Reason Roundup

Are These Wyoming Library Books Obscene?

Plus: Most Republicans oppose fetal heartbeat laws, FDA authorizes rapid at-home COVID-19 tests, and more...

|

Wyoming prosecutors are being asked to consider criminal charges against public library staff because the library carries information about reproduction, sex, and being gay. Local busybodies in Campbell County, Wyoming, are trying to brand children's or young adult books about getting pregnant, sex education, and being gay as illegal obscenity.

"These books are absolutely appalling," lead campaigner Susan Sisti, an administrative pastor with Open Door Church, told the Associated Press. (Ironically, Sisti ran for office in 2020 on a platform that she described as "pro-Constitution.")

Sisti said that library books reported to county law enforcement include How Do You Make a Baby? by Anna Fiske (a book explaining reproduction to kids), Dating and Sex: A Guide for the 21st Century Teen Boy (a book by therapist Andrew P. Smiler that's listed on the American Psychological Association website), the teen sex-education book Doing It by Hannah Witton, This Book Is Gay by Juno Dawson, and Sex Is a Funny Word by Cory Silverberg. The latter—an award-winning children's comic book on the American Library Association's 2016 Reading List—discusses concepts such as sex, gender identity, "privacy, safety, and respect," "protecting yourself against unwanted sexual touch and abuse," and "boundaries regarding nudity."

Library Director Terri Lesley told the Casper Star-Tribune that the controversy "is bigger than our library. This is a political movement, and we just happen to be caught in it here."

That some people think anything about sex should be hidden is hardly surprising. The more disturbing element here is the aid that these illiberal forces are getting from local law enforcement in Campbell County. "After a complaint filed with the sheriff's office, prosecutors are reviewing the case," the A.P. reported on October 1:

They will seek appointment of a special prosecutor to weigh in as well before deciding whether to pursue charges, County Attorney Mitchell Damsky announced Friday. …

Sisti has been working with Hugh and Susan Bennett, who went to the Campbell County Sheriff's Office on Wednesday with concerns that the five books may have violated state child-sex laws. Sheriff's officials reviewed the complaint and referred the case, which was first reported by the Gillette News Record, to prosecutors. …

[Hugh Bennett] called the books "hard-core pornography to children."

While it's absurd that this matter is even being referred for potential prosecution, Damsky at least admits that there's some constitutional tension here:

"Personally, as a parent, I find the material to be just inappropriate for children and disgusting. But as a lawyer I'm sworn to uphold the Constitution and that's why we are dealing with it with a fine-toothed comb," Damsky said.

Before going to the sheriff, the book-banning brigade appealed to Campbell County commissioners. But "demands to remove LGBTQ-related books from the children's and young adult sections at the local library were not met," reported County 17 in August.

"A commissioner's job is not to monitor or censure books in the library," Commissioner DG Reardon said at an August 12 meeting. Rather, commissioners choose the library board and what books are stocked is up to them.

Not all commissioners took Reardon's view, however. "We shouldn't fund you at all," Commissioner Del Shelstad told the library board during a September 27 meeting. Shelstad later walked this back slightly, saying "I didn't mean 100% of their funding."

The hoopla has spawned a rash of recent complaints about library books. "Library director Terri Lesley on Friday said a month ago there were three formal complaints on reading material," County 17 reported. By September 3, it was up to 22 books.

"I've been the director here for eight years," she noted. "Receiving 22 challenge forms in a two-week time span is unheard of. I've researched this and haven't been able to find an instance of this happening at a public library."

As of October 4, library staff was still working through responses to contested books, according to the Casper Star-Tribune:

There have been 35 requests for reconsideration submitted, Lesley said. Sixteen letters have been sent out to the people who filled out the forms, and more will be sent next week.

Some of the challenges don't ask that the books be removed, but that they be moved to a different section of the library.

All 16 of those letters said the books will remain in the library in their respective areas.


FREE MINDS

Poll: Americans oppose fetal heartbeat laws like the one in Texas. A new poll from NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist finds that "almost 6 in 10 Americans oppose a ban on abortions after cardiac activity is detected, at about six to eight weeks into a typical pregnancy." This includes a majority of self-identified Republicans. Some 59 percent of Republicans polled said they oppose these laws. The same was said by 61 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of independents polled.


FREE MARKETS


QUICK HITS

• Congress is holding yet another hearing on Facebook this morning, this time concerning reports that Instagram is bad for teen girls.

• A Trump administration rule banning groups that get federal family planning money from referring patients to abortion services has been revoked.

• Want to "reduce recidivism and the labor shortage in one fell swoop"? End occupational licensing requirements that "disqualify individuals with a criminal conviction from eligibility altogether" and requirements that applicants prove "good character," writes Christopher Bates, a legal fellow at the Orrin G. Hatch Foundation, at The Hill.

• Seattle will decriminalize psychedelic drugs.

• "Over the next 10 to 20 years, as bitcoin's liquidity increases and the United States becomes less creditworthy, financial institutions and foreign governments alike may replace an increasing portion of their Treasury-bond holdings with bitcoin and other forms of sound money," suggests Avik Roy, president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity. "With asset values reaching bubble proportions and no end to federal spending in sight, it's critical for the United States to begin planning for this possibility now."

• Check out Reason TV's new video on the Backpage trial:

NEXT: As Facebook Crumbles, the Case for Breaking It Up Is Weaker Than Ever

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

  1. You don’t need a license to flip burgers.

    1. Or write articles about whores.

      1. What about flipping whores?

        1. Girls on trampolines?

          1. They used to be called “jumpolines” before Jeffy’s mom got on one.

          2. Black-face Jimmy Kimmel on a trampoline?

            1. It’s amazing what you can have in your past that would get others canceled if you cry on behalf of socialized medicine on your TV show.

              1. the day he isn’t useful anymore it’s over for him.

                1. A lot of these people are operating on the hope that they shoot them last.

                  1. They don’t know history.

                    1. History also says you can delay things an awfully long time before the final bill becomes due. It might even come due after you’ve died. Louis XV did all right with the same policies that eventually led to XVI’s head getting to go on its own (very short) amusement park ride.

                      I doubt our American Experiment lasts too much longer, but who knows? Being a courtier beats hell out of having to work for a living.

                    2. Seriously paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

                      Try now……………… http://gg.gg/w3b6a

    2. You don’t need a license to flip burgers.

      Hold my beer.–State regulators

      1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.VGr simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing. Try now…

        Click & Chang your LifeSITE._________foxlineblog.Com

      2. That certaiinly explains the burger and steak advice I’ve been getting. I’m glad I exceed all their standards anyway.

    3. If you thought flipping *houses* is a nasty business, …

      1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life.GVk Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period. Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..

        Just visit this website now………… VISIT HERE

    4. You do if you want to glue PVC pipes together or hang some duct in Maryland, though we were smart enough* to end the criminal history portion. That is for work in a pre-constructed home too, don’t just think about the service end of things. Saw a fair share of people who couldn’t get their license and subsequently couldn’t be employed just a few years ago (ok, maybe ten years ago, I’m getting old).

      *not something I say everyday for Maryland.

      1. I think I only stay in Maryland because my presence really annoys the bleeding heart neighbors. They dislike it immensely when I pop the echo chamber bubble.

    5. Flipping burgers? More like a sandwich artist at Subway.

  2. This will allow for significant expansion in availability of rapid, easy to use at home tests for Covid.
    The more opportunities for false positives, the better.

    1. Ignore the very public The View.

    2. Or asymptomatic positives. Remember, we no longer care about hospitalizations or deaths. If you have such a mild case of COVID that you don’t even know without regular testing, that’s worth shutting down the world economy again.

      1. If your mild case spreads to someone in which it is not such a mild case, the economy is going to shut down anyway.

        1. Basements forever!

          1. People in hospitals rarely leave to go to work. Unless they work in the hospital…

        2. But that won’t happen because the vast, vast majority of severe cases are with older obese with diabetes and such, and those people are being careful not to go out.

          Everyone else is fine.

          1. And I love that the Left hates the unvaccinated…but also engages in “body positivity” because, lord knows, the obese have not been a source of the COVID or anything…

            1. Was that supposed to contain a point that would make sense to a normal person?
              Hint: It doesn’t, so if was supposed to, you’re doing it wrong.

          2. “Everyone else is fine.”

            As long as you skip over the ones who aren’t, true enough.

        3. SHUT IT ALL DOWN…JUST IN CASE!!!

        4. What mechanism is going to cause the economy to shut down if somebody gets Covid?…..Oh, i forgot, the government.

          1. “What mechanism is going to cause the economy to shut down if somebody gets Covid?”

            Sick people either don’t go to work or aren’t effective if they do show up.

            1. Yes and for a lot of operations it doesn’t take much to clog up the pipeline or shut down.

        5. “If your mild case spreads to someone in which it is not such a mild case, the economy is going to shut down anyway.”

          No it won’t. The vast majority of “not such a mild case” is among people outside the working population- people who are overwhelmingly vaccinated (90%+ have received a jab, 80%+ have received two). The working age population represents 7% of deaths and ~25% of hospitalizations- the vast majority of those among people with co-morbidities who could likewise vaccinate to protect themselves if necessary.

          There is no reason to shut down the economy for this, unless as some sort of TSA-like public safety theatre.

          1. “The vast majority of “not such a mild case” is among people outside the working population”

            Good thing that nobody who DOES have to go to work is responsible for anyone who doesn’t, then.

          2. That is still a lot of deaths and hospitalizations for any disease in a younger more healthy population.

          3. Even the mild cases can take someone off for a week or more. As it is we are short on workers.

        6. That susceptible someone has the ability now to get a therapeutic prophylactic injection for that contingency. Their failure to do so does not warrant your hysteria about the asymptomatic infected, and it never did after the first few months of 2020.

          1. Well, most of them do. We’ll just pretend that the others don’t actually exist.

            And people say that Conservatives don’t care about children after they’ve been born. That’s not the problem, it’s just that they can’t see the little buggers!

          2. I find it very odd that some people refuse to call a vaccine a vaccine. I don’t understand it really.

      2. Asymptomatic people should not be testing. That increases the odds of a false positive. The positive predictive value depends on prevalence in the population.

        If few people in the tested population have the disease then the odds that a result is a false positive is high.

        If a lot of them have the disease the probability that a given result is a true positive is high.

        So really they should only be testing symptomatic people.

        I saw that Israel’s approach to school is to do a lot of testing. They don’t require masks. That includes providing home tests to parents. So they will get a lot of false positives but they are willing to accept that as opposed to other measures which don’t do much good anyway.

    3. You should go get a PCR test to verify if the rapid test is positive. It is actually recommended. Like any test both false positive and false negatives are possible. The abbot test comes two in a box so you could always repeat it if you are unsure of the results.

      That happened to one of the kiddos in my family. The rapid test was positive but the PCR came back negative.

      If you do have a mild case they recommend that you test your pulse O2 if it dips below 92% it is time to head to the hospital. You can get the gadget for $14 at Walmart.

  3. Fuck Joe Biden

    1. Fuck Joe Biden

      1. Let’s Go Brandon!

        1. Fuck the squawking bird named Dee.

        2. Still not a thing.

        3. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

        4. Mike Laursen
          September.18.2021 at 11:38 am
          SQRLSY, can you cover for me today? In a typical day, I usually:
          – post one “Fuck Tulpa!” comment

          Trolls are going to troll.

      1. No, thank you.

        1. Man up and do your duty.

          1. Give ‘till it hurts.

      2. Fuck Joe Biden!

        1. No, thank you. Not today, either.

    2. Wait, folks I just thought of a little something, (A dangerous thing, that):

      Since Sleepy, Creepy, Crazy, Cranky, Tankie, Corn-Pop, Lunch-Bucket, Basement-Bunker, Pudding-Cup, Shotgun Joe does not have his faculties about him, wouldn’t there be an issue of consent involved here?

      Hate the man, by all means, but don’t fuck him! That way lies monsters with dark suits and dark glasses!

      1. “Since Sleepy, Creepy, Crazy, Cranky, Tankie, Corn-Pop, Lunch-Bucket, Basement-Bunker, Pudding-Cup, Shotgun Joe does not have his faculties about him”

        If true, that could create a problem. But there are two kinds of truth. There’s the kind that can be readily demonstrated to be true, and there’s things Republicans want to believe. Guess what? It doesn’t matter how much you WANT it to be true, that doesn’t make it true.

        1. No, there is only one truth, the former of those options, that stuff that is there both when you sleep and when you awake, that stuff that is still there when you turn your head or close our ears. Otherwise known as objective truth.

          Beliefs, whether Republican, Democratic, or otherwise, are subjective, though they may be based upon objective truth.

          As for Joe Biden’s metaphysical and epistemic status, I think his energy policy of cutting off the Keystone Pipeline and begging Saudi tyrants for more oil, the Afghanistan withdrawal fuck-up, and spending $Trillions every time he has to change his Depends pretty well establishes what that is.

  4. “These books are absolutely appalling,” lead campaigner Susan Sisti, an administrative pastor with Open Door Church, told the Associated Press.

    “And don’t even get me started about the books of The Old Testament!”

    1. We only care about the parts that Jesus wrote in English.

      1. That’s horrible enough by itself.

        Remember, Jesus said in The Sermon on the Mount: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Matthew 5:17.)

        So, all the horrible prohibitions and capital and corporal punishments for wearing mixed fabrics, working on the sabbath, adultery, homosexual acts, etc. are all upheld by Jesus.

        And if you don’t want Jesus as your ruler, then he has a punishment for that: “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)

        Nice guy, this Jesus, assuming he actually existed.

        1. Good job, Encogitationer, on the Biblical Scholarship, but you’re not going far enough!

          God COMMANDS us to kill EVERYONE!

