Reason Morning Links: Disputed Drone Edition

|

The latest from Reason.tv: "Experimental Economist Vernon Smith on the Housing Bubble, Adam Smith, and Libertarianism."

NEXT: The Real Effects of Gambling

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Anonymous announces that it has hacked NATO.

    I wonder how much outrage we’ll see in the media.

    Garrett Epps – Constitutional Myth #9: The Election of Senators ‘Harms’ the States

    1. He teaches courses in constitutional law and creative writing for law students…

      Talk about two things that wouldn’t seem to go together…oh wait…it’s not a suicide pact 😉

    2. It’s NATO, not the family of a murdered PWG. Keep a sense of proportion, please.

  2. Man pulled over, taken into custody for possessing stolen credit cards.

    Nothing else happens.

    http://www.annarbor.com/news/d…..dit-cards/

    1. I’m not really feeling the outrage on this one.

      Plus: it’s Ypsilanti.

      1. That’s Ypsitucky to the locals…

        1. Ypsitucky
          Pennsyltucky

          Its beginning to piss me off. Stick bama on the end of your areas of insult please.

          Or sippi. Or mix it up. Actually, fornia probably works too.

          Hmmm…Philadelphia in the East, Pittsburgh in the West, Pennsylfornia in between.

          1. Ypsissippi has a certain ring to it.

          2. I live about thirty miles from Ypsilanti, and people here have been calling it Ypsitucky for at least the last forty years.

            1. The real question is: 30 miles east or west?

          3. robc- my favorite variation on this theme, and it’s a bit geographically disparate but I don’t care, is West Virpennsylindatucky.

    2. I need to get me some o’ them bionic cop eyes.

      Or large-print credit cards. Either will do.

    3. OK, dunphy, we get it…

    4. That is an isolated incident. Nobody tasered, no high-speed chase leaving a trail of dead and injured, no dogs shot, nobody arrested for “illegally” recording police . . . .

      Must’ve been a rookie cop.

        1. Good Morning, Suki!

      1. That cop isn’t going to last long.

    5. WOW! That makes it ok for cops to murder people!!

      Cool!!

      1. Yeah, it’s all about the average — they have to keep the ratio of murderous interactions to non-murderous interactions at 1:5 or better.

        1. Man pulled over on suspicion of DUI, flees, caught, arrested on aggravated fleeing and eluding and suspicion of DUI on morning he’s to be sentenced for DUI. Nothing else happens.

          http://www.suntimes.com/news/m…..r-dui.html

    1. Give Greece What It Deserves: Communism Golden Girls.

      FIFY!

  3. Moderate Republicans We just couldn’t live with Sarah Palin so we voted for Obama. But now we are so disapointed in him. sniff

    http://www.punditandpundette.c…..-with.html

    useless fucking swine.

    1. Remember, we’re all socialists now.

      The claptrap that spewed out of various media organs was a sight to behold in 2008/9.

      Things have actually been worse that I ever suspected back then. Hope and change!

      1. I figured he would run wild for two years and the Dems would lose at least the House in 2010. But then I figured he would come around to the Center and pull a Clinton in the second half. But he hasn’t. He seems absolutely incapable of compromise or working with the opposite party. I don’t know if he is that fanatical or that stupid or both.

        1. I was thinking (based on the iffy media reports at the time) that he would disavow his more leftist tendencies and pull a moderate Clinton. It would have cemented a Democratic house majority for a long, long time.

          Instead, I think the Bush years made the left (along with everyone else) crazy. They took their moment and ran with it, ignoring any criticism or bipartisanship. This was the glorious day that everyone was becoming a liberal and we would all bask in the glory of a greater, better government.

          Ok, I’m getting a little carried away…

          1. The Bush years made the right crazy, too.

        2. I wouldn’t say he’s stupid. However, he does possess the zeal of the converted, and clearly his personality does not allow for any empathy whatsoever, hence the complete lack of any ability or desire to move to the center.

        3. Yes he is a fanatic, Obama is George Bush III.

          Bail out the bankers – Bail out the bankers

          Expand government perscription drug plan – Expand government health plan

          War in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen – War in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya.

          Expand government – Expand government

          Big government debt – Bigger government debt.

          Etc – Etc

          1. He’s chained to the slave mentality and no, that’s not racist.

          2. Yeah but he likes teh gays (even if he won’t admit it), so libruls love him.

            1. Oh, and he’s good with killing brown babies, the left loves that too.

        4. I vote “arrogant”.

          1. I vote “Present”

            1. Let me be clear: I was in attendance that day.

              1. I blame Bush

        5. That said, compromising with Team Red wouldn’t result in any better policy decisions.

    2. Indeed. How dare they betray their “team”!

    3. Joe the plumber tried to warn them. But he was just some dumb rube from the sticks, so what would he know?

      1. Someone needs to do a follow-up on that guy.

        1. Didn’t Fox News send him the Middle East or something?

          1. Maybe he didn’t come back.

            1. Maybe he got the contract to replumb Baghdad.

          2. Mushroom Kingdom, I think.

      2. The “class/KULTUR warfare” was strong against the Palins and the plumbers in 2008.

    4. John, John, John. Pain was just the kicker. It was the crazy old cart at the top of the Republican ticket who scared the bejeezus out of me. At least, so far, we aren’t at war with Iran and North Korea.

      1. Yeah because Obama has sure kept us out of wars. If you voted against McCain because you convinced yourself he was going to start a world war, you are just retarded and probably ought never to vote again.

        1. OK, got ya. Anybody who voted against McCain is retarded. After all, he is a perfectly sane, sober, stable personality with good judgement, consistent political positions, a deep respect for liberty, and no lobbyist ties.

          1. Mike 1, Strawman 0

            If you voted against McCain because you convinced yourself he was going to start a world war, you are just retarded

            1. Dude, ad hominem attacks aren’t necessarily meant to be read extremely literally. They’re emotional attacks, after all. And the fact that John resorted to one indicates he doesn’t have any real rebuttal.

          2. Turd Sandwich

            or

            Giant Douche

            1. Yup. Pretty much.

      2. At least, so far, we aren’t at war with Iran and North Korea.

        Actually, we’re at war with both. I believe the Korean War is still technically on, just resting under a cease fire.

        Similarly, Iran has been engaged in war-fighting activities against the US for a number of years, most notably by providing troops and equipment to fight US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It may be an undeclared war, but its a war nonetheless.

      3. Yes, thank goodness that Obama ended the wars and refused to start any new ones. Whew!

        And we wouldn’t have Obamacare to look forward to, either. That would really suck.

    5. Do you know which other charismatic politician betrayed his rich early supporters?

  4. ah, Paladin Press – that dredges up some teenage memories of the 80s. Phreaking, reading the Anarchist Cookbook… and paging through the Loompanic catalog.

    1. Ah, Loompanic… I got my copy of T.A.Z.: The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism from there. A lot of Robert Anton Wilson too. Good times.

    2. Aren’t they the ones in Bruce Sterling’s The Hacker Crackdown?
      That was a very interesting little book.

    3. A typical FBI response to an inquiry from whomever: “AGAIN THIS IS NOT CLASSIFIED OR RESTRICTED MATERIAL … THESE ITEMS ARE POSSIBLY OF INTEREST TO TERRORISTS OR EXTREMISTS, BUT, AS ALL ARE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN OF THE U.S., POSSESSION OF SUCH ITEMS CONSTITUTE NO VIOLATION OF LAW.”

      How current is that response?

  5. They named their nuclear enrichment plant after a hobbit?

  6. A Fox News host said Sunday that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is “obviously not … a Christian,” a view that, if widely held, may have repercussions for the Mormon candidate’s election odds.

    During a conversation about the Republican presidential field if Texas Gov. Rick Perry were to get into the race, “Fox & Friends” host Ainsley Earhardt speculated that Perry would have a much better chance of raising funds and rallying the social conservative base since Perry is Christian and rather open about his faith. During an exchange with co-host Dave Briggs, Earhardt said :

    “Well the Christian coalition ? I think [Rick Perry] can get a lot of money from that base because [of] Romney obviously not being a Christian”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/….._blog.html

    1. HE is not. Did he stop being Mormon?

      1. Mormoms are not Christians? I think that would come as news to them wouldn’t it?

        1. I don’t think that “non-Christian” is an insult, or should disqualify someone from public office.

          At the same time, you have to admit that Mormon theology differs significantly from the rest of Christianity on some extremely vital points. I would compare it to the ridiculous Christians who go around talking about how Jewish they are.

        2. As an athiest, I have no Mike Vick in this fight, but ‘Christian’ is a word in the English language intended to convey meaning outside the head of any given speaker or listener. Is it your claim that the adjective ‘Christian’ only means someone claims to be one?

          1. Christian theology has common tenets that all flavors share that Mormon theology rejects.

            For instance, in the ultimate goal for Mormon believers is to become a god of their own world as some future point in time. That is radically anti-Christian in multiple ways.

        3. No they are not. They are no more Christian than Muslims. That doesn’t mean they are bad people. But they are not Christians by any reasonable definition of the word. Yeah, they believe in the divinity of Christ. But Muslims believe Christ was a prophet. They are not Christians. They are Mormons.

