Reason Roundup

Medical Marijuana Gets the Green Light From the United Nations

Plus: Trump says he'll veto defense bill if it doesn't destroy the internet, House moves to free federal court records, and more...


United Nations (U.N.) votes to reschedule marijuana. In a close 27 to 25 vote (with one abstention) on Wednesday, members of the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) backed a World Health Organization (WHO) proposal to take cannabis and cannabis resin off the list of Schedule IV drugs—i.e., those which the international body says are "particularly liable to abuse and to produce ill effects" and should therefore be most strictly controlled around the world. Schedule IV drugs include heroin, fentanyl, and—from 1961 until now—cannabis.

Today's "historic vote in Vienna could have far-reaching implications for the global medical cannabis industry, ranging from regulatory oversight to scientific research into the plant and its use as a medicine," writes Alfredo Pascual at Marijuana Business Daily. "The result carries broad symbolic significance for medical cannabis, as it could help boost medical cannabis legalization efforts around the globe now that the CND tacitly acknowledges the medical utility of the drug."

While the U.N. vote "doesn't totally free the plant from treaty control, it's a giant step toward the normalization of cannabis in medicine above all but also in our societies generally," researcher Kenzi Riboulet-Zemouli told Marijuana Business Daily.

The U.N.'s move follows a WHO recommendation that cannabis ought to be rescheduled.

"In strictly legal terms this is not a major change, because the recommended prohibition of cannabis including for medical purposes, that comes with Schedule IV substances, was never obligatory," explained Martin Jelsma last week, in the lead-up to the U.N. committee vote. "But it still makes a big difference, because until today there has been a UN treaty that explicitly advises NOT to use cannabis for medical purposes. The WHO has now given an unequivocal sign of support for medical cannabis programmes"—and, as of today, the U.N. has as well.

These recommendations might not be legally binding, but they can wield significant influence around the globe.

For instance, after the WHO change, Argentina's government "issued a decree authorizing sales and self-cultivation of cannabis for medical use, and the justification explicitly refers to the outcome of the critical review and the WHO recommendation to delete cannabis from schedule IV," noted Jelsma.

The rescheduling "is even more important when you consider that cannabis was placed into Schedule IV without ever having been subject to any scientific assessment," suggests For Alternative Approaches to Addiction Think & do tank (FAAAT) in a press release. "Schedule IV for cannabis is a relic of the most extreme international drug laws inherited from 1950s morals … The removal from Schedule IV is, therefore, phenomenal news for millions of patients around the world and a historical victory of science over politics."


Trump says he'll veto the defense bill if it doesn't repeal Section 230.noted in yesterday's Roundup that Republicans were trying to work an overhaul or repeal of Section 230—a law that protects free speech in the digital sphere—into the latest defense spending bill. The move was reportedly being done at the White House's behest.

Last night, President Donald Trump took the pressure a step further, tweeting that he would veto any National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) unless it saw that Section 230 is "completely terminated."

As Reason's Eric Boehm commented: "If the choice is between 'having free speech online' and 'having the world's most expensive military' that's not a very difficult decision."


Good news for the Open Courts Act of 2020. The legislation would make federal court records accessible without a special subscription to the PACER system and its exorbitant fees.


Next time someone tries to tell you that Amazon or other tech companies are a monopoly:


• It's Reason webathon week! Please help support our journalism efforts with a tax-deductible donation here.

• The U.K. has approved Pfizer/BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine and "the vaccine will be made available across the UK from next week," the U.K. government announced today.

• The Los Angeles Times is suing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security over its refusal to release records related to immigrant detention centers in California.

• Legal contracts for sexting?

• In the face of massive protests, French lawmakers are walking back plans to criminalize the filming of police officers.

• Inside Facebook's policy on women holding their breasts:

• Beverly Hills revolts against Los Angeles County's latest round of COVID-19 restrictions:

NEXT: 'We're Gonna Need a Bigger Website'

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

  1. In newly surfaced July interview, Fauci warns that widely used COVID tests may pick up ‘dead’ virus
    Over-sensitive tests can just pick up “dead nucleotides” rather than live virus, he said.

    Joining the hosts of This Week in Virology in July, Fauci directly responded to a question about COVID-19 testing, specifically how patients with positive tests might determine whether or not they are actually infectious and need to quarantine.

    “What is now sort of evolving into a bit of a standard,” Fauci said, is that “if you get a cycle threshold of 35 or more … the chances of it being replication-confident are minuscule.”

    “It’s very frustrating for the patients as well as for the physicians,” he continued, when “somebody comes in, and they repeat their PCR, and it’s like [a] 37 cycle threshold, but you almost never can culture virus from a 37 threshold cycle.”

    “So, I think if somebody does come in with 37, 38, even 36, you got to say, you know, it’s just dead nucleotides, period.”

    …High-threshold tests appear to be widely in use in the United States. A review by the New York Times in August found that, of just one batch of positive tests from New York, Massachusetts and Nevada, “up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus.”

    Individual test manufacturers and labs, rather than infectious disease authorities, are generally in charge of setting the cycle threshold of a COVID-19 test. “Most PCR assays for infectious diseases have Ct cutoffs in the range of 35-40,” the Alaska Department of Health and Human Services states in a COVID-19 PCR informational document.

      1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regulaexr offices jobs and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..work92/7 online

      2. Now remember that our tests are running 256x MORE SENSITIVE than the “worthless” test he’s talking about.

        1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Ajh Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions………….. Visit Here

    1. Hello.

      Yes, but no one is listening like no one listened to the Danish mask study.

      1. Sounds like Beverly Hills is starting to listen.

        1. I’am made $84, 8254 so far this year working on the web and I’m a full time understudy. Im utilizing an online business opportunity I caught wind of and I’AM profited. It’s truly easy to understand and I’m simply so cheerful that I got some answers concerning it. Here what I do,.for more data essentially open this connection thank you……. EASY ONLINE EARNING

    2. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have mqr earned $28775 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do …….. Visit Here


    Taiwan, which has been praised for its response to the virus, uses a cycle threshold of under 32 to diagnose patients likely to become ill and infectious.

    1. The Ioannidis Affair: A Tale of Major Scientific Overreaction

      But that was not Ioannidis’ position. In the flood of public shaming, his central focus was ignored: estimates of COVID-19 mortality were all over the map, and without testing a “random sample of a population” and repeat testing “at regular time intervals to estimate the incidence of new infections,” the real answers were unknown. Data, not guesswork, he suggested, should guide public health decisions about interventions such as quarantine, travel bans, work and school closures, travel bans and physical distancing, which had their own risks of harm.

      …But the real below-the-belt charge came with the implication that Ioannidis was in league with David Neeleman, the CEO of JetBlue, who gave $5,000 to an anonymized fund at Stanford to support the Santa Clara study. Ioannidis told us he received “zero dollars” for the study, and his lack of any financial incentive was further underscored by a “fact-finding” investigation conducted by an external law firm for Stanford. The investigation found “no evidence that any of the Study funders influenced the design, execution, or reporting of the Study.” Nor did the investigators “identify any conflict of interest of the faculty principals.” Stanford never released the results of its fact finding, because no researcher had been formally accused, and Ioannidis continues to be attacked.

      1. That’s nuts. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered anyone more committed to fair, unbiased analysis of the data. He has been attacked simply for wanting good data. Can’t challenge the narrative.

        1. Doctors with reputations beyond reproach have lost their practices for going against the narrative.

          It’s a FULL BLOWN hysteria. And a few more ‘witches’ will have to be burned before the nutcase psychopaths ‘following science’ jolt out of their trance.

          It’s a fricken cult. I’m surprised they haven’t come for the asymptomatic yet. If the vaccine falters….watch out. The failed incompetent clowns in power staked everything into it. And if it doesn’t deliver. What then?

          I shudder to think.

          1. I suspect you are mistaken, they will not be shocked out of their trance/stance by anything, this is how in-group bias and ignorance function. The agenda and narrative must never be questioned.

            1. From what I’ve seen, this is the correct take, unfortunately. And most progressives only care about tribe. They derive all of their sense of self-worth from it.

              1. They don’t have anything else going on, so they need to feel like they are on the right ‘team’.

      2. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more thorough and caveat filled editor’s note:

        “Editor’s note: This article was originally published on November 30, 2020 with a number of errors and misleading claims. First, it should have been labeled “Opinion,” but was not. Second, the authors’ bylines were omitted. Third, the authors failed to note that they have collaborated in the past with both John Ioannidis and Vinay Prasad, who are discussed in this essay, and also in this accompanying story. This, we now understand, was also the case with a similar opinion piece by the same authors in Undark magazine in June. Fourth, the authors did not disclose that there were other problematic issues raised about the design of the a study co-authored by John Ioannidis, most notably how the study authors recruited study participants and how independent faculty at Stanford said that they were unable to verify the accuracy of their test.”

      3. “ Editor’s note: This article was originally published on November 30, 2020 with a number of errors and misleading claims. ”


  3. In yesterday’s AM links Nardz asked that I “Show [him] the consistency”, which he clarified to mean “Do ratio of mail ins in PA [to] Other states, national average. Show us it’s not a massive outlier.”

    Here are the results of that (slightly expanded) analysis.

    tl;dr: PA mail in ballot numbers seem very consistent with other states.

    All data is available for checking here:

    First I’ll look at voter turnout data (follow links on that page to a spreadsheet if you want to follow along). I’ll then turn to mail in ballots.

    First, the mean voter turnout (what they label as VEP Turnout Rate, which is the ratio of people who cast ballots to the eligible voting population, or VEP) is 67.7% and the standard deviation across states is 5.8 percentage points. In PA the turnout was 71%, less than one standard deviation from the mean. Conclusion: PA is consistent with other states.

    Now let’s look at the fraction of all ballots that voted for the highest office. I get this by dividing “Vote for Highest Office (President)” by “Total Ballots Counted (Estimate)”. Note that these numbers are not available for every state. The mean is 99.07% and the standard deviation is 0.75 percentage points. In PA it was 98.62%, less than one standard deviation from the mean. Conclusion: PA is consistent with other states.

    1. Now let’s look at the fraction of all ballots that voted for the highest office. I get this by dividing “Vote for Highest Office (President)” by “Total Ballots Counted (Estimate)”. Note that these numbers are not available for every state. The mean is 99.07% and the standard deviation is 0.75 percentage points. In PA it was 98.62%, less than one standard deviation from the mean. Conclusion: PA is consistent with other states.

      Now lets look at early vote statistics. This is provided by the same United States Elections Project. Data is available here, though it doesn’t seem to be in as convenient a format.

      I went through each state for which they provide data and transcribed it into a spreadsheet on my own. Feel free to do the same to check my analysis (I would actually appreciate someone doing this to make sure I didn’t make a transcription error). Note that I am taking the eligible voter population (VEP) from the other spreadsheet referenced above.

      Some caveats up front. Different states report differently, so this is not quite an apples to apples comparison. For example, Minnesota does not differentiate between mail-in ballots and early in-person ballots in their reporting, so the website I am getting data from combines those numbers. Another example: Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas don’t report requested mail-in ballots, just total returned (RED STATE CONSPIRACY?? — I’m joking, I’m joking). Nevertheless, I am leaving out Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas from the results reported below. Another: The numbers from Idaho are only from its most populous county. Also, not all Ohio counties report vote by type, so I am also leaving Ohio out of the results reported below (otherwise it combines in-person and mail-in voting). There are others you can read about at that website. I am acknowledging these limitations of the data up front in order to be transparent. With those caveats in mind, I will do the best I can with the data in hand.

      First let’s look at the number of requested mail-in ballots as a percentage of VEP. First thing to note is that there is quite a large spread. Only 5.97% of eligible voters in Arkansas requested a mail in ballot (the lowest of any state), while in New Jersey 98.3% requested ballots. That stood out to me, and it turns out that NJ sent mail-in ballots to all registered voters, so “requested” really isn’t the right term to use here. Colorado seems to do something similar, and I know a few other states did as well. Even considering that, the request rate was still pretty all over the place. Having said that, the mean request rate was 41.88% and the standard deviation was 28.04 percentage points (but, again, that is being influenced a lot lot lot by outliers). How about PA? Request rate was 31.56%, well within one standard deviation. Concerned about the outliers throwing things off? The median was 32.55%. Conclusion: PA is consistent with other states.

      Now let’s look at the number of ballots returned as a percentage of ballots requested. This is much more consistent, though not without some outliers. Only 32.76% of requested ballots were returned in Nevada. But most were in excess of 60%. The mean is 79.06% with a standard deviation of 14.71 percentage points. The median was 82.98%. PA was 85.17%, well within one standard deviation of the mean and very close to the median. Conclusion: PA is consistent with other states.

      Now, on to rejection rates. I am reporting the number of rejected mail in ballots as a percentage of the total of accepted and rejected mail in ballots. Unfortunately only five states have rejection numbers on that website. That makes this analysis susceptible to small-number variations. But, for what it’s worth, here are the numbers:

      Georgia: 0.203%
      Iowa: 0.147%
      Michigan: 0.065%
      North Carolina: 0.808%
      Pennsylvania: 0.281%

      With such few states, mean and standard deviation are not particularly helpful, but if you are interested the mean is 0.3% and the standard deviation is 0.29 percentage points. What we can say is that PA has the second highest rejection rate behind North Carolina. Iowa is lower than all but Michigan, and Iowa (and North Carolina) went for Trump. Maybe with more time we’ll get results from more states and we can do a more robust comparison. Or, if you have a different source, please let me know. But so far, PA is not looking particularly inconsistent.

      We can also compare these rates to 2018. The following numbers for 2018 come from Ballotpedia. I report only the states reported above. The numbers in parentheses are the ratio of 2018 rejection rates to 2020 rejection rates.

      Georgia: 3.1% (15.3)
      Iowa: 1.6% (10.9)
      Michigan: 0.6% (9.2)
      North Carolina: 6.1% (7.5)
      Pennsylvania: 4.4% (15.6)

      Some observations: rejection rates were higher across the board in 2018 by between 7.5 and 15.6 times. The mean ratio between 2018 and 2020 is 11.7 and the standard deviation is 3.2. PA had the biggest drop in rejection rate between 2018 and 2020, but it is only 1.2 standard deviations from the mean. Again, these are small numbers, so I wouldn’t read too much into it, but a 1.2 standard deviation difference is not generally considered significant.

