Reason Roundup

Texas Woman Accused of Self-Induced Abortion Was Jailed for 2 Nights Before Murder Charges Were Dismissed

Plus: An index of school book bans, new "ghost gun" regulations, and more...

|

Texas continues its bid to be the worst state in the nation for abortion access, jailing a woman on murder charges for an alleged self-induced abortion. Lizelle Herrera was arrested Thursday, charged with murder, and held in a Rio Grande city jail for two nights before Starr County District Attorney Gocha Allen Ramirez said he would dismiss the charges.

While a state law passed in Texas last year bans performing an abortion on another person after six weeks pregnancy, it does not apply to self-induced abortions, nor does it allow for criminal charges. Its mechanism of enforcement is through civil lawsuits brought by citizens, not agents of the state.

"In reviewing applicable Texas law, it is clear that Ms. Herrera cannot and should not be prosecuted for the allegation against her," said Ramirez in a Sunday statement announcing that his office would file a motion to dismiss the charges on Monday. "It is my hope that with the dismissal of this case it is made clear that Ms. Herrera did not commit a criminal act under the laws of the State of Texas."

But Ramirez stopped short of condemning the Starr County Sheriff's Office for arresting and charging Herrera. "In reviewing this case, it is clear that the Starr County Sheriff's Department did their duty in investigating the incident brought to their attention by the reporting hospital," said Ramirez. "To ignore the incident would have been a dereliction of their duty."

He also included this weird bit of line-toeing:

Although with this dismissal Ms. Herrera will not face prosecution for this incident, it is clear to me that the events leading up to this indictment have taken a toll on Ms. Herrera and her family. To ignore this fact would be shortsighted. The issues surrounding this matter are clearly contentious, however based on Texas law and the facts presented, it is not a criminal matter.

Lots of things "take a toll" on people and their families without prosecutors considering it "shortsighted" to ignore them or decline to file criminal charges.

Precise details of what happened with Herrera's pregnancy are not clear. But "what is alleged is that she was in the hospital and had a miscarriage and divulged some information to hospital staff who then reported her to police. And then she was arrested and her bail was set at half a million dollars," Rockie Gonzalez, founder of the abortion rights group La Frontera Fund, told journalist Pablo De La Rosa in an interview he posted to Soundcloud.


FREE MINDS

An index of school book bans. PEN America has put together a document detailing book bans in U.S. school libraries and classrooms between July 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022. "This is the first time PEN America has conducted a formal count of books banned," the group says. During the nine-month period, PEN America found 1,586 instances of books being banned, for a total of 1,145 individual books targeted in 86 schools districts spread across 26 states.

"This encompasses different types of bans, including removals of books from school libraries, prohibitions in classrooms, or both, as well as books banned from circulation during investigations resulting from challenges from parents, educators, administrators, board members, or responses to laws passed by legislatures," explains PEN America. "These numbers represent a count of cases either reported directly to PEN America and/or covered in the media; there may be other cases of bans that have not been reported and are thus not included in this count."

"It is not just the number of books removed that is disturbing, but the processes–or lack thereof–through which such removals are being carried out," suggests PEN America. "Of 1,586 bans listed in the Index, PEN America found that the vast majority (98%) have involved various departures from best practice guidelines outlined by the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) and the American Library Association (ALA)."

An alarming number of these bans—41 percent—stem from directives from government officials. "This is an unprecedented shift in PEN America's long history of responding to book bans, from the more typical pattern in which demands for book removals are initiated by local community members," the group points out.

The most frequent themes in banned books were race, sexual orientation, gender, or sexual activity:

Of the titles in the Index, 467 contain protagonists or prominent secondary characters of color (41%), and 247 directly address issues of race and racism (22%); 379 titles (33%) explicitly address LGBTQ+ themes, or have protagonists or prominent secondary characters who are LGBTQ+; 283 titles contain sexual content of varying kinds (25%), including novels with sexual encounters as well as informational books about puberty, sex, or relationships. There are 184 titles (16%) that are history books or biographies. Another 107 titles have themes related to rights and activism (9%).


FREE MARKETS

President Joe Biden is expected to announce new gun regulations today. That sentence seems wrong, no? Isn't making gun laws a job for state or federal legislators? How can the president just unilaterally declare restrictions on buying or owning a legal good? But that is, alas, the current state of executive power in the U.S. In this latest round of executive overreach, Biden is expected to announce new regulations on gun-making parts and kits. The fruits of these kits are often referred to as "ghost guns." From CNN:

Following a 2021 directive from the Biden administration, the ATF proposed a rule in May last year to allow the bureau to classify the building blocks that often make up ghost guns as firearms. The rule has been winding its way through the federal regulation process since then.

The ATF rule addresses a key problem in tracking and regulating ghost guns because certain frames and receivers used to assemble the guns are often purchased online and not classified as firearms by the bureau.

The rule would also require manufactures who sell parts to assemble ghost guns to be licensed and to run background checks on potential purchasers of the kits used to assemble the products.

The Justice Department has also launched a national ghost gun enforcement initiative, which will "train a national cadre of prosecutors and disseminate investigation and prosecution tools to help bring cases against those who use ghost guns to commit crimes," according to the White House.

Biden is also expected to nominate Steve Dettelbach as the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.


QUICK HITS

•  Politico does a deep dive into U.S. Food and Drug Administration failures.

• "Two measures that severely restrict abortions were halted on Friday, one by Kentucky's governor and a second by Idaho's supreme court," notes the Guardian. "In Kentucky, Democratic governor Andy Beshear vetoed a Republican-priority bill on Friday that would ban abortions in the state after 15 weeks of pregnancy and regulate the dispensing of abortion pills." The Idaho court temporarily blocked enforcement of a law that would allow family members of an aborted fetus to sue if doctors performed the abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

• Walmart is being sued by the Federal Trade Commission, which alleges that the retailer falsely advertised rayon products as being made of bamboo.

• California continues its bid to drive big employers out of the state. Under legislation "winding its way through the state Legislature … employers would be required to provide overtime pay for employees working longer than four full days," the Los Angeles Times reports.

• An opportunity to end discrimination against religious schools, or a blurring of the separation of church and state? The Supreme Court will decide in a case involving Maine school vouchers.

• Lab-grown meat companies are experimenting with cultivating exotic meats including elephant and tiger.

• Checking in on the French presidential election:

NEXT: Innovation Can Bring Food Prices Back Down to Earth

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. President Joe Biden is expected to announce new gun regulations today.

    FU Brandon? More like FU congressional Democrats.

    1. I love this. We should require every single person who buys anything that's not a firearm to undergo a firearm background check before they can buy it. I mean, why stop a bits of metal and plastic that aren't firearms? Fast food, gasoline, groceries you name it!

      Better hope the FBI isn't backed up when the kids are hungry.

      1. There should be health checks for eating fast food. For the fat children.

  2. Fuck Joe Biden

    1. Let my people go, Brandon.

  3. Huge blow to the FBI: Zero guilty verdicts in the case of the alleged plot to kidnap Michigan governor.

    I mean, no FBI agents were even charged, so it's a bit of a win for them.

    1. After reading the FBI's indictment in October 20202 the day after Gov. Whitmer announced the indictments of four useful idiots (aka far right wing extremists) who were entrapped by a dozen FBI agents to help Democrats win the 2020 election, I and others posted many comments here on Reason exposing the FBI's outrageous actions.

      But of course, none of the anti Trump writers or editors at Reason ever mentioned the FBI's entrapment scheme.

      Same thing happened with the FBI's breaching of the US Capitol on Jan 6, 2021 (by moving barriers, breaking into the Capitol, and urging thousands of other people to follow them in.

      It appears that Reason writers and editors only acknowledge, expose and oppose corruption actions by government agencies and officials if/when Republicans are in control of government.

