When Romney Left Bain Questioned, Penn State Hid Sandusky, Hackers Hit Yahoo: P.M. Links

  • The political scandal of the day is over when Mitt Romney actually stopped working for Bain. Was it 2002 or 1999? Romney has said 1999, but The Boston Globe (which ended up in hot water of its own for failing to attribute information from Mother Jones and Talking Points Memo used in its story) contends that SEC filings show Romney still with Bain until 2002. The Romney campaign says the story is wrong and is sticking with 1999.
  • Developers of a new laser scanning system process claim it can read people down to the molecule, able to find traces of drugs and gunpowder on their bodies and can even tell what’s going on inside them. The Department of Homeland Security is interested, the anonymously written Gizmodo piece claims, so that should add some more fun at the airport. (h/t to Hit and Run profiteer Underpants Gnome)
  • A 267-page FBI report concludes that Penn State officials, including late football coach Joe Paterno, conspired to cover up accusations of child sexual abuse against Jerry Sandusky beginning as far back as 1998. Paterno’s family Thursday insisted that he did not know Sandusky was a sexual predator and did not attempt to block any investigations.
  • Orthodox rabbis in Europe are calling on German Jews to defy a court ruling branding circumcision as a criminal act and continue circumcising newborn males.
  • A data breach at Yahoo allowed hackers to download the names and passwords of about 400,000 users. The hackers, called D33Ds Co., posted the data online to expose Yahoo’s vulnerabilities.
  • Congress is considering legislation that could possibly allow the prosecution of journalists who report information coming from leaks in the federal government.
  • Journalists, bloggers, and writers from around the world are invited to enter the 2012 Bastiat Prize for Journalism, which will honor commentary, analysis, and reporting that best demonstrates the importance of freedom and its underlying institutions.

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.

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.

  • robc||

    which will honor commentary

    So I could be a winner?

    Should I enter "COASE COASE ... " or "Fuck off, slaver!"?

  • robc||

    Consideration will be given to the articles on the following criteria: intellectual coherence; persuasiveness; wit and creativity; relevance; clarity and simplicity; wider impact.

    I think "COASE COASE COASE" has a fucking clear cut chance of winning by that criteria.

    1. intellectual coherence [check]
    2. persuasiveness [check]
    3. wit and creativity [double check]
    4. relevance [check]
    5. clarity and simplicity [fucking landslide check]
    6. wider impact [might be my weak area, but I more than make up for it with simplicity]

  • Brett L||

    I think "fuck off, slaver" is more eloquent.

  • robc||

    Technically, P Brooks said it first, and I dont want to cause a scandal.

    COASE is all mine.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Orthodox rabbis in Europe are calling on German Jews to defy a court ruling branding circumcision as a criminal act and continue circumcising newborn males."

    (a) Thank goodness that could never happen in the USA!

    (b) Those religious people are always asking for special exemptions from the laws. There ought to be a solution...I mean an answer to this problem.

  • John||

    A friend of mine posted on facebook a picture of Jon Stewart looking especially smug with the caption "I think you are confusing not getting what you want with a war on religion". I wanted to vomit fascist little bastards.

  • A Serious Man||

    Yeah, why are those Jews being so unreasonable? Circumcision isn't important to their religion, it's only mandated by the Law of Moses as a way of preserving cultural, religious, and ethnic identity.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Unt vy are ze Catolics beink so unreasonable, as if zey were forced to purchase things directly contrary to zeir religion?

    Anyway, fake accent aside, I'll re-post this item about a Congressional bill to protect U.S. religious institutions against Obamacare's crippling fines for violating their own tenets of faith:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/.....jean-lopez

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And I've mentioned another aspect of this story - the German law is picking up critics in Israel.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/07.....nt_3127308

  • affenkopf||

    It's not a law. It's a court ruling.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Yes, but judges sometimes confuse the two, so I play along.

    And there's this:

    "The ruling has also drawn criticism from many Muslims, who view circumcision as an important practice in their faith."

    Sounds like an opportunity for interfaith cooperation!

  • CornerCubicle||

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Not even if they're cattle cars?

  • ||

    iirc, germany also outlaws scientology

  • Rob.||

    + 6 million. Give or take.

  • The Hammer||

    I don't understand why you'd want to highlight that entire sentence. Unless it was meant to send you somewhere with more information...

  • CornerCubicle||

  • MJGreen||

    Replace "religion" with "women," and that's quite apt regarding the Catholic contraception kerfuffle.

  • MJGreen||

    Replace "religion" with "women," and that's quite apt regarding the Catholic contraception kerfuffle.

  • affenkopf||

    Allowing circumcision is giving in to Sharia law.

  • nicole||

    Sweet, a circumcision thread. Good thing I'm off to the dentist. Way more fun.

  • Skomoroh||

    Since you don't have any skin in the game you shouldn't comment.

  • nicole||

    Hey, I still have my preferences! And, you know, my morals.

  • A Serious Man||

    Someone needs to kill the Penn State football program. It's not just the administrative cover-up that's revolting, but also the despicable loyalty and apologetics being shown by many alumni. Matt Millen on ESPN trying to spin this was pretty revolting.

  • John||

    In June of 1998, they had already caught him in the shower with one kid and he admitted to police that he had showered and "hugged" other kids while in the shower. They dropped the entire thing when Sandusky promised not to shower with kids anymore.

    I knew when this came out that the 2001 incident couldn't have been the first time they had been informed of this. That is why they ignored McQuery's account. They had already covered up for him and were committed.

    What the hell is wrong with people?

  • ||

    They care more about college football than some children?

    That's what's wrong with them.

  • John||

    They care more about their own asses.

  • Rasilio||

    Sandusky was apparently very interested in kids asses

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I'm watching Jay Paterno on College Football Live right now. I can't believe he is defending JoePa, and his actions. What ever happened to humility? What ever happened to admitting to a mistake, sincerely apologizing, keeping your head down, and shutting the fuck up?

    /blinding rage

  • db||

    Read the whole report. The administration as a whole needs cleansing and restructuring. The football program is only one of several dozen intercollegiate sports programs, all of which were overseen by the same staff.

    As a student there in the '90s I had no great love for the admin nor the football program, especially Spanier.

  • John||

    When they found out about this, the first thought was "how do we keep from embarasing the football program". They never even looked for the victims. To this day no one but Sandusky has any idea who the kid was that McQuerry caught him ass raping. That kid got no help, nothing. They didn't even find out who he was. They didn't even fucking care.

