With this being the 21st edition, was hoping to have an alcohol related item. Unfortunately, I have no thoughts about alcohol to share.
Item the 1st – Of Violence of the Political Type. Michael Malice had Noah Rothman, some dude from National Review, on to talk about the question of “is political violence acceptable?“. This guest comes down decidedly on the side of “No, never”. Now that’s clearly hyperbole (I think); obviously political violence is sometimes justifiable, or we wouldn’t have a country. The guests position seems to be a combination of political violence is justifiable for state actors, but not individuals, and it is justifiable if no other means of addressing the issue is available.
I find the first absolutely deplorable.
The second – and I’ll note that I’m arguing about whether violence is morally justified not whether it makes sense practically – sits better with me, at least on the surface. But of course it gets into the nuance of what does “other means” entail? Rothman casts it much more restrictive than I would even hypothetically. There’s the standard “you have free speech to convince people, you have the vote, you have the courts; so long as you have these means violence is not justified.” Malice proposed “What happens when you go through those avenues and the insult remains?”. Rothman’s position seemed to be that, as long as you have the possibility, there is no justification. Even ignoring that many of those ‘means of addressing the issue’ are mere window dressing the more established the state is, that seems to imply that you, and perhaps even your children, are morally obligated to accede to the violation of your life, liberty, and property. I just don’t find that morally convincing. I have one life and that I am morally obligated (again, ignoring practically) to live it without e.g. my right to speak, because it may someday, decades from now, be ‘granted’ is not a position I’ll agree with.
In some ways, it’s a common thread to the story of Socrates, who legend has it, felt obligated to poison himself since the state ordered it and he had participated and benefited from the state his entire life. He was morally obligated to live – or in this case die – by the rules, regardless of whether they were properly applied or moral in the least; the structure that established and enforced the rules was the moral structure you owed obligation to, not any one specific application of said structure.
Well in this case, I must say most forcefully – “Fuck you, So-Crates”.
Item the 2nd – Of Food and Corporations. This one comes from an article from Robert Malone on our food environment. I’m not really going into details, but just my reaction to a specific statement he made, reminiscent of a tendency amongst the so-called “MAHA movement” to decry ‘corporate’ power and the helplessness of individuals in the face of that power while advocating for government power (e.g. sugar taxes and the like) to encourage/force their own view of food, not just stop tilting the playing field. Specifically, he said:
“Most of these ingredients [in modern food stuffs] were not developed because consumers demanded them. They exist because manufacturers wanted products with longer shelf lives, more consistent textures, improved freeze-thaw stability, standardized flavors, nationwide distribution, lower production costs, and fewer losses during transportation.”
Essentially everything in the second sentence belies his first deceleration. Nearly every item in that list developed, at least partially, in response to consumer demand as reflected in purchasing decisions – revealed vs. stated preferences. They want consistency and standardization across dispersed geographical regions. They want lower cost which is a byproduct of longer shelf life and fewer losses during transport. I’m not arguing about whether such things are good for you in the long, or can be accomplished in a different way that is more conducive to health than what we have now, or if not, whether the trade off is worth it. But to argue that they were forced on us by greedy corporations is a misunderstanding whether subconscious or deliberate as a means of whipping the mob up.
I’d say you’d be on stronger footing with the ‘fat-free’ movement. Consumers didn’t really drive that, nor did those evil corporations in their corporation building being all corporation-y (and they make money!). That was driven by government mandates and any consumer demand was constructed by government propaganda feeding on peoples fears.
Advocate for a better food system. Argue against the crap we are eating today. But don’t try to reverse/fix it by resorting to the same methods people used to get us here in the first place.
Item the 3rd – Of Breeding and Employment. Again with a sort of side statement as part of larger discussion, this one from the Darkhorse podcast, about 29 minutes in. The discussion was in the context of California rule regarding preferential awarding of government contracts to members of the LGBTQ(whatever) ‘community’. The state requires all sorts of documentation that your are indeed ‘gay’, asking all sorts of ‘intrusive’ questions. I’m not sure if images of you being on the bottom were part of the ah, package. To set up a contrast, Dr. (remember the Dr. it’s very important) Heather pointed out that, when she was applying for work, the employer was forbidden from asking whether she was pregnant or intending to become pregnant which was, paraphrasing her words (and DR. Brett’s as well), perfectly reasonable as it was an ‘irrelevant’ question.
Of course the contrast is the state preventing the asking of the pregnancy question while requiring much more invasive and personal information for the contract. I’m not going to talk about the gay absurdities of the California government other than to say that one thing the good Drs (they are PhDs you know. If you didn’t, just listen to Brett for 30 seconds and he’ll tell you) miss is the difference between conditions for awarding a government contract vs. a private employment decision. Discrimination before the law is much more egregious than discrimination between individuals, the later actually being a requirement of existence.
That last sentence might tell you what triggered me (I’m very sensitive you know). How the hell is it perfectly reasonable and a justifiable exercise of state power to prevent an employer from asking you about your pregnancy status? To prevent discrimination? Well pregnancy can directly impact your ability to do your job, your time available to do their job, whether the employer has to hire more people, etc. Of course it’s a relevant question for the employer, whether you like the implications or not. It’s a fundamental outgrowth of the biological difference between men and women. And you shouldn’t get to substitute by force your judgement of whether it’s fair or appropriate for the judgement of all the other parties to the employment agreement. Just in base terms of ability and availability, pregnancy has a direct impact on the employers bottom line, especially in the face of all the other ancillary employment and insurance law. It’s not my place, nor more importantly the states, to force them to ignore it.
About proving you are gay in the State of California: The Tate brothers just have to show this picture, no additional information is needed.
https://babylonbee.com/news/lesbian-couple-arrested-in-miami-on-sex-trafficking-charges
Seriously, who dresses those two?
Romanians?
Regarding pregnancy: Heck yes. It can absolutely wipe out a small company if a major contributor gets pregnant and departs for weeks/months. You can;t hire another replacement while that person is gone unless you are rolling in cash. Seems like rules are written by large companies, to help large companies wipe out small companies. Oh, wait…
Not only that, there is enormous political pressure to hire females over males to begin with. And consideration of merit is white supremacy so you can’t use that excuse to maybe try to hire a male who happens to be the best fit for the job.
Yes, but the transwomen that are most favored are very unlikely to get pregnant, no matter how much they womenstruate through their colon.
If you don’t thing one of them would stuff a hamster up his ass to give the illusion of pregnancy, I got something to tell you.
But enough about you, ZWAK.
Contract clause tells
Me that the government has no say in hiring, firing, wages or benefits.
Regarding food: What you eat is a personal choice. I have no issue with the MAHA movement pointing out how many crazy ingredients are in food, but I agree there should be zero coercion of the market by the government. Social pressure is totally fine, go ahead and call fat people fat. That should not be a crime.
I will say that as long as we are forced to pay for food stamps and welfare, people who take said money should be living on the food MAHA approves of. No more free fudge rounds. At least do that. I can’t believe there are people fighting that.
I think you’re right here. Unless something is outright poison, the government has no business banning it. They can create PR campaigns, fine. And they have every right to limit what food people can buy with a government check.
They can create PR campaigns, fine.
With what money? If one accepts that the FDA is a constitutionally authorized agency, I suppose through that agency, otherwise they are limited to the power of the bully pulpit. Now back in the realm of reality, OK, that’s the right place to start, even if I might rankle a bit at having money taken from me to be used to try to persuade me.
every right to limit
Staying in the reality of FDA existing and coercive “aid” programs existing, 100% even if, in all likely hood, I will still object to what they choose to authorize and/or deny.
Maybe. The MAHA types are as obnoxious as the vegans, and I’m not sure I want vegans in a future administration to say you can only eat vegan food.
It’s not a question of what you can only eat, but rather what “WE”, of the royal type, will pay for. If someone is buying you stuff, it’s a bit gauche to complain about what they buy you. I would object to vegan food only as I think that’s unhealthy, but beggars can’t be choosers. If I don’t like it, but still want the freebies, I’ll have to pay for what I want outside the program out of my own pocket. Heaven perish the thought.
