A.M. Links: Crack is Wack Say Brazilian Drug Dealers, Christian Girl Faces Death Penalty in Pakistan, Libertarian Party Touts Gary Johnson as Spoiler

Morning links from Brazil to Pakistan to the Fort Knox of uranium

|

NEXT: Russians Sue Madonna For $10 Million

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. A recent mailing pointed out he could cost Romney 75 electoral votes in five battleground states.

    Everyone knows the Obama supporters are hard pressed to jump ship?

    1. A recent mailing pointed out he could cost Romney 75 electoral votes in five battleground states.

      Unfortunately, more likely.

      1. It’s been decided, apparently, that this contest rests on the respective bases being engaged. I doubt Romney cares about would-be Johnson voters any more than Obama does.

        1. That’s undoubtedly why GOP operatives are challenging the Gary Johnson petitions in Penna.

    2. is this supposed to be a good thing? Maybe it’s a necessary thing; maybe Obama needs to win so the empire can hurry up and crash so the cleanup can begin. At this point, the best Romney could hope for is to slow down the inevitable.

      Let it crash. Let it crash on Obama’s watch. Let the salty ham tears of liberalism falling on its face in full public view flow. Though, in true form, the left will conjure up some means of blaming it on someone else. Probably Johnson.

      1. They’ll blame it on wreckers, like you.

        1. *racist, wreckers

          ftfy

      2. I’ve reached the point where I think that the current government is broken – possibly beyond repair. It needs major reforms and restructuring – enough to clean house and start anew.

        However, I have worries that a major change could easily during into a Chavez-type strongman or even some other bizarre and unexpected turn. History has plenty examples of this… et tu, Brute?

        1. It needs major reforms and restructuring

          The only reform that will take is pure, cleansing fire.

          1. oh, you’re on the (gvt monitoring) list now!

  2. The Libertarian Party is touting its presidential candidate Gary Johnson’s potential role as a spoiler this November. A recent mailing pointed out he could cost Romney 75 electoral votes in five battleground states.

    I am confused. John is the National spokesman for the Libertarian Party?

    1. He is now.

  3. George Will: Why doom has not materialized
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    MIT’s models foresaw the collapse of civilization because of “nonrenewable resource depletion” and population growth. “In an age more innocent of and reverential toward computers,” Lomborg writes, “the reams of cool printouts gave the book’s argument an air of scientific authority and inevitability” that “seemed to banish any possibility of disagreement.” Then ? as now, regarding climate change ? respect for science was said to require reverential suspension of skepticism about scientific hypotheses. Time magazine’s story about “The Limits to Growth” exemplified the media’s frisson of hysteria:

    “The furnaces of Pittsburgh are cold; the assembly lines of Detroit are still. In Los Angeles, a few gaunt survivors of a plague desperately till freeway center strips .?.?. Fantastic? No, only grim inevitability if society continues its present dedication to growth and ‘progress.'”

    1. And all of these projection assume that we’re limited to one planet. If we’re really is such dire straits, maybe we should invest our remaining resources in space exploitation.

    2. Will catches one reason – the human mind innovates – but misses the major reason – that so-called “resources” weren’t actually resources until we thought up ways to use them. This is similar to innovation, but not exactly the same – because it implies that scarcity itself is an illusion, because we are literally surrounded by abundance we currently mistakenly believe to be scarcity. (The way that the Bedouin riding camels around Saudi Arabia in 1750 didn’t realize how many “resources” they had and just how “rich” they actually were.)

      1. That’s why I’m investing in Soylent Industries.

        1. Taboo-shmaboo, I’m hungry.

          My issue is that they will somehow turn people into a high-carb item. “We take the finest ground Indian and wrap it in two types of dough!” Wtf?

          1. Hey, the government has corn to sell.

            1. so:

              1. people, pastry, cheese, tortilla

              or

              2. people, tortilla, cheese, pastry?

          2. they will somehow turn people into a high-carb item.

            More likely a high-fat item instead.

            1. Noone is going to want to grind up nasty, fat, American.

              Now, when you start getting the free beer massages daily, then you can start to worry.

      2. Actually, he does touch on it while discussing aluminum, and how it was almost unusable prior to an efficient process being developed.

        1. Yes, it was considered to be a precious metal at one time, and was even used to top the Washington Monument:

          In four years, it was finally completed, with the 100 ounce (2.85 kg) aluminum apex/lightning-rod being put in place on December 6, 1884.[25] The apex was the largest single piece of aluminum cast at the time, when aluminum commanded a price comparable to silver. Two years later, the Hall?H?roult process made aluminum easier to produce and the price of aluminum plummeted, making the once-valuable apex nearly worthless, though it still provided a lustrous, non-rusting apex that served as the original lightning rod.