    If Penn State leaves that fucking statue of JoPa standing in front of their stadium, the football program ought to get the death penalty because clearly no one there gets it.

  • A Serious Man||

    I just don't see how you can have a positive image of JoPa now. The report makes him look like a friggin' sociopath, tear down the statues, the tributes, the memorials, but keep the records. He deserves OJ-levels of infamy.

  • John||

    I read the report on my lunch hour. And it confirms the absolute worst about Paterno. And on top of that when all of this broke he didn't even have the decency to resign. He made the Trustees fire him and then played the victim all the while knowing he was guilty as sin for covering up for Sandusky. Yeah, he really cared about Penn State. What a fucking asshole.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    I haven't read the report yet, but speaking of the Trustees, I heard they took some of the report's blame. Have any of them bothered to resign yet?

  • db||

    Don't know; the report mainly calls out the Board for not specifically asking about major risks to the University. It was Spanier who deliberately hid things from the Board, but the Board wasn't asking either.

  • John||

    The report blames them for not knowing and creating a culture of deference to the football program. But honestly I don't think that is fair. What happened was so bad I can't blame them for not suspecting it. Who would have ever thought the head football coach, AD and president were covering up for an assistant coach who was raping kids?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Hey at least none of their players got free tatoos cause then they would be ineligible for post season play.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Matt Millen is easily the biggest douche bag in football right now. Possibly the biggest of all time.

  • John||

    He is a hall of fame NFL player. He doesn't need fucking Paterno. The former players ought to be the most angry about this.

  • db||

    Many of us alumni are enraged about the damage to the school's reputation as well. The callous disregard for the welfare of these children documented in the report is beyond what many suspected.

    Again, I urge folks to read the whole report, not just the news coverage of executive summary. I'm only a few pages into the 267 total, but the reactions of admin were clearly more about ass covering. This is a textbook case of circling wagons by a powerful organization.

  • John||

    I read the report. And it confirms what I said from the beginning, which is that Paterno had to have a say in how this was handled.

    Paterno is dead. You can't prosecute him now. But you can take down his statue and take his name off of everything. If Penn State doesn't do that, they deserve to lose their football program.

  • db||

    I think the NCAA is going to have to take some serious action whether or not the university purges Paterno's legacy. They can't be allowed to simply symbolically address this. There has to be cultural change.

  • John||

    Really though, this is so bad it goes beyond the NCAA. There is no NCAA rule that says "don't let assistant coaches go full Steve Smith on children in your athletic facilities". I am not sure they violated any NCAA rules.

    I think this is up to the people of Pennsylvania. They need to clean up the place. Penn State is a really good university. It does a lot more important things than football. If I were them, I would go full University of Chicago and leave the Big 10 and shut down football for a while. Send a message that the school is there to provide research and education and if having a football program means destroying the integrity and culture of the place, then there won't be a football program.

  • ||

    That will never, ever happen, John.

  • John||

    I know Episiarch. I know. Hell, I bet they don't even take down the statue. Those people are brain dead.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I am not sure they violated any NCAA rules.

    It's the old "Lack of Institutional Control" thing. The NCAA could give the program the death penalty. I don't think they should, however. Recruiting is going to be tough. Nike already cut ties with the program. It's going to be some lean years for PSU football. Like 20 years maybe.

    I just want to to see an honest apology from those involved in the cover up. No more "statements released through their lawyers". Followed by the firings of those involved.

    Most importantly, I'd like to see PSU track down every last victim, and make sure they are supremely compensated.

  • John||

    Tell Sandusky to give every single name or have fun in general population.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Isn't Paterno in the College Football Hall of Fame? They need to gather up some garbage bags and dismantle the Paterno exhibit.

  • John||

    I am sure he is and yes, it needs to go.

  • ||

    Not defending JoPa, but why should the Hall of Fame take down his exhibit? Him covering up is fucking despicable, but it doesn't change his coaching record.

    Totally agree with the University scrubbing everything though.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Many of us alumni are enraged about the damage to the school's reputation as well.

    I can believe that. I was thinking maybe, possibly applying to law school at PSU. My wife flat out said, "No."

  • Fluffy||

    What I don't get about the Penn State thing is...

    ...It was fucking 1998.

    Not 1968.

    If something like this happens in 1968, I can see everyone having the instinct to try to keep it quiet.

    But by 1998, everyone connected to an organization bigger than a lemonade stand HAD TO KNOW that the only safe thing to do, for the organization, is burn the guy alive as a human sacrifice as soon as there's even a whiff of this kind of stuff.

    Who protects a pedophile to "save the organization" in 1998? How incompetent do you have to be to try that?

    If someone was even remotely suspected of something like this in an organization I was connected to, I would break fucking light speed throwing the guy under the bus and getting in front of the cameras telling them how much I was throwing the guy under the bus.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Department of Homeland Security is interested, the anonymously written Gizmodo piece claims, so that should add some more fun at the airport.

    The fun should be all one-sided, as this thing would apparently do away with the need for ball groping.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Congress is considering legislation that could possibly allow the prosecution of journalists who report information coming from leaks in the federal government.

    Yeah, right. Like they have the balls.

  • John||

    You bet they do. You have to understand the journalists will all think that it will just happen to people on the other team.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I don't know. They actually kind of got behind Fox News when the Obama Administration was trying to do a number on it early in the term. When it comes to the press, they like their special rights.

  • ||

    Most. Transparent. Administration. In. History.

    Do you think big O would sign the legislation or veto it?

    I'm going with sign.

  • A Serious Man||

    Sign, but with reservations, which is really all his base needs to hear so they can sleep soundly at night while pretending they are still the party of civil liberties.

  • NoVAHockey||

    The presidential version of voting present: bill passes, wait 10 days, Congress still in session, bill become law.

  • ||

    Standard Obama gameplan: bitch about some unimportant aspect of the bill, wait for it to pass, sign it, then talk about how the White House actually opposed it and would never, EVER implement the evil bit.

    Then wait a couple of months and implement the evil bit.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Well, at least we know he will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

    YOU ALL FORGOT ABOUT THAT, DIDN'T YOU?

  • ||

    About what?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    After four years it's getting hard to keep track of everything we forgot.