          1. So when Mormons say they are Christians they are wrong. I’m interested in who else you would disqualify as Christians while you are judging this kind of thing. Are Jehovah’s Witnesses? Christian Scientists? Seventh Day Adventists?

            1. When Mormons say they are Christians they are wrong, yes. They are an off shoot of Christianity, but not Christians. It is a different religion. They are “latter day saints”. They honestly believe that some day they will be in heaven and become Gods of their own universes. They believe in a ton of things that are completely antithetical to Christianity.

              1. Again, while you are judging who is a real Christian and who is not, how about a judgment on those other three groups?

              2. You so realize that they read the Bible and believe that it is true? Do you not. Unlike Muslims, for example, they do not reject the Bible as having been a corrupt version of the truth, although it is true they think many translations of the Bible are incorrect. They believe that the Bible “is true to the extent that it has been translated correctly”.

                By the way, I am not Mormon.

                1. They say that, but then they have another “bible” that mostly contradicts what is in the one they claim is true. They are not “Christians” by any reasonable definition of the term. If they are, then pretty much anyone who claims they are Christian is and there is no objective standard of what makes a “Christian”.

                  1. “They say that, but then they have another “bible” that mostly contradicts what is in the one they claim is true.”

                    Oh, so then I must assume that you are an expert on Mormon theology. Can you tell me in what ways their scripture “mostly contradicts what is in the one they claim is true” Since you are obviously an expert on Mormon theology I expect you can cite line and verse where these contradictions are.

                    1. PIRS –

                      I think that to be a Christian you have to believe that Jesus came to Earth, was crucified, died, and was resurrected, and will return in some form in the future.

                      If you think he came back since then and had all sorts of cool adventures but somehow there was no new heaven and new earth, then you aren’t a Christian.

                      The traditional Bible contains an eschatology. The Mormon religion can’t be reconciled to any reasonable reading of that eschatology. If the Scientologists changed their name to the Church of L. Ron Hubbard Christians tomorrow and came up with some theory that said Jesus had no thetans and was therefore semi-divine and anticipated L. Ron Hubbard, they still would not be Christians.

                      And I say this as the meanest atheist here.

                    2. A couple things. First, the believe that the head of the church can change doctrine at will even if it contradicts the actual bible or scriptures. Second, they believe that they will someday be “Gods” of their own universes in heaven. That is totally antethetical to Christianity. Third, see what fluffy said below. He said it better than me.

                  2. there is no objective standard of what makes a “Christian”.

                    That sounds about right.

              3. John, I have a question for you: What is your definition of Christian?

                I am interested to know how many dozens of people fit your definition.

                1. To be a Christian, you have to believe in more or less the Nicene Creed (although not necessarily the part about their being one church) and believe that Paul was the last apostle of Christ. Anyone who believes in anything beyond that is not a Christian.

                  1. “you have to believe in more or less the Nicene Creed”

                    LOL, this explains a lot. The Nicene creed was chosen for political reasons, not theological ones.

                    I personally think the trinitarian concept is absurd. So, I guess that means I am not Christian. Oh, well.

                    1. No PIRS, you are not. Just like I am not a Catholic because I can’t buy into the Pope being the ultimate authority on things. Words have meanings. You can’t change them just because you don’t like it.

                    2. John, it is you who are changing the definition of Christian. There are some breeds of dog I don’t like – such as the Chinese crested dog – but I would never deny that they are a dog. They might not look like most dogs but this does not put them outside the definition of dog. Does the fact a Manx lacks a tail make it something other than a cat? Does the fact that a Basenji lacks the ability to bark make it something other than a dog?

                    3. I want to eat my cake!
                      But… I want to HAVE it too!

                  2. Anything beyond that? You can’t have meant that. Pretty much every individual Christian, Christian denomination, and congregation has beliefs beyond that. Interpretations of the Book of Revelations, for example.

                  3. To be a Christian, you have to believe in more or less the Nicene Creed (although not necessarily the part about their being one church)

                    That somehow manages to be simulataneously too vacuous and too strict.

                  4. There are plenty of Christian sects that are not Trinitarian.

                    1. Also, I’m sure most 1st and 2nd century Christians did not believe in the Nicene Creed.

                    2. That’s funny. I guess Peter and Paul weren’t Christians either.

              4. “They honestly believe that some day they will be in heaven and become Gods of their own universes.”

                A great mant Evangelicals believe this as well. Son of God Comics also promotes this belief.

            2. I gotta go with John on this one.

              They have an intervening prophet who received a unique new testament from a divine figure.

              I don’t think Shakers were Christians, either, frankly.

              I think comparing them to Muslims is apt. They’re a descendant religion from Christianity, incorporating some old material but so much NEW material (from a new prophet) that it’s a new brand. Joseph Smith = Mohammad.

              1. So then Fluffy, what is YOUR definition of Christian?

                1. Sorry, I answered above but will answer again here:

                  Damn threaded comments.

                  I think that to be a Christian you have to believe that Jesus came to Earth, lived in Palestine and preached, was crucified, died, and was resurrected – and that he will come back some day, and when that happens there will be a Judgment and a new heaven and a new earth.

                  If you think Jesus had additional cool adventures, you aren’t a Christian. You’re a trademark thief.

                  1. “If you think Jesus had additional cool adventures, you aren’t a Christian. You’re a trademark thief.”

                    Trademark thief? Really? Does the Bible anywhere say he did NOT show up in the Americas at some point? Do you believe God is incapable of pulling off such a feat?

                    1. Well, “trademark thief” was meant to be a witticism, but that’s the general idea here:

                      You steal a character from someone else’s book to be the protagonist of your own book, because that’s a good marketing ploy if you can get away with it.

                      Trademark thief.

                    2. Perhaps the Book of Mormon is more fan fiction than trademark theft.

                  2. Muslims are pretty close to that. they believe up to the point of death and resurrection. But they do believe Jesus (Isa) will return.

                    Some sects of Christianity, like JWs do not believe in Jesus resurrected in the same body.

              2. You knowm, up until recently Protestants did not think of Catholics as “real Christians.” Sure, they both believed in the New Testament and the basics, but Catholics had other books in their Bible not recognized by the Protestants, they seemed to worship Mary and Saints, put an “intervening prophet” between man and God (the Pope), etc.

                1. That had as much, if not more, to do with power than it did theology.

                2. ” but Catholics had other books in their Bible not recognized by the Protestants, they seemed to worship Mary and Saints, put an “intervening prophet” between man and God (the Pope), etc”

                  Very good analogy MNG, very good.

                  1. It’s actually not that good of an analogy.
                    1) The “Catholic books” existed as canon long before the Protestants rejected them. It wasn’t a matter of Catholics adding them in as new revelation, it was a matter of Luther rejecting them.
                    2)The Pope isn’t considered a “prophet” even analogously, and Catholics trace the institution of the papacy from the New Testament to the modern day.

                    1. Quetzalcoatl, I know that many Catholics will deny this fact – but Christianity existed before the Foundation of the Roman Catholic Church.

                    2. They were not in the Jewish Canon. And those in the Apocrypha are pre-Christian books. Protestants followed after the Jewish canon, though Christians number many passages differently and have a different order for the Jewish texts.

                  2. Not exactly true either. At least one edition of the Bible produced by a protestant organization contains the books of what are commonly known as the Apocrypha. that would be the New English Bible.

                3. If the Pope used his authority to write a third testament about how Jesus played basketball on the Harlem Globetrotters back in the 1960’s and in his spare time solved crimes like Encylopedia Brown, and left behind all sorts of cool new revelations like “Eating cotton candy will make your dick bigger” and “Everyone gets their own heaven when they die, and you can fill it up with cool Jurassic Park dinosaurs and shit, and there’s a lot of pot!” at some point the weight of the new “inspired” material the Pope was promulgating would make it a new, non-Christian religion.

                  1. Except that the Pope does not have the authority to do that. His role is as custodian of the revelation that already exists, not a prophet who reveals new things.

                  2. “Eating cotton candy will make your dick bigger”

                    That’s actually true.

                4. “You knowm, up until recently Protestants did not think of Catholics as “real Christians.””

                  I don’t think Catholics would be offended by being called non-christians, as they’re pretty adamant that they’re catholics. Though its hard to see alot of daylight between modern catholicism and modern christianity.

                5. You can still here that Catholics aren’t really Christians at certain born-again churches.

              3. I concur with John and Fluffy on this one. The Nicean creed was created as a basic summary of teachings that all Christians could agree on.
                To say that a Christian believes what the Nicean Creed states is a tautology.

                1. BTW, I think this debate can never be settled, because we are off the deep end into the philosophy of language here.

                  Why is a cat not a dog? It was four legs and a head and a tail. If a cat could speak and say, “I am a dog!” would that make him one? I vote “No”.

                  1. I am a Platonist Fluffy, I believe that a cat is not a dog because they have different essenses. At some point the worldly expression of a dog gets so removed from the essence of a dog, it is no longer a dog but a cat or something else.

