Reason Roundup

Ashley Judd and Seth Meyers Say They Want to Help Sex Workers. They Could Start by Shutting Up.

Plus: climate change defamation suit can proceed, trade deal inches forward, and more…


Celebrity activists co-opt sex worker messaging in push for policing sex. Actress and anti-prostitution activist Ashley Judd has been joined by Late Night host Seth Meyers and his wife, lawyer Alexi Ashe Meyers, to aid efforts to keep sex between consenting adults a criminal matter.

And, like some government-funded "awareness" groups, Judd and the Meyers are stealing the language of the sex worker rights movement in their battle to keep sex work criminalized.

The celebrity campaign calls itself one for "decriminalization." But what's its really pushing is simply asymmetric criminalization—a system in which some sex workers can avoid arrest but people who pay for sex will still be arrested and jailed. It's based on infantilizing assumptions about women and second-wave feminist conceptions of sex work, in which all porn and prostitution are "violence" against women, even when women consent, and all female participants in sex work are victims, even when they insist otherwise.

"For too long, victims of the sex trade have been subject to arrest by law enforcement, instead of those who should be held accountable," said Ashe Meyers.

To Ashe Meyers and her ilk, women are too feebleminded to be held equally accountable for the sexual activities they participate in; instead, we must treat them as legally equivalent to children, while holding the men they consent to sex with criminally responsible.

Incredibly, they call this a feminist solution to sex work policy. It's modeled after similar—and failing—policies in Nordic countries, often referred to as the "Nordic Model," the "Swedish Model," or (in the U.S.) the "End Demand" model.

With a lot of bad baggage attached to these schemes, and data showing their detrimental effects on sex workers, proponents of asymmetrical criminalization are now trying to rebrand it the "Equality Model."

Most infuriatingly, they have been pushing this plan to the media as prostitution decriminalization and portraying themselves as being on the side of sex workers. The New York Daily News described Judd's and the Meyers' efforts as "join[ing] with sex workers' rights advocates on Monday to call on state lawmakers to curb the exploitative practices associated with the sex-trade."

Sex worker rights advocates the world over have denounced the "Equality Model" for recreating the same harms as criminalization, including pushing people into unsafe working conditions, and often resulting in the same sort of bigotry-filled policing that currently plagues vice policing efforts. Don't be fooled: This is the same old moralistic claptrap, savior mentality, and pro-incarceration "progressivism" that we've seen for more than a century.

"Disappointed to see this. To try to present this as driven by 'sex workers advocates' is dishonest and paternalistic," tweeted New York state Senator Julia Salazar. "If you want to know what sex worker advocates want, answer the calls of the many sex workers and trafficking survivors leading @DecrimNY."

Here's what some sex workers and activists are saying:

Next week is Reason's annual webathon, where we ask you to support our journalism! We'll be taking your questions on a special Reason Roundtable podcast on December 3. Please submit your questions for Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, Matt Welch, and Peter Suderman to


The U.S. Supreme Court will allow a Penn State professor to sue two National Review writers for defamation. From the Los Angeles Times:

Over a dissent by Justice Samuel A. Alito, the high court cleared the way for Penn State professor Michael Mann to sue the National Review and the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute for having compared him to the former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky, who was imprisoned for sexual abuse. Both had been investigated by the university.

In his 2012 article, columnist Mark Steyn said that in Mann's case, as with Sandusky and football legend Joe Paterno, who was also involved in the sex-abuse scandal, Penn State "declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing." His comment repeated the words of an online columnist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who first made the comparison between Mann and Sandusky.

The case involves a hotly disputed question that has split lower courts: When can statements of opinion form the basis of a libel suit? Ordinarily, the high court has ruled, a person can't be sued for expressing an opinion. But when a statement mixes opinion with a claim about facts—in this case, the claim that Mann had misused data—courts have struggled to decide whether lawsuits are valid.

CEI and National Review lawyers had been urging the Supreme Court to reject the case as a violation of the First Amendment.


Congress is reaching a resolution on the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal. In announcing as much, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) sounded like a slightly more intelligible Trump. "Americans need more from the USMCA than just the same broken NAFTA with better language but no real enforcement," said Pelosi in a statement. "The original draft of the new NAFTA agreement, while promising in some regard, still left American workers exposed to losing their jobs to Mexico."

Pelosi said House Democrats are working with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and were "within range of a substantially improved agreement for America's workers. Now, we need to see our progress in writing from the Trade Representative for final review."


  • Christian health care sharing ministries are drawing the ire of state and federal regulators.
  • Al Sharpton is thwarting a menthol cigarette ban in New York City.
  • Support for Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic presidential race is waning once again.
  • Animal cruelty is now a federal crime.
  • "Denaturalization—or stripping naturalized immigrants of their citizenship—is an extreme measure typically reserved for Nazis and terrorists," writes Shikha Dalmia in Reason's December issue. "But in a little-noticed initiative called Operation Second Look, President Donald Trump is rummaging through past naturalization applications looking for reasons to remove the citizenship of nonheinous individuals."
  • Yujing Zhang, the woman who went to Mar-a-Lago under false pretenses and spawned all sorts of Chinese spy panic, has been sentenced to eight months in jail after being convicted (in what NPR calls "bizarre trial" where she represented herself) of trespassing and lying to federal agents. "Zhang's grasp of the English language remained unclear," says NPR, but the judge accused her of merely "playing games" by pretending not to understand.