  • Loki||

    It depends on how more power it gives the executive branch. If it leaves the bureaucracy to write the actual regulations while congress watches and masturbates then you bet your ass he'll sign it.

  • ||

    he's going to sign it while retaining "fierce advocate" status.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I'm watching Jay Paterno on College Football Live right now. I can't believe he is defending JoePa, and his actions. What ever happened to humility? What ever happened to admitting to a mistake, sincerely apologizing, keeping your head down, and shutting the fuck up?

    /blinding rage

  • John||

    I sympathize with him in some ways. It would be hard to admit your father covered up for a child raper. But at the same time, be a fucking man. Stop denying the obvious. Just admit that your father did what he did.

  • robc||

    Or, you know, refuse to comment because its your Dad.

  • BarryD||

    "Dad did a lot things right. A lot of things.

    "This was not one of them."

  • ||

    family members almost universally do this.

    read any article about somebody who gets shot (whether by a "civilian" or a cop) committing some crime.

    there is always some money quote from some family member about how he 'couldn't have done this' or at a minimum 'he was turning his life around and they could have shot to wound'

    i'm a pragmatist. i don't expect family members to be honest about the transgressions of other family members.

    and the 'record' backs up this expectation

  • Voros McCracken||

    Your rage is so blind you hit the submit button twice...

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    There's a submit button?

  • Voros McCracken||

    Yes, right next to the "donate $100 button." I hope you've been careful...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    A data breach at Yahoo allowed hackers to download the names and passwords of about 400,000 users.

    Yahoo really dropped the ball.

    POW. Ball hat trick.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Constellation Research analyst Ray Wang said Yahoo apparently fell prey to an extremely common kind of database attack that most companies typically take steps to combat.

    "This isn't supposed to happen," he said, calling the exploited flaw "an easy thing to prepare for."

    SQL injection? Pathetic, if that's the case, but not surprising considering they apparently had unencrypted passwords in the database.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I wouldn't hire an entry level programmer who wanted to store passwords in clear text, let alone one who left open a SQL injection attack.

  • Brett L||

    Please. We had a SQL injection vulnerability from a previous program when I was contracted at FLDOC. The public offender search would let you get any data in the database. My coworker told people about 10 times "this is bad it needs to be fixed". Finally, he emailed the CIO a series of screenshots along with the CIO's SSN and address with a note. He was told to fix it the next day.

  • Scarcity||

    Other committee members said the First Amendment protected the media’s right to publish such information. They also talked about the media’s watchdog role, helping to hold the government accountable for illegal actions.

    Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., the chairman of the subcommittee, said whistleblower laws enabled holding the government accountable without going to the media, however. Such laws allow citizens to go directly to the federal government about instances of government wrongdoing.

    See? No need for the media. They can come right to us and tell us what we're doing wrong. And we'll fix it, lickety-split, and no harm will ever come to the whistleblower whose story it would be a crime to publish.

    Fuckin scary.

  • John||

    What is scary is that I think Sensenbrenner is so stupid and out of touch he actually believes that shit.

  • Scarcity||

    Amendment 1, amended:

    Congress shall make no law not really really important to the general welfare respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech except speech about Congress or their buddies in the other branches , or of the press (proposed) except in cases where said press desires to give the government a black eye or a yucky day; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble unless there are more than a few of them, in which case Congress can regulate the shit out of that gathering, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances which shall be promptly ignored.

  • ||

    the issue is that there should be no special exception for the media. here in the 21st century, especially, with the intertoobs and all, we are ALL the media.

    the "professional journalists' hate and deride the "bloggers in their pajamas" but some of the most important journalism is done by people with jobs other than journalism, who blog or whatever in their spare time.

    if the "media" gets that protection, then EVERYBODY should get that protection.

    just like i believe anybody with a cell phone camera, etc. should be 100% free to record police etc. in public (and police should be free to record people in public to protect themselves from false complaints).

    there should be no special favors for 'professional journalists' when it comes to such critical protection

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The political scandal of the day is over when Mitt Romney actually stopped working for Bain. Was it 2002 or 1999?

    Fortune favors the Mittster.

  • Pip||

    What's sad is that when I come home from work tonight, Al Sharpton will still be crowing about Romney lying. That POS should be in jail.

    BTW, it's on when I come home because I leave the TV on loud to make it sound as if someone is home. With the volume st at 80, MSNBC is significantly louder than CNN or FOX.

  • Mo||

    The whole, he left in February, so he's not responsible for shit that happened in August that year is pretty transparent bullshit though. Anyone who has done anything involving corporate planning or strategy (which a major outsourcing shift would entail), knows that the decisions are made and funding is budgeted in the spring/fall of the prior year. That said, none of this shit really matters.

  • Rasilio||

    Um I have a question for Joe Pa's family. How would they know if he helped cover up Sandusky being a sexual predator?

    I mean this is not exactly something you bring up around the dinner table...

    "Oh hi honey, sorry I am home late but it looks like ole Jerry was buggering another small boy and I had to stay behind to make sure there were no traces left behind"

    It is very reasonable to believe that if he hid this information from authorities to protect his and the universities reputation that he would also hide it from his family.

  • John||

    That is a good point. They wouldn't know. All they know is that he was a great guy to them and they loved him. So it can't be true.

    Everyone has a mother. Even Hitler had a girlfriend. For that reason I really don't care what the Paterno family has to say about this. And I wish the media would stop wasting time interviewing them.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Are you kidding - and miss out on all the human interest?

    What would you have the media do instead - research these stories themselves? There are courts and commissions for that! The media just waits for courts or investigators to come up with something juicy, then they go to some grieving relative and ask how they feel.

    Not to mention recycling press releases from groups which share their politics. So there's that, too.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Damn it, Penn State, you're sucking the oxygen out of the circumcision thread!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Now it's picked up, excellent...

  • SugarFree||

    Even Hitler had a girlfriend.

    Hasn't Tulpa suffered enough abuse for today?

  • ||

    Probably not.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I wouldn't worry about it, he likes the abuse. Relishes it, even.

  • Loki||

    No shit, what do they expect them to say? "Gee, I guess it turns out the loving husband and father we all knew was actually a shithead who was more concerned about his own reputation and reputation of his football program and university than protecting little boys from being ass-raped in the shower by a sick pedophile. Oh well, everyone's got there skeletons to hide I guess."