                    1. I am a Platonist Fluffy, I believe that a cat is not a dog because they have different essenses [sic].

                      HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

                    2. I am a Platonist Fluffy, I believe that a cat is not a dog because they have different essenses.

                      I can see why Platonism tempts mathematicians, but in a post-Darwin world it really makes little sense to speak of animal forms as being fixed.

                  2. Cat: “Hey man, I’m a dog”
                    Fluffy: “No fuckin way man. I define YOU!!

                    1. Yes, Lost, that’s exactly it.

                      Why do we use nouns?

                      To combine like items or entities and give them a label.

                      At some point, one thing will be unlike the other things in a set to a degree that requires it to have its own noun.

                      Who decides when that threshold is reached? Well, me, really. There’s no better answer available than “me”. And then you make your own decision about it, and we argue about it. But we can never really settle the argument.

                      I think that applying the noun “Christian” to Mormons conceals more than it illuminates. And that makes it a bad use of language to me. I also think Joseph Smith did this deliberately – that the claim that Mormons are Christians was a necessary part of his fraud. To me, it’s impossible to separate the subsidiary question “Are Mormons Christians?” from the question, “What was Joseph Smith trying to do?”

                    2. “What was Joseph Smith trying to do?”

                      Accumulate pussy and bling, that’s what.

                    3. “”What was Joseph Smith trying to do?”

                      Accumulate pussy and bling, that’s what.”

                      Sounds like a regular on TBN.

                    4. Joseph Smith often went way beyond.the necessary in his fraud. It is clear he took great joy in his work.

                    5. “To me, it’s impossible to separate the subsidiary question “Are Mormons Christians?” from the question, “What was Joseph Smith trying to do?””

                      There is a logical fallacy called the Genetic Fallacy which judges the truth or falsehood of an idea based upon the origin of that idea.

                      From the standpoint of “what Mormons today actually believe” which is the only useful definition of Mormonism, it is irrelevant what Joesph Smith was trying to do. What matters is the resulting theology and how it is interpreted by believers.

                  3. Here’s one reason this discussion is funny to me:

                    MNG would claim in another context that the people who run Pregnancy Crisis Centers are frauds, despite the fact that they definitely want to talk to you about your pregnancy crisis.

                    So apparently this “Everyone is whatever they say they are” thing only applies to the noun “Christian” and not the compound noun “Pregnancy Crisis Center”.

                    1. yes Fluffy. And if Buhdists or Muslims said a group wasn’t one of them, he would respect that. But for some reason Christians must be instructed on who is and is not one of them.

                    2. MNG can only mount arguments against men of straw.
                      If he lets them define themselves then they cease to be a straw man.
                      It’s not a straw man if he doesn’t define it.
                      So he must define it if he is to argue against it.

                2. Saying Mormons are Christian is like saying Christians are Jewish.

                  1. “Saying Mormons are Christian is like saying Christians are Jewish.”

                    Some, although not all of them, actually are.

                    http://www.umjc.net/

                    1. I should have said “like saying Christians are part of the Jewish faith”, since a person of Jewish decent is not automatically tied to the religion.

                    2. Sarcasmic, again, some of them are. Did you click the link?

                    3. I would say that Mormons are Christian in the same way that Moslems are Jewish.

                      They take all the Jewish bible as bible,and then they add their own.

                    4. “Did you click the link?”

                      Yes. And my eyes glazed over in about two seconds. Didn’t get it.

                    5. “Yes. And my eyes glazed over in about two seconds. Didn’t get it.”

                      That is your problem, not mine.

                  2. “Saying Mormons are Christian is like saying Christians are Jewish.”

                    Except (most) Christians do not claim to be Jewish the same way Mormons claim to be Christian.

                  3. Catholics, Muslims and Mormons are all adherents of heretical Jewish sects and thus Jews of a sort. Not very good Jews, and not recognized as Jews by the Jews, but Jews all the same.

                3. “I concur with John and Fluffy on this one. The Nicean creed was created as a basic summary of teachings that all Christians could agree on.”

                  It was because the recent convert Constantine was trying to secure his own political power. Any divisions within the church were a threat to his power. It had nothing to do with truth or light or goodness. It was only a political move.

              4. “I think comparing them to Muslims is apt. They’re a descendant religion from Christianity, incorporating some old material but so much NEW material (from a new prophet) that it’s a new brand. Joseph Smith = Mohammad.”

                So was Moses not a Jew?

                1. Depends on your definition of a Jew. He was from the tribe of Levi.

            3. I’m with you, MNG. If shrike can be a Hayekian libertarian, then Mormons can be Christian.

              1. Shrike claimed to be Hayekian? I must have missed that post.

          2. That is so wrong. I used to date a Mormon chick. We had family dinner every Sunday. When here father would say grace, he closed with, “We ask this in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

            The bible says that anyone who professes with his lips that Jesus is their Lord and Savior is a true believer.

          3. I think they are a little bit more Christian than Muslims are.

        4. Some Mormons might say they are Christians, but most if not all Christians would disagree.

        5. I think the point is that most strains of Christianity affiliated with The Christian Coalition don’t view the Mormon tenant that Jesus went into the West after his crucifiction and appeared to a bunch of Amerindians in what would later be upstate NY as an acceptable interpretation of “Christianity”.

          1. My knowledge of Mormonism can fill a thimble. I think of Utah, polygamy, and annoying young gentleman riding bicycles to “spread the word”.

            As a long term atheist, I have no dogs in this fight and really don’t care if someone is a Wiccan, Muslim or whatnot – the question is, can they actually govern with the minimum intrusion on my liberties and without spending mountains of cash.

            1. Lapsed Catholic here. I don’t think the Joseph Smith’s tale of gnosis is better or worse than the Dead Sea scrolls. And no, Mitt can’t meet your requirements.

              1. Weird comment thread – wasn’t exactly replying to you… but yeah, I don’t think Mitt is going to be leaning Libertarian.

        6. Ever since those rabblerousers left the Church in the 1500s we’ve had this “christian” word which is essentially meaningless. You can believe whatever nonsense you want, but there is only one Church, Catholicism. Mormons are every bit as “christian” as baptists, episcopal, lutheran, whatever. Just because they have magic underwear and stories about Christ’s travels in North America doesn’t make them any less qualified to be considered christian.

          We really should stop discussing the religion of politicians. It clearly has no bearing on their personal beliefs or moral decision-making.

          1. God fearing politician is an oxymoron.

        1. Ask them Mormons if Unitarians are Christians. The only Unitarians I know are a bunch of damn Atheists who like to go to church.

          1. tax shelter, dude. tax shelter.

            1. also, zoning regs can kiss your ass when you’re a “church.”

          2. Unitarianism is a book club that only reads one book.

          3. It would depend on the individual. Some are, some aren’t.

          4. Unitarians are Unitarians…lots are atheists, lots are secular humanists, and some actually believe in God. But a Unitarian service is by no means Christain unless you happen to go on a day when Christ’s story is mentioned as part of a larger theme. I don’t know of anybody who claims Unitarians are a Christian denomination.

          5. I thought Unitarians were gays who got tossed out of the fundie church.

          6. Unitarianism is a club for people who like the idea of church, but don’t want to have to deal with beliefs or dogma or any of the rest of that incovenient icky stuff.

    2. Why is this important?

      1. Beats the shit out of me!

    3. This thread is stupid. But I like stupid so here goes…Christian means simply that you believe in the divinity/supremacy of Christ. Muslims and Jews (two of the other Abrahamic faiths) do believe in Christ but NOT in his divinity. If your line John is the Nicean Creed then you have taken Gnostics, Coptics, all 26 Orthodox churches out of the mix. Not to mention you now have to reexamine the Anglican, Lutheran, Quakers, and a slew of other sects. I think the only sect that believes this soopid that was the creed in its entirety is the Romans.

      1. Half the fundies I know don’t believe that Catholics are Christians, so I don’t know where that leaves the validity od the Nicene creed in determining one’s Christian standing.

      2. Many Christians do not believe in the Divinity of the Messiah.
        Muslims do believe Jesus (Isa) is the Messiah and a profit, born of a virgin named Mary. But they do not believe he is Allah (God)
        A vast majority of Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Many do not believe a Messiah will come or is necessary. Those who do believe a Messiah will come reject the notion that he will be God Himself in the flesh.

      3. Ummm…partly wrong. The Lutherans belive the entire Nicene creed.

      4. Using your definition (which is a good one), Mormons are not Christian as they do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. They believe he’s merely the oldest son of the Father (and that Satan is his little brother).

        By any objective standard, Mormons are not Christian.

        1. No, that is quite wrong.

          Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is one of the three divine beings that make up the trinity. The others are God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

          Two have attained existence in the flesh while the third has not.

          It might sound silly to most of you, it certainly does to me. But I defy you to find me a biblical passage that definitively contradicts the idea.

          By definition (belief in the divinity of Jesus, belief in the atoning power of Christ’s death, belief in the resurrection) Mormons are Christians.

          The rest of their belief system might be alien to you but none of it can be shown to be in conflict with the Bible (no more than the stupid crap every other Christian sect believes, at any rate).