      1. 2 of them were bums that did it for food

        1. They were going to eat the governor?

      2. It's like the Reasonistas don't recognize the blatant threat to democracy these stunts pose, or they do and don't care.

        1. If they were Muslims or queers or queers Muslims, they would be right on it.

          1. Queer Muslim sex workers.

            1. Muslim queers for Christ sex workers!

      3. Bill Godshall claims: "But of course, none of the anti Trump writers or editors at Reason ever mentioned the FBI's entrapment scheme."

        Exact title of article: "The Gretchen Whitmer Kidnapping Plot Looks an Awful Lot Like Entrapment", author Robby Soave.
        Link: https://reason.com/2022/01/26/gretchen-whitmer-kidnapping-plot-entrapment-fbi-trial/

        It's a pattern here. Not Reason. Bill Godshall.

        1. Who is Ray Epps?

          1. Bill Godshall? Kind of fits.

        2. Reason was 3 full months late to the show on the kidnapping. They still haven't covered anything related to the similar actions on 1/6/21.

          Go fuck yourself, quack.

        3. There is a lot left out of that article. See agent who set up this entrapment being one of the primary contacts for J6.

      4. Glenn Greenwald covered this extensively with links to the FBI's long history of entrapment. Reason has covered this as well but because Orangemanbad they don't give a shit this time. Same with the J6 prisoners.

    2. It's true! At least twice as many plants as actual defendants.

      https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/end-the-federal-bureau-of-investigation

      1. Yeah, but the Michigan Militia had a deep agent planted in the FBI. The deep agent had a cover as a Black Panther, but was actually ratting out Falun Gong to the CCP.

  4. "President Joe Biden is expected to announce new gun regulations today."

    Good. Longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn always said aggressive gun safety laws and regulations are required by any serious limited government philosophy.

    #LibertariansForBiden

    1. SNEER!

      1. You forgot the classic Hihn equation.

        1. GRAVEL - HEADPHONES = PURPLE!!!!!

    2. Rest in peace, sweet prince. Sqrlsy's fulfilling your mission now.

      1. Hey! Don't leave out the contributions of Hank Phillips, now. We've got two absolutely batshit nutters here, and don't you forget it!

        1. Was Tony around during the Hihn times?

          1. Yeah. Tony has been here as long as I can remember.

            1. I was looking at an old article from about six years ago, and saw some old Tony and Brandybuck posts, and they were so completely different in tone and politics than what they are now, I can't believe that they were the same people.

              Brandybuck sounded more like Jesse than the bien pensant lefty he is now, and Tony was more erudite and clever, almost a different person entirely.

        2. Hank's tried and failed to fulfill Agile Cyborg's wonderous shoes.

  5. "It is not just the number of books removed that is disturbing, but the processes–or lack thereof–through which such removals are being carried out," suggests PEN America.

    But what about drag queen story hour?

    1. So it’s ok to remove books if we have the right process?

      1. Uh, yeah. Otherwise libraries just become massive mounds of moldy old paper. Maybe better that each library comes up with its own policy based on use or community standards or norms and not some central unifying policy, but zero policy or policies against disposing of any books would render libraries useless and even susceptible to manipulation schemes. I don't know that *every* library needs 10,000 copies of The Art Of The Deal on their shelves...

        1. Only HUGE BEAUTIFUL libraries.

        2. Better yet, defund libraries entirely. If private companies/investors wish to maintain libraries, they can do so.

    2. Um, I think they mischaracterized the document, because as a parent, it is a list of school systems that were caught serving up pornography until recently.

      I am all about free speech. But I am not about schools using my money to serve Gender Queer and other porn to my 4th grader. Sorry. *shrug*

      1. If you won't let your 10 year old look at cartoons of a black man transitioning into a woman giving oral sex to a Latinx woman transitioning into a man you are literally the same as Nazis burning books.

      2. Or that textbook demonstrating adult male/child fellatio that the parent got evicted for showing the pictures from.

    3. Referring to this as a 'book ban' is stealing a base.

      Libraries are not infinitely sized; they can't carry every book ever. Nor should they.

      1. Stealing their rhetoric from yesterdays chemjeff I see.

      2. Also, citing the ALA as a source for book banning is like citing the ADL for hate crimes or the ACLU for civil rights violations. You're bound to get the most one-sided, politically self-serving answer possible:

        In 1970, the ALA founded the first lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender professional organization, called the "Task Force on Gay Liberation", later known as the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Round Table (GLBTRT), and now as the Rainbow Round Table.[37][38] The first leader was Israel David Fishman.[39] Barbara Gittings became its coordinator in 1971. In the early 1970s, the Task Force on Gay Liberation campaigned to have books about the gay liberation movement at the Library of Congress reclassified from HQ 71–471 ("Abnormal Sexual Relations, Including Sexual Crimes"). In 1972, after receiving a letter requesting the reclassification, the Library of Congress agreed to make the shift, reclassifying those books into a newly created category, HQ 76.5 ("Homosexuality, Lesbianism—Gay Liberation Movement, Homophile Movement"). In 1971, the GLBTRT created the first award for GLBT books, the Stonewall Book Award, which celebrates books of exceptional merit that relate to LGBT issues. Patience and Sarah by Alma Routsong (pen name Isabel Miller) was the first winner. In 1992, American Libraries published a photo of the GLBTRT (then called the Gay and Lesbian Task Force) on the cover of its July/August issue, drawing both criticism and praise from the library world. Some commenters called the cover "in poor taste" and accused American Libraries of "glorifying homosexuality", while others were supportive of the move. Christine Williams, who wrote an essay about the controversy surrounding the cover, concluded that in the mid-90s, the library world was "not an especially welcoming place to gays and lesbians." In 2010, the GLBTRT announced a new committee, the Over the Rainbow Committee. This committee annually compiles a bibliography of books that show the GLBT community in a favorable light and reflects the interests of adults. The bibliographies provide guidance to libraries in the selection of positive GLBT materials.

        Remember all the bigoted librarians you had as a kid? In the 50s, there was a widespread practice of librarians ratting homosexuals out to the FBI for checking out Oscar Wilde. And dragging them to death behind their pickup trucks. It wasn't until 2008-2016 and 2020 onward that it homosexuals could even feel safe in a library.

        1. So some basic research shows ENB to be a fraud? Shocking!

  6. … employers would be required to provide overtime pay for employees working longer than four full days,

    Surf’s up dude!

  7. PEN America has put together a document detailing book bans in U.S. school libraries and classrooms...

    In my day they banned Hustler and Playboy. My education was severely stunted because of it.

    1. Like these "bans", it didn't stop you from getting them, did it?
      I suspect there are no actual "bans", just refusal to spend tax dollars to put the books in the libraries and schools.

      Words do actually have meanings. The scary part of 1984 was not the cameras, it was newspeak.

    2. In 1985 Hugh Hefner sued after the Library of Congress was prevented from creating Playboy in braille. He won.

        1. The centerfold was a little tricky but most people only bought Playboy for the articles anyway. Still wondering what tits and ass feels like in braille.

      1. I hope no blind people were hurt by the staple on the Centerfold.

      2. And that is probably appropriate as teh Library of Congress is supposed to catalog everything that gets published.

        1. Hefner wasn't publishing the magazine in braille, he wanted the LOC to do that.

  8. Two measures that severely restrict abortions were halted on Friday...

    Did either of them have a heartbeat?

    1. Those measures were just clumps of words.

    2. The picture above dumbfounded me. I didn't know they had generic-packaged abortin pillls in the Eighties.

      1. What, you’ve never seen repo man? Everything was packaged like that.

        1. Now that you mentioned it, I did see Repo Man ages ago and do now remember the generic label beer cans. Still, I thought RU-486 came a little later.

