17 Jan 2017

How NeverTrumpers Should Respond to Manning Commutation

Humor, Trump 74 Comments

“This is a horrendous violation of the rule of law, that threatens the very foundation of our institutions! There are plenty of whistleblowers who are still suffering injustice. Rather than doling out piecemeal pardons or commutations to those prisoners who (for various reasons) are chic among the smart set, Obama should’ve worked on across-the-board criminal justice reform.

I’ve seen some fools claim that this somehow is a ‘boon for liberty.’ No, because our prisons are at capacity, the total man-hours of prison time will be constant over the next few decades. By commuting Manning’s sentence, Obama simply increased the time served by other prisoners.

And it’s not just a wash, either. Now the families of prisoners will waste resources trying to bring publicity to their particular case, making us all poorer while the total amount of injustice is held constant.

Obama is Literally Hitler, and I can’t believe any libertarian applauds this move.”

P.S. Note that I have tagged this post with “Humor” as well. I am sharing the analogy here on my blog, and not on social media, so as to limit the outrage from those who lack humor.

74 Responses to “How NeverTrumpers Should Respond to Manning Commutation”

  1. JimS says:

    Whether you view Manning as a hero or not, the bottom line is he violated his oath and his security clearance, he violated the law. Actions have consequences, whether right or wrong.

    • Darien says:

      This hyper-mechanistic view has never made sense to me. “Actions have consequences” is perhaps sufficient when explaining why someone who leapt off the roof of a tall building was injured; that is a purely mechanical process, after all. Why, in contrast, we’re meant to accept the consequences in Manning’s case as blithely, as though they were the inevitable outcome of physical processes, I cannot comprehend.

      Assume that I work on an assembly line at a box factory. As part of my terms of employment, I have agreed not to reveal anything about our secret box-manufacturing process to the public. If it comes to light that I’ve done so, and my bosses respond by locking me in a cage for years and torturing me until they quite literally destroy my identity, should everybody else just shrug his shoulders and say “hey, those were the consequences?” There’s something wrong with that response.

      Now imagine that the reason I leaked our processes is because it came to my attention that our boxes were defective in an important way — a way that was causing serious harm to the unwitting box purchasers — and I acted to protect the innocent from these dangers that my bosses were deliberately hushing up. Am I still worthy of no mercy in your eyes? Years of confinement and torture is still appropriate because, hey, consequences?

      No, this is clearly absurd. The “consequences” in this case, as in the Manning case, are not the inevitable outcome of physical forces, but the whim of people who act cruelly — absurdly so — because they can get away with it. They get away with it only because everyone so callously accepts it. Hero or not, the way Manning was treated was monstrous evil. *That* is the bottom line.

      • JimS says:

        Of course your boss cannot lock you in a cage but at the very least, you can expect dismissal. If you have harmed them financially because of your action you can expect further legal action. Are you saying there should be no ramifications for violating the terms of a contract?

        • Craw says:

          This is a devastating riposte to the denizens of this blog, who will usually insist on any absurdity to defend enforcing contracts.

        • Craw says:


        • Ama says:

          If Manning did in fact sign a contract with terms such as “If I discover illegal and unethical acts committed by the US government and expose those acts to US citizens, I will be subject to imprisonment and torture until my mind is so broken that I no longer know what sex I am,” you might have a point. I have a sneaking suspicion no such terms existed.

          • JimS says:

            You are kidding, right? The contract has to spell out every specific? My contract didn’t say I can’t watch porn at work, so it is ok if I do?

            He worked in intelligence. He had a security clearance. He knew what that meant. He release classified material. For what ever reason he did it, he violated the law.

        • Darien says:

          Surely I said no such thing. I said that the treatment given to Manning was obscene and inhuman, and that no banal appeal to “consequences” covers that up. He was not merely dismissed and compelled to pay damages.

      • RPLong says:

        Well said, Darien.

        • Craw says:

          This is a context free argument, so it applies equally well to Kim Philby, whose revelations led to the execution of those fighting communist dictatorship. It applies to those who gave up Anne Frank too.

          The “bottom line” is not JUST what those punishing Manning think, but also what he thought, and did.

    • skylien says:

      Really like the very same people who tried to cover up death toll numbers of iraqy civilians (with a ratio of 2 civilians to 1 combatant!)? Like those who cover up murders and torture including children? Where are the consequences there?

      That is pathetic. It was her who kept her oath. I am sure that the oath doesn’t contain a line saying that she needs to cover up murder, torture and lies!


      • JimS says:

        I see no problem with a military organization, while engaged in conflict, controlling the information released. To not control it is in effect to act as your opponent’s military intelligence source. Yo do not want information pertaining to either yours or the enemy’s efficacy known to all. Do you show your hand to your opponent when playing cards? Wouldn’t that be more fair? How else would he know if you were cheating?

        • skylien says:

          Covering up torture etc.. has absolutely nothing to do with playing cards. That is a non-answer.

          • JimS says:

            Sorry. Do not buy the torture allegations. I know the guys who serve and they want to get bad guys. They are not into torturing or harming civilians. When harm comes to civilians, they feel as though the mission is a partial failure. It does not get us anywhere with these people to harm them. If the bad guys know they are not going to get good treatment, they fight harder. You don’t want that.

            How come you don’t say anything about the Taliban or ISIS torturing people or executing people to make them more compliant with their cause?

            • Dan says:

              “How come you don’t say anything about the Taliban or ISIS torturing people or executing people to make them more compliant with their cause?”

              Probably because nobody is defending their actions or trying to pretend like they aren’t torturing and murdering innocent people.

              “Sorry. Do not buy the torture allegations.”

              Well, you must be burying your head in the sand an ignoring all evidence. I mean there have been some pretty big stories on the different ways the US have tortured people. Whistleblowers in jail for reporting it. Where have you been?

              “They are not into torturing or harming civilians. When harm comes to civilians, they feel as though the mission is a partial failure. It does not get us anywhere with these people to harm them. If the bad guys know they are not going to get good treatment, they fight harder. You don’t want that.”

              It doesn’t matter if they are into it or not. They do torture and harm civilians. Holy hell, man, Obama dropped 26,000+ bombs in the last year. Do you think civilians came out of that unscathed? Are you completely unaware of the program to drop a bomb, and then drop a second bomb when the first responders come in trying to help?

              • JimS says:

                Yes it was fair, Dan. 35 years was the sentence. I have said nothing about the pardon. The pardon is perfectly legit. What I am saying is, the cost of exercising his morality was 35 years until the pres altered it. 35 years for essentially playing open handed spy master is a fair sentence when you consider that it could have been death.

                The cost of Paul the Apostle’s morality was death, which he accepted. The cost of my morality of attempting to stop an armed robbery may well be death too. If I shoot at the assailant and hurt someone else, the penalty may be severe. Were I to engage in such an action, I must accept that consequence.

                My point is, Manning is a fool of immeasurable proportions if he thought he could have done what he did and not been penalize din anyway. You seem to be saying he shouldn’t have done a single day. If that were the case, why wouldn’t everyone sell secrets?

              • Bob Murphy says:

                JimS wrote:

                My point is, Manning is a fool of immeasurable proportions if he thought he could have done what he did and not been penalize din anyway.

                Do you know that’s what he thought, JimS?

                If you try to stop an armed robbery, the robber shoots and misses, and you tackle him and hold him while the cops come, would you expect bloggers around the country to be saying, “Tsk tsk, it would have been fair if JimS got shot and killed by that robber. I just hope other people don’t try to do the same thing now. What a shame he didn’t get plugged.” ?

              • Dan says:

                Oh, so had Paul the Apostle been freed by a guard and nobody ever caught either of them, you’d be crying because the guard needed to die and so did Paul. Them be’s the rules.

            • RPLong says:

              JimS, you absolutely must read The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo for a complete account of US military torture in Iraq, complete with photographic evidence and legal testimony from some of those who conducted the torture. If facts matter to you at all, it is important that you take stock of them.

            • skylien says:

              So you know ALL the people there and you dismiss out of hand obviously legit information of Manning? Like FBI people training others how to torture?

              No one is saying there aren’t any good guys in the US forces. I am sure most are! But many are not, and if the military command covers their crimes up then they should be in prison LONGER than Manning. Yet there was noone prosecuted, how come? Sorry a law that works like that is a joke, and nothing more!

              The Taliban and ISIS (creations of US foreign policy!) are bad, very bad. Radical muslims are a big problem. Yet the solution the US chooses is creating MORE of them, not less!

              • skylien says:

                That is directed at Jim S

              • Craw says:

                So now the CIA wrote the Koran?

              • skylien says:

                The ability to grasp the meaning from reading is not your strong point, is it?..

          • JimS says:

            So what you are saying is that committing a crime to reveal a crime is ok.

            • Dan says:

              Breaking an unjust law to report actual violent crimes is not only ok, it is the moral thing to do. My God, based on your reasoning, if the State made it illegal with a penalty of death to say anything negative about them you’d be defending the firing lines. The laws the law.

              • JimS says:

                So any liberal minded Pvt can determine what his own course of action is and should be free to do so without penalty?

                I’m certain you realize that in an armed conflict it is customary to kill as many of the bad guys as possible. Even better, is to destroy their will or cause to fight.

                If Manning wants to be a hero, in his mind, fine. Part and parcel of being a hero is paying your dues. He agreed to the terms of his contract with the army. He understood the UCMJ. The cost of being a hero and doing the morally right thing is 35 years. Sound fair to me.

              • Dan says:

                “If Manning wants to be a hero, in his”The cost of being a hero and doing the morally right thing is 35 years. Sound fair to me.”

                No it wasn’t. The cost was time served plus a few more months. He had his sentence reduced. The law is the law. You shouldn’t have shit to say against given your obedience to it.

              • Bob Murphy says:

                JimS, Dan in the above comment made a point that I was thinking, too (without the profanity). It seems like you are arguing, “I really disagree with what Obama did; the morally appropriate thing would have been for Manning to serve 35 years. Wow the actual legal outcome here differs from my private sense of morality.”

                Doesn’t that seem weird, since you think you are arguing that we should put aside our moral feelings and just follow the law on this one? You agree the Constitution gives the Commander in Chief the authority to commute sentences like this, right?

              • JimS says:

                I couldn’t reply to your’s, Bob, so I will reply here.

                It doesn’t really matter if I think Manning was right, but for the sake of argument, he was right. When I was in the Marine Corps and was told to do something I felt was counter to the UCMJ, I refused. I knew full well I could be prosecuted. That was the price I was willing to pay the price to be right or moral. That is the price Manning should pay as well.

                I do not argue that the president hasn’t the authority for his actions. I do think his actions set a dangerous precedent. There are a great many things known and unknown in the military. I can tell you, a Pvt in any military knows dang little. I was in on company and battalion level planning and knew very little. Even at the regimental level, you can know surprising little These leakers let out info that is best unknown to the opposition. manning hadn’t the knowledge or experience to know what should and should not be public.

                Any analogy I try fails, because this is war but let me try a couple. I work for a lab who tests drugs. They are on their way to curing an ailment but I do not like their ethics with regard to animal experiments. I leak their secrets, an opposing company takes advantage and the company I work for suffers catastrophic losses. Am I not liable in anyway? I acted morally and out of my conscience. Should I not lose my job (I have always wondered why whistle blowers want to keep their jobs with a company that has proved themselves unethical)? Isn’t what I did at least theft? If it is ok to steal from criminals can I just wait outside the bank and thump the robber and take the cash? Can I take goods from someone who is selling stolen goods? If I turn him in, the state takes it and sells at auction; how is me taking it any different?

                Furthermore, in the video leaked by Manning, it is clear to me there are at least two weapons shouldered by those hit. Their behavior was very suspicious. I would have targeted them. they went up the chain of command and got the OK. I do not know why they lit up the van, but as far as the kids in it, it is unwise to take your kids to war. May I remind those here that the military play by waaaay tighter rules of engagement than policing agencies do. The Apache pilots played by the rules. It is easy to arm chair quarterback as we are and as Manning did. Even if it was a mistake, which I do not think it was, mistakes happen. You should thank your lucky stars, Bob,that none of your decisions are life and death ones.

              • skylien says:

                Jim S,

                That is most neat trick the USG made when they called fighting terrorists a war. This way they can basically justify anything, doesn’t matter the deaths of civillians, because no matter where, and how, they are always on a battlefield!

                Just for Info, in countries like Afghanistan it is customary to have weapons with you even as civilians. Just because you have a weapon doesn’t make you a bad guy ! So it is really their fault for having kids with them at any time at all.

                But that is the can of worms the US placed themselve in (intentionally?) when they are going around the world,
                shooting, bombing the hell out of whatever they deam a “threat”. And people like you think it is fine, because that is just like war is..

                And now we have the mess including terrorist attacks in Europe. Thanks US!