          Our that them thar VALUES of society outta come from that them thar HOLY BIBLE, and if ya read it right, it actually says that God wants us to KILL EVERYBODY!!! Follow me through now: No one is righteous, NONE (Romans 3:10). Therefore, ALL must have done at least one thing bad, since they’d be righteous, had they never done anything bad. Well, maybe they haven’t actually DONE evil, maybe they THOUGHT something bad (Matt. 5:28, thoughts can be sins). In any case, they must’ve broken SOME commandment, in thinking or acting, or else they’d be righteous. James 2:10 tells us that if we’ve broken ANY commandment, we broke them ALL. Now we can’t weasel out of this by saying that the New Testament has replaced the Old Testament, because Christ said that he’s come to fulfill the old law, not to destroy it (Matt. 5:17). So we MUST conclude that all are guilty of everything. And the Old Testament lists many capital offenses! There’s working on Sunday. There’s also making sacrifices to, or worshipping, the wrong God (Exodus 22:20, Deut. 17:2-5), or even showing contempt for the Lord’s priests or judges (Deut. 17:12). All are guilty of everything, including the capital offenses. OK, so now we’re finally there… God’s Word COMMANDS us such that we’ve got to kill EVERYBODY!!!

          (I am still looking for that special exception clause for me & my friends & family… I am sure I will find it soon!)

          1. The laws of sin and death were already fulfilled through Christ’s sacrifice. You’re ignoring the whole point of Christianity, and why it’s no longer Judaism. You’ve got the whole thing backwards.

            Galatians 3

            10 For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written: Everyone who does not continue doing everything written in the book of the law is cursed.
            Now it is clear that no one is justified before God by the law, because the righteous will live by faith. But the law is not based on faith; instead, the one who does these things will live by them.
            Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us…

            Why then was the law given? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise was made would come. The law was put into effect through angels by means of a mediator. Now a mediator is not for just one person, but God is one.

            Is the law therefore contrary to God’s promises? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, then righteousness would certainly be by the law. But the Scripture has imprisoned everything under sin’s power, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

            Before this faith came, we were confined under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith was revealed.
            The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith. But since that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

            1. Sarcasm. ANY Holy Book is going to quite deliberately be mis-interpreted to justify evil, by those why are evil. “The devil, too, knows how to interpret scripture”.

              Since this is true, just relying on our conscience will work as well! Bible-believing fanatics might fall for my above BS. Who would EVER believe me if I said “my conscience told me to kill them all”?

              Then there’s the matter of “God and the angels” supposedly telling Abraham to kill Isaac, but that’s for another day…

              1. “…out on Highway 61” as The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan put it.

                1. God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
                  Abe say, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
                  God say, “No, ” Abe say, “What?”
                  God say, “You can do what you want Abe, but
                  Next time you see me comin’, you better run”
                  Abe said, “Where do you want this killin’ done?”
                  God said, “Out on Highway 61”
                  … Etc. …

                  I did NOT know! NOW finally I am educated…

                  (EVERYONE needs a good killin’, it seems!)

          2. Very true. According to George Orwell’s biographer, Bernard Crick, Orwell’s Big Brother and Thoughtcrime in 1984 got their inspiration from reading about JHVH-1 His Own Self.

            Here’s a fitting hymn for JHVH-1, The Allslayer, to the tune of

            “We Did It Before, We’ll Do It Again” by Barry Wood
            https://youtu.be/fr_7g03IiKs

            “After Adam and Eve ate the Fruit of Knowledge,
            All of Creation was defiled
            And then, in the time of Noah,
            JHVH-1 got real riled!

            He did it before,
            And He can do it again!
            And He will do it again!
            He had a heck of a job to do,
            But Flooded the World through and through!
            He did it before,
            And He can do it again!
            And He will do it again!
            When it’s time for Kingdom Come,
            He’ll burn it all down until it’s done!
            Millions of voices are wailing,
            Screaming as He marches along!
            ‘He did it before,
            And He can do it again!
            And He will do it again!’
            He’ll knock over Mankind and then
            Knock down the Devil behind them!
            He did it before! He’ll do it again!

            Refrain 2

            He did it before
            And He can do it again
            and He will do it again,
            He know He’s right and He also knows
            The Humans He made have got to go!
            He did it before
            And we can do it again!
            And we will do it again!
            He’ll have us down on our hands and knees,
            And burn us to a million Degrees!
            He did it before!
            And He can do it again!
            And He will do it again!
            When He gets goin’ and starts to click
            He brings the Ten Plagues really quick!
            Millions of voices are wailing,
            Screaming as He marches along:
            ‘He did it before
            And He can do it again!
            And He will do it again!’
            JHVH-1 always had his very way
            from the first days of Creation!
            He did it before!
            He’ll do it again!

        2. “Jesus, I like him very much, but he no help with curve ball.”

          1. “God, sometimes you just don’t come through…” –Tory Amos.

            1. Assuming you meant Tori Amos, you misspelled her name.

              1. Yes, my mistake.

          2. Are you trying to say Jesus Christ can’t hit a curveball?

            1. It takes spatio-temporal coordinates to do that, or to play baseball in general.

        3. Remember, Jesus said in The Sermon on the Mount: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” (Matthew 5:17.)

          Are you deliberately missing the point that Christ fulfilled the law by taking all of humanities transgressions on himself, dying on the cross and going to hell instead of us?
          Because the New Testament is pretty clear on that point.

          1. Well, that’s another nest of problems with Christianity unto itself. First God makes Man in his own image, knowing that he’s going to “sin,” (not that there’s anything wrong with seeking knowledge of good and evil anyway.) Then God sends Himself down to Earth as his only begotten Son to take the terminal rap for all the “sins” that any human ever did, do now, or ever will do? Then three days later, He rises from the grave. (Does that mean the rap is back on all humans?)

            There’s a whole lot of begged questions about “sin” and human volition and moral responsibility just contained in the simple paragraph.

            1. And logical contradictions as well.

        4. The problem isn’t Jesus, it’s the people that are SO damn sure they know what Jesus wanted, despite their ideas of what Jesus wanted not lining up with what he actually preached.

          1. I’m going strictly by what he literally said in the King/Queen James Version of The Holy Bible and quoted him above.

            Assuming he existed and assuming these were accurate quotes, nobody can credably argue that his words are compatible with rationality, freedom, prosperity, benevolence, or any values of human flourishing.

    2. I’m not going to read the article, but are these people literally trying to ban “appalling” books (as in prison time for possession of literature), or are they just trying to throw them out of a publicly funded library? Because those are two very different things.

      1. Read the article. The book opponents called the Campbell Cointy Sheriff’s office and the County Attorney Michael Damsky issued a statement. This is obviously bigger than just whether taxdollars should even fund libraries. They would apparently prosecute private book stores, private libraries, or indibiduals for having the books.

        1. Alright, I skimmed the article and saw nothing about anything outside of the context of a public library. Care to point out where that is?

          1. It is in the penumbras and such, obviously.

            1. I got yer “emanating penumbra” right here! See the text below and above. below.

          2. Read for depth.

            The more disturbing element here is the aid that these illiberal forces are getting from local law enforcement in Campbell County. “After a complaint filed with the sheriff’s office, prosecutors are reviewing the case,” the A.P. reported on October 1:

            and

            While it’s absurd that this matter is even being referred for potential prosecution, Damsky at least admits that there’s some constitutional tension here:

            “Personally, as a parent, I find the material to be just inappropriate for children and disgusting. But as a lawyer I’m sworn to uphold the Constitution and that’s why we are dealing with it with a fine-toothed comb,” Damsky said.

            It’s not anyone’s asking to “read a book,” just the article.

            1. Not a complaint to an office!

              Good thing we didn’t have Eric garland just came out yesterday to warn parents about harassing school board members and investigating them for domestic terrorism.

              But that is too local.

              1. Should have just followed the board members to the bathroom. That is part of the process.

                1. It’s to be expected.

              2. If you don’t want to be investigated for domestic terrorism, don’t do any domestic terrorism.

            2. Yeah, I saw that, and like I mentioned, it was all in the context of the public library. I saw nothing about going after private ownership of the books in question.

              I’m not saying that these people are right or that I agree with them or that I even like them. I’m just saying that an objection to “appalling” books being bought and held by the local public library is very different from literally banning books and throwing people in prison for possession, and the article makes it sound like it’s more the former than the latter.

              1. Yeah, that’s the “Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair! ™” formula in action. Take something mildly annoying or stupid and turn it into a draconian attack on the disenfranchised.

                Yawn.

                1. Getting the Po-Po involved with a bitch about books really is “Terrible and Unfair.” Privatizing libraries is all True and Good and Right.

              2. But if they would call down the law upon Library officials with some measure of power and influence, how much more would they call down the law upon those without power and influence?

                I fully agree that public libraries should be made into private institutions with the owners and donors deciding what to put on shelves, but calling the Sheriff in is not how this should be done.

                1. You might want to look into the little free library project.

              3. It’s all in the context of the public library, but read the _whole_ article: the people seeking this ban are not just asking for the books to be removed from the library, but for the books to be declared obscene and library officials to go to prison. _And_ if those books are declared obscene, private ownership will also be a crime.

                1. You understand precisely! +++

    3. The New Testiment is horrible also. Remember, the God that destroyed the world once in the story of Noah in Genesis also announced plans to destroy the world again by fire in The Book of Revelation.

      If the God of The Holy Bible existed and were a man, he’d be on trial for Crimes Against Humanity, Biocide, and Orbicide. (Yes, we’d have to come up with new crimes to deal with the full enormity of his horrors.)

      1. Yeah, except it’s an all powerful god, so you better not fuck with him.

        That’s where the “God is an asshole” criticism of religion falls apart. If that’s the case, it’s all the more reason to do what God wants you to do because he’s not fucking around and you are powerless to do anything about it.

        1. And Argumentum Ad Baculum (Appeal To Force) is still a logical fallacy, whether it comes from an Antifa Thug, a Government Jackbooted Thug or an Omnific Supernatural Being Thug.

          Might does not make right and the only proper response of Man, The Rational Animal is resistance, even unto death.

          Does this actually have to be said in an ostensibly Libertarian forum?

          1. In case it’s not obvious, I wasn’t being terribly serious and certainly not stating my own point of view.

            But still, if you really believe that God exists and is all angry and vengeful, it’s not irrational to do what God demands.

            1. I Spidey-Sensed levity, irony, and sarcasm there. (I’ve come to expect it among the Commentariat.)

              Still, it needs to be said: Never volunteer for the side that is doing wrong!

              Even if it seems like there’s no choice, there’s always feignting, shuffling, going through the motions, “puttin’ on ol’ Massah,” drag-assing, half-assing, passive-aggressing, even full-on sabotage.

              ~~”There’s always a choice…Always a choice.”~~
              –Walter Kovacs, Rohrschach The Watchmen.

          2. No, but you have nothing else in your life except being a rather dull-witted A!theist

          3. Did you just compare God to Antifa and the Feds? You do you I guess.

            1. The Hitch (Christopher Hitchens) compared him to The Kims in North Korea, so I guess I aimed a little low there. Still, it’s what politically-saavy Americans can relate to best as far as thuggery goes.

          4. If some infinitely powerful intellect that can create spacetime, energy and matter exists, and is acquainted with every operation that has or ever will occur.
            Then you shaking your fist at it like you are, seems a little silly.

            It’s also kind of funny that you’ve unwittingly adopted a Christian/Neo Platonic stance to judge it by. No Norse Pagan or Daoist would judge a god by such criteria.

            1. This is like Russian Babuska doll question-begging on morality. First you are assuming the Being you are supposed to prove, then you’re assuming that Being is the source of morality.

              The only rational response to a threat from such a Being, even if He could exist, or any other being, is the overall wise words from your fellow Canadian (albeit, in the legends, Satan was never as bad as JHVH-1):

              Neil Young– “Let’s Roll”
              https://youtu.be/w-JfgnFnUL4

              1. 1. No it isn’t. There’s no question-begging in what I said. The discussion was whether or not God is “evil”, not whether or not he exists.
                2. Don’t try and pull a chemjeff here, by redefining what I said to match what you wanted me to say.

                If we are going to assume that “if a God exists then he is evil”, then we have to talk as if he exists in order to address the statement.

                “then you’re assuming that Being is the source of morality”
                If were assuming a universal creator then where else would actual morality get it’s authority from? If morality has no moral authority, then what distinguishes it from things categorized as immoral?

                “albeit, in the legends, Satan was never as bad as JHVH
                This may be the most idiotic, ahistorical thing you ever wrote. I’m guessing that you’ve picked up the 20th century popular media notion that Satan is an angelic rebel, a fallen angel, largely adopted from Gnosticism and Faust. Whereas in fact the historical idea of Satan was something that was the personification of evil, madness and violence.

                Maybe stop picking up your knowledge of doctrine and theology from 14-year-old redditors.

                1. Again, I’m referring to the text of the King/Queen James Version of The Holy Bible. Where did Satan order Abraham to kill his son Issac? Where did Satan allow enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt for 400 years, then free them by slaughtering innocent Egyptians with multiple plagues? The list of horrors from JHVH-1 are legion!

        2. “That’s where the “God is an asshole” criticism of religion falls apart. If that’s the case, it’s all the more reason to do what God wants you to do because he’s not fucking around and you are powerless to do anything about it.”

          My own criticism of religion tends to focus on the people who have made up their mind what God wants and insist that everybody must abide by their decision because God wants it. They tend to be entirely inflexible in their position on what God wants. The get very irate when you ask them why God needs THEM to tell me what God wants, as if He’s gone feeble in his old age. If God wants me to do something, He’ll say so, and when He says so, I’ll listen. What I keep hearing though, is what YOU want, and for that, I’m not listening.

      2. The planet will die by fire as the Sun gets steadily hotter before it goes red giant and engulfs the Earth.

        1. That’s true. But if humans can stop buying into dangerous Supernatural nonsense, perhaps we can live long enough so that whatever we evolve into can get us off this mud-ball and away from that giant melanoma-maker.

          1. If God wants to get away, we’ll get away. If He doesn’t want us to get away, His followers will sabotage all our efforts. They’ll insist that nothing’s getting warmer, and it’s just a conspiracy of scientists trrying to make us believe that Earth has never had pools of molten iron on its surface, and if the sun was really getting warmer/bigger, then why is Pluto still frozen?

          2. There is a true story about a great Rabbi, The Lubovitch Rebbe. One of his congregants was a scientist working with NASA tasked with exploring the possibility of life on Mars. He was troubled because some of his fellow Jews were castigating him for this.

            So he went to the Rebbe and asked him about this.

            The rebbe thought and said “go and look for life on Mars. And if you don’t find it there keep looking somewhere else. Because to not do so puts limits on God’s creation and nobody can do that!”

