Reason Roundup

Can U.S. Cities Be Forced To House Coronavirus Patients?

Plus: Supreme Court will hear Catholic foster agency case, Apple and TikTok reject Sen. Josh Hawley's testimony request, and more...

|

The city of Santa Ana is taking California to court over plans to move coronavirus patients into a state-owned facility there. The matter was heard by a federal judge on Monday after the federal government said U.S. coronavirus patients had to evacuate the Travis Air Force Base in Fairfield, California, where they are now being housed.

"In a decision that could complicate California's efforts to deal with the coronavirus crisis, Judge Josephine L. Staton…kept a temporary restraining order in place that would prevent the infected patients from being moved to Costa Mesa, at least for now," The New York Times reports.

Staton told state and federal authorities to present her with more public safety information at a March 2 hearing. "The state has shown great empathy for the patients," she said in the courtroom, and she hoped it would show "the same empathy for the residents of Costa Mesa," which is California's second-most populous county.

U.S. authorities had first planned to transfer patients from the air force base to a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) facility in Alabama. "But officials in California thought that moving the group out of the state…would be detrimental to their health and well-being," the Times reports.

There are now 53 confirmed coronavirus cases in the U.S.

Confirmed cases of coronavirus continue to rise in China, Iran, Italy, South Korea, and elsewhere:

Worldwide, at least 80,067 confirmed coronavirus cases are being reported, with at least 2,700 deaths so far.

Politicians and investors have both begun panicking. "Major European stock markets were about 0.8 percent lower Tuesday," and "the Dow Jones industrial average shed more than 1,000 points" yesterday, noted The Washington Post. But "global markets mostly stabilized after Monday's heavy losses."

President Donald Trump is asking Congress to authorize $2.5 billion in spending to deal with the disease. Trump said at a forum in New Delhi yesterday that the money would be used for "getting everything ready just in case something should happen and also helping other nations that really aren't equipped to do it."


FREE MINDS

The U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on whether Philadelphia can cancel a contract with a Catholic foster care agency that refuses to place children with same-sex couples. SCOTUS agreed on Monday to hear the case (Fulton v. Philadelphia), in which the agencyCatholic Social Servicesargues that the contract cancellation amounts to religious discrimination. Philadelphia says the religious nonprofit is in violation of its nondiscrimination policy.

"Over the last few years, agencies have been closing their doors across the country, and all the while children are pouring into the system," said Lori Windham, a senior lawyer for Becket Fund, which is representing Catholic Social Services. "We are confident that the Court will realize that the best solution is the one that has worked in Philadelphia for a centuryall hands on deck for foster kids."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is siding against the foster agencies. Leslie Cooper, deputy director of the ACLU's LGBT project, condemned "allowing foster care agencies to exclude qualified families based on religious requirements that have nothing to do with the ability to care for a child."


FREE MARKETS

Apple and TikTok are refusing to participate in Sen. Josh Hawley's (R–Mo.) anti-tech pageantry on Capitol Hill. Both declined Hawley's request to testify at a hearing next month on Apple and TikTok's ties to China. "Hawley still plans to hold the March hearing, where U.S. law enforcement officials are set to testify," reports The Washington Post.

"TikTok in particular has drawn bipartisan congressional scorn and sparked a national security probe into its origins," notes the paper. "Branches of the U.S. military recently have barred service members from using the app on their official phones, fearing security risks. And the Transportation Security Administration this weekend said it would stop allowing its employees to use the app."


QUICK HITS

Advertisement

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: February 25, 1841

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The city of Santa Ana is taking California to court over plans to move coronavirus patients into a state-owned facility there.

    Coronavirus sanctuary cities.

    1. Hello.

      Now here’s Literal Hitler Fascist Nazi Trump’s chance to kill poor and black Americans with Coronavirus!

      1. Trump himself is in the highest risk demographic. As are Bernie and Joe. Just sayin’.

        1. Ahahahahah LC triggers you ahahhahahah

          1. And I trigger thee. That makes you one level lower on the troll food chain.

            1. Both of your sock troll names show how obsessed you are with Lovecon.

              It’s very creepy, you should probably check yourself back into the psych hospital before a total meltdown.

        2. ITT, De Oppresso Liber admits that he cares so little about women being raped, that he can’t even conceive that others do care about it.

      2. Really? You use the word poor about Santa Ana?
        2010 census:
        Blacks = 1.5%
        Asians = 10.5%
        Whites = 55.1%
        Hispanic-ish the rest? (census data has this thing called “Hispanic or Latino of any race”)

        1. Santa Ana is split between the relatively rich and the very poor. The hills are quite wealthy, but South Santa Ana is crime-ridden shithole.

          But yeah – the black population of Santa Ana is near non-existent. It’s been a Latin ghetto for decades.

          1. I must say that I love spending my free time at sex in oberösterreich

    2. The city of Santa Ana is taking California to court over plans to move coronavirus patients into a state-owned facility there.

      NPR- Why Bringing Ebola Patients To The U.S. Is The Right Thing To Do

      God I love the internet and being able to look up what Lefties said in the past.

      1. Those lefties, so awful. Not like our beloved righties, who stand up for liberty. For example, I really like the way Trump is fighting renewal of the PATRIOT ACT, don’t you, LC?

        1. ““You are a guy who sits around all day and bitches … on a website”

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          1. Wherever I am on the trolling food chain, you are one level lower. Take a few minutes to reflect on that.

            1. I think having one of your sock trolls defend your other sock troll puts you squarely at the bottom.

      2. What did they say about Ebola a couple of years ago?

        1. Nvm, link did not populate until after I replied

          1. NPR must be going downhill if the link took that long to load.

    3. In other news, Chevrolet is suing General Motors for restraint of trade. Seems like Santa Ana has forgotten that they’re a political subdivision of California and exist solely at the pleasure of the state.

  2. Philadelphia says the religious nonprofit is in violation of its nondiscrimination policy.

    It’s discrimination all the way down. Also, Filthadepthsia sucks for unrelated reasons.

    1. Shutting down nonprofits that help children because it screens better than the rest because “principles” is so libertarian.

      Look up rates of child abuse and domestic violence in lesbian couples and don’t get back to me because we know the answer.

      1. I wouldn’t leave out gay couples automatically but I don’t think this foster care is successful because they’re lucky either.

      2. re: “rates of child abuse and domestic violence in lesbian couples”

        Actually, I don’t know the answer. From what I can find this morning, however, the answer appears to be “statistically indistinguishable from rates of the population at large”. Do you have hard evidence to the contrary?

        1. ugh… fine

          43.8% of lesbian women and 61.1% of bisexual women have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime, as opposed to 35% of heterosexual women.

          https://ncadv.org/blog/posts/domestic-violence-and-the-lgbtq-community

          1. That’s pretty fucked up that, if you’re a lesbian, you have a nearly 50 percent chance of being in an abusive relationship, and over 50 percent if you like both sausage and fish. The numbers for straight women aren’t much better, but god-damn.

            1. I used to work with a really large, butch lesbian. She said she would frequently have femmes that wanted her to slap them around during sex, which she wasn’t into.

          2. So recitation of statistics but no documentation of sources or discussion of their methodology. We can’t validate the numbers or even make guesses about the rigor of the analysis or the validity of their conclusions. Without a proper evaluation of the survey’s methodology, we also can’t determine if this is even vaguely relevant to the claims you are implying above (that the adoptive children are at any greater risk of violence). All told, that’s a pretty uncompelling source.

            By the way, your claim that 35% of heterosexual women have experienced “rape, physical violence and/or stalking” has been rather thoroughly investigated and debunked. While any violence against women is a tragedy, it is flatly untrue that it happens to one out of every three. The reviewers that have looked into that particular statistic found that the “authors” got to their result only by using implausibly broad definitions of “rape” and “violence”.

        2. ugh… fine

          A study in the US suggests that same-sex relationships suffer higher levels of domestic violence than heterosexual ones. Why is this, and how are Americans dealing with the problem?

          https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29994648

          1. I like the holier than thou attitude from the BBC. Were studies done of European same-sex relationships?

          2. Okay, this article is slightly better. At least they mentioned their sources in passing. As near as I can tell, they are referring to this study by R Carroll of Northwestern Univ.

            Unfortunately, that study is paywalled so we can’t really evaluate it, either. And the article you linked explicitly mentions that the CDC finds the rate of violence to be “just as often as those in heterosexual relationships”, a conclusion which contradicts Carroll’s findings.

            1. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140919140856.htm

              Blurb that goes into a little more detail about that study. The full paper is, as you note, annoyingly paywalled.

              I hate it when profs don’t make their papers available on their own website after a given amount of time. To hell with the academic publishing plantation.

      3. Literally typed “child abuse and domestic violence in lesbian couples” into Google. Came up with a bunch of stuff about domestic abuse, nothing about child abuse.

          1. I tend not to judge people by demographic grouping.

            1. Ahahahahaha suddenly circumspect ahahahahahaja

            2. Statistics are racist!

            3. I don’t either. My point is that a successful foster care service should be allowed to continue their success without us shoving wokeness down their throats.

              I am merely pointing out one example that would suggest their judgement is has lead to their success.

              1. You went beyond that. You dug up a study to go beyond neutrality to asserting that lesbians statistically make worse parents. You said it, at least own it.

                1. So you’re Little Jeffy then.

          2. Regenerus’s study didn’t change anyone’smind because it’s junk science.

            It’s about on par with that “study” from the 80s claiming that gay men had an average life expectancy of 40.

            1. “because it’s junk science.”

              Ahahahaha I dismiss things I don’t like hahahahahahah

          3. I clicked, Ryan, mainly to find out which academic just set his career on fire. UT Austin, hmmm. Hope he has tenure.

          4. I’m guessing that these links aren’t changing anyone’s mind because you aren’t acting as if you’ve actually read any of them. This CBS article is, in my opinion, the best reference you’ve provided so far. The article links directly to the study itself and accurately describes the authors’ methodology. Even more importantly, the article cites at length the multiple scientific and statistical criticisms of the study.

            So, less bad than your prior links but still not sufficient to prove your case.

      4. Shutting down nonprofits that help children because it screens better than the rest because “principles” is so libertarian.

        Perhaps you can point out someone making a case for shutting down these nonprofits?

        1. What do you thinks going to happen when wokeness is shoved down this religious groups throat?

          If you don’t get how the left operates by now, you never will.

          1. So when you say

            Shutting down nonprofits that help children because it screens better than the rest because “principles” is so libertarian.

            You meant to say lefties or proggies or something like that?

            1. He means you can’t stop crying

            2. I am saying that sarcastically. I think libertarians should allow successful nonprofits to be successful and operate how they please.

              I also don’t know what libertarians believe anymore, I seem to stray further from the idea every day.

          2. What do you thinks going to happen when wokeness is shoved down this religious groups throat?

            Same thing we’ve been seeing for two decades… other folks, who don’t intend to discriminate, step up.

            And is that really unreasonable? Consider if this were the DMV instead of adoption/fostering. If a city-contractor said it wouldn’t process driver’s license applications for gingers, it’d be obvious that the city could choose to not renew the contract and find someone else to provide the service without regards to whether someone was a ginger, regardless of why the contractor didn’t want to serve gingers.

            1. Is the DMV a nonprofit?

              Can I use an alternative to the DMV?

              Where am I?

              How did I get here?

              1. Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
                Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
                Into the blue again after the money’s gone
                Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground

  3. Coronaviurs + CA homeless population = US pandemic. Yay.

    1. What is the over/under on how many more Americans will die from the virus with CA homeless as an incubation pool?

      I eagerly await “the libertarian case for keeping the border open for those with the Coronavirus because America was founded on slavery and all Americans deserve to die”

      1. “The libertarian case for social justice for indigenous peoples seeing whitey get what they deserve”

        1. thats what cigarettes are for what more could they want. they gave whity COPD

      2. Because we all know brown people don’t wash their hands, and white people do, amiright, Ra’s?

        1. Yea, totally ignore the entire Dem slate of Presidential candidates saying “let everyone in and pay for their healthcare”. Nobody needs us to do, amiright?

          1. That is no one’s platform. Not a single candidate from either party has promised open borders.

            Not wanting to kidnap children forever /= open borders.

            But you knew that, goon.

            1. AHAHAHAH HAVEN’T PROMISED IT AHAHAHAHAHAHHA

            2. Did you not watch your own debates, dipshit? Or do you just have the memory span of a fucking goldfish?

              1. https://www.npr.org/2019/09/12/759442642/immigration-where-2020-democratic-candidates-stand-on-border-crossings-and-more

                Go ahead and show me which candidate(s) want to “let everyone in and pay for their healthcare”. Bernie is probably the closest, but that still is not his position.

                1. It’s fun to watch you try so hard to look stupid.

                2. The Democrat position boils down to, “we should tell them they can’t come into our country without our permission, but if they’re naughty and cross the border anyway, we should let them stay and support them forever, and give their children citizenship.” Lip service to immigration control and toothless enforcement; open borders in practice.

                3. Try citing something from this decade.

            3. So, you’re doing parody now?

      3. Not just California–throw in Portland and Seattle, too. Those cities are the perfect vectors for a modern-day plague because their administrations work hand-in-dick with radical left-wing advocacy groups to baby the homeless.

        That proposal by the State of Jefferson areas in east Oregon and northern California to join up with Idaho is looking better all the time.

        1. Is there any major port-city that isn’t a “perfect vector”?

          This ain’t a partisan thing. It’s just the economic conditions that make port cities awesome also make them attractive to homeless folks.

          1. Mobile AL

            Got any more brain-busters?

            1. Virginia Beach, Beaumont, Plaquemines, ….

              1. Corpus Christi, Pensacola, Charleston…

          2. This ain’t a partisan thing. It’s just the economic conditions that make port cities awesome also make them attractive to homeless folks.

            Denver, Colorado is a port city?

          3. “Is there any major port-city that isn’t a “perfect vector”?”

            I’ll take the ones that haven’t had a recent Typhus epidemic: https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/typhus-epidemic-worsens-in-los-angeles/1238/

            Typhus. Like you would read about as affecting an army in the field on the Eastern Front. What’s next, Cholera?

            It absolutely is a partisan thing, Escher. The heavily Democrat Party dominated West coast cities are basket cases when it comes to public health and dealing with their vagrancy problem. Adding a communicable (R0 for SARS-CoV-2 is now thought to be in the 3 to 4-ish range), lethal (CFR is around 3%, roughly 10x that of influenza), disease to their hygiene-challenged population is going to be like dropping a match in gasoline.