      Conclusion: Need more data, but the data we do have in hand doesn’t make PA look like that much of an outlier. I would call this consistent.

      What is inconsistent is the low rejection rate compared to 2018, but this is true for all the states I have data for, including two states that Trump won.

      So, is the drop in rejection rates in and of itself suspicious? Again, without more data, it’s tough to be definitive, but at this point I lean towards no. I will admit my priors are playing a role here, but consider that there was a major get-out-the-mail-in-vote effort this year, particularly from Democrats. I think it’s reasonable to assume that voters were better educated about how to properly complete their mail in ballots. And I also suspect that if you look at other characteristics, the population of mail in voters in 2020 will look a lot different than the population of mail in voters in 2018, so it’s not really an apples to apples comparison.

      Overall conclusion: PA mail in ballot numbers seem very consistent with other states.

      As always, I’m happy to accept constructive criticisms and to be pointed to additional data.


      1. I can but appreciate your efforts.

        1. His efforts to completely sidestep the question asked (inconsistent ratio of B vs T mail in votes in ONLY pivotal states, outliers that swung the election) in favor of irrelevant data that obfuscates the original question?
          It’s smoke and mirrors.

          1. I quoted the question that you asked directly in the post above. You just said “Do ratio of mail ins in PA” and when I asked ratio to what? (since ratios are fractions with a numerator and denominator) you said “Other states, national average. Show us it’s not a massive outlier.”

            I did my honest best to respond. I guess I misunderstood what you were asking for. But you were not as clear as you are being now.

            I will look into the ratio of Biden to Trump mail in votes and look for outliers. I will use this same source because it is the best I’ve been able to find, but it does not have that info for all states. If you have a better one, please let me know.

            I’ll try to report back tomorrow or Friday.

      2. Thoughts?

        The reason average people aren’t interested in whatever academic debates there are regarding string theory is because the outcome of those debates has no impact on their standard of living or their quality of life. On the other hand, the reason average people are reluctant to believe scientists when they say man made climate change is a real problem is because the outcome of that academic debate could have an immense impact on their standard of living and their quality of life.

        When we talk to people about AGW, and we’re arguing about the science and the statistics, we’re not really addressing their concerns. The statistics AGW critics might really be interested in would be questions like, “How much will I need to sacrifice in terms of GDP per capita before the average temperature starts dropping?” “How much of my standard of living will I need to sacrifice and for how long before the problem is solved, and I don’t need to make sacrifices anymore?” If you’re not answering these questions and they care more about their standard of living than they do about the environment, then ignoring the science is an entirely reasonable thing for them to do.

        What does that have to do with the election results in Pennsylvania?

        The reason people are reluctant to believe these things isn’t addressed by citing statistics because the reason people are reluctant to accept that Joe Biden won the election is because they are quite reasonable in their fears that Joe Biden will keep his campaign promises to implement the Green New Deal, launch a war on our gun rights like we’ve never seen before, crank the corporate tax rate really high, and introduce a “public option” in order crush private markets in health insurance and bring about Medicare for All.

        When the electoral college has voted, President Trump has vacated the White House, and Joe Biden is installed as president, their stonewalling will continue–because in your exhaustive analysis, you have failed to address the reason why they’re so reluctant to accept that Joe Biden won the election. Joe Biden and the progressives could address their critics concerns if they wanted. They could hold a press conference and tell the American people that they don’t really intend to implement the Green New Deal, launch a war on guns like we’ve never seen before, and implement Medicare for All. The reason they don’t do that is because they intend to pursue those goals to the best of their ability pending the outcome of the elections in Georgia. And we haven’t even started to talk about threats to stack the Supreme Court.

        Is the reason you want people to accept the election results because you plan to steamroll them? Do you understand that people are reluctant to be steamrolled–regardless of climate statistics or the voter statistics out of Pennsylvania? Their reluctance isn’t about to go away until you convince them that you don’t intend to steamroll them.

        1. This must be peak ken.

          1000 words or so, all to avoid admitting that Trump is a dangerous would be authoritarian whose scheme to undo and replace elections via a collection of wackjob conspiracy theories has failed.

          Seriously, all that to provide the world’s weakest cover for outright lies and attacks on our 232 year old tradition of democratic elections.

          Fuck yours and the rest of your cult’s feelings. Grow the fuck up. Acknowledge your cult leader lost, and apologize for attempting to destroy our most basic freedom to choose our representatives in government.

          And stop using the most obvious and thin sophistry I’ve ever encountered.

        2. I won’t speak for DebunkingConspiracies, but the reason I want people to accept the election results is because I generally want people to believe things that are true instead of things that are false. It doesn’t matter if the person who was elected promises to build a wall or to implement a Green New Deal or to put all right-handed people in death camps. Denying reality provides no foundation upon which to build a better future.

          I can sympathize with the people you describe, but there’s a difference in not wanting Joe Biden to have won because of his awful policies, and refusing to admit that Joe Biden won because of his awful policies. The latter is denial, and that’s what you seem to be making the case for here.

          1. “I can sympathize with the people you describe, but there’s a difference in not wanting Joe Biden to have won because of his awful policies, and refusing to admit that Joe Biden won because of his awful policies.”

            If Biden’s promised policies are awful, strategically, there is good reason to undermine his legitimacy.

            “Legitimacy is the right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or a regime . . . . An authority viewed as legitimate often has the right and justification to exercise power.


            Undermining his legitimacy is undermining his ability to exercise power.

            Meanwhile, it isn’t wrong to point out that the reasons people are acting the way they are–especially when so many of us seem to be confused about why they’re acting that way.

            Reassure them about Biden’s policies if you can. If we can’t, then maybe we should join them in opposing Biden–if not because of the way the votes were counted then because his policies are awful.

            1. Ken, I think this is really, really dangerous. The Constitution of the United States establishes the legitimacy of the President based upon the outcome of a lawful election, not based on the policies of the candidate. When you suggest that we should undermine the legitimacy of a lawful election, you are really talking about undermining the legitimacy of the Constitution itself.

              If you believe the legitimacy of the Constitution is less important than dealing with four years of Joe Biden, then I’m really sad and worried about where we are headed.

              Reassure them about Biden’s policies if you can. If we can’t, then maybe we should join them in opposing Biden–if not because of the way the votes were counted then because his policies are awful.

              That’s totally fine. But oppose Biden in ways that are in keeping with the rule of law and Constitution, not in ways that violate them.

              1. Perhaps doing all possible to undermine election integrity and security (and labelling any attempts to make elections more secure as “racism”) and demanding a style of voting that, well until this election, EVERYBODY realized was dramatically less secure than in-person voting, has negative repurcussions on the assumption of validity.

                The late night massive vote dumps for Biden stink to hell. End of story.

                Until we return to paper only ballots, I do not buy these results one iota.

              2. “Ken, I think this is really, really dangerous. The Constitution of the United States establishes the legitimacy of the President based upon the outcome of a lawful election, not based on the policies of the candidate.”

                See, we’re really different there.

                Winning elections doesn’t justify anything but holding office.

                Our duly elected politicians may say that I owe them an arbitrary portion of my income because I earned it. Our duly elected politicians may say that using certain intoxicants means you get locked up in a cage. Our duly elected representatives may say that owning a gun and carrying it with you should also get you locked up in a cage. Our duly elected representatives may say that Rosa Parks doesn’t have the right to sit in the front of a public bus.

                I say that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights, and governments are illegitimate to the extent than they violate our rights. To the extent that Joe Biden advocates violating our rights, his candidacy and his government should be considered illegitimate. Our rights exist regardless of whether the government recognizes or violates them, and we know that because there are negative consequences in the real world when the government ignores or violates those rights.

                If you think that believing my rights exist apart from government and believing that their protection is the standard of legitimacy–you should see the kind of danger that erupts when the government systematically violates our rights. Oppression breeds revolt, and that, my friend, is what makes violating our rights so dangerous–regardless of who won or lost the election.

                1. So I was specifically referring to legitimacy within the Constitutional framework. I absolutely agree that our rights do not come from government, and that government exists to protect our rights. So I don’t think we actually disagree on that point.

                  But how do you actually implement and maintain a government that will protect our rights? And what standard do you use to decide when it is failing so badly that said government needs to be, not just selectively disobeyed, but entirely undermined?

                  I think a Constitutional republic that establishes certain things that are out of bounds for government and that uses democratic processes to make decisions regarding things that are in bounds for government is the best answer to the first question I ask above that anyone has found so far. Our particular implementation of that ideal has had flaws since day one, but I think it’s track record is really damn good, and I refuse to abandon it for “light and transient causes”, to quote a more eloquent man than me.

                  I think what you are arguing for (delegitimizing elections based on the outcome, before the winner has even taken office and had the chance to act within the system we have established) threatens our Constitutional republic, and I am not confident that what follows would be better. In fact, I’m fairly confident it would be worse.

                  That means that sometimes I need to accept outcomes I don’t like, tolerate some infringement of my rights, incrementally work to improve the situation, and in some circumstances selectively disobey the government because it’s the morally correct thing to do. And I will do that if Joe Biden is successful in implementing the worst parts of his agenda. If I wasn’t willing to do those things I’d be an anarchist. I’m not, precisely because I think that accepting some bad outcomes, up to a certain point is better than taking the risk of living in a chaotic, war-torn, oppressive country.

                  I still have faith in the ability of American citizens, when organized and working together, to work within the established system to correct its failings and make it better.

                  If I thought there was a real, existential threat to the whole American experiment in constitutionalism and, more importantly, the liberty it is intended to defend, then I might advocate for rebellion or otherwise undermining the whole system.

                  But I am sorry, I simply do not think Joe Biden or his presidential administration represents that existential threat. Maybe if they got to govern unchecked they would, but that would be true of almost anyone. Luckily, I think we still have robust safeguards in place to keep Biden in check, thanks to our Constitutional system and the legitimacy it still has in the eyes of most people. And if we have elections that are both legitimate in fact and legitimate in perception, then we can throw him out in four years.

                  1. Legitimacy is very much in the eye of the beholder, I have found.

                  2. “But how do you actually implement and maintain a government that will protect our rights? And what standard do you use to decide when it is failing so badly that said government needs to be, not just selectively disobeyed, but entirely undermined?”

                    We have police to protect our rights from criminals. We have courts to protect our rights from the police. We have a military to protect our rights from foreign threats. We maintain that government largely through persuasion.

                    I know persuasion is an old-fashioned idea, but the reason vicious dictators fear what their people are saying to each other about them is because they’re smart. I plan to undermine Biden’s legitimacy online and to friends and family. To the extent that he advocates violating our rights and actually does so, he is, in fact, an illegitimate president.

                    I was in LA during the riots. That wasn’t a result of people talking to each other, exactly. It was a result of Daryl Gates’ LAPD violating the rights of so many people for so long. When people’s rights are violated, they eventually erupt.

                    It’s like supply and demand in economics. When the market crashes, it isn’t because somebody gets up and decides that the economic indicators are such–and they’ve finally had it, so now it’s time to call for a crash. This indicator comes up bad, and that indicator comes up bad, and then this earnings report comes in bad, and then that company ends up being insolvent–and suddenly everybody starts making the same decision to sell.

                    I hope to prevent that kind of riot from happening by undermining Biden’s legitimacy right now. If enough of my fellow Americans come to understand that Joe Biden is an illegitimate president because his policies violate our rights–regardless of whether he won an election–then Joe Biden will have a harder time getting his policies through Congress and the reaction to the implementation his unjust and foolish policies will be extreme.

                    I am especially concerned about holding out hope for Biden and Pelosi’s fear of future elections because I don’t believe either one of them will ever face another election again–by their own choice. Biden is so old, and I have it on the authority of people not much younger than he’ll be in 2024 that there’s no way Biden will have the health or energy to crisscross the country in a post-pandemic campaign. I think he’s on a kamikaze mission as far as his political career is concerned. My bet is that he leaves after the midterms and hands it off to Harris. Meanwhile, Pelosi has already promised that she won’t seek the Speaker’s chair after the midterms in 2022. What do they have to lose if they don’t plan on standing for reelection?

                    We better reach out to our friends and family and undermine their legitimacy now–if they don’t care about the outcome of the next election.

                    1. If enough of my fellow Americans come to understand that Joe Biden is an illegitimate president because his policies violate our rights–regardless of whether he won an election–then Joe Biden will have a harder time getting his policies through Congress and the reaction to the implementation his unjust and foolish policies will be extreme.

                      But you are not advocating in this thread for undermining his legitimacy based on his policies violating your and others’ rights. You are advocating undermining his legitimacy by calling into question the lawful results of the election. And if you don’t actually believe the election results were unlawful, then you are undermining his legitimacy by lying.

                      Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying? If so, please address my above statement directly.

                    2. This is hilarious. First, you are not just delegitimizing Biden, you are delegitimizing the foundation of our system of government. Second, how dare you suddenly pretend to be sympathetic to the rioters in LA, when you’ve heaped nothing but scorn and ill wishes for any US demonstration other than “stop the count, no actually keep counting” and covid deniers.

                    3. “But you are not advocating in this thread for undermining his legitimacy based on his policies violating your and others’ rights. You are advocating undermining his legitimacy by calling into question the lawful results of the election.

                      I’m saying that the people who are bringing the legitimacy of Biden’s election into question are ultimately motivated by a desire to avoid the policies they expect Biden to pursue and their consequences. I also wish to undermine Biden’s legitimacy because of the policies I expect him to pursue.

                      How much of a distinction is there between me and them in the real world? We’re both ultimately concerned with Biden’s policies. If the main distinction between people like me and people like them is that I’m on topic and they aren’t, well when you’re addressing their concerns with statistics about the votes, you’re off topic, too.