I say we actually do the whole farm subsidy purpose of food stamps that had them under the USDA and stop making them currency at all. Instead directly transfer the food the USDA keeps off the market to inflate prices for the farmers to the people on food stamps. If it is to combat hunger a big bag of meal from whatever grain had too big a harvest meats the need just fine. Hell we can even mill it to course flour for them.
Ooh, government cheese!
The small town my grandparents lived in got government cheese from time to time, and since they didn’t have any poor people to distribute it to, gave the seniors first dibs.
But then the market price drops.. which was the point of keeping it off the market… So you pay the farmer to make the market price go up… and subsidize the consumer.. twice the $$.. and twice the number of people who are now beholden to your benevolence… more votes.
All of the government $$ is to try and keep the most net winners… the the fewest net losers.. so Peter will always vote to rob Paul.
Not to be confused with Gov’t Mule. (Probably NSFW.)
My hidden agenda is to end the program 🙂 No Government cheese. Government cheese is actual food. I want bags of course ground multimix delivered to the poor. The actually starving (none) will eat it, no one else will.
Rice beans flour salt butter.
I like the idea of just getting rid of SNAP altogether, and giving people who say they can’t feed themselves MREs.
That is a great idea. I could easily handle all they whining and crying, but “news” and social media would have a field day manufacturing sob stories and that would turn public opinion in a heartbeat.
SNAP is a producer subsidy (via the back door) … It doesn’t care about the recipient. The farmers will be ok as long as the MRE’s are heavy on wheat and whatever else they are getting paid for.
and no hot sauce allowed, just the basic MRE entrees
MREs as currently formulated are too calorie dense. They have enough to sustain an athletic man in combat operations (theoretically) For starvation prevention, make a civilian half ration in the same vein.
Sounds like a country song title
“I was raised on MREs”
MREs are very expensive – and what Uncivil said. Lots of calories there for killing commies.
Having eaten nothing but MREs for months on end, not exactly health food.
MREs are spendy.
They can glean the fields like the Bible prescribes.
Those are the same people who want to remove any shame from being on the dole, and who cheered when food stamps were replaced with a card that looks just like a credit card.
We’ve come a long way. My wife’s parents divorced when she was 7. Her dad did nothing to help, but instead of going on the dole her mom worked 6 or 7 days a week to support 3 kids. The biggest handouts they got were baskets of food or gifts from the church on the holidays, and her mom was even embarrassed about that.
Now I have a daughter who weighs nearly 400 pounds and is on EBT and Medicaid (because obesity is a medical condition). She didn’t understand why we made her spend her paycheck on food and wouldn’t let her get an EBT card. She learned from a prior living situation that working a minimum number of hours and making up the rest with EBT is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle. Our society is broken.
I’ve mentioned before that my mom did get on the dole in a similar situation but did get off it after a couple of siblings moved out. It was clear she did not want any of us to continue that lifestyle.
Full disclosure, I did get an SSI check when I was in high school and college, but after I got an actual job, I no longer qualified. Which was the plan.
I agreed, except… We have a broken semi-socialist healthcare system.
I don’t care what you eat – as long as I don’t get the bill when you turn into fat handicapped diabetic burden on society.
Ramble ramble ramble. I should consider working before Rufus shows up and chastises me.
2 hour meeting starting in 40 minutes, so we can ramble together for 40 minutes. I *think* I’ve done all the prep work I can at this point.
3 1/2 hours of meetings in a row. Currently in meeting #2. I will be eating my lunch while called into meeting #4.
No more Golytely?
I should be writing “Dear John” emails to get help for a dozen different projects. All of them need assessments and nobody wants to even answer basic questions without getting in a development backlog. Agile is retarded and a tool of the devil to slow progress to a crawl.
So you’re saying Agile is not, in fact, agile?
Agile is retarded and a tool of the devil
What you don’t want to be a Scrum Master directing Scrums of Scrums while re-factoring your sprint at a sustainable pace in the team room while developing a team board towards milestones?
And when everyone breaks up and feels like they’re important and accomplished something because they were so busy with meetings, things get done the way they always have. One person or a small group of motivated people get the shit done.
When you are being agile do you still have to hit the six sigma error rate? Or can you trade some anal retentiveness for speed? How does this plot out on the paradigmatic matrix of metrics? Does it help if you pray to the mission statement in the corporate shrine?
And…. Into the breach. I hop to see you all on the other side.
If I don’t make it… Tell Laura I Lover Her.
I learned along the way to give the projects to the busiest person, that’s the one that gets things done. The “Clean Desk Person” is always ready to leave when the whistle blows.
You blacked out and forgot them?
The California application for unemployment insurance claims has the following questions:
“What sex were you assigned at birth?”
“How would describe yourself?” Cis, trans, whatever
“Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself?” Hetero, Homo, Bi, Not sure, still questioning, Identity not listed.
What business is it of theirs? Do I get extra money if I say I’m gay or trans? My tax money has gone to add that to the form, to store the data in a database, and presumably to pay someone to analyse the data. Grr.
“These questions are inappropriate.”
So is everything else about California government but it never stops them.
Do they have Jocko Homo as an option?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JdS-sSKsBc
Don’t ask that question unless you really want to know the answer…
You’ll own nothing!
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/28/apple-plans-to-lease-iphones-for-17point99-a-month-through-klarna-deal.html
I think this is more a case of “Our core customer base cycles each edition anyway”.
I bought my first smartphone in 2015. The phone plus the first month’s service was about $130.
Seven years later, I finally replaced it with a phone that has 5G. I don’t remember the exact price, but definitely under $200. I’ve had this one for four years now.
Of course political violence can be justified. It depends mainly on what the goal of the political violence is. Is it to establish a brutal tyranny to oppress your enemies and enrich your friends? Then, no. Is it to overthrow a brutal tyranny? Then yes.
And of course, there are endless variations, and let’s not overlook what is being done as political violence. Blowing up school buses full of children – tough one to justify. Assassinating/executing tyrannical regime leaders – knock yourself out.
Academic discussions of the ethics of political violence are kind of pointless. It happens or it doesn’t. It rises to the level of a revolution or it doesn’t. It overthrows the government or it doesn’t. I don’t think those rebelling generally sit down and complete a checklist to decide; they rebel when things get to a point where their anger and desperation overcomes their fear and loyalty. Even the justifications I like, as in the Declaration, were rationalizations for a decision already made.
agreed, but there’s always nuance.
Is it to overthrow a brutal tyranny? Then yes.
What constitutes a brutal tyranny? Many (most?) would agree that the state restricting my ability to tell the truth about , oh lets say a pandemic or virus or vaccine, or even jailing me, is justified in the face a larger ‘good’ defined by the state. Not brutal. But to me, that’s a moral justification for political violence. Practical? Highly unlikely in most situations – and most of the time that condition will by necessity devolve in a brutal tyranny rather quickly – but I think I would be morally justified to respond to it with violence even if not willing to do so for practical reasons. But once you concede that you have no moral authority, each step/increment becomes more and more difficult to object to.
I kind of think it’s better not to quantify the go/no go point for this. Too clear an understanding of where the line is just encourages the tyrants to get right up to that line. That said I also think we may have left things too late. Covid responses were way past the line into tyranny in most States.
quantify the go/no go point for this
Agree. My position is that I want to reserve the moral authority for political violence against those who would rule me by force. To claim it is ‘never’ justified (which means just assuming your red-line is the correct one) is what rankles me.
And of course, there are endless variations, and let’s not overlook what is being done as political violence. Blowing up school buses full of children – tough one to justify. Assassinating/executing tyrannical regime leaders – knock yourself out.
It may start with assassinating a tyrant, it will end up with the school buses blowing up if your revolution gets going. I wish I had some hope that the left was as aware of that and concerned about it as the right, but I don’t.