            When Houston, Tampa, or hell, even New Orleans, as fucked up as they are, gets a typhus plague because of their incompetent city management, let me know.

          4. Any of the major port cities on the Great Lakes.

            1. The North Coast. My region.

              Humans vs virus

              Advantages to humans:

              Highly developed medical care. Cleveland for example is a medical hub.

              Relatively low rate for international travel and tourism. Detroit is not Orlando. Chicago OTOH is a big hub for business for example. So some +/- there.

              Homeless indigent population at risk. They are but while there is plenty of poverty there are few on the street homeless. Too cold.

              Population tends to be stable on the North Coast. Not much political instability.

              Virus advantages:

              They tend to like colder weather. The proteins last longer on colder surfaces.

              Transportation corridors not just the lakes. Traffic moves here. Lots of people to feed. The reserve of needed goods and services is not high.

              Just a few back of the envelope thoughts.

    2. Is it possible to quarantine the entire state? Just throwing out ideas here.

      1. Build a wall!

      2. But seriously, doesn’t California already have border checkpoints for produce? Maybe they could be repurposed. And maybe “but seriously” was overstating.

        1. My feeling is they don’t want them moved to AL because the majority will get deported once they leave the most-holy sanctuary of CA. All those Democrat votes lost, such a tragedy!

  4. In a win for women prisoners, men can now claim they are women, get transferred, rape a woman, then have prison guards cover it up including by punishing the actual women prisoners.

    https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/lawsuit-female-prisoner-says-she-was-raped-transgender-inmate

    #ImWithHer

    1. Although rape is a very serious issue, women who happen to have penises are still women. If incarcerated, they have a fundamental human right to be held in a facility that matches their gender identity.

      Perhaps Reason’s official LGBTQ+ correspondent Scott Shackford can follow up his series on TRANSGENDER BATHROOM PANIC with a new focus on TRANSGENDER PRISON PANIC.

      #TransWomenAreWomen

      1. Of trans women are women… They wouldnt need the trans modifier.

    2. If I was sent to prison, I would definitely act TransInnocent and demand immediate release. I mean how can the state deny my identification as TransInnocent?

      1. Worked for Bruce Jenner. Bye bye, vehicular manslaughter case!

    3. You are sitting in your mom’s basement, seeking out stories like this to worry yourself sick over.

      1. You are sitting in your mom’s basement, fapping furiously over stories like this.

        1. He’s sitting in his mom’s basement getting triggered by an internet troll lololl

          1. Wherever I am on the trolling food chain, you are one level lower. Reflect on your sad life.

    4. BELIEVE ALL WOMEN has been memory-holed.

      BELIEVE ALL TRANSWOMEN WITH PENISES. WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA

    5. Quit seeking out culture war clickbait, dude. Are you 80 or what?

      1. Lololo cry more

        “my stupid fucking politics resulted in this, but CLICKBAIT” ahahahahaha

        1. Not my politics. I know you guys are functionally morons, but opposing Trump is not a criteria for being a lefty.

          1. Yea, but pretty much everything you say is.
            Tell us more about the wonders of nationalized healthcare and the overwhelming racism of the climate apocalypse

      2. Hey everyone, look who’s cool with women being raped!

        1. You follow many rape stories that don’t involve some culture war battle point?

          That’s what I thought.

          1. Look who assumes no one else cares about women being raped, because he doesn’t care about women being raped!

    1. “To be sure, they made adjustments.”

      Hey, they got themselves their own Robby.

      1. Damnit! And the Post was supposed to be Soave’s safe school too. Well, that’s out.

        C’mon, New York Times come on! Daddy needs a new Mercedes!

    2. Trump: Calls journo’s enemies of the state, lies constantly in ways that are extremely easy to disprove, breaks presidential and just general good citizenship norms like crazy.

      Journos: We need to cover this president differently than past presidents.

      Trump: Shocked face.

      1. Stop seeking out CLICKBAIT ahahahahhaahah

      2. “breaks presidential and just general good citizenship norms”

        You mean he doesn’t get his duck sucked in the oval office or murder drone American citizens?ahahahahhaaha

        MUH NORMS!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        1. I mean he has had the secret service spend 100’s of millions staying at properties he owns, while spending 1/3 of his presidency golfing. I mean him getting on live TV and lobbying for election help from hostile governments. I mean him firing the head of intelligence services for giving a briefing on the facts. Etc.

          1. Obama was the golfmeister of presidents, bar none. Wait, did you say something about “head of intelligence giving a briefing on the facts”? Just give up now.

    3. “Big Journalism began to call a lie a lie.”

      Here she admits how they treated it when Obama lied.

  5. “A federal appeals court has sided with the Trump administration over an abortion ‘gag rule’ that prevents recipients of federal family-planning funding from providing abortion referrals.”

    We are literally living in The Handmaid’s Tale.

    #LibertariansForPubliclyFundedAbortion

    1. literally?

    2. So real. They love that effing victimhood screed.

    1. Been with plenty of liberal women. He’s not wrong.

      1. Certainly not

      2. The billions of dollars spent annually on bodice-ripper romance paperbacks are proof that Bernie had a point.

    2. Pepperidge Farms remembers when Lefties went after Ron Paul for owning a publication that published free lance articles with non-PC comments about race.

      This is Bernie Sanders writing this stuff.

      1. Hey Everyone, LC1789 is positively scandalized about these writings about women’s sexuality. Oh my, he’s getting tha vapors!

        Actual rape accusations spanning across dozens of accusers of 3 decades, on tape bragging about grabbing women by their pussies and helping himself to eyefuls of 14 year olds in changing rooms, flying the lolita express and calling Epstein a “good guy”, nah that’s nothing.

        1. He made you make a stupid fucking sock puppet because he triggers you Jeff ahahahhaha

          1. “Look at what a reaction I get by pretending to be retarded!”

        2. With all that evidence, they should press charges.

  6. Think everyone is finally on board that the New York Times story about Russia helping Trump in 2020 was bullshit.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/incredible-top-intel-official-overstated-russian-interference-in-2020-election-to-help-trump/

    1. Look up the word nuance. Then try it out!

      1. Look up the word traffic, then go play in it.

        1. Another one who doesn’t understand the difference between an overstated headline and a falsified intel briefing.

          1. Oh look everyone, DOL is just pulling random shit out of his ass and presenting it as evidence of…something.

          2. Sort of like a falsified FISA warrant.

    2. You’d be surprised. I still get people whining about Trump being Putin’s puppet, Russia is the reason Trump got elected, Russian hackers are the greatest threat to our democracy…etc.

      And they’re serious. Frothing at the mouth (as much as one can froth in text) serious.

  7. …whether a federal law that bars “encouraging or inducing” illegal immigration unconstitutionally criminalizes a wide range of speech protected by the First Amendment.

    It will be nice to get a break from the War on Drugs’ chipping away at our constitutional protections and let the War on Illegals have a crack.

    1. I am unaware of there being a constitutional right to aid and abet a crime.

      1. But you know that the overbreadth doctrine is a legitimate stop against a slide down an unconstitutional slope lawmakers always seem intent of taking us. I don’t know if that’s this but I don’t give any legislature the benefit of the doubt.

        1. It seems this law is aimed at people who set up shop specifically for the purpose of helping and encouraging people to break the immigration laws. I don’t see how that is any different than the government banning the “John’s School of Check Forgery and Advanced Larceny”

          1. Once government stepped over the Bright Line between teaching people things and actually committing a crime, we are way down on this slippery slope.

            Physically helping people break the law is illegal.
            Teaching people how to do things (even if illegal) is not a crime.

            Aid is the act of assisting people during the commission of a crime
            Abetting is assisting people after the commission of a crime.

            The Bright Line needs to be the physical act of committing the crime itself not talking about a crime or teaching people things.

            This is being used against gun owners who sell their guns to people who commit mass shootings. The gun sellers have zero culpability and the law should reflect that.

            1. I absolutely agree with LC here.

              We can’t defend people who publish plans to make “illegal” 3D printed guns online as free speech, and claim that people who tell people how to avoid arrest for “illegally” being somewhere aren’t exercising speech.

              We don’t get to choose which speech we like and don’t like and claim to have principles for free speech.

              1. You are missing the point. If you come to me and pay me money for those plans and I give them to you and tell you where you can manufacture them, I absolutely am guilty. The law says making money off of it. So, it isn’t going to cover someone just saying something or putting out information.

                I understand that you guys hate immigration laws and want them all repealed. your problem is you are taking your objection to immigration laws and applying it to this law. And they are two different questions.

                1. I dunno about that.

                  I’d say that if John made some 3d printer files for producing a fully working M16 lower receiver and sold them on the internet for $15 a pop, I’d be on the side of his right to do so, profit motive or not.

                  Then again, I’m on the side of Backpage.com and that didn’t work out so well either, despite court rulings to the contrary.

                  1. “I’d say that if John made some 3d printer files for producing a fully working M16 lower receiver and sold them on the internet for $15 a pop, I’d be on the side of his right to do so, profit motive or not.”

                    I might too. Or the DeCSS code snippet.

                    It changes if John is not only selling the printer files, but working with his clients to help them manufacture a full-auto lower. Which is, if I understand it correctly, what the lawyer at issue was doing. She was actively continuing to perpetrate immigration fraud, instead of merely counselling her clients on what the law was and what it required her clients to do regarding their immigration paperwork.

                    Plenty of lawyers have clients who have been, are, or are thinking of breaking the law. Advising them on what the law is can’t be a crime. Helping them continue breaking the law generally is. The line between the two can be thin.

                    1. What if you pay me to design a bomb, and I make blueprints/instructions which you then follow exactly to build the bomb?
                      What if you pay me to design a demolition plan for the Brooklyn Bridge, and I make a blueprint/instructions where to place the explosives and how powerful they need to be?
                      What if you pay me to do both?

                      It’s not exactly a black/white issue

                    2. Nardz, if you make the bomb to be used in blowing up the bridge than your accessory. You did something to further that crime that would not have happened without your help.

                      Telling some terrorist where the best place to put bombs should not be a crime because that terrorist can figure it out on their own. Plus, you have the 1st Amendment on your side.

                      The 1A can be very black and white. Just like the 1A only covers “peaceable” assembly, not unpeaceful assembly. The 1A is not supposed to make it easy for government. The Founders wanted Americans protected so they can hang out peacefully, talk about what they want, complain about government, and practice religion how they want to.

                      As long as people dont get hurt from your direct actions.

                      In law we have a legal principle about Causation. The Courts have so stretched that principle to include almost anyone for any reason in a crime. Intervening and superseding causes dont count for much anymore and that is a real problem. We need more concrete legal points where a bunch of behavior is protected until you hurt others, damage property, or commit a crime against the state (i.e. perjury).

                    3. At what point am I participating in conspiracy?
                      Or should conspiracy not be a crime?
                      I’m open to arguments either way

                    4. Conspiracy shouldnt even be a crime. You either participate in a crime or not. Conspiracy was hatched with RICO to go after mob bosses who ordered crimes but never did the crimes themselves.

                      The government should make ordering a crime to be carried out a crime. Im on board with that. Discussing a crime is not good enough to qualify as a criminal conspiracy.

                2. The law is unconstitutional.

                  That’s the point you keep dodging.

                  “And they are two different question”

                  Nope. And it doesn’t become “Yes huh” just because you insist otherwise and insult people.

                  1. The law is unconstitutional.

                    Precisely. “Congress shall make no law…” is pretty clear. Similarly, “…shall not be infringed.” That was the point I was attempting to make in the full article on this subject. Just because you don’t like the outcome of the speech, whether it is immigration, guns, “hate” speech, the right to free expression is just that. Expression can only infringe on someone else’s rights in specific instances like property damage or trespassing (you don’t have free speech on private property).

                    In the theme of all I need to know I learned in Kindergarten… even Kindergartners learn that there’s a difference between words and actions (sticks and stones). That should apply equally here.

                3. John, I dont hate Immigration laws and this story just brings up a good argument AGAINST laws that criminalize teaching people things or talking about crimes.

                  This is just where the mind crime line has to be drawn,

                  Remember movies where the “criminal” does all the planning, drives up to a house to burgle, walks to the door, and then walks away? That person committed no crime.

                  If you pay someone to cross the border. If you drive them across the border. If you give illegals a place to stay. if you help an illegal get fake documents for a stay inside the USA. If you distract Border Patrol agents away from a crossing you aided… I am on board with those being immigration crimes.

                  1. What if you use your expertise in the law to advise an illegal alien on which lies to tell and how to tell them in order to avoid or delay deportation, expecting that your advice will be followed? Aren’t you then an accomplice? I see a grey area here at the least.

                    1. Nope. The person lying on the forms or lying to immigration agents committed the crime.

                      Most laws can be very black and white. Lawyers tend to make sure jurisprudence is very gray area, so they make money to wade thru complexity.

                      The founders were fond of black and white law. Either the constitution enumerates the power or it doesnt.

                4. Hrm…

                  Nah. You can print out the Anarchist Cookbook, sell it, and still be in the clear. Not ever copyright law is gonna get you.

            2. Aid is the act of assisting people during the commission of a crime
              Abetting is assisting people after the commission of a crime.

              And helping someone to plan a crime is conspiracy.

              1. Conspiracy shouldnt be a crime.

                Talking about a crime, planning a crime, almost committing a crime should be 100% legal. Once you attempt to commit the crime or actually perpetrate the crime, you are in violation of the law.

                Thinking about speeding should be legal.
                Talking about speeding should be legal.
                Planning to speed should be legal.
                Exceeding the speed limit is illegal. You as the driver are responsible (barring some legal excuse like duress) . It doesnt matter if someone told you to speed.

                1. That’s ridiculous. If you are involved in the conception, planning, and preparation for a specific crime, and the crime is committed, then you are a participant in the crime whether or not you were the actual trigger man. Should the getaway car driver at a bank robbery go free because he didn’t actually remove the money from the bank and it’s not illegal to give a pal a lift? Would you say that hiring a hit man should be legal, because it’s not illegal to talk about wanting someone dead or to give someone money? No, sorry, conspirators are guilty when a crime is committed, whether or not they were on the scene or physically committed the planned acts. According to your way of looking at it, Charles Manson should not have gone to prison.