                      The fact is that both me and the people who are questioning Obama’s birth certificate are ultimately concerned about avoiding the policies Obama wants to implement. Rather than arguing about the finer points of Obama’s birth certificate, we should be addressing their concerns about Obama’s policies. If Obama’s policies are serious threats to our rights and our standard of living, then we should probably join them in seeking to undermine Obama’s legitimacy and his power to implement those policies.

                2. Who advocates taking away what you earned via taxation? Both parties. Locking you in a cage for using certain chemicals? Both parties. Saying Rosa Parks can’t sit wherever she wants on the bus? Both parties, at that time.

                  I voted for Trump and agree with your positions on most of the issues you bring up, but if you go to an “end justifies the means” philosophy, you’re doing the same thing the left does when it tries to silence critics by cancelling them. My focus now is on the Georgia elections for the Senate, and the fact that in two years if Biden pisses people off, he’ll be dealing with possibly losing the House. Meanwhile, if Trump can show legitimately that he won, great, I’ll be happy. But so far he hasn’t.

                  1. “Who advocates taking away what you earned via taxation? Both parties. Locking you in a cage for using certain chemicals? Both parties. Saying Rosa Parks can’t sit wherever she wants on the bus? Both parties, at that time.”

                    There’s also the question of where we go from here.

                    Trump: Killed a $3.5 trillion stimulus bill, slashed corporate (double) taxes, fought to cut $772 billion from Medicaid (first president to ever do that), and negotiated a full withdrawal agreement with the Taliban.

                    Biden: Advocates the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, championed the $3.5 trillion stimulus bill, and campaigned on coming after our gun rights like no one ever has before.

                    One of them is a step in the right direction. The other is a step in the wrong direction.

                    Also, Trump was constrained by Congress–even when the House was controlled by his own party, he faced severe opposition from members of his own party. Neocons like McCain went after him for refusing to be a neocon, and the Republican senate at the time refused to repeal ObamaCare. Trump himself was wrong about a number of things, but he was a step in the right direction. For instance, if we had reelected Trump, we’d be out of Afghanistan by the end of April, the states wouldn’t get a bailout, the Green New Deal wouldn’t even be under consideration, and neither would Biden’s Medicare for All or his War on Guns.

                    Biden was a step in the wrong direction. He wants to take all the bad things we’ve done in the past and make them worse.

                    1. I notice that you consistently avoid questions of the deficit when talking about taxation.

                    2. “I notice that you consistently avoid questions of the deficit when talking about taxation.”

                      If you believe that the government would spend less if it had more money to spend, then your belief is stupid.

                3. Oh so NOW, Ken, when he’s not running behind Daddy Trump’s skirts to save him from the mean Democrat monsters, NOW he pretends he’s some type of Lysander Spooner character. LOL

            2. If Biden’s promised policies are awful, strategically, there is good reason to undermine his legitimacy.

              If you actually value living in a republic, no, there’s no good reason at all. Living in a republic means accepting the results of elections even if (especially if) you lose. Living in a republic means not knowingly spreading disinformation about election results just because you don’t like the guy who won.

              Undermining his legitimacy is undermining his ability to exercise power.

              So is a military coup. Some things aren’t worth the price of putting up with four years of a shitty President.

              If we can’t, then maybe we should join them in opposing Biden–if not because of the way the votes were counted then because his policies are awful.

              By all means, oppose Biden. I’ll be right there with you. But shrugging your shoulders at the “election fraud” crowd and saying “yeah but his policies” is counterproductive to that effort. It’s also just a lame thing to do.

              1. Perhaps four years of doing this has led to people questioning more?

                1. It definitely has, and that’s a valid criticism of those people on your part. It’s a shame that you have to undermine it by advocating for stealing the 2024 election and hoping for another 9/11 to kill more (presumably D-voting) New Yorkers. Sucks dude!

              2. “If you actually value living in a republic, no, there’s no good reason at all.”

                I value my rights. The Republic is only so good as its protection for my rights.

                Joe Biden campaigned on violating them.

                Have you looked at his campaign website?

                1. Every President in my lifetime, and likely your lifetime, has campaigned on violating your rights. Don’t be naïve.

                  So you’re perfectly fine with dismissing the result of an election even if you know that result are accurate if your guy lost? Why not just say that? Why not just say that you don’t believe in the republican system set up by our Constitution, despite the fact that it has done a better job of safeguarding individual rights than any system in human history?

                  What makes you any different than the Russia-gaters of the past four years?

                  1. “Every President in my lifetime, and likely your lifetime, has campaigned on violating your rights. Don’t be naïve.”

                    If anything is naive, it’s the idea that I should treat Biden as if he isn’t promising to violate my rights because others have done the same thing to a lesser extent. I also excoriated Obama and Bush on this website for all the terrible things they did. No doubt, they all violated our rights in certain ways–but some were much worse than others.

                    Biden’s campaign promises are especially atrocious. I spelled out three of the things I’m talking about below. I don’t believe anyone has campaigned on violating my rights the way Biden has, and I’ve included links to his campaign website(s) to show you what I’m talking about. Read it for yourself.

                    1. If anything is naive, it’s the idea that I should treat Biden as if he isn’t promising to violate my rights because others have done the same thing to a lesser extent.

                      Nobody’s asking you to do that. I have asked you in the past to consider the fact that just because Biden promises something doesn’t mean it will happen (his greatest obstacle being the Constitution that you’re so willing to throw out on a dime), but I know you won’t be convinced by that.

                      No doubt, they all violated our rights in certain ways–but some were much worse than others.

                      And did you declare their presidencies to be illegitimate at the time?

                      By your definition, when was the last time we had a “legitimate” President? Keep in mind that you’re measuring legitimacy by a President’s promises to violate your rights, not solely by actual violations.

                    2. “I have asked you in the past to consider the fact that just because Biden promises something doesn’t mean it will happen”

                      So, I shouldn’t believe Biden’s own website or the fact that despite what terrible shit he’s advocating on his website, he’s still less radical than the Democrats in the House?

                      And did you declare their presidencies to be illegitimate at the time?

                      I excoriated both George W. Bush and Obama when they violated our rights, violated the separation of powers, etc. To the extent that they did those things, they were illegitimate presidents.

                      In Bush Jr’s first campaign, he didn’t campaign on violating the Constitution and our rights the way Biden has. When Bush started torturing people, perpetrating mass surveillance, etc., etc., that wasn’t what he campaigned on doing.

                      Obama, likewise, didn’t campaign on violating the Constitution and our rights–at least not the way Biden is doing. The shit on Biden’s campaign website(s) are like Obama campaigning on a promise to force nuns to finance the fornication of their employees. Obama didn’t promise to do shit like that.

            3. You have no thought whatsoever to de-legitimizing elections in general or the constitution which we follow?

              Stop the dodging. In less than 100 words I want you to acknowledge that Trump knows he lost, and that he is misleading his followers for monetary gain and shortsighted pride.

              1. The election was stolen. Period. Biden is an illegitimate President and any actions on behalf of his policies should lead to the person doing them serving jail time.

                1. “The election was stolen.”

                  Gonna need a citation for that one. Also be sure to copy this source to

              2. What was the Russia hoax but a protracted operation to delegitimize the election and the presidency? What were the restrctions on the election safeguards but a means to increase fraud/delegitimize the election. Sorry. These are the actions of your leftist buddies that cast a jaundiced eye on this election.

                1. Read the reports. You simply are in denial.

                2. And Trump primed you guys for this whole fraud charade for about three months. It was obvious. Is your memory really that short?

                  “The only way we lose is if it is rigged.”

                  We had a sudden replacement of the postmaster general when it looked like mail in ballots were going to be used widely this election. The new postmaster hobbled the post office so suddenly and obviously that the US experienced an otherwise unexplained mail slowdown. We heard alarming reports from the postal workers union, whom I had never even heard of before. This was unprecedented, obvious, and right in front of your face, if you cared for the truth at all.


                3. And Trump was claiming fraud in 2016, as well. When his commission found nothing to support his claims, he disbanded it without allowing for a report.

                  Trump is the entire reason anyone is talking about election fraud right now. There is literally no evidence whatsoever of this fraud.

                  Trump is the reason.

                  1. The democrat fraud is the reason.

                    Dont worry, the SCOTUS will side with Trump or we will see a second term via 12th amendment house vote.

                4. DOL believes in the Russia hoax and hates Trump, so he was good with delegitimizing THAT election.

                  1. Then it must be trivially easy for you to find a comment where I suggest the results of 2016 should have been over turned, or that millions of votes should be discarded.

                  2. You cite fell off.

                  3. White knight unreason bot demands cites but never provides them.

          2. I generally want people to believe things that are true instead of things that are false

            Like anyone reading news from their living room has any fucking idea whether or not there were election shenanigans.

          3. Bullshit. The DNC went full banana republic election fraud and simultaneously intentionally reduced the ability to detect that fraud. The only reason to ignore the standard changes is to support the legitimization of that fraud.

            You destroy the safeguards around the electoral process then demand we respect the results as if the safeguards were both in place and followed, sorry you debased the process and election credibility. But with our media people suspicious of accurate results with impaired safeguards are conspiracy kooks because they point out the problem with your fictitious narrative?

            1. Let’s see. Do you believe that the software in Dominion voting machines has been altered to funnel votes to Biden? Well, it was the Georgia Republicans who insisted on purchasing Dominion over the objections of Georgia Democrats.

              1. Machines with paper backup were thought to be safe.

                Turns out garbage in = garbage out. The hand recount of the paper ballots is exposing the machine vote tally lies.

                Georgia secretary of state saying Fulton county wont make the deadline for hand recount. Trump wins Georgia again.

          4. @bignose is much more eloquent than I am. I agree with the above comment.

            1. Thanks, though you’ll likely be accused of being a sockpuppet now. Ah well.

          5. Resist!

        3. Thank you for this response. It gives me an insight that I didn’t previously have. Let me directly answer your question to me before I address the larger point you seem to be making.

          Is the reason you want people to accept the election results because you plan to steamroll them?

          No, and frankly I have no power to steamroll anyone. I’m just a guy living in Virginia that isn’t involved in politics at all, beyond voting and writing the occasional letter to elected officials.

          I think you are conflating two questions.

          1) Did Joe Biden legitimately win the election?

          2) Will Joe Biden govern in a way that will make some given individual happy?

          I am only trying to answer question 1), and from my perspective the answer to that question is “yes”. I am investigating contrary claims because a) it is important to me that whoever won the election did so legitimately, and also because b) it is important to me that people’s opinions about a) accurately reflect reality.

          If Joe Biden didn’t win the election legitimately, then I don’t want him to become president, and I want the people who committed fraud or other violations punished to the fullest extent of the law. If he becomes president in spite of having cheated, then that act of cheating will undermine the entire framework for the peaceful transition of power that has been established over 231 years.

          But if Joe Biden did win the election legitimately, then I want as many people as possible to accept that fact. If people erroneously believe the election was stolen when it wasn’t, then that erroneous belief will undermine the entire framework for the peaceful transition of power that has been established over 231 years.

          I like living in a country where we peacefully transfer power. I want that to continue indefinitely.

          I can accept that Joe Biden won the election legitimately (if he, in fact, did) even though I am 99% sure that I will not be happy with the way he governs, because I’m a libertarian/classical liberal and Joe Biden is not.

          I believe that other people can make that same distinction because I have faith in people ability to reason, even when they are afraid.

          Frankly, your comment makes it seem like you don’t think that they can, or that they shouldn’t, and I find that very discouraging and contrary to the usual spirit of your comments here.

          Furthermore, I would argue that it is essential that people separate the question of whether Joe Biden won legitimately, or whether AGW is real, from the question of whether they like the consequences of those facts.

          If you want the world to reflect your values, you have to first understand the world as it is, not as you want it to be.

          If AGW is not real then people who like capitalism are correct to say so, and people who like socialism should follow their example.

          But if AGW is real but people who like capitalism and its benefits refuse to believe it because socialists also believe it, then we basically cede all attempts to deal with AGW to socialists and guarantee that AGW will be used as vehicle for more socialism. It’s self defeating.

          Similarly, if Joe Biden did not legitimately win the election, Republican/Trump supporters are right to say so, and Democrats and Trump opponents should follow their example.

          But if Joe Biden did legitimately win the election and Republicans/Trump supporters refuse to believe in the integrity of our elections because they don’t like the outcome, then the only people who will participate in our elections are Democrats/Trump opponents, and you will basically cede the government to them. There is a real chance we will see that play out in the Georgia Senate race. It’s self defeating.

          I fully understand that people’s emotional reaction to AGW, the election, and anything else in their lives is a powerful force. There are benefits to that in some situations. But I also believe that all people have the capacity to reason in the face of their emotions, and that we will have a better world when reason and emotion are in proper balance. If I give up on that belief, I’ve given up on the only proven method I know of for making progress towards a freer, more prosperous, and happier world.

          1. Resist!
            Not my president!

            1. Here comes the standard cultist, with the standard cultist first line of defense: watabout this! watabout that!

              1. DOL: Cult!

          2. “But if Joe Biden did legitimately win the election and Republicans/Trump supporters refuse to believe in the integrity of our elections because they don’t like the outcome, then the only people who will participate in our elections are Democrats/Trump opponents, and you will basically cede the government to them. There is a real chance we will see that play out in the Georgia Senate race. It’s self defeating.”

            …OR, we could ALSO cheat. With no remorse and no guilt.

            1. OR, we could ALSO cheat. With no remorse and no guilt

              Then you are actively destroying the Republic and the freedoms that our system of government have helped to secure and expand for over 230 years. Every bit as much as the people you think you are fighting against.

              And yes, some of those freedoms have also been curtailed. I don’t think that is a reason to give up entirely.

              1. The fact that you won’t know depth in analysis betrays your conclusion. If you believe there was honestly no fraud in any of the indicators that have been noted, then you would invite a deep inspection to multiple aspects of those concerns. instead you are saying “a facial analysis means everything is somewhat in family, therefore no fraud occurred” which is an idiotic abuse of statistics.