    Of course they're going to do everything they can to deny as much wrong doing on Joe Pa's part as they can.

    The thing I really don't get is why the fuck did they keep Sandusky on the payroll? You'd think at the very least they would have asked him to resign for "personal reasons" or something when McQuerry first brought up the whole "I saw Sandusky rapeing a child in the shower thing"?

  • John||

    They caught him in the shower with kids in 1998. And did nothing. And then get this. After being told he wouldn't be the head coach, Sandusky decided to retire asking if he could continue to be associated with Penn State running a middle school football camp and continuing to work with kids. Paterno hand wrote on the note "Volunteer position Positive Action for Youth".

    Words fail.

  • Loki||

    Oh it was a "positive action" alright...

    I suspect I already know the answer to my query wrt why they kept around: he was probably a good assistant coach, and winning football games, like Joe Pa and the football program as a whole's reputation, is far more important than stopping a sick pedophile from buggering little boys.

  • Loki||

    BTW, things like this make me glad I went to a college that had no football team.

  • Generic Stranger||

    BTW, things like this make me glad I went to a college that had no football team.

    Why? Covering this kind of shit up isn't unique to football, or even sports for that matter. It's something that any kind of large institution can succumb to. Just look at the Catholic church.

  • Rasilio||

    This is absolutely true, if a Nobel winning economist or physicist at some University was caught doing this a coverup is at least equally likely.

  • John||

    I think what happened was they knew it was going on and didn't report it because they didn't want the university and football program to be embarrassed. Once they did that they were committed. They had to cover up the 2001 incident and anything else they saw because reporting that would reveal how they had covered up for other incidents.

  • John||

    I also think they thought that they could get Sandusky to stop. They were total morons. If you are so far gone you are buggering young boys in the shower, you really don't have much impulse control or judgment. So appeals to your sense of propriety are probably not going to work.

  • db||

    I could see this as an extension of some sort of weird sports locker room culture. I didn't play any team sports in high school or college so I don't know much about it but I always thought there was something creepy about the whole group showering and locker room humor thing. It's not a far leap for me to believe that some sports people looked at this and thoughtalong the lines that Sandusky showering with the kids was maybe a little weird but not deviant, given the general weirdness of sports culture anyway.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That sounds like a good idea for a whiny emo song: "Even Hitler Had a Girlfriend."

  • A Serious Man||

    FBI investigation into possible civil rights violations by George Zimmerman releases initial report. Conclusion is that Zimmerman is probably not a racist, although the investigation is still ongoing.

  • John||

    That is damn white of them to admit that.

  • Rich||

    Those secret racists are the worst.

  • Mike M.||

    The political scandal of the day is over when Mitt Romney actually stopped working for Bain. Was it 2002 or 1999?

    Heh. The administration still won't come clean on Fast and Furious, and this is the scummy vermin in the media's idea of what constitutes a "scandal".

  • nicole||

    While the medical uses could revolutionize the way doctors diagnose illness, and any technology that could replace an aggressive pat-down is tempting, there's a potential dark side to this implementation, and we need to shine some light on it before it's implemented.

    Actually, I'd prefer not to replace an aggressive pat-down with technology. You can see the aggressive pat-down. It's a good reminder of...what it actually is.

  • ||

    and fwiw, pat downs, aggressive or not, BY DEFINITION are for weapons and weapons only.

    not drugs or other 'contraband'

    see: terry v. ohio

    a SEARCH (aggressive or not) may be for evidence, but a pat down is purely for weapons (which can be evidence or not...)

  • SugarFree||

  • Caleb Turberville||

    libertarian snark:

    So the big bad corporations (ESPN, Nike) are doing their part, so when's the state-funded university gonna jump on board?

  • DEG||

    Maybe after the state pulls its funding.

    HAH! Somehow I doubt even this situation will convince the state government to pull PSU funding.

    I've always tossed the PSU fundraising letters in the trash. I got offended when PSU got especially whiney about the state not giving them all the money they wanted. Now I have a new reason to be offended at those fundraising letters.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Correction: the Penn State report was compiled by former FBI director Louis Freeh, but as a private consultant. It was not an FBI investigation.

  • db||

    Yes, this report was commissioned by the PSU Board of Trustees.

  • Ryan the Sea Lion||

    Regarding the backlash against the sadistic rite of the sons of Abraham, or in more neutral terms, male genital mutilation:

    "If there were a medical problem, for the last 1,000 years, nobody said one word."

    How about these words: Hey! My foreskin is hacked off and gone forever! I will never enjoy the fullness of male genital pleasure. When my cock gets hard, the skin is so taut the whole thing bends savagely to the left.

    Also, what about an "ethical problem" ... like, hey, jeez, I sure would have appreciated the option to have kept my penis intact. Or like, okay, Jewish law is fine for you... just fine enough that you can hack away at your own penis, but not so fine that you can bring your son's cock in for an involuntary trimming.

  • John||

    How about you just stay out of other people's business and let them live how they want to? And circumcision is done for medical reasons all over the world, including nearly every American gentile. So it is not like they are doing something beyond the norm.

    Should religions get to do anything? No. But they should get to do things that are within reason. If you don't like that, then admit you are just a statist totalitarian or anti Semite or both and move on.

  • ||

    not stating my opinion on circumcision, but calling bullshit on the statistical claim that "nearly every american gentile" has a circumcision

    i'm nearly certain you are incorrect, unless you are using some bogus definition of "nearly every" which should be equivalent to 90%+

    and i am 100% certain that nowhere near 90%+ of american gentiles get circumcisions.

    american gentile males, specifically :)

  • Hell's Librarian||

    I dunno, it seemed to be the default position at the hospital in which I gave birth (Catholic teaching hosp). I had to specifically say I DID NOT want my kid to be circumsized, should I have a son rather than a daughter.

  • Fluffy||

    Actually, John is dating himself.

    In our generation I'll bet it was 95%.

    I saw ONE uncircumcised dick in a locker room in the first 35 years of my life. We were in camp. Guys came running from all over to see it, like it was a UFO or something. I think half the kids didn't even know that such a thing existed or could exist.

    Boomer Gentiles and Generation X gentiles were circumcised in massive numbers. Massive.

  • nicole||

    It's true. It's much, much less common now, though still considered the "default" by most gentiles, probably.

  • Graphite||

    And it's certainly not the case that nearly every American gentile is circumcised "for medical reasons," which are legitimately indicated in what, maybe 1% of all circumcisions that are performed?