      2. Nice circular reasoning there. Make it a crime to question climate change and hey! it’s not a free speech issue anymore, it’s aiding and abetting a crime!

        1. There is nothing circular about it at all. Yes, it assumes that immigration laws are valid laws. If you think they are not, then make that argument. You are not doing that. Instead, you are just assuming they are invalid and then claiming this law is invalid. You are begging the question.

          Immigration laws are not the same as making debating the climate illegal. Moreover, these laws do not criminalize arguing against immigration laws. They criminalize making it your business to help people break those laws.

          So, try again.

          1. Somebody should tell John you stole his handle and are using it to post some fucked-up shit here. I don’t even know how to respond to this garbage. It’s got nothing to do with immigration law, it’s about talking about the issue being classified as “aiding and abetting”. Which is exactly like making it a crime to question climate change.

            1. I don’t what to tell you other than you don’t understand what aiding and abetting is. It is not telling the world that it is great to steal. It is me helping you steal something or get away with it after you do.

              So, my saying climate change is bullshit is not aiding and abetting anything. You don’t know how to respond because you have no idea what you are talking about.

              I don’t know how to make it any simpler than I have. If you still can’t understand, just shut up. Whatever you do, do project your inability to understand on me. No one is fucked up here except you and your complete inability to grasp what is being said.

              1. So, if the internal combustion engine were criminalized, and you gave paid classes on how to build one (basically just mechanical engineering), would that be “aiding and abetting?”

                1. John is wrong on this, and knows it, and is looking for cover.

                2. “So, if the internal combustion engine were criminalized, and you gave paid classes on how to build one (basically just mechanical engineering), would that be “aiding and abetting?”

                  It might. See, Cyto’s example of supplying information to manufacture fully automatic AR-lowers upthread.

                  There’s obvious tension between not aiding and abetting people in committing crime, and the First Amendment’s prohibition of laws criminalizing speech. It’s not an easy bright line area, despite how much many Libertarians wish it were so.

          2. I’m sure you could “compelling government interest” your way into some pretty draconian laws around climate change denialism.

            “Compelling Government Interest” is this generation’s Commerce Clause.

        2. Producing carbon is now a crime?

  8. Yes cities can be forced to accept them. Which part of “state owned facility” does ENB not understand?

    1. Too much coffee this morning?

      1. Hi DOL.

    2. That seems to be the obvious take. If it’s just a matter of the city asserting it’s own semi-autonomy over the state then I’m willing to argue bow far either’s authority extends. This is a state owned facility within the boundaries of the city. I’d guess the land itself is directly owned by the state. If that’s the case, then the state has authority over how the facility is used regardless of the city’s protests

  9. Anderson Cooper: Do you know how all– how much though? I mean, do you have a price tag for– for all of this?
    Bernie Sanders: We do. I mean, you know, and– and– the price tag is– it will be substantially less than letting the current system go. I think it’s about $30 trillion.

    Anderson Cooper: That’s just for Medicare for All, you’re talking about?

    Bernie Sanders: That’s just Medicare for All, yes.

    Anderson Cooper: Do you have– a price tag for all of these things?

    Bernie Sanders: No, I don’t. We try to– no, you mentioned making public colleges and universities tuition free and cancelling all student debt, that’s correct. That’s what I want to do. We pay for that through a modest tax on Wall Street speculation.

    Anderson Cooper: But you say you don’t know what the total price is, but you know how it’s gonna be paid for. How do you know it’s gonna be paid for if you don’t know how much the price is?

    Bernie Sanders: Well, I can’t– you know, I can’t rattle off to you ever nickel and every dime. But we have accounted for– you– you talked about Medicare for All. We have options out there that will pay for it.

    1. But you’re not thinking about the costs we would incur for not abdicating our freedoms to socialist leaders.

      1. You call our current healthcare situation “free”?

        1. No, he didn’t. Your reading skills suck bruh.

          1. “abdicating our freedoms” What was he referring to there, smart guy?

    2. Real Larry King-level, ‘hard-hitting’ interview there.

      1. Actually, for Anderson Cooper and a democrat… yes, that’s brutal.

        Bernie is definitely not on the CNN preferred candidate list any more.

        (compare and contrast with 12 years of Obama as a national figure. The only “tough” question he ever got asked was by Joe the Plumber, and that guy got eviscerated by the mainstream media as they rushed to rehabilitate the president. Other than that, Obama faced questions like “How hard is it, dealing with these republicans?”)

        1. Bernie was never their boo. CNN is full of establishment Democrats.

    3. “”We pay for that through a modest tax on Wall Street speculation.””

      And idiots on the left will try to blame the wall street crash on Trump if Bernie wins.

    4. “Anderson Cooper: But you say you don’t know what the total price is, but you know how it’s gonna be paid for. How do you know it’s gonna be paid for if you don’t know how much the price is?”

      To be fair to Bernie, that’s never been a standard that Cooper, or anyone else at CNN, has ever seen fit to hold against any other politician.

  10. Jonathan Chait doesn’t understand why Democrats aren’t more “terrified” of Bernie Sanders.

    They secretly want four more years of Trump?

    1. In some ways, yes they do. It is always more fun to be out of power fighting the man than in power and actually responsible for things. And they also agree with Bernie. Their only problem with Bernie is that he is being too honest such that they don’t believe the rubes will vote for him. None of them have any issue with what Bernie would actually do should he become President. Bernie is their dream candidate. They just don’t think he can win.

      1. Establishment Dems would rather be in charge of a Dem party out of power than not in charge of a Dem party in power.

        Indispensable Enemies: The Politics of Misrule in America Paperback – January 1, 2010
        by Walter Karp (Author)

        https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1879957132/reasonmagazinea-20/

        1. “Establishment Dems would rather be in charge of a Dem party out of power than not in charge of a Dem party in power.”

          And so would Establishment Republican leaders. Maybe there’s something to this whole Uniparty thing?

          I do think Establishment Dems aren’t quite ready for ripping the whole mask off the movement that Bernie represents. Many of them haven’t thought through the endpoint of their desired policies, and seeing an embodiment of them in Bernie Sanders has to be a little disconcerting.

      2. It’s also a lot more fun to be For the Green New Deal and harangue those evil polluters who are against it, than actually having to implement a Green New Deal, and dealing with the backlash.

        Think of Healthcare.gov x 20,0000

        1. Not to mention unrealized nebulous plans are always great fundraising opportunities, and that goes away as soon as they become realized plans

    2. The freakout about Bernie isn’t ideological, it’s rhetorical.
      Bernie is simply saying out loud what the Democrats have had as the basis of their party for over a decade

    3. You had me at “Johnathan Chait doesn’t understand”….

  11. Biden has never been my first choice, but I like the way he’s talking about common sense gun safety.

    Biden, pointing toward the cameras for effect, addressing gun manufacturers: “I’m coming for you, and I’m taking you down!”

    I bet this makes longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn quite happy.

    #BanAssaultWeapons
    #UnbanMichaelHihn

    1. But he announced yesterday he was running for Congress, not the presidency.

      1. Ugh, I’m so sick of conservatives pouncing on every minor verbal mistake Biden makes. Don’t believe the Faux News lie that he’s declining mentally.

        1. Am I Laurel or Hardy on this back and forth?

          1. The fat one.

        2. No serious person believes Joe Biden is any less sharp today than he’s ever been.

          1. That’s COLD!

          2. absolutely savage

          1. “Vote for the other Biden”

            Thats a slogan for ya

    1. Best part was Sotomayor crying and exposing herself.

      1. Now we all know what kind of women Jesse is into.

        1. This comment makes no sense. Try harder.

          1. HA! I’ll tell you, you certainly give Serious Sam a run for his money. You can’t even see the humor in saying that you like Sotamayor exposing herself.

            1. *barf*

          2. Oh, it makes plenty of sense. Points to $park where credit is due.

            1. This. I got the joke. And then vomited.

    2. Keep them brown people out of our white country!

      1. And out of our white liberal neighborhoods, unless they’re mowing our lawns or cleaning our houses because we’re too lazy to get our soft, pink hands dirty!

      2. What they get excited about is very, very telling. No racists here, no siree!

        1. I like how you think we don’t know you’re responding to yourself.

          1. Think whatever you want. You are as irrelevant here as you are in every other arena of life.

          2. I’m not De Oppresso Liber, you dumbshit.

      3. Keep Lovecon living rent free in trumpkisser’s head!

        1. You know you’ve pissed off some unreason staff when they create 2+ sock trolls spoofs to say stupid shit.

          If only unreason staff spent this energy doing actual journalism. The Glib guys might come back and donate.

  12. General thrust is to open platforms up to liability for running demonstratively false political ads.

    Demonstratively false. This oughta be good.

    1. General Thrust was my nickname in high school.
      It changed to General Thrust To Open Platforms in college

      1. Then it became General Thrust Open To Liability, and I had a sad…

        1. Was your ex Major Pain by any chance?

          1. Only after Liability replaced Platforms

      2. Congratulations on the promotion, General.

  13. What would free, quality child care and pre-K mean for you and your family?

    — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 24, 2020
    It would mean that strangers were raising my child, you commie freak show. So yeah…no.

    The other selling point for the early Thought Police invasion is that children purportedly thrive if you snatch them from the womb and toss them over to a preschool teacher with an IQ of 90. This ignores the fact that the generation that figured out how to put a man on the moon did it all without the benefit of a pre-K “education.” Not everyone even went to kindergarten back then.

    1. I haven’t heard of any plan to make pre-K mandatory, so it’s only “strangers were raising my child” if you want it to be.

      That said, a big difference between now and “the generation that figured out how to put a man on the moon” is that, today, most middle-class households are dual-income, rather then single-income.

      Find a way to change the American economy such that middle-class households don’t feel pushed into both spouses working, and you’ll see the calls for more child-care services dwindle.

      1. No need to ‘change’ the economy. One need only change their desires to match what a single income can afford, which is still a heck of a lot better than a 1960s single income could afford.

        So the 350k modern home with master suite becomes a 200k or less ranch from the 60s or 70s. The family vehicles get a little older and less luxury. You don’t have an RV, you have tents and sleeping bags. And so on.

        1. True to an extent, but the pervasiveness of consumer credit that’s become the foundation of our economy has caused substantial price inflation too

        2. Tomato/tomato.

          If you managed to change the culture as you say, that would change the economy. Approach it from whatever angle you want, that’s your nut to crack.

    2. But literally snatching toddlers from their parents is a-ok. Because icky browns.

      1. Sure trumpkisser.

        1. Unlike you, I don’t feel the need for more attention than a single handle warrants.

          You are never going to get the absent love of your mommy on here. Stop trying so hard.

      2. Orange Man Bad! Even when doing what Obama was wonderful for doing!

  14. A federal appeals court has sided with the Trump administration over an abortion “gag rule” that prevents recipients of federal family-planning funding from providing abortion referrals.

    Umm… it isnt a gag rule. The entities can discuss abortion freely. They can not help schedule and refer patients. They are free to discuss it. A bit dishonest there.

    1. It’s total spinning of the decision.

      Lefties cannot give a factual news story if their lives depended on it.

      1. Breitbart and FOX, on the other hand, they always report it straight, amiright, LC?

        1. OK DOL.

          1. God I didn’t even read his post, is he actually crying about Fox? Don’t be a fucking stereotype

          1. Hmm… who else do we see on here that thinks Libertarians look at FOX and Breibart?

    2. Oh? So the clinic could tell a patient who to call for an abortion? No, they could not. They are also forced to refer women to prenatal care, even if they really want an abortion. So they are gagged.

      I know it pains you that women are allowed many freedoms now that they weren’t in the good ol’ days, but you are just going to have to learn to live with it. They wouldn’t have fucked you in the old days, either.

      1. OK trumpkisser.

    3. I would like Republicans to view regulations on abortion with the same distaste they view regulations on firearms ownership. And for Democrats to do the same, but reversed.

      Both sides love burdening a distasteful right with as much regulation as they feel they can get away with. Leave people the hell alone. No, a fetus is not a person.

      1. “No, a fetus is not a person.”

        And yet, it’s undeniably human

        1. Lefties are all on board with criminal laws stacking charges when pregnant mothers are injured by some defendant.

          If you don’t want that human fetus…no problemo!

          1. Weird, I’ve seen more attempts by right-wing dominated jurisdictions, to make an unlawful killing of a fetus a murder, than by left-wing, but I’ll take your word for it.

            I agree with what I think you’re saying, that adding charges for killing a pre-viable fetus is incompatible with allowing abortion on demand.

            1. I’m pro abortion from a pragmatic and logical standpoint – I don’t really concern myself much with strangers (that is, my morality radiates from a center based on personal relationship). Haven’t dealt with it in my own life, so don’t know how I’d react to reality vs abstract.
              From an absolute moral standpoint, it’s certainly a dilemma and debatable.
              I’m just not going to pretend that abortion is anything other than terminating human life.

  15. Biden Wishes Some Country, Any Country, Would Try To Influence Election For Him https://t.co/iY0Kly8R6Q

    — The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) February 25, 2020

    1. This is so sad.

      Here @JoeBiden says to the crowd in South Carolina that he is “running for the United States Senate” and that if they don’t like him they can “vote for the other Biden.”

      I honestly wish he would’ve retired & not subjected himself to the rigors of this campaign. pic.twitter.com/mygFnsrdjC

      — Shaun King (@shaunking) February 25, 2020

      1. Accidental flag announced
        Fn pop up vids

        1. Shaun king deserves to be flagged.

          1. Fuck!
            Another accidental flag.
            Fuck Reason for now making me click on the fucking video to get the “x” to appear so I can click it and close the fucking video.
            Fucking grifters

            1. unreason changed the little videos to have moving target “x” so you cant cancel it as easy.

              Shows desperation of unreason.

      2. He also said yesterday that he negotiated the Paris Climate treaty in 2015 with a chinese politician who’s been dead 20+ years, and he’s said 3 times so far this week that he and our UN ambassador were arrested in S. Africa during the ’70s while trying to visit Mandela. The ambassador has said that’s false, it never happened. This is a fucking comedy act, THIS was the guy the Dems were pushing to be their front runner?

        1. Is he trying to throw the game? Was he always this stupid? Is he actually suffering from some sort of cerebral hemorrhage induced dementia?