                Again, you denied the extreme outliers from the paper presented yesterday saying you had shown how it was debunked by an article that described cumulative changes from small batches at the end of the count. You lied about reading the analysis which used independent trial selections for every ballot dump.

                1. If you believe there was honestly no fraud in any of the indicators that have been noted, then you would invite a deep inspection to multiple aspects of those concerns.

                  I welcome in-depth analysis. I welcome audits. I welcome legal investigations. I only ask that they be carried out with the same rigor and using the same standards as we would for any other election.

                  I’m doing what I’m able to do with the data I have. Perhaps you missed my responses to some of the other claims of anomalous results? I invite you to point out flaws the analyses that I and others have done.

                  Again, you denied the extreme outliers from the paper presented yesterday saying you had shown how it was debunked by an article that described cumulative changes from small batches at the end of the count. You lied about reading the analysis which used independent trial selections for every ballot dump.

                  I did no such thing. I pointed out, correctly, that the two different analyses are working with the same data set, which is data scraped from the NYT website, which was provided by Edison Research, and was formatted for use in graphical display on the NYT website. I correctly pointed out that the data set reports updated total votes and updated fractional total share of those votes for Biden and Trump. I correctly pointed out that both analyses you refer to derived the actual number of votes for Biden and Trump by multiplying the total number of votes by the fractional vote share. I correctly pointed out that the fractional vote share is only reported to three significant digits, and that the derived votes for Biden and Trump are therefore inherently imprecise, and therefore not well suited to precision data analysis. I invited anyone who doesn’t believe these statements to download the data and reproduce both analyses for themselves, as I did.

                  I then pointed out that even accepting the second analysis you refer to, their Figure 10 makes it seem like the outlier points they identify are not actually outliers when looked at in terms of the whole country. I speculated that they are detecting two well known and unsurprising facts: that urban centers have large populations, and that urban centers skew more heavily towards Democrats. When combined, this makes urban centers stand out for having a large absolute margin for Joe Biden their x-axes)and for having a large ratio of Biden votes to Trump votes (their y-axes), especially when considering updates that primarily reported the results of mail-in ballots (which the supposedly outlying updates mostly did), since they are known to have skewed even more heavily towards Democrats. Since most states have a small number of large urban centers (in some cases, only one), these updates look extreme in the context of any individual state. But when shown for the country of a whole, which has more of a smooth continuum of small to large population centers, the results look less like outliers and more like points within that continuum. This is how I interpret their Figure 10.

                  I admit that the last paragraph is speculation on my part, though I think it is reasonable, and I welcome a rebuttal of the argument I presented.

                2. You were asked yesterday, several times, by more than one person here, to describe in detail (no hand waving) exactly what “deep inspection” you want done.

          3. “If Joe Biden didn’t win the election legitimately, then I don’t want him to become president”

            Again, Joe Biden’s policies are illegitimate because they’re intended to violate our rights, destroy our standard of living, etc.

            This platform won’t allow me to post more than one link per post. So, I’ll follow this up with two more–so you can see what I’m talking about. Let’s start with Biden’s Green New Deal.

            “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected.”


            Biden says it will cost $1.7 trillion over ten years. Everyone else (including AOC) says it will cost $10 trillion. The $1.7 trillion figure is a farce.

            Biden’s Green New Deal says he will eliminate all green house gas emissions from power production within ten years. He’s not just talking about replacing coal plants with solar. He’s talking about replacing all the natural gas fired power production in this country, too. Incidentally, there’s no way he can achieve that without banning fracking.

            All of this will have a dramatic negative impact on our standard of living. In other countries that have tried this sort of thing (see Australia), once people started getting seeing their energy bills go up, they got so mad, they threw the prime minister and her party out of parliament, and the first thing the news parliament did was repeal all of her legislation that was adding to the costs of energy, too. I’d rather avoid these stupid policies before they’re implemented rather than wait for people to wake up because of the negative consequences.

            The only thing to learn from hitting ourselves in the head with a hammer is that it’s better not to hit ourselves in the head with a hammer. I don’t need to hit myself in the head with a hammer to know that. I’m certainly not about to sit on my hands and breathe through my nose while Joe Biden and the progressives ruin our standard of living. I’ll be doing my best to undermine his and their legitimacy every step of the way.

            P.S. Did you know that greenhouse gas emissions have been falling in the United States since 2007, that Teslas are already selling like hotcakes, and that China has more coal plants under construction than we could possibly eliminate in the United States? The worst possible outcome is the one where we sacrifice our standard of living and it doesn’t make any difference.

            1. “[Biden and Harris] will work to lower health care costs and expand access to quality, affordable health care through a Medicare-like public option.”

              —-Joe Biden’s transition website.


              From elsewhere on the same website:

              “[Biden] is working to ensure that every American has access to quality, affordable health care, by providing a public option”


              It’s not Medicare for All. It’s a “Medicare-like public option” for “every American”! That is the way to end private insurance in this country and bring them all under the total auspices of the government.

              I will not stand by and say nothing while Joe Biden subjects my medical decisions to the whims of government bureaucrats.

              Are you familiar with the term “medical necessity”? I used to help write software that let some of the biggest hospitals and hospital chains in the country check for it. There’s a vast database of codes that’s update quarterly. . . You see Medicare only pays for certain things if they deem it to be “medically necessary”. Once you get past a certain age, there’s no point in giving you a hip replacement when a wheel chair will do. Not to the unelected bureaucrats at CMS anyway. And that’s just one example.

              I’d much rather pay my own way and make my own choices. In fact, I kind of insist on it. Someday, you may find yourself in a situation where they tell you that you have to live with a colostomy bag for the rest of your life because it’s cheaper than an expensive medically unnecessary course of treatment. And what will you say? “Oh well, Biden won the election way back when. I guess that’s just the price of living in a Republic?!

              Fuck that noise!

              I’ll say what I can to undermine Biden’s legitimacy right freakin’ now.

              1. Here’s Joe Biden’s plan to end gun violence:


                He’s promising to ban “assault weapons”, track all the assault weapons that are currently in circulation, ban the sale of both guns and ammunition online, and he’s promising to institute a nationwide relinquishment [confiscation] program.

                I’m not sure we’ve ever elected a president who was so openly hostile to the Bill of Rights. Can anybody think of another president who so openly promised and campaigned on violating our rights in this way?

                No way I’m laying down for that. I’ll undermine Biden’s legitimacy instead.

                If the legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights, then a president whose purpose is to violate our rights is an illegitimate president–no matter whether he won a democratic election or not. My vision of democracy is that we should be free to elect our own leaders. Your vision of democracy seems to boil down to the belief that if I’m a rabbit and the wolves win a majority, then I should just roll over and submit myself as lunch. No way. I’ll just undermine Biden’s legitimacy.

                1. My vision of democracy is that we should be free to elect our own leaders. Your vision of democracy seems to boil down to the belief that if I’m a rabbit and the wolves win a majority, then I should just roll over and submit myself as lunch.

                  That’s not my view. I just think you are driving straight to the extremes and I am not.

                  You’re describing an existential threat. In the face of an existential threat, I’m with you.

                  But I don’t think Biden is an existential threat. And a really, really big reason why is that we still have robust safeguards to limit his actions, and a democratic process that will allow us to replace him and any like-minded people in Congress and the state houses.

                  I think the question here really comes down to two things: on the one hand, how little faith do you have in the American system of government as it currently exists to safeguard our rights? And on the other, how big of a threat do you think Biden’s administration will be in practice?

                  And a third, long-term question: suppose Biden lawfully (since you don’t like the word legitimately in this context) won the election, but you succeed in undermining his administration by convincing people he did not win lawfully.

                  What happens when the shoe is on the other foot?

            2. I’d rather avoid these stupid policies before they’re implemented rather than wait for people to wake up because of the negative consequences.

              Me too. But I’d rather tolerate them for a while and then elect a government that will overturn them than lose the ability to elect a new government.

              P.S. Did you know that greenhouse gas emissions have been falling in the United States since 2007, that Teslas are already selling like hotcakes, and that China has more coal plants under construction than we could possibly eliminate in the United States?

              Yep. 🙂

              I consider myself a free market environmentalist. I agree with a lot of the high level goals of environmentalists when it comes to things like clean(er) air, clean(er) water, preservation of wild areas, etc. I also think that most environmentalists’ policy solutions are awful and that market capitalism and robust property rights are far superior for achieving my preferred outcomes while also balancing the very real and morally justified goals of responsibly exploiting natural resources to improve our material and non-material well-being.

      3. Maybe change your name, some folks simply want to know if there was voter fraud or missed votes or miscounts. That’s not a conspiracy. And, is there another source, say directly from the states, for the data? Yes. this is more time consuming, but github employees have demonstrated a history of the same type of ‘woke’ prejudices that other tech companies have. This is not to say that data from a source there is suspect, but why risk an extra link in the chain versus the ‘raw’ source. This isn’t a condemnation of your method or of github, I applaud your work, and as a tech guy, I use github frequently.

        1. Yeah, in hindsight a different handle might have been less inflammatory. Mea culpa.

          If you click on the state-level links at that github page it will provide additional links to the underlying data sources, which seem to be mostly (entirely?) be official state sources. There is a limit to what I can do in my free time, and absent some evidence that the data are being manipulated between being collected from the official state sources and being published on that webpage, I’m going to have to continue to rely on that project to collect the data into one place. But I did some background research and it seems on the up and up to me.

      4. Thoughts? You didn’t understand the difference between two studies posted yesterday and refused to acknowledge it even when it was pointed out to you.

        1. You aren’t that smart Jesse. You really are not. You need to learn a little humility, and read up on cognitive dissonance, inherent bias, and Dunning-Kruger, instead of outrage porn from pjmedia.

        2. You tried to repeat the Benford’s Law talking point, and screwed it up and called it “Brenfords Law”. You thought that Mike Kelly’s lawsuit was in Wisconsin. Maybe you should show some humility about the limitations of your own grasp of current events.

        3. Jesseaz…unreason has sent in the bots to hide the comments in spam that they disagree with.

  4. Project Veritas Exposes What CNN Discusses on Their Morning Conference Calls. And CNN Responds.

    …CNN has threatened legal action in response to O’Keefe’s secret investigation.

    “Legal experts say this may be a felony,” CNN PR account tweeted on Tuesday. “We’ve referred it to law enforcement.”

    1. O’Keefe Tells Hannity CNN Tapes Reveal Network Is ‘Propaganda’

      “This is something that doesn’t shock people but confirms a lot of suspicions. To see the president of a media conglomerate barking orders at his reporters and journalists, telling them what to cover, what not to cover, that’s not anything resembling journalism I know,” O’Keefe said. “This is propaganda. … This is manufacturing consent. And we’ve never actually seen it, fly on the wall. You can actually hear the president of the company instruct his vice president — instruct his reporters what the narrative ought to be.”

    2. It is a felony, in the same way that, as Chris Cuomo advised us, it was illegal for us mere citizens to even look at the Wikileaks release of the DNC e-mails whereas he, as a Journalist™, was allowed to look at them and then tell you what they said (or didn’t say) and obviously they didn’t say anything newsworthy.

      See now, if O’Keefe were a Journalist™ like the guys on 60 Minutes or 20/20 or Dateline, he would be permitted to use undercover videos like they do, but O’Keefe is not a Journalist™.
      And CNN knows he’s not a Journalist™ because they are the gatekeepers who are allowed to decide who is and who is not a Journalist™, just as it is their right to decide who did and who did not win the election.

      1. Catching people dead in their tracks in their own words isn’t enough.

        Unless reported from the self-anointed journoporno class from second hand unnamed sources.

        Wear a mask, save a tree.

    3. Sounds more like actual reporting. CNN should take notes.

  5. “In strictly legal terms this is not a major change, because the recommended prohibition of cannabis including for medical purposes, that comes with Schedule IV substances, was never obligatory,”

    What? What the fuck you talking about? This was always the excuse for not re-scheduling marijuana, because we had a UN treaty that prohibited the re-scheduling of marijuana. Now you’re saying there was never such a treaty? Somebody is full of shit and lying about things.

    1. It’s a treaty, but any country which is a party to the treaty can get out of it by giving a year or two’s notice.

      So it’s like locking your cookies in the cabinet but carrying the key around with you. With a time-delay lock at worst.

      Remind every country that their weed is locked up just like that – it can be legalized any time a country deems it consistent with their particular policy needs or wants.

      1. Any country that is part of the treaty can get out of the treaty by ignoring the treaty. What is the UN going to do?


        2. With the exit door right there, as *part* of the treaty there’s no need to ignore the treaty, except during a one or two year transition period which probably nobody would sweat.

    2. The treaty required only that it be limited to medical, scientific, and/or industrial use. In other words, the treaty allowed signatory countries to treat it like opiates, for instance.

    3. I’ll admit I only scanned this. Does she make the libertarian case that we shouldn’t even be in the UN? That’s the kind of thing I’d like to see in Reason.

  6. If KM-W or Robert Poole or Charles Koch or whoever wants to cull more reason staff I can offer a list of worthy nominees:

  7. Remember, it’s “who”, not “what”. If you put someone with the right demographics in front (a woman of color like Harris instead of a white evangelical male like W), the “who”, you can do whatever you want.

    Nasdaq Wants the Government to Force Woke LGBT Diversity on Corporate Boards

    1. The annual corporate reports will at least be more eye-catching with better color layouts, etc.

    2. Chairman of the board: “Ok we gotta have a woman and a gay. Who’s up?”

      John: “I’ll be the gay”

      Tony: “I’ll the be woman”

      Chairman:” Right then. next item”

      1. I nominate this comment for comment of the month.

    3. California’s already doing that. The comical part is that LGBTQ is one of the promoted demographics. But what’s to stop someone already on the board from saying they belong to that group? Who’s going to verify it? And how? Woke Inquisition?

      1. “Woke Inquisition?”

        Sounds like an interesting movie plot.

  8. Secret dossier on coronavirus damage
    Government document lists ‘red’ areas facing biggest job cuts

    The government has drawn up a secret dossier detailing the impact of coronavirus on the economy, with a dozen sectors rated “red” and facing significant job cuts and revenue losses, The Times has been told.