            If you believe in some kind of God, I do, then you have to believe that there is a purpose to life. It is not by accident that we developed this powerful and creative brain and the tools we have created to explore and understand the world and universe around us.

    4. If you don’t want to pay for a book at a bookstore, then don’t. Public libraries have books that you paid for whether you wanted to or not. Why is saying that you did not want those books so awful? Especially if you are only asking that the books be moved to an adult section?

      1. What is so scary about facts?

        1. Most of these were fiction books…

          1. I was going off the examples in the picture.
            I don’t think ideas are to be feared anymore than facts. This is how we start book burnings.

            1. Nobody is burning books here. It is a discussion of taxpayer funds.

              1. “Nobody is burning books here. It is a discussion of taxpayer funds.”

                If that were true, the question would be “do we want to invest in maintaining these books?” There wouldn’t be any need to question whether or not they are obscene.

        2. Yeah I don’t get it either.

          Some people are just crazy busybody puritans.

          Where do babies come from?

          Everyone knows they come from the pumpkin patch and are delivered by a stork.

      2. Public schools & public libraries are one of the last few bastions of legitimate local public control. But throwing around criminality sounds too much like the Scopes Monkey Trial. Just fire the director or make an elected position out of it if you want some accountability or something.

        1. If the library has books in it that you don’t want to read, then don’t read them. It’s not like somebody is going to pop over to your house and assign them to your kids.

    5. Its great to see Both Sides Reason giving equal time to a children’s library in rural Wyoming as they did to the Hunter Biden laptop story and the collusion between the DNC, big tech, and big media to censor news and ban anyone who attempts to share it

      1. It’s good to see that even if whataboutism isn’t going to work, somebody’s willing to try it.

    6. I was wondering: do kids really go to public libraries these days? Serious question. Back in my day (in the dim and distant past) we went there because there weren’t too many other places to go, and we didn’t have “smart” phones so we didn’t sit around hypnotized all day.

      1. Can’t speak to now, but when my kid was little, she went to the library fairly frequently. Her mean old daddy wouldn’t get her a smart phone.

      2. By the late middle school days it was a good place to go after school because the boys and girls could flirt with each other there.

  5. Congress is holding yet another hearing on Facebook this morning, this time concerning reports that Instagram is bad for teen girls.

    Obviously the solution is to ban Instagram for teen girls, or at least to imprison teen girls for using Instagram.

      1. I hope and trust this is strictly a criminological position and not a pruient interest.

    1. Teenage girls are bad for teenage girls. Ban them.

      1. Especially the mean girls club.
        Sarc

    2. “…imprison teen girls for using Instagram”

      What channel is going to be on? Drat! Probably pay-per-view.

      1. Sbps and bidens home page

    3. “Obviously the solution is to ban Instagram for teen girl”

      Even more obviously, the solution is for parents of teen girls to raise them in a way that Instagram isn’t harmful to them.

  6. “Over the next 10 to 20 years, as bitcoin’s liquidity increases and the United States becomes less creditworthy, financial institutions and foreign governments alike may replace an increasing portion of their Treasury-bond holdings with bitcoin and other forms of sound money,” suggests Avik Roy, president of the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity. “With asset values reaching bubble proportions and no end to federal spending in sight, it’s critical for the United States to begin planning for this possibility now.”

    Oh, they are planning – Biden wants all transactions over $600 reported to the IRS. You better believe that includes virtual currency purchases and sales.

    1. I’m honestly surprised that the USG had allowed bitcoin to exist for so long. I guess it’s disorganized nature is proving the biggest problem to banning. Normally they’d just threaten the owner of the currency into shutting down, but literally anyone can trade bitcoin. Marketplaces aren’t owners their just enablers, which means they’d have to enforce against individuals, and individuals are much more likely to fight you in court and refuse to comply with threats than corporations.

      1. Marketplaces aren’t owners their just enablers, which means they’d have to enforce against individuals

        Ross Ulbricht says hello.

      2. It hasn’t been a serious threat to the control the G7 or China’s governments or central banks have over the world economy until now. The thought of decentralized currency terrifies statists which is why China just banned all crypto transactions and mining. It wouldn’t surprise me if you saw the industrialized economies start outright or de facto banning the use of bitcoin in almost the exact order of most authoritarian to least.

        1. So we are next?

          1. I guess that all depends on what Kyrsten Sinema wants to do with her thumbs? I hear she could go both ways.

            1. Thumbs that go both ways? Wow! That could make for an awesome double handjob for two lucky somebodies!

        2. “which is why China just banned all crypto transactions and mining.”

          FYI: They have banned crypto about 40 times in the last 5 years. It is a meme at this point.

          https://imgur.com/a/KDwtE#WzkZ3W5

        3. “The thought of decentralized currency terrifies statists which is why China just banned all crypto transactions and mining.”

          That, and China right now needs every electron it can get to keep the lights on. I’d read that around the Chinese crypto peak, that miners were consuming a low single digit percent of all Chinese electricity production. Which, considering China made more electricity via coal plants, than the US did via all methods, is a hell of a lot of electricity.

          Some version of crypto seems a natural fit for the social-credit leveraged, all digital-currency economy our elders and betters appear determined to install for the world.

      3. The problem is that they didn’t smother BTC in the crib. And over night you have some of the largest companies in the world already keeping it as their reserve treasury. And that has required the custodial assistance of large banks that are now worried they will be displaced by big exchanges.

        You can’t shut the barn door at this point. Some $12 Billion in economic activity has shifted onto the Bitcoin blockchain last month, as El Salvador legalized BTC and its remittance economy shifted to the crypto currency. As more citizens get crypto, they will not need to convert to dollars in order to pay one another, and the remaining 80% of their economy could shift to the block chain. That $60 Billion dollar economy would represent a 5% increase in the blockchain’s market cap. Just that one little country.

        If you as a company expect even 10% of the world economic transactions to flow through Bitcoin, then it is a STEAL at $50,000 per bitcoin right now. That would make the block chain (currently at a market cap of around 1 Trillion) increase to around $13 Trillion in market cap, making your bitcoin worth around $722,000.

        1. You are far more optimistic than I am. Bailed on my BTC figuring it would be banned at some point in the near future.

          1. How can you ban it? At worst you can travel to one of several south american countries for a great vacation.

            1. You don’t know the power of the dark side!

            2. Same way you ban a weed that grows wild. You selectively enforce with harsh penalties for anyone caught with them who isn’t a Senator’s son.

        2. “The problem is that they didn’t smother BTC in the crib.”

          But that’s not a thing they could have done. Not possible.

        3. Yep. Once the big financial players moved in I stopped worrying about bans.

      4. Cryptocurrencies that promote tax-dodging, criminal enterprise, and other antisocial activities — yet expect the government and society they flout to help when something goes wrong — are likely built on a doomed foundation with an unsustainable trajectory.

        1. The biggest tax-dodging, criminal enterprise, antisocial currency is the US Dollar in the form of green Ben Franklins.

        2. Haha. Ok, boomer.

      5. “I’m honestly surprised that the USG had allowed bitcoin to exist for so long.”

        The solution is to allow law enforcement to just seize it whenever they run across anyone with Bitcoin, because only criminals have cryptocurrency. If your Bitcoin was legit, you can file some paperwork asking to have it back in, say, around 27 months or so.

    2. It’s a sad day when electronic bits and bytes are more solid than legal tender, especially when neither have backing of precious metal.

      1. Ask yourself why precious metal is actually precious. You can’t eat gold. It won’t cure you of disease or provide you shelter from the elements. It’s value is 100% a result of it having the magical characteristics necessary as a fungible store of value. Those characteristics include:

        Durability: Gold will not corrode and is difficult to destroy.
        Uniformity: An oz of gold is an oz of gold (as opposed to 2 cows or 2 shells where they may be qualitatively different)
        Scarcity: No one can flood the market with Gold, as it takes time and energy to extract it from the ground.
        Acceptable: It is easy to transact gold and has a long history of being recognized around the world.
        Portability: Gold is reasonably portable in small amounts. But as you get larger, it is unwieldy. This is where paper currency started, which ultimately led to gold being debased.
        Divisible: Gold is reasonably divisible, though to get it divided into amounts that the whole world could use it would prove very difficult.

        Bitcoin has all of the above characteristics. And while it isn’t as Acceptable (easy to transact, with a long history) it is far more divisible and portable than gold. And Acceptability is interestingly, the one characteristic of a currency that can change over time. It is increasingly easy to transact BTC, and this over time will lead to more people accepting it in lieu of a green back.

        1. from 1933 to 1974 it was illegal for U.S. citizens to own gold in the form of gold bullion, without a special license.

          If they can make metal illegal, they can make crypto illegal.

        2. Bitcoin has the scarcity beat too. Mansa Musu was able to flood local markets with gold on his trip to Mecca and silver mining in the Americas, created huge inflation in Spain. Harder to image that happening now but Psyche 16 has the possibility of collapsing the world wide economy in the next ten years (fusion joke) due to its estimated reserves.

          Though Bitcoin does lack other desirable characteristics, such as luxury – jewelry and conductivity – use in electronics.

        3. Ah, but is Bitcoin scarce? And can you make jewelry or highly conductable electronic circuits with Bitcoin?

      2. “It’s a sad day when electronic bits and bytes are more solid than legal tender, especially when neither have backing of precious metal.”

        Precious metal is only precious because people agree that it is.

  7. “Local busybodies in Campbell County, Wyoming, are trying to brand children’s or young adult books about getting pregnant, sex education, and being gay as illegal obscenity.”

    Meh. Let’s ask the librarians in SFC or Berkeley about books on Thomas Jefferson and how to run a profitable business.

    1. It’s amazing how some hyper-local crank based non-story can grab the attention of urbanites like ENB. I mean…seriously…who gives a fuck about some religious prudes in Utah?

      1. I guess this wasn’t too local.

      2. If people would actually read the story, they might find out that it’s in Wyoming, not Utah.

        Look, I know Reason sucks compared to what it was, but at least hold your nose and read and then make the call.

        1. “If people would actually read the story, they might find out that it’s in Wyoming, not Utah.”

          Quick, what’s the difference between Wyoming and Utah?

          1. Well, spatio-temporal coordinates, plus Utah is majority Mormon, and Wyoming is home to Attorney Gerry Spence.

            1. So, no significant difference.
              The judges would have accepted “Utah has a professional basketball team, and Wyoming does not.” and “Wyoming has 0 participants in the PAC-12 sporting conference, while Utah has one”

    2. There was a huge story on MIT disinviting a lead atmospherics processor for a lecture solely based on him not publicly being for CRT bullshit. It was a fucking science lecture.

      https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/mit-cancels-geophysicists-lecture-after-activists-outrage-over-his-views-on-diversity/ar-AAP8aUt

      1. I didn’t bother to read the MSN story. Probably better to read it from the horse’s mouth.

        Let’s make sure my cancellation is the last. That begins by standing up and saying no to the mob.

        1. This is a great read.

          And he has the perfect prescription for the cure.

          Nobody is going to follow it though.

          1. The Chair of his department who got the demand petition should have called the objectors in, asked them if they stood by it, one by one, and then summarily expelled all of those who affirmed their support.

            A couple of those and this nonsense is done.

            Google had that opportunity with the “why we don’t have more women engineers” whitepaper guy. And look where it got them. Now they have 27 year old coders deciding that the company has a political philosophy and party affiliation.

            1. Young asshole snowflakes have only the power we give them. I am amused and disgusted with all the college presidents and consumer brand CEOs who treat them like some sci-fi freaks who can wish them off to the cornfield.

              1. Young asshole snowflakes have only the power we give them

                That’s exactly it. Those presidents and CEOs aren’t terrified of the children, they’re using them as an excuse.

              2. Charlie Evans from Star Trek: “I’ll..I’ll make a whole lot of people ‘go away.'” (*Rolls eyes*)

                1. Charlie Evans isn’t even in the episode “…and the Children Shall Lead”

            2. “The Chair of his department who got the demand petition should have called the objectors in, asked them if they stood by it, one by one, and then summarily expelled all of those who affirmed their support.”

              Unless, of course, the Chair of a department lacks the abiltiy to summarily expel anyone.

            3. “. Now they have 27 year old coders deciding that the company has a political philosophy and party affiliation.”

              They started with “Don’t be evil”. That’s a good direction to go with, and they never should have dropped it.

              1. I disagree. That slogan just provides the lure of the forbidden. And besides, no legitimate business of good will would need that slogan.

                1. No True Scotsman would what?

      2. Local story. The real news is some whackjob in Bumfuck Nowhere, Wyoming wanting to ban children’s books about sex.

        1. Here’s the fix for that. Don’t want to read that book? Not a problem. Just don’t check it out.

        2. And the whackjob is not too aware of his Town’s name either.

      3. Too local Jesse. It was not a library somewhere in Idaho, so it’s not national news or something.

  8. Inside the Right’s Plan to Rebrand Sex Ed as ‘Child Porn’

    As the mayor of Hudson, Ohio, Craig Shubert doesn’t have the power to prosecute anybody. But that didn’t stop him from delivering a hefty ultimatum to school board members at a Sept. 13 meeting: either they could resign en masse, or they could all face child pornography charges.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-the-rights-plan-to-rebrand-sex-ed-as-child-porn?ref=home

    1. The government should be more powerful and control more aspects of our lives.

      1. Well, they do know what is best, right?

        1. Well, with regard to sex, it’s always better to defer to other people, isn’t it?

          1. If you’re a submissive or a bottom, yes, although that has a power all it’s own, since there could be no Dominant or top without the submissive and bottom.

            1. If I find that I am compelled to do whatever the guy on the AM radio tells me, does that make me a Sub? Or if I don’t even bother to turn on the AM radio, does that make me a Dom? What if I just choose to be whatever the hell I want, and don’t care what anyone else wants to tell me to be?

    2. Instead, he was threatening to prosecute them over 642 Things to Write About, a book of writing prompts distributed to some Hudson high school students in a college-level course that required a parental permission slip. Prompts like “Write a sex scene you wouldn’t show your mom,” according to Shubert, merited the child porn charges.

      So, Starzeel, as usual, misrepresents something to make it seem like the left is the last bastion defending freedom of speech against powerful conservatives. As if a mayor in a small town in Ohio and a parent’s group in the least populated state in the nation represent the entirety of the right.