          1. I’ll second what jack said and go even further and say that there is absolutely nothing anti-christian about the idea of Christ and Satan being brothers. In fact the bible clearly refers to satan as a ‘the son of the morning star’ and as having been ‘cast down from heaven’. If God is truly the creator and father of all, that would, by definition make Christ and Satan brothers.

            Again, as jack stated, you statement regarding Mormon’s view of Christ is absolutely false.

            By any objective standard, you whole comment is… bullshit.

            1. To add to the Captain’s anxiety, not only is Lucifer the “little brother” of Jesus our Savior but the rest of us are the little brothers and sisters of both of them in turn.

    1. She got caught because she posted pictures of her wedding on MySpace. So, not only is she dumb enough to post pics of her “secret” husband online, but she also has a MySpace account….

      Maybe she figured no one would ever see them, given that they were posted on MySpace.

    1. DAMMIT!

    2. Yes, but they didn’t avoid me.

    3. There ought to be a law!

    4. Yes but did they avoid the werewolf?

      1. I guess we won’t know for sure until August 13th.

  7. Another out-of-wedlock conception for the Palin family

    I will claim both the left and right wing obvious jokes:

    Abstinence education begins at home, right?

    Will Sullivan demand to stare into Britta’s business end at the birth to confirm the baby isn’t Sarah’s?

    1. Will Sullivan demand to stare into Britta’s business end at the birth to confirm the baby isn’t Sarah’s?

      He has so much desire to stare into women’s naughty bits I’m thinking that whole gay thing may just be for publicity.

      1. There is no accounting for Sullivan. He is simply derranged, especially when it comes to women. Some people are gay because they really do like the same sex. Some are gay because they have massive issues with the other sex. Sullivan is clearly the latter. His obsession with Palin is just an expression of his larger issues with women.

    2. At least when you date a Palin, you know there is going to be some nailin’

      (or something like that)

    3. I’d say the Palins gave their kids healthy attitudes towards sex. They just failed to teach them about contraception.

  8. Politico reporter who covered Palin quits for Democratic Party job.

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/07…..party-job/

    1. More proof that Faux News is full of partisan hacks and is not real media, so the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply.

      1. When the mask slips on these guys they are always far left liberals. I can’t think of a single MSM reporter who when caught in a candid moment turned out to be a conservative Republican.

        1. How does Foxnews, the #1 rated cable news network, not count as part of the “Mainstream Media?” The “MSM meme” is one of the silliest out there.

          1. How does Foxnews, the #1 rated cable news network, not count as part of the “Mainstream Media?”

            How does Fox count as part of the mainstream media when leftists like you constantly say how out of the mainstream they are, how extremist they and their viewers are, etc?

          2. So you are admitting Fox News is a real media outlet and not a shill for Republicans? Good to know that. I will remember that. Everyone but Fox is staffed almost entirely by liberal partisan Democrats. But they would never let that affect their stories. That just happens at Fox, right?

            1. “Fox News is a real media outlet and not a shill for Republicans”

              Not sure the two are mutually exclusive. Surely they are a “real media outlet”, they are the number 1 watched news network, but they strike me as shills for the GOP, yes.

              1. Even though political donations from media outlets was 90% to Democrats as opposed to Fox where political donations were split 50/50%? Even Murdoch isn’t a Conservative.

            2. Fox shills for Republicans and the others shill for Democrats.

              Both are biased.

              So there!

              1. The others don’t shill for Democrats, at least not in the way Fox does. It’s nonsensical to lump together ABC, Mother Jones, NPR, the Nation and the Washington Post the way conservatives do with their “MSM” meme.

                1. Citation please?

                2. You don’t notice the bias because you yourself are biased, just as a lockstep Republican would argue that FOX has no bias.

                3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

                  You should put this one up for Friday Funnies, Mung! Cause it’s FUNNY!

                4. One need only follow the money :

                  political donations

                  Wonder if John Stewart will talk about Murdoch donating to Obama the way he raised a stink about the donations to the GOP? Of course not, heck, no bias, the guys just being a funnyman…

                5. It’s nonsensical to lump together ABC, Mother Jones, NPR, the Nation and the Washington Post the way conservatives do with their “MSM” meme.

                  A couple of outfits on your non biased list are open advocates for progressives.

            3. What’s the alternative? That they are so wildly successful because they just do things better than everybody else? Better news, better talking heads, better everything? Somehow I doubt MNG would agree with that, either.

              1. This should have gone under PL’s post below.

          3. And could you pull out a dictionary and find a new talking point besides “meme”? It makes you even more tiresome than usual.

            1. lol, you do know that another word for meme IS talking point, doncha?

              Well, perhaps not…

              1. No it’s not. Two different concepts.

              2. A meme (play /?mi?m/[1]) is an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture.[2] While genes transmit biological information, memes are said to transmit ideas and belief information.

                A talking point in debate or discourse is a succinct statement designed to persuasively support one side taken on an issue.[1][2][3][4] Such statements can either be free standing or created as retorts to the opposition’s talking points and are frequently used in public relations, particularly in areas heavy in debate such as politics and marketing.

                (both definitions from Wikipedia)

                1. Yes. The essential difference is that a meme evolves passively while talking points are actively constructed and promulgated. They are in no way synonymous.

                2. Talking points are a class of meme.

                  1. Wrong. See both messages above. Hell, forget mine; look at the definitions. A meme is not “designed”.

                    1. A talking point would be an attempt to birth a meme.

                    2. Cyto: agreed.

                      Ice Nine: there is nothing in the definition of meme that precludes them being designed. Indeed, they are by definition designed at some level. They aren’t absorbed from the Aether.

                    3. The essential difference is that a meme evolves passively while talking points are actively constructed and promulgated.

                      According to Dawkins the term “meme” can refer to any cultural artifact an might be a replicator of a certain idea or a complex of ideas. Talking points fit very comfortably within that definition.

                      They are in no way synonymous.

                      Not synonymous…talking points are a kind of meme.

                    4. “that might be” that is.

                  2. Wolves and foxes are both Canidae, but that doesn’t mean you should use the same term for both.

                    The original problem is that John used the wrong term for MNG’s spurious, but team-conforming assertions and MNG collapsed two definitions into the same thing as a lame counter. They are both wrong.

                    Ice Nine’s point below is correct. Talking points are designed to become memes to disguise their origins as deliberate agit-prop. An acorn is not an oak tree.

                    1. An acorn is not an oak tree.

                      It is to a geneticist.

          4. Not really. The whole reason Murdoch launched Fox News as a right-leaning news service was that he saw an under-served market–the conservative consumer. While I certainly don’t think all of the major media sources in this country march lock-step with the DNC, it’s impossible not to notice how far left many journalists lean.

            1. It’s easy not to notice if you yourself are far left, just as it is easy not to notice Fox’s Republican spin if you are a Republican.

              1. This is exactly right!

              2. Everyone has a spin. If the major media would drop its pretensions of objectivity, no one would have a problem anymore.

                1. To those on the far right we are all post-modernist relativists now, just embrace your bias!

                  1. Since the media has proven incapable of being objective, what alternative is there?

            2. I think it is true that most journalists lean left, but that is of course a different statement than saying they shill for Democrats or the left (and those two are of course not the same thing, liberals have been quite critical of Dems for example).

              Take an outlet I am familiar with, NPR. I don’t doubt that most of NPR’s big names are liberals: Dianne Rehm, Terry Gross, etc., are simply ignorant of the right and their views. However it is nonsensical to compare their bias to Hannity or Beck, nonsensical. They try to have conservatives on, try to have them give their side fairly, try to not be unbalanced. They are more and less successful at times, but the difference is palpable to anyone paying attention and not hopelessly partisan themselves.

              1. It is nonsensical to compare a “reporter” to someone like Beck who does an opinion show and makes no pretense of being a reporter. That is a little shell game you play all of the time. Do you think we are so stupid we think that Beck is a reporter?

                And to give you an example of NPR’s bias. They interviewed the guy who claimed that Murdoch got five billion in tax refunds without even a hint of skepticism even though the claim was obviously outragous and later proven to be a lie. They would never interview someone from the right making such a claim at all let alone give them an interview full of soft ball questions.

                If gunwalker had been done by a Republican administration, it would be the biggest scandal since Watergate. Instead, it has hardly been covered. That is what they do, cover stories that fit the narative and ignore those that don’t.

                1. First, the big Three Networks don’t have a Beck or Olberman example at all, one reason why it is stupid to lump them in with MSNBC or Mother Jones as “liberal MSM.”

                  The NYT does not give Krug or anyone the equivalent of Fox’s four hour block of Becks, O’Reilly, etc., and note they have Ross Douthat and Brooks, Fox doesn’t have four hours of Olberman!

                  As I said, they are not comparable. It’s a silly meme.

                  1. That is idiotic MNG. So what if they give Beck an 8 hour block. The content of their opinion shows say nothing about the content of their news coverage. They are two different things. That is like saying that the NYT would be liberal bias if it had a seven page editorial section rather than a two page one. What makes them biased or not is their reporting not the volume of their opinion writing.

                  2. Hey, dumbass, Beck ain’t on Fox anymore.

                2. Whenever I challenge conservatives to produce how NPR or ABC is as biased as Fox they quickly prove my point for me by saying “well, they are biased in their story selection” as opposed to story presentation.