    The Covid-19 sectoral impacts dashboard, which is prepared by officials from across Whitehall and frequently updated, gives “granular” detail on the effect of coronavirus on nearly 40 areas of the economy.

    Among the sectors with a red rating are aerospace, the automotive industry, retail, hospitality and tourism, arts and heritage, maritime, including ferries and cruises, and sport.

    Details of the document emerged as up to 70 Tory MPs prepared to rebel today over the government’s new tiering system, which is due to come into force tomorrow.

    1. Those stupid motherfuckers didn’t even do a cost/benefit analysis before jumping into lockdowns.

      The British have about had it. Good thing they only have knives.

  9. The COVID Science Wars
    Shutting down scientific debate is hurting the public health

    As in the cholera wars of the 1890s, different theories about the spread of COVID-19 and methods for reducing the death rate have been marked not only by by scientific conflicts, but also by an increasing distrustful public, political upheavals and even riots. The debates over COVID-19 and the arguments of the past, in which different sides have failed to perceive the possibility that they might not have the whole story, may hold vitally important lessons for President-elect Biden’s COVID-19 task force. Hardened positions, which leave little room for uncertainty and nuance, undermine public trust as various assertions prove wrong.

    In today’s COVID-19 wars, the global scientific divide leans heavily in favor of active, and sometimes even draconian, public health interventions, including widespread locking down of nonessential business, mandating masks, restricting travel and imposing quarantines. On the other side, some doctors, scientists and public health officials are questioning the wisdom of this approach in the face of massive unknowns about their efficacy and in light of the clear and growing evidence that such measures may not be working in some cases, and may also be causing net harm. As people are thrown out of work as a direct result of lockdowns, and as more and more families find themselves unable to cover their rent or food, there have been sharp increases in domestic violence, homelessness and illegal drug use.

    The two sides of the COVID-19 war are illustrated by two documents, the John Snow Memorandum and the Great Barrington Declaration, which were posted online in October. The former represents the majoritarian position, which supports strict measures to limit human contacts and movements across the board. In the U.S., this approach has included shutting down public gatherings, restricting hotels and numerous small businesses such as restaurants and shops, and throwing millions of Americans out of work. The Great Barrington Declaration, the minority view, advocates “focused protection,” allowing younger and healthier individuals to continue life, work and going to school, while aiming more protective measures at the most vulnerable to the virus—the elderly, the institutionalized and other high-risk individuals. This approach has been employed most fully in Sweden.

    Advocates on both sides have dug in, hurling dismissive and vitriolic attacks at individuals in the other camp. These attacks have caused serious reputational harm in some cases and led at least a few scientists to self-censor and avoid publishing data that could inform efforts to dampen death rates from both the virus and its remedies.

  10. Defund the police? Nah! Der TrumpfenFuhrer will go ya one better! Defund national defense! Defunding national defense is better than (Oh My! The HORRORS!) continuing to allow Section 230 to enable free speech! We MUST have NEW Ministries of Truth and Ministries of NOT Hurting My Baby Feelings to REGULATE that wild and wooly internet! Taming (regulating) this wild beast is more important than national defense!

    So much for Trumpster-to-the-dumpster being a deregulator!

    1. If he succeeds, he’s shooting himself in the foot. Without Section 230, his Twitter account is toast.

      Without Section 230, this comments section is also toast, by the way.

      1. If Reason won’t fight for our right to call you a apologist for Marists and to point out that SQLSRY is bat-shit crazy, then who will?

        “First they came for the critics of socialism, and I did not speak out—because I was a fan of socialism…”

        1. I may or may not be a Marist (if you could let us know what a Marist is, maybe I could tell ya), but at least I’m not a hypocrite who goes to church to kiss ass with God and the Angel Moron every Sunday, and then act like an asshole the rest of the time!

          Hey asshole! Has the following ever occurred to you: God does NOT nearly so much, want you to sacrifice your money to have fancy buildings of steel and glass, and rock and concrete, erected… He would MUCH rather have you sacrifice your arrogance and self-righteousness! Your arrogance and self-righteousness does NO ONE any good, not even YOU! When your arrogance and self-righteousness impels you to go and vote for the likes of Der TrumpfenFuhrer, it doesn’t even do HIM any good! He is NOT a happy man!

          Wisdom from Bruce Springsteen…

          Poor man wanna be rich,
          Rich man wanna be king,
          King ain’t satisfied
          Till he rules everything!

          Rule over your arrogance and self-righteousness, asshole! Try it some time! It will make you happier than threadshitting on the internet all day! You (and your fave fascists) are NOT gonna rule everything! Give it up, false-pride wonder-turd!

          1. Flag. Rinse. Repeat.

            1. What comes around, goes around. Treat others as if you are the asshole that you are, and others catch on, and do NOT treat you nicely, in return! “Karma” of the natural world! No God or gods required, actually! “Secular karma” if you will!

              Hey asshole! Ass-kissing with God, and MAGA-magic underwear, etc., are NOT gonna protect YOU from “secular karma”! Don’t say that no one warned you! But then, I am a “no one”, right? Just a bug, to be flagged? Because YOU ARE AN ARROGANT ASSHOLE! Who listens to NO ONE that disagrees with you! You are gonna learn your lessons, NO WAY other than through suffering what you dish out, self-punishing fool!

              1. Posts pages of garbled nonsense, including horrible poetry. Check!
                Continually displays gross ignorance of actual history, then verbally assaults those that correct him. Check!
                Calls people arrogant assholes while ridiculing their religion in the most disrespectful ways. Check!

                Flag. Refresh. Moving on…

                1. Arrogant assholes think that the BEST way to worship God, is to show everyone else how to be an arrogant asshole!

                  And… SURPRISE! They do NOT listen to other people! More news at 11:00!

                  Read and heed, M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie,

                2. Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. 34You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. 35The good man brings good things out of his good store of treasure, and the evil man brings evil things out of his evil store of treasure.…

                  Guess who said that, ye who thinks your MAGA-magic underwear will save you?

      2. Without Section 230, his Twitter account is toast

        Is White Knight lying again or really just that stupid?

        Without 230 Twitter has a choice:
        1. Be liable for every single fucking thing posted.
        2. Only remove posts at the request of law enforcement.

        Without 230 they have to choose what they want to be. None of this special protections both ways horseshit.

        1. Without Section 230, Option 2 leaves websites liable for user-posted content. That’s OK, we can all use one of the big, successful Canadian social media platforms — oh, wait, there aren’t any.

          1. They’re no more liable than the post office or phone company without 230 you piece of shit.
            The just don’t get the right to censorship anymore.

            1. I like how CACLLs cannot debate an issue without resorting to calling the other side names.

              1. It is pretty consistent that the name calling starts when you resort to fallacy and refuse to concede valid arguments.

                Like you just did, dipshit.

                1. Oh, so it’s my fault that JesseAz, Mother’s Lament, Sevo, Nardz, John, etc. all initiate rude behavior and name calling when someone contradicts their narrative. Got it.

                  1. If people consistently disagree with you, it is logical to check your premises.

                    1. Sounds like good advice for Trump campaign’s legal team.

                    2. You really don’t post much that isn’t a non-sequitur, do you?

              2. Stop saying stupid things and you won’t be called stupid.

                1. Says JesseSPAZ, who NEVER says stupid things!

                  Readers, beware! Do not be deceived by JesseAZ! JesseAZ does NOT believe that LIES are bad in ANY way! Only ACTIONS matter, ethically or morally! See
                  “Words are words dumbfuck. Actions are where morals and ethics lie.”, says JesseAZ. When confronted with offers of hush money, illegal commands (from a commanding military officer), offers of murder for hire, libel, slander, lies in court, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, inciting riots, fighting words, forged signatures, threatening to kill elected officials, false representations concerning products or services for sale… these are all “merely” cases of “using words”. Just like the Evil One (AKA “Father of Lies”), Jesse says lies are all A-OK and utterly harmless! So do NOT believe ANYTHING that you hear from JesseAZ!

                  Also according to the same source, JesseAZ is TOTALLY on board with dictatorship (presumably so long as it is an “R” dictator that we are talking of).
                  With reference to Trump, JesseAZ says…
                  “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

                  I say again, this is important…
                  “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”
                  We need a BRILLIANTLY persuasive new movie from JesseAZ to “Wake Up, America!”, to flesh out the concept that “The Triumph of The Will of The Trump, Trumps All”! Including the USA Constitution. In fact, USA military personnel should start swearing allegiance to Trump, NOT to some stupid, moldering old piece of paper!
                  Previous Powerful People have blazed a path for us to follow here, slackers!!!

                2. “Brenfords Law”

                  The lawsuit in Wisconson that was declared moot…

                  Maybe you could show some humility.

          2. What does Canada have to do with Section 230?

            1. Momma is a Canadian, yet finds time to try and boss around Americans on an American web site. Canada generally has a lot less freedom of speech than the USA does, is fairly safe to say. Momma wants to export Canadian speech and thought control to the USA. (At least partly as a result of said thought control) Canadian lack of individual freedom leads to Canada NOT having robust free speech on web sites! Or successful social media that amounts to more than moose shit! So Mamma comes over HERE to moose-shit on the rest of us!

        2. I just want to take this opportunity WK to tell you what an incredibly dishonest piece of shit you are and how much you disgust me.

          You may not be Jeffrey Dhamer creepy like Tony, but you still have an utterly fucking repellent personality. Like Tim Burton’s Penguin.

          How do you get through the day without wanting to kill yourself?

          1. Momma loses the argument, has to become a potty-mouthed spoiled brat. As usual for empty-headed conservaturds!

        3. Hey asshole moose-fucker! Between fucking all those moose and mooses, geese and meese, do you also find time to fuck your fellow greedy, selfish asshole known as JesseSPAZ? You fascists are peas in a pod! Lusting after the use of Government Almighty to steal other folks’ properties!

          Read and heed, greedy, selfish bastard!

          From the always-there top-intro to the comments at
          “We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.”

          Yet JesseSPAZ (and other enemies of freedom of speech, and enemies of Section 230) will find invisible or implied contractual rights! After JesseSPAZ reads (or can read if JesseSPAZ will bother to do so) this “contract”, for JesseSPAZ’s right to post comments FOR FREE, JesseSPAZ will go and run crying to Government Almighty to tear down Section 230, and invent and insert NEW clauses, infringing on the property rights of! If JesseSPAZ (or others, to include “false flag” leftists) post SO MUCH deeply offensive racist CRAP, for example, that advertisers will stop buying advertisements on Or buyers of Reason Magazine BOYCOTT the magazine? JesseSPAZ will STILL want to go running and crying to Government Almighty to FORCE to post the crap-writings of JesseSPAZ!!!

          Some gratitude, JesseSPAZ, for what does for you for FREE!!! When a neighbor lends you tools (for FREE), which you never return, or return broken… And the neighbor, in turn, STOPS lending you tools, do you find “invisible contractual clauses”, and run crying to Government Almighty to FORCE your neighbor to lend you MORE tools? What are the limits to your greed and evil, to your unquenchable thirst, JesseSPAZ?

          This calls for a moderate-length analogy.

          I lend you a tool, or some money… Largely out of the goodness of my heart… No profit to me! The spoken or unspoken, written or unwritten, agreement (“contract”) is, you pay me back, at a decently high priority, or give me a tool back, in the same condition that I lent it to you.
          (I have had the following types of things happen to me…) Never get paid back, or borrower goes on fancy vacation and brags about it on FaceBook, instead of paying me back… Never returns the tool… Returns the tool broken… Makes me feel like a nagging asshole, to be repeatedly asking for MY money and-or tool(s) back. At the logical extreme (haven’t had this one happen to me, YET!) they go running and crying to Government Almighty, and threaten to SUE me, if I break some invisible (or made-up) contract provision, whereby they INSIST that I CONTINUE to lend them more money or tools, despite their bad behavior!
          This kind of asshole behavior “erodes social capital”, or trust. It is NOT the way to “love one’s neighbors”! I hardly ever lend out money or tools any more… Because of the human “tools” that I have had to deal with here!
          This is a straight-forward analogy to abusing the “social trust” of web sites who allow us to post on their web sites for FREE! And then we make made-up, or invisible-ink, “contract clauses” that aren’t there! And lust after SUING them! An abuse of “social capital”! If you’re not enough of an asshole to do this to your friend or your neighbor, WHY would you do it to (for example)
          Oh, is “impure of motives”, you might argue, because your comments might help VERY slightly, to attract you and others to their web site, and help them to sell advertising! Well, whoop-de-do! You could question my motives in lending you money or tools as well! I was just trying to “enhance my social reputation” of being a good dude or dudette, right? So that gives you license to shit on me, and break REAL contracts, NOT imaginary ones?!
          At the end of the day, these kinds of behavior erode social trust, or social capital! It is the way of assholes, NOT of decent folks!

          HOW do bad-faith actors treat (for example) shabbily, and “break my loaned-out tool”, in the analogy?
          By making UTTERLY NASTY (ultra-racist for example) posts, all day every day, to the point that (as a result) many readers and advertisers BOYCOTT the web site and magazine! And INSIST that their FREE posts MUST stay up, “or else”!
          That should be pretty clear!

          1. Running out of flags. No, wait, still got one. Refresh.

            1. Assholes never run out of arrogant assholery. What a surprise! What is even MORE surprising, though, is they run off to Church on Sundays, and call their assholery “Holy”!

    2. Flag. Refresh.

      1. Same.

    3. Well, the Army is supposed to only be funded for 2 years at a time, then disbanded in times of peace. The Army Reserve can maintain a corps of trained officers to quickly ramp back up when needed, and the state militias can be called up in an emergency situation.

      1. This would be a good model for labor unions. For a military that requires instituinal memory -Os and NCOs that know how to do the job well, and mid-level soldiers who are capable, it is not a good model. Particularly if Congress and shitty POTUS’ keep sending them into stupid conflicts or other hellish places because ‘someone must do something.’ I suggest That for each battle, there is a bipartisan Congressional team, poorly trained, poorly equipped, with the Infantry. And a team of federal union members, teacher’s union members, Everytown members, and assorted anti-military asshats. All without weapons, the Infantry not being responsible for keeping them alive unless they prove their worth to the unit by manual labor. Building a school for the local children, or something similar, with no security detail.