          Even before Repo Man, a kid I went to Junior High School with had a generic label T-Shirt. The smaller print read like a disclaimer: "The size, shape, color, sex, and age of the contents may vary." 🙂

          This was back when some people actually believed in Equal Rights and Equal Opportunity and there were no clothing lines with the slogan: "For Us, By Us."

  9. 'California continues its bid to drive big employers out of the state. Under legislation "winding its way through the state Legislature … employers would be required to provide overtime pay for employees working longer than four full days," the Los Angeles Times reports.'

    Does anyone in California even work 4 days in the same week?

    1. I work my ass off as an exempt employee, while the hourly people record every minute. Which is why I am so selective about the hourlies that I hire. They are making me more likely to hire overseas.

    2. Very soon - no.

      You can't work more than 8 a day on CA without the extra being overtime and now you won't be able to work more than four hours so the max workweek for most people will be 32 hours and a twenty percent paycut.

      1. For the people!

      2. Yeah, more employees, each making less and the government idiot proposing this will then claim to be surprised and propose a ban on more hires.

      3. This is actually a great time for this law to go through because they won't need to do a paycut. With inflation as extreme as it is right now. They can just hold wages steady with no pay increase for a couple years, and get people back to being paid the same per hour wages.

      4. the law requires pay as if you worked 40 hours so no pay cut but a pay raise for working less. also curious as to why its limited to companies with 500 employies or more. thats not equal enforcement of the law

        1. Does this mean salaried workers get overtime for working more than 32 hours? Otherwise, an hourly worker could be limited and their pay subsequently lower. Also, the practice of a 32 hour work week would also increase the amount of workers needed for businesses that don't have the luxury of doing business only 4 days a week. More hires changes the unemployment rate. Is that a goal here too I wonder.

          1. Oh, I see the law requires the employers to essentially give the employee a raise too. That should go well.

            Employee - "I get the same pay, work less hours? Great."
            Employer - "Yeah, we're gonna have to hire another guy to fill that gap."
            Employer to new guy - "You're hired at that guys old dollar amount per hour. 32 hours a week."
            New guy - "Great. It's good to have a job!"
            Employer to old employee - "Train the new guy."
            New guy - "I got this boss. Trained and ready to go."
            Employer to old employee - "uh, sorry. Not as much work as I thought. The new guy is doing great and is actually cheaper than you, even with the overtime. We're gonna make some changes not."
            Old Employee - "Guess I'll move to Austin now."

  10. "Lab-grown meat companies are experimenting with cultivating exotic meats including elephant and tiger."

    Exactly what body parts are we talking here?

    1. Tenders? Fingers? The nugget is the most delicious part of most animals.

      1. I like buffalo wings. Imagine how delicious elephant wings would be?

        1. Great idea! Nothing could possibly go wrong doing that!

          1. Crap, this was meant to be a reply to your comment about cloning dinosaurs on an island.

            1. So genetically modifying elephants to have wings is cool then?

              1. Approved.

        2. Just don't drive uñder either of them. The car would need multiple washings!

      2. Chicken have parts identified as paws. (Presumably from the shape, they are the talons without bones.)

    2. About time, animals that are too expensive to farm is exactly the group that labgrown meat companies should be trying to simulate. One, they're already either prohibitively expensive or illegal (so blackmarket prohibitively expensive), so the prices of lab grown meat will be comparatively cheaper. Two, people don't have a lot of experience with these meat types, so if a vegan says it tastes just like the original (a claim often made with fake beef) most people won't call bullshit within the first bite.

      I'm glad they are finally moving into this niche.

      1. They should be making dodo bird and dinosaur meat. Nobody knows what those tasted like anymore.

        1. They could buy an island and make all the meat there.

    3. You know it's not going to be long until someone decides it'd be a great idea to clone human meat for consumption.
      And regular people will be grossed out by that, so the left will make it their next moral crusade and try to feed it to elementary kids. And Disney will call Floridians "bigots" for trying to ban cheap Chinese Uighur flesh burgers in schools.

      1. The fucked up thing is that I can see this happening.

        1. Dark meat or white meat?

      2. Nah! We'd all be laughing ourselves to death from Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. Krunkt Kacklin' Kammy is not a good spokesperson for any new food.

    4. When my son was ~5 years we had a conversation about hotdogs that he loved so much. "Dad, I know they are dog legs but I like them so much..." He had assumed they were made from dogs. I straightened him out about it a few years later.

      1. Hopefully, this was a field trip to the factory and not any kind of Homer Simpson violence.

    5. Mostly lips and assholes so far. The labs are working for sausage companies.

  11. ...falsely advertised rayon products as being made of bamboo.

    Made in China, eaten in China, what's the difference?

    1. I would think that a lot of Chinese rayon would likely be based on bamboo cellulose.

  12. President Joe Biden is expected to announce new gun regulations today.

    The 2A protects the rights of the people. I don't know that ghosts are protected here.

    1. It's your rights that are dead, not actual people.

      1. We need to run a Voodoo shaman for president, to raise them again.

        Semi-obligatory Dr. John Link

    2. It is hilarious watching the Democrats try and stir the pot as we get closer to the election. Just as the whitehouse poked the vax-mandate bear when they flubbed the afghanistan withdrawal. It is so transparent.

      1. Up next - Student loan forgiveness in August

    3. I don't think the criminals will obey this law either.

      1. Are they really building their own guns anyway...can't see these gang bangers from Sacramento taking time to do that. This is targeted at a hostile to them political class not at criminals.

        1. Considering the same people pushing for gun control are also pushing to release violent criminals without bail, pretty sure you’re right.

  13. California continues its bid to drive big employers out of the state.

    The consequences of their actions aren't felt at the polls when you have a one party system.

  14. Lab-grown meat companies are experimenting with cultivating exotic meats including elephant and tiger.

    3D print some ivory while you're at it.

    1. There was a company doing that. Animal rights groups protested because "people shouldn't want ivory

      1. Same with rhino horn.

        1. But how will Chinese men get boners?

          1. Tiger dust?

  15. For anyone keeping score, ENB is against "book bans," but ENB also is against library software in schools that would allow parents to have some control over what their kids are able to check out.

    I guess ENB thinks parents should just go fuck themselves.

    1. Only if they pay each other - - - - - - - - -

      1. And then are allowed to abort the resulting baby during the third trimester.

        1. Misogynist! Fourth Trimester abortions are a constitutional right!

          1. If you are going there I demand unfettered access to abortions in the first 125 trimesters. Would really save a lot if all the burdensome kids could be aborted by anyone in the social contract while they're still not independent of others for their survival (see Obamacare insurance or suits for college payments for kids).

    2. What happened to instilling First Amendment values in our impressionable youth?

      If they learn that censorship is okay in order to "protect" them, then just wait until they become voters and vote for censorship of others in order to "protect" them.

      1. You're right. We need them to learn that only the state has the right to decide what they can and cannot see. The last lesson we want impressionable children to learn is that individuals can exercise their right to dictate what shows, books, and movies both they and their children watch. Those children must learn we are all the same and only a government approved worker can decide what should be read and watched by all people.

        1. Non-sarcasm, it's like people forget that the whole deal with parental relationships is that they are non-permanent. They are explicitly set up with the idea that this is a temporary guardianship, where the parent only makes decisions for the kid up until they become an adult themselves and have the experience to make their own decisions.

          1. Yup. That has been my argument all along. We as individuals get to decide what we do. While we are too young to make those decisions, those rights are held in trust. By the parents- the people who created that individual in the first place, or transferred those rights and responsibilities from the previous trustee.

          2. "it's like people forget that the whole deal with parental relationships is that they are non-permanent."

            Jeff didn't forget. He deliberately ignored it for the sake of his rhetoric.

      2. We get it Jeffy, you’re a groomer.

      3. "What happened to instilling First Amendment values in our impressionable youth?"