    3. “The furnaces of Pittsburgh are cold; the assembly lines of Detroit are still. In Los Angeles, a few gaunt survivors of a plague desperately till freeway center strips

      So the people of MIT only got two out of three right. In my opinion, that’s still impressive.

      1. Their ideological allies are mostly responsible for Pittsburgh and Detroit. If you predict that someone will die within the week because you know your friend will shoot them, it’s not really prescience.

        1. Pittsburgh’s doing fine, although for some reason the pop culture version is still trapped in the 70s.

          1. Stormy-

            Pittsburgh’s doing fine

            Only if you consider losing more than 50% of your population over the last 40 yrs as “doing fine”.

    4. The comments on this article at WaPo are full on retarded.

      1. Dog bites man.

    5. MIT’s models foresaw the collapse of civilization because of “nonrenewable resource depletion” and population growth. “In an age more innocent of and reverential toward computers,” Lomborg writes, “the reams of cool printouts gave the book’s argument an air of scientific authority and inevitability” that “seemed to banish any possibility of disagreement.”

      Who knew that mere bipartisanship would succeed where other have failed?

  4. An 82-year-old nun and two other protesters waltzed into the government’s uranium storage and processing facility

    Well at 82 she’s probably too old to really bust a move

    1. Though her joints probably do a fair amount of popping and locking.

      1. Wouldn’t it be cool if the nun were bitten by a radioactive spider at the site?

        1. All spiders are slightly radioactive…

          1. As are all bananas.

        2. feeds the hungry and tends to the sick by day, tracks evil-doers by night.

          1. feeds the hungry and tends to the sick by day, tracks evil-doers by night.

            She could accomplish this by buying a police scanner.

            1. spidy-senses are portable, duh.

  5. …removes the requirement of Senate confirmation from about 150 executive branch posts.

    Those confirmation hearings were ever only televised on C-SPAN, so it’s not with a senator’s time.

  6. “The FBI investigated a late-night skinny dip at the Sea of Galilee by a freshman GOP Congressman during a privately-funded trip to Israel.”

    So Congressman aren’t allowed to have fun on their own time anymore?

    1. The American Israel Education Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational organization working in support of the AIPAC lobbying organization. It conducts educational programs, including sponsoring U.S. legislators on educational trips to Israel, and funds other AIPAC education activities.

      1. Nonresponsive to Doc K’s question.

        1. Do you think those trips are “free”?

          1. Do you think they are paid for by taxpayers?

            1. They’re not, but if you’re getting a nice holiday in Israel for your entourage something has to give. Like voting for the right bills.

              1. …. ok, but what kind of line is crossed by a skinny dip?

                1. a tan-line?

                  1. At tan line, at night? Maybe someone from Seattle…

    2. We cannot allow anything to tarnish the good name of the United States House of Representatives. (Apparently the FBI is in charge of that.)

    3. The FBI? Were any American laws broken?

      1. Seriously WTF?

        So some congresscritters went skinny dipping in a foreign country.

        Who gives a fuck.

        And that warrants an FBI investigation. But an agency of the government illegally running guns into Mexico, not so much.

        1. Mexico, is another country too, so, booyah!

          -Love,
          The FBI (Federal Booyahs Institute)

      2. I thought the CIA was delegated with retarded investigations outside the USA.

    4. It is suspicious that a member of the straitlaced GOP admitted to enjoying drinking and having fun naked. He’s probably a Manchurian candidate.

      1. Sure. They also hate excessive spending and regulations. Because they say so.

        1. And those horrible gays too. Those nasty, terrible, sexy sexy sexy….ummm, what was I saying?

    5. both of whom also attended the trip but not the Galilee party.

      This is clearly a case of hurt feelings for those who weren’t invited.

      1. Could it be that the FBI agents on the trip were pissed that the beach party took away the time they usually dedicated to checking out the local whorehouses?

    6. Typical politician, probably thought he could walk on water like Jesus did. Who does he think he is anyway – Barack Obama?

  7. Kasparov: When Putin’s Thugs Came for Me
    I was dragged away Friday by a group of police?in fact carried away with one on each arm and leg
    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..on_LEADTop

    1. Thanks for posting that. I was wondering just the other day whatever happened to Kasparov after he ran against Putin in the election several years ago.

    2. Could be political, but given his chess tourney playing background, I don’t assume he wasn’t jacking it in public or some similar antisocial activity, like protesting.