    4. Congress is not complying with Trump’s demand to add Section 230 repeal to the defense bill:

  11. Lockdown today, lockdown tomorrow, lockdown forever.

    Also, “whims”. Fuck you asshole, that’s called “retirement savings”.

    Opinion: We need to act boldly now if we are to avoid economy-wide lockdowns to halt climate change

    Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling. To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently.

    COVID-19 is itself a consequence of environmental degradation: one recent study dubbed it “the disease of the Anthropocene.” Moreover, climate change will exacerbate the social and economic problems highlighted by the pandemic. These include governments’ diminishing capacity to address public-health crises, the private sector’s limited ability to withstand sustained economic disruption, and pervasive social inequality.

    These shortcomings reflect the distorted values underlying our priorities. For example, we demand the most from “essential workers” (including nurses, supermarket workers, and delivery drivers) while paying them the least. Without fundamental change, climate change will worsen such problems.

    The climate crisis is also a public-health crisis. Global warming will cause drinking water to degrade and enable pollution-linked respiratory diseases to thrive. According to some projections, 3.5 billion people globally will live in unbearable heat by 2070.

    Addressing this triple crisis requires reorienting corporate governance, finance, policy, and energy systems toward a green economic transformation. To achieve this, three obstacles must be removed: business that is shareholder-driven instead of stakeholder-driven, finance that is used in inadequate and inappropriate ways, and government that is based on outdated economic thinking and faulty assumptions.

    Corporate governance must now reflect stakeholders’ needs instead of shareholders’ whims.

    1. A couple of observations here:
      1) These people are actually arrogant enough to believe that they can socially engineer a complete reversal to something that has accumulated over decades, in the span of a few years or less. If it takes decades to
      2) In such a scenario proposed here, as we’ve seen with the COVID lockdowns and restrictions, the measures these people are calling for will most certainly not apply to them. They will continue to enjoy the lifestyle to which they’ve become accustomed, while the rest of us suffer under whatever arbitrary, continually shifting rules they concoct to keep us in a state of free-floating anxiety.

      What they are proposing is a form of technocratic feudalism, a Hunger Games-style society in which a labor class literally works themselves to death for the benefit of an overlord yuppie class.

      Last note–anyone who seriously argues that nurses aren’t paid well is lying. Yes, the entry-level ones start off relatively low, but it’s like that in any occupation. Nursing is a well-paid profession that can easily double the salary of a typical CNA. It’s one of the few blue-collar jobs that can provide a middle-class living right out of the gate if you’re not spending your paycheck on booze, gadgets, and “experiences”.

      1. * If it takes decades to cause, it’s going to take decades to fix.

      2. I agree with your points, including that nurses are well paid and a worthy career to encourage.

        I will say though, I am convinced that AGW is real, and likely to cause tremendous harm to mankind in the coming century. As a diver, I started noticing that my old reef spots around asia were having massive reef die offs, just as the AGW “alarmists” predicted. I noticed that winters in the Midwest no longer guaranteed a white Christmas, as they did unfailingly in my childhood (and the data shows far warmer winters in the Midwest since the 80’s.)

        All this is to say that ivory tower climatologists and flawed models aside, I have personally noticed the climate warming.

        So, if you will assume AGW is real for a moment, what would be acceptable mitigations?

        1. Honestly, I think the question over mitigation is just mental masturbation at this point. Back when the lockdowns started in the spring, I noticed several of my Marxist-leaning and left-liberal yuppie acquaintances pimping articles talking about how much the lockdowns were supposedly allowing the earth to heal.

          It’s pretty clear that these people, who are far more representative of the globalist consensus than my right-leaning acquaintances, think that the solution is to suppress as much human activity as possible, at least in the first world. Logically, their celebration of the suppression of economic activity would be an end state of a mass die-off, because even “green” industry requires a lot of non-green pollution at the front end to make it happen. So unless the Earth population drops down to about 3 billion, they’re not getting their wish regardless of the technology.

          And that’s not even taking into account the issues with agreements like the Paris Accords, which is little more than a giant skimming operation for banks to facilitate wealth transfers from the first to the third world. Ultimately, arguing over the question that “something needs to be done” is irrelevant when the proposed solutions are couched in question-begging, utopian thinking, and double standards.

          1. So do nothing? Supposedly doing nothing will result in a massive die off, as well. If we accept that AGW is real, and likely to cause incredible damage to the habitability of the planet, what are we to do?

            I have read one paper that hypothesizes that we are already past the point of no return when it comes to reducing emissions. The author states that the only way to preserve the current climate is to build some 30,000 massive CO2 capture plants.

            I’m not saying this is the best idea, or best approximation of reality, but it is a proposal for mitigation besides reducing human activity.

            After this last wildfire season, and having to have my kids indoors for 2 weeks with air purifiers running, I’m becoming more and more concerned about this issue for the next generations. I don’t think “do nothing” is going to be the policy recommendation that wins the day, as you noted above. So wouldn’t it be better to have a libertarian proposal to mitigate AGW, rather than blanket denial?

            1. If we’re actually past the point of no return, there’s literally nothing that can be done. Anything that is tried would just be window dressing and as likely to do as much harm as it would good.

            2. Contradictory to what many people seem to think, it is easily demonstrated that a warmer planet is inevitably a wetter planet. Linking AGW, droughts, and wildfires is fallacious. The forests in the West have always burned and baring serious management, they always will. FFS, the famous CA redwoods require fire to propagate. That kind of evolutionary adaptation takes millions of years and those species have existed through multiple ice ages.

              The baseless fearmongering of environmental progressives overlays their real goals of population reduction and power to force the proletariat to bend to their will.

              1. Record wildfires in N. America, Australia, and Siberia just this year. This is not a California problem, this is a global problem. Warming is tied to changing patterns of precipitation. In the case of the US west, it means drier, hotter summers and much more fires.

                1. Science! Record implies recorded. What is known about fires during the warming period after the previous ice age? Changing precipitation? The stuff they determine by reading tree rings? Like reading the bumps on your head to determine your personality. It tells you what you want to be told.

        2. May want to actually educate yourself on the issue if you are pretending you’re now a diver.

          Coral reefs move, they have for millenia, as some spots die, others grow.

          Much of the issue is not coral bleaching, but nitrogenation from run off and other pollution.

          Reefs are not dying off in totality, simply migrating as they have done throughout the centuries.

          You didn’t personally witness jack. You witnessed that ecosystems are not isolated bubbles that never change. Congrats on learning basic ecology.

          1. I’ll ignore your baseless personal attacks as just a Jesse thang.

            “A study published in the international journal Marine Biology, reveals what’s really killing coral reefs. With 30 years of unique data from Looe Key Reef in the lower Florida Keys, researchers from Florida Atlantic University’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute and collaborators have discovered that the problem of coral bleaching is not just due to a warming planet, but also a planet that is simultaneously being enriched with reactive nitrogen from multiple sources.”

            What exactly from this article refutes what I said? They still cite global warming as a cause, and note that nitrogen imbalance is also contributing, even as a primary driver in the Florida Keys. Nothing in the article says that they are migrating just as “they have done for millennia”.

            Are you a diver, or just another topic you are a 5 minute google expert on?

            1. You know that scientists can obfuscate to advance interest in their field, right? It is not even lying to say that coral reefs are bleaching and dying without pointing out that they are also migrating.

              That is exactly what they tried to do with the polar bears 15-20 years ago. And they were getting away with it until the scientists that actually study the bears pointed out that the bears are thriving.

              1. Jesse’s argument was that nitrogen imbalance is causing coral bleaching, and that coral migrates also. His article did not refute AGW as a cause, and did not support this migration theory at all.

                I’m not a marine scientist. I have no strong opinions here. Just trying to remain in the realm of facts, rather than comforting fantasies that coincidentally do not require any examination of one’s own beliefs and preferences.

                1. And yet, I just presented you facts about polar bears to demonstrate scientists ignoring data that contradicts their pet projects and you completely ignored it? Who is not examining what here?

    2. As usual, California is out in front, planning to force companies to make 60% of their staff work from home every day, after the pandemic ends.

      Apparently not thinking ahead to the reduction in property taxes from companies needed 60% less office space, or the reduction in income taxes and sales tax revenue from employees free to live out of state and keep the same jobs.


    94% of murder victims in Cook County (Chicago area) are Black or Hispanic (who make up half the population). The racial disparity, the chance of being murdered, for Blacks or Hispanics, compared to whites, is 16-to-1. (Murder rates are 33 and 2 per 100,000, respectively.)

    94% of murder victims in Cook County (Chicago area) are Black or Hispanic (who make up half the population). The racial disparity, the chance of being murdered, for Blacks or Hispanics, compared to whites, is 16-to-1. (Murder rates are 33 and 2 per 100,000, respectively.)

    1. BLMish. One of the reasons I left

  13. “Who”, not “what”. She also argued for corporate protection for the company that sold the Nazis the gas they used in their camps.
    Former Obama admin lawyer Neal Katyal in the Supreme Court today arguing corporations like Nestle and Cargill can’t be sued for allegedly using child slave labor


      The Gap, which reportedly uses Uyghur labor in Anhui Province, also lobbied against the forced labor bill, in addition to Nike and Apple.


    As a first-generation American kid who’d always wanted to escape his embarrassing blue-collar upbringing, the greatest red pill was when I finally penetrated the elite world and realized that my peers, most of whom had come from the finest of families, were utterly mediocre.

  15. Who, not what:

    “Why would you want to go speak to that group of millions of people over there in an effort to build majority coalitions to war, imperialism, and militarism?” –

    A question you ask when you’re a vapid TV-taper with the mentality of a young teenager with no concerns about change.

    When Trump tried to pull troops from Afghanistan and Germany, a bipartisan group of House Dems funded by Boeing and Republicans led by Liz Cheney united to stop it.

    One of the few willing to work with Tulsi &
    against this was


      The Secret Drone Papers reported by Jeremy Scahill revealed that “almost 9 out of 10 people killed in these strikes were not the intended targets.”


        Obama’s CIA Chief
        — who now works for NBC/MSNBC analyzing the news — got caught lying when he claimed drones killed no innocent people (this was before he got caught lying about spying on the Senate’s torture investigation).


          2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner explains his preferences for how to kill people, falsely asserts that — after some unspecified number of years of the bombs falling on weddings and schools — that his conscience was activated and he imposed greater controls.


          “… the Trump administration rolled back a host of Obama-era drone policies. That meant relaxed restrictions on exports of drones and laser designators, relaxed oversight on military drones sold abroad, greater authority for both military commanders and the CIA in choosing to attack targets, and removing the reporting requirement for casualties outside of designated battlefields.”


          “Antiwar President Donald Trump has launched more air and drone strikes in Somalia over just the last year than Barack Obama did over all eight years, and about as many strikes per year as GWB and Obama combined and totaled from 2002 (war’s start) to January 2017 (inauguration).”

          1. Somalia gave us illian Omar, so they have it comming

          2. The data is the key, instead of just making dumb statements. Obama, 1-22 civilians killed, Trump 7-31. Not that significant a difference in numbers, but shitty, as they represent people. Obama, 338-521 militants killed, Trump 996-1094. That’s a significant increase. I am not a fan of cruise missile or drone strike warfare. I wonder if this will increase or decrease under Biden.


        “President Donald Trump has revoked a policy set by his predecessor requiring US intelligence officials to publish the number of civilians killed in drone strikes outside of war zones.”


    First pro-slavery case argued by a person of color. Historic!
    Quote Tweet
    Mark Joseph Stern
    · 22h
    This morning at the Supreme Court, @neal_katyal defended two U.S. corporations accused of aiding and abetting child slavery overseas. The question is whether alleged victims can sue these corporations for overseas crimes in U.S. courts. I’ll post a few notable exchanges.

    1. By the way, Neal Katyal is also arguing for the position of the Trump DOJ. So is Trump “pro-slavery” now?

      1. If you hadn’t been twisting the actual DOJ position, then Yes. Definitely.

    2. And you are taking a complex issue and reducing it to tribal demagogic appeals. How much liability should a US corporation have for what goes on in the practices of foreign companies with whom they do business? That is the real issue in these cases. Not whether anyone is “pro-slavery” or not.

    3. Neal Katyal’s legal theory on behalf of Nestle and Cargill might be too extreme even for this ultraconservative court.

      Hahaha. Those comedians at Slate… The court that legalized gay marriage and just upheld anti-discrimination laws against gays and trans is ultraconserative?

      Do words have meaning anymore?

      1. No grasshopper, they do not.

    1. It’s impossible for both to be true, right?

    2. Poor unreason.

  17. “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) faces criticism over suggesting a bipartisan proposal on further stimulus is a waste of time . . . . A group including Republican and Democrat lawmakers unveiled a $908 billion compromise proposal on Tuesday, in a bid to breach the impasse.

    Asked about this pitch at a news conference, and the need for the House to pass something as well as the president to sign it, McConnell said: “We just don’t have time to waste time. We have a couple of weeks left here. Obviously, it does require bipartisan support to get out of the Congress but it requires a presidential signature.

    “This government is in place for sure for the next month. I think the place to start is are we actually making a law or are we just making a point.

    “And I think the way you make a law for sure is you know you got a presidential signature.”

    —-Newsweek, December 2, 2020

    1. The issue now–as it always was–isn’t just the size of the stimulus package but the things it spends that money on. The $908 billion “compromise” deal, “includes state and local aid, expanded unemployment insurance, support for small businesses and help for those with student loans”. There are no checks going out to average Americans.

      The proposal McConnell is pushing is nominally for $560 billion, but only $348 billion of that would be new funding. The rest of it is coming from money that was already authorized in the first pandemic bill but wasn’t spent. A nice chunk of that includes another round of $1,200 checks, liability relief for businesses that reopened, and, more importantly, none of it goes to bailing out blue states.