        1) Who cares? Not to be flippant, but those youth are not your children. They are not your servants. They aren't put here on this planet to serve some social plan you have about maximizing free speech or about maximizing patriotism or maximizing tolerance. Their growth and development is the charge of the people who hold their rights in trust- typically their parents. The idea that "society" has a claim on developing "impressionable youth" to fit some social good is collectivist dogma- and if you go looking through the origins of Public Schooling, you will find that it is exactly the logic that was used to start them. "Society needs to churn out patriotic citizens like the Prussians do- fund our schools!" "Society needs to keep the Catholics from turning out too many Pope followers! Fund our schools to keep the kids all WASPy!"

        2) Even if we assume that society does have a legitimate role in molding kids to be tolerant of free speech, how do we do that? I am not clear on what you are suggesting here: that no one moderate the content that kids get to see? Playboy, Mein Kampf, Anarchists Cookbook, Rise of Nations, and Hannity's latest polemic- all of that should be available to kids in their school library?

        1. And just to add on, jeff's gone on record multiple times stating that parents should simply accept that teachers are "experts" and reflexively defer to them in all educational matters. He's also gone on record complaining that not allowing child molesters to claim refugee status is decreasing their liberty.

          He'll never have kids, so in his bugman mind he doesn't see them as anything other than cogs in a social wheel.

          I am not clear on what you are suggesting here: that no one moderate the content that kids get to see?

          This is one of those points where libertarianism has to break off from mere libertinism. We constantly talk on here about the fact that libertarians are not anarcho-capitalists--there's an acceptance that a small-scale, basic government setup is fine to handle administrative, social, and economic concerns that might not be strictly based on market considerations, particularly at the local level.

          I guess in fantasyland it's possible for a society to operate on an "anything goes!" model of social interaction, but in the real world, every one is going to establish some set of social norms and values that will be enforced, either in a de facto or de jure manner. The only question is to what degree and in what form that takes.

          1. "This is one of those points where libertarianism has to break off from mere libertinism."

            I tend to agree that too often libertarians confuse "everyone should be free to make decisions" to be "every decision should be accepted without question." That said, I think that libertarianism does create a moral framework where certain behaviors we condemn or support should be seen more as morally neutral. (Declining to give to charity).

            But this isn't about libertinism. Or free speech for that matter. It is about resource allocation, and who has the right to dictate that for a child. Resources- including a child's time to learn- are scarce and what information they choose to consume is between them and the holder of their rights in trust- the parents. As I noted above, if we were to assume "Free Speech Absolutism" meant exposing kids to porn over the objection of their parents, it also means exposing them to snuff flicks, racist propaganda, flat earther bullshit and everything else under the sun. This is of course impossible- someone needs to balance what content is available. Someone needs to choose what content a child will be exposed to. That isn't censorship any more than my choice of what show to watch tonight is censorship.

            This is an issue of resource allocation, and who gets to make those choices. And as wards of parents, not the state, parents ought to make the choice- not the state (or its agents).

            1. This is an issue of resource allocation, and who gets to make those choices. And as wards of parents, not the state, parents ought to make the choice- not the state (or its agents).

              At one time, the idea that the material taught in schools needed to reflect the values of the community it served was a lot more common than people realize, and that went all the way up to the university level.

              What we're seeing right now is the aftermath of parents becoming way to complacent about what their kids were actually taught for too long, coupled with school boards turning into petri dishes for left-wing social experimentation, and the parents suddenly realizing, thanks to online learning during the pandemic, that what their teachers and schools are pushing, and how they're doing it, might not fit in with the actual values of the parents or the community at large.

              1. Honestly if it weren't for the Kulture Warz (TM) stuff and this libertine permissiveness, I would expect every libertarian to look at this and kind of shrug. From welfare to the war on drugs, libertarians almost always err on the side of Liberty even if that diminishes the "social good" we expect to achieve through these programs. Does unrestricted welfare mean some people spend their food money on Booze? Yup! Does drug de-criminalization mean some young adults will destroy their lives with drugs? Yes. Yes it does- but we are ok with that because liberty is paramount.

                For the record, until Public Schools are abolished, I can sign up to the statement, "Public schools exist to provide us an educated public." Sounds fine. But like every implementation of statements, decisions need to be made as to how this will be implemented. And as a libertarian, I think our expectation should be that parents- as the trustees responsible for the rights of the child- should be given maximum autonomy in deciding what an "Educated Public Citizen" is, and how best to create one using public assistance to meet that ends.

                Does this mean some kids will be Christian/Muslim/Jewish whack jobs? Probably. Will some parents further abandon their autonomy and neglect their kids? Perhaps. It also means that some kids in deep blue districts will end up thinking that their gender is one of 31 baskin & robins flavors. I'm ok with that, as long as I also enjoy the same autonomy in defining the curriculum of my kids. The freedom is more important than any idealized one-size-fits-all definition of "Educated Public" that is just as unlikely as "Drug Free America".

        2. I have to run, but briefly:

          One of the main justifications for public funding of education is that it produces a public good - i.e., broadly well-educated citizens capable of making informed choices when they are asked to vote or otherwise give their opinion on matters of public policy. Now, I totally understand wanting to privatize all the schools. That is the preferred option. But as long as we are going to have public schools, I'm going to demand that they fulfill this mission of creating this public good in the form of well-educated citizens. This means necessarily making a choice among which values will be prioritized in these schools. We can make the choice that schools will be total safe spaces where kids are totally protected in a bubble, or we can make the choice that schools will be places of inquiry, sometimes that inquiry leads to reading challenging books and being uncomfortable, and that is okay in the big picture. And I keep hearing here at Reason that while it may be legal for Twitter et al. to censor people on their platforms, it is nonetheless wrong for them to do so because it is contrary to the *spirit* of the First Amendment and permitting open inquiry and discussion. Well, where do you think the censorious values take root? Where do you think Twitter employees come to the conclusion that censorship is not just okay but a positive good for society to protect people? They have to learn it somewhere, and it starts with their educational experiences. If you want a world where people believe censorship is great, then go ahead and prioritize the value and merits of censorship in school. But if you want a world where people prioritize inquiry and free discussion, then go ahead and prioritize inquiry and free discussion in school. It is that simple.

            1. I type fast.

            2. Or individualist.

          1. So Jeff essentially wants schools to be indoctrination centers.

          2. One of the main justifications for public funding of education is that it produces a public good -

            Lol, what a useful idiot.

          3. "But as long as we are going to have public schools, I'm going to demand that they fulfill this mission of creating this public good in the form of well-educated citizens."

            This strikes me as wrong headed. Why not just agitate for getting rid of public schools? It's as if you were saying, "As long as we are going to outlaw drugs, we ought to be doing everything in our power to fulfill the mission of keeping drugs out of the hands of kids- even if that means shooting dogs and throwing millions in jail".

            "We can make the choice that schools will be total safe spaces where kids are totally protected in a bubble, or we can make the choice that schools will be places of inquiry, "

            Your attempt to create a false choice is noted. Are "Extreme Bubble" and "Places of inquiry" really the only choice? Is objecting to comic books depicting sex really mutually exclusive to "places of inquiry"?

            "sometimes that inquiry leads to reading challenging books and being uncomfortable, and that is okay in the big picture."

            While that is a lofty principle, it is of course entirely unworkable in reality. Schools cannot stock every single book known to man. There are limits in funding, real estate, and the labor necessary to manage inventory. Basic laws of limited resources mean that choices *must* and will be made about which content will appear in school libraries. And that is even further constrained when you talk about curriculums.

            Simply put, wanting to "challenge" kids doesn't suddenly create infinite time and resources for kids to see every book ever made. Choices need to be made- even choices of which content to "challenge" them kids with. The question is who is morally entitled to that choice. And if you are arguing that your desire to have "public goods" overrides individual choice (as their wards, children yield that choice to the parent, not the state), then you are not being libertarian. *shrug*

            "But if you want a world where people prioritize inquiry and free discussion, then go ahead and prioritize inquiry and free discussion in school. It is that simple."