                  In other words, they are not biased in the same ways…As I said…

                  1. Choosing to not report stories that embarass Democrats and reporting the hell out of stories that further your political agenda, is being biased.

              2. If Beck represents Fox News “reporting” then why doesn’t Olberman and Kruginuts represent MSNBC and the NYT’s reporting?

              3. I don’t watch or listen to any network or cable news program regularly, but Fox news pregrams would also regulary has left wingers on. For balance. Is that no longer the case?

              4. I catch NPR from time to time in the car and the commentary is dripping with leftist collectivist spin. If they criticize the Democrats, it is because they aren’t leftist enough.

              5. I don’t doubt that most of NPR’s big names are liberals: Dianne Rehm, Terry Gross, etc., are simply ignorant of the right and their views. However it is nonsensical to compare their bias to Hannity or Beck, nonsensical

                I guess you’re right. Hannity and Beck don’t pretend to be objective. That’s the only difference.

                1. I guess you’re right. Hannity and Beck don’t pretend to be objective.

                  True. At least they are upfront that they are “a conservative voice” or whatever they say.
                  The guys on the left act as if they are completely objective as the spout their collectivist drivel.

              6. Chris Matthews.

                Checkmate.

                1. Chris Matthews’s show is a huge pile of steaming rat shit. Yet, he is still on the air. Who watches him?

              7. Hannity will say he is a Conservative.
                Beck will say he is a Conservative. With Fox news, you pretty much know when you are watching conservatives.
                If you tune into fox, you know it is a conservative show because they are self confessed conservatives.

                Compare this to the msm that has a liberal streak all over it, and yet they insist that they are professionally impartial. Its dishonest, they are playing the game of espousing their liberal views and talking points, under the guise of a completely objective and unbiased opinion. Those that are quick to point out the admitted conservatism of Fox news shows while trying to find excuses for liberals in the rest of the media is utilizing the same tactic.

                It boils down to being offending that a conservative dare to have an opinion while they try and sneak their liberal talking points (from Obamas mouth to their ears) into the public conscious as reasoned debate (and oh look at how far from reasonable the conservatives are being since they disagree with a reasoned objective view).

                Those assholes spend their time falling over themselves to go to bat for Obama and the Democrats.

        2. I can’t think of a single MSM reporter who when caught in a candid moment turned out to be a conservative Republican.

          Santelli?

          How does Foxnews, the #1 rated cable news network, not count as part of the “Mainstream Media?”

          The mainstream is an ideological construct, not one based on marketshare, or even mindshare.

          After all, there are plenty of politicans who belong to major parties who harbor views that are not “mainstream”, are there not?

          1. Was Santelli really a reporter? And if so, then he counts as one. But he is a business reporter. So the streak still stands with regard to political reporters.

    2. Jesus Christ, we are full of teh stoopid today. I am having a blast…So, to sum up, a talking point is christian but a meme is not mormon and therefore a paradigm can’t be president.

  9. There is a superb article by Ylan Q. Mui on the growth of new firms that create consumer reputations. They operate outside the traditional regulation of the three major credit bureaus. Mui calls this shadowy world of reputational intermediaries the “fourth bureau.” The Federal Trade Commission (or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) should conduct an immediate investigation of the “black box” practices described by an industry leader in the article. This should be part of a larger political and social movement to stop the collection of “secret dossiers” about individuals by corporate entities…Once a critical mass of data about a person has been collected for a commercial purpose, she deserves to know what the data is and who is gathering it. Once an educator, employer, landlord, banker, or insurer makes a decision based on that data, the affected individual should be able to challenge and correct it.

    http://balkin.blogspot.com/201…..-full.html

    1. Yeah, this is all crap.

    2. If these firms are assembling non-private information, I fail to see the need for the Total State to involve itself.

      1. The entire notion that you can be oppressed by private individuals knowing information about you that you provided them in the course of transactions is just one more version of the typical leftist complaint that they aren’t truly free unless I am their slave.

        If MNG buys a dildo from me, who owns the information “MNG bought a dildo from Fluffy”? In the absence of a written agreement to the contrary, I say we BOTH do. I was fucking there when we made that sale. It’s not just his story. It’s my story too.

        But the leftists want to say, “We should be allowed to command Fluffy to forget that he sold MNG a dildo. Or not record or store that information. And certainly not to tell anyone else, or combine that piece of information with other pieces of information! We need to be able to force you to remember some stuff but not other stuff, or we aren’t really free.”

        1. This is the exact reason I don’t use loyalty cards.

        2. Unless of course MNG is a conservative and must be Smeared.

      2. The entire notion that you can be oppressed by private individuals knowing information about you that you provided them in the course of transactions is just one more version of the typical leftist complaint that they aren’t truly free unless I am their slave.

        If MNG buys a dildo from me, who owns the information “MNG bought a dildo from Fluffy”? In the absence of a written agreement to the contrary, I say we BOTH do. I was fucking there when we made that sale. It’s not just his story. It’s my story too.

        But the leftists want to say, “We should be allowed to command Fluffy to forget that he sold MNG a dildo. Or not record or store that information. And certainly not to tell anyone else, or combine that piece of information with other pieces of information! We need to be able to force you to remember some stuff but not other stuff, or we aren’t really free.”

        1. Do you sell a lot of dildos, or was this just a yardsale or something?

          1. Jesus. After my ex-GF’s yard sale, I thought you’d have your fill…

    3. FLA. made $63M selling names, addresses, dates of birth:

      MIAMI — The state of Florida made $63 million last year selling what many think is personal information.

      Local 10 has learned the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is selling people’s names, addresses, dates of birth, a list of the vehicles they drive, and it’s legal.

      “Per federal mandate, there are companies that are entitled to this information. Insurance companies, for example, are entitled to this information. Employers are entitled to this information,” said Ann Howard of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles.

      http://www.local10.com/news/28600374/detail.html

      1. Wait, so personal information I am required by law to give to the government is sold to private companies because they are ENTITLED to it? That is BS! It’s my personal information.

        Also, if they are entitled to it, why do they pay for it?

        1. Usually the state is allowed by statute to charge a nominal fee for materials and employee time used to assemble it. Just because they are entitled to it doesn’t mean that the taxpayers have to entirely underwrite it.

          1. It costs $63 million to pay for someone to give that information to a company?

    1. I just want to know when we finally get the flying cars Popular Mechanics has been going on about for 50+ years.

      Flying manhole covers? SIMPSONS DID IT!

      1. They’ve been around for a while. Mini-helicopters, as well. The problem is the FAA. None of these companies can get past the prototype stage because of FAA regs.

        1. http://www.terrafugia.com/

          Hell yes! The future is here as long as people place enough orders to get it off the ground (pun intended (and hilarious))

  10. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..t-gun.html

    Leopard goes on rampage. Cool pics of leopard attacking people. I have no empathy for them whatsoever. None.

    1. They caught the fever.

      1. More cowbell?

    2. Big kittahs need to eat, too. Some of those pics actually made me lol.

      1. I’m not sure which one I like more. The one where it is preparing to pounce or the one where it is biting Dude’s head.

        Here kitty kitty…

    3. Aww. Kitty is playing with those men.

    4. This is unfortunate, because now the forest gurads are going to equip themselves with riot gear, body armor, and automatic weapons, and receive SWAT training at LocalYocalPD before re-deploying to the forest.

      1. I sure hope those leopards don’t have pet dogs.

      2. That happened in Pakistan.
        They only do the things you describe in the free world.

    5. those captions are ridiculous. how does a leopard launch a “wave of terror”. And the writer can’t decide if the scene is horror or excitement. Anyway, some of the best big kitty pics I’ve ever seen.

      1. The term ‘Chinese fire drill’ will now be retired and replaced by ‘Indian leopard round-up’.

    6. Fucking wild carnivores – how do they work?

    7. Mother Nature occasionally reminds humanity that we are not necessarily the top of the food chain.

      1. Especially when you are dumb enough to bring a knife to a gunfight.

        1. Especially when you are dumb enough to bring a knife to a gunfight tooth & claw fight.

    8. I shouldn’t laugh at those pictures, but some of them are funny

      1. Someone GET WARTY ON SUICIDE WATCH STAT!

  11. During my childhood my family was like a drop of water in a vast river, never remaining in one location for long. We settled in Rhode Island when I was eight, and there we remained until I went to college in Colorado Springs. Most of my memories are rooted in Rhode Island, but there are fragments in the attic of my brain which belong to the various homes we had lived in when I was much younger.

    Most of these memories are unclear and pointless? chasing after another boy in the back yard of a house in North Carolina, trying to build a raft to float on the creek behind the apartment we rented in Pennsylvania, and so on. But there is one set of memories which remains as clear as glass, as though they were just made yesterday. I often wonder whether these memories are simply lucid dreams produced by the long sickness I experienced that Spring, but in my heart, I know they are real.

    We were living in a house just outside the bustling metropolis of Perham, Maine, population 643. It was a large structure, especially for a family of three. There were a number of rooms that I didn’t see in the five months we resided there. In some ways it was a waste of space, but it was the only house on the market at the time, at least within an hour’s commute to my father’s place of work.