      In other words, we’re right back where we’ve been for months. The Democrats in the House won’t back a stimulus bill unless it bails out California, Illinois, New York, and other blue states, and President Trump won’t sign a bill that bails blue states out on pension obligations and other things that have nothing to do with Covid-19. He wouldn’t sign a stimulus deal like that before the election, and now that the election is over, I don’t see why he’d do with the pressure is off.

      McConnell is just speaking the truth here–which always makes progressives and their fans in journalism upset. I see no good reason to doubt what McConnell is saying. The truth is this: President has shown no indication that he will sign a stimulus deal that bails out the blue states the way the House Democrats want. President Trump once offered to pay for the costs of making schools social distance friendly–on the condition that the schools opened and remained opened–but Pelosi wouldn’t budge on that. Meanwhile, there probably isn’t even enough support by senate Republicans to pass the $560 billion skinny deal.

      Don’t expect to see President Trump sign another stimulus deal. Expect them to have to wait for Biden and the outcome of the senate elections in Georgia. Meanwhile, the economy continues to improve and the vaccines will start being distributed later this month–which obviates the argument for further stimulus in the minds of, you know, people who aren’t progressives. Somehow, in their minds, the apocalypse is always on the horizon and the only way to prevent it is more spending.

      1. “The issue now–as it always was–isn’t just the size of the stimulus package but the things it spends that money on.”

        Yes Ken you made that quite clear yesterday. It’s totes okay to propose to spend MORE money as long as it’s not on what Democrats want. What happened to Fuck You Cut Spending?

        1. I predict the words “debt” and “deficit” will suddenly be far more in vogue around here, come January 21.

        2. I don’t think Ken made any judgment statements about whether the stimulus is good or bad. He was just describing the lay of the land as he sees it.

          1. I oppose stimulus spending.

            I especially oppose bailing out the states.

            Meanwhile, sending consumers checks may be “stimulus” as a descriptive term–but it isn’t Keynesian stimulus, which is all about taking money from consumers because of their marginal propensity to save and giving it to the government to spend because they always spend every penny they get and then some. The government sending us checks is almost the opposite of Keynesian stimulus. What we spend it on matters.

            At any rate, Trump and the Republicans are solidly better than the Democrats on the stimulus–and I hope the Republicans don’t cave so that we end up with zero stimulus for the time being. If Joe Biden and the Democrats want to tax the people of Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, and Ohio to bail out California and New York, they should own all of that themselves–for 2022 and 2024.

            The $1 trillion they authorized to bail out the states in that $3 trillion+ package the House Democrats passed back in May is bigger than TARP, and it should provoke an even bigger backlash. If anything is less popular in “flyover” states than bailing out Wall Street, surely it must be bailing out California and New York with their future paychecks. No reason for the Republicans to be a party to the bailout this time like they were with TARP. And for the time being, anyway, it looks like the Republicans learned their lesson.

            1. Incidentally, seeing massive layoffs in California, Illinois, and New York due to a lack of “stimulus” is what it looks like when the government gets smaller.

              They will never willingly cut spending (especially on state pensions) until they have no other choice. During recessions like this is one of those rare opportunities where they have no other choice.

              Bailouts give them an alternative to cutting spending, and they should be opposed by all libertarians for that reason.



              And I believe that’s just at the county level–not including the states. If the President and Congress had somehow passed a law that eliminated almost a million government jobs, my fellow libertarians should be throwing parties to celebrate. They didn’t need to pass a law like that. All they had to do was refuse to bail out state and local government and watch the government shrink.

              And it’s our fault for failing to reelect President Trump to continue this. Now that Biden is president, one or two of the Republicans will probably cave–and that’s all it takes when there’s a Democrat like Biden in the White House.

  18. She of the Hammer and Sickle hat:
    For anyone who hasn’t been the target of Russian propaganda (cc:

    ) the purpose is to discredit powerful messengers and to spread misinformation to confuse the public. Anyone who repeats it is (unwitting or not) simply a puppet of the propaganda machine.


    San Francisco Mayor London Breed had her own French Laundry party — the night after Gavin Newsom attended a dinner there.


      MISSING CONTEXT: this tweet leaves out that, at the time, Jen Psaki was the spokesperson for the State Department, which really makes this whole thing look even worse when you think about it huh

  20. While Lecturing Americans On Racism, Big Business Opposes Ban On Using Foreign Slave Labor

    It’s like them supporting the Democrat Party which is the Party of slavery but speak out of the other side of their mouths.

    1. “the Democrat Party which is the Party of slavery”

      That would be a fair cop, sixty years ago. The word, “is”, is used for the present tense.


      1. Nothing changed for the Democrat party. They picked a house nigga to be president to keep the black voters on the plantation.

        Biden is an old white man. He tried and lost to win the 2020 election under the democrat party.

        The lies democrats try to get people to accept just isnt working anymore.

        Trump vs biden is gonna be such a fun win for Trump.


    “Necrophilia violates the NAP!” someone will yell at me

    1. Jill Biden hardest hit.

    2. If the dead can vote, they can have sex. QED.

    3. Good thing someone is addressing this important issue.


    Paul Krugman pretending 4 years of ‘muh Russia’ conspiracy theories never happened.

    1. My current view on Russia. Russia committed unprecedented criminal meddling at Trump’s invitation which did help Trump win the election but I can’t say those criminal efforts were the proximate cause of Trump winning. Because Rosenstein and Mueller hobbled the investigation into Trump’s involvement, the results of that investigation and it’s finding of “insufficient evidence” to prove criminal conspiracy are not entirely dispositive of the question. Trump absolutely colluded in the normal sense of that word with the Russian govt’s efforts to disparage his political opponent.

      1. Resist!

      2. Needs more lizard people from space masquerading as top government officials, but at least you did refer to this as your current view, not fact.

        1. You could just read the reports. But I suspect you have not and will not.

          Between the actions of Stone and Manafort, and the Trump tower meeting, it is not reasonable at all to think that Trump and co. were innocent.

      3. Dring, dring, dring.


    I’m sad to hear about the passing of Professor Walter E. Williams. A legend, trailblazer, and defender of liberty. RIP

    1. Aw man.

      Not a time to be losing such minds and voices.

    2. RIP, lost a good man who helped me see errors in my thinking with his work.

    3. Yes, and as usual in cases like this, I didn’t even know he was sick.

    1. The masks were a test. A means to an end. To foster fear and await the vaccine.

      We failed.

      And when ‘normies’ realize it wasn’t a case of ‘just do this temporarily until this passes and all will be swell’ and that medical tyranny will dictate their own health decisions, it’s going to be spectacular in its ‘whaaaa?’

      1. #1 killer = heart disease. Say goodbye to liquor and meat, prols.

        1. I would literally starve to death without meat.

      2. After hearing from those PPE experts on Monday night, and seeing an interesting analysis of data from England, I’m starting to think that masks aren’t just not very helpful for stopping a virus, but they may also be fairly harmful.
        The PPE experts who spoke at the NH event pointed out an interesting fact, that 1 year ago, OSHA was citing and fining businesses that made employees use masks or respirators without proper training, fit and function testing and medical clearance for workers asked to use the PPE. The last one is big.
        They should be requiring medical clearance before making people wear masks, not requiring a doctor’s not not to wear one. For physical work especially, working with a mask or respirator can be quite dangerous and puts a lot of extra stress on the cardio-vascular system. Now they are close to requiring exactly what they forbade a year ago.
        The interesting point from England was that their increase in cases started in mid-August, at pretty much the exact time they mandated masks for everyone. This was during a very hot part of the summer when you would not expect such increases. This of course proves nothing, but is an interesting correlation that should be investigated.

    2. Protecting everyone around the wearer is socialism, and thus undesirable.

      1. Now is the time to do as you are told!

        1. Do you stop at stop signs?

          1. Do you still drive a car ? 30,000 people die on the road each year. You are part of the problem!

            1. And I stop at stop signs and follow the other rules of the road when I drive, to reduce that number as much as possible.

              Likewise, I wash my hands and wear a mask in close quarters with others outside of my household and the 2 other families we socialize with. Yes, I’m breaking the rules, as one does when they go 5 mph over the limit.

              But I don’t redline my engine in schools zones, and I don’t lick doorknobs during pandemics (or any other time).

              1. You live a lie wrapped in false-virtue.

                1. Do you use your blinkers?

                2. De oppressor of Americans is quick with the straw man where rules of the road are equated to state dictas where many Americans wont comply.

          2. Not if there is no danger of causing an accident or getting pulled over.

      2. There is little evidence that that is an effect of masks either. It seems reasonable, but you don’t know until it has actually been properly studied. Masks definitely cause harm. Prove that the benefits are sufficient to justify the harm caused or go away.


    There’s also the Democrat controlled cities that cut police budgets and all those cited here did not condemn. Silence is violence, or something.


    Of all the toxic trends that the pandemic has unleashed in the U.S., one of the worst is the fad where healthcare workers trawl online for attention with unflattering and likely embellished stories about their COVID-19 patients.

    1. Agreed.

      That and the amped up “Heroes Work Here!” bullshit. A local clinic actually has that painted on the building. It’s fucking embarrassing.

    2. Yes, narcissistic displays really are off putting, don’t you agree?

      I’d call the trend of ignorant and selfish people casually dismissing the deaths of a quarter million americans more toxic than nurses trawling for praise, bur that’s just me.

      1. Have you stopped driving because 30,000 people die on the road each year?
        It’s the least you can do to protect others.

        1. It only took a mild pandemic to call for the shutdown of the restaurant industry, not the deaths of over 600,000 people a year from heart disease and diabetes.

          1. To be clear, I am not for blanket shut downs, and agree that government guidance or mandates on this issue (as with many others) will be misguided, asinine, and ineffective at times.

            I also acknowledge that this is not just a cold, and that allowing the virus to have its way with us will and has caused far more harm than good. This is evidenced by US citizens being effectively locked out of global tourism and trade while China gets to run free, hastening our fall.

            Similar to the debate happening up-thread with Ken making excuses for cultists propagating baseless conspiracy theories about the election, I feel people should acknowledge reality in order to make good decisions. Denying reality because I don’t like the possible policy implications is irresponsible and against my nature.

            1. We have not just “let the virus have it’s way with us” and there is little reason to believe that it would have gone any differently had other policies been tried. People opposing the measures imposed are not casually dismissing 250k deaths.

              1. There are many examples of other countries and their citizens handling the outbreak much better than us. Travel to Oklahoma or Kansas right now and tell me we couldn’t do any better than we are. I would say travel to Vietnam, Japan, Korea, Australia, etc. to see how much better they are doing, alas we are forbidden to travel there. A real and tangible loss of my personal freedom that was caused by an irresponsible and selfish president and his cult of selfishness.

                I am not proud of many of my fellow Americans on this matter.

                1. I’m not sure why you’re singling out red states when blue states are going through their own massive spikes.

                  1. He is saying we should have acted more like the communist countries did.

                  2. That was unintentional. The midwest is where the outbreaks are the worst right now, and coincidentally the region I’ve most traveled to outside my own.

              2. And I think they very much are dismissing those deaths. Look at the comments by Jesse, Geraje, and the rest of the cultiest around here. They minimize the human cost every chance they get, grasping at straws like co morbidity or quotes from the farthest fringes of twitter.

            2. The problem is that the ham-handed government responses like shutdowns are a denial of reality in their own right.

              We know now, based on states that have bothered to collect the data, that most outbreaks in the pandemic have been in nursing homes and prisons. Colorado found that colleges became a third major source in the last 2.5 months. None of the data where it’s been tracked show that restaurants, barber shops, parks, or other small businesses are a major source of outbreaks, yet that’s precisely whom these policies are targeting. That’s as much a denial of reality as claiming the virus to be a hoax.

              1. The most reality-denying policy was mandating limits on small gatherings, when the actual data, where it’s collected, shows that these are WAY back in the pack of what’s causing outbreaks, especially in the last 2.5 months.

      2. I’d call the trend of ignorant and selfish people casually dismissing the deaths of a quarter million americans more toxic than nurses trawling for praise, bur that’s just me.

        The nurses I’ve been around have thought the praise was misplaced and idiotic since the beginning and now, they just want their medical transcription, sample accessioning, orderlies, candy stripers, janitors, and general labor staff back. Not to mention, pippettes, growth media, testing supplies, nitrile gloves, etc. And they realize that with more bailouts and handouts, they won’t get it.

        It’s like declaring them brave soldiers and then shutting down the supply chains that provide them with rifles, armor, and bullets.

  26. Watch Live: Michigan Senate Committee Holds Hearing on Absentee Ballot Counting

    That makes hearings in PA, WI, MI, AZ, GA, and NV.

  27. United Nations (U.N.) votes to reschedule marijuana.

    Transitioning from prohibition graft to regulation graft, I see.

    1. Weed for Oil?

  28. Barr Comments ‘Twisted’ By AP, DoJ Says Not Done Probing Election Fraud

    Several days after the 2020 election, Barr authorized the DOJ to probe any “substantial allegations” of voter fraud and noted that “such inquiries and reviews may be conducted if there are clear and apparently-credible allegations of irregularities that, if true, could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual state.”

    1. Is this not a win win? Please veto the defense bill Mr. President

      1. Yeah, interesting to see Amash side with Neocons (if not donning their skin):

        More defense spending *and* protection for (the right kind of) free speech on the internet? Yes please!

      2. Trump will need the military in his second term to defend the USA from democrats trying to burn everything down after the SCoTUS sides with Trump campaign claims of massive democrat election fraud.

  29. Trump says he’ll veto the defense bill if it doesn’t repeal Section 230.

    Good. Maybe that means the Dems will come down on the other side of this issue, although I’m dubious.

  30. This bill encourages trust in the judicial process and facilitates oversight of the judiciary.

    I don’t see how.

  31. Please help support our journalism efforts with a tax-deductible donation here.

    What about those of us who duck out on paying taxes? Why are we getting the shaft?