            But you have not given any real world description of how this will work. 2500 years of Western advancement- where freedom of expression has been a growing emphasis- was possible without 6 year olds being "challenged" by depictions of folks sucking each other off. And this assumes that such content is being presented to kids in an atmosphere of free discussion, rather than pushed on them with the explicit purpose of changing existing views of sexuality (as is actually the case).

            Some content is not appropriate for children. You can encourage children to be curious, to challenge ideas and ask questions, without graphic pornography. As with pretty much every other discriminatory choice, a libertarian *ought* to be pushing that choice as close to the individual as possible, which would be the PARENT in this case. And since we are stuck with public schools, then the only way that the parent can make these choices is through governance and oversight of the school at the local level.

            1. But you have not given any real world description of how this will work. 2500 years of Western advancement- where freedom of expression has been a growing emphasis- was possible without 6 year olds being "challenged" by depictions of folks sucking each other off.

              Or promoting gender dysphoria as a positive good to a demographic that's highly impressionable and easily open to suggestion by authority figures--yes, even in middle school and high school, where it arguably gets worse because of the challenges of dealing with dramatic hormonal swings and physical changes.

      4. How is the school providing you a book a 1a amendment dumbass?

        1. How is parents exercising some small control over the content that their kids consume at school censorship? Parents have a right to make those decisions for their kids. Me, not letting my 11 year old watch gay porn is not censorship, it's parenting.

          1. It's rather shocking that libtards are pushing so hard to indoctrinate our children with sexually explicit material. If the GOP was smart, and that's a big IF, they'd run exclusively on this issue for the midterms along with fuel prices.

            1. Notice how they exercise motte-and-bailey tactics when their antics are called out, too--"Oh, of COURSE I don't want kids seeing this brazenly vulgar and socially detrimental behavior that I'm promoting! It's the PARENTS' responsibility to make sure they don't have access to that stuff!"

              Well, yeah, but that doesn't mean that you're not equally responsible for creating that content in the first place, ESPECIALLY when you decry any condemnation of said behavior as being "puritanical" or some variation of "phobic" whenever you're challenged. It's solipsism and predatory behavior masquerading as liberalism.

              I was actually watching "The Decline and Fall of Western Civilization Part II" this weekend, and what really stands out in that doc (and it's an incredible film that still stands up over 30 years later), and in the aftermath of the ensuing 25 years or so, is how a lot of pop culture justifies itself by saying "hey, if your parents and society hate it, that means it's awesome, right?"

              Yet, look how many of those same guys were saying, IN THE SAME FUCKING FILM, "Man, getting into this scene turned me in to an alcoholic and drug addict." Look how many died from substance abuse, oversdoses, and suicides. Look how rampant child abuse and sexual abuse is in the entertainment industry. But these people are CONSTANTLY promoting themselves as public examples of "tolerance" and "love" whose political stances are to be emulated, even while people all around them become cautionary tales of the very values they espouse.

              1. To be fair though, the Church did the same thing- "Look at us so chaste, just let me take your kids into this dark room".

                The broader point stands that objecting to content does not make one a prude, nor does it make you a philistine or otherwise culturally backwards person. As chemjeff demonstrates above, these lofty themes of tolerance and permissiveness sound great just so long as they are themes. But at the end of the day, someone has to make a choice and we should not equate "tolerating" a thing with "choosing" that thing. I tolerate pornography, but do not choose if for my kid's consumption. I tolerate gays, even though for myself I choose heterosexual relationships. My choice of what to consume says nothing about tolerance.

                Likewise, we shouldn't confuse situations where we are expressing tolerance with situations where we are making choices. When advising my kids' curriculum, I am making a choice. It is a time to discriminate among many potential options to select the specific option that is right for them. I am not banning things from the public. I still tolerate the existence of pornography and even revisionist history like the 1619 Project. I just choose on my child's behalf not to include it in their educational consumption.

                It is a pity that statists- especially progressives- are pushing one size fits all, national curriculums across the nation. It is a major shame that they are trying to hide this from parents. Unfortunately, their efforts to render a NATIONAL education system (including Common Core) mean that it is increasingly difficult for me to choose my kids' curriculum without my choices impacting other parents. But the libertarian answer to that is to lobby for expanded choice, decentralized decision making, and more local control. We should ENCOURAGE systems where parents in different parts of the country have the ability to tailor curriculum to their kids' needs. That ENB or Chemjeff are hot and bothered about the curriculum choices of Fairbanks Alaska is not an example of good libertarian policy.

      5. On what planet is restricting the media that children are exposed to anti-1A censorship? Because guess what? If you encourage kids that sticking something up their ass can be pleasurable, most are going to try it at some point. And you will have planted the seed in their mind that rejecting the planting of a cock in their ass makes them intolerant. After all, they tried it before, didn't they? Maybe they just weren't doing it right.

        Jeffy has gone full retard, full Proggie, and full pedo-groomer.

        Please accept this as the last response I will issue to you, dearest Jeffrey. I have labored to have honest interaction with you for over 4 years. You are as disturbed as SQLFKR, trolling for reactions, beyond redemption and unworthy of even the viewing your dross.

        Go fuck yourself, sweet prince.

        1. Since you took what I wrote, and invented the most dishonest bad-faith interpretation possible in order to score cheap points, then I would prefer that you ignore me rather than type that tripe here. Good riddance.

          1. You call for schools to indoctrination based on your perception of public good just above retard.

            1. We are not talking about about whether or not there might be homosexual overtones in Huckleberry Finn. We are talking about books that explain gay sex to kids. The goal of sex education in schools has always been to increase awareness of pregnancy and STDs. Since gay sex cannot result in pregnancy, what exactly is the public good in making sure that it, specifically, is included with other sex education? Nothing precludes those who have serious questions seeking answers.

              That fat fuck can pretend all he wants that this is about some overarching principle, but it is not. It is about placing propaganda in libraries to encourage children to have a more accepting stance towards sodomy.

              1. Even if we were talking about homosexual overtones in Huckleberry Finn, that's not an appropriate or educationally valuable topic to discuss in elementary school. Whether it's appropriate and educationally valuable for a senior in high school is up for discussion.

                Lefties like Jeff are so dishonest. Nobody is saying don't discuss it AT ALL. They're just saying don't discuss it with elementary school children.

                1. The laws are actually less than that. They are don't instruct it, ie be the focus of the learning plan.

      6. Isn't that already how it is, though? Kids become aware pretty quickly that there are certain things their parents keep them from being exposed to, whether porn or violent movies and games or whatever.

        1. Sure, and it's natural for them to be curious about it and ask questions or even seek out more knowledge themselves. But that doesn't mean the schools should be going behind the parents' backs and undermining the trust bonds that parents have with their kids by deliberately encouraging sexual behaviors and manipulating them into accepting gender dysphoria as a perfectly normal and acceptable thing. And I say that even knowing that a lot of "transgender kids" is really the result of either munchausen by proxy, or extremely permissive parents who'd rather their kid cut their own dick or tits off than appear to be "intolerant."

    3. ENB just had a baby. She's eagerly awaiting gender reveal day.

  16. This implosion of numbers for established parties should remind Americans that the recent weirdness of politics isn't at all US-specific.

    The W in NWO.

  17. "... the recent weirdness of politics isn't at all US-specific. The world has changed."

    The change is that "left-wing" parties actually used to represent the working class and poor — then decided it made more sense to promote the interests of the ultra-wealthy (especially with respect to immigration) while pretending they still cared about the poor. Indeed, by adopting this strategy Democrats became the preferred party of Koch-funded libertarians.

    #OBLsFirstLaw

  18. Lab-grown meat companies are experimenting with cultivating exotic meats including elephant and tiger.

    Lab researcher #1 - You ever think about cannibalism?