              • JimS says:

                Sure. No doubt. But to say that there are no repercussions is ridiculous. There is nothing laudable in an action that has no consequence.. The action is rendered mute, meaningless, if nothing is at risk.

    • Properal says:


      Why not hold those that committed the crimes that Manning exposed to the same criteria you are holding Manning?


      • JimS says:

        I have yet to determine what crimes the material released by Manning reveal. Are you talking about the vehicle that was hit by the Apache?

        • JimS says:

          I do not know why I can’t respond directly to your comments:

          Do you know that’s what he thought, JimS?
          If you try to stop an armed robbery, the robber shoots and misses, and you tackle him and hold him while the cops come, would you expect bloggers around the country to be saying, “Tsk tsk, it would have been fair if JimS got shot and killed by that robber. I just hope other people don’t try to do the same thing now. What a shame he didn’t get plugged.” ?

          No. I do not know what he thought, but everyone seems to be inferring that he id not commit a crime. Manning did indeed commit a crime. If I break into a lab to free the animals used in experiments, I may be morally right, but I am guilty of a crime. Rosa Parks was morally right, but was guilty of a crime and willing to suffer the consequences. Manning committed a far more serious crime.

          I am sorry I do not follow your robber analogy. Let me say this, if I shot a bank robber and the bullet sailed through him and killed a teller, I might be guilty of manslaughter, even though my actions may have been justified. If someone is doing wrong in their home and I break in to try and save the children and upon my break in I am shot as a home intruder, that is a risk I take.

          Manning had to have known he was going to go to prison for for his actions. There is no possible way he did not know what he did was wrong. There is no way he was not aware of the penalties. If I thought his actions right, I would think them even more heroic if he did them willingly accepting of the cost/penalties.

          • Dan says:

            JimS, do you send the State a check every time you drive faster than the speed limit, jaywalk, etc.? I’m wondering how sturdy your principle to face the consequences when you are breaking laws really is.

            • JimS says:

              That is a silly argument.

              When I speed, I do so knowing full well if I am caught I must pay a fine. Moreover, if I speed, I know I am risking my well being and the well being of others.

              I was recently stopped for a traffic violation. The officer could not understand why I would rather take a ticket than answer his questions. I told him, if in fact I had done wrong, he was duty bound to cite me. He obviously didn’t think too much of duty as he let me go.

              Manning did not turn himself in. He was caught. Perhaps I would of had more respect for him if he had turned himself in. I kind of like Ghandi arguing for the maximum sentence. Also, Manning did not commit some misdemeanor, he is guilty of a very serious offense, even if he is morally correct in doing so.

              Are you morally justified in killing an abortion doctor if you do not agree with him? Some may argue yes but few would argue that he wasn’t guilty of some crime.

              • Dan says:

                OK, so you apparently have no problem with avoiding facing the consequences for your crimes, even ones that endanger your well being and the well being of others. You’re prepared to face the consequences if caught, but even then if they give you a lighter sentence or no penalty at all, you accept that. I figured as much.

                Also, I don’t think anyone is arguing that Manning didn’t commit a crime. The argument is that it shouldn’t be illegal to blow the whistle on war crimes, and the punishment was completely evil.

    • ax123man says:

      It seems to me this assumes there exist no unjust laws. Either that or justice does not matter – ie, the only thing that matters is objectively reacting to legal text on paper. It also implies that legal text on paper can be objectively analyzed and applied, which is also false. We want law and justice to be something like math but it isn’t. There is no bottom line, but hey, if it makes you feel better…

  2. Andrew_FL says:

    Right because you’re only “Never Trump” if you’re a surveillance state loving neocon.

    Bad take.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Andrew_FL did you know I was making an analogy to the Carrier deal (e.g. 1 and 2)?

    • Bob Murphy says:

      And your comment doesn’t make sense, Andrew_FL. The hypothetical guy in my post is against prison terms for people, period. That’s not a neocon stance.

      • Andrew_FL says:

        I think I have trouble understanding your jokes, Bob.

  3. Josiah says:


    Okay, mind blown again. But do you think the argument about computations leading to longer prison terms for other people is factually correct?

    • Bob Murphy says:

      I don’t know, Josiah, but I also don’t know that we should believe, “The total amount of dollars taken in taxation over the next 20 years will be constant” either.

      • Josiah says:

        I was thinking about this a bit more. One difference that occurs to me is that even if the Manning pardon results in other people serving longer prison terms, that might not be a bad thing, assuming the people deserve those sentences. I don’t think you can say the same about taxes and the Carrier deal.

        On the other hand, I do think that rent seeking is a concern with pardons (think Marc Rich), but I don’t think that this concern necessarily outweighs the value of having pardons. So your analogy does hold somewhat, and complicates things.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          I thought of your first move too, Josiah, and realized I could patch up my post by saying: “How NeverTrumpers, Who Adopt the Slogan ‘Imprisonment Is Kidnapping,’ Should Respond to…”

          Because remember, my big beef with the Carrier deal wasn’t with minarchists, but instead with people who had spent the first half of 2016 spreading “Taxation is theft” memes.

          • Josiah says:

            You’re right, if someone thinks that taxation is theft, then objecting to the Carrier deal is sort of strange.

            BTW, I considered several other “first moves” in response to your analogy but I had to reject them because they would have had easy rejoinders. So good job on coming up with this one.

  4. Frodo says:

    @Skylien: Are you a retard? He’s not a “she,” he’s a “he.” There are 2 genders, male and female, no matter what new bizarro idea the sexual pervert progressives want to shove down our throats. Bradley Manning is a he.

    • khodge says:

      He may hot be able to change his sex but he most certainly can change his name. If there is no desire to do it legally, one can still choose what name to answer to.

    • skylien says:

      @Frodo, thanks for the nice words. I don’t know and don’t care what he/she is wants to be. I didn’t want to write he/she all the time because I hate that. however. So I went with what Manning wants to be called. And if he wants to be called Sissy, I call him Sissy. I really don’t care…

      I don’t need to prove my manliness in defying that..

  5. Yancey Ward says:

    It is impossible to square this commutation with Obama’s sanctions on Russia for allegedly giving material to Wikileaks.

    • Bob Roddis says:

      Mr. Manning is a transgender person.

      Things would be very different if Mr. Manning were a big burly macho skirt-chasing gun rights Bible-quoting kinda guy.

  6. trent says:

    Hi Bob,

    I’m not sure the analogy fully holds. Since overall spending won’t go down as a result, other taxpayers will have to pay more in order to cover the shortfall. Realizing that they can either pay it, or try to pay some amount less in lobbying, yada yada yada Tullock deadweight losses … you get an overall (“social wealth”) negative outcome.

    So if in your example there was a mandate to keep all the prison cells full, then pardoning one person would in a real sense drive people all over either to spend resources trying to prevent their crimes from being upgraded to prison time, or to being even more careful not to get caught/inefficient in their criminal behavior. Because, in your example, someone who was not going to jail now must go to jail.

    I think pardons (from taxes or jail) might be a weird power to have given some person. Binding that person to at least make pardons actionable only to classes (say same crime, or same tax) instead of individuals (people or companies) doesn’t sound as bad, does it?

  7. Bob Roddis says:

    “In no case shall information be classified… in order to: conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency… or prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.”

    —Executive Order 13526, Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations

    “Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is this awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.”

    —Robert Gates, Unites States Secretary of Defense


  8. Frodo says:

    Hi Khodge, you also sound like a total retard. Thanks to retards like you, little kids now have to grow up in this pervert society that accepts some psychopath chopping off his penis as a woman. Welcome to the USA of perverts and selfish child abusers.

  9. Aisling says:

    It’s really quite amazing that some of your fellow libertarians are arguing with you about this. I haven’t seen any greens who wanted to see Chelsea Manning stay in prison. We stand with the whistleblowers.

    We even share information on how to whistleblow right from the floor of the Australian senate. See this video from ~6:06-8:40.
    Ludlam, Scott. “‘You will be judged for this’ – Scott’s data retention message to Govt and ALP.” Youtube/The Australian Greens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brTMGNOTLTg (accessed January 18, 2017).

    And regarding the plausibility of government authorities torturing people, they even torture Aboriginal children, so I don’t see how anything is all that implausible.
    Meldrum-Hanna, Caro et al. “Australia’s Shame.” ABC, July 2016. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2016/07/25/4504895.htm (accessed January 11, 2017).

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Aisling, I don’t know that JimS calls himself a libertarian; he might not.

      • Aisling says:

        Ah, my sincere apologies if I have incorrectly put a label on anyone that they do not identify with.

  10. Frodo says:

    Bob: You’re a wimp.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Frodo wrote: “Bob: You’re a wimp.

      And I didn’t even have an operation! Astonishing.

      Regardless of what it may indicate about my courage, I’m zapping your comments if you keep talking like that (calling people “retarded” etc.).

  11. Frodo says:

    @Aisling: R U joking?

  12. Frodo says:

    So Manning is really a transsexual fish??

  13. Aisling says:

    No, I am not joking. Nor am I claiming he is a fish.

    Here, if you click on the link, “The human household environment is awash in chemicals—preservatives, plastics, drugs, cosmetics and more. A lot of those chemicals contain hormones or so-called endocrine disrupters, and many of those gender-manipulating substances wind up getting washed down drains or flushed down toilets and into streams, rivers and other waterways. Numerous studies over the years have shown that this can have an impact on the sexual development of fish, amphibians and other aquatic life, but a new Canadian report in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry has turned up some especially striking findings.”(1)

    1. Kluger, Jeffrey. “Canada’s Transsexual Fish.” Time, July 29, 2010. http://science.time.com/2010/07/29/canadas-transsexual-fish/ (accessed January 18, 2017).

  14. Frodo says:

    @ Aisling: Ah, now I understand. I have Catholic friends who have claimed for years that birth control pills being flushed everywhere into the water supply lead to men literally having a chemical imbalance that makes them more effeminate, is this what you mean? So in addition to turning men into predators who can more easily use women for sex, the pill also literally turns men into women, essentially. Is this the gist of what you’re saying?

    • Aisling says:

      I am not saying my own opinions regarding transgendered persons at this time. I am attempting to direct you towards information that may assist you in drawing your own conclusions.

      Here’s something else:

      Thorton, Jan et al. “Effects of prenatal androgens on rhesus monkeys: A model system to explore the organizational hypothesis in primates.” Horm Behav 55(5) (2009). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3146061/ (accessed January 19, 2017).

      Also, endocrine disruptors includes far more than just birth control pills. We’re talking about ingredients commonly found in personal care products, pesticides, the BPA in canned food… etc etc etc.

      Mercola, Joseph. “10 Sources of Endocrine Disruptors and How to Avoid Them.” Mercola.com, July 15, 2015. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/07/15/10-common-sources-endocrine-disruptors.aspx (accessed January 19, 2017).

      I am curious about this predator accusation. I wonder if you or someone you care for had a traumatic experience? You don’t have to answer, it’s not really any of my business, I’m just wondering, though if it is something you would like to talk about, perhaps in a less public setting, my e-mail is aisling [dot] abbandonato [at] gmail [dot] com, and I do have GPG if you wish to encrypt.

  15. Frodo says:

    Really fascinating: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/birth-control-in-drinking-water-a-fertility-catastrophe-in-the-making

    “But scientists are particularly concerned about the contraceptive chemical EE2 because of its ability to “feminize” male fishes and its association with plummeting fish fertility. A landmark 2007 study, for example, described a seven-year whole-lake experiment in northern Ontario, Canada, in which tiny amounts of EE2 induced “intersex” male minnows whose testicles contained eggs, as well as altered egg production in female fishes; this ultimately resulted in the “near extinction” of the species from the lake, as well as a threat to larger fish populations.

    Numerous subsequent studies across the globe have linked birth-control hormones to impaired fertility, “transgender fish” and reduced fish populations. Minnesota pollution researchers looking for the endocrine disruptors found them even in remote lakes thought to be pristine; and when they lowered cages of male lab minnows into the lakes, most of them were feminized within three weeks.

    • Aisling says:

      My previous comment to you is still in Mr. Murphy’s moderation queue, which seems to happen every time I include more than one link, but in any case I am pleased to see you are informing yourself on the subject.

      • skylien says:

        Yes, only one link at a time here.

        • Dan says:

          Unless you know the secret handshake. Then you can post as many links as you want.

          • skylien says:

            I am sure the (guess digital) handshake is classified and if you leaked that info it would threaten the ancapistanien interests/security of Bob.

            • Aisling says:

              It’s fine, really. If I trolled a Democrat or a Republican one tenth as hard as I’m trolling Mr. Murphy, 9 times out of 10 I would’ve been threatened with a defamation lawsuit, a stalking charge, some other legal threat, and/or real life violence by now. I’m actually quite impressed that Mr. Muprhy keeps approving all of my link-filled comments.

              • Aisling says:

                Technically, I should specify a *rich* Republican or Democrat.

Leave a Reply