      First, in Ohio, it’s not that depictions of sex are being presented to students in a sex-ed class, it’s that depictions of sex are being solicited from the students in a writing class. Although I do suspect that the teacher is unlikely to use that prompt with 641 others to select from, parents have a right to be concerned if students are being encouraged to explore something in a class they would not be comfortable sharing with their parents, permission slip or not.

      Unlike Strudellord, I recall that this is not really a left-right issue as 35 years ago similar measures concerned with profanity in music were being promoted by none other than Tipper Gore, wife of the soon to be Democrat Vice President.

      1. At what point do we discuss leftists grooming young children? Even classical feminists are beginning to push back on the free sex indoctrination movement starting as early as grade school.

        1. Not certain that the availability of facts is grooming.

          1. I doubt that’s what he’s referring to.

          2. Umm… this isn’t sex biology facts being taught. It is “write out a sex scene”, “here are different ways to have sex.”

            But good gaslighting.

            1. It there are different ways to have sex, right?

              1. You mean there’s not?

          3. Not certain that the availability of facts is grooming.

            Making it available for parents to share with kids, no. But how about placing them in the children’s section of the library to be found by browsing?

            1. @Chuck P.

              If a teacher actually made kids use the sexual writing prompt I’d have a serious problem with that. It is not right for an authority figure to order a child to write something personal and sensitive like that (for that matter it would be pretty inappropriate to order an adult to do it). However, if the book is just sitting there in the library, what is the big deal? If the kid doesn’t want to read the book, no one is making them. If they do want to read it, isn’t it good that that is an option? What matters is that they have a choice.

              I think this is a situation where it’s useful to apply some empathy and the Golden Rule. Most people can remember back to when they were kids, and how parents would try to shelter them. It was really annoying and patronizing, and most kids did everything they could to get around it and find out what their parents were hiding from them. If they hated it when their parents did it to them, why would they want to do it to their own kids, or help other parents do it to their own kids? Don’t do unto others what you didn’t want others to do unto you.

              Librarians are actually obligated to allow anyone to check out anything, including kids. I think that’s pretty awesome that their code of conduct requires them to fight for the freedom of everyone to read. We shouldn’t allow petty tyrants to control what kids read. And that is especially true of people whose only qualification for getting to be a petty tyrant is that they had unprotected sex. That doesn’t seem like the sort of thing that should grant you unlimited control over another person’s life.

              1. This guy gets it.

        2. “At what point do we discuss leftists grooming young children?”

          When you come across some ACTUAL leftists ACTUALLY grooming ACTUAL young children. NOT when you fantasize about it.

      2. ” parents have a right to be concerned if students are being encouraged to explore something in a class they would not be comfortable sharing with their parents”

        If you’ve done a good job raising your kids, they can make important decisions without your standing right there, telling them what to do.

    3. Now do communism

      1. Commies bad. Especially the dead ones that interfere with American election systems.

  9. • Seattle will decriminalize psychedelic drugs.

    If all of the Antifa and BLM protesters in Seattle took LSD or magic mushrooms, violent crime and property damage would decline significantly.

    1. “Wow, I’m *already* in an Autonomous Zone!”

      1. “I’m not *in* an Autonomous Zone, I *AM* an Autonomous Zone”

        1. “Then why are all these geometric shapes in my Autonomous Zone and why do they keep telling me to throw a brick?”

          1. Pink elephants can destroy A LOT of property.

    2. Maybe if they just stuck to them. My thoughts are that many are probably on these and multiple other drugs.

      1. Hallucinating on psychedelics could help some of them realize their left wing ideology is stupid, and their protests/riots were/are threats to everyone’s freedom.

        1. Yes, demanding the police not kill people is a threat to someone’s freedom, somehow.

    3. “BUTTERFLIES!,,,”

      “DID YOU SEE THE SIZE OF THAT CHICKEN?!?…”

      “Godless heathens!”

      “Howdy!”

      “HEY, CHAVIS! WHY AIN’T THEY KILLIN’ US!”

      “WE IN THE SPIRIT WORLD, ASSHOLE! THEY CAN’T SEE US!”

      The peyote scene from Young Guns.
      https://youtu.be/KHePV4Bw2SE

  10. “Congress is holding yet another hearing on Facebook this morning, this time concerning reports that Instagram is bad for teen girls.”

    You know what else is bad for teen girls?

    1. Books about sex?

    2. No abortions?

      Not enough prostitution?

    3. Bad teen girls, you say?

    4. Boko Haram?

      1. Donald Trump, backstage at the teen beauty pageant?

        1. So your point is that they’re both creeps? I can agree with that. That doesn’t change the fact that Biden is bad for freedom and Trump is not.

          1. ” That doesn’t change the fact that Biden is bad for freedom and Trump is not.”

            Spit out the Flav-R-Aid.

            1. Good that you know it was Flav-R-Aid and not Kool-Aid. The poor Kool-Aid Man has caught so much Hell since Jonestown. 🙂

          2. Freedom to grab pussies vs freedom to sniff hair. Either way a man’s gotta be free.

    5. Hunter Biden?

    6. The capitalist patriarchy?

    7. Pumpkin Spice that makes them lube up?

    8. “You know what else is bad for teen girls?”

      “Other teen girls” would have to be at or near the top of that list.

  11. “Seattle will decriminalize psychedelic drugs.”

    About time for the citizens of Seattle to have the same rights as the city council.

  12. Wyoming prosecutors are being asked to consider criminal charges against public library staff because…

    …the internet exists.

    1. That’s what happens if we don’t ban fluoridation.

    2. The whole thing is performative Karenism. Leaving your child alone to browse in a public library is not something a concerned parent would ever do anyway.

      1. I used to walk down to the public library as a 3rd grader all the time back in the day. It was on my way home from school, where I would stay by myself until my parents got home from work…3 hours or so later.

        I think it is perfectly fine for parents to be concerned about what their local library is pushing on kids. That said, they have the ability to get involved in the library board which ultimately selects the librarians and the book policies.

        And of course this is the problem with ever increasing governments that increasingly worm their way into our lives. No one should give a fuck what bum-fuck Wyoming is doing with its local library. But because every damn town and city in this country has a library, and scolds like Huckabee and ENB want nothing more than to wage a culture war in every one of them, this shit is being argued at a national level.

        1. Yeah, my concern was never the content of the library, it was more about the patrons. In the early aughts when I was taking my kids to the library we were at peak internet but still pre-smartphone. Public computers were basically porn kiosks.

          1. What drove me away from public libraries were teen punks talking out loud and running around the library like savages and library staff unwilling to call security or the police! That, and a swarm of fleas, no doubt from an alleged “service animal” jumped on me and carried me out of the library!

            After that final straw, I shredded my library card and haven’t been back in 13 years.

            1. a swarm of fleas, no doubt from an alleged “service animal” jumped on me and carried me out of the library!

              Wishful thinking. Fleas from a dog would be less likely to give you hepatitis.

              Not sure how they carried you out of the library though.

              1. It was a figure of speech, of course. Rather I should say, the fleas chased me out of the library. I had to run to keep them from hopping on me.

                Fortunately, I have no Hepatitis problem or any other communicable disease problem, so I got that going for me, which is nice.

        2. “I think it is perfectly fine for parents to be concerned about what their local library is pushing on kids.”

          Or you could put in the time and raise your kids yourself, and that way it gets done exactly the way you wanted it done.

      2. “Leaving your child alone to browse in a public library is not something a concerned parent would ever do anyway.”

        I expected my kid to navigate herself to the library, if that’s where she wanted to be. We had a good library system, and reading is good for children.

  13. …almost 6 in 10 Americans oppose a ban on abortions after cardiac activity is detected, at about six to eight weeks into a typical pregnancy.

    They saw how millennials and zoomers turned out.

  14. Todd Akin – “Legitimate Rape” Aborto-freak and failed Senate candidate dead at 74

    https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/todd-akins-legitimate-rape-remark-lives-gop-assault-abortion-rcna2549

    “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,”

    What a dumbass.

    1. Don’t worry, we have a never ending supply of dumbasses.

      1. A couple hundred thousand years and it’s still the #1 model.

    2. Speaking of reasons not to allow your child to be alone in a public library….

    3. Ooo…grave dancing. How noble.

      1. He’s dead, Jim. He won’t care.

  15. This will allow for significant expansion in availability of rapid, easy to use at home tests for Covid.

    Almost two years in.

    1. If only we had more information sooner, we would’ve nipped this pandemic in the bud like, uh, Afghanistan, Bhutan, Niger, and China.

    2. And yet we hear everyday here about how the FDA rushed the COVID vaccines without studying the long-term side effects.

      1. One of these is not like the others. One of these things is not the same.

        1. You. You’re the one who is different.

      2. Unsure how a test could possibly cause long-term impacts, but feel free to explain how.

        1. (He’s kinda stupid).

          1. HO2 is wet

            1. HO2 is not wet, unless you dip it in some H2O.

              Chemistry fail.

      3. Why do you still post here? Nobody is buying into your bullshit.

  16. Look out, ultra-wealthy people! You might be feeling overconfident now because of how much richer you’ve gotten in Biden’s first 9 months, but it won’t last. He’s comin’ for ya!

    The Build Back Better Agenda costs $0. The plan will ensure the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share and won’t raise taxes on anyone making less than $400K a year. That’s a big deal.

    Yup. Any day now, Biden’s going to financially punish his base of movie stars and tech billionaires.

    #OBLsFirstLaw

    1. Only an amazing financial genius could spend 3.5 trillion, and say it costs nothing.

      1. I’m impressed with all the people running around crying about how critical it has to Having absolutely no idea what is in this bill. Heck, even the staffers don’t have much of an idea what is in it at this point. None of the congressman seem to have a clue what is in it. Certainly the professional activists provocateur don’t have a clue.

        But it is critical! The entire World might collapse if we don’t spend ourselves into a Weimar Republic.

      2. “I meant it’ll cost me nothing. Hunter has all of my money squirreled away in offshore trusts. You guys are screwed, though.”

      3. “Only an amazing financial genius could spend 3.5 trillion, and say it costs nothing.”

        Mexico will pay for it!

    2. Then surely he is going to lower the SALT deduction to zero, right?
      End interest deductions on any home not owner occupied, right?
      Eliminate political contributions all together, right?
      Explain all of the money he received from Hunter?
      Pay the taxes on his book deals?
      Investigate the Clinton foundation?

      1. “Then surely he is going to lower the SALT deduction to zero, right?”

        If you have strategic arms, you aren’t paying taxes, you’re talking to the giant, whole-wall video screen to the world leaders demanding that they pay your ransom or get nuked.

        1. *Pinky Finger Raised* “One miiiiiilion Dollars!…”
          https://youtu.be/cKKHSAE1gIs

  17. Congress is holding yet another hearing on Facebook this morning, this time concerning reports that Instagram is bad for teen girls.

    Facebook gave everyone a taste of A World Without Facebook yesterday ahead of the hearing as a wake up call.

    1. Meh. Let’s see what happens to the “media” when Twitter goes offline.

      1. You missed it.

    2. And it was kinda nice.

    3. Funny, I didn’t notice a difference.

    4. Some of my favorite times are when the internet goes out.

  18. A Trump administration rule banning groups that get federal family planning money from referring patients to abortion services has been revoked.

    I mean, what else is family planning but abortions?

    1. Child tax credits?

    2. Biden’s New Green Deal should include funding a chicken coat hanger in every pot womb.

      1. No, that was the late Todd Akin’s plan. (Unintended consequences and all that.)

        We don’t always agree, but you are a funny punster anyway.

    3. “I mean, what else is family planning but abortions?”

      If you live in a red state, family planning is the Nancy Reagan plan, AKA “Just say no”.

      1. Aspirin is a contraceptive…if you hold it between your knees. And at least it allows for buttsex.

  19. ant to “reduce recidivism and the labor shortage in one fell swoop”? End occupational licensing requirements…

    And risk getting an ex-con braiding my hair?

    1. If the ex-con is bad at braiding your hair, pick someone else to do it.

  20. Seattle will decriminalize psychedelic drugs.

    In the hope of pacifying certain destructive elements.

    1. The mushrooms are running amuck!

  21. Seattle will decriminalize psychedelic drugs.
    How can they do that without FDA approval?

    1. They’re in the spirit world, man! In that world, 600,000 men didn’t die answering questions of jurisdiction.

    2. “‘Seattle will decriminalize psychedelic drugs.’
      How can they do that without FDA approval?”

      The same way a city can go after children’s lemonade stands, if they want to be on national news for a couple of days.

  22. With asset values reaching bubble proportions and no end to federal spending in sight, it’s critical for the United States to begin planning for this possibility now.

    I think the spending signals a lack of intention to plan for possibilities.

  23. Good morning, Peanuts.

    I have an important announcement to make about my involvement here at Hit & Run.

    After an extended exchange with the poster Mother’s Lament yesterday I have decided to double or triple my activity here. A classic liberal voice is needed now more than ever to combat the nasty virus of Trumpism.

    Thanks!

    1. We’ll welcome the opportunity for more targets of our derision.

    2. I assume that means we’ll get three times the hilarious and sophisticated toilet / genitalia humor — SLOPPY PULLOUT, tiny mushroom dick, etc.?

      And three times the intel briefings, like when you warned us 5 days in advance of the 9 / 18 SECOND INSURRECTION BY RIGHTWING EXTREMISTS?

      Sounds great!

    3. So more kiddie porn posts? Disgusting.

    4. That’s the Canadian Trump fan, right?

      1. More likely Jinese.

    5. That would be great. When is this new classical liberal going to get here and when are you going to fuck off like you’ve promised so many times?

    6. “After an extended exchange with the poster Mother’s Lament yesterday I have decided to double or triple my activity here”

      Fantastic news, I love rhetorically shitkicking fascists, and you’re the closest thing to a literal Nazi there is. So I’m going to triple my anti-Nazi troll activity against you too.

      And I’m not resorting to hyperbole folks. This is a guy who’s hero spent his youth in WW2 stealing Jewish property for the Nazis.

      1. Nobody cares about either one of you. Harsh but true.

        1. I have been trying to figure out what people get out of all that. Clearly there is some kind of psychological reward.

  24. Local busybodies in Campbell County, Wyoming, are trying to brand children’s or young adult books about getting pregnant, sex education, and being gay as illegal obscenity.