  • Caleb Turberville||

    How about waiting until the person is old enough to decide before performing a circumcision on him?

  • John||

    What about all of the non Jews whose parents did it on the advice of a doctor? This is totally the prerogative of the parent.

  • Ryan the Sea Lion||

    John the Genital Mutilator

  • Caleb Turberville||

    I understand giving parents the prerogative to decide medical matters for their children. But from the logic of the German court's decision, circumcision is considered an unnecessary* medical procedure that mutilates the child for life, so they child's welfare is at stake, and the parents have no say in the matter. If we assume the medical science to be true, isn't this a reasonable protection of the child's rights?

    *Especially if you factor in customary religious circumcision, which is done with or without medical advice.

  • ||

    They're only unnecessary if you don't mind paying for even more costly procedures down the road.

    Simmons et al. report that the foreskin's presence "frequently predisposes to medical problems, including balanitis, phimosis, venereal disease and penile cancer"

    I don't know about you, but anything that decreases my chances of penile cancer would probably be worth it.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    I haven't read the arguments you've presented.

    What I have generally heard with regard to the medical necessity of circumcision is that it decreases the likelihood of sexually-transmitted diseases. This I find odd, since there are other, less invasive means of protection against STDs.

    But, if the mere presence of the foreskin increases the likelihood of non-communicable diseases, that, at least on the surface, sounds like a good enough reason to give circumcision some thought.

  • Ryan the Sea Lion||

    DesigNate: Why stop with the foreskin? We can have those benefits and more by simply removing the entire penis. No need to wait for this baby to reach a decision-making age. The whole organ has got to go, for the baby's own good.

  • ||

    Yay, more appeals from emotion.

  • Graphite||

    What are the odds of getting penile cancer with and without circumcision? Why should the foreskin be uniquely considered the only body part worth preemptively removing in order to prevent rare and treatable forms of cancer?

    Balanitis and phimosis are prevented by proper hygiene. Why should the foreskin be uniquely considered the only body part worth removing in order to avoid having to wash it?

  • Graphite||

    Just to put this one BS medical justification in perspective: every year, roughly 4 times as many *men* are diagnosed with breast cancer as are diagnosed with penile cancer.

  • Ryan the Sea Lion||

    "In 1999 the American Academy of Pediatrics ruled that, in fact, there was no compelling reason to circumcise boys, other than religious and/or cultural ones."

    http://www.thehastingscenter.o.....z20RmXZ0HY

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    There is an aesthetic appeal. My wife likes my circumcised dick. She 's tried both kinds, and prefers circumcised.

  • ChicagoTom||

    There is an aesthetic appeal. My wife likes my circumcised dick. She 's tried both kinds, and prefers circumcised.

    And some chicks dig tattoos too...Why shouldn't I be allowed to tattoo my son?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Go for it, tattoo your son. Just keep your filthy hands off my dick, and my son's dick. Thanks.

  • Ryan the Sea Lion||

    While you're at it, keep your own hands (and your doctor's or mohel's) off your son's dick, too.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You know, we (as in the HR commentariat) could be having an interesting discussion as to the origin of rights and what limits, if any, children have as to what rights they can claim as rational, moral agents.

    However, it's much easier to sling shit at each other while screaming "DICKS! JOOOZ! DICKS AND JOOZ!"

  • ||

    So what's your take on those limits HM?

    Obviously, at least to me, children aren't chattel property but it's not like they are fully informed autonomous beings that should be left to their own devices either.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    children aren't chattel property but it's not like they are fully informed autonomous beings that should be left to their own devices either

    I agree, if we are to agree with the Lockean argument that rights are derived from the ability to reason then children, who don't have a fully developed capacity to reason, should have appropriate limits placed upon their ability to exercise their rights until they demonstrate that their capacity to reason is developed.

  • ||

    That sounds reasonable. Although one could argue that that opens the door for 26 year olds to still be considered children that should have limits placed on their rights. Hmm....

  • Ryan the Sea Lion||

    Boring.

    I came here exclusively for dicks and jooz.

  • Graphite||

    This whole women having a preference thing is kind of a mystery to me, because they look pretty similar when they're erect and the foreskin is retracted. Do women really care about the differences in appearance of one flaccid dick vs. another?

    If it's good enough to be on Michaelangelo's David ....

  • nicole||

    In my experience, it's mostly a matter of American women of sexytime-having age being relatively unlikely to have gotten intimate with one, and being scared of what you (a) don't know and (b) have been taught to think was gross.

  • robc||

    Although Ive seen it in person, I dont remember enough about David to know, but if accurate, shouldnt it have been circumcized, what with David being a jew and all?

  • ChicagoTom||

    What about all of the non Jews whose parents did it on the advice of a doctor? This is totally the prerogative of the parent.

    Gotta agree with John.

    Whether you want to mutilate your child's genitals (male and female circumcision included) , use faith healing or refuse proper treatment whatsoever for your child based on your deeply held religious beliefs, give your kid a tattoo, give wisdom weed (which Rastafarians believe) or even sacrifice that child as a gift to your pagan god you as a parent should be allowed that right.

    The child has no rights. It is merely chattel at the mercy of the whims of the parent.

    Right?

  • Ryan the Sea Lion||

    You did it, Tom. I'm convinced and converted.

    Where's the sacrificial stone?

  • Fluffy||

    Dude, this is like saying that we should jail women who don't breastfeed.

    Not breastfeeding potentially has health impacts on the child. But guess what? Not everybody wants to do it.

    If we were talking about removing a leg, I'd be right with you. But male circumcision is an absolutely trivial act. In health terms, it's probably more trivial than failing to breastfeed, or smoking in the house where your kid lives. If we're going to let people do that, I can't see how we can bar circumcision.

    Just because a bunch of (deleted) are neurotically obsessed with the idea that there's some sensation out there they haven't experienced is no reason to change a longstanding cultural practice.

  • nicole||

    Are easier handjobs a reason to change a longstanding cultural practice?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    By easier, do you mean the mechanics of the act is easier, or do you mean that women would be more willing to give handjobs?

    Jus' curious.

  • nicole||

    The former (which may lead to the latter).

  • ||

    But couldn't that lead to lazier, less skillful handjob performance?