    The day after my fifth birthday (attended by my parents alone), I came down with a fever. The doctor said I had mononucleosis, which meant no rough play and more fever for at least another three weeks. It was horrible timing to be bed-ridden? we were in the process of packing our things to move to Pennsylvania, and most of my things were already packed away in boxes, leaving my room barren. My mother brought me ginger ale and books several times a day, and these served the function of being my primary from of entertainment for the next few weeks. Boredom always loomed just around the corner, waiting to rear its ugly head and compound my misery.

    I don’t exactly recall how I met Mr. Widemouth. I think it was about a week after I was diagnosed with mono. My first memory of the small creature was asking him if he had a name. He told me to call him Mr. Widemouth, because his mouth was large. In fact, everything about him was large in comparison to his body? his head, his eyes, his crooked ears? but his mouth was by far the largest.

    “You look kind of like a Furby,” I said as he flipped through one of my books.

    Mr. Widemouth stopped and gave me a puzzled look. “Furby? What’s a Furby?” he asked.

    I shrugged. “You know? the toy. The little robot with the big ears. You can pet and feed them, almost like a real pet.”

    “Oh.” Mr. Widemouth resumed his activity. “You don’t need one of those. They aren’t the same as having a real friend.”

    I remember Mr. Widemouth disappearing every time my mother stopped by to check in on me. “I lay under your bed,” he later explained. “I don’t want your parents to see me because I’m afraid they won’t let us play anymore.”

    We didn’t do much during those first few days. Mr. Widemouth just looked at my books, fascinated by the stories and pictures they contained. The third or fourth morning after I met him, he greeted me with a large smile on his face. “I have a new game we can play,” he said. “We have to wait until after your mother comes to check on you, because she can’t see us play it. It’s a secret game.”

    After my mother delivered more books and soda at the usual time, Mr. Widemouth slipped out from under the bed and tugged my hand. “We have to go the the room at the end of this hallway,” he said. I objected at first, as my parents had forbidden me to leave my bed without their permission, but Mr. Widemouth persisted until I gave in.

    The room in question had no furniture or wallpaper. Its only distinguishing feature was a window opposite the doorway. Mr. Widemouth darted across the room and gave the window a firm push, flinging it open. He then beckoned me to look out at the ground below.

    We were on the second story of the house, but it was on a hill, and from this angle the drop was farther than two stories due to the incline. “I like to play pretend up here,” Mr. Widemouth explained. “I pretend that there is a big, soft trampoline below this window, and I jump. If you pretend hard enough you bounce back up like a feather. I want you to try.”

    I was a five-year-old with a fever, so only a hint of skepticism darted through my thoughts as I looked down and considered the possibility. “It’s a long drop,” I said.

    “But that’s all a part of the fun. It wouldn’t be fun if it was only a short drop. If it were that way you may as well just bounce on a real trampoline.”

    I toyed with the idea, picturing myself falling through thin air only to bounce back to the window on something unseen by human eyes. But the realist in me prevailed. “Maybe some other time,” I said. “I don’t know if I have enough imagination. I could get hurt.”

    Mr. Widemouth’s face contorted into a snarl, but only for a moment. Anger gave way to disappointment. “If you say so,” he said. He spent the rest of the day under my bed, quiet as a mouse.

    The following morning Mr. Widemouth arrived holding a small box. “I want to teach you how to juggle,” he said. “Here are some things you can use to practice, before I start giving you lessons.”

    I looked in the box. It was full of knives. “My parents will kill me!” I shouted, horrified that Mr. Widemouth had brought knives into my room? objects that my parents would never allow me to touch. “I’ll be spanked and grounded for a year!”

    Mr. Widemouth frowned. “It’s fun to juggle with these. I want you to try it.”

    I pushed the box away. “I can’t. I’ll get in trouble. Knives aren’t safe to just throw in the air.”

    Mr. Widemouth’s frown deepend into a scowl. He took the box of knives and slid under my bed, remaining there the rest of the day. I began to wonder how often he was under me.

    I started having trouble sleeping after that. Mr. Widemouth often woke me up at night, saying he put a real trampoline under the window, a big one, one that I couldn’t see in the dark. I always declined and tried to go back to sleep, but Mr. Widemouth persisted. Sometimes he stayed by my side until early in the morning, encouraging me to jump.

    He wasn’t so fun to play with anymore.

    My mother came to me one morning and told me I had her permission to walk around outside. She thought the fresh air would be good for me, especially after being confined to my room for so long. Exstatic, I put on my sneakers and trotted out to the back porch, yearning for the feeling of sun on my face.

    Mr. Widemouth was waiting for me. “I have something I want you to see,” he said. I must have given him a weird look, because he then said, “It’s safe, I promise.”

    I followed him to the beginning of a deer trail which ran through the woods behind the house. “This is an important path,” he explained. “I’ve had a lot of friends about your age. When they were ready, I took them down this path, to a special place. You aren’t ready yet, but one day, I hope to take you there.”

    I returned to the house, wondering what kind of place lay beyond that trail.

    Two weeks after I met Mr. Widemouth, the last load of our things had been packed into a moving truck. I would be in the cab of that truck, sitting next to my father for the long drive to Pennsylvania. I considered telling Mr. Widemouth that I would be leaving, but even at five years old, I was beginning to suspect that perhaps the creature’s intentions were not to my benefit, despite what he said otherwise. For this reason, I decided to keep my departure a secret.

    My father and I were in the truck at 4 a.m. He was hoping to make it to Pennyslvania by lunch time tomorrow with the help of an endless supply of coffee and a six-pack of energy drinks. He seemed more like a man who was about to run a marathon rather than one who was about to spend two days sitting still.

    “Early enough for you?” he asked.

    I nodded and placed my head against the window, hoping for some sleep before the sun came up. I felt my father’s hand on my shoulder. “This is the last move, son, I promise. I know it’s hard for you, as sick as you’ve been. Once daddy gets promoted we can settle down and you can make friends.”

    I opened my eyes as we backed out of the driveway. I saw Mr. Widemouth’s silouhette in my bedroom window. He stood motionless until the truck was about to turn onto the main road. He gave a pitiful little wave good-bye, steak knife in hand. I didn’t wave back.

    Years later, I returned to Perham. The piece of land our house stood upon was empty except for the foundation, as the house burned down a few years after my family left. Out of curiosity, I followed the deer trail that Mr. Widemouth had shown me. Part of me expected him to jump out from behind a tree and scare the living bejeesus out of me, but I felt that Mr. Widemouth was gone, somehow tied to the house that no longer existed.

    The trail ended at the Valley Memorial Cemetery.

    I noticed that many of the tombstones belonged to children.

    1. Needs more [MORE] brackets [JUST SAYIN’].

      1. “The Truth”, didn’t I kill you in Korea? Yea, you were Korean, and a man….

        1. -1 for not killing him enough.

    2. So you had some sort of psychosis is what you are saying?

    3. B+
      Enjoyable story, good voice, ending could stand to be tightened up.

    4. Read snippets. Needs more labels.

      Also – RACIST!

    5. Cool story, bro.

    6. Nothing about milk or eating cats? I’m not liking this new literary direction, Dan.

    7. Pretty cool story. A-.

    8. That was actually pretty cool. Creepy too. I think the “silhouette in the window” part put it a little over the top though. Less is more with this type of stuff

    9. Great Story, agreed, the ending needs a little beefing up.

    10. During my childhood my family was like a drop of water in a vast river, never remaining in one location for long.

      A good shrink might be able to help with that.

      Or a lotta drugs.

  12. The FCC says nix to back-door radio stations.

    Thank god for this.

    I’ve been lying awake at night, unable to sleep because people in my town can easily access the local NBC affiliate’s weather updates on the radio. It’s wonderful that the FCC is putting an end to this, but a shame that it won’t be until 2015.

    1. They kicked our local station off the FM dial a couple years ago. It happened just before an ice storm of the century left the majority of the area without power for weeks.
      Thanks FCC for cutting us off from emergency news and weather.

      1. Your betters do these things for your own good. Why can you not see that?

  13. Ron Paul was on the PBS Newshour; he hit it out of the park!

    “Freedom Is a Young Idea and We’re Throwing It Away”

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb…..07-20.html

    1. Sometimes RP seems to let his words get away from him and he ends up tongue twisted and unclear…but that response to the question about his age was just masterful imo.

      1. agreed…the first few minutes of the interview were ho hum..good ideas with poor delivery…but that last response sent a mathews-style chill up my leg

    2. JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally, Congressman, you look healthy. You certainly keep up a vigorous schedule. You would be 77 years old if you were elected president upon taking office, which is quite a bit older than the oldest president upon taking office, Ronald Reagan. Is age at all a factor for you in this campaign?

      REP. RON PAUL: I think it is. I think age is very important, and sometimes I meet people when they’re 45, and they’re very old. And I think it’s the age of the ideas a person’s presenting, and is that person able to present these ideas? Freedom is a young idea. It’s only been tested for a couple hundred years. And we had a taste of it, and we’re throwing it away.