    Not too local!

    Libertarians: Taking over the world and leaving people alone, one county library, that they literally have *nothing* invested in, at a time.

    1. In the post-print media era, when anybody anywhere can have physical or digital copies of information provided to them at a moment’s notice, it’s of paramount important that local governments provide their citizens with a complete, libertarian-approved reading list “for free”.

      1. Hush. Don’t tell the old folks we can see titties on our phones, or they will be out there cutting down telephone poles.

        1. Is this comment nostalgia for the old days when downloading boobies at 5600 baud built up so much anticipation? Because, like sports bras, we don’t need wires anymore.

          1. “Is this comment nostalgia for the old days when downloading boobies at 5600 baud”

            A time that literally didn’t exist? In the good ‘ol days, modems jumped from 2400 baud to 9600 baud without pausing anywhere in between.

        2. Literally pasted your words into the Google search bar. First hit had this:

          Finally, “one hundred servants [were] to be disposed amongst the old Planters, which they greatly desire, and have offered to defray their charges with very great thankes.”

        3. Did you even try testing it out with Google before accusing them of censorship?

        4. It’s like the right-wing commenters here who complain that Reason never covers story X — 90% of them time it turns out Reason has covered story X.

          1. What the fuck are you talking about?

            1. I was trying to figure it out too. Tilting at very dumb windmills again. Classic white Mike.

              1. Jesse couldn’t figure it out, therefore the OTHER GUY is dumb. Sounds logical!

        5. That was great! You earned the Internet for the day with that gut-buster!

        6. It occurred to me that dad knew very well we were stealing from the stack of playboys he kept in the garage. That was why he put them there. They were educational. He didn’t have to explain a thing. We soon figured out what went where.

      2. But only the information approved by Google and Amazon?

        1. Homework assignment:
          Use only Google and find out how many of the 30 “slaves” who came to Virginia in 1619 were actually indentured servants paying off their passage to the new world.

          1. All work is slavery.

          2. “Homework assignment:..”

            Mike never did homework; it might have interfered with his fantasies.

          3. Here’s a hint:
            When you try to assign homework to people, they’re probably going to reject your opinion right a tthe beginning.

          4. In an “at-will” employment world such as ours is (for now,) “indentured servitude” is still pretty shitty.

  25. The obvious way to escape public feuds over the content of public libraries is to get the public funding out of public libraries.

    These ninny Nancys looking to curate a “Wholesome” library environment for children are misguided, and probably raising a bunch of prudes who will be rudely awakened when they arrive in the big city, but at the end of the day, this is a local town debating to figure out what learning environment is appropriate for their kids.

    Should the library be required to host ANY book, including rank pornography? Or is there a limit based on some sort of test versus the value of the book for education purposes vs its conflict with the values of the population? And if there is a limit, then who else is going to help define that limit than the lawyers within the city.

    That said, it seems to me like there are several ways to avoid this litigation that could have short circuited the controversy:

    1) Turn the public library over to a private trust. Stop funding it.
    2) Elect/appoint a new library board whose moral values more closely align with the parents. (And by the way, it very well could be that the parents in this town don’t agree with the Ninny Nancies…we don’t know).
    3) Create a dispute resolution process that doesn’t require the AG.

    Overall, this all goes to show how ridiculously absurd mediation becomes when the State involves itself in this sort of stuff.

    1. ENB supports child drag story hour even in the presence of multiple examples of drag story time readers having convictions for sex crimes. To me spending taxpayer money on that shit is worse than parents petitioning to remove some books (happens on both the left and the right) since libraries can’t carry every book in the world.

      With shit like the Google open book project, libraries are not needed as they once were.

      1. Correction: libraries are needed more than ever as official stages for political theater, as you pointed out.

      2. Don’t think the Google open book project would suffice since knowing Google they probably have the offensive books on them and don’t have Dr. Seuss. I think a monthly subscription would be far superior to solve these problems. If you want your kids only exposed to certain Christian literature, then subscribe to the Netflix of Christian books. You get what you pay for and if you are no longer happy with what you pay for, click unsubscribe.

        1. Dr. Seuss books are still covered by copyright. This gives the family more control over them. Switch to Project Gutenberg, and you can have whatever you want from their collection of out-of-copyright works, for the cost of $0 for as-much-as-you-can-read.

          1. That’s pretty cool actually.

            1. Well, you DO still have to know how to read. And you have to be interested in really old books, because of how long it takes for copyright to wear off, but the public domain is a great source of reading material if your desired price point is “free”.

          2. I have some of those left from my childhood. They are going for some money on eBay now I saw. Not selling though.

    2. What, no TSA-style agency with body searches and comprehensive contraband(book) list?

      1. Why? Because reading is racist? 🙂

    3. Agree with your points but the internet has kind of made the idea of a library antiquated (once broadband is widespread anyway, go Elon). I would think that a Christian book publisher could offer a monthly subscription to their catalogue, same for a San Fran alt publisher; reducing overhead costs while parents could choice the brand that best suits their needs.

      I still love reading actually paper books, but I buy them and pay more for the inconvenience.

      1. Yes, that is why I said as my point number one that there really is little compelling interest for libraries to be publicly funded these days, unless you merely want a front for your culture wars.

        1. If you raise your child in a book-positive way, then curiousity will lead them to books that you might not have chosen for them. Some people find this to be an unacceptable risk, because they think a book author is 100 pages can undo all the time and effort you spent raising them.

          1. Which is a bunch of shit that doesn’t concern you or me. People should raise their children to be however they want to raise their children. They should be as tight or loose with their restrictions as they want to be, up until the point where they no longer hold those children’s rights in trust (18?).

            The only reason we are opining on this on a libertarian website is that the government has decided to create a situation where different parents’ book preferences are a “High stakes” game. They are taking parents’ money, creating a public institution, and (by the way) the local schools generally encourage those kids to go into these places to do research. If the government didn’t require a bunch of opinionated parents (and a bunch of Elites who want to “shape young minds”) to fight it out over these tax dollars, no one would care.

            1. “Which is a bunch of shit that doesn’t concern you or me.”

              That is an accurate assessment of your opinion, thank you for the honesty.

              “People should raise their children to be however they want to raise their children.”

              That’s what I fucking said.

      2. Or, you can go to the public library, and pick just the books you want, and the ones for your kiddos, too.

        Ultimately, what makes your kid a reader is how much time you spend reading to them when they are quite little. If you raise them well, they won’t be off looking for the naughty stuff, even if it IS in the library.

        1. Facts aren’t naughty.

          1. Do you know the difference between Fiction and Non Fiction. But you’ve now said multiple times that only facts are what the discussion on books is about.

            1. Are you just as concerned about murder mystery books?

            2. “Do you know the difference between Fiction and Non Fiction. But you’ve now said multiple times that only facts are what the discussion on books is about.”

              If you could count, you’d have reached 0 as the number of times I’ve said anything even remotely like like “only facts are what the discussion on books is about”

          2. “Facts aren’t naughty.”

            They are if you leave off the fig leaves.

    4. “These ninny Nancys looking to curate a “Wholesome” library environment for children are misguided, and probably raising a bunch of prudes who will be rudely awakened when they arrive in the big city, but at the end of the day, this is a local town debating to figure out what learning environment is appropriate for their kids.”

      More likely than being prudes, the kids are already rejecting the over-protecting parents by using cell phone cameras to create their own porn.

    5. I don’t go for rank pornography. Only the freshest will do!

  26. They will seek appointment of a special prosecutor to weigh in as well before deciding whether to pursue charges, County Attorney Mitchell Damsky announced Friday. …

    Translation: Damsky doesn’t want to touch this case with a 10 foot pole, but the group pushing this has too much political influence to ignore.

    1. “Translation: Damsky doesn’t want to touch this case with a 10 foot pole, but the group pushing this has too much political influence to ignore.”

      This seems likely.

    2. I was going to guess the same thing.

  27. “almost 6 in 10 Americans oppose a ban on abortions after cardiac activity is detected, at about six to eight weeks into a typical pregnancy.”

    So…. half?

    Now push the poll about abortions after 20 weeks where it is 8 in 10 support regulations.

    1. So support for banning abortions after a heartbeat can be detected is already at 40%?

      1. Yeah. And thats with the media pushed talking point in that it can occur in as little as 6 weeks even though it is often at 10 weeks, or over 2 months of pregnancy.

        1. The heartbeat is detectable as soon as the listener wants to claim they detected it.

          1. Uh, no, dummy–there’s these things called “ultrasound machines” that actually show the fetus’s heart beating. It doesn’t have anything to do with “listening,” you gaslighting fuck.

            1. It’s a little known fact that the heart rate monitors used in ERs don’t actually use empirical computation and measurements to distinguish peaks from noise but just amplify an otherwise inaudible ‘beep’ that everyone’s heart makes.

              It’s still a mystery to modern medical science as to why a pre-fetal clump of cells doesn’t emit an unending ‘beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-‘ until an actual beat develops.

              1. You should be able to pick up cardiac activity as soon as you can see a fetal pole on ultrasound. Around 6 weeks. It is not quite a heart yet. It is a pole which will develop into a 4 chamber heart. You can also measure the length of the fetus to calculate gestational age.

                Ultrasound isn’t really hearing anything except for the high frequency sound waves it emits and then bounce back into the probe to be processed into an image. You can process that into an audible signal if you are using Doppler but that is a whole other discussion. They also use Doppler probes for that. They work on the same principle.

                For this they use what is basically a focused function called m-mode. It traces out the motion into a graph and then you measure the distance between the peaks to calculate the rate.

              2. I am aware of two types of monitors. One is the EKG type we are all familiar with and measures electrical activity. The other is optical like on smart watches. Those use led light which bounces back to the sensor. The amount of light changes with blood flow and you can can calculate a heart rate.

                Not sure what you are referring to.

                1. Oh my sarc detector is running low today.

            2. “–there’s these things called “ultrasound machines” that actually show the fetus’s heart beating.”

              When my offspring was a fetus, they pointed to a picture on an ultrasound machine, and said “that’s your baby”, but there wasn’t any baby in the picture.

              “It doesn’t have anything to do with “listening,””

              You sure you want to stick with the answer that an “ultrasound machine” doesn’t have anything to do with “listening”? Just making sure before I start mocking your stupidity.

              1. He is right about that James as I explained above.

      2. It is actually at 32%.

        The actual data was:

        Oppose: 58
        Favor: 32
        Unsure: 10

    2. So, most people are in some basic sense against regulating abortion, and most people are against abortion.

      Is that nuance or just stupid?

      1. Most pro-choice people are against abortions in general. They just don’t want someone else making decisions for them.

        1. This is an extremely charitable view of the typical pro-choicer.

          1. I’m not sure. I don’t think the loud activists speak for the typical person who doesn’t think elective abortion should be banned completely. Hard to say, but I think that’s the case with most hot button issues. Lots of loud voices taking the extreme positions and most people somewhere in the middle.

          2. “This is an extremely charitable view of the typical pro-choicer.”

            Truth is charity?

        2. “Most pro-choice people are against abortions in general.”

          Not from my experience.

          “They just don’t want someone else making decisions for them.”

          Explains their opposition to vaccine mandates.

          1. The Nolan Chart could apply to any two categories of things, not just economic and social policy.

          2. “Not from my experience.”

            Where are you experiencing this? Doesn’t seem to be from exposure to actual people.

        3. Most pro-choice people are against abortions in general.

          No, the majority of pro-choice people are against abortion-on-demand, not abortion in general. Even the majority of “pro-choicers” want at least SOME restrictions on the practice.

          The radicals pressure their enablers in the political class to enact laws like Virginia’s post-partum abortion law, or New York’s abortion-on-demand law, which is what specifically led to the fetal heartbeat laws getting passed in their wake. If the radical minority hadn’t gotten Democratic politicians to bend to their demands, these counter-laws wouldn’t have been passed themselves.

          1. ” Even the majority of “pro-choicers” want at least SOME restrictions on the practice.”

            Could you explain how this “clarification” has anything to do with anything that I wrote, whether you chose to quote it or not?

        4. The women’s March just happened. Shout your abortion was a thing. Fantasy abortion stories happen.

          1. “Fantasy abortion stories happen.”

            I don’t want to hear about your sexual fantasies.

    3. “Now push the poll about abortions after 20 weeks where it is 8 in 10 support regulations.”

      Make sure you are extremely vague about what kind of “regulations” people are for, so they imply that people should be able to pop down to Jiffy Lube to get an oil change and an abortion while they wait.

      1. Yes James, people who are not as smart as you can easily be tricked into believing nonsense such as this.

        It’s good that you’re looking out for them. A true hero.

        1. Someone has to look out for you, because obviously you’re just incapable.

          1. Obviously. That’s why you’re a hero. Give yourself a pat on the back, and find some some other incapable soul to condescend to.

            Haha. What a doosh.

  28. https://mobile.twitter.com/EricSpracklen

    Pfizer scientist talking about the dreaded natural immunity being better and covid being a cash cow for them.

    1. Just mad that they did not patent COVID and can charge license fees for natural immunity.

      1. The CCP and Wuhan researchers already patented the wuflu

  29. Some 59 percent of Republicans polled said they oppose these laws. The same was said by 61 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of independents polled.

    Independents more opposed to abortion than Republicans!

    1. This result is clearly indicative of some push polling manipulation. You would have to see the full context to know exactly what they did, but you point out a pretty strong indicator that there were some anomolies… Either sampling bias, question priming or wording.. Something odd.

    2. Independents are just Republicans who don’t want all the donation requests.
      Independents are just democrats who are ashamed of the democratic platform.
      Independents are just Libertarians who wish they had a real party to join.

      1. Independents are people who don’t give a damn what you think about them.

        1. Then why bother with politics?

        2. Independents are people who don’t give a damn what you think about them.

          Haha, bullshit. It’s hardly a coincidence that “Independent” affiliation over the last 30 years or so has tended to wax and wane in direct proportion to Republican affiliation.

          1. Non-partisans are, definitionally, people who don’t want to be associated with any party.

      2. “Independents are just Libertarians who wish they had a real party to join.”