    3. Ah, the classic Satlin’s Gambit opening.

  8. “5th crack commandment”

    WTF is this and why do the a.m. links seem to start with these meaningless sentence fragments?

    1. Calm down, it’s called alt text. I don’t know why it appears in the text of the links though, probably your browser.

      1. Correction — title text, not alt text.

        1. That correction was aimed at me below, not you, but it applies here too.

          Looking at the page source, I think its because the image is a list item. Putting the image inside the list seems weird. I bet that is whats causing it in certain browsers.

          1. And Im wrong, it has nothing to do with the list.

            Other articles without lists have the same problem. It was working fine before, so they obviously changed something in the style sheet or something that causes some browsers to put the title text to the left instead of underneath.

            1. Yeah, it took me a day or 2 to figure out that the stray prose was alt-text. Chrome makes it part of the body text.

    2. Depending on system and browser, that’s where the alt-text for the photo gets mis-placed.

    3. Its the alt-text for the image, but they have something screwed up and in some articles, it appears as the first line in the text.

      It just started last week…I would blame chrome, but it worked fine under chrome until then.

      1. This is why I stick with good old dependable Internet Explorer. Rock solid and durable. Loads everything you want and more!

        1. Loads everything you want and more!

          Yeah, mostly more.

      2. I’m on Chrome now and it’s working fine.

        1. It works fine on Chrome when I’m on my computer at home but at work it’s all screwed up, Chrome as well.

          1. I’m using Chrome as well. Odd that.

          2. I blame reasonable.

    4. The 5th Crack Commandment is: “Never sell no crack where you rest at. I don’t care if they want an ounce; tell ’em bounce.” – Notorious B.I.G. in “The Ten Crack Commandments.”

      God, you nerds are so nerdy.

      1. o/~ The see me mowing, my front lawn, and I know they’re all thinking I’m so white and nerdy… o/~

  9. What Does Obama Really Believe In?
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08…..?_r=2hpw;

    If any American president might have been expected to focus his attention on Roseland and its problems, it would be Barack Obama. The neighborhood, as it happens, played a critical role in Obama’s personal and political history. As a young community organizer, he worked in Roseland and at a nearby low-rise housing project called Altgeld Gardens for three years in the late 1980s; it was in these communities, Obama said in the speech announcing his presidential run, that he “received the best education I ever had.” And when he finally left Roseland, for Harvard Law School and a political career, he did so, he said, to gain the knowledge and the resources that would allow him to eventually return and tackle the neighborhood’s problems anew.

    1. why would this president, especially this one, be expected to address a problem that might lead to people NOT needed govt help? A more appropriate conclusion is that Obama will exacerbate problems in order to expand federal dominion.

  10. So much to love in this story

    Cannibal killer who ballooned to 23st after gorging on junk food in Broadmoor gets a ?15,000 gastric band on the NHS

    1. Obviously, going off his high protein diet was detrimental to his overall health.

      1. Very paleo.

        1. LOL

    2. gorging on junk food

      good-for-nothing chavs.

  11. …a capital offense in the backward country.

    That’s not very culturally sensitive to the backward country.

    1. “In Pakistan, Koran burn YOU!”

      More sensitive?

    2. I’m culturally sensitive to being killed. But I’m just an evil capitalist.

    3. Reminds me of Napier:
      Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

      1. One of the best fuck you statements to multi-culturalism, ever. Old school Brits could be such magnificent bastards.

        1. I taught my son this quote when he was about 5. All Cultures are not created equally. The Imperial British were hardly saints but Suti is barbaric, to say the least.

      2. Even bloodthirsty bastards can have moments of sheer eloquence.

      3. Sadly, suttee is making a comeback.

  12. Tom Coburn: Why we must audit the Pentagon
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..DD9vKCo-_I

    The American people have such a low opinion of Congress because we often refuse to go through these steps. Instead of making hard decisions, we simply borrow more money and force the next generation to pay the bill. Nowhere is this bad habit more obvious than with Congress’ oversight of defense spending. Congress passed a law 22 years ago — the Chief Financial Officer Act of 1990 — requiring the Department of Defense to pass an audit. In the 22 years since, Congress has never bothered to force DoD to comply with this law.

    1. It would be funny to watch the Pentagon try to pass an audit and even funnier watching your average Congressman’s contortions trying to explain why they can’t, but it’s still OK.

      1. It might just sweep the libertarians into office. Not that I’d hold my breath…

      2. It would be funny to watch the entire federal government pass an audit.

        The attempts at producing a GAAP debt picture have failed for this reason.

        1. Your average politician would consider that a feature, not a bug.

        2. I seem to recall some of the smaller departments actually have their accounting in order, if you discount the wierdness that is .gov accounting. But the big ones, like State and DOD, are pretty much fucked.