  • nicole||

    I guess it depends whether your starting point is "she's good at this and does it" or "she thinks this is annoying and doesn't."

  • Graphite||

    Breastfeeding at least requires effort and output on the mother's part, so there is sort of an activity/inactivity distinction to be drawn here. A circumcision ban doesn't commit anyone to providing a service for months or years, it simply asks that they refrain from altering their children's bodies for largely trivial (i.e. religious or esthetic) reasons. Hell, it even saves them money.

    I think there's a legit argument to be made that smoking with your kids in the house or the car should be illegal (and I say that even while believing that the health risks of secondhand smoke are way way overblown).

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Is it a parent's perogative to carve lightening bolt shaped scars in thier baby's forhead because they really liked the Harry Potter novels?

  • Ryan the Sea Lion||

    I believe such an undertaking is best described as a Duty.

  • OO=======D||

    "I will never enjoy the fullness of male genital pleasure."

    I can help you with that.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    the Catholic Episcopal Conference calling it "extremely disconcerting".

    "To ban circumcision is a serious attack on religious freedom," said Catholic Bishop Heinrich Mussinghoff.

    http://www.reuters.com/article.....F020120628

  • ChicagoTom||

    "To ban circumcision is a serious attack on religious freedom," said Catholic Bishop Heinrich Mussinghoff.

    And so would a ban on female circumcision, right?

    We can't encroach on anyones deeply held beliefs.

  • ||

    Removing someone's clit is not analgous to removing the foreskin. That would be like cutting the entire penis off.

  • Mo||

    FGM has many definitions, from a simple pinprick (most common) to removing the clitoral hood (most similar to male circumcision) to removing the whole clitoris.

  • ||

    When someone brings up FGM they invariably are referring to complete removal. At least that's been my experience, especially with the people that get super fanatical about it like Tom and Ryan.

    (I know that's anecdotal, but I'm too lazy to see what most people really mean when they try to compare the two.)

  • Ryan the Sea Lion||

    Yeah, those fanatics against carving off the most sensitive part of SOMEONE ELSE's penis!

  • ||

    Are you really that mad at your parents bro?

  • ant1sthenes||

    "And so would a ban on female circumcision, right?"

    Is female circumcision in the Koran? If not, it might be attack on guardianship, but not on religious freedom.

  • Mo||

    It doesn't say anything about birth control in the Bible, yet the RCC says that birth control policy is a religious thing.

  • ||

    The birth control policy is a religious thing because it stems from the deeply held belief that every sperm is sacred/bc interferes with God's plan.

    I myself (as a former RC) don't believe that, but far be it from me to tell them they have to provide it to employees.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Fair enough. Although one could twist the Onan story to support a Biblical ban on non-procreative sex.

  • Mo||

    You've gotta twist pretty hard that it applies generally rather than for simply not listening to Yahweh and disregarding Levirate union.

  • nicole||

    So, remind me whose religious freedom is being impinged on here? The child's? Because infants have religions?

    I simply don't see how it is okay to do this unless children are chattel.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Religious freedom traditionally includes the right to impose one's religious views on one's children. Unlike non-religious folk, religious folk believe that religion is actually important for a person's well-being, and so they consider doing so to be important for their child's well-being.

    And children don't have legal autonomy, over their bodies or otherwise. It's a difficult balancing act, because the purpose of depriving them of autonomy is not to degrade or harm them, but to help ensure they make it in one piece to an age where they are mentally capable of autonomy.

    How do you feel about piercing an infant's ears, by the way?

  • ||

    Piercing an infants ears? How dare you!

  • Graphite||

    Piercing an infant's ears is a weird, creepy thing to do.

  • nicole||

    How do you feel about piercing an infant's ears, by the way?

    100% immoral

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    How do you feel about piercing an infant's ears, by the way?

    100% immoral

    Please tell me you're joking.

  • nicole||

    Sorry, no. Weren't you the one who said we could be having a serious discussion about the problems of libertarianism and its dealings with children?

    I have not always believed this, and I'm not sure I always will, but at the moment I am quite uncomfortable with the idea of having children, since they can't consent to it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    As I have argued before, I don't believe parents necessarily need the consent of their children before undertaking certain actions. If one accepts that children haven't fully developed their capacity to reason, and that rights are established by reason (otherwise, we couldn't do anything to animals without their consent either), then one must accept that children do not have the same claim to rights until they can demonstrate that their capacity to reason has been developed.

    Now, for cultural reasons, I can see why you might object to pierced ears for an infant, as it is something not normally done in middle-class American culture; however, it is quite common in other places in the world. (India, S.E. Asia, parts of China, and Latin America, in my personal experience.) Furthermore, piercing causes no harm to the child with the exception of the temporary pain when the earlobes are being pierced.

  • nicole||

    I didn't grow up middle class enough to not have been exposed to a ton of pierced ears in little kids and babies. And since I have pierced ears, I know it doesn't hurt. But I have little holes in my ears that will never go away. Fortunately, it was my choice.

  • Graphite||

    How about splitting your infant's tongue halfway down the middle? Or using those spacers that stretch the earlobes out to 4x their normal size?

  • Graphite||

    Something like this maybe, good look for a kid in a stroller: http://s3.amazonaws.com/bzzage.....ng-lrg.png

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    How about splitting your infant's tongue halfway down the middle? Or using those spacers that stretch the earlobes out to 4x their normal size?

    If it were acceptable in the infant's culture, then why not? Or do you think we need to start a war with Thailand and Burma to 'freedomize' the long-necked women of the Karen tribe?

  • nicole||

    Or do you think we need to start a war

    Just to be clear, as an anarchist, all of this can only be a matter of conscience for me.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    all of this can only be a matter of conscience for me


    Well, that's what it boils down to I guess. My wife and I agreed that if we were to have a boy, we wouldn't have him circumcised. I don't believe in circumcision; although I'm not angry at my mother for choosing to circumcise me. Likewise, my wife wanted to have my daughter's ears pierced when she was an infant, as was normal in Thai culture. I explained why I thought it wasn't a good idea and my wife respected that.

    I made those choices because I believe they were they were in the best interest of my child. Liberty requires me to realize, however, that other people might have a different idea about what is in their own children's best interest. I might even consider their choices to be immoral. Liberty includes the freedom to sin, just as much as it includes the freedom to be virtuous. As long as the behavior isn't abusive, I see no reason for anyone else to get involved.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I would like to ask you all how would an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist society deal with child abuse?