        That was me ten years ago. Now, I’m convinced all politics parties are evil and should be banned outright.

        1. For the benefit of the thread, arguing with Mike is arguing with someone who will never take responsibility for what he says. In fact, you might as well mute him now and save yourself the frustration. He is a completely disingenuous adversary and you would do better arguing with the main character from Memento.
          https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/#comment-9091773

          That is Mike insisting that he “would never look to Rolling Stone” for news, after spreading their bogus ivermectin story only days earlier. Consider that: He didn’t apologize. He didn’t even try to ignore his mistake. He brazenly tried to dunk on Rolling Stone to make himself look like an arbiter of truth.

          The pathological narcissism required to disrespect the truth and readers so heavily should make him ashamed. It won’t though, so I advise others in the thread to avoid engaging with someone that argues in such bad faith.

          1. It’s funny how he keeps claiming he’s libertarian.

            1. He was advocating for banning individuals from assembling in groups so…

            2. “It’s funny how he keeps claiming he’s libertarian.”

              libertarians are funny creatures. No two of them agree about anything, and they are particularly difficult to nail down on just what, exactly, a “libertarian” is. They will argue incessarntly among themselves on this topic.

              1. Organizing libertarians is like herding cats.

          2. I hate to tell you this, but Rolling Stone wasn’t the only news outlet to go with the bogus Oklahoma-hospitals story. It was entirely possible to run into that particular story without ever once looking to Rolling Stone for news.

        2. I don’t think they should be banned. I just don’t think they should be funded by the taxpayers and enshrined by legislation. Make them fully private, at both the national and state level, at the same level of regulation as the local chess club.

          The Republicans are stupid, the Democrats are evil, and the Libertarians are crazy. Here in California we also have the chaotic evil Peace and Freedom, neutral evil Greens, lawful evil American Independents, and the ever unclassifiable Natural Law Party. They have the right to exist, but they don’t have the right to any taxpayer funds or special privileges or government recognition.

          1. Yes. States shouldn’t be running party elections and party affiliation should not appear on ballots. And no automatic ballot access.

          2. I know it seems pretty simple, but if the past is any indication, it will take 10+ yrs. for Mike to fully grok this.

          3. Why do you, sarc, jeff, and white Mike keep attacking anti democratic posting here if this is what you believe? Could ot be you are lying?

          4. Yeah, the “enshrined by legislation” one is the really evil one.

            Funny, I always enjoyed chatting with California Green Party members, even though I didn’t agree with them on much of anything. Their brand of crazy was kinda entertaining.

            1. As is yours.

              1. It’s not THAT amusing.

  30. 40% of democrats support banning abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detectable?

    That is pretty big news.

    1. 40% of Democrats are men.

      1. No real man – – – – – –

        1. What about birthing-persons?

          1. Those are called women, you know – – – – – – –

      2. “40% of Democrats are men.”

        And about 50% of babies are male.

        Just looking out for their own, I guess.

    2. They don’t understand that human life begins at the age of 18. Before that, clumps.

      1. 21 if they wanna drink or smoke the devil-weed.

        1. At 18 we can send them overseas to get shot.

          1. That General’s technical wasn’t going to push itself onto the plane.

          2. Between 18 and 21, a casualty is classified as abortion.

    3. “40% of democrats support banning abortion as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detectable?

      That is pretty big news.”

      This issue has had some bass-ackward-ness about it from the beginning. One position assumes that individual people should make decisions for themselves, and one position says that the government should make the decision for them. The D’s have taken the individual-decision side, and the R’s have taken the “government should decide” position. A lot of positions are possible, from nobody should ever even know that abortion is possible at one end to “we need to limit human population even if it means that people who want more children get abortions they didn’t want” at the other end.

      1. No republican believes that a person should “make decisions for themselves” if that decision means chopping a person’s head off.

        As much as the Pro-Choice side would like to make this about an individual’s decision, the Pro-Life side has been consistent in saying “Thou Shall Not Murder”.

        That is not to say that the right doesn’t have plenty of blind spots where they tend to ignore personal preferences (Gay marriage and drugs, for example). But in the case of Abortion, once you have concluded that the unborn baby is a “person” then the mother doesn’t have a “personal” decision to make any more.

        1. This. You can’t kill an unconscious person for being on your property. If they are tangled in your fence and you can’t remove them until they regain conciousness, you can’t take an axe to their limbs to remove them before they regain conciousness. This goes doubly if they are only tangled in your fence because you put them there, and no you can’t hold them responsible for the fact that some other asshole tossed them their. If your life isn’t in direct and immediate danger, you don’t have the option to murder innocent third parties.

          The only real question with abortion is when that innocent third party comes to be, and that is a subject of debate.

          1. Being in your body is rather different from just being on your property and requires a different moral calculation if you ask me. For me the only question is whether or not a person has an absolute right to control what goes on in their body.

            1. Even when the other person is only in your body because you took direct action to put them there? No one consulted the kid or gave them a choice in the situation. the kid has not only not taken any aggressive action but is physically incapable of doing so at this point in time. The only person who took direct action to result in the current predicament are the parents.

              This is the equivalent of picking some random stranger up off the street, chaining them to your bed, then deciding to take an axe to their limbs because you lost the key to the chains rather than waiting for the locksmith to get there. You took action against another person and have put them in a position where they are helpless to take actions of their own. You can’t kill them for something you did to them, unless your life is in immediate and direct danger.

              The only question is did you kidnap a person, a mannequin, or a corpse. Either of the latter two and you can chop limbs off all day long.

              1. There are probably more laws against hacking up a corpse than an embryo.

              2. Well, it’s a question, isn’t it? I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind because one’s views on abortion usually come down to some kind of axiomatic assumption about the nature of rights and morality. But to me controlling one’s own body is not at all comparable to any of the hypotheticals you propose. I say the right to control your own body supersedes anyone else’s rights.

                1. I throw a punch at your face. My actions are solely done through the control of my own body, which you have just declared completely inviolable even to the point that I may take direct physical action to the point of killing against third parties who have taken no action against me. As you say, I have the completely unassailable right to do whatever I please with my body. If that results in you getting punched, that’s a you problem.

                  1. No, that’s not what I said. It’s not that hard of a distinction to make. You don’t think that’s the important distinction, which is fine. But it’s not some hard line to draw. A person has the right to control what goes on in their own body. That’s what I’m saying. Not that they have an absolute right to use their body in any way they want.

                    1. Your having trouble explaining your position because you don’t want to acknowledge the rights conflict going on. I can keep creating scenarios that you don’t consider moral or ethical but are completely allowed by your arguement forever (e.g. what if I want to swallow a bomb that will go off and kill everyone around me), because you aren’t allowing for a methodology that decides whose rights are supreme when conflict occurs.

                      This is one of the things that the NAP is good at handling. Generally the aggressor (in the case of abortion, that would be the person who created the situation through their direct actions) loses when rights come into conflict. This is why we generally see it as acceptable to shoot someone to defend your property, even though property rights are pretty clearly below the right to life. The NAP isn’t perfect, but it’s a really good starting point for figuring out moral quanderies where someone is going to have to have their rights curtailed.

                    2. “I can keep creating scenarios that you don’t consider moral or ethical but are completely allowed by your arguement forever”

                      The boundaries of your rights can be found where they interact with the rights of others. Your right to play with explosives ends where other people’s rights not to be struck by shrapnel fragments begins.

                  2. “The right to control your body” was lazy wording on my part.

                    1. Try “right of the people to be secure in their persons”

                  3. Guess we better make it illegal for a pregnant woman to feel her own stomach too… Such a small thing might think it’s a punch to the nose …. on those absurdly yet irrelevant grounds.

                    Any excuse for MORE, MORE, MORE Gov-Gun-Power against ‘those’ people.

                    1. I’m not a feminist. I don’t believe you need affirmative consent to touch someone, and nothing I wrote about had any implications for the affirmative consent doctrine.

                    2. For those who aren’t aware. Affirmative consent doctrine is the belief that every action involving physical contact between you and another human being must be verbally and explicitly agreed to directly and during the time it is taken and nothing can be assumed. It is also known as the enthusiastic consent doctrine. And yes it exactly as ridiculous as it sounds and even the people who push it don’t actually follow it.

                    3. “I’m not a feminist. I don’t believe you need affirmative consent to touch someone”

                      The common-law says non-consensually touching someone is a battery tort, and doesn’t say “except for non-feminists”.

              3. “Even when the other person is only in your body because you took direct action to put them there?”

                So much for Immaculate Conception, I guess. But yes, rape is a thing.

            2. That particular control is called birth control.

              1. Since we are talking about birth control.

                Funny story. We were having a big family dinner at a restaurant. My Uncle Teddy was a very funny guy and the patron of the family at the time.

                So word got out that I was getting a vasectomy because I was done making babies.

                So he gets up and loudly announces “ I am against it”

                “ What you do (he leans over to me). If you are a man enough. “

                “You make her happy…and then you pull out”

                I said “what am I going to do uncle Teddy. Pull out for the next 20 years”

                Everyone is just floored.

                He went on more slyly “and there are other things. Did you ever hear of a hair pie?”

                The waitress dropped her tray.

                I said “ oh that. You mean they like that?”

                I tuned to my wife and said. C’mon honey. Let’s skip dessert and leave a little early. I want to try this out”

            3. the only question is whether or not a person has an absolute right to control what goes on in their body

              They should. And as everyone who understands human nature knows, they ultimately will.

              The problem is that implantation involves more than just a baby floating freely inside the uterus, and removing it potentially exposes the woman to uncontrolled internal bleeding. Without a doctor present, it is incredibly risky. This is why the procedure is arguably not a violation of medical ethics.

              But until the courts recognize the inviolable right of a compos mentis person to control over their own body, the contradictions will keep the argument going. How can legislation regarding abortion be illegitimate and legislation regarding drugs, suicide or vaccines be valid?

              1. Yeah, it’s all screwed up. I try to be consistent, that’s the best I can do.

              2. How can legislation regarding abortion be illegitimate and legislation regarding drugs, suicide or vaccines be valid?

                None are valid. But a very good point demonstrated there. If FORCED vaccines aren’t a legitimate use of Gov-Gun-Forces than how is FORCED reproduction.

                There’s a truck load of hypocrisy on the ?limited-gov? right when it comes to Pro-Life. And that fact they spread lies and propaganda just like the left-Nazi’s do really is quite disappointing.

                1. If FORCED vaccines aren’t a legitimate use of Gov-Gun-Forces than how is FORCED reproduction.

                  There is a flaw in your logic there. A forced vaccine is a medical intervention by the government. What you are framing as forced reproduction is a constraint against medical invention. A pregnancy will naturally resolve itself in 9 months barring intervention.

                  I have already stated that we have a natural right to control over our own body, but I will not concede to the fallacious nonsense that pregnancy is somehow akin to slavery. That argument points to a governmental duty to intervene. It justifies eugenics, sterilization and population control, all stated goals of Progressives in the past.

                  1. ^That argument points to a governmental duty to intervene. It justifies eugenics, sterilization and population control

                    EXACTLY… Well Stated! +100000
                    Gov-Gun-Forced Reproduction is far too similar to Gov-Gun-Forced sterilization. It’s not area the [WE] mob needs to stick it’s big fat noses into. It’s far too personal.

                  2. “I have already stated that we have a natural right to control over our own body, but I will not concede to the fallacious nonsense that pregnancy is somehow akin to slavery.”

                    How about the non-fallacious fact that pregnancy is definitely and unequivocally forced labor? IF the government wants to protect the life of that fetus so damn much, let THEM find a voluntary host(ess) to provide for its needs.

              3. ” This is why the procedure is arguably not a violation of medical ethics.”

                Be specific, which procedure are you referring to? There are a fairly large number of different procedures lumped under the generic “abortion” label.

          2. “This. You can’t kill an unconscious person for being on your property.”

            Sure you can. Just walk away while the flood waters are rising. The law does not impose a duty to rescue.

        2. No republican believes that a person should “make decisions for themselves” if that decision means chopping a person’s head off.

          As much as the Pro-Choice side would like to make this about an individual’s decision, the Pro-Life side has been consistent in saying “Thou Shall Not Murder”.

          Central to the position is that women should be more free and capable to make other decisions up front. To avoid the imposition of an additional (potential) life and the legal hoopla that goes into preserving and defending it rather than invoking the defense and then insisting it doesn’t apply at their whim and only their whim.

          1. Are you sure a 30% development even has a head? 30% of a head?

            1. At 3 months in? Yeah they’ve got a whole head. Google fetal development images, before 2 months fetuses are pretty wonky looking but after that they got all the major bits you’d expect.

              1. As a child, I liked to visit the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. They had a display of 3D models of fetal development in the “life sciences” part of the museum. And they had F-105 on display in front of the museum, and (I want to say from foggy memory) a DC-8 cockpit that you could go in and look at all the dials and switches. At their original site, you can get on an elevator and travel to the only subway stop in Portland, which has some interesting geology displays in it (like core sampling from when they were drilling the elevator shafts. Now they have a new site that’s next to the river, so they can keep their own nuclear submarine. But they didn’t take the F-105 display when they moved.

              2. The biggest issue is cardio pulmonary development. At this point around 24 weeks. Before that there is simply not the apparatus for gas exchange they are totally dependent on placental blood exchange and they cannot survive outside of the physical environment they are in.

                There was an experiment a few years back involving sheep. They created an artificial placenta and gestational sac with artificial amniotic fluid.

                They were able to get the lambs to stay alive back to 19 weeks human equivalent. Haven’t heard anything more about it.

                1. You have a link? This is very fascinating.

        3. “No republican believes that a person should ‘make decisions for themselves'”

          Shoudl have put a period right there.

          “once you have concluded that the unborn baby is a “person”

          That doesn’t end the discussion the way you think it does. The unborn baby is a person, and the state has an interest in protecting the right of that person, is part of the reasoning of Roe v Wade. The story continues from there.

        4. “the Pro-Life side has been consistent in saying “Thou Shall Not Murder”.”

          They haven’t been as consistent in that point as they should be, in the sense that pro-lifers sheltered people who shot at doctors and firebombed clinics.

      2. This is a shallow mischaracterization of the different sides of the issue.

        1. I was going to say the same, but then I thought about it and it is technically true. In the cases of me shooting a random stranger in the face with a shotgun, we have decided that the government gets to decide when that is allowed to happen vs the individual.