    1. The Zambezi tribesmen call it "long pig".

      RIP George Coe.

    2. You are what you eat.

      1. Who you calling a pussy?

      2. "Is that why my friends call me Dick?" - Richard Head

  19. That sentence seems wrong, no? Isn't making gun laws a job for state or federal legislators? How can the president just unilaterally declare restrictions on buying or owning a legal good?

    How? Easy. Congress has delegated its legislative power to the executive. It give broad guidelines to alphabet agencies which they then interpret and put into regulations with the power of law. Since the thousands of regulators are unelected, there is zero accountability. And because these regulators have kids in college, they're going to churn out pages and pages of rules to justify their employment.
    The result? Constitution? We don't need no steenking Constitution!

    1. Democrats love them some executive fiat.

      1. The administrative state is indeed a product of the progressive movement and intended to get around the trouble of passing legislation, but its use is definitely bipartisan.

  20. Politico does a deep dive into U.S. Food and Drug Administration failures.

    Poor bastards are going to reach crush depth first.

  21. Lots of things "take a toll" on people and their families without prosecutors considering it "shortsighted" to ignore them or decline to file criminal charges.

    Yeah, my wife refused to write down the grocery list one time and forgot to get butter. It felt like we'd aborted a family member.

    1. You'd butter stop making jokes about margarinalized people like that.

      1. Can you clarify your statement?

        1. Ghee. I don’t know.

      2. Wow. Next level!

        1. I’m concerned that many puns could separate the commentariat.

          1. I better leave my comment buerre blanc then.

      3. That's a hard roux to hoe.

      4. "Mantequilla!" 🙂
        https://youtu.be/IiXV_HRDVMw

  22. "Isn't making gun laws a job for state or federal legislators?"

    Not since the Communist Chinese Virus empowered the fascists.

    Remember, remember, the eighth of November.

    1. Congress started delegating power to the executive over a century ago.

      1. They even formalized it with the Administrative Procedure Act in the 1940s.

      2. It definitely didn’t accelerate during the pandemic.

  23. Texas continues its bid to be the worst state in the nation

    This is can't be stressed enough. Especially to all those trying to flee the totally not worst states of CA and NY. Do not go to Texas. I hear the only states even close to as bad a Texas are FL, MT, and WY

    1. The Pelosi's of California plan to retire to their cushy digs in the horrible state of FL. Home of DeathSantis or DeSatan, whichever you prefer. Oh, and no, count it, no, state taxes. Hmmmm.

      1. Just for the record, no state income tax. We do have a few others.
        And if the wicked witch of the West is really coming here, I am going to start a campaign to have arrivals from CA pay the hotel room tax, even if they have a house, for the first five years.

        1. Just for the record, no state income tax. We do have a few others.
          I'm familiar. Like NH and TX no state taxes means the property taxes make up a lot of the difference. Still easier to do business in and not nearly the taxing morass of their home state of CA.

        2. Income taxes. Yes, that's what I meant to write. Good catch.

    2. The only rights ENB sees as sacrosanct are the right to an abortion at any point in a pregnancy and the right to be paid for sex. Everything else is fair game for the state.

      1. That's such an offensively simplistic summary of her worldview.

        In fact, as a Koch-funded libertarian ENB also supports the right of anyone on the planet to immigrate to the US at any time and for any reason. Especially during a pandemic.

        #CheapLaborAboveAll

      2. She's not that keen on free speech, but don't you dare get in the way of the fundamental, constitutional right to chop unwanted children into chunks.

        1. don't you dare get in the way of the fundamental, constitutional right to chop unwanted children into chunks.

          Or their genitals.

    3. Texas is just CA 15 years ago. The tech companies fleeing CA and dragging their employees to the Austin area has made the prospect of buying a house within 30 miles of the city mostly untenable. They constantly overpay. Median price is at $575k, almost double in only 5 years. With the property taxes here (no income tax), if you are not cashing out from a similarly inflated market, you are looking at escrow payments in excess of $3k for a median home. That translates to minimum $100k salary to meet the income requirements.

    4. I see what you're doing...

      For the records, Arizona is absolutely the worst state! Californians and especially Dodgers fans, should relocate elsewhere.

  24. An index of school book bans.

    They should have banned Milton's "Paradise Lost" when I was in high school, so I couldn't carry it around like I was actually reading it.

    1. So you just carried it around to pick up chicks, too?

      1. That's why I carried around Milton's Free to Choose.

        1. That's probably how ENB got into libertarianism. Figured it was a feminist book promoting abortion and got sucked in.

        2. Milton Friedman: The Other Uncle Miltie.

    2. "Paradise Lost" ain't too bad for picking up chicks, but Dante's "Divine Comedy" is much better. Especially if you "flash" all three books.....

      1. And offer to take her down all Nine Levels. 🙂

    1. I know it's sad and terrible, but all I can think of is Bad Irene.

      https://southpark.cc.com/video-clips/ugfrld/south-park-bad-irene

  25. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-10707115/NASA-test-SpinLaunchs-whirl-n-hurl-space-launch-technology.html

    NASA to test SpinLaunch's bizarre 'whirl 'n' hurl' space launch technology to fling satellites into orbit
    NASA has signed with the California-based firm to test the unique launch system
    The eccentric technology can accelerate a rocket to beyond the speed of sound
    Once released the rocket shoots to space to release a payload such as a satellite

    Makes me dizzy thinking about it.

    1. I have a hard time believing NASA is falling for this. Their claims are.... Dubious. The demo model they built is nowhere near ready to scale up. The vacuum they are wanting to pull is... Well, I am skeptical. The control mechanism and the forces involved are ... Daunting.

      I am not sure how this is even any better than a giant cannon solution. The G forces of spinning up are pretty immense. So you don't really get any savings there.

      1. Supposedly they've had at least one successful test, though I have no idea how they defined success.

        I'm thinking that at best it could save the fuel required to get into space (which is easy). But directly into orbit, as in 17,000 mph after going through the atmosphere? Not buying it.

        1. It was a pretty big model.. but just a fraction of the size. Did not do vacuum. Did not do supersonic, let alone hypersonic.

          In other words, barely demonstrated more than a pumpkin chunking contest will do.

          It was pretty cool, don't get me wrong... But it was like the difference between a prop plane and an F22. "all we have to do is scale it up"... Yeah... Right.

          1. Upon reading the article, it seems the finally soun the test up to 1,000 mph and they are now claiming only 5,000 mph for the launch speed... They claim this saves on fuel??? Basically they replace the first stage of a small rocket, but in exchange you have to have an upper stage capable of withstanding side loads of 6 or 10 g (or more) for a couple of hours while the thing spins up to speed. Your payload needs this capability as well.

            I guess I am missing something, because I don't get it.

            1. I don't get it either.

            2. Cost savings. Look at how much SpaceX has cut costs with a reusable first stage.

              Eliminating the first stage with a reusable ground based system would save millions each launch. Designing for a static side load of 6g,10g is easy. I know a guy that designed systems to survive >100gs. Key is, it's all in one direction.

              1. I suppose it could cost less to g-proof the cargo than to use a rocket to get out of the atmosphere, depending on the cargo.

              2. Designing for a static side load of 6g,10g is easy.

                Readily arguable that most systems are already capable of a 6-10g side load. Even humans can mostly tolerate it, just not for hours on end.

      2. So someone at NASA has a friend or relative working SpinLaunch?

  26. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10705677/California-brothers-struck-killed-driver-Utah-told-lost-control-car-uncontrollably-DEFECATING.html

    <i.California cyclist brothers who had traveled to Utah to take part in bike race 'struck and killed by driver, 47, who told cops she lost control of car because she was uncontrollably DEFECATING'

    So many jokes, so little time...

    1. Italics fail

  27. I like that ENB can't even bring herself to write anything about the Whitmer kidnapping hoax. She posts a random Twitter without commentary and moves on.

