felony?

      2. They’re requiring you to have proof of your foie gras’ legitimacy at hand when you’re serving it, under much the same premise that they can require you to have your driver’s license while driving. To be clear, it’s a dumb law, but if you see constitutional implications here than there are broad swathes of the code in nearly all American jurisdictions that wouldn’t pass muster.

    4. “New York is the mecca of dining in the world. How is it possible that New York doesn’t have foie gras?”

      It’s actually Frank’s Diner in Kenosha. Try the garbage plate breakfast and they serve bloody Marys and Mimosas to help smooth over the consequences of the night before. No goose liver.

      But don’t tell anyone I told you.

  4. Happy Halloween from Reason’s D.C. office

    As you wish.

    1. They could have at least dressed up as something they have never been… non swamp land libertarians.

      1. Non-Fire Swamp libertarians.

        1. Are you calling them a certain type of rat…

          1. Like true libertarians, I don’t think they exist.

      2. And, even so, you spend your days on their website.

        1. Cry more Little Jeffy.

        2. I also spend my days in leftist-controlled state. What’s your point?

    2. As you wish.

      Yesterday a colleague used the word “inconceivable” inappropriately and I briefly thought to reply “I do not think that word means what you think it means.” , but then I realized that he probably would not understand the reference.

      1. I remember hearing a story a while back about a woman who was “triggered” when a guy boarded an airliner wearing a t-shirt that looks like it has one of those “Hello my name is” tags, with the blank filled in “Inigo Montoya you killed my father prepare to die”. He had to leave the plane because she insisted it was a “death threat”. She had never heard of the movie.

        1. People who cannot quote at least 4 scenes from “The Princess Bride” should probably be publicly executed. But since that is constitutionally dubious, public shunning is the next best alternative.

          1. Maybe instead of a full blown execution they can have enough of their lives sucked out until they’re only mostly dead.

            1. Azkaban Prison, where the dementors await.

              1. Now you are mixing universes….. that’s nerd crime!

              2. Odd that the so called good guys in Harry Potter send criminals to be tortured until death. And not just the real bad guys either. Hagrid was sent there because it was believed that one of his creatures may have harmed a student. No trial, and even if convicted it would be involuntary manslaughter.

                1. Oh, there was a lot of borderline subversive in the middle part of Harry Potter. Didn’t Delores Umbridge, the teacher who got her jollies carving stuff into the backs of student’s hands, get rewarded with a cabinet post? Or am I remembering that wrong.

                  It surely did bother me, reading the books, to see the spineless students kneeling down before any number of unjust punishments. I guess that’s what you write a book set in a gunless, emasculated country.

                  1. There is a fantastic alternate-universe Harry Potter called “Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality”.

                    In it, Harry is raised by his Aunt who married a college science professor instead of Dursley. The author takes on a lot of the obvious problems with the Harry Potter universe, including the enduring evil of Azkaban.


                    Worth the read, if you are the sort who enjoys that kind of thing.

          2. As well as those who do not understand the significance of “11” and “42”.

        2. There are a lot of movies that KIDS THESE DAYS haven’t watched but ought to. Princess Bride, Buckaroo Banzai, Airplane, Spaceballs

          1. Mostly, but I don’t want to have to explain Turkish prisons to my 11 year old.

            1. So you’re saying you’re fine with watching gladiator movies?

              1. I speak jive.

            2. Mostly, but I don’t want to have to explain Turkish prisons to my 11 year old.

              Having a 12, 10, and 6 yr. old. I can say that Peter Graves and that whole bit was done perfectly. Just vague enough to “You’ll understand when you’re older.” your way out of it.

              I would recommend skipping the Castle Anthrax scene in The Holy Grail.

              1. “Vast tracts of land”?

                1. No. The line you’re thinking of is “She’s got hyuuuge… tracts of land.”

                  The Castle Anthrax is populated by eight score young blondes and brunettes all between 16 and 19 ½. They have a grail-like beacon that they shine into the sky and the punishment for leaving the beacon lit and fooling questing knights is spanking and oral sex.

                  Probably best to wait until they’re more in the 16-18 range before enjoying them squirm (or not) while watching that scene.

                  1. Young children are not going to get the humor in Holy Grail anyway. By the time they were adolescents mine did and loved it.

                    Princess Bride same thing. Young children can watch it and like it but they will just see it as a fairy tale.

                    A good Halloween classic cult film that older kids and up will like is Young Frankenstein. They won’t get some of the lines maybe like “what knockers” “Vould you like to go for a roll in the hay?” and “he would have a tremendous Shvandshtucker”.

                    Funny I saw somewhere that Terri Garr said that the knockers line bugged her all her life because people would come up to her and say it.

                    1. Young children are not going to get the humor in Holy Grail anyway.

                      Disagree. There are lots of sight gags, slapstick, and whimsy that pretty much anyone old enough to know what a knight is can fully appreciate.

                      Young children can watch it and like it but they will just see it as a fairy tale.

                      Not sure where you’re going with this, I’d be a little troubled if they saw any of these films as anything else, as a child or an adult.