          1. we have decided that the government gets to decide when that is allowed to happen vs the individual

            And we specifically empower cops to decide. That is the only reason that Ashli Babbitt is the actor in her own death and not a murder victim.

            So… if abortion doctors were deputized, they would have qualified immunity!

            1. Try a thought experiment.

              Joe was in a terrible accident of some kind, and is now entirely dependent on artificial life support. A machine breathes for him, another one pumps his blood, and dialysis filters the blood to remove unwanted elements from it. Now, we put you into the story. You notice that the plug for one of these devices has come loose from the socket. At any moment, the plug could come out of the socket and at least one of the devices keeping poor Joe alive would then be unpowered and stop functioning.
              If you don’t go over to the plug and push it firmly into the socket, ae you a murderer? Does it make a difference if A) you have another use for the room Joe is in, or B) you were somehow involved in the accident that put Joe on life support?

    1. David is too good for what this garbage website has become.

  31. I guess the DOJ isn’t doing anything authoritarian in response to concerned parents protesting school boards in Loudon County today. I feel like that’s something a libertarian publication would be concerned about.

    1. That’s WAY too local.

      The FBI is NOTHING compared to fucking library in Idaho, obviously.

      “We need parents more involved in schools. NO! NOT THOSE PARENTS!!”

      1. That’s Wyoming. Read the actual story.

        1. Oh, yeah, the wrong state completely invalidates the story. Totally.

          1. True, the DOJ is going down the road of tyranny by targeting anti-CRT protesters, just like wanna book-burners in Campbell County, Wyoming are going down the road of tyranny by calling the Sheriff and County Attorney over sexy books.

            “You take the high road
            And I’ll take the low road,
            And I’ll reach the Gulag
            ‘A-fooore ya’!…”

            By Yon Bonny Banks of Loch Lomond
            https://youtu.be/eGt9RWxEs4Y

            1. In either case, though, fighting the good fight means getting the facts straight. It would be kind of embarassing to look for a Campbell County Library in Idaho to protest for free expression if there wasn’t one (which there isn’t.)

  32. I generally avoid Twitter-mob type sensationalism type stories, but this story is really about the budget reconciliation bill and the activists going after Kyrsten Sinema–chasing her into the bathroom and practically trapping her in the stall–is fucking outrageous. You can see the whole disgusting episode here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0Bmn2RClqY

    They’re really going after her for failing to support the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill–by having activists chase her into the bathroom?!

    That is shameful behavior by the progressives.

    I can’t imagine how this could possibly play well with suburban women voters. It violates basic standards of decency, but it also violates what I think most women think of as standards of bullying. Women don’t like seeing other people bullied this way, and they certainly don’t like seeing women bullied this way while they’re trying to use the bathroom–just because Sinema won’t vote the way the progressives want.

    This is a self-inflicted wound by the progressives, and everyone in the progressive wing of the Democratic party who fails to condemn the way these people treated Kyrsten Sinema should be ashamed of themselves.

    P.S. Biden’s dismissal of the tactics was so pathetic, I suspect he had no idea what was being referred to when he dismissed it.

    1. Kyrsten Sinema is being publicly humiliated while going to the bathroom for failing to support the progressive agenda of the Democratic leadership, and when the president himself is asked about it, he casually dismisses it as something that she just has to learn to live with?!

      McConnell should be on the phone with Sinema right now.

      If Sinema starts caucusing with the Republicans as an Independent, even, the whole budget reconciliation process is over–and Sinema can have any committee chair she wants.

      1. When Joe Biden was asked about progressives activists chasing Kyrsten Sinema into the bathroom and harassing her there, Biden basically dismissed it as “part of the process”!

        I went looking for the YouTube video of Joe Biden saying that, and came across Reason’s own Robby Soave covering it for The Hill Here’s the video:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNk7FOuGAP0

        —-The Hill (featuring Robby Soave!)

        “What Biden Actually Said About Kyrsten Sinema Bathroom Protest”

        1. Biden said “it happens to everyone… …who doesn’t have Secret Service protection…” along with saying “it’s part of the process.”

          So can we call this The Biden Rule? That it’s just “part of the process” when we all start harassing politicians away from their job duties?

          Meanwhile Garland has sicced the FBI on people who speak out at school board meetings…

          Apparently not part of the process.

          1. But I’m sure Reason will express deep concern, and outrage over lost ‘norms’ once it is the ‘wrong’ ox getting gored by this sort of behavior.

            Because principals over principles.

          2. “Meanwhile Garland has sicced the FBI on people who speak out at school board meetings…”

            Threatening people when you “speak out” will tend to have that result.

            1. Unless you’re threatening inner city minorities. Or a Fox News commentator. Or people in a federal courthouse. Or a Senator that’s not toeing the Democratic party line…

            2. “Threatening people when you “speak out” will tend to have that result.”

              Unless you are BLM, or Antifa.

              Neither of whom merely ‘threatened’ but instead have actively engaged in assault, arson, and murder.

              But hey, they are just an “idea.”

              Unlike, you know, liberty.

            3. Threatening people when you “speak out” will tend to have that result.

              Well, sure, the left considers any substantive resistance to their agenda to be “divisive” and a “threat.” That’s why they whine like bitches when it happens.

          3. They can say whatever they want, but people aren’t falling for it.

            They said all kinds of bullshit about the Afghanistan withdrawal, Biden’s vaccine mandate, and the way Biden treated those Haitian asylum seekers, too. It seems like they’re getting one over on us because the mainstream news mostly mirrors the progressive party line, but in reality, Biden’s approval numbers plummeted anyway!

            Plenty of average Americans are seeing this and calling bullshit, and the more bullshit that Biden, the progressives, and the news media throw against the wall, the less it sticks and the more people stop believing Biden or the news media. Trust in the news media keeps testing all time lows for a reason–and because the news media is so obviously untrustworthy is one of them.

        2. Ken, the Senator was then harassed on the flight back to AZ, last evening.

          McConnell should call her this week.

          1. McConnell should have been on the phone with her everyday for weeks already!

            1. The left wing socialists in the House and Senate have done a terrible job of winning over Manchin’s and Sinema’s votes for the disastrous reconciliation bill, which is very good news for America.

              1. Biden has also done a terrible job of winning over Manchin and Sinema, which is very good news for America.

                1. Which is unsurprising. Since their approach to “winning over” two of their own Senators is about the same way as they’ve tried “winning over” people who don’t want the vaccine.

                  But really, at this point, this is not about trying to change Manchin’s or Sinema’s vote as it is given them a taste of what they can expect once the establishment uni-party declares them enemies.

                  1. But really, at this point, this is not about trying to change Manchin’s or Sinema’s vote as it is given them a taste of what they can expect once the establishment uni-party declares them enemies.
                    —–
                    Exactly. It’s also a warning to others who might be thinking of wavering. Do you want the party to pull its support just before midterms?

              2. That’s because they have nothing in their playbook but harass everybody who’s not 100% on board.

    2. Insurrection! Oh wait…

    3. They should have all been shot in the face for trespassing in that bathroom.

    4. Women don’t like seeing other people bullied this way

      So why do we have terms like, “mean girls, catty, bitch”? Women (not just teen girls) can be a just as big of bullies as anyone. Just wait for the divorcees to start replying.

      And yes they should be ashamed of themselves.

      1. Because some women can be bullies and because mean girls can be mean, doesn’t mean suburban women want to see women politicians treated that way because they won’t do as their told.

        There are apologists for the progressives out there, but this is playing well in the minds of swing voting women in swing districts and swing states. Maybe some women can be mean, but trapping a grown woman and bullying her while she trying to use the bathroom is considered high school stuff.

        This video of progressives bullying a woman politician while she’s in the bathroom won’t be featured in any Democrat’s advertising campaigns this year–because there aren’t any swing voters out there who watch that video and are likely to vote for progressives because they want more of that.

        1. Maybe but I thought the rioting and looting would have sunk the dems in the suburbs.

          1. Turnout was amazing.

            That loss was about the economy–because of the pandemic and the lockdowns.

            When things go bad, a significant portion of the population blames whomever is in charge. The mandate of heaven is universal and subconscious.

            Sometimes, the guy in charge is to blame. Sometimes, not so much. More people lost their jobs over a shorter period of time than any time in history. That Trump did as well as he did under those circumstances is amazing.

            1. Turnout was amazing

              Turnout was beyond amazing. It was a miracle. It reversed a 120 year trend. It was also the biggest increase in voter percentage in the history of the Republic.
              Not since the Civil War had such a huge percentage of voters decided to cast ballots.

              And all for Joe Biden. Not Nixon/Kennedy, not FDR, not Teddy Roosevelt. Joe Biden.

              1. My understanding is that more people voted for Trump in 2020 than did in 2016, too.

                The Republicans picked up seats in the House.

                We shouldn’t have expected Trump or the Republicans to do as well as they did given what was happening in the economy.

                I can’t think of a president who presided over the beginning of a recession and did well–regardless of whether it was their fault.

        2. but trapping a grown woman and bullying her while she trying to use the bathroom is considered high school stuff

          Slight disagreement, this is sub-human sociopathy that wouldn’t be tolerated in a HS. A principle who dismissed such behavior as just part of the process of public education would be fired or worse.

    5. If it had been a republican chasing a person to the bathroom it would have been Insurrection part 2

      1. No it would not. There was no element of trying to overthrow an election.

        1. There was not on 1/6, either. According to the FBI who certainly have no reason to lie to their benefit.

          1. A January 6 insurrection is pretty much as close to an article of faith as you can get for White Mike. To claim otherwise would be apostasy.

        2. “…There was no element of trying to overthrow an election.”

          So long as a news report has the claim that at least one person in a protest said something like ‘overthrow the government’, Mike’s just fine with murdering unarmed protesters.

          1. The reason progressives treat average Americans who oppose them like shit isn’t because the progressives are defending democracy, and the way these progressives treated Sinema is further evidence of that.

            Whenever we see progressives claim to be defending democracy, we should always remember that they’re elitists, and they hold the opinions of average Americans in contempt. But it isn’t even necessary to remember that in reference to this debacle . . .

            How can the progressives say they care about democracy, out of one side of their mouths, and then try to make a Senator stop representing the views of her purple state–by subjecting her to constant harassment by activists up to and including harassing her while she’s on the toilet?

            They don’t care about democracy. They want her to impose their opinions on her constituents–whether they like it or not. And if Dee genuinely doesn’t understand that, it’s genuine further evidence that she’s not very smart.

            1. I’m not a progressive.

      2. There was a guy in there, right?

        They would have accused him of sexual assault, at the very least, and threatened to have him arrested and put on the sex offenders list.

        1. But don’t forget the 8 months in jail with no bail.

    6. “They’re really going after her for failing to support the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill–by having activists chase her into the bathroom?!”

      Odd framing. Like “the progressives” has a meeting and decided their plan would be to send these activists after her. When the reality is that they activists decided on their own to do it — there was no “they” directing them.

      1. “Odd framing…”

        Straw-grasping post from lefty shit.

        1. If we didn’t ask for the straw, that’s a $100 fine.

      2. “Like “the progressives” has a meeting and decided their plan would be to send these activists after her.”

        Oooh…now do 1/6.

      3. WE NEED TO SEE NOTARIZED MEMBERSHIP CARDS!

      4. Tell that to Soros.

      5. The progressives and the activists are the same people. Quit trying to pretend that they aren’t.

    7. The activists particular issue is something about immigration, because whether we spend 3.5 trillion dollars we do not have on a construction slush fund should be determined by an emotional appeal on an unrelated issue. Responsible legislators do not construct bills like this.

    8. “I generally avoid Twitter-mob type sensationalism type stories, but this story is really about the budget reconciliation bill and the activists going after Kyrsten Sinema–chasing her into the bathroom and practically trapping her in the stall–is fucking outrageous.”

      The Constitution expressly allows the People to petition their government for a redress of grievances. Asking them questions they don’t want to answer is SO outrageous.

  33. “Some 59 percent of Republicans polled said they oppose these laws. The same was said by 61 percent of Democrats and 53 percent of independents polled.” I’m thinking we have a sample size or representative sample problem, because (R) almost = (D) but (I) being significantly less than either, makes no sense on this particular question.

    1. Some people will identify as (R), and some will identify as (D), and some will identify as (none of the above), and your odds of running into any of them may vary substantially depending on where you’re asking.
      When you get results that don’t match what you were expecting, the problem may be A) what you asked, specifically, B) who you asked, specifically, or C) what you expected, specifically.

  34. Let’s tax the rich!
    “Pandora Papers: ‘Biggest-Ever’ Bombshell Leak Exposes Financial Secrets of the Super-Rich”
    […]
    “…The bombshell revelations—known as the Pandora Papers—were published by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and include private emails, secret contracts, and other records obtained during a two-year investigation involving more than 600 journalists in 117 countries and territories…”
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/10/03/pandora-papers-biggest-ever-bombshell-leak-exposes-financial-secrets-super-rich

    They’re rich because they can hire lawyers and accountants far smarter than the pathetic assholes we call politicians.

    1. There’s two kinds of rich people. There’s people who are rich because of what they’ve done, and there are people who are rich because of what someone else has done.

      No sympathy because the people who are rich because they inherited wealth not being as able to use their wealth to avoid things they’d like to avoid, like paying taxes.

  35. Perhaps these books are obscene. Or maybe they’re not. Either way, why are the compalinants checking them out?

    1. “HURR HOW DO THEY KNOW IF THEY’RE OBSCENE IF THEY AREN’T LOOKING THROUGH THEM HERPITY DERPITY DOO!”

      1. When you grow up, you’ll learn some answers. Hopefully.

    2. They aren’t. They just saw them on the shelves in the children’s and young adult’s section of their library.

      1. There’s “sex” in the title! Someone ban it! For the children!

        1. You jackasses have never used a library in the digital age? There is a synopsis of the book in the catalog. If you go on Amazon, you can read reviews. Authors also give interviews and some even have websites.

          1. “There is a synopsis of the book in the catalog. ”

            That doesn’t resolve the question, it just kicks the can down the road. If you don’t want to read (possibly) obscene books, why are you looking up (possibly) obscene books in the catalog?