    Say you find out your neighbor is physically and sexually abusing their child. You, rightly, find this immoral. How would you deal with this situation? I have an idea, but I would like to hear what others think first.

  • nicole||

    I mean, this problem is all part of why I find having children morally dubious.

    Note that I don't say morally wrong...but it seems that in order to create them and rear them you have to violate their consent a lot, and I'm not sure why parents should have the right to do that. I'm not sure anyone else should have it either (i.e., be able to do more than shun or shame the parents). But the fact that there are beings who, at the beginning of their existence, cannot consent to anything, but later become beings for whom we (as libertarians) believe consent is vital...I think is an unanswered problem for me.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I would argue that not all consent is equal. If I went up to a toddler and said, "I'll give you 4 shiny coins (quarters) for that single piece of paper (a 50 dollar bill). A good deal right, 4 is more that 1!" The kid might consent; however, I would also be committing fraud as the toddler couldn't give informed consent to the transaction. That is, the toddler doesn't have the intellectual capacity to recognize that the 50 dollar bill was of more value than the 4 quarters. (Goldbugs/real money fans be quiet for now...it's for the sake of argument!)

    Now, as a parent myself, I wouldn't say that I have a right to "violate" my daughter's consent, as much as a responsibility to keep her from harm. As my daughter, if left to her own devices, might make choices that are harmful, I have the responsibility to prevent that from happening. As my daughter grows older, and her intellectual capacity develops, her ability to make choices will also develop, and as such, she will have a greater right to her individual freedom.

    As to why create a kid? I couldn't answer you that.

  • nicole||

    As long as the behavior isn't abusive, I see no reason for anyone else to get involved.

    But sometimes what other people think is in their own child's best interest might translate to "abuse" for you. I'm just saying, it's a problem.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    But sometimes what other people think is in their own child's best interest might translate to "abuse" for you.

    Indeed. Should we allow the Christian Scientist to attempt to "pray away" their child's encephalitis? If we say no, then how do you stop them? The power of the State?

  • nicole||

    I think, probably, all you can do is shame them, shun them, and help the child, if he wishes to, escape the abusive situation. (Not kidnap the child. Provide a safe haven for a runaway.)

  • Graphite||

    If it were acceptable in the infant's culture, then why not? Or do you think we need to start a war with Thailand and Burma to 'freedomize' the long-necked women of the Karen tribe?

    There's a big difference between the statements "that cultural practice is backward and immoral" and "we should start a war to end that practice."

    Or does the fact that you (presumably) don't want war with North Korea imply that you are fine with everything the North Korean government does?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    There's a big difference between the statements "that cultural practice is backward and immoral" and "we should start a war to end that practice."

    See my comment above.

  • Graphite||

    If the Aztec culture were still around and certain sects were still practicing in the southern United States, would you be fine with them cutting out infants' hearts? Cultural acceptability has to be one of the worst possible reasons to make something legal or illegal.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If the Aztec culture were still around and certain sects were still practicing in the southern United States, would you be fine with them cutting out infants' hearts?

    No. As I argued down thread, children do have a basic right to life, so parents don't have the right to cause them irreparable harm. (And as I stated down thread, I don't believe male circumcision causes irreparable harm.)

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Define "irreparable harm"?

  • Ryan the Sea Lion||

    The "freedom to impose" eh? What a nice little dictatorship you've imagined!

    As a person of a strong religious (if autonomous) bent --and being bred by more traditionally "religious folk"-- I realize that true religious conviction or feeling cannot come externally, let alone via a scalpel. What you advocate is a 100% guarantee that said child WILL NOT make it to adulthood "in one piece" because somebody else (YHWH, Abraham, their daddy, whoever) decided to permanently cut them in two between the legs.

  • ||

    And that's why I called you a fanatic. Circumcision is not cutting someone in two between the legs.

  • ant1sthenes||

    "The "freedom to impose" eh? What a nice little dictatorship you've imagined!"

    Yes, parenthood is a dictatorship. It may allow children the privilege of autonomy, depending on parenting style and the situation, but they have no such right.

  • ||

    I love when people try to equate circumcision of the foreskin with genital mutilation. No it is NOT the same thing as cutting off a girls clit.

    And what fullness of male genital pleasure? I'm able to last longer and my wife doesn't get grossed out by having to worry about this when she goes down on me.

  • ChicagoTom||

    I love when people try to equate circumcision of the foreskin with genital mutilation. No it is NOT the same thing as cutting off a girls clit.

    What is the difference exactly?

    In both cases you are mutilating the genitals of a child without their consent because of your beliefs.

    You don't get to just claim "They're different" without explaining how/why they are different.

  • ||

    This is why you condescending prick:

    http://www.billcasselman.com/d.....md_six.htm

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In both cases you are mutilating the genitals of a child without their consent because of your beliefs.

    Well, I believe that the little bastards deserve some payback for what they do to their mothers' genitals.

    It's disconcerting to drive down a 4-lane highway, when you're used to cruising down a 2-lane highway.

  • db||

    The utilitarian argument doesn't hold water here. It's a principled matter. Either it's OK to cut the flesh of another human being without their informed consent or it's not. I'm willing to make exceptions for immediately life threatening conditions, but the claimed health benefits of circumcision don't manifest until significantly later in life.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Either it's OK to cut the flesh of another human being without their informed consent or it's not.

    Eh. I'm not sure I buy that line of argumentation. What you're saying is that if I take my kid to the doctor, and he attempts to give her a shot. If my kids screams "Nooo!" the doctor has to stop.

  • db||

    Okay how about if I revise my statement to say permanently remove flash from instead of cut?

  • ||

    So if my daughter gets an infection in her foot but doesn't want me to amputate I should just let the infection spread till it kills her?

    Sometimes parents are going to have to make choices of which treatments they think are appropriate. And those decisions should always be left to the parents, not the state.

  • db||

    Did you miss the part where I said immediate danger to life for health?

  • ||

    Damn, I did. Sorry bout that.

    Where's that edit button when you need it.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    So you find people who compare circumcision to FGM to be silly, but comparing it to amputating a gangrenous limb is perfectly logical?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Okay how about if I revise my statement to say permanently remove flash from instead of cut?