          2. Anybody want a peanut?

            Why is there a watermelon there?

            I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue.

            I’m my own best friend.

    3. mmm I’d like to be taken hostage by the Dread Pirate Roberts…

      1. You do realize he’ll probably kill you in the morning, right?

        1. No, most likely kill him in the morning. It’s not a given.

          Meanwhile, EES can learn to fence, fight, anything anyone will teach him.

  5. “Tulsi Gabbard Overtakes Kamala Harris in New Poll”

    Ugh. I’m disappointed with Democratic voters. They’re more likely to support a Russian stooge than a progressive prosecutor?

    Actually, I suspect Russia hacked this poll.


    1. Resist!

    2. Please keep up, Clinton spokesperson (unnamed of course) ‘corrected’ the story to her Hillaryness meant it was Republicans grooming Gabbard (and therefore Stein was a Republican asset, not a Russian one).

      1. It’s still her turn.

  6. That picture has a frightening display of weaponry!

    1. You should see the picture of me in tights.

      1. So you’re the dude who always stands around at the corner of Ponce and Briarcliff?

  7. Harris support down to 3 percent in latest poll.

    Perhaps if she hit the bong in public …?

    1. She could offer to sleep with Biden for a VP spot. Hey, something like that launched her political career.

  8. I love seeing Harris fall so far down in the polls. She’s such a bad person in every way – from the simply terrible and contrived attack on Joe Biden for not supporting a shit forced busing policy that even she doesn’t support (nor do her constituents), to her use and promotion of slave labor in California and her continued support of keeping innocent people in jail and total disregard for justice.

    I hope that after being elevated to such a level in national politics and being exposed to public scrutiny, that voters will continue rejecting her until she has no influence whatsoever and we can begin to heal from the damage she and the people like her have inflicted upon the American people.

    1. Gabbard’s take down of her in the debate was one of the better moments in American politics in a while. Occasionally a politician says the unvarnished truth about another politician. And when the other politician is someone as vile as Harris, it is glorious.

      1. I totally agree. Gabbard’s candidacy is worth every penny just so she should save us from Harris.

      2. Gabbards take down of Clinton has been the best part of the primaries.

        1. Her twitter video telling HRC to take a seat was epic.

          Too bad her politics are so far into the socialist camp. I really do find her compelling on an individual level.

      3. I look at Tulsi Gabbard as a political wrecking ball. And my, my…is she on a tear. She stuck it to Heels Up Harris. Then she stuck it to Crooked Hillary. I am pretty sure Biden and America’s Mother-in-Law is next. Should be interesting.

        1. Yeah, she’s unlikely enough to win that I can ignore her domestic policy stuff that I am against and appreciate what she is doing in that way. Those people are nuts and need to be called on it.

          1. She is way left domestically. I don’t mind that simply because it is nice to have someone I disagree with who isn’t just vile and awful. I wouldn’t want her to be President. But, I am glad she is in Congress. It is good to have a half way normal person who isn’t a crook in Congress I don’t care what their politics are.

            1. I feel much the same way. I’d hate to see her become President, but I have no particular fear she’d set up concentration camps. Which I could say that of most of the Democrats running for the nomination.

              They’re headed left so fast they’re leaving vapor trails.

        2. I wouldn’t be surprised, if she makes it to the next debate, that Biden is going to be dead in her sights. Castro called him senile right to his face in the last debate, and this Ukraine shit is definitely not helping him at all.

          She won’t go to hard after Warren yet, and she likes Bernie, but all these other clowns are going to be fair game.

          1. Fingers crossed that Tulsi the Team D Slayer decides to focus on America’s Mother-in-Law. I kind of get the feeling Tulsi will call her out for hypocrisy…the 1/1024th thing, and using affirmative action in a particularly advantageous manner (with Harvard U)….the moment Fauxahontas steps out of line and says something negative about her. Just watch.

            Either way…Rep. Gabbard intrigues me. I like her non-interventionalist orientation. She is a soldier. She appears to have acted with integrity (resigning DNC leadership position on principle) in our politicial world, which is no small feat. She has very libertarian attitudes on personal freedom and choice. But her domestic economic and healthcare policy and stance on building a border wall is just….Ugh.

            1. I’ve already said that I would have no problem with her as President if she got the Dem nom. She’s an actual non-interventionist and can hammer Trump on that alone. She’d have to play dirty to win, it’s a given these days, but I can’t imagine her leaving a sour taste in the other side’s mouth like Warren would, because Tulsi doesn’t come across as a vindictive, entitled bitch. She’d automatically get 35-40% of the Democrat vote anyway just by being nominated, and might even encourage enough independents and disillusioned Trump voters to cross over without hating themselves for it.

              Hell, in a best-case scenario, a Trump-Gabbard race would actually accelerate the political realignment that’s taking place right now, with the neocons and progressives forming an entirely new globalist party to oppose whoever actually wins.

            2. She needs to focus her rapier like wrath on Biden; once he is gone we are left with either Comrade Sanders or the Faux Native American Mother in Law; either as the nominated Democrat will alienate a lot of moderates who will stay home on election day. And perhaps, if only to further spite The National Hag, she will run a third party candidacy and sap off even more Democrats. Not saying I like Trump [who actually does?] but four more years of originalist and textualist judges [Ho–on qualified immunity– being the most notable exception of late] I find very appealing. Plus another four years to stock up on reloading supplies is not a bad thing. And who knows, maybe California, Illinois, and the Northeast will secede and leave the rest of us alone for a while [until they find they are starving and then we will have to build walls around them too].

              1. No way sanders is winning primary. Guy had a heart attack on the campaign trail.

    2. Kamala Harris.

      She should be dropping out of the race soon.

  9. “What’s next? No more veal? No more mushrooms?”

    Yes, yes.

    1. No more fun of any kind!

  10. But “at the same time, a separate wave of American troops from the opposite direction is pouring back in.”

    ABC News has the video.

  11. Happy Halloween from Reason’s D.C. office

    Oh, for *cute*! HH to y’all!

  12. Harris support down to 3 percent in latest poll.

    Yet more proof that a black woman can’t catch a break in the Democratic party. When will these people leave the party of old white men?

  13. “I’ve been on board with impeachment ever since it’s been put forward, but we have to face facts where you still are looking at a Republican majority in the Senate.”

    And they’re probably all Russia assets.

  14. Being able to watch Harris’ Presidential campaign crash and burn is further proof God loves us and wants us to be happy.

      1. So you’re saying there’s a chance.

      2. Only if the Russians allow it.

      3. Who would she sleep with this time? John Roberts?

    1. To very loosely paraphrase Ben Franklin, Bellaire Brown does that for me.

  15. New documents link CIA-supported groups to murder and other atrocities in Afghanistan.

    Old documents, too.

  16. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $61.3 billion

    It’s downright heartbreaking to watch our billionaire benefactor’s self-made fortune stagnate during his twilight years. But that’s the tragic economic reality during this high-tariff / low-immigration #DrumpfRecession.


  17. “New documents link CIA-supported groups to murder and other atrocities in Afghanistan.”

    But elections? nah, they’d never dream of subverting those

    1. That is an interesting, informative article. Really mean that.

    2. Ditto; thanks for posting.

    3. So does Reason know who he is, and if so, why are they keeping it secret?

      1. That isn’t how the Reason blog works. They never claim to cover all the news. They aren’t exactly censoring the news, considering they allow quite free discussion in the comments section, where people like JesseAZ can post links to news stories (as he did).

        1. “They never claim to cover all the news.”

          But they have covered news involving the whistle blower, right? So why not say who it is if you know?

          Also, I didn’t say shit about censoring anything Little Jeffy.

          1. It is disingenuous to say that you didn’t broach the topic of censorship after asking, “why are they keeping it secret?” Asking that is odd, by the way, since Reason doesn’t have the power to keep secret something that other news sources have already published.

            At worst, Reason hasn’t remarked on it yet. And you didn’t give them much time to do so before concluding that they are “keeping it secret.”

            1. I concluded nothing dumbass. I asked a question. And not reporting something still isn’t censorship no matter how bad you want to beat that straw man Little Jeffy.

        2. It’s almost like you wanted to respond to my post, which was only a question, without answering the question, Little Jeffy.

          1. It is disingenuous to write that “why are they keeping it secret?” is just a question. There is an accusation embedded in the question.

            1. If you’re trying to convince anyone you’re not Little Jeffy you shouldn’t act so dense.

              Is it normal to report about someone but not name them? No, it’s not. If they know who the whistleblower is, but don’t name him, they are keeping his name secret.

  18. “House investigators on Wednesday invited former national security adviser John Bolton to give a voluntary deposition next week as part of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, in what could be key testimony on President Trump’s contacts with Ukraine.

    . . . .

    While Democrats have said for weeks they want to hear from Bolton, Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) fixed a spotlight on his possible testimony on Sunday.

    “Obviously he has very relevant information, and we do want him to come in and testify,” Schiff said on ABC’s “This Week,” calling Bolton a “very important” witness.”

    How badly is your impeachment investigation going if its success in any way depends on the honesty of John Bolton?

    1. Very badly indeed.

    2. How bad is the narrative when democrats are cheering bolton. He was Hitlers right hand man just months ago.

      1. Not only was he Hitler’s right hand man months ago, he’s the fiend who tricked the American people into invading Iraq. He’s been the evil neocon menace for fifteen years.

        The only reason he threw his lot in with Trump during Trump’s campaign was because his reputation for dishonesty is such that he was finished. The best gig he could find was being a punching bag for libertarians on Kennedy. Throwing your lot in with Trump was considered political suicide circa 2016, but not for John Bolton–whose career was already as dead as it could be.

        He’s fucking Wormtongue.

    3. To be fair, Bolton’s not really a liar, he’s just a warmonger.

      1. “How can you tell a politician is lying?”

        Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Bolton is less deceitful than most congressmen?

      2. Bolton is a liar.

        Bolton was denied confirmation by a Republican Senate during the Bush Administration for being a bald faced liar.

        Holy shit!

        Those bogus photos of mobile WMD labs that Colin Powell told us about? That shit came from Bolton.

        1. This was Bolton’s doing.

          Noble lies are central to the teachings of Leo Strauss, and this is an example of a direct application of his philosophy.

          1. Bolton bullied intelligence analysts who wouldn’t support his lies in their reports.

            “The testimony offered an extraordinary public glimpse into the long- running and raw intelligence wars in the Bush administration, pitting hawks like Bolton, a protege of Vice President Dick Cheney, against the more circumspect intelligence operatives at the State Department who, among other differences, cast doubt on some prewar claims about Iraq.”


            If Bolton were the most hated man in America, that status would be well deserved.


    We finally know who the “whistle blower” is. Surprise surprise, he is a Democratic hack with close ties to Biden and Brennan.

    1. Beat you. Ha. Dont think a background could be worse in terms of partisan motives.

      1. You knew it would be because if he wasn’t an obvious hack who had a believable story, he would have been on every cable news show there is instead of being anonymous.

        1. Odds he is the NYT anonymous writer? The one pushing the new book? Democrats have to keep their rats paid. Publishing industry is merely legal money launderers.

          1. The best theory I have heard about who that is is that it is George Conway who wrote it after taking notes about everything his wife told him. If that isn’t true, it should be.

            1. I’m stunned that those two haven’t separated yet, to be honest. They must either really love each other, or are waiting until Trump’s out of office to settle things down.

              1. He is such a douche bag and is so disrespectful to her. My best guess is that she is one of those “stand by your man” kind of women who will take any amount of abuse and still stay with a guy and he is just an asshole who would never leave her because being married to her gets him so much attention.

                1. You’re on to something there, John.

                  To be honest, I am rather surprised the feminists and Soccer Moms are not out there supporting Ms. Conway. She has a stressful, demanding job no matter how you look at it. Special Counselor to this POTUS?! Yeah, I’d say that job is stressful, demanding and very, very difficult. And she earned her way there. Nobody, absolutely nobody thought Candidate Trump was going to defeat Crooked Hillary when she became his campaign manager. It doesn’t matter whether you belong to Team D or Team R or whatever…objectively speaking, she did a spectacular job in 2016.

                  You have to ask…What kind of guy deliberately goes out of his way to do and say things to threaten a wife’s livelihood? That is really the question men (and women) should be asking themselves.

                  1. “ To be honest, I am rather surprised the feminists and Soccer Moms are not out there supporting Ms. Conway.”

                    Yeah, not me. Feminists don’t defend conservative women.

                2. He is a douchebag, but I don’t see any evidence that he’s actually disrespectful to her personally, unless you’re considering that he’s blatantly embarrassing his wife by being such a public bitchass about Trump.

                  I mean, James Carville and Mary Matalin have figured out how to make things work for decades despite being political opposites (you really can see how much they adore each other when they’re not talking politics, and I suspect Carville’s southern, working-class upbringing has a lot to do with that), so maybe things are the same way with Kelly and George.

        2. Every cable news show only feature hacks. Not saying he isn’t a hack, just saying your theory needs work.

          1. But the witness isn’t supposed to be a hack. The witness is supposed to be a true patriot who loves America but just can’t take what that bastard Trump is doing. The witness being a CIA rat who worked for Biden and Brennen kind of kills the mood.

            1. For sure. And even if he is a hack he could be validated by other evidence. But his 2nd hand account doesn’t not make for a very strong case if that is all they got (which I think is the case, Dems are just clutching at non plastic straws )

              But cable news appearances signal greatest/biggest hack. See Michael Avenatti.

              1. We have the primary evidence. Liberals continue to go to 2nd hand accounts and opinions from people whose main complaint is a policy disagreement.

            2. You are referring to the whistleblower as “the witness”. Has this whisteblower been a witness? Aren’t there other witnesses that have given testimony and depositions?

  20. The bill bars the sale of foie gras produced by “force-feeding birds,” with each violation punishable by a $2,000 fine.

    Kind of a bummer but this doesn’t mean that you can’t get foie gras anymore, it just means new price for foie gras is $2,050.

  21. Democrats, in their pursuit of a non partisan and fair impeachment, refuse to vote yes on an amendment that would allow the house to see all evidence including exculpatory evidence. They also rejected an amendment requiring release of full depositions. For some reason they feel releasing edited edited transcripts and depositions is better.

    Democrats also claim they are operating as a grand jury despite leaking material left and right, a felony for grand jury investigations.

    Truly a fair process.

    1. despite leaking material left and right

      So you’re saying they are acting like a real grand jury?

      1. Show me a grand jury in a criminal trial w this many leaks and a judge not trying to reign it in.

    2. They need to be careful if/when they craft articles of impeachment. I would bet the republicans will ban hearsay evidence in the Senate trial.

      1. Vic….was that actually the case in both previous impeachment trials = ban hearsay evidence in the Senate trial.

  22. Local TV report finds Chicago PD often fails to verify tips from informants before drug, gun raids.

    And then what happened?

    1. I didn’t think anyone thought they did.

    2. mistakes were made

    3. They don’t have the time to verify tips! If they do, the bad guys get away!

  23. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is still spreading misinformation about vaping.

    It’s contributing to Climate Change now?

    1. I googled that just to see. I can find no articles claiming that vaping contributes to climate change. So, there is for now at least a small bit of parody left in the world. But I wouldn’t bet on it lasting long.

      1. Oddly water is the primary greenhouse gas. Vaping releases vapor. Such an easy connection. But they went with cowfarts instead.

        1. I think even the most wacko enviros realize that a war on water vapor just isn’t going to fly.

        2. Also, vape juice isn’t usually water based.

          Sorry if I took that comment way too seriously.

  24. Oh, and go Nats! #1! World Champs!

    I hope Dan Snyder is out there somewhere, crying his eyes out.

    1. Snyder is an emotionless robot, so no.

    2. touch up Kershaw and Cole and nobody else will be a threat from the mound.

  25. The best estimates suggest that if e-cigarettes contributed to reducing the current smoking prevalence from 15% to 5% in seven years, then by 2100, over 6 million lives would be saved…

    Won’t someone please think of the Big Tobacco lobbyists?

  26. Major new Drumpf scandal!

    Fine, just the president of the United States disseminating a doctored image created by a right-wing propaganda site.

    From failing to inform Pelosi to spreading doctored images of a dog, this ISIS thing just keeps getting worse.


  27. Reason is splitting its podcast into three new shows.


  28. “Under the law, it will be assumed that all foie gras came from duck or geese that have been force-fed unless “documentary” evidence is provided to the contrary.”

    You’re saying there’s a chance?

    I don’t know anything about foie gras (other than it’s gross to me) but how hard is it to produce it without it being ‘force-fed’ and document it to satisfy the assholes, interventionist Mandarins?

    1. Foi gras is incredible. And goose that are raised for it are not treated badly and certainly not as bad as cattle that are raised for veal. I can’t understand how they are banning foi gras but not veal. It must be some kind of plot by the Italians to pick on the French.

      1. Lol.

        I had foie gras in the most French of settings back in 1994 with family and friends. They were devouring it like Franks and Gauls devouring a captured enemy. I couldn’t reach for the bead and wine fast enough.

        French: C’EST BON, NON?
        Me (hiding gag motion): OUI, OUI. A-O-TAY!

      2. It’s totally dumb. I’ve read a few things that have me pretty convinced that geese actually kind of like being fed like that. At least if it’s done well. People project human feelings onto the animals. But birds don’t eat like people do. It’s normal for them to stuff their guts with whole fish. That’s how they eat. The fact that it seems horrible to a person does not mean birds feel the same way about it.
        I think it’s mostly because of radical animal rights people trying to chip away at the edges of food production where it seems like the easiest sell.

        1. Yup. I think that federal animal “smashing” bill was designed to also attack the edges of food production because the law does not simply cover squashing animals.

          It provides exemptions for hunting and normal food production but its easier to remove those exemptions once the law is passed.

  29. “I’ve been on board with impeachment ever since it’s been put forward, but we have to face facts where you still are looking at a Republican majority in the Senate.”

    Maybe he could have expanded on the realism of what exactly was an impeachable offence committed by Trump.

    Also, did he do a frown face because of the Senate?

    Y cum we no cannot remoof Drumpf pecuz of Sennet? Mebbe we need to abo-lish it!#@

    1. Can you explain what you mean by “the realism”? Do you mean the chances of the impeachment succeeding? The strength of the case?

  30. So social media censorship is now a problem when it deletes the posts of a self-proclaimed dyke who is into bdsm.

    The “First they came…” litany, you know.

  31. “Altria Group said Thursday it wrote down the value of its investment in Juul Labs, Inc. by more than a third . . . . The Marlboro maker on Thursday cited a proposed federal ban on flavored e-cigarettes and other regulatory crackdowns in the U.S. and abroad for its decision to cut the value of its investment by $4.5 billion.

    Facing an accelerating decline in cigarette sales, the tobacco giant last year agreed to pay $12.8 billion for a 35% stake in Juul, making it one of Silicon Valley’s most valuable startups. Now, blamed for a rise in teenage vaping, Juul is bracing for a planned federal ban on e-cigarette flavors that represent more than 80% of its U.S. sales.”

    Whatever they find in regards to the alleged misbehavior or executives (especially related to all those illnesses and deaths), the threat to the market value of your company is the real deterrent to misbehavior.

    Meanwhile, the Altria board has fired Juul’s CEO, and Phillip Morris called off the planned merger with Altria–because fuck up after fuck up suggests a pattern from management.

    One of the great things about markets is the speed and precision by which they punish misbehavior–no regulatory oversight necessary, no unintended consequences of regulation. Just swift justice.

  32. And while not the only group struggling under these policies, sex workers are disproportionately affected by these changes.

    Too bad.

  33. Harris support down to 3 percent in latest poll.

    THANK GOD. The only thing that terrifies me more than the prospect of a Warren/Sanders presidency is the prospect of a Harris presidency. She is a genuine authoritarian thug. Good riddance.

    1. You have to look at it as who is going to be more entertaining going against Trump.

    2. In 2012 I told the Peanuts here that Romney/Obama was about as good as we could reasonable expect fromthe two major parties.

      Hil-dog vs Trump was an awful choice – shit sandwiches all the way around.

      But it could get even worse with Warren/Sanders vs The Con Man.

      1. No you didn’t. You sucked Obama’s cock for 8 years. Stop lying.

        1. Well, maybe Obama deserved it. After all, he did personally create the strongest 8-year run in US economic history.

        2. Obama is 10x better than the far left candidates, you moron.

          Its like that in the GOP too. Amash is 10x better than some bible-beating idiot like Inofe.

      2. “But it could get even worse with Warren/Sanders vs The Con Man.”

        Look, Mr. Buttplug, I realize you are the most knowledgeable Reason commenter when it comes to economics. However, George Soros knows even more than you do. And Soros really likes Warren.


      3. But it could get even worse with Warren/Sanders vs The Con Man.

        That is also terrifying. Either 4 years of Tweeter In Chief banging out paranoid delusions and xenophobic fantasies, or 4 years of Socialist In Chief demanding that we eat our vegetables and pay proper homage to the state.

    3. Is this you’re “see guys I’m libertarian not a democratic shrill” post for the week?

      1. That is rich coming from one of our many resident Team Red shills.

        Anyone to the left of Ted Cruz is a “democratic shrill” [sic] in your book, so I’m not surprised you call me one.

  34. I heard an interesting story on the radio a few years back about a guy who discovered that geese will gorge themselves naturally in the wild, producing fatty liver, under certain circumstances. When they anticipate limited food supply, they eat quantities similar to when they are force fed. He was able to set up an environment where the stuff was produced naturally. I suppose that’s how the ancient Egyptians discovered it, and then duplicated it.

    I’ve never tried it, but I do love a plate of chicken livers now and then. Guess I need to do so before it’s completely banned.

    1. If you like other liver, you’d probably like it. It can be a bit like eating butter, though. I like it, but need some bread or something to soak up some of the fat.

      1. That’s what I’ve been told.

  35. Nice appealing looking staff.

    I hope they don’t read the comments from the Trump Trash here. They don’t look like alt-right Bratfart types.

    1. The biggest problem is the people who post child porn links. They ban them but then they just change their name and come back.

      It would be nice if they could figure out a way to ban garbage like you forever.

    2. Fuck off and die, turd.

    3. They are too old for you to fuck.

    4. What’s sad is that as you were typing this comment you held in your head the thought that it would be a good idea to post it.

      1. It is sad that this libertarian/cosmotarian staff that realizes that government is an inefficient waste of capital/resources at best and an authoritarian and destructive monster at worst has to share a broad “philosophy” with paleo-conservative Trump loving bigots.

        1. Yeah, that is sad. It’s still sad that you feel the need to post garbage name calling apropos of nothing.

        2. I’m happy to share some philosophical grounding with “Trump loving bigots” (I am not endorsing this description, just quoting). My only problem is with the people who just come here to be assholes because they think it’s amusing and shit up all the threads. And you are just as bad. Different views are good, just don’t be a shithead.

    5. You know who isn’t even the slightest bit appealing-looking? You:

      Not only would no woman touch a disgusting slob like you, even the dudes won’t have gay butt sex with you looking like that.

  36. Finally! Someone takes a stand regarding the paucity of whites in the NFL:

    “NFL earns its lowest score for racial, gender hiring in 15 years”
    The NFL received its lowest overall score in racial and gender hiring practices in 15 years, according a new diversity report.
    The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport released its annual racial and gender report card Wednesday, giving the NFL a B for racial hiring practices and a C-plus for gender hiring practices. This gave the NFL a combined B-minus grade for its overall score of 79.3%, a notable decrease from its score of 81.6% last year…”

    1. But the best RB in the league is a white guy!

      1. Fuck off and die, turd

    2. An organization composed of 100% male athletes and coached by almost entirely by ex-athletes from that organization, they score low on “gender hiring practices”. What a fucking joke.

    3. All the people that really, really give a shit don’t watch football.

  37. It had taken Samantha six months to go from a vaguely liberal non-voter to what she calls “a productive racist.” She is one of very few women who joined the alt-right, and an even smaller number who left and are willing to talk about it. Her story helps explain what draws people into this movement, and the misogyny that drives it.

    She felt ashamed that her grandmother could not be proud of her. She quit IE a few weeks later. She says her ex threatened her — saying in the good ole days she would have left the movement “in a body bag.” She says she was reminded she could hold “a lot of Nazi semen” and make many Nazi babies. Despite those threats, she left.

    (How an attractive young woman became an alt-right Trump cultist)

    1. This is where you get your views? The openly biased cnn pushing a narrative? Lol. Now go read up on the far left.

      1. Note that Jesse doesn’t actually say that CNN’s story is false. He just throws some shade on it.

        1. Chemjeff white knighting for pedophiles… again

          1. You know, leave the childish Tulpa-esque insults to Tulpa. He does it far better than you do.

        2. Dude CNN is now regularly writing about the scourge of the alt right and how quickly it can and does take over the minds of our poor sons and daughters. Thinking people push back against that kind of nonsensical hysteria.

          No, your kid is not likely to join a cult as soon as they go to college, no, your kid is not likely to immediately become a heroin addict because he smoked a joint, no, that 30 year old who voluntarily went into prostitution isn’t a victim of child sex trafficking, and no, your grandchildren are not likely to become die-hard members of the KKK if they take one step off of the liberal reservation.

      2. The openly biased cnn pushing a narrative?

        What do you think The Federalist does?
        What do you think the Washington Examiner does?
        What do you think Breitbart does?

        These are websites that you routinely cite authoritatively.

    2. It had taken Samantha six months to go from a vaguely liberal non-voter to what she calls “a productive racist.” She is one of very few women who joined the alt-right, and an even smaller number who left and are willing to talk about it.

      Oh come on. Do you really believe this?

      1. Yes, I know white chicks well. They are easy to persuade.

        Now I had never heard the term “white sharia” until I read this article. The right likes to keep their boot on the neck of females. In fact the right blames female promiscuity for today’s multi-culturalism. And they are probably right about that. What they are wrong about is their subjugation of women. And also the view that multiculturalism is a bad thing.

        1. It’s sensationalist bullshit and you’re admitting you fell for it.

          1. It is a bit sensationalist but I wouldn’t call it bullshit. It sounds quite believable IMO. You have a woman who has low self-esteem, searching for a sense of community, and pressured by her boyfriend to join this movement, and she winds up getting fully immersed in it.

            1. It sounds believable because people like to believe stories about how brave men and women got sucked into their enemy’s evil cult but managed to escape and return to the light.

        2. Yes, I know white chicks well. They are easy to persuade.

          This guy definitely isn’t a sexist or a racist at all.

    3. Related:

      How to radicalize a normie

  38. Ha! You can now stick a forceps into Heels Up Harris….she is done.
    Well done, Tulsi.

  39. It makes sense for Shikha to be the witch, but I think Robby should have been the princess.

  40. … this means Gabbard is just one poll away from being allowed into November’s Democratic debate

    being allowed

    I agree with EB’s choice of words here.
    Well done.

    1. It is their debate. They don’t have to let anyone in they don’t want to. Unless you are a Democrat, I don’t understand why you would get upset or worry about who they allow in their debates.

      1. I think you can just be an American and have a valid concern over debate rules, proceedures, etc. of a major American political party.

        1. you *can* but nobody does that

          1. I do. But then again, I’ve voted for Democrats, Republicans and Libertarian candidates within the past 4 years. *shrugs*

            1. fair enough. happy halloween.

      2. It is their debate. They don’t have to let anyone in they don’t want to

        “They” are not our betters to decide who (and who not) voters should be able to see and hear in a debate.

        I am independent and not a Democrat. TripK2 is correct: I think you can just be an American and have a valid concern over debate rules, proceedures, etc. of a major American political party.

        1. They run the party Charles. So, yeah, they get to decide who is in the debate. If you don’t like that, don’t join the party. They don’t owe you anything just like you don’t owe them your support.

          1. >>>They don’t owe you anything

            this. every minute of every day.

          2. The Democratic Party owes every one of us a lot. So does the Republican Party.

          3. As I wrote earlier, I am not a Democrat.
            Yet I think the leaders/officials of that party owe their party members and other voters a just and fair process. Just so with any other party.

            I know that they have shown themselves to be corrupt (the favoritism and manipulations from tthat poinhe last cycle is a good example).

            My original comment implied that.

            I have to go back to work. Have a great day.

            1. This a lot like the “Facebook can censor because they’re a private company!!!” argument.

              Accepting that they aren’t bound by the 1st amendment (debatable due to the amount of public money and regulation given to them) doesn’t mean that Facebook should censor, nor does it mean that the DNC should through debate participation.
              Both are situations where the ruling caste is imposing top down preference picking for their user base, and I’ll condemn both for that.

      3. It is their debate. They don’t have to let anyone in they don’t want to.
        Which is exactly why “being allowed” was a good choice of words. They can run the debates how they want to. And anyone can criticize their choices.

  41. Happy Halloween from Reason’s D.C. office:

    Which one’s the stoner?

  42. Nobody wins when social media censors more…But the issue also has much wider implications for free expression on the internet.

    It’s astonishing how much those tools have changed our point of reference. I was in an Internet startup well before those tools came into existence. At that time, the thinking was that what the Internet enabled was ‘online community’. Thousands/millions of different communities each enforcing their own community standards of content and each selecting the social/communication tools that best fit them.

    Once VC’s/developers decided to define ‘users’ as mere eyeballs to base their tools revenue on ads, then they de facto eliminated the ability of ‘online community’ to even form and substituted the crappy advertiser-driven definition of ‘interest demographics’. And those tools cos now have proven they have no ability to set any sort of standards at all. But from their perspective that’s great cuz they now have the ability to ensure that the Internet has become a giant time-suck – and that’s perfect for advertising.