        2. Man. You guys really know how not to even bother informing yourselves of a topic.

          1. We can get better at that. We could study your ways.

        3. Teen sex in Wyoming should always be on Saturday night, involve a lot of drinking, be done in the back seat of a car, and end with guiltily going to church on Sunday morning.

          (And I don’t say this as someone who see Wyoming as flyover country. I say it as someone with family roots in Western Nebraska.)

          1. If that were true, you would know they use pickup trucks for sex, not cars.

            1. “you would know they use pickup trucks for sex, not cars.”

              That doesn’t change what they should be doing. They should be using a car. Less likely to get rousted if you are inside a vehicle with enough room.

    3. I wonder what the chances little miss Social Justice Librarian kept putting the books out in prominent locations and pushed them as “highly recommended student reading” hoping to ignite a controversy so she could get an interview on NPR and invited to DC by a sympathetic senator?

      Students kept seeing them, and the unsympathetic ones barked to their parents. That seems like a very likely scenario.

      1. Sure, just assume whatever you think is most likely. No way to go wrong that way.

    4. “I sat through every disgusting frame of this film…Twice.”

      Porky’s Revenge
      https://youtu.be/QNvjkzhsSbg

      1. Didn’t see that one.

  36. “Jury: SFMTA didn’t rip off taxi medallion loan maker”
    […]
    “The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency did not renege on its deal with a credit union to make loans to taxi drivers so they could buy medallions, the pieces of tin that allow one to operate a cab, a San Francisco Superior Court jury ruled Monday afternoon…”
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/Jury-SFMTA-didn-t-rip-off-taxi-medallion-loan-16509039.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result

    A CU lent big numbers for people to buy taxi medallions (~$250K/per) and Uber came a long and made them worthless.
    Hint: Don’t bet on a government market distortion; some clever kid may come along and rearrange the issue.

    1. If a theory you want to advance involves California governments being welcoming to Uber, you need to rework your theory.

  37. Major FDA authorization: This will allow for significant expansion in availability of rapid, easy to use at home tests for Covid. Supply ready to go. These authorizations represent a major new policy effort by FDA to make tests for infectious disease accessible for consumer use

    I often just marvel that most people think this is ok.

    1. This is a prelude to “show us that you are vaccinated or have a recent negative test, or you can’t come in”.

      As people start to take steps to protect themselves from people who want to put them at risk, that’s going to come up. At least then the unvaxed will have a way to show that they aren’t (currently) dangerous.

  38. A Trump administration rule banning groups that get federal family planning money from referring patients to abortion services has been revoked.

    Why is there “federal family planning money” ? LOL

    1. Where have you been? In a Social Justice government, we have to have benefit programs, programs to help people sign up for benefits, programs to advertise the sign-up programs, and programs to promote the advertising programs. Programs for planning sound good, too.

      1. Man, that is really Meta-Welfare Statism.

    2. “Why is there ‘federal family planning money’ ? LOL”

      Children are an expensive hobby. Some people take on responsibilities they can’t meet. This creates expenses for other people. When the little buggers are unsupervised, they can make lots of expensive problems. the best way to control those costs is to keep people from making the problem kids in the first place.

  39. Want to “reduce recidivism and the labor shortage in one fell swoop”? End occupational licensing requirements that “disqualify individuals with a criminal conviction from eligibility altogether” and requirements that applicants prove “good character,” writes Christopher Bates, a legal fellow at the Orrin G. Hatch Foundation, at The Hill.

    End occupational licensing requirements altogether. Problem solved.

    Libertarianing isn’t that hard people. Come on.

    1. Yes, but…

    2. “End occupational licensing requirements altogether. Problem solved.”

      Your surgeon called, and asked if you have a spare hedge trimmer he can borrow.

  40. “With asset values reaching bubble proportions and no end to federal spending in sight,

    “investment advisor” just figuring this out?

    1. I’m friends with a few investment advisors and they were literally the last people I know to acknowledge the rampant inflation that everyone else in the world has been aware of for the last 8 months.

      1. Maybe they don’t buy energy or food?
        Neither is in the ‘basket’ used to determine inflation, so it should be no one really HAS to buy them.

        1. That’s it! They are Immortals like Beyonder from Marvel Comics!

          1. Beyonder wasn’t immortal in Marvel Comics.

      2. The Experts assured them that there would be no inflation. No investment advisor has ever been fired for listening to The Experts.

      3. Two reasons. One, successful investment advisors don’t do their own shopping. They pay to have it done for them, so they never actually look at the prices of goods and services.

        Two, even if the investment advisors know of real-world prices, there is vested interest. If people weren’t going broke from inflation, and looking for ways to make their money go further, the investment advisors would be out of business. So the investment advisors do the equivalent of saying: “Look! A double rainbow!…”

  41. >>Seattle will decriminalize psychedelic drugs.

    world peace in a week if B mandated MDMA instead of whatever’s in that vaccine.

    1. Clue: There’s a vaccine in that vaccine. Maybe try microdosing it if you’re scared microchips. Everyone knows that microdosing nullifies microchips.

      1. dude. my point the whole fucking time is I’m not the demographic. wasn’t yesterday won’t be tomorrow. sell it to Godshall

      2. And brandy continues pushing the BlueAnon nonsense.

        1. He signed up for a mailing list to give him all the latest opinions.

          1. Wasn’t it easier back in the days when all you needed was an AM radio to get the outrage-of-the-day and fresh marching orders?

    1. ‘Sup, J!

  42. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FLT And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.Try it, you won’t regret it!………????????????.????????????????????????????????.????????????

    1. Do they require vaccination?

      1. Or lack of brain cells? People who write scams nowadays try to filter out the people with brain cells by making it really obvious that their scam is a scam, so that only the truly gullible will try to sign up.

    2. Well they’re hirers certainly don’t seem to be picky, huh.

  43. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FLT And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.Try it, you won’t regret it!………https://bit.ly/3Bf4vNG

  44. Jeepers, just ban sex in Wyoming and be done with it.

    1. Why would Wyoming want to be like California and New York?

      1. Economic success?

  45. Do her decimal system.

    1. Flip through her fleshy card caralogue.

      1. Then it might become the gooey decimal system.

        1. How many digits–er–decimal points?

  46. Chuck Schumer is getting ready to hold a vote on raising the debt ceiling.

    “WASHINGTON—Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer set up a vote by Wednesday on increasing the federal government’s borrowing ceiling, but didn’t lay out how Democrats planned to pass a bill without Republican votes.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/schumer-urges-action-on-debt-ceiling-by-end-of-week-11633357108?

    I’m reading the tea leaves here, but the explanation for why he’s taking this vote that makes the most sense to me . . .

    The Democratic leadership is setting it up so that the only way to stop the government from defaulting on interest payments is for the Manchin, Sinema, and the nine moderate Democrats in the House to vote for the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill.

    It’s possible that the Republicans have suddenly decided to start helping them, but I don’t believe that to be the case. It seems more likely to me that, maybe, Schumer wants the vote to fail. Once the vote to raise the debt ceiling fails, if they stick the clause to raise the debt ceiling in the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill, Manchin, Sinema, and the moderate Democrats in the House will be under a tremendous amount of pressure not to be the reason the United States defaults on interest payments and all the chaos that would bring.

    P.S. There is a contingency plan about what to do if the U.S. defaults on its interest payments, and it has the Fed buying up bonds before they can default. That would be a terrible precedent. If we crossed that bridge, there would be no turning back. The Democrats would always depend on the Fed to save them–and the moral hazard that created would send us into a spending cycle that really doesn’t have any limits beyond the voters’ rage at inflation.

    1. Not many people see the spending as a problem.

    2. Given that Sinema likely didn’t even win her seat… she’s probably going to move very cautiously on this.

    3. Another possibility is that the Democratic leadership is prepared to let Republicans own voting down extending the debt ceiling, if that ‘s what they choose to do.

  47. Doing a little background research here, it turns out Terri Lesley, the library director, was going to book a transgender magician in June. She claims she was unaware. Who knows? She got her current job in 2020 and pulls in just shy of $109k/year. In a county where the median household income is just shy of $82.6k.

    Reading in on this matter, I can’t help but catch the stink of a progressive trying to foist her values onto all those “ignorant redneck small-town hicks”. And the locals in conservative rural Wyoming don’t have much appetite for it.

    My wager is that, if there is a culture war being fought here, it was one initiated by Ms. Lesley.

    1. There’s always a story behind the story.

      1. 19 years in jail awaiting trial for stealing a backpack!

    2. My wager is that, if there is a culture war being fought here, it was one initiated by Ms. Lesley.

      Entirely likely.

    3. Your first take was correct: “who knows?”

      But then you had to go on to divine that you just know somehow that the library director is a progressive who did know the magician was transgender. You were correct in the first place: you don’t know.

    4. “Reading in on this matter, I can’t help but catch the stink of a progressive trying to foist her values onto all those “ignorant redneck small-town hicks””

      So the “ignorant redneck small-town hicks” thing is coming from you, then.
      As for the alleged “foisting”, Parents are responsible for raising their children, including vetting the books they read. If you want your kid to believe that children come from cabbage leaves and/or are delivered by long-legged wetlands avians, then you should not check out books from the library that say otherwise.
      If you want to raise capable, self-sufficient adults, you have to give them information and tools for obtaining information, plus values and morals (for best results, demonstrate them consistently), and trust that you’ve taught your kids the values and morals that you want them to have.

    5. “Doing a little background research here,”

      I thought you guys were AGAINST cancel culture?

  48. The latter—an award-winning children’s comic book on the American Library Association’s 2016 Reading List—discusses concepts such as sex, gender identity, “privacy, safety, and respect,” “protecting yourself against unwanted sexual touch and abuse,” and “boundaries regarding nudity.”

    Without speaking to any complaints about obscenity, if it was an “award winning” book, you know it was completely full of bullshit and probably highly supportive of conversion therapy.

    1. If it’s on the American Library Association’s Reading List then it’s guaranteed creepy. Those people revel in being “controversial” and “ground-breaking” with very little good taste and common sense to inform their choices.

  49. From Kirkus Review (hardly a bastion of Christian fundamentalist prudishness) on How Do You Make a Baby? by Anna Fiske:

    Finally: a “where do babies come from” book that doesn’t mince words—or pictures. This frank, cartoon-illustrated picture book answers its titular question with Scandinavian directness. “People in love enjoy being as close as possible. They hug, kiss and touch each other.” So far this is much like many others of its ilk, but then: “To get even closer they take off their clothes and hug. When Papa’s penis is in Mama’s vagina they’re as close as two people can be.” Illustrating this is a goofy cartoon of nude sexual partners, the penis uttering a cheery “Hello!” and the vagina responding, “Come in!”

    1. “titular”

      Uhhhhuhuhuhuhuh…

      When Papa’s penis is in Mama’s vagina they’re as close as two people can be.” Illustrating this is a goofy cartoon of nude sexual partners, the penis uttering a cheery “Hello!” and the vagina responding, “Come in!”

      *facepalm*

      What’s the section on gay sex like?

      1. Much better groomed, and far more stylish?

      2. What’s the section on gay sex like?

        I don’t think that’s terribly relevant to how you make a baby.

        1. Someone hasn’t been keeping up.

          Can Men Get Pregnant?

          Is it possible?

          Yes, it’s possible for men to become pregnant and give birth to children of their own. In fact, it’s probably a lot more common than you might think. In order to explain, we’ll need to break down some common misconceptions about how we understand the term “man.”

          1. “And later developments give the lie to the obviously absurd claim that this was about people of Chinese ethnicity or nationality at Emerson and instead was about protecting the college’s relationship with the Chinese government”

            That someone is you. If, in fact, it ever becomes possible for a man to become pregnant, it won’t be from having sex, gay, straight, or any other kind.

            1. Bah. Cut/paste error not important enough to fix. Never mind.

      3. Tbat’s a sequel, with seven possible portals for the Penis.

        1. Seven? You just aren’t trying hard enough.

      4. “What’s the section on gay sex like?”

        Just asking for a friend, I suppose.

    2. Weird. I’m not sure what to think, but I suspect there might be a good reason why most cultures don’t teach young children all about sex.
      I’m trying to remember at what point I had the basic functions of the parts figured out. Probably age 9 or 10. Doesn’t seem like it would be as fun or exciting if you got it from some lame kids book.

      1. Your culture has a serious problem when the basic duties of the family unit are replaced by whimsically illustrated children’s books.

        I know, I know, listen to me, there I go fluffing the concept of the nuclear family. Whatever you say, boomer.

        1. I should have added one more part to my first sentence:

          …replaced by whimsically illustrated children’s books pushed by faceless bureaucratic mega-institutions with zero accountability.

    3. Go on…

  50. Some 59 percent of Republicans polled said they oppose these laws. The same was said by 61 percent of Democrats

    That’s ONLY a 3% divide!
    Yet; Representatives have turned it into a party battle.
    It must have some other purpose; like ?distraction?

  51. There were a lot of books assigned during the time when I was in school, and Huck was one of them.
    We got edited versions of Shakespeare, though.
    Meanwhile, the otherwise nice people to make school reading lists almost never include science-fiction stories.

    Sometimes you get a textbook with “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas”, but you don’t get “Jerry Was a Man” or “Flowers for Algernon” or even “Tunnel in the Sky”, which is technically a “juvenile” novel. “Little Fuzzy”? Never heard of it. A lot of the early SF was fairly badly sexist and a bit racist, alas. Their target demographic was young men at the time, so the covers of the magazines tended towards the “stacked-chick-menaged-by-bug-eyed-monster” tropes. But when you put it in the textbook, you don’t have to use the original magazine cover with the story.

  52. I can understand making some age-appropriate content determinations in elementary and middle-school libraries, but public libraries in general? Those have always been “commons” in my mind. Access to competing cultural and moral views – a showcase for the marketplace of ideas – is 100% what public libraries are supposed to provide.

    1. No, let’s try considering alternative possibilities. Anything that’s offensive to anyone is too controversial for public libraries? Fine, Get any and all religious-themed books out of there (and declared obscene as well, so mere possession of it is a crime. The Old Testament is full of nasty smut, like Adam and Eve running around naked, A whole awful lot of begatting, and a few bits of kinky stuff, too, like Lot and his daughters.

Please to post comments