    Legally, I would argue that a parent should have the right to ask a doctor to permanently remove flesh, perhaps to correct a deformity (not one that threatens life, mind you, but for cosmetic reasons). Morally, I would hope that the doctor would subscribe to "first, do no harm" and as such only perform the operation if there is permanent harm.

    That having been said, I'm not convinced that male circumcision causes permanent harm. As far as I know, circumcision can be reversed.

  • Mo||

    Is it actually reversed or just cosmetically? A sex change operation doesn't mean that the person has a working vagina.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ant1sthenes||

    Not really. Kids have guardians for a reason, and deciding what treatments are appropriate for them is part of guardianship.

  • db||

    I maintain that the cosmetic portion of this practice is more important to the people involved then the health implications in most cases.

  • ant1sthenes||

    I think "cosmic" or "karmic" would have worked better.

    Either way, it's hard to know where to draw the line. Deaf parents deliberately deafening their kids is horrifying to me, but it's all on a continuum. It's not like even medical reasons aren't sometimes just fads.

  • Fluffy||

    Maybe.

    So what?

    Uncircumcised guys are fucking freaks. They may as well smear themselves in piss and cum and moose sweat and walk around. There's absolutely no way for you to convince me uncircumcised guys are clean. Ten seconds after an uncircumcised guy takes a shower that little smeg bag he's carrying HAS GOT TO smell like he ran a marathon. It HAS to.

    It would be as if I was walking around with a little flesh bag under one of my armpits. The inside of that thing would be the most disgusting place in town, ALL the time. And my armpits don't pee or cum, so that makes it that much worse.

  • nicole||

    Fluffy, it does not seem like you to be so icked out by the au naturel. I am genuinely surprised.

    This isn't directed at you, but as a woman, I hate when the aesthetic factor is brought up specifically as a matter of female preferences. Some of us are not grossed out by an awesome and natural body part. I end up posting on these threads largely because I want to help counter that assumption. Foreskin is awesome! That's right, I said it!

  • ||

    I take it you didn't click on the link in my comment at 5:43 ;)

    But seriously, obviously every woman's taste are different. A generation ago, I'd be surprised if very many women had ever seen an uncircumcised penis. But now and going into the future? It'll be more and more common and maybe the majority of society will decide they prefer the uncut look.

    But that will be achieved without coercion by the state into what what many people believe is an essential tennant of being part of the Abrahamic tradition.

  • nicole||

    I agree. But I also think it's wrong to do without an immediate medical reason.

  • shamalam||

    Designate, your link to smegma is silly. That is what soap and water is for, it cleanses. A simple daily shower will wash away all the coodies. You won't get swampass and you won't get smegma.

    Why not post some pictures of decaying teeth to promote prophylactic tooth removal?

  • Brett L||

    What if it used to save them from infection that rendered them impotent? Or protects them (somewhat) from contracting AIDS (which it does -- uncircumcized men have a disproportionate amount AIDS in male populations.)

    If you've never dealt with people who don't bother to clean their infant's foreskins, which my nurse/social worker ex-gf did, you might think its torture. Try horrible infant infections that can endanger their lives.

  • Graphite||

    People who bring up smegma should be disqualified from circumcision debates IMO. It's like using a picture of head lice to argue that everyone should shave themselves bald.

  • ||

    Why isn't it a legitimate part of the debate? The argument against circumcision is wrapped up in the sensitivity lost during sexual stimulation. If you've got it your chances of sexual stimulation are going to decrease. And it presents a real medical danger to the man if it is not cleaned away properly.

    In all honesty, that's probably the reason the Jews started the practice in the first place: being nomadic and living in the desert regions of the middle east doesn't present you with a lot of opportunities to clean yourself well. Cutting off the foreskin makes it that much easier.

  • nicole||

    Yeah. And back in the day people used to shave their heads and wear wigs, because hygiene was worse.

    Now we have showers.

  • Graphite||

    Smegma, just like head lice, is a pretty rare condition which is easily taken care of and prevented by proper hygiene. For those very rare, unlucky few who have a serious, chronic problem with it, there's always plenty of time to circumcise once they reach an age where they can make that decision for themselves.

    Women get it too, you know.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    What up with the UK, Seriously who wants to live there.

    the UK will send its citizens to jail for up to five years if they cannot produce the key to an encrypted data set.
  • ||

    there's some really interesting case law on this type of stuff in the US. been discussed in the past at volokh.com

  • nicole||

    I've only seen US stuff on whether you can be forced to cough up passwords you know; this sounds like some crazy shit though:

    You’re going to be sent to jail for an inability to unlock something that the police think is encrypted. Yes, this is where the hairs rise on our arms: if you have a recorded file with radio noise from the local telescope that you use for generation of random numbers, and the police asks you to produce the decryption key to show them the three documents inside the encrypted container that your radio noise looks like, you will be sent to jail for up to five years for your inability to produce the imagined documents.
  • ||

    Developers of a new laser scanning system process claim it can read people down to the molecule, able to find traces of drugs and gunpowder on their bodies and can even tell what’s going on inside them. The Department of Homeland Security is interested, the anonymously written Gizmodo piece claims, so that should add some more fun at the airport.

    The greatest medical diagnostic break through in the history of the world!!

    ...and we are going to use it to find cocaine in peoples noses at airports.

    BRILLIANT!!!!

  • Rich||

    Yet another reason to rub everything with essence of female dog.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    To restore some tastefulness to this thread:

    Jihadi warriors trained in carrying explosives in their butts. To make their butts more capacious, it is necessary to enlarge them through submitting to sodomy. Theological rational follows:

    "However, jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it. For the overarching rule of [Islamic] jurisprudence asserts that “necessity makes permissible the prohibited.” And if obligatory matters can only be achieved by performing the prohibited, then it becomes obligatory to perform the prohibited, and there is no greater duty than jihad. After he sodomizes you, you must ask Allah for forgiveness and praise him all the more. And know that Allah will reward the jihadis on the Day of Resurrection, according to their intentions—and your intention, Allah willing, is for the victory of Islam, and we ask that Allah accept it of you."

  • Eduard van Haalen||

  • sasob||

    So it's not enough that one stick a bomb up one's ass and blow oneself to hell for Allah, but the good jihadist must also firstly submit to having the "pinnacle of Islam" rammed up the old fartpipe, too. Because "necessity makes permissible the prohibited," ie. the end justifies the means. Ah, but sublimation is a wondrous thing, isn't it?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement