NSA Reform Bill Introduced, Men Arrested in Nigeria For Being Gay, Hollande Enjoying Increased Approval in Wake of Reports of Affair: P.M. Links

Credit: DonkeyHotey / Foter.com / CC BYCredit: DonkeyHotey / Foter.com / CC BY

  • Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has introduced legislation that would reform the NSA’s metadata collection program.
  • The husband of a brain-dead, pregnant woman is suing the hospital in Texas keeping her alive, saying that it is acting against her wishes.  
  • Dozens of men have been arrested in northern Nigeria for being gay.
  • New research shows that drug testing in high schools does not dissuade students from trying illegal drugs.
  • French President Francois Hollande is enjoying an increased approval rating in the wake of reports that he has been engaging in an affair with an actress.
  • Washington, D.C. lawmakers are to vote on getting rid of criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana tomorrow. 

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.  You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here.

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Y'ello.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Sup.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    G'day.

  • ||

    Y'ello, Herb Tarlek here.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Washington, D.C. lawmakers are to vote on getting rid of criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana tomorrow.

    DC is sending mixed signals.

  • playa manhattan||

    The city council, not the feds.

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    DC is encouraging marijuana use!

    \davidbrooks

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    French President Francois Hollande is enjoying an increased approval rating in the wake of reports that he has been engaging in an affair with an actress.

    Really? I don't see his new broad as much of an upgrade

  • BigT||

    Guerre sur les femmes!

  • PapayaSF||

    Indeed, cheating on her with her?

  • Killaz||

    In his defense the other her doesn't look like a total bitch.

  • waffles||

    Hollande does look very French, and not in a good way like Sarkozy.

  • Zeb||

    Sarkozy. Who wasn't very French (in his ancestry, anyway)

  • Killaz||

    He got the dapper sophisticate down pat, so there is that.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Why do these short frog leaders get such hot chicks all the time? I guess tall and strong are turn-offs to French ladies. Does a French woman's turn-ons list go something like:

    Short Men (like LeBeau from Hogan's Heroes) with equally diminuitive penises
    Men who smoke Gitanes
    Men who want to tax the rich 75% and think they will sit and happily pay it

    I don't think I'd do too well in France, but Robert Reich should clean up there. Too bad for me, I could always go for a Brigitte Bardot type.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    No matter how good a woman looks, there is a man who is sick of putting up with her shit.

  • GILMORE||

    touché!

    (*note = I got the following warning:

    "Your comment does not appear to be written in an English script. Please comment in English"

  • ||

    Lots of comments came through in spanglish yesterday. Maybe the squirrels are clamping down.

  • Entropy Void||

    Oui,oui!

  • CE||

    Why go out for Burger King when you have McDonald's at home?

  • ||

    It is an upgrade strictly aesthetically speaking but both are sexy and seemingly sensual in their own way.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Feeney should be arrested for being alt-text-less.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    French President Francois Hollande is enjoying an increased approval rating in the wake of reports that he has been engaging in an affair with an actress.

    Now that's how you do a war on women. Or wives, at least.

  • BigT||

    Guerre sur les femmes!

    Oops, this goes here.

  • ||

    I wish I could say the French are idiots but I'm not so sure this wouldn't be the case in most countries in the West.

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    I wasn't around in the JFK days but it makes me wonder if the Marilyn revelations bumped his approval rating one way or the other

  • ||

    So does anyone know the point of "sister cities"? It seems to me like it's just an excuse to send the mayor on vacation to a foreign country.

  • rts||

    Wiki

    The US sister city program formally began in 1956 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed a people-to-people, citizen diplomacy initiative. Originally a program of the National League of Cities, Sister Cities International became a separate corporation in 1967, due to the growth and popularity of the U.S. program.[37] Sister Cities International is now a non-profit citizen diplomacy network that creates and strengthens partnerships between communities in the US and other countries, through the establishment of sister cities. More than 2,000 cities, states and counties are partnered in 136 countries.[37][38] It organises cultural exchanges and provides support and funding.
  • Tonio||

    Interesting. Local press reports indicated that our local leaders were doing this on the taxpayers' dime, but maybe that was another junket.

  • ||

    I'm curious where their funding comes from.

    Q. Do you provide funding for projects?

    Sister Cities International does not provide funding for unsolicited projects or exchanges. However, we do provide funding for dues-paying sister city organizations through grants or other organizations as they become available. These usually have a geographic or programmatic focus and have other requirements depending on the grant. For more information on current grant programs please visit the Grants section of the member area. All grant application opportunities are announced on our website and through member updates. To sign up for our mailing list simply create an account on our website at www.sister-cities.org and make sure you do not opt out of receiving Sister Cities International’s emails.
  • Tonio||

    Folks, we have a winnah! Tell him what he gets, Johnny.

    But not just the mayor, often the city council, chamber of commerce members and any other hangers on that can get on the junket. All on the taxpayer's dime, of course.

  • PD Scott||

    If your city has two sister cities, are they also sister cities or sister-cities-in-law?

  • tarran||

    They are a harem of cities.

  • Zeb||

    If you have two sisters, how many sisters do you have?

  • Pope Jimbo||

    The holy grail of junkets in the eyes of a politician. A three-way with two sister cities?

    It has to be more fun to go on a bender in you exotic sister city than it is to go visit your wife neighborhood. All they do is nag, nag, nag you about the potholes and taxes.

  • ||

    They're sister wives cities.

  • CE||

    Isn't calling them sister cities some form of micro-aggression on a large scale?

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Dear Prudence: Help! My boyfriend keeps pressuring me to have a threesome!

    My boyfriend "Ted" and I have been together for nine months, and we've been living together for the last six (yes, I realized that we moved in together very fast). We support each other, share responsibilities well, and have an active and engaging sex life. I see myself spending the rest of my life with Ted. Ted has a sexual bucket list, and No. 1 is a threesome. He mentions wanting to have a threesome at least a few times a week, and points out various women in my life, like my co-workers, as potentially the third participant. At this point, I'm incredibly uncomfortable engaging in a threesome, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Ted says that a threesome is something he would do only before we're married, because after that it would be weird. What do I do? Do I cave and have a threesome because it's something that's really important to him? Do I give him his freedom to have a threesome with two other girls, knowing I probably won't be OK with it after it happens?

    The advice is good: start asking him if you can have an MMF threesome with one of his sexy coworkers.

    But the best advice would be this: before you breakup with him, ask him why he wants the opportunity to disappoint two women in bed.

  • ||

    They moved in together after three months?

  • PD Scott||

    Maybe one of their leases was up?

  • ||

    Yeah, there certainly could be a good reason (then again, she didn't bring it up), but it's still a bit odd IMO.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *shrugs*

    My wife and I started living together after dating for about 3 to 4 months. Then we got married 3 months after that. 3 months after that, I knocked her up.

    The insta-family worked for me, but YMMV.

  • ||

    Serious question: what race do(es) your kid(s) look like?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    My daughter is basically a clone of my wife. Fair-skinned Asian, with her hair being the perfect combination of my curly-ish and my wife's straight. According to my friend, I "flicker" across my daughter's face

  • ||

    Human history probably shows the most common way is to knock her up then two to three months later you marry and move in together on the same day.

  • Sudden||

    Wait, based on part of your ethnic makeup you were supposed to do it in the following order: knock her up then move in with her. Marriage was not supposed to enter the equation.

    You sir are no true scotsblackman

  • Rufus J. Fisk||

    all that microaggression!!! We need laws!~

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'm also amazed by the good advice for the following question:

    Our toddler has been in a wonderful day care center since September, and she has grown particularly attached to her primary caregiver, a young single woman in her late 20s. She and I recently shared a casual conversation about dating, and she emailed me with a sweet video of our daughter and offered to babysit if needed. I looked her up on Facebook, and one 10-month old post—registering gleeful delight after a weekend shooting various guns, and declaring her interest in getting a gun permit—caught my attention. While we realize her adventure, and wish, are entirely legal, this makes both my husband and me very uncomfortable since we have absolutely no interest in having guns anywhere near our child, our family, or our home. Prudie, what should we do? Tell the director of the day care? Just avoid hiring her to babysit our child? Simply chalk this up to the Second Amendment?
  • ||

    What an enormous pair of weeping vulvas.

  • ||

    weeping vulvas

    ew

  • ||

    Yeah, we shit all over that one earlier.

  • ||

    While Prudie's advice was good, I thought it was funny that she thinks it would be alarming if the nanny had a gun on her at all times.

  • Pro Libertate||

    You know, I'm pro-gun, too, but I've got some mixed feelings about my nanny being armed. I mean, it's not like everyone is a master in gun safety.

  • ||

    What if she needs to defend herself against your little bastards? She has rights too.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Not on my payroll, she doesn't. As a classicist, I subscribe to Patria Potestas. The magazine, I mean.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    If I had kids I'd probably be reticent to trust anyone to be armed around them, so it is not unreasonable for them to ask that she not bring a gun to the job.

    But in this case they seem freaked out at the very thought that she might own a gun and enjoy shooting it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If I had kids I'd probably be reticent to trust anyone to be armed around them

    I'm curious as to why. If I trusted anyone to be around my kids, I'd trust them enough not to murder them by firearm, or blade, flame, or witchcraft for that matter.

  • Agammamon||

    Eh, there's levels of trust. The person who seems ok in feeding and watering the sprogs may not be 'together' enough to make a mistake in a high-stress situation. That's something you can't know until it happens.

    I say though, just have her leave the gun in the locked glove-box when she's working.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    When I say that, I mean I wouldn't want them to watch the kids alone while armed.

    It doesn't seem necessary and like Pro L. said you can't assume everyone who carries is good with gun safety.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I see your point.

  • Floridian||

    Your house, your rules. If she doesn't like it take another job. However it might be good to have a conversation with your nanny and if she is responsible, she could offer more protection for your kids against home invasion/child abduction.

  • ||

    I would be slightly leery of a nanny being armed, too. But I just thought Prudie's reaction was funny. "It's fine if she likes guns, as long as she doesn't do anything insane like carry one. Ugh. Ew ew ew."

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yeah, I have no problem with the fact of gun ownership, of course.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I agree it's your choice and you're right to be leery of any child-care providers' normal behaviors - however for a female, who is mostly told through culture to stay away from guns, to go through the process to get a concealed permit... she may well be more qualified than many others allowed currently "protecting" us.

  • Matrix||

    Tell the director of the day care? Tell him what? That his employee is doing something that is not against policy, and is perfectly legal in the hopes that he fires her? This lady needs a gun, but only so she can shoot herself in the face.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...knowing I probably won't be OK with it after it happens?

    That's your hang up, sister.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Better still, trade it for a Devil's Threeway. That should shut him up.

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    Urban dictionary thanks you for the referral

  • PD Scott||

    Dear Prudence, after resisting the idea of a threesome I've discovered how much I love DP - now it's all I think about and I haven't been satisfied by regular sex since; how do I tell my traumatized fiance?

  • Floridian||

    The MMF threesome may be number 2 on his bucket list.

  • Juice||

    I always figured that a MMF threesome would be adequate reciprocation for a MFF threesome. Call me crazy.

  • ||

    The advice is good: start asking him if you can have an MMF threesome with one of his sexy coworkers.

    That's where I was heading, although she could also suggest that he hit a bathhouse and get spitroasted if he REALLY needs to check it off his list.

    Ted says that a threesome is something he would do only before we're married, because after that it would be weird.

    For serious? I guess we can bank on any relationship him being in not lasting long enough for it to become dull, but I'd think he should hold a few things in reserve for that possibility.

  • John||

    The MMF question is a good one. There is something pretty sexist about men who would never do such a thing but then think their g/fs should suck it up and put on a show for them even though they are entirely straight.

    And the whole "once we are married it will be different" is deeply weird if you ask me. He sounds like one of those women who stop giving blowjobs after they are married. You are either down with doing something or you are not. What does marriage have to do with it?

  • ||

    Yeah that's a strange sentiment, if anything you should be getting more comfortable with your sexuality in your marriage not less.

  • John||

    I agree. But there is a certain type of women out there who sees it completely opposite. They think that there are things they try when they are single and things you do with the man you love. I am not kidding these women exist. And their husbands are often out banging whores as a result.

  • califernian||

    Actually, almost all married men are married to women like this.

  • DEG||

    I had an ex-gf who occasionally suggested that we should have a MMF threesome. I'd say, "So then afterwards we have a threesome with another woman." She'd sputter and say she "didn't want to share me".

    She is an ex now.

  • BakedPenguin||

    ...get spitroasted...

    I'd never heard this term before, yet I didn't even need Urban Dictionary to get it. Still chuckling.

  • ||

    A friend managed to sleep with two of her coworkers in succession (a few months apart) and it turns out the guys are friends and they're all talking about going on a trip. They ostensibly don't know that the other has slept with her. I've been brushing up on my references to 2+ male threesome positions as a result. Wobbly-H is probably my second favorite.

  • JW||

    They ostensibly don't know that the other has slept with her.

    They will by the end of that trip. Hopefully it will be pleasantly drunken surprise.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Prudence is probably the smartest writer at Slate. She's certainly the most interesting.

  • Irish||

    Ted says that a threesome is something he would do only before we're married, because after that it would be weird.

    What.

  • Floridian||

    I can follow that logic. Before you are married the world is your oyster. After you take the oath to commit to one woman things change.

  • playa manhattan||

    As opposed to being sorta committed while living together?

  • Floridian||

    I forgot about them living together. If his sexual desires are greater than his desire for her, then he should cut her loose and run wild until he is ready to settle down.

  • califernian||

    Ted says that a threesome is something he would do only before we're married, because after that it would be weird.

    Yeah haha he is tricking her.

    AFTER marriage is when you need that threesome badly

  • Enough About Palin||

    He mentions wanting to have a threesome at least a few times a week

    I too would like to have a threesome at least a few times a week.

  • CE||

    If it's really a bucket list, he can wait til he's in a retirement home and his wife has passed away, if he outlives her. Older ladies far outnumber older men.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Dozens of men have been arrested in northern Nigeria for being gay.

    Now that's a gay ban. Is the US still writing that country checks?

  • Tonio||

    Yes, that is an actual, bona fide, full-on gay ban. And yes, afaik, we are still writing them checks. But we write checks to many of the more repressive regimes.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    We basically write checks to anyone who asks at this point

  • ||

    For stability!

  • The Last American Hero||

    I was just glad to hear Nigeria has fixed most of its other problems so they can turn their attention to pressing issues like this one.

  • ||

    Everyone knows if you put all the homos in prison all of your other national problems solve themselves. Except gentrifying shitty neighborhoods. We kick ass at that.

  • PD Scott||

    Well, have you seen how drab most prisons are? What looks to us like extremely evil homophobia may actually be extremely evil forced penitentiarial redecoration.

  • KDN||

    I've seen pictures of the Niger delta. Clearly this is punishment for not working fast enough.

  • ||

    Actually drop in a Home Depot and some lesbians first. Nigeria needs infrastructure too.

  • Agammamon||

    You prison's aren't co-ed.

    That's the best part!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has introduced legislation that would reform the NSA’s metadata collection program.

    Targeted warrants? Apparently just like the Bill of Rights, Adam Schiff wants the terrorists to win.

  • CE||

    That's because the terrorists wrote the Bill of Rights. After defeating the government.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Parties We Should Have Instead of Weddings

    As if the premise wasn't ridiculous enough, the author is unsurprisingly one of those people who has to insert her politics into everything.

  • playa manhattan||

    Was the author trying to be funny? Fail.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I think so?

  • ||

    My cousin and his crazy ass new wife had a gender reveal party, where they expected gifts (and yes the also had a baby shower later, with gifts). I was "busy."

    Thought those were an urban legend.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Wait, like a party where they just told you that their kid was going to be a boy?

  • John||

    What the hell is a gender reveal party? I thought my gender was already revealed.

  • ||

    To both of you: they have a party after they've found out the gender of the baby and reveal during the party the result. Also, they expect free shit.

  • John||

    So it is like a pathetic baby shower? Wow. that is sorry.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    But, there is cake. You cut it open to see if there is blue or pink icing (fucking stupid, I know). But, cake.

  • John||

    Retards...cake...

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Gluten free!

  • ||

    Yes, except that they also had a baby shower.

  • BakedPenguin||

    You should have brought a wrapped package, then when they said said "boy," sigh audibly and say "I'm going to have to get this in blue." Then drink their booze.

  • ||

    You should have gone. You could have given them matching t-shirts that said "Look at me!" all over them.

  • Zeb||

    That is a really good idea. I'm going to save that for some special occasion.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Awesome.

  • GILMORE||

    Well, to be (somewhat) fair, there's a specific thing, common in NYC with Jewish couples, where you DO NOT DISCUSS THE BABY at all until after the 5th month.

    I think it stems from an older jewish tradition where they actually deny being *preggos* until the last minute, whereas now the idea is that you don't share any info re: the baby until the last 1/3.

    Does this make it any less stupid? No. But OMG jewish woman in NY Mag wants to have excuses to have more mitzvas? I am astounded.

  • ||

    What a retarded article, also not all that creative:

    The Graduation Shower:
    The Work Honeymoon. [sic]
    Student Loan Repayment Day:

    Are graduation parties not a common thing already?

    Going on a bar trip is pretty common for lawyers, I'm sure plenty of people in other professions take a trip before starting work.

    I sure as shit am having a party when my loans are done.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    I was hoping this would satisfy my desire for a list of wedding receptions where dancing was not expected.

    I failed at convincing my wife to scrap the DJ and dancing. Is it too much to ask for a reception with pool and foosball?

  • ||

    And see, I was hoping it would satisfy my desire for a nonwedding that involves MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF DANCING (that my boyfriend would be forced to participate in).

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    You are evil.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Of course, man. She's the worst.

    Where've you been?

  • PD Scott||

    How about a St Vitus theme party? You dress as medieval peasants and dance until you drop.

  • ||

    The only dancing I did at my own wedding was the obligatory ones. Damned if I'm going to dance at someone else's wedding.

  • Zeb||

    I have to say, I do think that big fancy weddings are a bit silly today for most people. For a lot of people, their wedding used to be pretty much the start of their adult life and the beginning of the couple's life together. But now, when it is so common for people to cohabitate, or at least fuck before marriage, the actual wedding isn't that big of a milestone, or really the beginning of anything, more of a formality. But chicks love that shit, so we're stuck with it. And of course I realize that many religious people see it differently.

    And wedding gifts are stupid for the same reason. You should get all those gifts when you buy a house. Maybe I'm just bitter because I didn't get shit when I got married or when I bought a house.

  • ||

    Stop microaggressing against renters.

  • Zeb||

    Would you prefer I macro-aggressed?

    I think we should go back to allowing only tax-paying land owners to vote or hold public office.

  • CE||

    Only net tax-payers should get to vote. It's their money being divvied up.

  • The Last American Hero||

    To be fair, weddings are often subject to random drone strikes.

  • Irish||

    Wife of Fox News Correspondent discusses being called a 'white man's whore' for marrying him.

    One individual even reportedly said “back in the day you cost $300, but now you’re giving it to him for free” — a comment that visibly stunned her sister.

    Huh. One would think that 'anti-racism' liberals would have a problem with this. Yet I have heard not one peep from them.

  • Calidissident||

    This would always be an idiotic and incredibly offensive thing to say to anyone, but it is extra idiotic in this considering she's half-white, from her dad. The American conception of race really is idiotic (not that it isn't in most places, but ours really has been extremely stupid historically)

  • Irish||

    but it is extra idiotic in this considering she's half-white, from her dad.

    Sure, but she's got one drop of African blood and is therefore a sister! Don't you understand? The one drop rule isn't racist if the people using it are black.

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah, I really don't understand the black people that think that way (which is by no means all black people, nor are all or most people who still think this rule is valid black). Why insist on using a racial classification system created hundreds of years ago by racist white people to oppress black and mixed-race people and maintain the "sacred purity and supremacy" of the white race?

  • Irish||

    Probably because racist ideas always go back to the same themes. The one drop rule has existed in various forms for a long time and has reoccurred in a large number of different countries. Germany had variations of it during their anti-Jew purges as did the Russians.

    Ironically, the fact that racist ideas continuously reoccur in people of all different races pretty much shows that we're all pretty much the same.

  • Calidissident||

    And the thing is, I don't think anyone really believes it. A lot of the white people who say they believe in it would probably be unpleasantly surprised to learn that they may have a black ancestor or two in the recent past (recently, some white supremacist went on a talk show and found out he's 14% black. Lol.). Likewise, I seriously doubt any of the black people who think this way would be just as fine with someone who is literally 99% white and 1% black saying the n word or identifying as black.

  • Medical Physics Guy||

  • Irish||

    In America a massive percentage of black people have white ancestry because of interbreeding in the pre-war south.

    That kind of makes a mockery of black supremacists who yearn for a return to the African motherland or white racist morons like American who think black people are magically inferior.

  • Tonio||

    Call it what it was, Irish, the rape of enslaved Africans by the people who enslaved them. Yes, there may have been some situations where something approximating consent happened, but the whole institution was so evil and f'ed up as to taint everything associated with it.

  • BigT||

    How does one get 14%? If one great-grandparent were black, then that would be 12.5% (1/8). So 14% must be must be multiple black ancestors and a lot more than 3 generations.

    Or else the tests are less accurate than implied.

  • ||

    The tests are not very precise. However, I'm sure you could get to 14% via mixed-race ancestors.

  • Zeb||

    14% black genes (however that is defined) doesn't necessarily mean that 14% of your ancestry is black.

    For example, if my father had a 100% black parent and a 100% white parent and my mother was 100% white, I could be anywhere from 0% to 50% black genetically speaking. Of course it's a bit more complicated because genes are on chomosomes. If my father's father were black, I'd be sure to have a black Y chomosome.

  • Calidissident||

    Zeb you are correct, and I was aware of that, just misphrased. Generally speaking, there's not gonna be a massive divergence. In your example, the odds of inheriting 100% genes of either race from your father are virtually zero. Of course, there are very few differences between races, and there is much more genetic variation within racial groups than between them.

  • Zeb||

    Word. Race is a stupid and completely useless concept.

    There won't be massive divergence, but odds are also low that you will inherit exactly 50% of the genes your father got from his father.

    Another interesting little fact that's fun to point out to people who think race means anything is that there is a lot more genetic variation among different populations of African black people than there is among all of the other supposed races in the world.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Absolutely. That's why children of White and Black parents can range from thia to this.

  • Calidissident||

    BigT, if you have distant ancestry from multiple branches of the family tree, you can get 14% ancestry. Plus what Zeb said below.

  • Tonio||

    See, this is why everyone should report their race as "American". It's accurate and it dilutes the power of the race hustlers.

  • Agammamon||

    Because it gives power to break people down into these categories - its not just white racists using these classifications, liberal (racists) love them to.

  • CE||

    And blood types cross races anyway.

  • John||

    Honestly, I think liberals are deeply threatened by interracial marriage. If it were ever really common, how would they use the race card anymore?

  • Calidissident||

    It would be far more difficult. And although interracial marriage is becoming more common, and the mixed-race population is growing, the rate at which that is happening is still small enough that it will take decades, if not 100 years or more, for it to have a significant effect on what you're talking about. It wasn't too long ago that interracial marriage was illegal in most of the country and (identifiably) mixed-race people were extremely rare at that time, and generally were forced to identify with one race or the other.

  • John||

    IN black and white relations it won't be a significant factor. But intermarriage is hugely common between whites and Asians and Whites and Hispanics. Progs dream of turning Hispanics into the new blacks. Literally in the words of Richard Pryor, getting them some new n*****s. But intermarriage is going to render that ridiculous in a generation or two.

  • Irish||

    That's impossible! American tells me that all the scary Mexicans are going to come here and drive the noble Anglo Saxon stock into the sea!

    Are you telling me that American might just be a racist moron who doesn't know what he's talking about?

  • ||

    I believe Merkin and his ilk refer intermarriage as "white genocide".

  • ||

    noble Anglo Saxon stock

    I read somewhere that the Anglo Saxons did not mix much with the Celt/Gual populations after they invaded.

    Pretty much just killed them and drove them into Wales and Cornwall.

    DNA studies have confirmed much of this.

  • Calidissident||

    From what I've read, DNA studies regarding that have had contradictory results. Some have indicated that English people are mostly Anglo-Saxon, and others have indicated that they're mostly indigenous.

  • ||

    I choose to ignore all studies that disagree with "mostly Anglo-Saxon" if only because Caesar described Iron Age Germans as total dicks.

  • CE||

    DNA studies regarding that have had contradictory results. Some have indicated that English people are mostly Anglo-Saxon, and others have indicated that they're mostly indigenous.

    No, they're all of African descent, just like everyone else, if you go back far enough.

  • Calidissident||

    Regarding black-white mixing, you may be right for the first generation, since this country has (and still generally does) identified half-black half-white people as "black," but those people will grow up to have their own kids, and many of them will marry white people. At some point, mixed black and white is gonna stop just being "black." You are correct, however, that black-white mixing is less common than white-Asian and white-Hispanic mixing.

  • Agammamon||

    It can happen surprisingly fast - got a friend who is half black/white she's a brunette, had a kid with a white dude and the kids is white with blonde hair.

  • ||

    That black guy on Almost Human has pretty blue eyes. (everyone on that show has pretty eyes...i think they based casting on how pretty the actors eyes are)

    I wonder if he is wearing contacts?

  • CE||

    I thought he was an android.

  • ||

    I don't see any reason to assume it's liberals saying this; maybe I just read too quickly?

    If it were ever really common, how would they use the race card anymore?

    They already do. When a white guy marries an Asian woman it's exoticism. When a white guy marries a black or Latina woman he's just leveraging his privilege against her. When a white woman marries a black man, she's gold-digging. And so on and so forth,

  • Irish||

    I don't see any reason to assume it's liberals saying this; maybe I just read too quickly?

    It's black Democrats. Not really progressives since African American Democrats tend to be pretty socially conservative. It's definitely Democrats though. Those aren't Republicans calling a black woman a white man's whore.

  • John||

    I would say it is liberals saying it because most blacks are liberals and no way would white people have the balls to say it.

    Also, the woman is married to a Fox News guy. Saying horrible and inappropriate things about Fox News people is what Progs do.

  • ||

    no way would white people have the balls to say it.

    FTA:

    The actress shared specific examples of the comments that have been directed at her primarily on Twitter, saying she’s been called a “white man’s whore” among other insults.

    I'm not trying to be obstinate, but there are plenty of white, nominally conservative/Repulican folks who would say such things on Twitter under a veil of psuedonymity.

  • Calidissident||

    I agree with John and Irish that most people who would say that phrase are probably black, but I agree with you that there are definitely white people who think "people should stick to their own kind" who would also say that, especially on the Internet.

  • Irish||

    Yes, but they wouldn't phrase it as 'white man's whore' or by claiming that she's been bought like a slave.

    A racist white person would use vastly different terminology when attacking a mixed race couple, which is what makes me think the people doing it are black Democrats.

  • Tejicano||

    In the far-left Unitarian church I grew up in there was another (white) family who also lived in our neighborhood. Their daughter went to the same high school as I did which was over 90% hispanic. The parents went completely "West Side Story" when their daughter started dating a Mexican (I am talking about both his nationality and his "race"). Even as teenager I thought it was hysterical to see these lefty parents who chose to live in a hispanic neighborhood get their knickers in a twist when the daughter didn't share their actual prejudices.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    but there are plenty of white, nominally conservative/Repulican folks who would say such things on Twitter under a veil of psuedonymity.

    No, typically those types target the Fox News guy for going outside his race. They wouldn't give a shit about harrassing his wife, because they wouldn't think she was worth the effort.

    I doubt even the Stormfront goons wouldn't bother calling her a "white man's whore." That kind of slur tends to be the domain of hard lefties, who associate anyone with white skin as inherently sinful.

  • Calidissident||

    "When a white woman marries a black man, she's gold-digging. And so on and so forth"

    I think this is only a stereotype for black male celebrities married to white women. Overall, white woman-black man couples make less money than all white couples. Average white women married to black men are more likely to be accused of fetishizing BBC.

  • ||

    I know. I was actually going to specify that but was too lazy.

  • ||

    what a bunch of assholes

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What a world we live in when Tamera of "Tia and Tamera" is reduced to "wife of Fox News Correspondent"!

    I realize the average age of HnR has skewed to 12 during the past couple of years, but...really? Where is the Sister, Sister love?

  • ||

    I'm one of those that's pulling the age distribution down, apparently, but I'm familiar with Sister, Sister.

  • Zeb||

    Oh. I knew she looked like someone. I had almost completely forgotten that show.

  • GILMORE||

    I'm confused. Venus Flytrap had children? Whoa.

  • ||

    I didn't click the link so I had no idea who they were talking about. That's a damn shame. (That she was reduced to "wife of Fox News Correspondent" rather than "actress".)

  • Agammamon||

    I’m religious, so I waited until I was 29 to lose my virginity and then, you may not understand this,” she said of her decision, “[but] I did it and then I felt guilty and then I became celibate until I got married.”

    So for the remainder of the time she gave head and did anal?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    One would think that 'anti-racism' liberals would have a problem with this. Yet I have heard not one peep from them.

    She married some dude who works for Fox News, and the Mowry sisters are outspoken "Christians", so that makes all the vitriolic race-hate OK.

  • Juice||

    Um, she's barely black.

  • paranoid android||

    Appeals Court strikes down Net Neutrality rules

    Prepare for much wailing and mashing of teeth among those lacking a cursory understanding of the issue.

  • Tonio||

    "gnashing"

  • paranoid android||

    Quiet you! What we need here are some verb neutrality rules!

  • Juice||

    What's strange to me is that they are not considered common carriers, but that's the reason they get local monopolies. So if this ruling stands will we see more ISP competition?

  • ||

    God I hope so.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    New research shows that drug testing in high schools does not dissuade students from trying illegal drugs.

    It's not about dissuasion, it's about keeping the machine going.

  • ||

    "Dozens of men have been arrested in northern Nigeria for being gay."

    They do mean gay-gay, not gay as being retarded, right?

    Just checking.

  • Tonio||

    DIAF

  • ||

    I had to look that up. Die in a fire.

    O...k?

  • kinnath||

    H&R taught me that one a long time ago ;-)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Don't even joke. Being caught in a fire is one of my three fears.

  • ||

    *Takes out notepad and pen*

    You're in a safe space here, FoE. Why don't we talk about the other two fears as well...

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

  • playa manhattan||

    You're only afraid of 3 things? Is getting "spit-roasted" one of them?
    (Jesse, am I using the term correctly?)

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I wouldn't say fear, specifically. Besides, I think I have a certain level of control over what goes in my various orifices.

  • ||

    Is getting "spit-roasted" one of them?

    The words seem to form a sentence, but I cannot comprehend a reasonable meaning. Why would someone fear being spit-roasted?

  • playa manhattan||

    You know, getting spit roasted at a gay bath house!

  • Agammamon||

    Well, I'd think that if you went to a gay bathhouse you can kinda expect that.

  • ||

    Still confused. It'd be like being afraid of birthday parties or having fun. Who would be so broken?

  • ||

    Being second and getting caught sneaking out of Epi's mom's house are, I presume, the other two.

  • Agammamon||

    Re your other two alligators and crocodiles?

  • ||

    I hate flying. If there was a road to Europe I'd drive on it rather than fly.

  • playa manhattan||

    Ice Truckers!

  • GILMORE||

    I note a marked inconsistency in the degree of politically-correct-offense-taking by our resident homo-fabulous peers over the use of the term, "Gay" in its 1980's-teenager colloquial sense of, "dude, lame!".

    I use it that way all the time. So did a lot of gay friends in NYC.

    I've recounted a story before here, where I was drinking with a group of maybe 6 gay men (@ The Duplex on Christopher St, circa 2004 or so), and we went through a long and detailed dissection of all terminology, derogatory and otherwise, describing homosexuality, determining which were considered most 'offensive', which were most 'gay friendly', which were most 'meh', and which were simply stupid. There was some difference of opinion, but a generally rough consensus emerged.

    The short of it was "gay" was given a LOT of latitude in its use as a derogatory adjective. Maybe this was just because we were all the same age and we'd all grown up using it that way.

    FWIW, "Faggot" (tho not 'fag') seemed to be considered the nastiest appellation. 'Queer' was meh. They called each other 'homo', as an affectionate thing. 'Queen' was very specifically effeminate, which many of these dudes were not.

    re: the above comment = why must we denigrate the retarded? Do they not suffer enough? You monster.

  • ||

    Context matters. Flippant derogatory use can range from comedic to tacky, but when you throw in a little vehemence it can become menacing.

  • GILMORE||

    yes, context.

    Which is partly why I noted that getting uptight about 'terminology' seems remarkably rare around here.

    Although even 'American' doesn't really run around screaming "DIE, NIGGERS AND FAGGOTS!" Well, at least in those words.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Austerity: It's costing us trillions!

    Both the extent of the freely available but unused production potential as well as the level of unemployment have subsequently been at record levels in most countries. In the most affected countries, unemployment has reached figures ​​in excess of twenty per cent, in the area of ​​youth unemployment even up to fifty percent. A whole generation is thus being denied the transition to a normal working life.
    [...]
    The constraints on demand caused by austerity policies mean that we unnecessarily live beneath our actual means. The value of unproduced useful goods and services are the costs of austerity.

    We live below our human potential because we fail to use all the productive resources available to us and, as a result, over 200 million people are unemployed around the world. On the other hand, we live beyond our natural limits because we use more natural and finite resources than is sustainable. A huge opportunity thus presents itself: by employing even a portion of the 200 million global unemployed and by implementing a better degree of utilization of available productive capital we can increase our economic potential so as to make significant investments in the transformation of our energy consumption and in the sustainable restructuring of our production methods.

    Fucking opportunity costs, how do they work?

  • Irish||

    A huge opportunity thus presents itself: by employing even a portion of the 200 million global unemployed and by implementing a better degree of utilization of available productive capital we can increase our economic potential so as to make significant investments in the transformation of our energy consumption and in the sustainable restructuring of our production methods.

    Maybe I'm just being cynical, but i have a feeling that type of people who are overwhelmingly unemployed aren't the same type of people capable of developing entirely new and 'sustainable' energy sources.