    This is what our FBI has become. Face it, Reason, you spent the last six years siding with the modern KGB.

    1. Face it, Reason, you spent the last six years siding with the modern KGB.

      No. No. No. The KGB was actually competent. They've spent the last six years siding with the villains in a series of Scooby-Doo episodes.

      1. Did Trump win re-election? Seems they were competent enough.

        1. Exactly. Those 'idiots' seem to have taken over the country in less than fifty years.

          We now accept "executive orders" issued by unelected bureaucrats in cabinet departments with no constitutional authorization. We accept and even support silencing opposition speech, and even thought. We accept teaching toddlers about sex. We accept internment in our own homes. We accept people being fired for rational medical decisions.
          The fascists will eventually win, because the opposition cannot force people to be free, but the fascists can force people to be quiet. Worse, they are well on the way to forcing people to publicly accept lies as truth, and brag about it.

          Remember, remember, the eighth of November.

        2. Still probably more accurate to say he lost because of the media rather than the FBI.

          1. I think they both worked in concert, so both had an effect. But the Whitmer case in particular was an FBI false flag.

  28. "Texas continues its bid to be the worst state in the nation for abortion access"

    That partly explains why we Koch / Reason libertarians and our Democratic allies want to #OpenTheBorders. By importing Black and Brown bodies who will obediently vote Democrat, we can eventually turn Texas into another California.

    #TurnTexasBlue
    #LibertariansFor50Californias

  29. If Le Pen actually does defeat Macron, Park Slope Welchie Boy might end up completely losing whatever is still left of his mind. He's allegedly married to some French broad and goes to France at least once a year.

  30. Days since enbs last yglasias reffrence :6

  31. All this talk about how Cali is driving businesses away while it remains the world's fifth biggest economy...

    1. Think about how much more robust the state's economy would be if its government wasn't so hostile to businesses that actually grow it.

    2. If California were it's own economy, it would get more in foreign aid from the US in a single year than the US spent on foreign aid, in total, in any decade.

      1. And 100% dependent upon its neighbors for water and energy.

    3. "the world's fifth biggest economy..."

      Doesn't California have one of the biggest wage disparities between rich and poor on the planet?
      It's like Bangladesh and Manhattan united as one.

      1. Take out the parts of the "California economy" that are actually federal spending on military, parks, defense research, etc, and CA looks a lot more like a third world dictatorship.
        If CA did become a country, every worker with a federal job, especially those with a security clearance, would be on unemployment, not paying a gazillion dollars in taxes.
        To say nothing of the ordinary workers that are actually patriotic and would leave as soon as possible.

        1. True, but you could say that for most, if not all, of the states.

    4. ^perfect example of head in sand

  32. #BidenBoom update!

    The Warren Buffett Net Worth Index went up over $2 billion on the last business day.

    (Recall that Reason's leading economics expert used the WBNWI, not GDP growth, from 2009 to 2016 to prove Obama's economy was the best ever.)

    #BillionairesForBiden

    1. Don’t forget the rig count / spittin tobaccy ratio.

  33. Perhaps some people are serious about climate change:

    "Energy strategy: UK plans eight new nuclear reactors to boost production"
    [...]
    "Environmentalists and many energy experts have reacted with disbelief and anger at some of the measures in the strategy.
    They cannot believe the government has offered no new policies on saving energy by insulating buildings..."
    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61010605

    But asshole greens are upset that no one is going to have to suffer taking cold showers!

    1. I'm not surprised they are upset. If energy becomes cheap, people won't get behind their pet project. Why pay thousands upon thousands of dollars and deal with construction, to save yourself maybe 10 bucks a month?

  34. Oh well. Looks like the revolution ended before it even got started.

    https://www.reuters.com/business/elon-musk-decides-not-join-twitter-board-2022-04-11/

    1. Do you go to school to learn how to have the absolutely wrong take every single time? It really is an impressive skill.

      1. Just remember, he’s totally not a lefty. No matter how much it seems that way as he constantly attacks the enemies of the left.

    2. Musk was expected to join the board on April 9 following his disclosure of a 9.1% ownership of Twitter shares, but the role would have capped his stake at 14.9%.

      1. Heh. Poor old censorious Jeff isn't going to like the next bit.

    3. Oh well. Looks like the revolution ended before it even got started.

      chemjeff news service - British troops rout rebels at Lexington, war expected to end by Christmas, 1775

    4. You dummy, it means he won’t be restricted as to how many shares he can buy.

    5. So much for an edit button.

      1. I would view this as a longer play to replace the board. He needs more shares and maybe some allies. But institutional shareholders have got to be skeptical of the SJW approach taken by the new CEO. So maybe a few more shares and a couple of alliance partners and he votes in his own guys.

        1. I won't pretend to have any knowledge about corporate strategy and such.

          1. If he accepted their deal to sit on the board, he was severely limited in what he could say publicly. And they could simply vote him down on any issues he brings up.

            If he stays off the board he can use his shares to vote for the next board.. or even organize a no confidence vote to oust the current board.

            What we don't know is where the institutional money is on this one. If he indeed increases his stake beyond 25%, he won't need that many allies to appoint his own board.

            1. How many people would proxy their vote to musk because he's musk?

              1. Would that be Muskchausen by proxy?

          2. Nobody will pretend we thought you did.

        2. Time will tell whether Elon Musk is a revolutionary playing the long game to free us from the tyranny of Twitter, or if he is just a billionaire attention whore and this is his latest publicity stunt.

          1. A multi billion dollar publicity stunt?

            If it was just a stunt... He could have made a billion off of it by selling right after his announcement.

            1. If it was just a stunt... He could have made a billion off of it by selling right after his announcement.

              Pretty sure he'd get smacked with a "pump and dump" charge if that happened.

          2. he is just a billionaire attention whore

            Well, now we have Jeffy's real opinion on Musk.

  35. As I've stated many times in the past six months (here at Reason and elsewhere), if the SCOTUS strikes down Roe v Wade as unconstitutional (decision expected in June), and if more red states ban abortion (Oklahoma's legislature just banned all abortions), the GOP could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November (as only 10% of Americans support banning all abortion, and most Americans oppose banning all abortion).

    Unfortunately, many otherwise rationale freedom loving GOP candidates have simply caved into the theocratic Puritan anti-abortion extremists within their party.

    This issue will become much more important between now and November, and many Democrats (who are now trailing in polls) could win in swing state/districts if their Republican opponent has endorsed or called for banning abortion.

    1. I think you may be right.

      I get the passion for the subject, given the core belief it involves... But strategically this is a dud before the next presidential election.

    2. I think you over estimate how popular baby killing is?
      I also think being against baby killing up to the moment of birth is not really a puritanical thing.

      1. You are making his point. Democrats we're making the issue into "post birth abortion" (thanks Virginia).

        Republicans are pushing that back to "banning all abortions, even if a handicapped woman gets raped by her demented uncle and her life is in danger from the pregnancy".

        In politics you want your best argument juxtaposed with their worst one. That is where we were before these shenanigans. The script is about to flip completely the other way. The narrative will be completely in their favor.

        This is only talking strategy, not preferred outcomes.

        1. The script is about to flip completely the other way. The narrative will be completely in their favor.

          The media are beholden. There is no narrative other than theirs. Racism, climate change, abortion, and corporate greed are the only issues anymore.

          1. Trans, don't forget the TRANS. Get with it.

            1. To them, racism, the -phobias and misogyny, are just subcategories of HATE of which racism is the primary example. They refuse to use the word prejudice or even stereotype anymore because those words have meaning that is definable.

    3. While I don't think you're wrong about the GOP pushing the envelope, I think you've underestimated how batshit crazy, incompetent, or both the Left has gone and, more importantly, could go.

      Seriously, your choice is going to be zealots rabidly opposed to abortion or people who will demand they have a right to groom your children at your expense, take your guns, and expect you to present a passport to go outside... at the same time.

  36. Book banning: I don't consider it banning unless it's national, state, or local governments (school boards) doing it. A librarian choosing to curate the limited stack space is not "banning". And a school board choose age appropriateness isn't banning either. But then again, parents put a lot of pressure on schools, because it's all Kulturwar all the way down.

    The problem is that public schools are "one size fits all" system, with the size being determined by distant politicians.

    Public schools, as in government schools, need to be abolished. If the taxpayer has to pay, then at least move to a voucher system. But if public schools have to remain, then the state should be limited to broad standards of curriculum, with the details up to the county and local districts. And of course, school choice to get OUT of public schools if you don't like it.

    1. "The most frequent themes in banned books were race, sexual orientation, gender, or sexual activity:"

      When they say "race" they mean CRT, when they "sexual orientation" they mean LGBT indoctrination.

      Probably almost all of this stuff has no place in the school library

      1. Again, the problem is public schools. It's only an issue because parents are locked into the "one size fits all" government school monopoly.

        1. Which is the entire point.

          Nobody wants their 5 year old taught about issues of homosexuality and transgenderism by a random schoolteacher without having any input. They want *other people's kids* to be so educated.

          Cannot do that without all the proles going to government school.

          1. Yeah, how many Disney executives kids do you think go to public school?

            1. If Unca Walt had an inkling of what the company and his degenerate relatives would turn it in to, he'd have had it shut down right after his death.

  37. "PEN America has put together a document detailing book bans in U.S. school libraries and classrooms between July 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022."

    Removed from curricula is not banning in any rational definition of the word.

    1. They are also concerned that their preferred process for removing books was not followed.....

      Which raises an interesting question... What process was followed for adding books? Do they have a recommended process for that? Or can Tracy just add whatever she wants and then it requires a big process to remove it?

      1. What process was followed for adding books? Do they have a recommended process for that? Or can Tracy just add whatever she wants and then it requires a big process to remove it?

        The ALA has been advocating, *since the 70s* to have more LGBT books in everyone's collection.

        "The process" is, you aren't adding LGBTQ books, removing other books, or both, fast enough.

        I can only surmise that this report is like the ALA upset that their relevance is lower than the AMA's and waning.

  38. Well ENB is near peak dumb Reason which on an absolute scale is very dumb.

    "The most frequent themes in banned books were race, sexual orientation, gender, or sexual activity:"

    The books are "banned" for the K-12 library. They aren't actually banned. I mean should books discussing eugenics also be banned? All books published are not automatically suitable for the school library duh!

    I imagine that would be TOTALLY different. Reason clown show,

    1. COBOL programming books virtually eliminated from K-12 bookshelves! End the COBOL Book Ban!

  39. On the books in schools issue...

    There are 131k K-12 schools in the US.

    86 school districts in this compilation.

  40. “ Of the titles in the Index, 467 contain protagonists or prominent secondary characters of color (41%)”

    Like Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mocking bird.

    1. Oh the obsession with people of color!

      1. Skin color is the most important thing.

  41. Ha ENB is the sex worker champion. She'd be Ok with a prostitute , a pimp or drug dealer showing up on career day at school?

    So yea some things are banned from school. It's a good thing.

    1. I believe the proper terms you should be using are:

      A sex-worker, a social media influencer and a pharmaceutical executive show up on career day...

  42. Regarding CA and their new overtime regulations. By all means, I hope they keep passing legislation like this. This is OBL's dream world: The People's Republic of CA.

    Personally, I hope Californians reap everything they have sown, economically. Watch business flee, Governor Newsome.

  43. You know who else was jailed for a really long time before charges were dismissed?

    1. No. No I don't

  44. Protesters mobilized by @LaFronteraFund and South Texas for Reproductive Justice at Starr County Jail after Lizelle Herrera's arrest. Follow @Wzrd_of_Lnlynss who is there this morning for updates. Full audio of my interview with Frontera's Chairwoman here:

    Were they attempting to disrupt an official proceeding?

  45. • California continues its bid to drive big employers out of the state. Under legislation "winding its way through the state Legislature … employers would be required to provide overtime pay for employees working longer than four full days," the Los Angeles Times reports.

    Who cares? Seriously... who cares?

  46. But Ramirez stopped short of condemning the Starr County Sheriff's Office for arresting and charging Herrera.

    Because nobody expects cops to actually read and know the laws they're attempting to enforce.

  47. “ Texas continues its bid to be the worst state in the nation for abortion access”

    God, I can’t wait to move back to Texas.

    1. All I can remember when I think about Texas is sweat. Seriously, it is so hot there I don't understand how any pregnancy survives until birth

      1. We have really good A/C.

  48. "the recent weirdness of politics isn't at all US-specific. The world has changed. Blaming it on certain characters here is parochial at best."

    Well, US politics does have a bit of an outsized influence over politics and current events worldwide, wouldn't this guy agree? Compared to, say, a single member of the EU bloc.

  49. "the ATF proposed a rule in May last year to allow the bureau to classify the building blocks that often make up ghost guns as firearms"

    Their next proposed rule will allow the bureau to classify all firearms as "cocaine."

    1. Same principle as defining a product with no tobacco as a tobacco product.
      We say so, it must be true. And you WILL agree!

  50. The Texas case was national news, near the top of the news on NPR, despite nobody having any real information except the description "abortion". For all I know after reading press coverage she could have taken a pill at six weeks or had her boyfriend stomp on her stomach at 36 weeks. In formal medical use one is supposed to use "miscarriage" up to 20 weeks and "stillbirth" after. I don't trust the press to make that distinction.

    1. The press makes only one distinction; will this help democrats, or hurt them?

      1. Yeah, Fox News and OAN ask themselves that all the time.

    2. For all I know after reading press coverage she could have taken a pill at six weeks or had her boyfriend stomp on her stomach at 36 weeks.

      I haven't seen heard any evidence she was really pregnant at all. This is the schadenfreudiest part of all these cases. Admittedly there are some women caught in tight spots but, about half the time, it sounds like a woman trying to say "I got pregnant and aborted to flout the law." without saying "I got pregnant and aborted to flout the law."

    3. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE STATUTE, NOT SB8

      Based on the photo of the indictment that's been circulated via Twitter (1 page only), it's not even certain that the abortion was on herself, as opposed to someone else. And the charge was obviously (based on the wording) based on the Criminal Homicide Statute in the Penal Code, not S.B.8, which is civil and codified in the Health & Safety Code (though no statute was cited).

      As for belly-stomping help from the boyfriend scenario, that one got to rot in jail on a capital murder conviction following the cooperative termination episode, as he was not endowed with Roe v. Wade immunity. See Flores v. State, 245 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008):

      "Appellant was convicted of murdering his pregnant girlfriend's twin fetuses by stepping on her abdomen, though he maintains that she also took measures to cause the deaths. Appellant raises three constitutional challenges to the capital murder statute. We hold that the statute is constitutional. In addition, appellant contends that the court of appeals erred in ruling that he was not entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of deadly conduct. We disagree. Thus, we shall affirm the court of appeals."

      A subsequent habeas pet. also failed. See Ex parte Gerardo Flores, 387 S.W.3d 626 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) [Texas Criminal Code of Appeals No. AP-76,862].

  51. Good to see the Pedo Educators Network is upset about curriculum changes and parental involvement in education, they cannot have that kind of interference in their fabulous revolution.

  52. An alarming number of these bans—41 percent—stem from directives from government officials.

    LOL who do you think runs the schools? Amazing.

    Get rid of public schools. problem solved.

  53. In this latest round of executive overreach, Biden is expected to announce new regulations on gun-making parts and kits.

    Trump did so as well with his bump stock ban.

  54. Some peaceful Jan 6th protestors have been in prison over a year with no trial, some without charges.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.