NEXT: How Can Our Dumb Infrastructure Accommodate Smart Cars?

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. Support for Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the Democratic presidential race is waning once again.

    Private schools will do that to a Dem campaign.

    1. Hello.

      Trump should troll Meyers and his wife and legalize prostitution. Would be hilarious to watch them squirm and be against it.

      1. He could appoint Stormy Daniels his prostitution Czar.

        1. Seriously. Then we’ll see just how principled that partisan lame ass pretending to be a comedian is. Call their bluffs. Call out progressives. Force them out of their comfort zones.

    2. hAnnAh. i cAn see whAt your sAying... elizAbeth`s storry is AmAzing... on sundAy i got A brAnd new hondA from eArning $9023 this lAst four weeks And even more thAn 10-k this pAst month. with-out Any doubt it's the most finAnciAlly rewArding i've ever hAd. i stArted this 8-months Ago And pretty much strAight AwAy wAs bringing home over $71... per-hr. i use this greAt link, go to this site home tAb for more detAil...../

  2. Animal cruelty is now a federal crime.

    I look forward to the guy getting prosecuted twice for not keeping his dog's water dish full.

    1. Gotta keep those prisons full.

      Why would anyone have pets or kids? All these things do is open the door to government oppressive rules.

      1. Hmm... Now that I think about it, I should put a bullet in all my animal's heads to save them the cruelty of government workers caging them while I spend life in prison for not taking enough funny animal videos.

    2. Having a pet is now a liability. As your lawyer I advise you to not adopt that rescue dog and/or cat.
      Have you considered getting an ant farm? If you can still stomp them outside then you can still do it in your home.

  3. "Zhang's grasp of the English language remained unclear," says NPR, but the judge accused her of merely "playing games" by pretending not to understand.

    Those Chinamen all speak American. Don't kid yourselves.

    1. In China, Kangaroo Court is a game like Charades.

  4. Denaturalization—or stripping naturalized immigrants of their citizenship—is an extreme measure typically reserved for Nazis and terrorists...

    Luckily for justification purposes everyone is a Nazi now.

    1. Lying and cheating are okay as long as an immigrant does it.

      1. When it comes to open borders, the ends justify the means.


      2. You guys are really obsessed with kicking immigrants out. What % of naturalized citizens become so through fraud, and why is this second look going to catch what the first one apparently didn't?

        If Trump supporters weren't so principled and well reasoned, I'd say they are just thinly veiled racists reacting strongly to a wannabe dictator's identification of an out group to align against. I'd say this is just another excuse to harass immigrants and make them feel unwelcome. But that would be silly.

        Are they looking at Melania's citizenship? She worked as a nudie model while on a tourist Visa. I doubt she put that in her citizenship application.

        1. I'll volunteer to look into Melania's nudie activities.

        2. So much projection.

        3. We don't want to deport Melania. She's White.

          Plus Trump can pardon her. Wouldn't that be hilarious if the Lefties made a big deal about it?

        4. 30 percent approval rating among african americans, 40 plus percent approval from hispanics.

          Keep shouting racism though, it worked so well in 2016

          1. I thought polls don't mean anything?

          2. Lefties will never understand why THEIR conclusions from polls fail on a regular basis.

        5. Die on this hill. Please.

          1. This is ya'll's hill, not mine. You all chose this as your reason d'etre. Keep demonizing immigrants. That will work out well. Totally won't make the already shrinking GOP demographic even smaller.

      3. Or a climate change consensus scientist.

  5. When you obtain citizenship via fraud, it is right to take it away when that fraud is discovered. Dalmia apparently thinks fraud is okay. How libertarian if her.

    1. It is one of the dumbest appeals to emotional appeals I've ever seen from her. Reason is going down the woke emotional path lately.

      1. I mean Trump just signed a federal law for animal cruelty that Congress passed nearly unanimously.

        Most animal cruelty never enters Interstate Commerce, its mostly Intrastate stuff.

        Government doesn't give two shits about the Constitution unless it can be used against The People.

        1. I dont claim to be an expert on animal cruelty, but this ship sailed almost 100 years ago with Wickard. I hate it. I wish it was repealed. But the current theory allows for it as most of it is videotaped and transmitted across state lines through video.

          Would love for an animal cruelist to fight the law and try to overturn Wickard.

          1. In a just world an animal cruelest would fight and win that case in court, and then promptly get their ass kicked by a mob from PETA.

          2. This law is not just about "Crush videos".

            The Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act (PACT) is a bi-partisan initiative that bans the intentional crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating, impalement or other serious harm to "living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians."

            The law also bans "animal crush videos" meaning any photograph, motion-picture film, video or digital recording or electronic image that depicts animal cruelty.

            This will used to go after animal food processors, hunters, and meat eaters. MARK MY WORDS.

            1. BTW, this law covers frogs (amphibians), iguanas (which Florida advocates killing green Iguanas due to overpopulation), alligators (reptiles), and fucking birds.

              I was real disappointed that Trump signed this Bill. It was a great chance to fuck with Lefties.

              1. The votes in the House/Senate showed it didnt' matter what he did.

                1. Actually, the House did a voice vote so there is no record that the vote was veto-proof. The Senate was a recorded unanimous vote.

                  I believe a veto by Trump would have forced the House to vote and be veto-proof of the Bill was dead.

                  1. The forced vote would have been near unanimous. No politician is going to be the anti animal cruelty politician.

                    1. True.

                    2. So your point was wrong then and a voice vote would have changed nothing.

              2. Python hunters in FL hit hardest.

                1. I was just reading about that and Green Iguanas in Florida last night.

                  This law is really gonna ruffle some average American feathers (Bird Law) once average Americans get FBI sicced on them.

                  1. Expect selective prosecutions. It's what government does best.

                    Is there any country that likes eating Iguanas? If so, we might have a new export.

                    1. Maybe the British. If you put it in a pie and smother it in gravy.

                    2. How about the Scottish? Can we make it a new ingredient for Haggis? Who would notice?

                    3. Yes. It is common in S America and some people in Florida are eating them. Supposedly tastes like chicken.


        2. It's the Mann act for animals. The Feds will prosecute if you cross state lines for immoral porpoises.

          1. Mann Act you say? Alpaca lunch.

          2. Congress should be otterly ashamed of themselves.

          3. You have cat to be kitten me right now!

    2. It’s ok to lie on your job application. Everyone does it! How dare you question this! /Indian Warren.

      1. American/Indonesian Barack Obama.

  6. "Americans need more from the USMCA than just the same broken NAFTA with better language but no real enforcement," said Pelosi...

    She's going to make Mexico pay for all those American jobs it took.

    1. ABC will be here shortly to claim he's fully read every word of NAFTA and USMCA and agrees with Pelosi.

      1. It was difficult to watch him arguing that tariffs are taxes, in the actual legal and physical sense.

  7. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $61.6 billion

    That means he's only up $2.2 billion this year. The primary goal of Koch / Reason libertarianism is to promote rapid and sustained growth in the net worths of the world's richest people. So the Drumpf economy is abysmal by this most important metric.


  8. It's based on infantilizing assumptions about women and second-wave feminist conceptions of sex work, in which all porn and prostitution are "violence" against women, even when women consent, and all female participants in sex work are victims, even when they insist otherwise.

    Embrace the power of victimhood.

    1. I'm all over the Nordic Model.

      1. As long as she consents.

      2. That's a communism I can embrace.

        1. Ja.

    2. Honestly, I don't think its a matter of infantilizing women. That gives them to much credit. What I think it's really about is that they don't like the competition. These women like to use sex as leverage to get things from men such as money, statues, or material things. Prostitutes are at least upfront that they are trading sex for money.

      1. +10

        Why would men cater to bitchy wives and would-be girlfriends when the men can just pay $20 to get their dick sucked, $30 for regular sex, $50 for Round-the-World, and $100 for kinky shit.

        1. Those are some cheap prices. Where do you get your girls? Crazy Eddie's?

          1. "Those are some cheap prices. Where do you get your girls? Crazy Eddie’s?"

            Amazon, the

          2. ATL Baby!

            They give Veteran's discounts.

            1. Wait until prostitution is legalized and becomes part of the veteran's benefits package. VA brothels, here we come!

              1. They pay for PTSD dogs and maybe someday PTSD hookers!

            2. Do you subscribe to the belief that women can have a penis? Because if you're renting your female companionship in Atlanta, I might have some news for you.

              1. I have been to Bankok and that name fits that city well.

                I like the female body, so seeing it is a turn on. It also eliminates the hidden penis problem.

              2. Usually people can tell when engaging in the act, if you can't, I have some news for you.

                1. Yeah, but that's the worst time to find out.

          3. Hit Mexico and you get the Five-Finger discount.

        2. How much for a Dirty Sanchez? Asking for a friend (Tony).

          1. Not sure of pricing for gay folks. Let's get some gay folks in this to get some pricing quotes.

            I'm gonna outdo reason writers today by providing a tiny bit of background for our commentariat to make up their own minds.

  9. Bloomberg News will no longer report negative information about Micheal Bloomberg, DNC candidate. To be fair they will also not report negative news on other Democrats.

    They will still write only negative articles on Trump.

    Your honest and neutral media.

    1. Bloomberg News can do whatever it wants. Just like Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube have the power to ban anyone who supports Drumpf. It's un-libertarian to suggest otherwise.


      1. I agree with you, except for the fact the liberals (Jeff, Pod, Mike) are pushing a lawfare theory that makes any benefit for a candidate a crime. How much is no negative news worth to a Democrat? Surely they now need to lock up all Democrats based on the "orange man bad" theory of politics.

      2. OK Bloomer.

    2. Imagine if a Russian oligarch owned one of the largest media outfits in the country, ran for president, and ordered it not to investigate him. You think liberals would think that was okay?

      1. Liberals are claiming any bad news to a Democrat is an in kind contribution to Trump and he should be impeached over it, so no they wouldn't think that was okay. They'd lock the republican up.

      2. Maybe, but first you would need to supply a Russian oligarch with birthright citizenship in order for them to be to run for president. RELEASE THE ORIGINAL LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE!

      3. I don't know any liberal that wants Bloomberg to run.

        1. Well...he can't run as a Republican...this time.

    3. Trump has been doing an enormous service to this country by getting these people to drop the masks. It really started with Obama but to see such a stark contrast so quick it makes it close to impossible for them to gas light people. Even if you agree with the propaganda it's pretty obvious it's propaganda at this point.

      1. +1000

        I notice that the MSM are not even saying that they are unbiased reporters of news anymore.

        1. What do you expect from a "trade", and I use the term loosely, that often claims to be the "fourth branch of government".

        2. Iglesias of Vox openly admits their goal is to gaslight americans.

          1. And reason cites Vox.

            I doubt reason's begging for money will go well this year. Trolls and reason socks don't donate.

      2. Yeah, like Tucker Carlson saying he's on the side of the Russians. He never would have said that until Trump came along. Or Barr saying the office of president is an unchecked and total power. Or former house majority leader Kevin McCarthy (R) saying that he thinks the Russians pay Trump and Rohrabacher.

        Several white nationalist leaders have really started being more open and honest since Trump's election victory, too: "This changed history. It cleared away any of the remaining fog of confusion about what exactly we are dealing with in this country," Daily Stormer founder and publisher Andrew Anglin wrote. "This is a race war. Period."

        The masks have fallen, indeed.

    4. Not that Bloomberg media is every hard on any Democrat.

    5. I like Bernie slamming Bloomberg as a billionaire trying to buy the election simply because he's a billionaire - Sanders seems to be unaware that, as a 3-time mayor of NYC, Bloomberg has gotten about 3 times as many votes as Sanders has gotten in his 3 Senate elections.

  10. Most infuriatingly, they have been pushing this plan to the media as prostitution decriminalization and portraying themselves as being on the side of sex workers.

    What do you want them to do? The cue cards clearly say what they say.

  11. NO NEWS TODAY!!!!

    There would have been but the Trump impeachment nonsense is failing like the Mueller nonsense failed.

    1. Here's something from the news: Trump's handling, as Commander in Chief, of the Eddie Gallagher matter.

      1. That was YESTERDAYS NEWS goober.

  12. Twitter now treating facts as hate speech when they expose or neutralize cries of victimhood from favored groups.

  13. Some of the initial FISA report headlines that media are not reporting on.

    "We were told by multiple Intelligence Analysts that they received guidance to only state the facts and not to conduct analysis, report conclusions, and make recommendations in the Significant Source Review Panel validation reports. For example, one Intelligence Analyst told us that he was permitted to recommend a CHS receive a polygraph or operational test to the handling agent by phone but not permitted to document the recommendation in the CHS’s validation report. Additionally, multiple FBI officials told us that they believe that field offices do not want negative information documented in a CHS file due to criminal discovery concerns and concerns about the CHS’s ability to testify. For example, one FBI official told us that some U.S. Attorney’s offices will not use a CHS at trial if there is negative documentation in the CHS’s file."

    Yes, the FBI and CIA now tell their members to not report or document any exculpatory information in their reports that could be used to impeach the witness under cross examination. This is what these agencies have become.

    1. But Reason isn’t going to touch that. It just doesn’t have a libertarian angle to it.

      1. I can't wait for the gaslighting on the FISA report from December 10th-11th (that's all Reason will spend on it). Even after reports that Horowitz has already soft peddled the findings in the report to say "he couldn't prove any bias". It seems like he is going to go with the Obama defense of the IRS "some people did some bad things, no foul".

        1. Be prepared to be as satisfied as the liberals were with the Mueller report.

    2. "Become" This is what these agencies have always been. They have always been an umitigated clown show, the curtain has just been drawn back to reveal the type of people who are running the circus currently as opposed to having to wait a couple of decades to wait to see it declassified after the people in charge than had retired and we could delude ourselves into believing it was different now thank god those previous clowns had retired.

  14. I'll just leave this here.

    House Dem From Deep-blue District Changes Mind on Impeachment: No 'Value' in Moving Forward

    A Democratic lawmaker from a deep-blue district in Michigan said Sunday she has changed her mind about impeaching President Trump.

    Rep. Brenda Lawrence, who has represented Michigan’s 14th District since 2015, said Sunday that she no longer sees the “value” in moving forward with the process this close to an election.

    “You can censure, you don’t have to remove the president,” Lawrence said on the “No BS News Hour with Charlie LeDuff” podcast. “We are so close to an election. I will tell you, sitting here, knowing how divided this country is, I don’t see the value of kicking him out of office, but I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable.”

    1. It is never gets out of the House. I have been saying this for weeks

      1. Now it is under the Judiciary where Nadler runs things. He's even more incompetent than Schiff.

      2. I noticed the MSM was already shifting gears a bit. Its almost like they will use the Thanksgiving break to let impeachment talks in the House #MemoryHoled

        This SCOTUS Stay about the House forcing Trump's tax records really shook the Lefties.

        I wonder if the plan was to start House impeachment discussions, get Trump's tax records, and then focus on something in those records that was completely legal but could be spun.

        Someone hit an important point that impeachment will cut into Democrat Primary time and that will give Trump a bigger landslide victory in 2020.

    2. "A Democratic lawmaker from a deep-blue district in Michigan said Sunday she has changed her mind about impeaching President Trump."

      We've all been discussing this for weeks.

      There are 27 incumbent House Democrats running in districts that voted for Trump in 2016.

      There are only three House Republican incumbents running in districts that voted for Hilary.

      Those 27 don't just need to worry about riling up Trump voters if they vote to impeach. They also have to worry about making partisan Democrats stay home in protest rather than vote because the Democrat in question voted against impeaching Trump.

      The best way for the Democrats to keep the House is to find a way to let this thing die without taking a vote.

      Unfortunately, for Pelosi, that is not the best way for her to maintain the Speaker's chair. If Trump wins in 2020--after Pelosi fails to impeach him--then the radical Democrats from deep blue districts will blame Pelosi for Trump winning and will replace her as Speaker. Pelosi's best bet is to impeach and hope that the Democrat nominee beats Trump.

      Unfortunately for the Democrats, Pelosi impeaching Trump makes it less likely they'll maintain control of the House.

      1. Pelosi can say it was Schiff's job and throw him under the bus.

        1. The radicals from New York City are just looking for an excuse to get rid of her.

          Pelosi facing the progressives from deep blue districts is like John Boehner facing the Tea Party contingent.

          They were just looking for an excuse to get rid of him, and the Green New Deal/Medicare for All contingent is looking for an excuse to get rid of Pelosi.

          She's already on thin ice.

  15. Democrats are even starting to lose minorities over the sham impeachment prosecution:

    This goes with polling yesterday showing blacks supporting Trump in mid 30s and hispanics in the mid to upper 40s.

    Meanwhile Democrat front runners are all rich white people who know what is best for you and best for minorities.

    1. There are two polls showing Trump’s approval rating among blacks at 34%. That is earthshaking news. How could both of them be that wrong? Sure maybe five or ten points but even 25% is catastrophic for the Democrats

      1. I don't like polls because I don't give a fuck what anybody else thinks, but also, I may never trust another political poll again for obvious reasons.

        1. Polling is fine as long as you look at the raw data. Too often they will over sample a constituency. When you break down by demographic, the polling has meaning. When they try to balance the poll based on what they think the electorate will be, issues arise.

          1. That's all well and good Jesse but the whole point of polling is relieving me of any obligation to think.

            1. Not really. Lots of thought requires you to understand others. This has been known since the days of the Art of War. Markets require people to act rationally, usually by knowing what others want, what others will tolerate, etc.

              Information is never a bad thing, not even polling.

              Now if you use polling to make a political decision, I agree it is bad. But polling in and of itself is not bad.

        2. The conclusions that Lefties make from polling data are garbage.

          Polling people can provide some insight if your are open to the data. Nothing is definitive, as well all know.

        3. I don’t believe polls to the letter. They are usually wrong. But they are not so wrong that 34% isn’t a big deal. Whatever the real number it has to be significant or even the worst poll could not come up with that

          1. Even if Trump picks up only half that support in 2020 that's still double his 2016 numbers.

            There's no way the Democrats can win if Trump gets 15% of the black vote. He doesn't need 34%, but if he gets it we're talking a 1964 or 1972 landslide.

          2. Trump appeals to ‘forgotten’ black Democrats in Atlanta

            AJC is notoriously Lefty and even they have to admit that Trump has gotten some Black Community support for his actions as President.

            1. Additionally, Trump is getting support from Black Christians. Not that Trump is a religious man nor does he push religion from the Oval Office but he has differed himself from Democrats in that he is NOT pushing SJW stuff down Black Christian's throats.

              This is what Lefties in NY and Commifornia will never understand. Many Americans in the South (Black, White, Brown....) have religious streaks, bumpkin vibe, and largely respectful of others. All Georgians have more in common with one another than we do some selfish and disrespective assholes in New York City or Washington DC.

      2. 20% is catastrophic. And the polling shows it is the younger generation of minorities supporting Trump, which is even worse news for liberals.

  16. So when feminists think of female sex workers, thy hey think of a man and then remove reason and accountability?

    1. I'm afraid that's as good as it gets.

      1. I am quite certain it doesn't get that good.

        When they think of a "sex worker", they think of a 14 year old runaway who was kidnapped and forced to work as a prostitute by a "trafficker".

        That is the only form of sex worker. The trafficking victim.

        1. You missed two jokes.

  17. "Next week is Reason's annual webathon, where we ask you to support our journalism! "

    You have got to be kidding. Go beg to your Progressive Sugar Daddy.

    1. If Reason wanted some good funding, they'd put a goal of 50k to help Shikha move on to Daily Beast or WaPo.

      1. Or they could just have sex for money.

    2. But Charles Koch is really hurting in this high-tariff / low-immigration #DrumpfRecession. His net worth is stagnating in the $58,000,000,000 to $62,000,000,000 range.

      Besides, he's a libertarian, not a progressive. (A progressive would want to raise the minimum wage.)

  18. "Libertarian" feminist outraged that feminist celebrities are advocating for progressive-feminist sex-work policy.

  19. Is human rights lawyer overtaking bio ethicist as signifying the most obnoxious sense of self assured smugness and self righteousness as a job qualification in the 21st century? I guess on the less wealthy scale you have public school teacher.

    1. I still like the use of Scientific Historian (Oreskes) as one of the primary resources for the climate alarmism group. It's even worse than the use of a sociologist (Cook) to put forth the 95% claim. These are the voices of scientists who dominate news articles on climate alarmism.

  20. "I FOIA'd the Arizona Commerce Authority, and 4 months later it says it has no records of any order:

    — CJ Ciaramella (@cjciaramella) November 25, 2019"

    So, they're glad the governor didn't follow through, right?

    Just like we're glad Trump reportedly won't follow through on his initial concerns about vaping?

    When bad polices aren't implemented, that's a good thing--unless you're so partisan, you wanted the bad policy so you'd have something to complain about.

  21. So a man and a woman engages in a mutual agreed transaction, but we should arrest the man.

    I guess sexism is ok when you want it to be.

    1. You can't be a progressive and avoid the cult of victimhood. The problem with socialism [progressivism] is that they always seem to run of out other people's money [victims]. Jesus, I hope they never try to save me from anything. I thought blaming the victim was bad, but turning policy into a who's the cutest victim contest may be worse in its own way.

      This is what happens when people try to argue for other policies on the basis of who the victim is, too. I appreciate that avoiding human suffering is an excellent reason to oppose any given policy, but from the war on terror to the drug war and from ObamaCare to the horrific suffering caused by DACA, some of the worst policies implemented in recent memory have been implemented on the basis that they were rescuing some helpless victims from villainy.

    2. How do you know which one (if either) self-identifies as the man?

      1. Because it's his fucking presmise retard.

  22. "WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court granted President Trump’s emergency request to suspend enforcement of a congressional subpoena seeking his financial records from his accounting firm, a move that could keep the documents from House Democrats for months—if they see them at all.

    I've gone from thinking the president should be forced to release his tax returns to thinking the president should do everything he can to avoid releasing them.

    After the mountain House Democrats made out of the nothing-burger of Russian collusion . . .

    After the mountain House Democrats made out of the nothing-burger of an unsubstantiated quid pro quo with Ukraine . . .

    Isn't it reasonable to assume that if and when the Democrats get their hands on Trump's tax returns, they'll introduce as evidence for impeachment--regardless of whether they find anything substantial?

    Why should he grab his ankles for them? If undecided voters choose to vote against him because he hasn't released his tax returns, they're free to do so.

    1. Tax Documents by law are confidential information, only required to allow for the proper taxation of the population. Releasing tax documents for political reasons would be a huge detriment to the intentions of voluntary response of tax information. No court should allow these returns to be released, the IRS is properly informed on how to find tax fraud. The guise liberals are using to gain the tax documents, they need to understand how taxes work for Presidents, is one of the worst veiled attempts at collecting private documents from an individual.

      Anyone who is for the use of courts to gain private information from an individual is an authoritarian, full stop.

      1. If Trump never releases them, Democrats have given him plenty of cover as to why.

        If they will impeach him over nothing, why should he give them more ammunition?

        That's on the Democrats.

      2. Considering how the impeachment rationale hinges on the notion that the executive abusing authority to dig up dirt on a potential political opponent is forbidden, the strained rationale for the Congressional Democrats subpeoning Trump's tax returns is a definite case of the pot calling the kettle black

    2. I've never cared about seeing tax returns from presidential candidates. I think it's just fake posturing.

      I would like to see tax returns of career politicians that made millions as a public servant.

      1. That's the place where it might be useful.

        But people just don't care. The Clintons went from upper middle class to having $50 million in the bank in just two years out of office. That should have given people pause, but nobody even bats an eyelash. Quarter million dollar "Speaking Fees" are ho-hum.

        Obama got a $60 million check from Netflix the moment he left office as a thank you for "net neutrality". Nobody even thinks it is worth asking the question, let alone considering that it might be a problem.

        No, you shouldn't have been surprised when the media said that suggestions of corruption over the Biden/Burisma deal have been "debunked". Sure, any moron knows what it is, but in their world getting $8 million like that is "trading on your famous name", not any sort of payoff. So, debunked.

        Same goes for the Clintons and their speaking fees. Any normal human would ask why Bayer would pay a quarter million for Hillary to talk to some big meeting for 15 minutes and then make a $10 million donation to the Clinton foundation. But not today's 4th estate. Today, that's obviously above board and you are a nut for bringing it up.

        1. Btw, I view using your popularity as politician to sell speeches and books is privately enriching yourself from your political office. Not that I call foul on it. Just acknowledging it.

        2. Surely you know that the Obamas are highly successful movie producers and were the best choice to produce " a feature-length documentary about a summer camp for disabled teenagers in the 1970s."

        3. This is literally the system Mike Laursen spends all day every day defending

          1. I defended the Clintons and Obama collecting huge speaking fees? When did I do that?

            1. Oh look, he thinks an extremely specific denial of a single activity isn't an transparent attempt to avoid admitting he does defend said system.

              1. All that was given were specific examples. There was no general description of whatever system I supposedly defend.

      2. Google up the Clinton tax returns.

        It's just 3 or 4 line items from WJC LLC and Simon and Schuster for big fat round consulting fees.

        No details or deductions. That's all hidden behind the financial returns of WJC LLC and those were never disclosed... I'm sure that was just an oversight.

      3. Most Americans file EZ tax forms.

        Trump had attachments from probably all 50 states and numerous foreign nations for income before he was President. Just look at his FEC disclosures forms. Trump was on like 20 corporate boards and received income from many of them.

        The American public doesnt want to look at too many tax forms for themselves, let alone Trump who has done well as President.

    3. Hearsay is just too important to be left up to the voters.

    4. Did you see where Gulliani sent a letter to someone else that discussed nothing but they claim its proof of collusion. so now even talking is collusion and criminal

      1. If they're interfering with the president's ability to do his legitimate job, they're overstepping the separation of powers.

        If the framers had wanted the House to oversee the president's interactions with other heads of state, they'd have given them that power.

        Instead, they gave that power to the president, and the Senate the right to ratify treaties.

        They're turning this impeachment inquiry into a fourth branch of government, with oversight roles over areas to be named later. We're used to seeing the president overstep the separation of powers, but the House can overstep their bounds, too.

        1. The House has the power of the purse, including approving foreign aid, but doesn' t have any power to follow up and make sure the foreign aid is distributed as intended?

          1. They have a right to impeach the president.

            Supervising the president's personal finances, overseeing phone calls to foreign heads of state, and running a fishing expedition of impeachment inquiry with issues and topics yet to be identified, not so much.

            If they want to oversee interactions with foreign heads of state on a case by case basis, there's a way for them to do that. First they need to run for the office of President of the United States and then they need to win a national election.

            1. But the only reason they are looking at the President’s phone calls is because I he phone call touched on the disposition of foreign aid.

              1. His phone calls have been intercepted ever since the FISA warrant. How do we know the IC is not listening to everything he says now?

                1. TrickVic, I was only talking about the phone calls related to Ukraine aid, which is what I think Ken Shultz was talking about, too. I don't defend the FISA surveillance.

                  1. Unless a judge ordered them to end the surveillance, then the phone call in question would have been captured. Roving wiretaps follow the target across the various electronic items they can discover the target owns.

                  2. Then again, the IC and listen to any call they want.

                    Who's gonna stop them?

              2. They have a right to impeach him over that.

                So if they want to impeach him, go ahead and do so.

                Why is this confusing?

                What they don't have a right to do is to use an eternal impeachment investigation to review anything and everything related to the president's job now and forever more.

                On the one hand, I keep hearing that the testimony that's been presented is damning and more than sufficient grounds for impeachment. I also keep hearing that Nancy Pelosi has the votes necessary to impeach the president and send it to the Senate.

                So, why hasn't there been a vote?

                If it's because they want to use the impeachment inquiry to oversee anything and everything related to the president's legitimate duties, then they're sidestepping the separation of powers. Congress has a number of enumerated powers. None of them involve supervising the President in the carrying out of his legitimate duties.

                If they want to impeach him, go ahead. Hold the vote.

                1. Don't disagree. And I don't personally think the current testimony is "damning". There needs to be an actual trial.

                  1. ""And I don’t personally think the current testimony is “damning”. "'

                    So you disagree with those who thinks it is?

                    1. Yes. "Damning" is too strong of an opinion to hold at this point.

                  2. "There needs to be an actual trial.

                    That happens when the House votes to impeach.

                    The Senate votes on whether to convict--which is what juries do in a trial.

              3. HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

                Thanks for that good laugh today. I need to get warmed up for Lefties crying when trump wins reelection.

                1. Yes, exactly.

    1. Wow, turd-brained!

      That might get you a ban-hammer from Twitter!

    2. Thanks for viewing that cesspool Twatter, so we don't have to.

    3. God she is fucking ugly.

      1. I would let her make me a sandwich.

  23. I use a Christian health-sharing company, Medishare. They have been great so far.

    Obamacare had me at $35k out of pocket, annually in our last year. $22k in subsidized premiums, plus $13k deductible.

    Medishare dropped that to $13k out of pocket max, including the $5k deductible.

    They do have caveats, like not covering abortion. They don't even cover out of wedlock pregnancies. Nor will they cover drug abuse or mental health care.

    But an extra $22k per year covers a lot of those things.

    1. "I use a Christian health-sharing company, Medishare. They have been great so far."

      I . . . I . . . I . . .

      um . . .

      I don't want to see you get hurt. I don't have or fully understand the details of this, but I've heard about it.

      It seems to me that the solutions other health insurance providers have with free riders, etc. aren't necessarily available in that kind of situation, and when I try to get my head around how they would deal with that, it looks a lot like they're covering old claims by getting new people to buy in. What happens when new people stop buying in, maybe, just because the market becomes saturated?

      So, I don't have all the pertinent facts on that Christian health-sharing ministry, but it just doesn't seem to add up in my mind--not enough for me to investigate it. But I will say this: When I was a kid, some Christians told me that the children of Israel built the pyramids. When I went and read it for myself, it just said that the children of Israel were using straw and mud to make bricks--which could have been used to build anything. So, I don't know if the children of Israel were building pyramids thousands of years before Christianity existed, but I do know that Christians have been building other kinds of pyramids for thousands of years since--and I don't want any part of them.

      1. "So, I don’t have all the pertinent facts on that Christian health-sharing ministry"

        That's obvious from your post.

        "but it just doesn’t seem to add up in my mind"

        That's because you admitted you don't have all the facts

        "But I will say this:"

        No one cares.

        1. So, you're saying they aren't paying for old claims by bringing on new members?

          Do you have a link for that?

          1. No, I'm saying you're uninformed, wear it on your sleeve, and stupidly think people care about your opinion.

            Read dumbass.

            1. No I'm saying that I don't need to see the financials to spot a likely pyramid arrangement. Seeing that they're paying for old claims with new recruits--and knowing that the ministry isn't obligated to pay your medical bills--is more than enough to judge that arrangement sufficiently suspicious.

              You, on the other hand, countered my argument with nothing.

              Not a link.


              The reason you you didn't post a link, counter my argument, or state a fact against it is because you have nothing. I don't need anything more than adequate suspicion based on my two observations. You, on the other hand, have exposed yourself as just another troll, naked to the world, unable to counter anything--because you have nothing.

      2. A Ponzi scheme by any other name.......

        1. Somthin's not adding up!

      3. It is very likely some of these are scams like those fake warranties we are always getting offers for. Others may be totally legit.

        Side point for interest. It never says that the Israelites built the pyramids it says “ built store cities for Pharaoh: Pithom and Ramses" (Exodus 1:11).
        If they did or not who knows but there is evidence that those were actual places.

        1. Their intentions may be perfectly innocent--now.

          It's just that when the new money stops coming in, traditionally, people in that kind of system tend to find themselves making the same kinds of decisions for the same reasons.

          Madoff didn't start out trying to screw everybody. He was trying to cover his losses--because he didn't want to tell people he'd blown their money. So, he started raising money from new investors to pay off the people whose money he'd blown, and the rest of the story writes itself. It always does. That's the problem. The temptation to get that snowball rolling is coming from a good place. That's what makes it so insidious. You don't want to let people down--so you end up screwing them for everything they've given you.

  24. "Al Sharpton is thwarting a menthol cigarette ban in New York City."

    Two things can be true at once: Sharpton is a grifter, and black people love menthol cigs

    smoke em if ya got em

    1. If a white person made any part of that statement, it would be hopelessly racist. Somehow it's different for Sharpton.

      I'm on a bus to the airport recently, and there was this crazy African-American woman singing at the top of her lungs with her headphones on. The bus was mostly full of African-Americans.

      This very nice African-American lady, gets on at a stop, looks at the lady singing at the top of her lungs, looks at me, and says, "Go tell her to shut up".

      I looked at this lady, and I said, "When's the last time you saw a white man walk up to a black woman and tell her to shut up?"

      She said, "That's racist".

      I said, "I'm not the only one! She's been singing like that for 10 minutes, and none of them told her to shut up either" (all the guys sitting around me were black). "In fact", I said, "I can't remember the last time I saw a black man tell a black woman to shut up".

      She laughed at that, and then she sat there for another four stops listening to that annoying woman sing at the top of her lungs--and she never told the singing woman to shut up. She was basically trying to bait me into doing something that neither she nor anyone else on that bus was willing to do for fear of the consequences.

      Because I don't think it's my job to go around telling black women in a black crowd when it's time to shut up doesn't mean I'm a racist, and I don't think we're likely to see many white liberals get on board with banning menthol cigarettes for similar reasons. Some of those reasons may have to do with the contributions to our culture courtesy of people like Al Sharpton, too--I'm just sayin'. If African-Americans want to ban menthol cigarettes, they'll probably have to do it without the help of other progressives.

      1. >>Somehow it’s different for Sharpton.

        nope still racist. don't ease up in the other direction.

  25. Christian health care sharing ministries are drawing the ire of state and federal regulators."

    They must be to effective, remember the government does not like competition.

  26. You know who else supported the Nordic Model?

    1. Thor?

    2. Charles XII of Sweden?

  27. How will I show people how awesome I am if I don't get offended on behalf of other people?

  28. Come on! Every woman knows that unless she's pregnant, the state owns her body.

    Hey guys! I think I found a loophole! Only pregnant women can be sex workers!

    1. meh. niche market. Guys will still want to use condoms because she still is a whore, even if she cant get more pregnant.

  29. If Judd and Meyers really wanted to help the sex workers, they would become customers.

    1. Seth's wife is attorney so he's nailing a whore already. Badump.

      1. Well he's in show business. So I'm not sure who the whore really is in that relationship.

  30. All old slags who are out of work, out of luck and out of their marriages like Judd are angry broads. Remember her speech after Trump got in? The Nasty Woman/Cheeto speech at the woman's march? She's what, 55 or so? Look at her, she's hideously bitter. Her husband of ten years (F1 Race driver) left her because she didn't want children. He married a twenty-five year old and promptly had two or three. What is it about all that she would take up this particular venture? Or is she fueled by her aging, unused eggs? Or are her moods simply outrunning her meds this week?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.