    I doubt there are many of those 200 million people with advanced degrees in the hard sciences.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Ah, you misunderstand. What they envision are 200 million people pedaling stationary bikes hooked to generators.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    And think of the health benefits!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Not to mention the massive stimulation the stationery bike and associated industries would get.

  • db||

    Just make sure the ones pedaling are the educated ones and those with wrong thoughts. Kind of a Bicyclette Rouge

  • BigT||

    ...we fail to use all the productive resources available to us and, as a result, over 200 million people are unemployed around the world. On the other hand, we live beyond our natural limits because we use more natural and finite resources than is sustainable.

    Kramer: Rickshaws!!!

  • Dweebston||

    Because structures of production are invented arbitrarily and on the spot, not gradually evolved from the foresight and risks undertaken by entrepreneurs.

  • John||

    The more you spend the more you save!!

  • GILMORE||

    Is this just so much Soviet-level hyperbolic appealing to the MASSES OF WORKERS! somehow bringing about utopia if only they can be correctly organized by the right group of TOP MEN to get the system in order, and stop with all of this 'free market' craziness which results in such *inefficiency* (stop laughing)...because everyone knows, top down ordered systems? Efficient as FUCK.

  • ||

  • BakedPenguin||

    Now see, you could have posted that early Metallica, or maybe some Katatonia or something, but you had to go all death.

  • ||

  • Pro Libertate||

    I just had an idea for a new kind of metal, one for a new age of economic stagnation and slow decay: Dearth metal.

  • ||

    Dulled, blunted, low tensile dearth metal
    Melodists of soullessness
  • Pro Libertate||

    I am pleased to be anticipated in such a way.

  • db||

  • playa manhattan||

    Looks like the propeller got it in the neck.

  • db||

    Someone needs to mash that video up with some metal. All the blood.and.feathers? It'd be perfect.

  • db||

    Maybe some stock footage of a 210 taking off, of a flock of geese...

  • GILMORE||

    Look, Canada, I got nothing against you at all ... quite the contrary = I *like* you huggable sons-a-bitches. I like your country! I like your comedy. I like your general attitude.

    What I don't fucking like is your Geese.

    Every year they come down here, and they SHIT ALL OVER EVERYTHING. And if that wasn't bad enough, they act like they OWN the goddamn place. Everything about them? =CRAPPY.

    Seriously, they give Canadians a bad name. They need to be renamed = "Nasty, Flying Shit-Machines" or something. How about French Geese? We can compromise.

  • Dweebston||

    Dozens of men have been arrested in northern Nigeria for being gay.

    They busted that ring wide open. Clearly, they had a man on the inside.

  • db||

    *gapes*

  • Coeus||

    Feminists have no shame:

    Since about 1980 the percentage of men and women in middle-skill jobs has declined. But for women, nearly all of that decline was because of increased representation in higher-skill jobs. Women’s employment in low-skill jobs increased by just 1 percent. By contrast, for men, half the decline in middle-skill jobs was a result of increases in low-skill jobs.

    The most urgent issue facing working Americans today is not the glass ceiling. It is the sinking floor. So wouldn’t it make more sense to focus on gender-neutral economic policies?

    Actually, it wouldn’t, because “gender-neutral” work practices and social policies were traditionally based on a masculine model.
  • Coeus||

    Whether they realize it or not, men now have a direct stake in policies that advance gender equity. Most of the wage gap between women and men is no longer a result of blatant male favoritism in pay and promotion. Much of it stems from general wage inequality in society at large.

    IN most countries, women tend to be concentrated in lower-wage jobs. The United States actually has a higher proportion of skilled and highly paid female workers than countries like Sweden and Norway. Yet as a whole, Swedish and Norwegian women earn a higher proportion of the average male wage than American women because the gap between high and low wages is much smaller in those countries.
  • Dweebston||

    There is no pleasing some people.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Okay, sir, my final offer: half a shekel for an old ex-leper?

  • ||

    Did you say ex-leper?

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's right, sir, 16 years behind a veil and proud of it, sir.

  • PapayaSF||

    The fact that Sweden and Norway are full of Swedes and Norwegians just might have something to do with that.

  • Irish||

    So..what's the takeaway here? We should get more women working shitty jobs?

  • ||

    Shitty jobs should pay as much as good jobs. Duh.

  • GILMORE||

    NOTHING WILL EVER SHUT THEM UP

  • ||

    You worry too much about feminists, kiddo. Here, relax and look at some tits.

  • Coeus||

    I really wish I wasn't on the corporate network right now.

  • ||

    Some things are worth jeopardizing one's employment.

  • Killaz||

    #6 and #10 looks like she's fun.

  • playa manhattan||

    My brother has a thechive.com shirt that he wears sometimes. I'm surprised how many people recognize it.

  • Agammamon||

    I probably shouldn't complain about attractive young women showing *any* boob, but its clear that a couple of those women are unclear on the concept of *under*.

  • ||

    Cheers!

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Man quits nice corporate job to start his own business, laments his new position as 'working poor'

    At the beginning of 2000, I left my mid-level corporate position to start my own Web design and hosting business. Although neither of my parents lived to see it, I had attained their dream for me. I earned more money than I ever had, and I invested my corporate pension into a small business retirement fund.

    In March of 2002, one month after my health insurance ran out and three days before I planned to pay off my mortgage early in a lump sum, I had a stroke. Over the next two years, I spent all my savings, including what I intended to use to pay off the mortgage, all my business capital and a second mortgage, to regain the use of the left side of my body. For the second time in my life, I learned how to walk.

    Although I was financially trapped, I began rebuilding my business and my clients remained loyal. Then in 2009, the Great Recession decimated my client-base and obliterated my retirement fund.

    [snip]

    I am still in business, but I am now the working poor. I can barely afford to upgrade my equipment, and I only spend money on basic essentials. When the DVD player died, I couldn't replace it the same with the stereo, and the garage door opener.

    So what's the moral here? Any thoughts?

  • playa manhattan||

    That's what health insurance is for. Real health insurance, not health "plans".

  • Floridian||

    So what's the moral here? Any thoughts?

    Don't have a stroke?

  • Jerry on the boat||

    Why would you leave a mid-level corporate position when you're in your 50s? Isn't taking a bit too much risk?

  • John||

    The moral is don't quit your job to start a business from scratch. Work on your web design and hosting business in your spare time until you have built it up enough to support you.

    It is called working two jobs. People used to do that all of the time.

  • ||

    So what's the moral here? Any thoughts?

    He rolled the health insurance dice and lost.

  • ||

    one month after my health insurance ran out

    Because he couldn't possibly have bought insurance on his own. No way. Never.

    Consequences...how do they work?

  • John||

    And how was he to know he would lose his insurance when he quit his job? He acts like it was a surprise or something, rather than, I don't know, a serious consideration when making the decision to leave in the first place.

    Basically, he is self entitled twat who thinks he should get the satisfaction of working for himself along with the security of working for someone else. He is another in our two generations now of special snowflakes who thinks the world owes them exactly what they want.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    He is another in our two generations now of special snowflakes who thinks the world owes them exactly what they want.

    The dude is 60-something. Counting from the Millennials, he's 3rd or 4th Gen, at least.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    He's a baby boomer - the Ur entitled generation.

  • Jordan||

    So what's the moral here? Any thoughts?

    Owners of capital take risks that laborers don't.

  • ||

    Don't think of a small business as a retirement fund (or at least not a safe one)?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You see that on Kitchen Nightmares a lot--retired or semi-retired folks who dumped their life savings into a restaurant, thinking they could treat the business like hanging out in their own living room and the money would just pour in, and ended up tens or hundreds of thousands in debt.

    It sucks that this happened to him, but fucking hell--if you're approaching the end of middle-age, when it's more likely that bad shit is about to happen, and see that your insurance is about to run out, would it have hurt to get a catastrophic plan?

  • Agammamon||

    Aren't *most* poor people 'working poor'? I mean, pretty much all of the poor people I know have jobs.

  • Agammamon||

    So what's the moral here? Any thoughts?

    My thought is that if he doesn't like being poor then he can go back to the work he left and stop whining about it.

  • PD Scott||

    No word on the threat to the world's smallest birds: World's smallest windmills to power cell phones

    Professor J.C. Chiao and his postdoc Dr. Smitha Rao of the University of Texas at Arlington have developed a MEMS-based nickel alloy windmill so small that 10 could be mounted on a single grain of rice. Aimed at very-small-scale energy harvesting applications, these windmills could recharge batteries for smartphones, and directly power ultra-low-power electronic devices.

    The micro-windmills (technically called horizontal axis wind turbines) have a three-bladed rotor 1.8 mm in diameter mounted on a tower about 2 mm tall. The mount is a friction hub, but this probably becomes an air bearing when the rotor is spinning. The thickness of the windmills is about 100 microns.

  • PapayaSF||

    I have a hard time imagining that it would be worth using those for powering anything.

  • ||

    Yeah, I'm thinking they'll make way more smug than electricity.

  • Agammamon||

    So let me guess, you plug your phone in and set the windmill in front of a fan because you don't want to leave your phone outside unsupervised?

  • Coeus||

    Proggies do a 180 on regulations designed to hamper rights

    Guess which right? And compare to the articles on that site about abortion regulations.

  • ||

    all exhibitors and attendees

    Is that accurate? Or just attendees who make a purchase?

  • Coeus||

    all attendees

  • ||

    Austin straddles 3 counties...my guess is the gun show just moved to a different county.

  • ||

    Pope Francis continues to win over followers by being totally OK with breastfeeding in church.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I've been doing my breast, I mean best, to call attention to this issue.

    Here is a feminist's interesting paraphrase of the Pope's remarks: “What he was essentially saying was that the human body is beautiful and that there’s nothing shameful about showing it off in public…especially in church. This was a ringing endorsement of public nudity and of the liberation of the female body. At one point while he was speaking, he pointed upward, as if to say, ‘Do not be afraid. Look up at all the boobage in this place. You are not alone.’”

    http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2.....r-reports/

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    According to Google, the Latin for "take it off" is "Tolle eam"

  • Pro Libertate||

    Monstra mihi tuum mammis?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Wait, it's "aufer," the other one means "take it of"

  • ||

    Wow, what a ...weird interpretation of his remarks. I took it as, don't let anything stop you from feeding your infant if he's hungry. (Not that I object to the other viewpoint). I guess my privilege is forcing me to microagress again.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I think it's a first step in making masses topless affairs. Truly, this is a liberal pope.

  • ||

    Wait, first they steal the Osiris rising from the dead thingy, then take the solstice for Christmas, now they're going skyclad? I may convert.

  • Pro Libertate||

    You really can't beat Christianity for marketing. Since day one.

  • Agammamon||

    Well, you'd certainly get more fathers going to mass with their family.

  • Pro Libertate||

    You'd certainly get more fathers.

  • ||

    This was a ringing endorsement of public nudity and of the liberation of the female body.

    Or more likely he was endorsing babies being fed so moms could come to morning mass.

  • Pro Libertate||

    That's one possible interpretation. I guess.

  • some guy||

    The husband of a brain-dead, pregnant woman is suing the hospital in Texas keeping her alive, saying that it is acting against her wishes.

    Texas has said that the state has enough interest in the wellbeing of the fetus to override the stated wishes of the woman to not be kept on life support. No word on who is paying to keep her there. Can the state really impose huge financial burdens on someone while ignoring their living will?

    Is it too late in the day for a thread to hit 1000 comments?

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Well we will need to start a circumcision, deep dish pizza, gay marriage, abortion, intellectual property argument first.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Left out the Santorum family. Saddens me that they cut off the Viking Moose's never-ending thread/home in such a way.

  • db||

    Life support threads never die.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Circumcision threads are cut off early.

  • PD Scott||

    Oh, snip!

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Health care professionals urge Ontario to adopt $14 minimum wage

    A group of doctors and nurses urged the Ontario government Tuesday to raise the minimum wage to $14 from $10.25 an hour, calling poverty "the biggest barrier to good health."

    Members of Health Providers Against Poverty said stress from living in poverty releases chemicals in the body that inhibit brain growth in infants and children.

    "There's a noticeable difference for children meeting their developmental milestones and for school readiness in Ontario communities where there is more poverty," said nurse Lorraine Telford, who works at a community health centre in Mississauga.

    I wan't someone to explain that to me. I heard this argument on the news driving home.. we are fucked. Nobody cares about reality anymore. It's all about the lefts fantasy land full of unicorns. How does raising the minimum wage fix any of the problems they refer to?

  • paranoid android||

    Funny, I looked up "fallacy of false authority" in the dictionary and saw a picture of this article.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Statistics Canada data show nine per cent of Ontario's workforce, or almost 500,000 people, were working for minimum wage in 2011, more than double the number from 2003. More than 10 per cent of women worked for minimum wage in 2011, compared with 7.6 per cent of men, and while young people made up the bulk of minimum wage workers in 2011, nearly 40 per cent were 25 or older.

    So 3.5% of workers over 25 in Ontario work for minimum wage? This part of the story will undoubtably not be absorbed by the masses, or ignored.

  • Enough About Palin||

    Nearly 4 in 10 chiefs of staff and district directors recently surveyed by the Congressional Management Foundation said they would likely be looking for a job outside the office within the next 12 months.

    "The elimination of staff's traditional health care has been a complete disaster," said one senior staffer, responding to the survey. "If you wanted a legislative branch run by K Street lobbyists and 25-year-old staffers, Mission Accomplished."

  • playa manhattan||

    "run by K Street lobbyists and 25-year-old staffers". Isn't that basically the executive branch right now?

  • John||

    The elimination of staff's traditional health care has been a complete disaster," said one senior staffer, responding to the surve

    Good. I can't tell you how happy it makes me to think of those assholes suffering. Fuck them.

  • Coeus||

    Show us on the doll where religion touched you:

    A friend pointed me toward this story by telling me a Methodist church got a new pastor, who promptly ran the gay choir director out, and guess how many in the congregation left the church over it? I knew what she was fishing for. She wanted me to feel the warm fuzzies that a bunch of religious folk had protested the treatment of one of their own.
    No.
    “Eighty percent!” she said, as if the number would change my mind.
    Nope. Not impressed.
    The conversation stalled shortly after as I refused to debate further whether or not one should encourage such basic human decency by praising it, lest the people involved give up trying to be good due to lack of kudos. I don’t like to have these conversations over chat to begin with, and when it’s chat at my job and I’m trying to work, I like it even less. It takes more time than I have to hammer the point home that I’m not going to give them cookies for doing the minimally decent thing.
  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.'" Luke 17:10

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Of course you should have a gay choir director, duh!" The Fabulous Bible

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yes, because atheist regimes have never held official homophobic policies. Nope. Never. When Mao and Stalin argued that homosexuality was "irrational" and against "scientific family planning" that was really just religion talking.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Activist group wants accuses politician of voting for a bad law. Politician invokes an Ohio statute making it a crime to tell falsehoods about politicians for the purpose of influencing elections. The statute does not forbid politicians from circulating falsehoods about regular citizens.

    Ohio's elections board takes preliminary steps to referring the case for criminal prosecution, but the politician drops his claim, because he lost.

    Group sues in federal court, saying they told the truth but the Ohio statute against false speech has a chilling effect on truthful speech like theirs.

    Federal appeals court finds that the group has no right to sue.

    The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the case. It will decide whether the group has the right to challenge the statute in federal court.

    TRIGGER WARNING: The group, the Susan B. Anthony List, accused the politician of voting to subsidize abortion...because he voted for Obamacare.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....80995.html

    The ACLU of Ohio decides it better support the Susan B. Anthony List's First Amendment claims, but not necessarily its procedural claims.

    http://www.acluohio.org/cases/susan-b-anthony-list

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "because he lost" = because he lost the election

  • John||

    How the hell do they not have standing? They were threatened with prosecution?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I suppose because there's no risk that the Susan B. Anthony List will be criticizing any other politician's vote for Obamacare in the future?

  • ||

    I'm confused. What was insulting about what he said?

    In case you can't access the video, Hitchens tells the interviewer that he thinks women don't have to work, but can if they would like to.

    She acts dumbfounded, and can't believe anybody would say something so "sexist". She gives him the opportunity to retract (!) and he unsurprisingly refuses.

  • Coeus||

    The first rule of female privilege....

    (also the second)

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Hmm. I'm not sure I'd classify it as sexist but it's definitely classist. Most women don't have the luxury of working as a preference; it's a necessity. Obviously, if single the need to house, cloth, and feed yourself requires income regardless of gender. Now, marriage and children add variables to the equation.

    It might be a generational or class preference. While younger than Hitchens, my husband was very clear when we married that he'd rather I not work - I still do but in a rather diva style - meaning my income isn't need to support the family. From his perspective it's a hobby more than a profession. This is Hitchens' attitude as well and is a bit condescending.

  • ||

    Fair enough. I just don't get why she reacted the way she did.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    She may need to sing for her own supper, so his attitude may strike her as incredibly out-of-touch - which it is. Sexist? I'm not sure about that.

  • GILMORE||

    "Thane ♥ the booty|1.14.14 @ 4:55PM|#

    I'm confused. What was insulting about what he said?

    This incident is frequently referred to when lefties want to claim that hitchens was "never really one of us!"

    what's 'insulting' about it (to modern proggies) is the idea that women as a class should not be "expected to contribute to society" but rather be offered their "due", which is to be a pampered homemaker who has babies and cleans shit up.

    Hitch skirts (pun!) the notion of it being a social expectation, and makes it simply more a personal ideal, which is that he should be able to 'provide' for any woman he expects to raise his kids.

    why aussie woman gets huffy? I don't know. God forbid anyone have even the slightest iconoclastic leanings. I find this sort of attitude absurd. I think hitch was probably more forgiving to the average person who admitted to believing in God.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The implication of what she says is that women have to work. Women must not be homemaker mothers even if their family has the means to make that an option. Otherwise I am not entirely sure what got her dander up about it besides him saying it in a rather blunt fashion.

  • ||

    Edward Snowden has joined the board of the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

    I smell a wiretapping coming.

  • Dr. Frankenstien||

    coming? Please when he scratches his balls he has to tell the NSA guy to get out of the way.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Gawker outraged that ex-cop who shot man in movie theater has the option of using a Stand Your Ground defense

    Now I can't imagine a jury buying that being hit with popcorn puf the shooter in reasonable fear of his life, but they just can't pass up on opportunity to bash Florida.

  • Andrew S.||

    In a state without SYG, he could conceivably use a self defense argument. Either way he's not going to win.

    (Though then again, as a former cop, he just might)

  • Irish||

    What idiots. They don't apparently understand what a defense is. A defense is something you tell the jury. The jury then decides whether to believe you or not.

    If he gets off using that defense, then it's the fault of the jury.

  • Pro Libertate||

    He also has the option of using the insanity defense, claiming it wasn't him, denying that anyone has died. . .really, the list goes on and on.

  • Agammamon||

    I don't think the insanity defense works that way. Wouldn't isanity would have to show that his mental state at the time of the incident was such that he couldn't tell that the action was wrong.

    What you're talking about would, at best, get him put in a psychiatric hospital until he was well enough to stand trial.

    He'll have much better luck with the 'I'm a cop making the city safer for you ungrateful people' defense.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Again, the whole point is that he can raise the defense not that the defense will get him anywhere. He can raise any defense. Some might be so deficient as to never get to the jury, but that doesn't stop him from trying.

  • Killaz||

    but they just can't pass up on opportunity to bash Florida.

    They play a certain weakness in the human character like a fiddle. The typical ignoramus has to latch on to whatever sentiment is in play out there that will help him appear knowledgeable when, and especially, he is actually clueless about a matter of public discourse. 'Stand Your Ground' serves that purpose for him in this case. He has no idea what he is for or against, but murmuring 'stand your ground' just like 'trickle down economics' makes just enough signification noise to get him through the daily ordeal of his ignorance bearing down on him with the least amount of damage to his own reputation. Dealing with the problem by actually spending time learning something is out of the question.

  • playa manhattan||

    That's some nice prose.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Fun fact: Beer contains 13 times the radioactivity of the discharge water from a nuclear plant.

    But I like my beer ice cold, not "hot"!

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    ^Funny nuclear joke right there! You laughed.

  • db||

    I laughed, but I'm not the one who's about to fail a fitness for duty test for.bringing alcohol in to the plant to run it through the rad monitors.

  • db||

    What beer, from where, made with what ingredients with what processing?

  • playa manhattan||

    What is the source of the radioactivity in the beer?

  • db||

    All natural ingredients, probably.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    Potassium-40 my friend.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    So what's the moral here? Any thoughts?

    There is no moral.
    Shit happens.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    Darwin vs God on human morality

    1. Darwinian theory predicts that everything we do is in order to spread our genes.

    2. We act in ways that don’t spread our genes.

    3. Darwinian theory is disproven. One needs God.

    Collins sometimes argues this way, describing moral yet maladaptive actions as if their mere existence refutes evolutionary theory. With regard to Wesley Autrey, the subway hero, Collins says, “Evolution would say, 'Wesley, what were you thinking? Talk about ruining your reproductive fitness opportunities!' This is a scandal, isn't it?” He give other real-life examples of “selfless altruism”, such as the acts of Oskar Schindler and Mother Teresa, and argues—convincingly, in my view—that they cannot be explained as the direct products of natural selection.

    None of this refutes a Darwinian approach to psychology. The fact that people don’t act to spread their genes isn’t some striking discovery; it’s an obvious fact of everyday life...Some people engage in anti-Darwinian behavior: They use birth control, take vows of celibacy, get sterilized, abandon their families, and sometimes kill themselves and their children. And I would bet that modern men spill more of their seed in response to images on computer screens than in intercourse with actual women.

  • John||

    Darwin really can't account for free will and consciousness in the human form. Animals don't decide to be something else. Lions don't wake up one day and decide not to hunt wildebeests or bang a female in heat. It is just what they do. Humans in contrast can do that. Humans can decide to not breed or eat meat or even end their own lives.

    We don't understand where consciousness came from or how it works. Evolutionary psychologists pretend they do. But really what they are doing is making up nice sounding fairy tales to explain why people like certain things.

    In the end, Schopenhauer was right. There is no explanation for why a person likes or dislikes something or makes a choice. It just is.

  • Irish||

    We don't understand where consciousness came from or how it works. Evolutionary psychologists pretend they do. But really what they are doing is making up nice sounding fairy tales to explain why people like certain things.

    It could have developed through a random mutation. Evolutionary theory definitely accounts for that.

  • John||

    A random mutation is my having blue eyes or being so tall. It is not something that I can change. It is just what I am. That is not consciousness. If consciousness were genetic, it would be like hair color or our height, meaning it would be something utterly controlled by our genes, like the lion hunting the wildebeest. But humans are not lions. We can choose to do something else. We can choose to ignore our desires and deprive ourselves. You can say "well you just mutated that way". Maybe. But really that is just making up a story. That doesn't explain what it is or how it works.

  • ||

    You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you?