          1. That seems to be what I remember too.

          2. The Army Audit Agency is feared and rightly so…but you can’t go any higher than certain units or commands…if they really looked at procurement, it would read like an H.P. Lovecraft story.

      3. Most of the spending problems in the military are a direct result of congressional regulation/interference. The acquisition process is an utter abomination.

        1. Yeah. I don’t totally blame the DoD. They wanted to move A10s out of Michigan to save money, but all the congresspeople went apeshit.

          1. JOBZZZZ!

    2. It’s encouraging to see Republicans starting to realize that defense spending isn’t the same thing as defense.

      1. Unfortunately, Coburn is an outlier. He is probably almost alone in this.

        1. Also, he’s retiring after this term (2016). I guess he doesn’t feel the need to pander to this group or on this issue anymore.

          1. Sure, the ONLY Senator who is imposing self term limits is pandering.

        2. ” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and I recently introduced the Audit the Pentagon Act (S. 3487), which creates new incentives and enforcement mechanisms to force the Pentagon to pass an audit. Joining as us original co-sponsors were Sens. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Rand Paul, R-Ky., Ron Johnson, R-Wis., John Cornyn, R-Texas, Scott Brown R-Mass., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.”

      2. now if we could get democrats to realize how healthcare spending isn’t the same thing as healthcare.

        1. Or if we could get them to realize that spending on education is not the same thing as educating someone.

          1. Hmmm, it’s almost as if there is some inevitable outcome that results from giving the government money to provide services….

  13. A new law signed by the president and passed with overwhelming support in Congress removes the requirement of Senate confirmation from about 150 executive branch posts.

    They can agree that they’re tired of being blamed for stuff.

    1. Who needs checks and balances anyway?

      1. what with debit cards and digital scales…

  14. Assange has microwave and treadmill in his embassy home 20 August 2012 – 11:56am

    Vaughan Smith, a former army officer who hosted 41-year-old Assange at his English mansion for more than a year while the Australian was under house arrest, said conditions in the embassy were basic, but comfortable enough.

    He added that Assange has divided his small room into an office and a living area, and was keeping it “rather cleaner and tidier than I recall him being, actually.”

    “It’s certainly clean and tidy for an ex-hacker,” he laughed.

    “He is not unaccustomed to living under rough circumstances,” Hrafnsson told AFP by telephone from Iceland.

    Assange hopped from city to city after WikiLeaks was founded in 2006, often sleeping on friends’ sofas.

    http://www.rnw.nl/english/bull…..bassy-home

    1. He looked fat on the balcony, so what is he using the treadmill for?

      1. whatever it is, let’s hope it’s consensual

      2. If he’s like most people, to hang clothes on.

        1. I had a friend who wanted to start a “borrow the exercise equipment club” just for the purpose of saving money. Instead of buying an expensive piece of equipment to hang laundry on, you can borrow your friends. Your wife will use it to workout 2-3x, lose interest, and your pocketbook won’t take the hit.

          My wife does use the weight bench and set that I bought for myself 8+ years ago, so that has been a good investment.

          1. I actually use the elliptical I bought for myself. Not as much as I should, but I do use it. There are some smaller pieces that don’t see much use, though.

      3. it powers the wikileaks webserver, but he replaced himself with a dog and hotdog-fishing-pole rig a while back?

  15. Why did the FBI need to investigate? To uncover evidence of what crime?

    1. Sexual harassment of a foreign body of water.

      1. The congresscritter claimed someone without authorization accessed his underwear, causing it be removed.

      2. Wouldn’t they be covered by diplomatic immunity?

        1. Are Congressmen on a junket considered diplomats?

    2. Intentional blinding

  16. Reaction to Ryan: A Gap Between Mainstream America and Official Washington
    http://www.rasmussenreports.co…..washington

    But the gap between the Political Class and Mainstream America doesn’t end there. In Washington and on the campaign trail, Ryan is presented as either a serious budget hawk or a budgetary extremist, depending on who’s doing the talking. Yet fewer than half the nation’s voters believe government spending will go down even if Romney wins and Republicans gain full control of Congress. That was true before Ryan was selected, and it’s true after.

    So while voters think spending cuts are what the economy needs, they don’t expect either team in the presidential race to deliver. The choice is seen by many as between one team that will increase spending and another that will maintain the status quo. It’s a reasonable perspective in a nation where total government spending has increased every year since 1954.