From legitimate freedom fighters to bolting on scum like Che Guevara to your fight.
This guest comes down decidedly on the side of “No, never”.
And I immediately assume he means violence AGAINST POLITICIANS is never acceptable.
I see. So the Nazi government confiscating the property of Polish Jews and interning them in the Warsaw ghetto was acceptable, but those same Jews killing some SS troopers would be an atrocity. Got it. Noah has successfully described his morality, and it is dog shit.
That is the mewling of a ‘man’ who wants everybody gazing down at their navels, so they don’t notice how they’re being fitted for fresh chains.
The correct answer to my mind, is that violence against the state is always justified under any circumstances. The state claims a monopoly on violence, so it has no moral cause to complain when violence is used against it in turn. I might not agree with the goals of the violence, but the state doesn’t get to bitch.
Note that violence against the state is one of the only conceptual ways to hold the state accountable for it’s actions.
Note that when I say ‘violence against the state’ I mean exactly that – against the government or the paid agents thereof. Violence against uninvolved third parties, committed to influence the state, is terrorism and should be punished as such.
it will end up with the school buses blowing up if your revolution gets going.
“Nits become lice.”
Blow up the school busses for all I care.
They are just training more little government apparatchiks.
What public health professionals can learn from anti-vaccine storytelling
Sometimes, compelling stories beat medical evidence.
Do not read the comments. Also one useless paragraph one COVID-19 and, surprise, no mention about the “stortytelling of masking”.
https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/07/how-emotionally-powerful-stories-fuel-vaccine-skepticism/
Have they decided to address the prevalence of amyloid clots?
I completely forgot about this. What’s really interesting to me is there is no NDA on the settlement.
EBay, former executives to pay $56 million to settle couple’s harassment case
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/ebay-former-executives-pay-56-million-settle-couples-harassment-case-2026-07-28/
If I had topped off my tank the other day when gas was below $4/gal I probably could have saved two dollars.
But did your dashboard show you a commercial?
https://www.theautopian.com/bmw-is-showing-commercials-on-their-cars-dash-screens-and-they-want-you-to-think-its-a-treat/
Will they offer an ad-free subscription tier?
If you didn’t, just listen to Brett for 30 seconds and he’ll tell you
Good to know. I might forget that he has a Ph.D.
He’ll also tell you about a paper he wrote.
Which as a new listener it’s an important point.
Returning listener it’s bearing a dead horse.
Did someone say telomere?
“capitalism-run-amok”
Yeah, fuck off autopians.
RFK, Jr. on Fox talking about Fauci having a pulmonary infarction five months after receiving the Rona Vaxx.
Those notes were pretty damning. Paul is playing it perfectly by releasing this all as we approach Fauci’s appearance tomorrow. He may not go to jail, but his reputation is getting tarnished, and that ego hit has to sting.
Yet another pro athlete has found his bunny-boiler.
Dudes? Seriously.
Hard times
Sixty-eight percent of Gen Z say going out “isn’t worth the damage it does to my wallet,” and 62% avoid making weekend plans altogether to sidestep the financial regret that follows a night out. At $15 to $25 a drink, Rodney said, “it just becomes impossible to have a weekend that is affordable” — a squeeze compounded by the fact that roughly one in three Gen Z adults still live at home, often specifically to save enough money to move out. Rodney called this figure the clearest evidence that the avoidance is economic, not social: Gen Z isn’t skipping plans because they dislike people, they’re skipping plans because “the spend will hit harder than anything else.”
The clearest illustration, she said, came from a hypothetical question the survey posed: if given an unexpected $100 to spend on a weekend, what would Gen Z do with it? Seventy-one percent said they’d save it or put it toward bills, more than double the 46% of Boomers who said the same. “That is not something that you would see in generations before,” Rodney said. “That is quintessentially, I think, what the research points to.”
Twenty five bucks a drink? Haven’t these kids ever heard of dive bars?
Also- people exhibit thrift behavior: pollster flabbergasted.