          At least we hopefully won’t be dealing with him, if Super Tuesday goes as bad for him as I think it will.

          1. It’s dementia, has to be. Half the time he doesn’t even know what state he’s in. It would also explain why he’s so defensive about questions and borderline assaults voters who ask him very basic shit that he’ll have to answer should he ever gets to the general election. Not to mention how his campaign is trying to keep him out of the public eye as much as possible between debates.

            1. OK, so dementia.

              Likely he’s going to be toast (or at least smell it everywhere) after the next debate. Where do his supporters go? Bloomie? Maybe the minorities go for Sanders?

              He still pulls about 20-25% in most of the big states.

            2. And when is the last time, prior to campaigning for president, he’s actually had to work/think?

  16. “My name is Joe Biden. I’m a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate. Look me over, if you like what you see, help out. If not, vote for the other Biden,” the 77-year-old said in his remarks at the First in the South Dinner, according to a video that has gone viral on Twitter.

    It’s just sad at this point.

    As with RBG, these old people with Alzheimers really should retire from public office.

    1. I dunno…. as an election strategy it is pretty solid.
      Just vote for Biden on the ballot! Whether you like me, or want someone else… just mark next to Biden. Don’t worry… that’s how it works.

      Thanks!

  17. If he were a Republican, we’d be reading, “Trump associate and GOP donor Harvey Weinstein.” But since he was a Democratic donor and buddy of the Clintons and Obama, he’s just “Harvey Weinstein.” A small but revealing instance of #FakeNews at work! https://t.co/eYOzPuwPIJ

    — Dinesh D’Souza (@DineshDSouza) February 18, 2020

    1. +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

      1. Yeah, all those photos of Harvey with his high powered DNC friends are suddenly memory holed.

        1. You want amusement?
          Ask Willie Brown about his friendship with Jim Jones. He instatntly has some business on the other side of the room.

          1. Or Feinstein. Jim had one hell of a get out the vote army when the People’s Temple was in Ess Eff. A whole lot of Bay Area politicians owe his group a lot as far as the time, money, and influence his followers gave them.

            1. Jimmy Carter once described Jim Jones as “a man of the highest character.”

  18. “Seven people in Italy have died from the virus and at least 272 have been infected.”

    On Monday, there were supposedly only a handful infected in Italy. I suspect we’re either talking about the sudden availability of test kits or the virus transmits much more quickly than was originally appreciated.

    One of the things this virus and the reactions to it are demonstrating is the wisdom of markets and the invisible hand.

    Government experts are debating about whether travel bans and the like are a good idea while individuals are canceling non-essential travel left and right. The experts should be looking at the markets for wisdom rather than the other way around. Few market participants need an expert to tell them that non-essential travel to Italy and parts of Asia should probably be avoided, and, oh yeah, maybe hold off on booking that trip to Disney World with the kids this summer.

    Imagine the level of stupidity necessary for people who wait for experts to tell them what (not) to do. And does anybody but the experts put any trust in the statistics coming out of China or Iran?

    The financial markets are behaving rationally, as well, far more so than what we’d get from politicians if they were really in control of the economy. The markets are pricing in risk, the ten year treasury is dropping, inverting the yield curve and signaling a warning on future growth, and everyone is acting accordingly–to the uncertainty–just as they should. Anyone who thinks they can price the risks to the economy better than the bond market or the indexes is a fool.

    P.S. Bernie Sanders thinks he can do better than the bond market and the indexes.

    1. This is a pandemic. Don’t let the WHO fool you. This is a no kidding pandemic. The good news is that it is likely to be a mild one especially outside of Asia. Also, it is my understanding that the virus becomes significantly less contagious in warmer climates. So, that will likely save India and SE Asia and the coming of Spring and summer will give the US a break as well.

      1. I believe I was the first one to bring the virus up here in comments as a concern, but I wouldn’t take credit for predicting it would be this bad–and I wouldn’t predict it will get much worse or better either.

        I will say that government experts aren’t the place to look for information, predictions, or solutions.

        Look at this:

        “Drugmaker Moderna Inc. has shipped the first batch of its rapidly developed coronavirus vaccine to U.S. government researchers, who will launch the first human tests of whether the experimental shot could help suppress the epidemic originating in China.

        Moderna on Monday sent vaccine vials from its Norwood, Mass., manufacturing plant to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md., the company said. The institute expects by the end of April to start a clinical trial of about 20 to 25 healthy volunteers, testing whether two doses of the shot are safe and induce an immune response likely to protect against infection, NIAID Director Anthony Fauci said in an interview. Initial results could become available in July or August.

        Moderna’s turnaround time in producing the first batch of the vaccine—co-designed with NIAID, after learning the new virus’s genetic sequence in January—is a stunningly fast response to an emerging outbreak.

        https://www.wsj.com/articles/drugmaker-moderna-delivers-first-coronavirus-vaccine-for-human-testing-11582579099?

        The amazing thing about that report is the difference between how quickly a biotech company can develop a vaccine–and how long it takes a government agency to set up a test.

        Until the end of April?!

        Why does it take until the end of April to start testing?

        I bet it’s because it’s the government . . . and they’re busy doing other government things.

        1. Need time to… enroll… the homele- I mean, guinea pigs

          1. “Need time to… enroll… the homele- I mean, guinea pigs”

            This. The initial vaccine trials for SARS were harder on the experimental animals than the disease turned out to be. They still don’t have one for SARS or MERS. And it might be the case, given this is an RNA-virus and has already mutated a little already, that a sufficiently effective vaccine may not be able to be produced.

            The common cold is caused by a family of coronaviruses, and getting a vaccine for that has been famously near impossible.

        2. Because they are totally risk adverse. The government won’t be blamed for the deaths from the pandemic but they will be blamed if the test or the vaccines fails or kills someone. It is a perverse incentive. But part of that is the public’s fault. The public refuses to accept that sometimes there are not good options. It would be great to have a gold plated tested vaccine to put out today. But that isn’t an option. So putting out a less than perfectly tested is the best option available. But the public in large part refuses to understand that.

          1. We circle back around to horrible education in the USA, especially in science.

            What you said should be fully understood by high school kids as basic education about risk assessment in life and dealing with government.

            1. “We circle back around to horrible education in the USA, especially in science.”

              While I agree, it is pretty rich coming from you. You call climate scientist communist conspirators, but then accept a single report claiming the sun’s output will lower to make global warming moot as gospel. Even though that second report requires you to first accept that global warming is real. Whatever it takes to own the libs, right?

              1. “it is pretty rich coming from you. You”

                Ahahaha YOU AGREE WITH HIM BUT CANT STOP YOURSELF FROM CRYING BECAUSE HE TRIGGERS YOU TRUMPKISSER AHAHAHAHAAJAJAJ

                THAT is some pathetic shit ahahaajajaj

                1. He is pretty pathetic.

          2. I’m sure you’re right. All the tests need to be conducted in the right way.

            Ever heard of Operation Whitecoat?

            Everybody who’s seen Heartbreak Ridge and the story of Desmond Doss (First conscientious objector to win the Medal of Honor for bravery on the battlefield) knows that Adventists typically don’t want to carry weapons or shoot people. On the other hand, they’re also patriotic Americans who oppose things like the Imperial Japanese, the Nazis, and communism, and they’d hate for anyone to mistake their principled stance on “Thou shalt not kill” for cowardice or a lack of patriotism. So, especially during Vietnam, when they got drafted, the military would ask them to volunteer to be subjected to biological weapons tests. In fact, they may have targeted Adventists for the draft specifically because they wanted more volunteers for this research.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Whitecoat

            Point being, if there are people out there who are willing to undergo these vaccine tests and there are people who want to take the vaccine after some private company tests it on volunteers–with or without the government’s supervision. Then there’s no good reason why government supervision of this process should be necessary.

            If the government comes back with an approved vaccine in early August after the virus sweeps through and kills 1% of the U.S. population (3.3 million Americans)–a disproportionate amount of them infants, mind you–and we find out later that the vaccine could have been available in early March? It’ll be worse than that time the INS approved the 9/11 hijackers visa extension requests months after they’d perpetrated 9/11.

            1. the virus sweeps through and kills 1% of the U.S. population (3.3 million Americans)–a disproportionate amount of them infants, mind you

              So not only are you a lying sack of pus – you’re politically shameless too. FACT is this Covid19 virus is overwhelmingly deadly to the elderly, the diabetic, and people with pre-existing heart/lung problems. NOT infants or the young/healthy. The preliminary fatality rates range from 15% for the over-80’s to a bit less than 1% for the young/healthy. This virus may well do the work of trimming fed entitlement spending.

              1. Oh – and Covid-19 won’t likely really hit the US until next fall/winter. This is the first wave of the epidemic. First waves can always be contained a bit because they emanate from a single source.

                The outbreaks in Singapore/Thailand (both tropical) hit early – but that was entirely because of travelers coming in from Wuhan. There is very little person-to-person transmission there. That indicates it IS a ‘cold-weather’ virus like the flu/pneumonia. Korea/Italy/Iran are all cold-weather now which is why those places are also having human-human transmission.

                But that (three or maybe a couple more places – but everyone on-guard now) is still very contained. Once warm weather hits, the all-clear will be sounded. And global travel will resume. So that by next winter, the virus will pop up in 1000+ places – all simultaneously as the weather gets colder. #WeAreAllWuhan

                1. JFree
                  February.25.2020 at 11:25 am
                  “Oh – and Covid-19 won’t likely really hit the US until next fall/winter. This is the first wave of the epidemic. First waves can always be contained a bit because they emanate from a single source….”

                  You bet I’ll take this to the bank, from a constant liar.

                  1. “from a constant liar.”

                    But enough about Ken “I wasn’t lying it was a question that wasn’t a question” Shultz.

              2. Assuming that the impact of viruses is more severe in infants isn’t lying at all.

                “The burden of influenza is unevenly distributed, with more severe outcomes in children aged <5 years than older children and adults. In spite of this, immunisation policies for young children are far from universal. This article provides an overview of the published evidence on the burden of influenza in children worldwide"

                —-NIH

                IF IF IF any virus sweeps through the United States, or anywhere else, the mortality rate includes infants disproportionately–regardless of whether I’m a sack of pus–and I see no good reason to pretend otherwise.

                  1. Right, but youre a known and proven liar.

                  2. What the fuck does an article from 2013 have to do with CoVid-19?

                    There’s plenty of stuff online from WHO and Lancet (this one is based on Jan2 Wuhan admissions so very small sample – but an ACTUAL sample for this virus) and other sources who are gathering data and analyzing Covid-19 patients – in Wuhan. It’s still early (hence why I called it preliminary fatality rates) but there’s no way the disease reverses on a dime. The young/healthy don’t even seem to have symptoms serious enough for them to go to hospital in proportional numbers.

                    1. That the impact of flu viruses is more devastating to infants is about as controversial as the idea that wetness is caused by water.

                    2. Yeah well – us pretending that this is seasonal influenza will I’m sure reassure the CoVid-19 virus.

                    3. @Ken
                      No one is contesting that the flu is worse on infants.

                      People are pointing out that that data we have on CoVid-19 says it isn’t worse on infants.

                    4. Chinese officials may be full of shit when it comes to bad propaganda stats like infant mortality. Meanwhile, they may be telling mothers not to bring their flu babies to the hospital for fear of infecting the most vulnerable population. After all, the most common vector for transmission is in a hospital setting. Bringing babies into a hospital like that with sick adults may be like rescuing them from home and taking them into a burning building. Pediatricians often don’t want patients bringing your kid with chickenpox into their office for diagnosis anymore either.

                      Meanwhile, the reason infants disproportionately die from complications of flu viruses is because their immune systems are still undeveloped earlier in life, and there isn’t anything about this virus that makes that any different from others in that respect. There isn’t anything about a flu virus that makes older people more susceptible to death.

                      Meanwhile, even if those stats were correct, because none of the 41 admitted to what may be a hospital exclusively for adults with confirmed cases of the virus were infants, that doesn’t mean infants aren’t more likely to die from the virus if and when they are infected–and if the virus sweeps through the entirety of the American population, infants will be disproportionately represented in the mortality rate. There is no good reason to think otherwise.

                    5. There is no good reason to think otherwise.

                      Apart from all the actual data we do have about Covid19.

                      I understand the political scaremongering impact of pretending this is influenza and that ‘for the kids’ (rather than the R political base if Sanders is the D) is a response that looks medical but is in fact like everything DeRp entirely political.

                    6. “Apart from all the actual data we do have about Covid19.”

                      I can’t tell whether you didn’t read what I wrote or whether it’s beyond your comprehension–and I’m not sure it matters if you’re just committed to being willfully stupid.

                      Suffice it to say, a study that doesn’t include infants does not indicate that infants aren’t subject to increased mortality rates if and when they are infected with this virus.

                      The biggest thing that increases the mortality rate of infants isn’t a difference in the virus. It’s that infants, universally, have less developed immune systems.

                      The problem with your thinking goes far beyond that, too. If you found a study of burn victims that didn’t include infants, would that mean infants are impervious to fire?

                      Jesus Christ.

              3. “JFree
                February.25.2020 at 11:11 am
                the virus sweeps through and kills 1% of the U.S. population (3.3 million Americans)–a disproportionate amount of them infants, mind you

                So not only are you a lying sack of pus

                Anyone who follows what he says knows this, yes.

              4. “The preliminary fatality rates range from 15% for the over-80’s to a bit less than 1% for the young/healthy. This virus may well do the work of trimming fed entitlement spending.”

                Tell that to the young and vital people I am personally aware of who’ve caught this. (I’m acquainted with a doc in the middle of the Italian quarantine zone. He has described colleagues of his who’ve come down with it. Healthy one day, hospital the next, vent the day after that.)

                Or the first US patient in Snohomish County, WA, who, wait for it, was young and healthy other than having high cholesterol. He got to sit on a ventilator for eight days until the docs tried an antiviral that may or may not have worked.

                I had thought the hospitalized PM of Slovakia might have had it—he presented with fever and a serious respiratory tract infection—but he claims he didn’t have it. Which is good, as he had met with something like a half dozen European leaders at a conference the previous day, and quarantining those guys for two weeks would be awkward.

                But even if Ken’s wrong about it smacking infants around, 3.3 million deaths, all by itself, is about 125% of the total US death amounts for last year. It’d be at least doubling the strain on the medical system. Hell, it’d be more than that, as many ICU/CCU beds as serious/critical patients need, and the kind of respiratory support they require.