    1. So ‘greedy korpurashuns’, JFree?

    2. Looking at a screen surfing social media is the idiot box of the 21st century.

  43. Cannot find a link:
    SF Chron cartoon today has an inset with the state capital building and a word balloon: “We need to build more fire-resistant buildings! Use less electricity! Drive non-greenhouse gas producing cars!…”
    In the corner of the major image of Barney and Wilma in their stone-age home with a Beverly Hills address…
    Did the Chron really point out that the watermelons want us all to return to the neo-lithic?

    1. I tried to post this once, but I guess the auto-moderation software doesn’t like it when you post a link without commentary. This is the cartoon Sevo’s talking about:

  44. It’s funny how the prosecutor didn’t anticipate the cross examination. She never recovered from that. Tulsi is a pit bull. PBILF.

  45. Walter Payton shirt and goat head is winner.

  46. Tulsi Gabbard’s base — Assad, Stormfront, Breitbart, clingers — is unlikely to take her much farther unless she switches back to Republican. (She wouldn’t be missed.)

    Kamala Harris, meanwhile, is developing a good candidacy for attorney general.

    1. Insightful comment as usual, Art, except you forgot to mention Putin and / or Russia.


    2. She would do that office just as well as “granny” Sessions did.

    3. Kamala Harris, meanwhile, is developing a good candidacy for attorney general.

      Sure, hicklib, nothing says “competent prosecutor” like failing to mount a counterattack against a Samoan cult member.

    1. I call bullshit on Question 1.

      “Dr. Frankenstein was wrong to create a new being out of body parts because:”

      Begging the question! Who said he was wrong?

      1. I call bullshit on all the questions.
        Because it’s a bullshit survey of 5 questions.
        But please, continue to post as if anyone cares

        1. You sound angry.
          Maybe if you murder more progressives, it would lighten your mood.

    2. Damn it!
      I got anarchist

      1. i got a rock.

        1. Meh
          Same difference

    3. Yeah, I’m not buying it. I scored Libertarian.

    4. Libertarian.

    5. I scored libertarian and my son scored progressive. Both correct.

  47. “The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie” does not show up as available for Podcast Republic (not all of us as wealthy enough to own iPhones). But I found the others. I guess Nick is special?

    1. Special enough to be a suitable host organism for The Jacket.

  48. Oíche Shamhna Shona Daoibh

  49. O/T and SMDH, all at the same time:

    The US city preparing itself for the collapse of capitalism

    It then goes on to describe the bartering system of free exchange between willing participants, that apparently isn’t capitalism.

    1. Luckily, among our friends were doctors and dentists who valued the work we did as equal to their own. So, we came up with a plan. Drawing on the age-old system of barter, we figured out a way to trade – the art of medicine for the medicine of art.

      Nope. Not capitalism at all.

      1. At least they acknowledge that they’re lucky.

    2. It then goes on to describe the bartering system of free exchange between willing participants, that apparently isn’t capitalism.

      Well, just like with the term “socialism”, the term “capitalism” means different things depending on who you talk to. I think a lot of people think “capitalism” means “big fat cat Wall Street bankers ripping people off”.

      1. There are educated people and uneducated people, yes.

        1. It’s not “educated vs. uneducated”, it is using the wrong word to describe the injustice that they perceive.

          1. Uneducated people tend to do that.

            1. Little Jeffy doesn’t know what educated means.

      2. If these people privately own their means of production, then I don’t see how you can call it anything but capitalism.

      3. People confuse capitalism with corporatism. And that’s by design. Karl Marx invented the term as a pejorative.

        I would be ecstatic of corporatism collapsed in a city. But corporatism has nothing to do with the free market.

    3. Well, I don’t think free market and capitalism are one and the same necessarily. But any market that is reasonably free is likely to become capitalist in time.

  50. My stalking horse for the last few years has been the national media. Their lack of objectivity used to be a concern, now it is the outright propaganda.

    So I’m watching NBC coverage of the rules vote in the House this morning. I just caught a minute as they threw it to their white house reporter. She reported that the White House was happy to note that there was a zero in the Republican yes column – that was a big deal for them.

    Chuck Todd jumped in and interjected over the top of her that Amash voted for it… she responded that he has switched to independent and he jumped in over top of her again and says Yeah, that’s not going to work for them…

    Their anchor is openly team rooting live, on air, over an inconsequential detail like that. So much so that he felt the need to interrupt his own reporter to get it out there.

    1. It’s like an Internet comment board on live TV?

    2. Yea, it’s ridiculous.
      As is Amash, the only “non” Democrat to vote “yea”

  51. It would have killed Anthony Bourdain to see his beloved city ban his beloved meat paste.

  52. I think what the Dems should do at the end is just have it down to an arm wrestling contest between the leading candidates. Or better yet full on mud wrestling. My money is on Gabbard.

    If you are running against a showman you have to give the people a show.

  53. “”What’s next? No more veal? No more mushrooms?”…

    Don’t tempt them….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.