      But what I see others are doing, the others, especially – and many of the other candidates, they have old ideas. It’s totalitarian, it’s the control of government, governments policing the world, militarism, telling people how to run their lives, running the economy, telling people what they can put in their mouths and whether or not they can even drink raw milk. It’s just – it’s just absolutely out of control.

      But the idea that individuals are free, that they have a natural right to their life and the liberty, they ought to be able to keep the fruits of their labor, that is a young idea. So I would say, people ought to go with a young idea and somebody that can express them. And interestingly enough, it’s the young people that fully endorse my campaign.

      JUDY WOODRUFF: We are watching that. Spoken very passionately. Congressman Ron Paul, we thank you for talking with us.

      REP. RON PAUL: Thank you.

      1. That statement almost literally brought a tear to my eye.

  14. “An unmanned U.S. spy plane flying over the holy city of Qom near the uranium enrichment Fordu site was shot down by the Revolutionary Guards’ air defense units,” Dafsari said. Iran has provided no proof of the claim, including imagery of the downed UVA drone.

    Iran is an Islamic nation, so it *can’t* provide imagery, particularly of a *now-holy* drone.

    Duh.

    1. I want to know why the Iranians named their enrichment plant after a hobbit.

      1. And I want to know why the caged bird sings.

        1. But ask not for whom the bell tolls – tollhouse cookies are made by Elves

          1. Da da da daaaaa
            da da da daaaaa
            da da da daaaaa
            da daaa da daaa
            -Beavis and Butthead

    2. We’re not going to go to war with Iran are we? Because if we are, I’d like to go back and change my vote to McCain*.

      *Not really, I don’t even think I voted.

  15. http://www.latimes.com/news/pr…..n/opinion+(Los+Angeles+Times+-+Editorials,+Op-Ed)

    If you are drowning, hope the cop or firefighter who comes to save you is off duty.

    1. Well, I remember a story about a case where the police and fire department were not trying to rescue a drowning individual. A bystander jumped in and saved the guy, but the police wanted to arrest him and charge him.

      So, the police won’t help you, and they will arrest anyone who does or tries to help you. Great world we live in…

  16. They killed one of our drones? Son of a bitch must pay!

    1. I see what you did there, ol’ Jack Burton…

  17. Have we won in Libya yet?

    1. Have we won in Iran yet?

      1. Has the US been liberated yet?

        1. …profound, dude.

    2. Duh! #WINNING!

  18. http://thehill.com/business-a-…..the-wallet

    Debt ceiling debate killing K Street profits. Say it isn’t so.

    1. This could be one of the best things to happen to the republic since…1787?

  19. Have we won in Libya yet?

    Yes, Comrade. We have crushed the Libyans under our merciless American boots. Now, our glorious victory in Libya shall be the inspiration for a great onslaught in Iran. Our empire* shall encircle the globe. We will pave the streets of Washington with the skulls of the mongrel races, and our imperial coffers will overflow with plunder.

    *[here, hercky hercky hercky!!]

    1. Pillage would also solve our debt problem.

    1. At this rate, this prediction may come true.

    2. Your bourgeouis truth can never be allowed to get in the way of the triumph of multiculturalism.

    3. White middle-class Americans like, I don’t know, Reason commenters?

      Is that the sound of jackboots on the stairs now?

  20. The last flight of the last space shuttle ends.

    Oh, the money we’ll save!

    1. Space-less Dividend!

  21. Pillage would also solve our debt problem.

    Why, yes.

    Yes, it would.

    1. I’m surprised the president hasn’t thought of this one.

      1. Oh, he has. His pillaging is directed more, shall we say, domestically. And when he thinks of “our” debt problem, he’s thinking more along the lines of debt relief beginning at home.

        1. Well, as someone with Viking blood, I must advise the president that pillaging and looting other countries is far more lucrative. . .and satisfying. Nobody ever voted out a successful warlord, you know.

          1. AND RAPING TOO? PILLAGE NEED RAPE TO BE COMPLETE.

            1. I imagine some raping is par for the course when looting and pillaging.

              1. If there’s any blood eagling going on, count me in.

  22. Man, what a fucking morning. I’m sure you all care.

    So are we out of Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/Guantanemo Bay/ Detroit yet? No? Not even a little bit?

    OK, just checking. Everyone have a good day. Except Urine.

    1. PEAK QUAGMIRE!

  23. The FCC says nix to back-door radio stations.

    What the hell am I supposed to listen to now?

  24. Oh, one last note: jobs fucking CREATED or SAVED, bitches. Jobs fucking CREATED or SAVED.

    Ah – Michigan unemployment was UP again last month. #WINNING! Fuck, Michigan sucks.

  25. Northwestern Assistant District Attorney Jeffrey Banks argued that because the officers were unaware their images were transmitted to a third party and uploaded to the Web, that process took place in secrecy — a violation of a so-called wiretapping statute forbidding the secret recording or hearing of a conversation, or aiding in the transmission or hearing of that conversation.

    http://www.masslive.com/news/i…..ist_1.html

    Fuck you mister DA.

    1. I have an idea. Take drastic steps right now to forestall any fiscal crises.

      Jesus. This is not hard.

      1. But that would mean cutting spending and admitting that government is too big. And that is just too hard for the annointed one in the White House.

        1. I wish it were just him. Heck, it’s not even just the Democrats. The GOP doesn’t want to go very far, either, though I credit them for at least making some effort.

          1. They all live in a bubble in Washington. They just can’t think that maybe things have gone too far.

          2. The GOP has absolutely no desire to cut government spending to revenues, an immediate 40%-ish reduction in spending. It would plunge the economy (deeper?) into depression, and the GOP would eat the blame.

            1. If spending hasn’t produced growth, which it hasn’t, why would cutting spending put us into a depression?

              That whole we can’t cut spending or we will go into a depression idea is nothing but unmitigated horseshit.

              1. Thank you.

              2. Damn threaded comment. Thank you, John.

            2. We cut spending by 70% following World War II. 1947 was one of the largest years of growth in U.S. history.

              As John implicated, Keynesianism is unmitigated horseshit.

            3. Exactly the opposite would happen.

      2. I have an idea. Take drastic steps right now to forestall any fiscal crises.

        We should try stimulating the economy’s G-spot. If nothing else, it’ll be grateful.

  26. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…..?tag=stack

    alledged Monroe sex tape for sale. Just get it on Yourporn and let the public be the judge.

  27. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc

    Somebody posted this video on another article, but I thought it merited another appearance.

    1) What are the laws regarding stop-and-search with vehicles in your state?

    2) What would you have done if you were the victim in that video?

    1. Jesus fucking Christ, I haven’t been this enraged in a while. I want to fucking rip something apart. Or a bullet between the pig’s eyes, that’d do, too.

    2. Is there a maximum IQ that disqualifies a person from law enforcement? Is it at least triple-digit?

    3. Ah, Canton. The city of my spawning. I’m sure there might be some reason to go to Canton, but I have no idea what it might be.

    4. Statement from Canton PD Chief Dean McKimm:

      I want to assure our citizens that the behavior, as demonstrated in this video, is wholly unacceptable and in complete contradiction to the professional standards we demand of our officers. As such, appropriate steps were placed in motion as dictated by our standards, policies and contractual obligations. Those steps included: The officer immediately being relieved of all duty. The incident has been referred to the Internal Affairs Bureau for what will be a complete and thorough investigation. As bad as the video indicates our officer’s actions were, there is a due process procedure to follow. That process is designed in the best interest of both our employees and the citizens at large. That process will be followed in this case as in all others. Anyone shown to be in violation of our rules and regulations will be help appropriately responsible as dictated by all the facts.

      1. “Since the video-doctoring department failed to make this go away, I have to be tough.”

        Or he’s just a decent human. One of the two.

  28. “The FCC says nix to back-door radio stations.”

    Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to exactly how the public interest, health and welfare, how protecting innocent consumers from Evil Big Business, how protecting Oppressed Persons from inequality, how protecting the elderly from eating cat food and babies from dying en masse, etc., is served by forcing low power TV stations to convert to all digital format when they are perfectly content to provide analog service?

    1. That’s racist.

  29. So, has anyone heard from Herc? I already miss the big lug.

    Seriously, he was going to be my write in for 2012 Pres. [The EMPIRE] must be stopped!

  30. John|7.21.11 @ 9:03AM|#
    No they are not. They are no more Christian than Muslims. That doesn’t mean they are bad people. But they are not Christians by any reasonable definition of the word. Yeah, they believe in the divinity of Christ. But Muslims believe Christ was a prophet. They are not Christians. They are Mormons.

    I believe they prefer to be called Latter Day Saints. Mormons originated as a derogatory term the origin of which is kind of obvious.

    While most “Saints” have aquiessed to the term, there are still those who find it as offensive to be called “Mormons” as Catholics find being called “Micks” or Jews find being called “Hymies”.

    ANAICT, anyone who belives in the divintity of Jesus Christ and believed that his sacrifice has redeemed the world can claim to be a Christian no matter how much you want to restrict it.

    And like the other commenter above, John, I somehow doubt that you have read enough of the Book of Mormon or studied enough Mormon theology to have any kind of informed opinion about what they believe.

    Now, anyone who knows anything about the frightful dictatorship of Brigham Young, the violent history of the church and so on will still find plenty of things to criticize about it but claiming that it is not Christian because of some litmus test that 75% of all other christian denominations can’t pass doesn’t fly.

    1. Bullshit. No other Christian religion claims that there was any other messanger of God after Paul. Paul said he was the last. Tha is it. You can’t claim to write a new testiment and still claim to be a Christian. And I know plenty about Mormonism. The heart of the religion is that you too can become a “God”. No other Christian sect believes that or in the idea that there were messangers from God after Paul.

      1. Actually, the last messanger was John, who wrote the book of Revelations.

      2. Paul said he was the last? That’s news to me.

      3. “No other Christian religion claims that there was any other messanger of God after Paul.”

        Do you just pull this stuff out your ass? It is widely believed amongst ‘Christians’ that John was the last living apostle (ironic, I know).

    2. “anyone who belives in the divintity of Jesus Christ and believed that his sacrifice has redeemed the world can claim to be a Christian no matter how much you want to restrict it.”

      Not if they add in an entirely new belief system that is completely antethetical to the rest of the religion.

      1. The end of revelation is a doctrine that the church of Rome added. Nothing in the Bible disallows a belief in continuing contact between humans and God. Furthermore nothing in the Bible contradicts any of your other objections.

        In fact, if you had ever been subjected to any Mormon preaching you would have gotten host of passages right out of the KJV to justify thier beliefs.

        Now, having said that, I don’t care what you believe. As far as I’m concerned Mormons are Christians and my opinion of them is about the same as other Christians, a little lowere than some because some of their stuff really is even more ridiculous that some Christian sects. But they’re head and shoulders above most of the fundie Moral Majority/Jerry Fallwell/Jimmy Swaggart brigade in both intellectual rigor and common decency.

        1. “Nothing in the Bible disallows a belief in continuing contact between humans and God.”

          No. Paul was the last apostle. Every Christian sect agrees about that. By the terms of the bible Smith was a false prophet. You can’t claim to be an apostle and be a Christian.

          1. “Every Christian sect agrees about that.”

            No, John, the Mormons disagree. 🙂

            So do the Seventh Day Adventists and host of other Millenialist sects.

            1. PS: That will be my last comment on this subject. You, John, clearly take this way more seriously than I do.

          2. Well, every Christian sect agrees with that if you exclude any sect that disagrees with that from being real Christians. That’s a bit tautological.

          3. No… not all accept Paul was true apostle.

    3. Then why is their website mormon.org?

      1. For the record, being Mormon or not isn’t what decides my vote (or being Christian or not, for that matter), but as I said before, “Christian” is an English word w/ a meaning we need to agree on for it to be of any use.

        1. “A member of a religious denomination that identifies itself as Christian” is good enough for me.

          Ain’t too many o’ them mooselimbs identifying theirselves as Xians are there? Any Hindoos? There are the “Jews for Jesus” but ya know what, if they believe Jesus is their saviour, why don’t they just call themselves Christians?

      2. I can’t speak for anything that has happened in the last forty years or so.

        That was the last time I had any contact with any Mormon on any kind of conversational basis.

        At that time there were Mormons who found the term offensive but accepted the fact that that was what they got called.

        1. To be consistent with the idea that Latter Day Saints consider the term “Mormon” offensive, wouldn’t the offensive term for Jews be “Torahs”?

          Just sayin…..

          1. Not really. Members of the church have (in the past) found the name offensive because it was used, not by the actual members themselves, but by the church’s enemies and persecutors.

            Your comment would make more sense if anti-semites coined the term ‘Torahs’ when talking about Jews.

            It is interesting to note that most members of the church (IMO) no longer find the term ‘mormon’ as offensive as it once was, but they still prefer the legal and correct name ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ because they view themselves as Christian.

      3. “Then why is their website mormon.org?”

        …because that website is designed to promote the church to non-members who know the church more as ‘the Mormon Church’.

        The ‘official’ church website can actually be found at lds.org.

        1. Whoa, someone who knows what he’s talking about. Can’t have that at the old Hit and Run.

          🙂

          1. The ‘mainstream’ members of such a conservative church would be shocked to know there’s a cool-aid drinking libertarian amongst the flock… but then again, there’s always Harry Reid.

            1. The doctrine of “free agency” leads to a remarkable sense of libertarianism among the saints.

              Unfortunately, this mostly only extends to a tolerant “live and let live” attitude to those that they know while there is much less tolerance over legislation; liquor laws and gay rights come to mind.

              Besides that, on other economic issues, I have always found Mormons totally libertarian.

              1. Mormons are a riddle wrapped in an enigma. They practiced the ‘law of consecration’, which was essentially communism with a religious face, then, almost overnight, they gave it up and became hardcore capitalists.

                They were shunned by the US government and pushed to the middle of the Rocky Mountains, and now are some of the most ‘patriotic’ (USA!, USA!, USA!) Americans you’ll ever meet.

                My own personal beliefs lead me to believe that libertarianism (including the drugs and prostitutes) is absolutely compatible with church doctrine, but alas, I am a lonely libertarian swimming in a sea of obnoxious conservatism.

  31. One of the worst possibilities that people in the financial industry… have been discussing is that scores of insurance companies, pension funds and mutual funds might be forced to dump their Treasury holdings.
    -from “Doomsday Scenario” link.

    Don’t worry, America. Bennay will save us by buying up all that Treasury paper. He has a printing press, you know.

    1. THIS IS A FUCKING OUTRAGE

      1. Yeah, this is B.S. Screw the people who can’t take a joke.

    2. What the fuck does GWAR stand for?

      1. God, What an Awful Racket.

        1. Oh, is that how they reorganized ACORN?

  32. Like anyone will get this far down, but I thought I would share this bit I saw on NRO:

    “Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state, beyond the post office and the policeman. He could live where he liked and as he liked. He had no official number or identity card. He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission. He could exchange his money for any other currency without restriction or limit. He could buy goods from any country in the world on the same terms as he bought goods at home. For that matter, a foreigner could spend his life in this country without permit and without informing the police. Unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to perform military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he chose, in the regular army, the navy, or the territorials. He could also ignore, if he chose, the demands of national defence. Substantial householders were occasionally called on for jury service. Otherwise, only those helped the state who wished to do so. The Englishman paid taxes on a modest scale: nearly ?200 million in 1913-14, or rather less than 8 per cent. of the national income. ? broadly speaking, the state acted only to help those who could not help themselves. It left the adult citizen alone.”

    A. J. P. Taylor wrote this memorable passage in English History, 1914-1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970):

    1. WWI was the greatest tragedy of the last 1000 years. It set into motion pretty much all of our ills today.

        1. But AQ I thought all the clergy will evil racist right wingers.

          1. You forgot about the evil, racist left-wingers.

      1. Yep, the Germans pretty much ruined everything.

      2. DON’T MENTION THE WAR!

      3. I’d say the worst European tragedy since maybe the Black Death. What else compares to it? Maybe the Wars of Religion, but I don’t think so.

        The worst tragedy of all might be all the Indians dying of disease, but we benefited from that, so it doesn’t count.

    2. God Almighty, we’re all so fucked.

    3. But, without an over-arching and all-penetrating Total State, wasn’t England a howling wasteland*, bereft of roads, schools, and human decency, where pitiful wretches scratched out a living in front of their mud hovels?

      *The radioactive wasteland hadn’t been invented yet.

    1. PHiLLiP K. DiCK.

      You need to stick with your meme, SIV.

      Seriously, not many writers have fucked with my mind like Phil Dick.

      1. I like the story above much better than the primary source:

        http://birdabroad.wordpress.co…..teve-jobs/

  33. “The incident sparked widespread outrage in Northern California, and the response by the Fire Department and police only intensified the anger. The firefighters blamed local budget cuts for denying them the training and equipment necessary for cold-water rescues. The police said that they didn’t know if the man was dangerous and therefore couldn’t risk the safety of officers.”

    1) You need training to save a guy from drowning? Finally, guys! We’re finally here! The action-by-action approval and certification state, much like Britain and France!

    2) Police are intended to serve the public. That means they’re expected to risk themselves in the line of duty. If officer safety is more important than their duty, they’re useless and illegitimate. What the fuck is this shit?

    1. I love the part where they guy says if he were off duty he would save the guy but not if he were on. If they are more usful off duty, why do we have a fire department at all?

    2. This story was all over the news here in the Bay Area a few weeks ago. Most of the outrage I heard was towards the “evil budget cuts”.

      1. We even get that sort of behavior en-masse in North Carolina now. It’s spreading, and I don’t want to be a part of a cancerous tumor of a population that only accelerates the annihilation of the freeman’s republic.

  34. Hunger strike? Sounds like the prisoners wanna solve the overcrowding problem themselves…..

  35. From that Ron Paul video, you can see it’s starting: he’s diluting his positions and becoming more moderate in his speech, because he’ll never stand a chance otherwise. It’s necessary to play the political game, I know, but it’s still sad.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.