  • John||

    No thane, you just don't like it. Evolutionary psychology is junk science on about the level of crystals. I am not repeating any new arguments here.

    I frankly can't believe anyone believes in that shit. Consiciousness by its definition rises above our genes. If you think consciouness is driven by genes, then you don't believe in free will and we are no different than animals. I have yet to meet a single believer in this shit who thinks that. But that is the implication of the theory.

    You can't explain the origins of consciousness until you have a definition and understanding of what consciousness is. And we don't have that. But that doesn't stop half wits from making up fairy tails about how men like big asses because it is a sign of fertility and getting tenure.

  • Irish||

    Evolutionary psychology is junk science on about the level of crystals.

    Evolutionary psychology as practiced is largely junk science because it produces absurd arguments about how women like the color pink because it reminds them of berries and stupid shit like that.

    Evolution clearly had a major impact on our brain makeup, which means that how your brain functions is largely the result of evolutionary pressures.

    This is in no way the same thing as trying to divine the future in crystals. Your brain is a physical organ. Physical organs evolve over time. Therefore, the way your brain works evolved over time, just like your liver, your lungs, and your heart.

    Honestly, this isn't evo psych. It's a basic understanding of evolutionary theory.

  • ||

    A lot of evopsych (perhaps most) is junk. It's nearly impossible to get solid empirical grounding for most of it. But the arguments you have been laying out indicate you know next to nothing about it.

    Whatever, it's not worth arguing with you.

  • John||

    It's nearly impossible to get solid empirical grounding for most of it.

    Last I looked that was called making shit up.

    And I know enough about it to call bullshit. Just because it uses the magic word "evolutionary", doesn't make it legitimate. And since when does evolution have to claim to explain everything and all behavior?

  • ||

    And I know enough about it to call bullshit.

    Sorry, the fact that you're trotting out the "but some people kill their children!" argument indicates that in fact, you don't.

  • John||

    Sorry, the fact that you're trotting out the "but some people kill their children!" argument indicates that in fact, you don't.

    No. You just don't have an answer to the question. Did Yates kill her children out of some evolutionary urge or not? It is a simple question that evolutionary psychology ought to be able to answer.

    Of course the two available answers show what absurd horseshit the field is. If the answer is yes, the Yates has no moral agency and is not responsible for her action. If the answer is no, then evolution has nothing to do with behavior and the entire field is useless.

    The mendacity at the heart of the entire field is the pretension that evolution can explain human behavior in such a way that doesn't deprive man of his moral agency. And that is just nonsense, like the entire field.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I had a cat when I was a kid that had kittens and one day just up and killed all of them for no discernable reason.

    So why would a woman kill her kids, from a evolutionary pov? Because because she has a damaged brain, whether from trauma or genetic natural variation, either way doesn't matter to the explanation.

  • Irish||

    A random mutation is my having blue eyes or being so tall. It is not something that I can change. It is just what I am. That is not consciousness.

    John, consciousness is something you can't change. You could not, for example, decide tomorrow to simply stop being sentient. It's something that exists no matter what you want, just like eye color.

    You're mistaking what people do with consciousness and free will for the existence of freewill itself. Having free will is not something changeable which means it easily could have developed through random mutations that propagated throughout humanity.

  • John||

    John, consciousness is something you can't change. You could not, for example, decide tomorrow to simply stop being sentient. It's something that exists no matter what you want, just like eye color.

    So what? Saying it is there, doesn't explain what it is or where it came from. And further, evolutionary biology never explains the need for consciousness or free will. In fact, we would do a better job propagating our genes if we were not able to choose not to. You can make up all sorts of fairy tales and myths about how our likes and desires serve some evolutionary function. But consciousness and freewill itself doesn't serve such a function, in fact it circumvents it.

  • The Rt. Hon. Serious Man, Visc||

    I was watching HBO's new show 'True Detective' on Sunday and the Matthew Mcconaughey character explains to Woody Harrelson that he views the development of higher human consciousness as an evolutionary blunder. The full-quote is this:

    "I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in human evolution. We became too self aware, nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself. We are creatures that should not exist, by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, a secretion of sensory experience and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everybody's nobody. I think the honorable thing for our species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal."
  • Irish||

    Of course evolutionary biology explains the need for free will. In evolutionary theory, all that matters to a mutation or set of mutations is whether it makes the organism more likely to survive, less likely to survive, or leaves its survival possibilities unchanged.

    If a group of mutations interact such that they create what human beings call 'free will' or 'consciousness' these genes will spread if they lead to the survival of the organism. Having a more highly developed brain clearly helps human beings survive, so evolutionary theory absolutely explains why it exists.

    You can make up all sorts of fairy tales and myths about how our likes and desires serve some evolutionary function. But consciousness and freewill itself doesn't serve such a function, in fact it circumvents it.

    How the fuck does consciousness 'circumvent' the survival of the species? The human mind has made us vastly more adaptable and capable of surviving than any other similar animal. Clearly the way our brains are formed has improved the likelihood of our survival, so how can you claim that consciousness negatively impacts the capacity for human beings to survive?

  • John||

    How the fuck does consciousness 'circumvent' the survival of the species?

    Because it allows us to choose to do things, like commit suicide or destroy the world, that are counter productive to the survival of the species.

  • Calidissident||

    It also enables us to do countless things (that people do far more often than kill themselves) that improve survival.

  • Irish||

    Because it allows us to choose to do things, like commit suicide or destroy the world, that are counter productive to the survival of the species.

    Yes, but every conceivable adaptation has positives and negatives. The fact that negatives exist does not take away the positives.

    My brain is so complex that it allows me to out think the mammoth and hunt a creature far more physically capable than I am. At the same time, that complexity results in my brain being more likely to make mistakes, as complex organisms often will. Therefore, I'm more prone to mental problems than less complex creatures.

    There's good and bad, and saying simple "bad exists" is not enough to explain why consciousness couldn't have evolved. Evolving out of the water lost me my gills so now I'm more likely to drown. Does that mean it's impossible that lungs evolved naturally? Of course not. All that matters is whether it made me MORE LIKELY to survive.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Suicide could in fact help propagate someone's genes by removing the obligation to support deadweight from a social group on the edge of extinction.

    At some point, if we live long enough, all of us will be a drain on the resources of our families and-or social group.

  • Floridian||

    , we would do a better job propagating our genes if we were not able to choose not to

    7 billion people disagree.

  • John||

    Floridian,

    If women were in heat and we fucked as a matter of instinct rather than moral choice, I bet that 7 billion number would be higher.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, there are those who believe consciousness and free will are "mental" illusions much like the same way our brains create optical illusions.

  • John||

    HM,

    If we have no free will and no moral agency like animals do, then there may be something to evolutionary psychology. But I don't see many evolutionary psychologists denying moral agency and free will.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, John, my views on evopsych (or as us old men remember it, sociobiology) are just as critical as yours; however, I disagree that one need accept the existance of free will or conciousness to reject it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    Calm your tits people the answer to nature vs. nurture can be both.

    It doesn't have to be all behavior is controlled by genetics or that genetics play no part at all.

    It's also possible that some evopsych is bullshit while some is not.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    RE: consciousness

    Because it allows us to choose to do things, like commit suicide or destroy the world, that are counter productive to the survival of the species.

    As others have said - consciousness would have its positive side as well - such as the idea that multiple brains together are more power than one (ideas having sex and Matt Ridley would say).

    Sure - monkeys working together is helpful for protection, but not in the same way that millions of humans working together does.

    Indeed as others have stated, if consciousness had no positives towards survival, *why does it still exist?

    I would say it does help us a great deal - language and such - as Newton stated - "If I have seen further than others, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants."

    Without consciousness, language, and some other things, standard on generational knowledge simply isn't possible.

    & without generational knowledge, we never get to contemplate what causes diseases, much less end up in a world with X-rays, MRIs, DNA tests, etc, etc, etc...

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And further, evolutionary biology never explains the need for consciousness or free will. In fact, we would do a better job propagating our genes if we were not able to choose not to.

    This is an assertion lacking evidence.

    And the fact that homo sapiens are the most successful species in the history of the world is prime evidence that consciousness does in fact convey some evolutionary advantage.

  • tarran||

    John, I disagree.

    Consciousness clearly has a biological component; the various syndromes of mental and developmental retardation point to various switches being thrown as an organism goes from single-celled egg to fully developed adult.

    I suspect consciousness in an example of an emergent order - ie a form of organization/set of properties that manifests itself in a complex system which is not easily derivable from the individual building blocks.

    And, since intermediate jumps between a mouse's level of cognitive ability to ours each provide a survival advantage, it is not unlikely for a set of mutations interacting with the process of natural selection to produce the modern human mind.

  • Irish||

    Stop this evolutionary psychology talk, Tarran.

    It's like reading tea leaves. /John

  • John||

    Don't insult reading tea leaves like that Irish. No one ever claims reading tea leaves is science.

  • John||

    Maybe, but if so, we have no free will and no moral agency different than animals.

    Further, saying we got this big mind via natural selection is not evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology is saying our mind works as it does and we behave as we do because of natural selection. And that is a completely different claim than what you are making.

  • Irish||

    Yes, but it's the claim everyone else in this thread has been making. Does evolution explain why blue is my favorite color? No. Does evolution explain why I have a brain capable of having a favorite color? Absolutely.

    Consciousness is the second example. The fact that you have a brain capable of consciousness is easily understood by natural selection. What that consciousness results in and what choices you make cannot be known until you start interacting with your environment.

  • John||

    oes evolution explain why blue is my favorite color? No. Does evolution explain why I have a brain capable of having a favorite color? Absolutely.

    Then you agree with me that evolutionary psychology is bunk. And beyond that, evolution says nothing about why your mind works as it does or at least it doesn't right now. It only can explain why you have a brain. What goes on in your brain, is something we don't even understand much less can explain where it comes from.

    You can pretend evolution explains it. But all you are doing is making up stories. There is no data or experiment that you can point to that confirms your myths. They are just myths that make you feel good.

  • Coeus||

    The think that evopsyche has over regular psychology is that it takes observable phenomena and then constructs theories around them. The other mental sciences (with the exception of neuroscience) do the opposite. They have a theory then manipulate the data to fit.

    So even if you don't go for the "just-so" stories, it's still useful.

  • John||

    it takes observable phenomena and then constructs theories around them.

    Except that since human behavior or tastes is in no way uniform and driven by God knows what factors, those theories don't explain or predict anything. If it evolutionary that men like big boobs, then every man should like big boobs or those have some kind of genetic mutation that is passed on to their offspring.

    I kid about boobs, but it could be anything. Don't you see how ridiculous that is? I am not arguing for some kind of theistic explanation. I am merely saying these things just seem to be and there is no obvious way to explain them or predict them.

  • ||

    No, that's not how it works at all. If it's genetically advantageous for men to mate with women who have big boobs, then the men who do so will have an evolutionary advantage. In no way is it part of evolutionary theory that "every man should like big boobs."

  • John||

    No, that's not how it works at all. If it's genetically advantageous for men to mate with women who have big boobs, then the men who do so will have an evolutionary advantage.

    So men who don't like big boobs don't want the advantage? What does that even mean? You might as well be telling me Zog favors men who like big boobs. Some men like big boobs, others don't. Your little story does nothing to explain the variation. And even if it did, there would be no way to ever test it. You think men like big boobs because of evolution. Feminists will claim they have been trained by society to prefer such. It is all just people making up unverifiable bullshit.

  • Coeus||

    So men who don't like big boobs don't want the advantage? What does that even mean?

    There are many types of evolutionary advantages, John. They can contradict and overlap. If no one wanted the women with small boobs, suddenly it becomes an evolutionary advantage to impregnate as many of them as possible. Conditions change.

  • ||

    John, you're not a stupid guy. But you profoundly misunderstand how evolutionary theory works, and you're basing your disagreement with it on your incorrect model.

  • John||

    I fully understand evolution Mad Scientist. And that is why I know evolutionary psychology is such horseshit.

    See my question above about Andrea Yates. All of these clowns are ignoring it. That is because they don't have an answer. They cannot take the obviously absurd position that man has no free will or moral agency. But without that claim, evolutionary psychology can't explain anything.

  • Coeus||

    Look at the observable phenoman of hypergamy. Time and time again, 80 percent of women will not shoot lower than the top 20 percent of men (by whatever criteria the other women use to judge). Evopsych acknowledges that. Other fields either deny it, or attribute it to culture, despite the fact that it holds true across widely disparate cultures.

  • John||

    It acknowledges it but it can't explain it. It can make up a nice story. But that story doesn't explain the other 20%. And even if it did, then what does that mean? It means women have no choice but to want more successful men. That means they don't have free will.

    Are you willing to deny free will? And if so, then are you also willing to admit that there is no such thing as morality? If not, then evolutionary Psychology is nothing but fairy tail making.

  • Coeus||

    It can make up a nice story. But that story doesn't explain the other 20%

    Ever heard of genetic variation?

    Are you willing to deny free will? And if so, then are you also willing to admit that there is no such thing as morality? If not, then evolutionary Psychology is nothing but fairy tail making.

    check your premises.

  • John||

    Ever heard of genetic variation?

    So there is a small boob gene? Connect a behavior to a gene and show me where the variation of that gene 100% leads to a variation of the behavior and you have something.

    But you have nothing like that. What you have is a fairy tail. If it was a genetic variation, you would have a gene. And more importantly, those people would have no more choice in their behavior than I have in my hair being blond.

    Try again Corning. That was a sorry effort.

  • Coeus||

    So there is a small boob gene? Connect a behavior to a gene and show me where the variation of that gene 100% leads to a variation of the behavior and you have something.

    So, in your mind, natural selection has no place whatsoever in human behavior because we don't have 100% understanding of human genetics? Ever heard of epigenetics? Choice and genetics can be linked. They are not mutually exclusive.

    Hence "check your premise".

  • ||

    Try again Corning. That was a sorry effort.

    I am Corning you are talking to Coeus.

    *not a big deal. I once confused you with John l

  • ||

    boobs are like peacock feathers. They convey health and fitness.

    If a woman can keep her shit together (eat, shelter, avoid predators, water, survive) despite having big lumps of fat dangling from their chest then they are probably pretty good mates to mingle your DNA with.

  • John||

    boobs are like peacock feathers. They convey health and fitness.

    If a woman can keep her shit together (eat, shelter, avoid predators, water, survive) despite having big lumps of fat dangling from their chest then they are probably pretty good mates to mingle your DNA with.

    You say that, but show me on piece of evidence that it is true beyond it sounds good. How the fuck am I supposed to know that boobs convey fitness and health? Maybe they mean the woman is fat and is likely to get diabbetes.

    You telling me a fairy tail Corning. There is no evidence that says men realize this and thus feel compelled to like women with big boobs. It is just a nice sounding explanation. It is not science. It is horseshit.

  • ||

    There is no evidence that says men realize this and thus feel compelled to like women with big boobs.

    Same can be said about peacock feathers. If it is bullshit for boobs then it is just as much bullshit for peacock feathers.

    So can one now say peacock feathers prove that peacocks have freewill and consciousness?

    Anyway sexual dimorphism exists among many species that hardly have brains at all. It is kind of important for males and females of a species to be able to tell one another apart. I don't not think men consciously realize anything when they look at boobs. It is more of a chemical nervous response bred into us.

  • John||

    Same can be said about peacock feathers.

    No. Every single peacock that has ever lived is attracted to such feathers. Why? Because that really is the product of genes and evolution. Some "well most men like X" is not.

    See the difference? We are not peacocks. How can you believe this horseshit?

  • Coeus||

    No. Every single peacock that has ever lived is attracted to such feathers.

    You talk to a lot of peacocks, John?

  • ||

    How do you know gay peacocks don't exist?

    How can you believe this horseshit?

    Ok Ok Ok I am sorry for calling your ideas weirdville. That was shitty of me.

    Let me try to parse what you are saying and debate my position.

    you are saying that human consciousness and freewill are not products of evolution because people with their consciousness and freewill make stupid choices that kill them kill their babies. Feel free to correct me if I got this wrong

    I counter that human with their consciousness and free will have done pretty well compared to other species. We exist all over the world and our numbers are growing. Humans look to be doing pretty damn good. Kicking ass even.

    I would also counter that consciousness and free will are in fact adaptions that allow us to adapt to a changing world without having to evolve. If the grass seeds all die we do not need to evolve a stronger beaks to eat acorns...we can just change ourselves (make different choices) and break the acorns with a rock....or learn how to play guitar. And just like how evolution allows for bad adaptations our free will and consciousness allows for bad choices.

  • John||

    I am saying we don't know what free will and consciousnesses even are so any explanation for their origin is just a story. I am also saying that evolutionary explanation for behavior is incompatible with both free will and moral responsibility. You don't call a peacock that mates with a hen a slut.

    If you want to deny free will and moral agency, fine. But understand that is seems pretty counter to experience and at least do that instead of pretending you have free will but it is somehow still controlled by evolution, which is of course completely illogical.

  • Coeus||

    I am also saying that evolutionary explanation for behavior is incompatible with both free will and moral responsibility.

    Then you don't understand the evolutionary explanation. Seriously, check out the epigenetics link I posted above. Choice and genetics are linked, not exclusionary.

    We've inundated you with examples. If you don't get it yet, it's probably a willful blindness.

  • Agammamon||

    "Maybe they mean the woman is fat and is likely to get diabbetes."

    Which would have little affect on the evolutionary fitness of men who like big boobs in non-monogamous species - which we are.

  • ||

    If consciousness were genetic

    What is this "were"?

    Hey how about I move around some genes in your unborn child that effect brain development and see how much "consciousness" and "free will" it has after I do that.

    You are way out on weirdville on this one John.

  • John||

    You would affect their ability to have a conciseness. You would not affect their conciseness per say. If you could, you could play around with genes and come up with a child who like music better than athletics or is polite or chooses to kill the unbelievers or whatever.

    You are confusing the ability to have a thing with the nature of that thing. I am not in wierdville. You people see the magic word "evolution" and think it must be science.

  • ||

    If you could, you could play around with genes and come up with a child who like music better than athletics or is polite or chooses to kill the unbelievers or whatever.

    You can do that. Have two music geniuses have a baby and the chances that child will be good at music are above average.

    Now have we fond the specific genes that does that? Nope. But if it is being passed from parents to child we can be pretty sure it is genetic...now i suppose there could be some sort of magic juice that we don't know about passing on that music talent trait...but no evidence of its existence has ever been found.

  • Irish||

    You can do that. Have two music geniuses have a baby and the chances that child will be good at music are above average.

    In that case, it's pretty much impossible to know if that's because of a 'music gene.' The kid you're talking about would be raised in a very musical household, so the way he's raised might be the reason for his musical talent.

  • ||

    Twin studies of adopted children who were raised separately show 'talent" is somewhat genetic.

    I don't know if music has ever been specifically looked at with twin studies.

  • John||

    You can do that. Have two music geniuses have a baby and the chances that child will be good at music are above average.

    Doesn't mean he will like it. Is there some genetic aspect to ability? Sure. But ability is not consciousness. We are kind of at conceptual bedrock here. You can believe whatever myths you want. Since they are myths I can't disprove them. But believing them isn't going to make them true or provide any kind of scientific basis for your explanation.

  • Irish||

    What myths? I'm not claiming that consciousness undoubtedly arose from pure evolution. I'm very agnostic on the matter and I guess it's possible that there was some sort of guiding hand if you want to call that God or whatever.

    The point is that evolutionary theory clearly provides a mechanism through which consciousness could arise. Your claim that it provides no such reasonable explanation is totally untrue.

  • John||

    What myths? I'm not claiming that consciousness undoubtedly arose from pure evolution

    So it is somewhat evolutionary? That is nonsense. Explain what that even means? I am an evolutionary being on Monday Wendesdays and Fridays?

    The point is that evolutionary theory clearly provides a mechanism through which consciousness could arise.

    Sure. It could have arisen after Zeus fucked Hera once too often too. I can't disprove that either. It can't be proven or disproven. That is why it is a myth and not science.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You can do that. Have two music geniuses have a baby and the chances that child will be good at music are above average.

    Woah, woah, woah....hold up there! If music ability works in a similar way to, say, IQ, then you have regression to the mean.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    John's on the verge of rediscovering Lysenkoism

  • Agammamon||

    What do *you* mean by consciousness? Is it simple self-awareness or do you subscribe to some other definition, are you throwing 'free-will' in to the mix, when we don't even *know* if, let alone how much free will man has.

    That humanity in general are free-agents is a base premise we accept without any real evidence to support it.

    For all I know, you're all zimbies and I'm the only person in existence. But you fake the behaviors of self-awareness and claim to have free-will because it gives you an evolutionary advantage.

    Because I've got a dog that's conscious.

  • ||

    You are way out on weirdville on this one John.

    This is a guy who says evopsych is "just making stuff up" based on the fundamental difficulty gathering empirical evidence for its theories, after citing a philosopher. So, yeah.

  • John||

    I never said the philosopher had the Truth, you moron. I said evolutionary psychology was no better. It is in fact worse because it pretends that made up stories are science.

    You admit it can't be verified. Why do you believe in it? Because it sounds good?

  • ||

    I never said the philosopher had the Truth, you moron. I said evolutionary psychology was no better.

    versus

    In the end, Schopenhauer was right. There is no explanation for why a person likes or dislikes something or makes a choice. It just is.
    You admit it can't be verified. Why do you believe in it?

    Interestingly enough, I didn't say anything about believing it. I said you don't know what you are talking about.

  • Agammamon||

    A random mutation can be in the hard-wiring of your mind, either software or hardware.

    There's plenty of evidence of hardwired behaviors in humans that aren't learned - a baby knows how to suckle a teat with out training for example.

    We really aren't anywhere near having complete free-will.

  • John||

    That is the problem. We don't understand free will or conciseness. And without that understanding, there is no way to connect it to evolution.

    It would be like trying to explain the evolution of the liver, if you had no idea how a liver actually functions.

  • Agammamon||

    There's plenty of way of connecting to evolution.

    How would you explain how the brain is created?

    Its created based on a genetic blueprint. That blueprint has, in it, the layout of the physical structures that give rise to consciousness.

  • ||

    We don't understand free will or conciseness.

    we do understand that consciousness and freewill make us more fit then say Chimps or Orangutangs (or the hundreds of other pre-human primates that went extinct)

    Humans unlike Chimps and Orangutangs are not endangered of going extinct.

    Free will and consciousness can be understood in evolution terms as adaptations that increase our survivability.

  • John||

    we do understand that consciousness and freewill make us more fit then say Chimps or Orangutangs (or the hundreds of other pre-human primates that went extinct)

    And have a faith that such fitness is the result of evolution and the stories you tell yourself. Have fun with it, but stop raping the term 'science' by associating the two.

    You are assuming causality and fitness, whatever that is, when you don't even know what the thing is. It is just faith based bullshit. It is offensively stupid.

  • Agammamon||

    When Darwin proposed evolution, they had no idea how genes were built, had no physical model of them, yet were able to infer their existence as something, that if evolution were true, *had* to exist.

  • Agammamon||

    Uh, yeah we do - and even then explaining its 'evolution' is impossible.

    Don't confuse 'evolutionary psychology' with 'the mind evolved but we don't know what most of its structures do, let alone how, together they give rise to consciousness'.

    I think that's the mistake you're making here - I don't think anyone here actually thinks EvPsych is any further along than therapeutic psychology.

  • Agammamon||

    Well, he sorta can.

    While I would *mostly* agree that evolutionary imperatives do exist that mold behavior to actions that are beneficial to spreading our genes, this guy is forgetting that evolution isn't 'perfect' and acts over long periods of time.

    There's a lot of cruft there, including stuff that may have beneficial to an ancestor species but isn't particularly so to us and hasn't been bred out yet, or even stuff that is beneficial to us in certain environments (sickle cell trait for example) but will kill you faster in others.

  • Coeus||

    There's a lot of cruft there, including stuff that may have beneficial to an ancestor species but isn't particularly so to us and hasn't been bred out yet, or even stuff that is beneficial to us in certain environments (sickle cell trait for example) but will kill you faster in others.

    Exactly. John seems to be locked into the religious viewpoint that man was created. End of story. Not that we're the result of messy biological processes.

  • John||

    No. you guys are locked into the viewpoint that evolution must explain things you can't understand. I have no idea where consciousness came from much less what it is. You are the people telling stories, not me.

  • Coeus||

    No. you guys are locked into the viewpoint that evolution must explain things you can't understand.

    No, we just don't think it's useless, as you seem to.

  • Juice||

    Animals don't decide to be something else. Lions don't wake up one day and decide not to hunt wildebeests or bang a female in heat. It is just what they do. Humans in contrast can do that. Humans can decide to not breed or eat meat or even end their own lives.

    Human consciousness is certainly more developed than other species, but we aren't the only "conscious" species.

  • Juice||

    Darwin really can't account for free will and consciousness in the human form.

    Free will is an illusion anyway.

  • califernian||

    Darwin really can't account for free will and consciousness in the human form.

    Willful idiocy.

  • BigT||

    Altruistic works on behalf of our offspring certainly favor spreading one's genes, ie Darwinian. That these behaviors can also be expressed w/r/t others in no way changes their beneficial effect on one's genetic offspring. The statement was simplistic in the extreme.

  • John||

    Killing your children doesn't exactly help in spreading our genes does it? Yet, people willing do that.

  • ||

    I repeat: You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you?

  • John||

    I repeat. You have joined the church of evolutionary psychology and apparently do not tolerate the non believers.

    Really? You actually believe that horseshit?

  • ||

    Every organism has a chance to participate in the gene pool, not the obligation. That some organisms are unsuccessful does not disprove evolution, it's the very essence of evolution.

  • John||

    I never said evolution is untrue. I said evolution can't explain our wills or our consciousness. Who ever said evolution must explain everything?

  • Michael S. Langston||

    John -

    I agree with your base point the evolutionary psychology has a lot to be desired, but that's mostly because the people using it are using it to "prove" already preheld beliefs.

    Aside from that - do you not see how evolutionary forces might affect the way we think today?

    That group-think may be stupid, but the reason why it's so ingrained is because of our original tribal upbringings which, evolutionary speaking, required agreeing with the group or facing death through ostracism?

    Or that common sexist beliefs may arise from separation of labor, ability to do the separate jobs, and their importance for lots of human history versus now?

    Because while I agree with you the "truth" of all of this is hidden to the point of allowing anyone to make up almost anything, I disagree the science itself is worthless.

    If it is - then so is all of philosophy...

  • John||

    Micheal,

    At best what you are left with is that man in a primitive state was driven to do things by necessity and these things have lived on in his social constructs and thus affect his decision making and thinking to this day.

    There is probably a lot of truth to that. But I don't think many evolutionary psychologists will be very satisfied with that.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    But I don't think many evolutionary psychologists will be very satisfied with that.

    Yeah, that may well be - but I see almost all of psychology like this today - the industry, mostly due to its practitioners and writers is almost worthless.

    However, psychology itself, has a lot of power - for instance understanding common decision failures and mitigating them through specific processes/knowledge/etc.

    Or for interrogations (both in helping to seek information as well as understanding how some can admit, without torture, to horrendous things they never did given enough prodding from authorities)...

    Or using psy evals during SF training...

    I think the same with evolutionary psychology - most of what's reported is likely crap, but the nuggets are there and useful if you can filter all the crap (which most people do not have the time for).

  • Michael S. Langston||

    My

    blockquotes

    don't seem to be working...

    preview


    preview


    preview
  • Agammamon||

    Keep in mind - your brother's and sisters, and cousin's share genes with you. A gay guy who helps out his sister's family is helping to spread his genes.

  • Irish||

    Killing your children doesn't exactly help in spreading our genes does it? Yet, people willing do that.

    So do animals.

    Some animals kill their offspring during times of scarcity based on the fact that if the mother survives she can have more children but if the mother dies the children will die anyway. It is therefore beneficial to the passing on of genes to kill the children during times of famine.

  • John||

    Sure some do. Was Andrea Yates driven to kill her children by some evolutionary concern for scarcity? If not, then what the fuck does evolution have to do with anything? If so, then how is she any more morally culpable for her action than a Tiger eating its young?

  • Agammamon||

    Yes she was - she twisted an evolutionary concern for scarcity into a fear for her children's immortal souls.

    Base evolutionary imperatives can be twisted into some pretty horrible forms under high stress.

  • John||

    If they can be twisted and ignored, they are not imperatives. They are just shit you made up.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that!

  • John||

    In a sense I can't. I can describe gravity. I tell you how it works. But I can't explain it. It just is.

  • Agammamon||

    Well then, we should just get rid of *all* modern science since it can't reach beyond veil of the Big Bang to explain 'the ultimate why?'

    You're going the same route the creationist go when they keep looking for the 'god of the gaps'

  • John||

    No. I am just expecting science to make predictions, be confirmed by observation and be more than stories someone made up. This has nothing to do with God or creation.

    And anyone who thinks that there is such a thing as God of the gaps argument, knows very little about metaphysics. There is no just argument, just a straw man myth atheists tell themselves.

  • Juice||

    Killing your children doesn't exactly help in spreading our genes does it? Yet, people willing do that.

    Just because natural selection selects some genes over others across time doesn't mean that "good" traits will always propagate.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "The elimination of staff's traditional health care has been a complete disaster," said one senior staffer, responding to the survey.

    Yes, it sucks when your stupid ideas come back to bite you in the ass.

    "How was I supposed to know it would happen to me?"

  • John||

    Am I a bad person for finding intense satisfaction in these assholes' misfortune?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    No

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Apropos of nothing (or OT):

    I'm looking forward to new $15 minimum wage. The increase in unemployment and shuttering of small businesses will be epic, as will the butt hurt.

  • Pro Libertate||

    No, see the Republicans and CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE will be why all those bad things happen.

  • Irish||

    Given that the Democrat controlled Senate just failed to extend unemployment benefits, I seriously doubt a $15 minimum wage is going to happen.

  • Pro Libertate||

    They fear the ides of November or something.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    I seriously doubt a $15 minimum wage is going to happen.

    True, but I wish it would happen because of the fun, fun, fun.

    The tearful accusations and rending of garments would be delightful.

  • ||

    So I saw this in the Berlin Bahnhof.

    Welcome to a 15$/hr fast food universe, bitches!

  • PD Scott||

    Many years ago the local Taco Bell had touchscreen ordering, prompted by computer voice recordings. You would choose your options ("Do you want SOUR CREAM?!") then go to the counter to pay for it. Unfortunately, people got confused, didn't remember which was their order number, just went ahead to the counter, etc. so they were taken out.

    Never seemed to get my order right at the Taco Bell ever again.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    There's a cost to implement any improvement in anything as it usually means changing from some current process to some new process.

    & specifically, as it relates to technology, there is a cost in that some people don't like or don't think technological alternatives to current people processes end in similar or better results.

    This is largely an age issue though that is dissipating as grandparents routinely use things like RedBox, Facebook, and ATMs...

    Additionally, many years ago the question was between teaching lots of new people a new ordering system versus $7.75 an hour (assuming how long ago it was).

    Move forward, more people comfortable with technology, many of whom rightfully believe the outcomes to automated processes to be mostly more accurate than people driven processes, and maybe the calculus is between new machines and cost of adjust policy against $10 or $15 an hour and I think the technological alternative quickly becomes the norm.

  • Enough About Palin||

    I watched the original Anchorman, the Ron Burgundy Story for a little bit yesterday; what a shitty, shitty, non-funny film.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    But...but...most important film of 2013!

  • John||

    It sucks. All Will Ferrell movies are just variations on him acting really stupid in various situations. They are uniformly awful.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I've liked him in some stuff. Like Zoolander, for instance.

  • John||

    The NASCAR movie was watchable and so was Blades of Glory. But most of them are terrible. So I take it back. They are not uniformly unwatchable.

  • PapayaSF||

    I thought Elf was actually very good.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yeah, I liked that. But it had Bob Newhart and Peter Dinklage, among others.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Dinklage is on the screen for about 5 minutes in that film and he completely owns the scene. No wonder he was cast as Tyrion.

    It's also the one film where Ferrell's Passive-Aggressive Nitwit archetype actually makes sense.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Agreed. Also, James Caan and some other decent casting choices.

    I don't hate Ferrell, but I find him much more tolerable in supporting roles.

  • PapayaSF||

    And Zooey Deschanel... *swoon*

  • ||

    I don't know why but the Deschanel sisters make me angry.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I don't know why but the Deschanel sisters make me angry.

    They look great, but they both have a deadpan style of acting that's really tedious. It's the same reason I try to avoid stuff with Kristen Wiig in it.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Also, as you alluded, if Ferrell doesn't have a strong cast around him to take the edge off of his dumbassery, everything quickly devolves into something that only a 12-year-old would laugh at.

  • Pro Libertate||

    With the exception of Elf, I can't think of a movie where he was the lead that I particularly liked.

  • ||

    Irish, can you shoot me an email?

  • Irish||

    Sure, in a little bit.

  • Coeus||

    My body my choice.
    Your wallet, my choice.

  • ||

    If it evolutionary that men like big boobs, then every man should like big boobs or those have some kind of genetic mutation that is passed on to their offspring.

    I am a walking, talking disproof of evolution! Do I get a prize?

  • John||

    Since when is "evolution" the same as "evolutionary psychology"? One is not the other. The former is perfectly valid science confirmed by observation. The latter is some sort of elaborate myth making device favored by people who miss church I guess.

  • ||

    Typo on my part

  • Coeus||

    Not A Single Female Student Took The AP Computer Science Test In Two States

    But if these students aren’t being encouraged or guided into these fields at a young age, that may be part of the reason they hold so few of these jobs. The AP prep course for computer science has students design and create computer programs, hands-on experience that could spark an interest in the field. The new president of the College Board, which oversees the AP exams, has said he is focused on expanding access to underserved groups of students and especially on closing the racial test-taking gap.

    Quick question: Were any of you who took this test encouraged to do so? I took it, and I can't think of a single encouragement I received. I purposely had to seek it out.

  • ||

    At my school, with one or two exceptions, everyone in every AP class was expected to take the exam.

    As an aside, my AP CS class was about half girls.

  • Coeus||

    I had to find out where it was offered and get my ass down to a semi local community college to take 80 percent of my AP tests and courses. Small town.

  • RishJoMo||

    lol that dude has a huge nose.

    www.Anon-Global.tk

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