  32. This year sales on Shopify will probably be 40-45% of sales on Amazon Marketplace.

    WHAT THE HELL IS SHOPIFY? Do they have good streaming serieses?

  33. The U.K. has approved Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine and “the vaccine will be made available across the UK from next week,” the U.K. government announced today.

    The U.S., saving their bacon again.

  34. Legal contracts for sexting?

    You want me to put my John Hancock where?

  35. In the face of massive protests, French lawmakers are walking back plans to criminalize the filming of police officers.

    A few burning Citroëns and the white flags come out.

  36. Want to know what Facebook’s new “breast squeezing policy” looks like?

    I got hold of some internal documents…

    Oh, I’ll just bet you did.

  37. Wow— Beverly Hills City Council unanimously approved a resolution tonight that opposes LA County’s ban on outdoor dining, citing lack of scientific evidence.

    The Peach Pit is saved.

    1. Science deniers.

  38. The Biden economy continues to pay off for the richest people on the planet, including’s benefactor.

    Charles Koch earned $392,000,000 yesterday.

    Once Biden takes office, $392 million will be a slow day for Mr. Koch. That’s because Biden will reverse Drumpf’s high-tariff / low-immigration policies that prevent billionaires from prospering.


    1. Poor Shikha got shit-canned.

      Pour one out for your fired OpenBorders homegirl.

      1. I’ll pour one out for her article blaming Trump for Pak/India tensions.

        As someone who is more on the open border side of the debate; I can only hope the next writer they get to cover the beat writes with a little more nuance and far less hyperbole.


    Today is Day 1,411 of the Trump Presidency.

    I have not been put into a Gay Concentration Camp.

    I have not been electrocuted straight by Mike Pence.

    Exactly zero of my rights have been taken away.

    Thank you, Donald Trump.

  40. Did y’all see where Fauci said that now we have a Dem coming to the White House we can stop going the extra mile to make C19 miserable and reopen schools, since the people no longer need to be punished for voting the wrong way?

    1. Fauci is the master of the long con, according the addled minds of cultists.

      50 some years of virus research and quiet public service, all to one day force hillbillies to put a piece of paper over their mouths.


    2. Link please


    Today is Day 263 of 15 Days to Slow The Spread.


    According to the data coming out now, the “bad flu season” of December 2019 & January 2020 was actually the beginning of COVID-19 and we just didn’t have the PCR tests to know it!

  43. Medical Marijuana Gets the Green Light From the United Nations

    This (among other things) just goes to show how absolutely stupid and worthless the UN is. Why would anyonepay any attention to anything coming out of this ridiculous organization?

    1. Because the UN is far better than the alternative.

      1. Which is? The UN’s stupid grievance culture edicts are best ignored; sadly the organization has fallen from their prime post-WW2

        1. Pure realism in international relations. Basically non stop and intense arms races followed by brutal wars.

          The UN is not perfect, but there was a reason for its founding, and that reason is to prevent wars, especially massive global ones. On that front, it seems to do its purpose.

          I will tolerate meaningless virtue signalling or obnoxious statements from our adversaries, since the alternative to diplomacy is war.

  44. Just to let you guys know, Section 230 is what allows you guys to post here. It what allows you to use “woodchipper” in your handles. It’s what keeps Reason from having to fork over your personal identities to every judge with a chip on his shoulder.

    Section 230 is why comment sections even exist.

    1. Reason dying because there is no comment section for us to slam ENB and Shika is a perk. Reason can die (as an entity, not intended as a threat to actual humans who work there)

      1. The Roundup has been up for a little over an hour and you’ve posted 38 comments already. But sure, no comment section would be a perk for you.

        1. Die, Reason.

          1. But where would you endlessly link to random assholes on Twitter? Seems like you’re cutting off your nose to spite your face here my dude.

            1. Don’t care. Die, Reason.

              1. +10000000000000

        2. He’s afraid we may have missed some alt-right tweet, so he’s repeating ALL of them here.

      2. Reason isn’t going to die from not having a comment section. The management of Reason is barely aware there is a comments section, and it continues to exist mostly through inertia. Repealing Section 230 will take away the daily gathering of our weird little circle of nerds, and that’s about it.

        1. You won’t be missed.

        2. Sure thats why they send in staff trolls and bots.

    2. No it is not, but thanks for continuing to push the leftist narrative. Repeal of 230 will kill comment sections in the same degree removing NN killed the internet.

      Repeal would do little more than make hosting sites liable for their moderation, not their lack of overzealous moderation of viewpoints offensive to the most thin skinned among us.

    3. It what allows you to use “woodchipper” in your handles.

      You seem exceptionally ignorant of the facts. And I mean like all of them. Section 230 didn’t and doesn’t stop the abrogation or infraction asserted. The 1A did and does.

  45. It’s rather curious that you equate reform of section 230 with destroying the internet. What you mean is you will have to become responsible journalists who don’t use twitter to report the news. That’s difficult for a generation raised on biased garbage and shallow banal entertainment to swallow I know. You never knew how it was and you assume it will go on forever.

    1. Please explain exactly how Section 230 applies to Reason’s site owner-provided content.


    This is not a real magazine cover, but it’s accuracy speaks volumes about Obama’s legacy and the lies he told in his recent Breakfast Club interview. We can no longer ride on emotion and symbolism. We must demand and achieve tangible results for us to survive in America.

  47. (fingers to forehead, staring off in the middle distance)
    Sevo predicts more board members identifying as women and minorities!

    “Nasdaq Seeks Board-Diversity Rule That Most Listed Firms Don’t Meet”

    Dunno about you, but we don’t care if our investments make money. Nope, we just care about the diversity of their boards!

    1. They can be accountable to shareholders (i.e. you aren’t making money). You won’t be accountable to stakeholders – who is holding you accountable for what, other than some token representation on the board and a CRT initiative used to grind your employees into submission.

      Hypothetical: you work for a major corporation. You see a co-worker destroyed for liking a Trump Jr tweet over the weekend on his own time. Small business has been killed by lockdowns and him being fired as a racist makes him unemployable by the Fortune 500. He loses everything. He is toast.

      Do you

      A. stand up for your rights as an employee outside of CRT issues later on
      B. keep your head down and pray HR doesn’t notice you exist

      But, but, but we only gave Corporate America the power to crush employees on the promise they’d only crush the racist ones. They promised.

    2. using their “everyone can identify how they want” really is the only response to the quotas.

  48. Stay at home stay safe and also follow the Coronavirus Disease (COVID 19) Guidelines according to WHO.

  49. “Biden could help San Francisco win billions from Big Oil over climate change”
    “Eight California cities and counties were among the first in the country to go to court to force Chevron, Shell, ExxonMobil and others to pay for the emissions-driven problems of rising seas, drought and wildfires. Two dozen jurisdictions nationwide are now pursuing similar climate lawsuits, including New York and Baltimore. More could follow if the Biden administration offers a helping hand….”

    First, my sincere thanks to all you TDS-infected shits!
    And then, the dim-bulb assumption here is that the corporations have the money to pay any awards. Hint: they act as collection agencies, raising the price of their products.

    1. Good! Good! Let the anger flow through you!

      1. Quote fail.

      2. Good! Let the stupid flow out of your finger-tip, TDS-infected shit!

    2. What we need is a section 230 that protects corporations from other people’s frivolous bullshit.

      After it worked so well at cleaning up the internet and keeping it from becoming a corporation-dominated intellectual and cultural wasteland, I can’t see any potential downsides.


    gets his movies, and their sponsor
    lobbies the U.S. to keep using Chinese slave labor, Agnes Chow heads to prison, quietly showing the world what courage actually looks like.


    California taxpayers shelled out more than $1 million to a man linked to a Chinese espionage program, making him the state government’s highest-paid worker.

    Meng Yu, former chief investment officer of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), received more than $1.7 million in total pay and benefits in 2019, according to the latest financial disclosures obtained by Transparent California, a taxpayer watchdog group. Under Meng’s leadership the pension fund, which covers two million members in the retirement system and 1.5 million members under its health program, has been subject to federal inquiries into its investments in Chinese government entities.

    Meng took the lead at the pension fund after China’s Thousand Talents Program recruited him to serve as the deputy CIO of China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE), a state-controlled entity. The FBI considers the Thousand Talents Program an example of “China’s non-traditional espionage against the United States” that seeks to recruit people to transfer U.S. trade secrets and taxpayer-funded research into the hands of the Chinese government. Meng told the propaganda outlet People’s Daily that he worked for SAFE out of patriotic commitment to “the motherland.”

    1. California is communists, all the way down.


    If Jen Psaki had been a Trump transition official, that photo with Lavrov would have been enough evidence to spy on her and find a way to lock her up, put her in solitary, and throw away the key.


      Psaki wore a hat with the hammer-and-sickle, which represents totalitarianism, that was gifted her by Russian officials. And she posed for a picture with them. That’s not misinformation. And she could have not put the hat on her head, or posed for the photo.

    2. that photo with Lavrov would have been enough evidence to spy on her and find a way to lock her up, put her in solitary, and throw away the key

      Of course it would. She doesn’t have children the feds can threaten to get her to incriminate her boss.

  53. Food trucks

    President-elect Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Department of Homeland Security was accused in a government watchdog report during the Obama administration of exerting improper influence to help high-profile Democrats navigate a government visa program to help their wealthy foreign investors.

    Biden’s transition team announced on Monday that he will pick Alejandro Mayorkas, the former deputy secretary of homeland security, to lead the agency.

    Mayorkas, who also served as director of U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) during the Obama administration, is credited as the architect of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which granted permanent resident status to illegal aliens who were brought to the U.S. as children.

    Mayorkas was investigated during the Obama administration over his role helping prominent Democrats navigate the EB-5 visa program.

    The program grants green cards to foreigners who invest at least $500,000 in American companies. It has come under intense scrutiny, with critics alleging that it is rife with fraud.

    The DHS inspector general (IG) found that Mayorkas “exerted improper influence” in his handling of visas sought by GreenTech Automotive, a car company controlled by Terry McAuliffe, the former chairman of the DNC and former Virginia governor, and Tony Rodham, the brother of Hillary Clinton.

      1. Food trucks are the only reason that someone could want a more open immigration system. Everybody is intellectually dishonest and wholly motivated by greed except for me and people who agree with me.

  54. Socialized medicine

    Puberty blockers: Under-16s ‘unlikely’ to be able to give informed consent

    Puberty blockers: Under-16s ‘unlikely’ to be able to give informed consent

    Children under 16 with gender dysphoria are unlikely to be able to give informed consent to undergo treatment with puberty-blocking drugs, three High Court judges have ruled.

    The case was brought against Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, which said it was “disappointed” but immediately suspended such referrals for under-16s.

    The NHS said it “welcomed the clarity” the ruling would bring.

    One of the claimants, Keira Bell, said she was “delighted” by the judgment.

    Ms Bell, 23, from Cambridge, had been referred to the Tavistock Centre, which runs the UK’s only gender-identity development service (GIDS), as a teenager and was prescribed puberty blockers aged 16.

    She argued the clinic should have challenged her more over her decision to transition to a male as a teenager.

    In a ruling, Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Mrs Justice Lieven, said: “It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers.

    1. Speaking of troons, apparently Ellen Page decided she wasn’t getting enough attention as a lesbian and announced yesterday that she’s actually a dude.

      The hairline that was receding faster than the Arctic ice shelf was obviously the harbinger here, but she did leave herself a hedge as being “non-binary,” so if she changes her mind in the next ten years, she can go back to being a chick and not worry about the long-term effects of taking testosterone and estrogen blockers.


    This artificial distinction between sex and gender was invented by a guy named John Money a few decades ago. You are parroting his ideas unquestioningly even though he was a pedophile who experimented on children and caused them to kill themselves.

    1. It’s definitely older than a few decades. While closely related and highly correlated, biological sex and the social phenomenon of gender aren’t one and the same. It could have been an interesting and useful distinction to make if insane people hadn’t picked it up and used it to try to pretend that reality doesn’t exist.

  56. There are no treasures of American journalism at reason, just liars owned by rich businesspeople.

    Make that “one less”

  57. all vetoed bills are good bills and jeebus is facebook really regulating different boob-grabs?

    1. is facebook really regulating different boob-grabs?

      Need more data to process.

      1. lol I don’t know how FB works is boob-grab searchable?

    2. is facebook really regulating different boob-grabs?

      1. love it.

  58. long live Walter E. Williams.

  59. Trump says he’ll veto defense bill if it doesn’t destroy the internet

    And from Reason Roundup 11/30/20:

    Supreme Court Considers Whether Trump Can Block Immigrants From Census Counts

    Your “exaggerating to make a point” is approaching “making shit up”. Please knock it off already.



    1. You democrats got caught in a massive election fraud scheme.

      Not only will Trump have a second term but a bunch of democrats are going to jail for their crimes.

      1. I’m a libertarian non-partisan voter.

        I’m not a fan of the Democrats.


    “The federal judge presiding over Sidney Powell and L. Lin Wood’s lawsuit challenging Wisconsin’s election results issued a ruling on Wednesday that reads like a laundry list of embarrassing procedural failures and omissions, highlighting what could well represent the nadir of post-election legal ineptitude.”

    1. As if any other outcome was possible.

      I’m sure LC1776 will tell us how this all part of the plan.

      1. Trump v Biden Supreme Court victory for Trump, any day now…

        Meanwhile, Trump and Powell are sabotaging the chances of Republicans winning the Georgia runoff. That sucks, because I want the Republicans to win the Senate to keep Biden’s spending plan in check. But “Diaper Don” will sacrifice the Republican Party, the military, whatever to not suffer the humiliation of not winning a second term.

    2. Quicker to get to the SCoTUS. Same thing happened in bush vs gore in 2000.

      Unreason is super scared that all the propaganda and election fraud by democrats wont get Biden into the presidency.

      Georgia recount in fulton county a mess since their initial bogus vote numbers dont match the paper ballot backups. Trump won georgia just like senator perdue beat jon ossoff by 80,000 votes.

      1. Im definitely tired of winning this much.

        1. Just in case, get your TRUMP 2024!!! ASCII art ready.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.