Once again, Gen Z has “discovered” something that’s been around for generations. Haven’t we all in our youth (and sometimes now) had to base our weekend plans on how much money we had?
So you’re saying that Boomers have more disposable income than Gen Z kids?
Shocking.
MeToo.
Seventy-one percent said they’d save it or put it toward bills, more than double the 46%
Math is hard.
Journalismatist: “I was told there’d be no math in this profession!”
LOL FFS
Yet another pro athlete has found his bunny-boiler.
Yikes, that photo. She’s terrifying.
You don’t say
“It’s possible that as food sourcing and distribution becomes consolidated you get pooling and then redistribution of what might have been a very local contamination problem, so that it now becomes a widely distributed contamination problem,” Relman said.
Marion Nestle, professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, said the shrinking of the industry has amplified the consequences when contamination occurs.
“Consolidation means that if something goes wrong, it goes wrong big time,” Nestle said.
Centralized processing can further expand the reach of an outbreak, she said.
Capitalism-run-amok strikes again.
I’m just spitballing – but don’t import produce from countries with questionable agricultural hygiene and both heavily process and comingle that produce.
This is old. But it’s hilarious, in that she linked libertarians to autism. And then the autistic kids got upset that they were compared to libertarians, not the other way around.
https://psmag.com/news/on-libertarians-autism-and-empathy/
She’s a great example of the downfall of peer review. Now, I’ve not read her book, but I’ve seen reviews from people I trust. Apparently, it’s rife with incorrect data, non-existent facts, etc. But, since it comes to the right conclusions, those things don’t matter.
And then the autistic kids got upset that they were compared to libertarians, not the other way around.
Slanderous poppycock!
Kentucky governor tells Senator McConnell to show up for work or hand in his letter of resignation. Gavin Newsom unavailable for comment.
And how does the Kentucky governor get to do that? The state no longer has a say in senators, it’s the voters right? The senator for Kentucky does not answer to the governor of the state, nor to it’s legislature. Now if he’s advocating to abolish the 17th, I’m all ears.
He doesn’t. But he could trigger a special election via the state legislature.
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2026/07/08/kentucky-law-senate-vacancy-mitch-mcconnell/90562297007
From the 17th Amendment:
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
My preference would be for all of them to be bedridden and none of them replaced.
When vacancies happen
I don’t see anything there that states the legislature or executive as directed by the legislature can decide when there’s a vacancy, especially if the senate is not in session or without some legislatively defined meaning for ‘vacancy’.
Appoint Thomas Massie until the election.
Massie is still on the job until January
A minor technicality.
Andy is a lefty.
Random thought.
Do not let the state of California know that you did business in their state.
Do like the illegal aliens do.
It is better to act than to ask permission and attempt compliance.
Ain’t that the truth. If you make ten dollars there, they want $9. I will not provide freelance assistance to anybody there, even if I do it from Texas.
Profit margin negative.
Headline from paywalled article:
City’s initial pied-à-terre tax roll far exceeds early estimates
Who could have seen that coming?
More money for free groceries!
I’m looking for a wall mountable (not in the wall) room heater (120v or 240) to keep my shop bathroom from freezing. Room is 8x10x8’ and I’d like to have one that has a thermostat that will go down to say 40 degrees American.
Anyone have bought such a thing in the past or have experience with them?
Electric or propane?
Electric.
You can have one that uses propane in your shop. This one is quite good. I have the smaller version. Which might also suit your needs, given the small space.
https://mrbuddyheater.com/big-buddy
My preference would be for all of them to be bedridden and none of them replaced.
Let 100 Feinsteins bloom!
I’m looking for a wall mountable (not in the wall) room heater (120v or 240) to keep my shop bathroom from freezing. Room is 8x10x8’ and I’d like to have one that has a thermostat that will go down to say 40 degrees American.
Baseboard heater? I don’t know about temp range.
Don’t have the space for a baseboard as the room is sink locker washer dryer toilet shower urinal. It’s pretty packed but I have a think of wall about 18” long between the toilet and shower I can put one on. And the backside is/will be open for adding wiring from a panel only 7’ away.