                This thing is awful. It will not trim fed entitlement spending. Medicare expenses will skyrocket with emergency end-of-life care, and tax revenues, along with general economic production, will probably sag.

                I hope fervently that the bug is a lot less virulent here than it has been in China. Italy is not making me happy about that.

                1. Oh everyone can get it. The question is who will it KILL

                  1. As a side note – the 1918 virus killed mostly young adults. They were the ones most likely to be out and about with a society too dependent on them at that time for them to self-quarantine and with them with not enough money saved up to decide to self-quarantine for a few weeks/months. Apparently the older folks then had some immunity from a late 1890’s flu virus.

                    But early indicators are that this virus doesn’t seem to create an effective immune response. But those are really way way too early since we won’t really know that until next winter’s outbreak in China.

                    1. Another aside, but there’s a pre-print out of Chongqing that suggests this bug has counter-intuitive immunosuppressive effects. Specifically, CD4 cell levels in seriously ill patients are half those of normal or lightly infected patients, and in critically ill patients are about 1/6th.

                      If it hammers those cells, I don’t know if there will be family immunity from this bug or not. Has such immunity been demonstrated in papers yet?

                    2. idk – and I don’t even play a doctor on the Internet. Statistics – that I do know so I can read the epidemiological stuff.

                  2. I’m pretty sure the guys on vents—primarily old, but again, some young and healthy too—would have died if they weren’t able to be on vents. And there just aren’t enough of the things to go around if this thing takes hold in realistic epidemic numbers like 20-25 percent of the population getting it, and 15-20 percent of those patients getting really sick.

                    As I’m sure you’re aware, the Singapore news has been a bit of sunshine. Small number of cases, 1st world medical care, and epidemic surveillance that is putting the CDC to shame and then some: all are making a large difference.

                    So maybe the US can stay on top of this.

                    1. Singapore is in good shape – and probably lucky. This doesn’t look like a tropical virus. It looks like ‘cold weather’ – ie spread by sneezes/coughs – and durable enough to then go from hands to door handles and faucets to hands to eyes/nose/mouth. They look more like an origin of superspreaders. People who go there healthy – get lightly infected – then return to a cold weather place where multiple lightly infected people turn things into an epidemic. Course if it mutates into other avenues of transmission – and is durable enough to survive water treatment – then Katy bar the door.

                      And Singapore has universal access – which we don’t. We are going to discover the cost of not having that. As well as, imo, the cost of relying on volunteer military and high-paid professional bureaucrats rather than militia. Singapore has a Civil Defense Force (an alternative to Army service) – so when they raised DORSCON (Disease Outbreak Response Condition) from green to yellow (late Jan when first cases entered hospital) to orange (Feb 7), everyone in Singapore could figure out what to do. We are gonna be left with 100% of peeps clueless and waiting for someone else (govt or market) to tell us what to do via advertising/PR.

                    2. “Course if it mutates into other avenues of transmission – and is durable enough to survive water treatment – then Katy bar the door.”

                      Yeah. The viability of this bug on various surfaces, not to mention other things which really should have been pinned down by now like, droplet or purely airborne transmissible, time from infection to being able to infect others, time to onset of symptoms, immunity from subsequent infection if any, permanent sequelae, susceptibility to other pulmonary co-morbidities while infected: none of the information about this thing sounds firm. The ranges are huge.

                2. Medicare expenses will skyrocket with emergency end-of-life care, and tax revenues, along with general economic production, will probably sag.

                  If we want to get morbid here. This virus kills fast. Our Medicare expenses keep end-of-life people alive for about two years. It’s why half of all lifetime medical expenses are incurred in the final two years. Which means we are two years away from even knowing the distribution of CoVid19 cases between ‘fatal’, ‘recovered’ and ‘still lingering and unknown’. Only the last will, long-term, increase Medicare spending. The middle will make a short-term difference but not a long-term one (the stress probably just lowers life expectancy so SS savings offset Medicare). And the first will greatly lower both Medicare and Social Security spending long-term.

                  The effect on tax/debt is irrelevant. We’ve already passed the point where that matters. It’s now just a matter of when we hit the wall not IF we hit it.

                  1. “We’ve already passed the point where that matters. It’s now just a matter of when we hit the wall not IF we hit it.”

                    Agreed. I had thought we could grow the economy and slowly inflate our way out, but I doubt that’s going to happen. As to medical costs, AIUI, those patients that are hospitalized and go terminal, require the (for now—it will likely go by the wayside as case numbers skyrocket) use of very specialized rooms and PPE protocols like negative pressure rooms, limited heavily protected staff, ventilator assistance, exotic antivirals, things like that.

                    So even though they aren’t lingering for years on end with the usual range of elderly maladies, they’re using very finite, very expensive resources for about two to three weeks each. I had thought such a course of treatment was more expensive than the 2-3 years of lingering, but not in ICU?

                    1. idk – but I’d guess that most elderly spend more than a couple weeks in hospital during those last two years. And intensive use of specialists and diagnostic and operating and such. And 24/7 round-the-clock for the last couple months. Lifetime medical spending is about 300,000 – so the last two years is about 150,000.

                      For Covid19, the ‘recovered’ number lags a bit (like a week or two) behind the fatal but does jump very fast. So I’m guessing it’s not really that long a period and so the only marginal non-bed/space cost is the capital purchase of that specialized stuff (which may ultimately be overkill too).

                      Honestly we shouldn’t be having govt pay for any of that sort of stuff in onesies-and-twosies like it’s a fucking surprise and govt is the marginal consumer (with both deep pockets and complete stupidity/gullibility). But that’s the way we’ve decided to be utterly corrupt and spend a fortune and ultimately slam into the debt wall.

                      As for the debt wall – the only question comes after we hit it. How long we choose to be Japan and let debt strangle all growth (my guess is shorter than Japan). And how many people have to die before creditors accede to writing the debts off.

                      The window to avoid the debt wall closed in 2008. The ‘why’ (underlying cause) of that debt is very well understood and I don’t think its an accident that banking found its limits on how much mortgages/land will serve as possible collateral for that debt just as the boomers started turning 65 and forced the cost curve for SS/Medicare up. And found out – they didn’t need to write anything off then cuz taxpayer will keep paying. From 2008 – its pure bubbles and money manipulation all the way.

                      Shame we don’t understand the oldest economics textbook still around – the 50-year Biblical ‘Jubilee Year’. Because that is about how to write off debt rather than kick the can – which means it was a problem they faced back then too.

                    2. Also regardless of how big an event it becomes, once hospitals are at 100% capacity, that’s it. There’s increased costs for disposables and some labor for extra shifts but that’s minor. I understand where we are in this mindset that all medical expenses are based on marginal pricing but with an epidemic comes the realization that that’s all bullshit. Hospitals are mostly a fixed expense – which also means a ton of bogus accounting if it is priced as a marginal expense model.

                      From a policy perspective, the issue is going to be who gets admitted – and who waits outside (to die, self-quarantine, or whatever). Every country on Earth will handle that particular problem better than we do. We’ve spent decades avoiding even thinking about that. And have been a bit lucky that there have have been no pandemics or terrorist dirty bombs or similar. That luck may have run out.

            2. I think you meant Hacksaw Ridge.

              1. There are so many ridges and so many politically incorrect directors making them!

        3. “Initial results could become available in July or August.”

          A conspiracy theorist might conclude that the Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases is out to make sure Donald Trump isn’t reelected.

          1. I don’t see many people other than the converted pinning this on Trump.

            1. If it has a negative impact on the economy, it won’t be good for Trump’s reelection chances.

              And everywhere the virus breaks out, from Italy to South Korea, the place turns into a ghost town–not just because of quarantines but maybe also because people are just choosing to stay home. I was in LA after the riots when the National Guard imposed a curfew. I didn’t need a curfew to know not to go walking the streets at night in the aftermath of race riots. And if the virus pops up here in a big way, plenty of school districts will cancel classes and plenty of adults will just stay home. That’s bad for the economy.

              Like I said before, I’m not saying that the virus will break out here in the U.S, but if it did–and the government had a working vaccine that they didn’t release until after the virus had ravaged the country, conspiracy theorists? Democrats and/or Republicans, on whatever side that thinks they might lose, will be talking conspiracy theory on this.

              1. If you assume that people see the downturn in the economy as the result of Trump being unable to magically contain the virus, sure. But, I don’t think anyone other than those who already will vote against him will do that.

                And the President has all kinds of emergency powers. He could order that vaccine put into use if there is a national emergency. So, if the virus does ravage the country and the vaccine isn’t released, it would be Trump’s fault.

                That, however, is not going to happen. If this vaccine actually works, it will get released. They will give it to health care providers first and then old people and people with compromised immune systems next.

                Vaccinating healthcare providers alone is an 80% solution to a pandemic since most of the deaths occur because the healthcare providers get sick or won’t come to work. And you could produce enough vaccine to do that in pretty short order.

                1. “If you assume that people see the downturn in the economy as the result of Trump being unable to magically contain the virus”

                  I believe that one of the best aspects of markets is that they make people behave as if they were smarter and more knowledgeable than they really are.

                  I believe that certain things (like immigration policy, treaties, and wars) should reflect the wishes of the voters–even if what the voters want is stupid.

                  I do not believe voters are necessarily rational.

                  The Emperor loses the mandate of heaven when things go badly.

                  If things are going badly, let’s throw the bum out. There was no good reason why George H. W. Bush should have lost to Bill Clinton. The voters were wrong.

                  1. Yes Ken, you think everyone but you is stupid. Although that makes you feel good, it is not actually the case.

                    1. Here are some interesting facts for you.

                      If you gave IQ tests to the American people, you would find that half of them score below average.

                      The bottom half of that intelligence curve +1 is enough to carry an election.

                      In fact, on average, the American people have an average intelligence, right?

                      When Adam Smith made his observations about the invisible hand or Hayek made his observations about price signals, both of those observations can be used to explain why people of far below average intelligence make smart choices within the context of markets.

                      Because voting doesn’t operate on the same principles is one of the reasons that democratic socialism sucks.

                      I don’t like Bernie Sanders because he’s a democratic socialist, but I’m starting to wonder if someone of you don’t like democratic socialism just because you don’t like Bernie Sanders.

                    2. I have an even more interesting fact for you Ken, IQ isn’t the only measure of intelligence. There is all of these other things collectively known as wisdom and knowledge and such.

                      I hate to break it to you but someone should have done this when you were a teenager, so better late than never. You not special. Even if you have a high IQ you are not special. There are people out there with lower IQs than you who are more successful than you and can do things and understand things that you never will.

                      Your teachers and your parents lied to you. Having a high IQ doesn’t get you jack. It never has. In fact, if anything it causes you to start thinking you are smarter than you are and creates an enormous temptation for hubris. It is more likely to make you a menace than it is a sage.

                      You are not that smart Ken. It is okay ken. No one is. You just need to grow up and understand that.

                    3. However you want to measure it, John, the voters have an average intelligence (and level of knowledge), and that means that they’re prone to being incorrect when they vote.

                      Is this really the first time you’ve heard of the tyranny of the majority? Do you imagine the people who voted against Obama were wrong because if they were right Obama wouldn’t have won?

                      No doubt, the people’s votes should be respected within the proper purview of democracy. When I say that I respect that even if what the American people want is stupid, I’m actually the one who is valuing their stupid opinion and caring about them.

                      You understand how evolution works, right? To thrive amid the limits of supply and demand, insects, birds, fish, and mammals evolve by adapting to changing conditions. They don’t hold a vote to grow opposable thumbs. They’re too stupid for that. But those individuals who are able to grasp tree branches are able to exploit an abundant supply of food and safety–and they prosper.

                      Markets like that just make it seem like stupid animals evolved on purpose. They make us smarter than we would be otherwise–across huge groups of people. Individuals making choices for themselves within the context of markets make vastly superior choices than people like Bernie Sanders would on their behalf. If a majority of the voters pick Bernie Sanders to be our president, it’s because they’re stupid, but when they improve their standard of living by taking advantage of everyday low prices at Walmart, they’re being really smart.

                      Isn’t it interesting that the difference between them is the difference between voting for a socialist and making choices for themselves in a market? There are explanations for why they behave so smart in one context but not the other, and I’m not sure you’ve gotten your head around those yet. You should. They’re the nuts and bolts of capitalism.

                    4. Right, but youre a known and proven liar.

                    5. so, why is everyone pissed off at Ken? I know one of the trolls is on his ass because he lied about something supposedly, but why is everyone else using him as a punching bag?

                    6. darkflame, it’s no more than usual. You’ve got the one guy who is defining ‘weaponized autism’ in spamming every post Ken makes, and you’ve got John being John.

                      If there are others slamming Ken, I haven’t seen it. But then I don’t read a good half of the posters here.

                      Aside, something to chew on regarding High IQ people and social success, that I hadn’t heard about until recently, was the concept of the ‘Clever Sillies’: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987709005556

                      From it,

                      I have written about the absent-minded and socially-inept ‘nutty professor’ stereotype in science, and the phenomenon of ‘psychological neoteny’ whereby intelligent modern people (including scientists) decline to grow-up and instead remain in a state of perpetual novelty-seeking adolescence. These can be seen as specific examples of the general phenomenon of ‘clever sillies’ whereby intelligent people with high levels of technical ability are seen (by the majority of the rest of the population) as having foolish ideas and behaviours outside the realm of their professional expertise.

                      In short, it has often been observed that high IQ types are lacking in ‘common sense’ – and especially when it comes to dealing with other human beings. General intelligence is not just a cognitive ability; it is also a cognitive disposition. So, the greater cognitive abilities of higher IQ tend also to be accompanied by a distinctive high IQ personality type including the trait of ‘Openness to experience’, ‘enlightened’ or progressive left-wing political values, and atheism.
                      …my suggested explanation for this association between intelligence and personality is that an increasing relative level of IQ brings with it a tendency differentially to over-use general intelligence in problem-solving, and to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour which could be termed common sense.

                      Preferential use of abstract analysis is often useful when dealing with the many evolutionary novelties to be found in modernizing societies; but is not usually useful for dealing with social and psychological problems for which humans have evolved ‘domain-specific’ adaptive behaviours. And since evolved common sense usually produces the right answers in the social domain; this implies that, when it comes to solving social problems, the most intelligent people are more likely than those of average intelligence to have novel but silly ideas, and therefore to believe and behave maladaptively

                    7. “but why is everyone else using him as a punching bag?”

                      Probably because he’s pompous.
                      I like Ken, and think he often says interesting things and can make good points – but he can certainly be pompous.
                      I think I have compelling things to say – but I can certainly be a jerk.
                      Others have there own more and less unique foibles.
                      People!
                      What sets people off with Ken is when he gets stubbornly dogmatic and refuses to back off of or think outside whatever paradigm he’s come up with, and/or refuses to admit error even after it’s been demonstrated.
                      I thought Bloomberg came off pretty good in the debate.
                      I was wrong.
                      Sometimes new information comes in and you have to admit error, learn, and readjust.
                      Ken has a little trouble with that, and it can be frustrating.

                2. If you assume that people see the downturn in the economy as the result of Trump […]

                  I mean, we have the data. Most modern US presidential elections can be predicted with only two bits of information: (1) the state of the economy (however you choose to define it), and (2) is one of the candidates an incumbent?

                  That the president has relatively little control over the economy is basically irrelevant.

                  And I wouldn’t call people stupid. I would use the more charitable phrase “rationally ignorant”. Simply put, most people are fully occupied with their own lives, they don’t have the time/bandwidth to fully invest in understanding politics. This is why messaging about policies is often more important then the policies themselves. Some dude in Kentucky might not understand what some policy actually does and means (as it would take hours, if not weeks, to scratch the surface), but he can grok the message about it, often from people he trusts, pretty quickly.

                  So to repeat… I’m not calling people stupid. I’m saying that for most people, their time is (from their perspective) better spent doing something other then trying to understand complicated policies and second-order effects. Which is the entire reason we’re a republic (in that we elect people to make decisions) rather then a democracy (where we would directly vote on the decisions themselves).

                  1. The past isn’t the perfect predictor of the future. Every election is different. The economy having a downturn because of the business cycle is not the same as it having a downturn because of an external event. For example, 911 hit the US economy hard. And it came right on the heels of the tech bubble bursting. By your logic George W. Bush should have been voted out of office in 2004 right? Didn’t work out that way. It is not as simple as you want to believe it is.

                    1. It is not as simple as [the strawman I made] want[s] to believe it is.

                      Fixed it for you.

                      I don’t think it’s simple. I just, unlike you, acknowledged that yeah, lots of people (including non-Democrats ant people who don’t have “TDS”) might blame President Trump, and vote accordingly, if this gets to be a serious problem in the US.

                    2. “For example, 911 hit the US economy hard. And it came right on the heels of the tech bubble bursting. By your logic George W. Bush should have been voted out of office in 2004 right?”

                      The election was three years later, and we were solidly at war in two separate places. Have those events happen in 2004 itself, and who knows? Although the Republicans did gain seats in both Houses in 2002, so perhaps the model isn’t that strong.

                      If a large part of Trump’s appeal is, the economy is going great, and you have a job, and this bug comes in and wipes out some/all of the bull market gains, and people fall out of work, that sounds like it would take away that part of his appeal.

                      Trying to claim it wasn’t Trump’s fault wouldn’t sway most of those voters, in my opinion. Just as the 1992 recession wasn’t Bush the Greater’s fault, but voters still hung him with it.

                3. They will give it to health care providers first and then old people and people with compromised immune systems next.

                  So the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will be paying for this stuff. And you don’t think voters will notice that their ‘voting choice’ re healthcare will be between ‘universal access’ and ‘you pay for your own stuff and you also pay the debt the fed incurs for other peoples stuff’?

              2. most of us know not to walk at night in LA even when there are no riots

                1. Just for the record, parts of the city that were especially safe suddenly weren’t anymore after all the supermarkets closed or were burned to the ground.

            2. Don’t be so sure. If this virus is truly ‘cold weather’ – and the weather in October starts cooling like normal (or like 1918 flu). Then the ‘October surprise’ is gonna be a few hundred thousand dead – and a stock market in free-fall with the wealthy at the trough looking for their fed bailout like 2008. Mostly older folks (likely Trump voters anyway) dying and the rich looking for their own asset bailout.

              AND an election in the middle of that? You can fucking guarantee that opinions about ‘access to healthcare’ and opinions about the 1% controlling govt will change on a dime. That is the ONE black swan that will render Twump’s tweets iwwelevent.

              1. Presidents have been re-elected in crisis and because of crisis plenty of time. See George HW Bush for example. You would think that 28000 Americans dying in a terrorist attack on his watch would have destroyed his career. Instead it made him more popular. FDR’s second term was a complete disaster but the threat of war got him elected to a third term anyway.

                So reality is not as simple as your revenge porn pretends it is. It depends on how Trump handles it and how he manipulates the narrative. If he sits on his ass and lets the media do it the way Bush did with Katrina, he could be in a lot of trouble. I doubt, however he will do that.

                Regardless, the point here is for you to jerk off to revenge porn. Who am I to interrupt that with actual facts and rational thinking.

                1. See – the problem with you is that you think everyone else is as obsessed about Trump as you are. Some people are – but they are all pretty much clowns (authoritarians) to the left of me and jokers (authoritarians) to the right. And here I am stuck in the middle with you (authoritarian). All looking for their particular flavor of dictator.

                  It depends on how Trump handles it and how he manipulates the narrative our R voting base.

                  There FIFY. And you’re right. That’s true. But I can fucking guarandamntee that his manipulation will be as authoritarian and corrupt as Sanders’. And you’ll be the useful idiot claiming that one is lesser evil – or maybe that it’s actually ‘liberty-enhancing’. Maybe in response to the useful idiots at Reason being silent at that point about a stock market bailout (and any actual reform of govt healthcare – beyond an even sillier assertion that epidemics and coronary surgery is no different than tummy tucks) while loudly declaiming govt intervention in healthcare.

                2. My guess by how CDC is handling this in the US: instituting testing criteria for patients that effectively don’t end up testing nearly anyone for the bug, is that the effect of SARS-CoV-2 is going to be soft-pedaled. A lot. I predict a lot of ‘pneumonia’ deaths, and if those can be stuck on 2019 and 2021’s ledger, the better. This thing is not going to be able to be kept out.

                  As the line from “Contagion” went: “We just need to make sure that nobody knows until everybody knows.”

                  China sounds like they want to get back to work. Even if the epidemic is still raging in their country. See, EVdefender on Twitter, and his graphs showing that a lot of China’s reported case data has been flat made up. E.g., https://twitter.com/evdefender/status/1232119039134183425

                  He has a serious hard-on for hating Elon Musk, but look at the reported cases data he mentions.

                  1. I don’t click on twitter but yeah I agree China has been making up their data for the last couple of weeks. Nothing about the recent data fits what a virus might do – or the ‘we’re overwhelmed and collecting data right now just ain’t the priority’. It fits what a human wants the message about the data to appear to be.

                    1. There’s a bit where he shows that China hit an inflection point in rate of new cases, immediately following a speech by Xi on the subject. And then spend the next two days predicting new case numbers based on his curve fit, and was right.

                      Academic anyway for the US: CDC just admitted the bug is “rapidly evolving and spreading” and that “successful containment at U.S. borders is becoming problematic.” Market dumped another 800 today on the DJIA. Down a total of 2200 over the last few days, about 8%.

                      Who knows what we’ll know tomorrow?

              2. JFree
                February.25.2020 at 11:37 am
                “Don’t be so sure…”

                Is this the turning point, JFree? Are the walls closing in?
                Fuck off.

        4. Plus, I thought Congress passed that law making it easier and faster to bring drugs to market?

          There is no reason why people who want to assume the risk and financial reward of being the first testees of this drug can’t participate.

          I’m no expert but I would assume pregnant women have to many variables to participate until the drug has few side effects on healthy men and non-pregnant women.

          1. It can still take billions and years to get a drug through the testing phase.

            Typically, companies spend tens to hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars on drug development.[1] One element of the complexity is that the much-publicized final numbers often not only include the out-of-pocket expenses for conducting a series of Phase I-III clinical trials, but also the capital costs of the long period (10 or more years) during which the company must cover out-of-pocket costs for preclinical drug discovery. Additionally, companies often do not report whether a given figure includes the capitalized cost or comprises only out-of-pocket expenses, or both.

            One study assessed both capitalized and out-of-pocket costs as about US$1.8 billion and $870 million, respectively.[2]

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_drug_development

            Congress can streamline that process and it still take a decade and cost a billion dollars. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why capping pharmaceutical prices is foolish. Biotech and pharmaceutical companies only develop drugs to the extent that they can charge enough money to recover their losses–at the very least. The problem is that they don’t just need to cover the costs of the drugs that pan out. They have to cover the costs of all the drugs they tried but didn’t pan out, too. Cap the price of pharmaceuticals, and you’re hurting the incentive for discovery really bad.

            Before Pfizer developed Viagra in the 1990s, the only solutions to impotence were crackpots and quacks.

            1. Right, but youre a known and proven liar.

          2. IIRC that law was very limited in scope and covered terminal patients only; good step in the right direction mind you but still lacking full medical freedom. So I doubt a preventive measure like a vaccine would be covered under that.

            1. I think you are correct. Still a good change but yeah, doesn’t help much in our current situation.

      2. “This is a pandemic. Don’t let the WHO fool you. This is a no kidding pandemic.”

        And why WHO has been loath to call this a pandemic—beyond their obvious desire to kiss Chinese ass—might be found in some negotiable securities the World Bank issued around the Ebola crisis. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02415-9

        Nature article that explains the securities that were issued. From it:

        Under the scheme, investors who buy pandemic bonds receive generous ‘coupons’, which annually pay about 13% interest. This compensates investors for the risk that the bonds will make ‘insurance’ payouts to fight pandemics under certain conditions. Otherwise, cash returns to the investors when the bonds mature in July 2020.

        July 2020 is still a long way off. Bit of a conflict of interest though, don’t you think?

    2. One of the things this virus and the reactions to it are demonstrating is the wisdom of markets and the invisible hand.

      Oh FFS. There is no ban on creating private warehouses full of privately-owned virus testing kits and letting them sit around until they may or may not be required at some unknown point in the future. Or for that matter, creating hospitals with massively excess unused capacity – just in case an epidemic hits sometime. The reason they don’t exist is precisely because that is exactly what markets will never provide.

      Exhibit 1 – the 1918 flu virus. At the time, the vast majority of hospitals were private charity hospitals or (a few) doctor-group-owned. The first wave of that flu hit the US in April – an Army training base in KS prob brought over from the trenches on Western Front where it had started that winter and been unnoticed among the war casualties. It ended in a few weeks killing a couple dozen people on that base. The second wave hit in October. When a ton of cases hit everywhere once the weather cooled. People went to hospital – and were refused admission once the beds quickly filled. They were told to just go home. Which is why the disease spread more quickly and roughly 400,000 died in the next month. That’s roughly the number of WW2 combat deaths – in one month. The third wave hit that next winter – 200,000 dead mixed in with the seasonal flu/pneumonia stuff.

      That 1918 flu failure is in fact exactly why municipalities rapidly built muni-owned hospitals after WW1 ended – and continued to build them right up to the beginning of WW2. And in fact, those muni hospitals were the ones that were filled to capacity with patients during the Depression (85-90% utilization) – while the private charity hospitals were very underutilized (40-55% utilization) by then.

      I’d argue in fact that the corporate tax deduction for employer plans (implemented in early 1939 when unemployment was still over 10%) was put in place precisely so that the fed govt would subsidize private charity hospitals instead of munis. Those big hospital donors also owned/managed the big employers – and they needed operating expenses subsidized at that point not capital expansion. To them it didn’t matter whether they got the federal subsidy on the corporate tax side or the personal tax side as long as they got the subsidy. Which paved the way for the expansion of employer plans outside the exec suite to the broader workforce (as a non-taxable benefit for employees on their personal return – starting in 1943 and later) a couple years later during the labor shortages of WW2 and post-WW2 – at which point, unions can be blamed for the ‘growth of govt intrusion’.

      1. Employer plans are what saved us from single payer. Every country that didn’t have them ended up with some form of single payer because the public refused to have a system where health insurance was affordable just so long as you were healthy and didn’t need it. What employer plans did was pool people’s risk by their employer and allow health insurance to be available to everyone not just the healthy. Because of that, the country never demanded single payer like countries in Europe did, except for old people who didn’t work and could no longer pool their risk the way working people did.

        People refuse to understand that reality or how insurance actually works. They also refuse to understand that healthcare before World War II was cheap because there wasn’t much healthcare to be had. Once medicine actually advanced to the point of being able to treat things besides the odd broken bone or minor surgery it was never going to be cheap again.

        1. They also refuse to understand that healthcare before World War II was cheap because there wasn’t much healthcare to be had

          Not really. Your political side doesn’t actually understand WHY healthcare was cheaper then. Carnegie and Rockefeller underwrote a study of medical training which completely changed the types of doctors we have. They created a system that benefits them – the donor class. A ton of specialists practicing their craft on rats and peasants – so that when Carnegie/Rockefeller need a specialist they can choose from the best. BUT – the donor class back then understood that they personally have to pay for all that practicing on rats and peasants. And they did so via their personal tax/charitable deductions. They were perfectly willing to pay WHATEVER for a)the best and b)front place in line. The donor class now is far more venal and corrupt. They expect to profit from the rats/peasants trade AND they expect to pay a cheaper cost (far more subsidies/utilization for the high-income employer plans) than the rats/peasants AND they didn’t do the donating for capacity expansion either.

          Every other system didn’t rely on a system designed by a couple of century-dead billionaires. They took the opportunity to rethink what a medical system paid by taxpayers actually needs and looks like. Which admittedly is not something Americans now are remotely capable (politically) of handling.

      2. “Oh FFS. There is no ban on creating private warehouses full of privately-owned virus testing kits and letting them sit around until they may or may not be required at some unknown point in the future. Or for that matter, creating hospitals with massively excess unused capacity – just in case an epidemic hits sometime. The reason they don’t exist is precisely because that is exactly what markets will never provide.”

        Are you arguing that it’s a good thing we don’t have hospitals with excess and unused capacity or a bad thing?

        If commercial developers aren’t out there building massive unused hospital capacity–even despite this virus outbreak–it’s because that capacity is still unjustified despite the outbreak.

        If you can’t find people to finance a project because not enough people will use it to justify the cost of building it and maintaining it–not even in the event of blue moon travesty? Then that isn’t an indication that the government should spend taxpayer money on it.

        Quite the opposite.

        1. If commercial developers aren’t out there building massive unused hospital capacity–even despite this virus outbreak–it’s because that capacity is still unjustified despite the outbreak.

          There is no virus outbreak here. If/when a virus outbreak happens here, the hospitals will fill to capacity on day one. Which means by day two, you either mobilize the militia (oh golly – we don’t have a militia anymore because all the morons think that’s only about guns) to build temp hospitals and provide medical and ensure quarantine — or the market CEASES TO EXIST. By the end of the month – 25-40% of the population will have to tap their retirement in order to pay their mortgage/rent. You know how many people are working or how many businesses are open in China now? Oooh oooh oooh – guess what happens to your employer-based health coverage at that point?

          1. If the cost of building massive unused capacity can’t be justified by private financiers, then it can’t be justified by spending taxpayer money on it either.

            Do you imagine that times of increased demand haven’t been accounted for by economists before? Should we send your post to the Nobel Prize committee?

            I don’t think so. This is no different from a run on batteries and generators when there’s a hurricane coming. And the solution is not for the government to squander however much money on massive supplies of generators and batteries.

            That’s just stupid.

            1. Speaking of stupid, your claim that your lie was just a question.

              Because you’re a known and proven liar.

        2. If you can’t find people to finance a project because not enough people will use it to justify the cost of building it and maintaining it–not even in the event of blue moon travesty? Then that isn’t an indication that the government should spend taxpayer money on it.

          That is only because – like everyone else in the neoclassical marginalist universe – YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND RENT. Or its kissing cousin – debt/interest. Private capacity does not get built unless rent from that can be privatized — and unless prices can be raised enough to keep paying increasing rent forever. And in the case of a ‘quarantine hospital’ (v operating rooms or multi-million diagnostic equipment), it’s almost ALL rent.

          Public capacity – even temporary – can in fact be built. And in fact it doesn’t require long-term debt either. Nor does it require that rent be continually charged forever. And in fact a land tax base is the best way to both charge the short-term rent broadly and to keep costs down so long-term rent (beyond paying off the IOU’s for materials/labor) needn’t be charged and hence long-term prices needn’t rise.

          1. That you’re trying to justify not only the government setting our priorities better than we can for ourselves–but also the building of something by government that isn’t needed, precisely because it’s not needed, is absurd. No part of it makes any sense.

            Seriously, there are all sorts of problems with our government, and the problem of the government not building things we don’t need–because we don’t want them–is the very least of our problems. I can’t think of a less worthy problem to solve.

            1. Right, but youre a known and proven liar.

            2. Stop with the ideological parrot talk. Yes – an economy does need a capacity cushion. Yes – the funding for that is very different precisely because it is a)an asset that b)swings violently from disuse to massive use. Yes – private sector will ALWAYS undersupply that because it profits more from the price swings due to the absence of said cushion than from the price stability due to the presence of that cushion.

              And yes – all you R’s damn well do understand the notion of capacity cushion. Because it’s the same underlying reason we don’t reduce our military spending to zero. There is no current invasion from Canada/Mexico. There is no naval force from anywhere that could make amphibious landings (said naval force to counter that would also be a capacity cushion since no one is currently making amphibious landings either).

              Maybe if you R’s spent a nanosecond understanding how those capacity cushions actually work in economic terms – and the role of govt in that, then you could be more useful than a bunch of loudmouthed buttscratchers. Because you could then see where we sorely need capacity cushions – and where we sorely need to stop govt from continuing to expand wildly excess capacity cushions (see global defense and permawar).

              1. This isn’t about ideology. It’s about not making sense.

                Department stores and shopping malls are closing all over the country. Building and sustaining unwanted and unneeded assets is a bad thing.

                Detroit must be paradise in your mind. At one point, they wouldn’t bother sending fire trucks to put out fires unless someone could confirm that the building was occupied.

                Overcapacity is a problem not a solution, and what you’re trying to solve isn’t a problem–it’s efficiency, among other things, which is the means to economic growth.

                What you’re saying is fucking retarded. They’d laugh you out of any planning commission in America. You couldn’t even make it into a commercial developer’s door with a speech like that.

                1. Oh for FFS. Tons of empty decrepit malls – with owners perfectly OK pocketing the tax losses and the declining prop tax. Massive housing shortages and the entire generation of renters now screwed to the wall and true serfs.

                  Watch Ken’s head explode at the contradictions. Or wait – enter the ideological parrot to tell us that it’s all gummints fault. There’s just tons of market plans to convert that capacity from one to other. The markets working just fine. It’s the gummint’s fault. Lower my prop taxes even more and I’ll build housing where the mall is. I promise.

                  FUCK YOU Ken

      3. fun fact, another theory as to how the virus came over was from Chinese troops being sent to assist the allies (China was hoping that if they sent troops, the European powers would tell Japan to stop kicking China around). The Chinese troops were transported across the US via train and supposedly were in really bad condition by the time they reached the east coast.

        1. They may have been the origin – but they crossed Canada by train in early 1917. Became the Chinese Labor Corps and were working behind the front lines by mid-1917. Roughly the same time the first US troops arrived (without equipment) and started training there.

          So maybe they carried it there. Or maybe something they carried morphed that fall/winter. Or maybe some other flu (the trenches were full of un/misdiagnosed diseases throughout WW1 – bullets, gas and artillery tended to put everything else on the backburner) morphed. Regardless, it then went to the field hospitals with tons of wounded soldiers with compromised respiratory from poison gas. The flu deaths would have been attributed to wounds or gas or septic shock or anything-just-get-the-damn-body-out-of-here-we-got-more-incoming-wounded. And either wounded soldiers or training/logistics folks returning to the US brought it to the boot camp at Fort Leavenworth where the March outbreak was centered.

  19. Executive Director of Guns Down America, Igor Volsky, wants gun makers punished for marketing and selling guns to women and minorities. Apparently, if gun grabbers can’t frame all gun owners as crazy, evil, racist, redneck, white dudes with inappropriate relationships with their sheep that’s problematic for their agenda.

    Whoda thunk it?

    1/ Gun makers are softening their image to “put a better face in front of people” & “ramp up its appeal to women, children and members of minority groups”

    That’s right: gun makers are increasingly advertising to WOMEN, CHILDREN & MINORITY COMMUNITIES https://t.co/Ag3VLzRMGo

    — igorvolsky (@igorvolsky) February 24, 2020

    1. “Igor Volsky, wants gun makers punished for marketing and selling guns to women and minorities.”

      Where’s that jackass from yesterday who told me that the First and Second Amendments don’t really make a difference anymore?

      Yes, they both still matter, they both still make our society freer than it would be otherwise, and other countries that evolved under the influence of the Magna Carta are different from the United States in key respects–because they don’t have the First and Second Amendment like we do.

      1. +10000

    2. Igor needs to stop talking and start fetching me brains for my science experiments.

      But hey, media, here’s your Russian interference right here. They’re trying to disarm us for the inevitable invasion as shown in COD MW2&3 /sarc

  20. Top Investor Asks For Advice on “Stockpiling Food”

    If one were hypothetically stockpiling four months of shelf stable food, what would folks recommend (optimizing for keto friendly)?
    — Geoff Lewis (@justGLew) February 24, 2020

    These fucking people crack me up. You dont know how to stockpile food and your main concern is being Keto friendly?

    These people wont last a month during Civil War 2.0. They will starve and surrender without many shots every being fired.

    1. There is something funny about when yuppies and hipsters start acting like preppers.

      What’s next? Maybe REI will start selling bug out bags.

      We’ll start seeing articles in GQ about how to modify your AR-15 so it can be used both for hunting and self-defense in case you find yourself in a situation WRoL.

      1. REI already sells bug-out bags. We call them “backpacks”.

        My son recently started watching one of the prepper reality TV shows. We enjoy laughing at these people “discovering” skills that we practice every month as Scouts.

        1. hey, at least they’re learning. We all know some things that other people don’t know. I applaud anyone who takes the time to learn something new.

          1. But the hipsters often seem to both imagine that they’re the ones who discovered this stuff and, simultaneously, also seem to loathe the people who already knew about this stuff for knowing about it.

            1. My grandfather built private bomb shelters in the 60’s for a living and yes we had our own with a natural spring . some people are more prepared than others.

              1. Don’t forget water filters or bucket filters to filter the blood from the water supply. There will be a bunch of blood seeping into the water supplies.

          2. I value almost anyone wanting to learn something new.

            Lefties sometimes want to learn new things because their Socialist policies backfires and they see they will be affected by the policies too. I don’t like people like that.

    2. “These fucking people crack me up. You dont know how to stockpile food and your main concern is being Keto friendly?”

      It is a surprisingly funny issue. I correspond with people who prep. Whatever. Some of them also do keto. Part of their preps process is to rotate their food stocks. It is hilarious reading people bitch about getting a ‘carb flu’ when they’ve been on keto for awhile, yet all of their dried food are things like rice, flour and beans.

      Beats starving though. I guess they could always try their hand at pemmican.

  21. Markets imploding, rev 4,070:

    “As the startup boom deflates, tech is humbled”
    […]
    “…Around the world, more than 30 startups have slashed more than 8,000 jobs over the past four months, according to a tally by the New York Times…”
    https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/As-the-startup-boom-deflates-tech-is-humbled-15081106.php
    (NYT feed)

    8,000 JOBS!!! WORLD-WIDE!!! Erin Griffith = OBL in drag.

    1. What does that make Boehm then?

    1. It is a failure of that company is allowed to recoup research costs.

    2. Yep. Delivered to the government for ‘testing’.
      How many years before it is “allowed” to be sold?

  22. > she hoped it would show “the same empathy for the residents of Costa Mesa,” which is California’s second-most populous county.

    Sorry, but Costa Mesa is a city, not a county. It is located in Orange County. Maybe you’ve heard of it.

    1. I came here to post the same. Costa Mesa is a city.

    2. And Orange County is the third most populous county after San Diego.

      1. Well, is it in California? See, they get some stuff right.

  23. Trump suggests Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg should recuse themselves in all of his cases

    Pepperidge farms remembers when Lefties wanted conservative justices to recuse themselves.

    1. To be sure, they should recuse themselves from ALL cases, not just his.

      1. +10000

        Sotomayer said that the Conservative wing of the SCOTUS has its Thumb on the scales for Trump.

        I commented that the Lefty wing of the SCOTUS has their thumb on the US Constitution, so it all evens out.

  24. North Carolina woman allegedly assaulted air marshal, threatened to ‘stab everyone on the plane. … I’m Palestinian’

    I would have knocked that bitch out. There is no way that I am dying on some plane because a deranged person is acting out.

    1. What did she think telling everyone she is “Palestinian” was going to accomplish? Did she think that gives her a right to murder the infidel or something?

      1. Maybe the air marshal was Jewish.

      2. She may have been claiming discrimination or profiling.

        I was listening to a guy complain about being profiled when he went to buy perfume for someone as a gift over Christmas.

        According to him, he told the saleslady he wanted to buy some perfume–so she asked him how much money he had to spend.

        As if an African-American couldn’t have enough money to buy whatever perfume he wanted!!!

        I wasn’t there. I don’t know. But being asked how much money I want to spend on something before a salesperson shows me something is pretty common for me–and I’m not African-American.

        I bet that lady was feeling profiled at the airport.

        1. I am being discriminated against!! How dare you keep me from stabbing the infidel!!

        2. Yes, Ken. I get asked by sales associates what price range I am looking for so they dont waste their time showing and explaining products that I wont be buying anyway because of price.

          This is good sales tactics if you ask me.

          If you want to be a baller and spend a bunch of dough, just say “money is no object” or something similar. See the face of the sales person light up and they will show you the most expensive items.

        3. Agreed a price range is not unusual. To get a price point for a clients future home I always ask do they want a range by Wolf or a Kitchenaid. the answer tells me everything I need to know

    2. You would have cowered in your seat and entered comments in your browser. Don’t try to fool anyone into thinking you are a person of action. You are a guy who sits around all day and bitches about liberals on a website.

      1. What browser takes comments?

        Jesus. unreason sock troll bots are being by the stupidest unreason staff now.

      2. “You are a guy who sits around all day and bitches about liberals on a website.”

        “trumpkisser1789”

        Ahahahahahahah

        1. He probably doesn’t even realize how stupid that made him look.

  25. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/fabiola-santiago/article240425431.html

    A writer in the Miami Herald reminds Bernie what living in Cuba is actually like. I think Bernie just took Florida out of play in the general election should he be the nominee. Even liberal Cubans will not tolerate “But Castro gives free healthcare and literacy” bullshit that Bernie is peddling. And since Bernie is nuts, he won’t back down or try and patch things up.

    1. Bernie took Florida out of play a long, long time ago.

    2. A lot of the old 1st generation Cubans are dead. But yeah, probably didn’t do him any favors.

      Good. He’s probably going to be the nominee, he has a lot of the same kind of crowds that followed Trump around in 2016 (in size and fervor), and he’s absolutely bonkers. He needs to have next to no chance of winning for me to feel comfortable about any of this.

    1. If you classify murdering someone as taking them out of poverty, then sure they have. If you require the person to live to be raised out of poverty, then no, they haven’t. I think India likely holds that distinction. I guess Bernie was too busy traveling in Russia to hear the news that China adopted capitalism in the 1990s.

      1. If you held them in poverty longer, set them back further, and took them out of poverty slower, and didn’t/don’t elevate the majority of them as high as any other government or society doesn’t matter as much as the total number lifted. If it weren’t socialist authoritarianism it would be the worst kind of imperialism.

        Catapulting 99 people out of 100 from oil lanterns and wooden cabins to modern levels of luxury and comfort doesn’t matter if someone else lifted 100 out of 1000 out of starvation to subsistence level existence.

    2. His statement is true. But not caused by what he think caused it. More people were raised out of extreme poverty NOT because of socialism, but because China loosened its grip ever so slightly and some markets got into the country.

    3. “He’s now president for life, president for life. And he’s great,” Trump said, according to audio of excerpts of Trump’s remarks at a closed-door fundraiser in Florida aired by CNN. “And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said to cheers and applause from supporters.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-china/trump-praises-chinese-president-extending-tenure-for-life-idUSKCN1GG015

      1. Yeah, Trump was entirely serious. He plans to be President for life. Please keep telling yourself that. Your misery is deserved as a price for being a fucking moron.

  26. Today is the 65th anniversary of what is arguably the most important speech of the 20th Century, Krushchev’s Speech to the 20th Soviet Party Congress denouncing Stalin.

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/359445/

    After this speech Marxism should have been categorized as a mental illness. Before the speech, people could claim to be naive and just not understand the truth. After the speech became known, that was no longer possible. And indeed, many people did leave the Party in the West. Only the evil and the psychotic remained.

    1. Socalism is based on the belief that the ruling class is better than the rest of use because they devote their lives to “public service”. If they do bad, they aren’t doing what ideology says they’re supposed to do, and therefore the bad is their fault as individuals.

      Goverment does good; individuals do bad. Your business? You didn’t build that. Nobody says “You Nazis? You didn’t commit that genocide; government did”.

      All good and all success comes from Power. All bad and all failure comes from individuals.

      1. And when you see that sort of thinking in light of the results that it has produced, only a lunatic would believe such a thing. It is a form of mental illness.

      2. Venezuela isn’t socialist; it is a dictatorship. Dictatorship is bad and therefore not socialism, which is defined as succeeding at doing good things. Socialism doesn’t fail people; bad individuals fail socialism.

        Paradise comes from acknowledging you are not an individual; you are just one cog in an amorphous “99%” of interchangeable entities who can all be represented by a small single class because nobody really has different values or interests. Individuality is bad; submission to morally and ethically superior power is the key to paradise.

        1. “Socialism doesn’t fail people; bad individuals fail socialism.” See, e.g., the USSR v. Bukarin, USSR v.Kamenev, and USSR v. Zinoviev.

  27. Trump said at a forum in New Delhi yesterday that the money would be used for “getting everything ready just in case something should happen and also helping other nations that really aren’t equipped to do it.”

    Trump added, making air quotes with his orange stained fingers, “A few ‘favors’ may be asked of them.”

    1. How dare the President engage in diplomacy. The nerve of this guy.

      1. “diplomacy”

      2. Leave the troll alone. He is awful at the parody he is trying to push. Let him own it every time he rereads his own comments with no response.

        1. Is it just me or are unreason staff and their sock trolls getting dumber and dumber?

          1. I dunno, I think you’re a decent false-flag operations.
            Give yourself some credit guys.

  28. Science explains why we will always have a welfare state

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nice-brains-finish-last/

    Libertopia hardest hit

  29. “Can U.S. Cities Be Forced To House Coronavirus Patients?”

    As usual, the question is bassackwards.
    First must be asked:
    Is a city a sovereign entity with the authority to seal its borders?

    1. No it is not Tom. It is a dependent sovereignty on the state. If the state tells it to do something, it has to comply.

      1. Well, maybe. If the state has previously granted the city autonomy, then there may be grounds for telling the state to go pound salt.

        Ohio, for example, has a “home rule” clause in the state constitution which substantially restricts what the state can demand of its subordinate entities. Ohio cannot change that rule without first amending its constitution. I am no expert on CA law but I believe that they have a similar rule, though at the statute level, not in their constitution. So the state legislature would first have to change the law before the state executive branch agency can tell the city to jump.

        1. But it is a state facility. No home rule act is ever going to allow a city to prevent the state from using its own facilities. We are talking about a state owned facility here. We are not talking about taking over the local city hall or fire station.

          1. That’s why I thought the form of question was illogical. There is no “force” being used on the city. The State is simply using its facility.

          2. Again, maybe. It depends on what privileges and immunities the state already waived. Ohio has done some stupid things that effectively allowed cities to restrict the state’s use of their own facilities. I have no trouble imagining California being equally careless or lazy in the drafting of their law.

            1. The city as an entity doesn’t have any privileges and immunities. Yes, theoretically if California has a law that says cities get a veto over the State’s use of its own facilities, the city can veto. I am skeptical of that being the case here, however.

      2. That’s not authoritarian at all.

        1. No it isn’t. You finally got something right.

  30. General thrust is to open platforms up to liability for running demonstratively false political ads.

    Who gets to decide what’s false? oh… turns out it’s the government

  31. Y’all do realize that if CSS wins it’s case against Philadelphia, that’ll basically kill any idea of “privatizing” government services, right?

    Simply put, a government (be it city, state, or fed) has a legitimate interest in making sure that services it provides are provided to all in a non-discriminatory way.

    If they aren’t allowed to require said “non-discriminatory way” when they contract out to provide that service, then the only way they can ensure the service is provided to all is to keep it in-house.

    1. That is complete nonsense. First, every service discriminates in some way, otherwise they would just give it to anyone who wanted it without any eligibility requirements.

      You are begging the entire question of what counts as a “discriminatory way” such that it is illegal. That is the whole question; is discriminating against gays discriminating against a protected class like race or religion. If it isn’t then the city has no right to refuse to do business with CSS on the basis of their religious views.

      Moreover, CSS isn’t the only adoption agency that works with the city. They are not asking to be the only ones. They are asking to be one of the agencies. There is nothing to stop the city from using CSS and the “Sodomites need only apply” agency across the street.

      If CSS wins, gay rights won’t be a weapon to destroy freedom of religion in this country. And cities will still be free to contract out whatever services they want.

      1. You largely seem to be confusing this case, over whether the city can choose to not renew a contract, with the cases the SCOTUS heard last fall, which was about whether sexual orientation and gender identity are already covered under the CRA.

        Which is to say, this case will not determine if CSS is acting in an “illegal” way. The cases from last year might (and that the SCOTUS accepted this one foreshadows how they’re going to rule on those), but don’t conflate them.

        Moving on, are you seriously arguing that not-only is “separate but equal” acceptable in in the dispension of government services, but that it’s discrimination if the city doesn’t endorse it?

        Which brings me to your last point: I never said that governments wouldn’t be “free” to contract out services. I said that they will increasingly choose to do it in-house, because they will be unable to prevent contractors from adding arbitrary criteria to the services that the government is paying them to provide.

        1. I am not confusing the case at all. You don’t understand what is going on here. The city is refusing to do business with someone because they are acting on their religious faith. That is violation of the free exercise clause. The city can’t require someone to act against their conscience as a condition of doing business with it. The only way you can get around that is if the action is discriminating against a protected class. The city can say for example, you have to adopt to people of all races even if doing so does violate your religion. So, the issue in this case is are gays a protected class such that the city can refuse to do business with someone who discriminates against them.

          They want to make gays a protected class because doing so will allow governments to make objecting to homosexuality effectively illegal. That is what the gay rights agenda has been about for about 20 years now, forcing acceptance and using government force to restrict speech and action. Libertarians just like gays and generally hate religion so they are fine with it.

          1. Since you are claiming that the city is making claims that it isn’t actually making, no, you’re quite confused.

            The city is not claiming that sexual orientation is a protected class.

            The city is claiming that it can add provisions to non-discrimination policies it sets with contractors above and beyond what the law requires.

            They want to make gays a protected class because doing so will allow governments to make objecting to homosexuality effectively illegal.

            “Effectively” is doing some heavy lifting there, since race, sex, religion, ethnicity and national origin have been protected classes for half a century and there are plenty of folks that object based on those criteria.

    2. Someone should also pipe up that the First Amendment specifically prohibits the government from discriminating against people because of their religion.

      Why is this different from the government refusing to give Pell grants to kids that go to Georgetown because Georgetown is a Catholic university?

      1. You would have to imagine that Georetown was not allowing gay kids to enroll for your scenario to be comparable.

        1. Nah. BYU, who was refusing openly gay kids and expelling gay kids who came out, was still getting Pell grants.

      2. It’s the difference between school vouchers that can help pay the tuition at private schools (including religious ones), and public charter schools (which can’t be religious).

        It’s possible for a state to re-structure it’s foster/adoption program to more closely resemble the voucher situation (and some have done so), but the current situation in Pennsylvania is closer to the charter school one.

    3. Simply put, a government (be it city, state, or fed) has a legitimate interest in making sure that services it provides are provided to all in a non-discriminatory way.

      If that government then contracts out a service to 100 different agencies only one of which discriminates on its clients, where is the harm?

      1. In this case?

        The harm is that we are removing the ability of a government entity to say “contractor will provide services X, Y and Z to groups of people A, B and C”.

        In this specific case, CSS is explicitly saying that “best interests of the child” is not their first and most important criteria. It is, at best, their second criteria. And why should the city fund an agency who puts the primary goal they’re paying for second?

        1. Yes, we are eliminating the ability of the government to discriminate against people for their religious views. I get it that you hate these people and you love gays. You are a libertarian and some day in Libertopia these evil fundies will be lined up against the wall and done away with. But until that happens we have a 1st Amendment of the Constitution that says governments can’t do that and can’t refuse to do business with people because of their religious views. it sucks i know but thems the breaks sometimes.

          1. Yes, we are eliminating the ability of the government to discriminate against people for their religious views.

            Actions. Not views. Actions.

            And you’re missing my point.

            There is no contention that, were Philadelphia providing the services themselves, they could include whatever they wanted in their non-discrimination policy.

            So if Phialdelphia cannot require the same non-discrimiantion policy of contractors, it is much less likely to use contractors.

            You are a libertarian […]

            Libel.

            I have been very up-front, for years, about how I am not, never have been, and never will be, a libertarian or a Libertarian.

    4. CSS is a good band. Wish they would go on tour.

      1. Oh come on! I linked to a good song! Nobody will listen? Losers.

  32. Perhaps San Francisco can declare itself a coronavirus sanctuary city.

  33. Worldwide, at least 80,067 confirmed coronavirus cases are being reported, with at least 2,700 deaths so far.

    Don’t believe that lowball number for a minute. At least not the Chinese reported numbers.

  34. Can’t they just put them in the old Japanese internment camps?

    1. those are tourist facilities now only millenials who want to feel the oppression first hand are allowed to go there.

      1. Why do we keep letting them back out?

  35. Well just read the blog and will say I totally agree with the author views about Corona.
    Power Full Blog

  36. Sigh:
    .@davidcicilline just told reporters he’s preparing to introduce Section 230-related legislation. General thrust is to open platforms up to liability for running demonstratively false political ads.

    — Karl Herchenroeder (@KarlHerk) February 24, 2020

    You’re pretty nakedly saying section 230 currently protects demonstratively false non-political ads.

    It’s getting kinda TDS-y the way you idiots continue to deny that this law, duly enacted by Congress to regulate free speech, is a rather overt carve out or protection racket for the preferred groups.

  37. Too bad for the coronavirus folks that coronavirus isn’t an STD, lifestyle choice disease. We’ve already determined that opposing having these types trucked in makes you a horrible, horrible person. I mean, if you’re stupid enough to catch an air-borne, blood-borne, fecal-borne, mucus-borne disease you pretty much deserve what you get. Am I right? /s

  38. “Major European stock markets were about 0.8 percent lower Tuesday,”

    0.8 percent? Also known as “no significant change, only the usual noise”.

  39. There are now 53 confirmed coronavirus cases in the U.S.

    It’s the Ebola pandemic all over again! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!

    1. It’s SARS! H1N1! Run for your lives!!!

      Oh wait, did you say the number of active cases worldwide has actually been declining for a week?
      https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/#active-cases

      Never mind.

      1. There’s been 2,700 deaths out of 7 billion people! It’s over. Last dying man turn out the lights.

  40. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is siding against the foster agencies. Leslie Cooper, deputy director of the ACLU’s LGBT project, condemned “allowing foster care agencies to exclude qualified families based on religious requirements that have nothing to do with the ability to care for a child.”

    1. When the ACLU abandoned the First Amendment, was there a memo, or did they just kind of do it?

    2. I’m sure Catholics believe that their religion has plenty to do with the ability to care for a child.

    1. 1. When the ACLU abandoned the First Amendment, was there a memo, or did they just kind of do it?

      They do realize that describing them as pro-Nazi and anti-(Catholic) orphanages is a factually accurate depiction, right?

      They’re beginning to make our monocle-wearing, pro-orphan labor brand of libertarianism seem respectable and legit.

    2. I’m sure Catholics believe that their religion has plenty to do with the ability to care for a child.

      They might.

      But state contractors are already required to ignore the religion of would-be parents, so they aren’t allowed to act on that belief when placing children.

  41. Supreme Court denies Mexican family’s damages claim for cross-border shooting

    The Supreme Court in 1971 gave private citizens an implied right to sue federal officials for civil rights violations, even though Congress had passed no such law. But Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote Tuesday that the precedent should be overruled.

    “Federal courts lack the authority to engage in the distinctly legislative task of creating causes of action for damages to enforce federal positive law,” Thomas said. “We are exercising legislative power vested in Congress.”

    MAGA!!!

    Sucks for that Mexican kid but I’m sure every unreason staff members has given their entire paycheck to that kid’s family. Lesson: Don’t throw rocks at armed people.

    1. Libertarian lesson: don’t throw rocks.

      1. Libertarian lesson: sell those rocks at a price that the market will bear.

    2. This case was resolved at motion-to-dismiss. At that stage, the court assumes all the plaintiff’s assertions to be true. The plaintiffs in this case (the kid’s parents) dispute the rock-throwing allegation. While it might be true, it has not yet been proven in court (and given this decision, likely never will be).

      But I’d also argue that shooting at a kid throwing rocks at you from across a culvert big enough to hold the Rio Grande is an over-reaction no matter who’s doing the shooting.

      1. Yeah stoning is not a death penalty in certain religions or anything.

        Rock hits can easily kill someone.

        1. Have you actually looked at that culvert? Have you looked at how big it is at that point? Maybe you’d be in danger if the thrower were a major-league pitcher throwing his fastball and you deliberately put your head in the way. A rock thrown by a random kid, though? I’m not buying it. And that’s before considering that the available video evidence doesn’t exactly support the border cop’s story.

  42. Sooner or later a traveler will return form somewhere there is an infected person and be exposed to the virus. This person may or may not know about the exposure and comes home to somewhere in the US. Maybe a small place here in the US and does not have the medical expertise with the virus and there does not recognize the symptoms for what for it. Thus this patient could expose many people here. So what is the state or federal government going to do with patient. The CDC will quarantine the patient(s), but where.

  43. Let ‘me roam free, specially in CA…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.