    1. If only there were some sort of third option.

      1. Speaking of, I haven’t seen John in a while. Do you think he finally cracked?

        1. This might be his one day a month where he actually has to work.

          1. In true rom-com fashion he’s hooking up with Mary Stack. It was a love that would not be denied.

            1. That’s too low. Now, arguing w/ MNG on another board under other names, I could totally see.

  17. Man killed after deputies drop him off at Taco Bell. They are on paid leave of course.
    http://www.dispatch.com/conten…..m-off.html
    Here’s the real question. Was it just a Taco Bell, or was it a Combinaton Pizza Hut and Taco Bell?

    1. I don’t even need to click on that to know what it is.

      Aaaaaand now it’s stuck in my head.

      1. “Ha ha!”
        -Nelson Muntz

      2. If you click on the link, you’ll find out that he SugarFreed it anyway.

    2. Uh, are you seriously forgetting about KenTacoHuts?

      1. The proper term is Kentucky Fried Taco Hut.

      2. Click on my link. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

        Muahahahahaha!

  18. Couple Kate Moss Daily Fails
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..ikini.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..y-her.html

  19. If Biden were a Republican…
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/n…..z2424siQb2

    1. he’d be Todd Akin?

  20. USS Constitution sets sail in Boston Harbor to commemorate War of 1812 battle
    http://newyork.newsday.com/new…..-1.3914858

    At 215 years old, the USS Constitution is the U.S. Navy’s oldest commissioned warship afloat. But it’s not too old to take a quick sail. For 17 minutes on Sunday, the ship cruised west across Boston Harbor, reaching a maximum speed of 3.1 knots. It was its first sail under its own power since turning 200 in 1997.

    The short trip ? a distance of 1,100 yards ? was to commemorate the Constitution’s victory over a British warship of a similar size in a fierce battle during the War of 1812. The victory earned the ship its nickname, “Old Ironsides.”

    1. They should have Constitution fire that Oval Office bust of Churchill at a mock-up of the British vessel.

    2. That’s pretty fucking cool that we have a 215 year old wooden boat that still works. When oil is finally exhausted, we’ll still have a template for Naval domination. (And I’ve got a live oak in my backyard that could plank about a third of one of those.)

      1. We’ll just convert aircraft carriers to galleys.

        1. How many Viking Oarsmen does it take to replace 1MW of reactor output?

          1. Vikings? I was figuring Mexicans, since rowing 10 hours belowdecks just sounds like a job Americans won’t do.

            1. Wouldn’t Cubans be more experienced?

              1. I went with Vikings for a better power-to-weight ratio. Mexicans and Cubans are just too heavy for their power output. A whole slew of Asians might also work, but then you run into drivetrain issues trying to get them all a spot on the oars.

          2. Answers with math.

            But the short answer is that a human male can sustain about 100W power with an oar. Probably a little bit more if we hooked them up to bicycle cranks to turn those giant screws.

        2. They’re nucular, so we should really keep the engines, but make them floating catapult assault ships.

          1. Fuck yeah. The nuclear pumpkin chucking on Halloween would be epic.

            1. It always comes down to the problem that the maximum acceleration a pumpkin can survive is too damn small. We need to breed chunkable pumpkins.

              1. Ok, nix the catapult. Anyone care to work out the math on how fast you could get a pumpkin going using a constant-acceleration launcher, railgun/coilgun style, in the length of an aircraft carrier?

                1. A Nimitz is 333m long. Assume we use the whole length of the boat for the railgun. A pumpkin is estimated to take a maximum of 1000 m/s^2 acceleration before chunking.

                  Assuming I didn’t jack up the equations from Freshman Physics (Mechanics), that yields a max velocity of 816 m/s.

                  I think we’re going to have to freeze the pumpkins. Or genetically engineer them to grow a skin of chitin.

                  1. ok, ok, still not sturdy enough.

                    but I’m not patient enough for breeding. Freezing will probably just exacerbate the problem by making the pumpkins more brittle.

                    What about coating them with a polymer/fiber composite material? Too much like cheating?

  21. Scarlett Johansson wears glasses!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..Paris.html

    1. She looks terrible in that outfit. It’s like she borrowed it from one of the other mom’s at daycare.

    2. Usually the smoking is a dealbreaker, but I might make an exception.

      1. smoking is a dealbreaker?

        Always been my observation that girls who smoke…put out. I think it has something to do with them not caring what goes into their bodies.

        I looked for the smokers. Of course, I was (am) ugly and needed every advantage I could get. You may not shoulder such a burden.

        1. Old enough to smoke, old enough to poke.

          1. Someone hasn’t seen those Age Verification pamphlets at the supermarket…

  22. The FBI investigated a late-night skinny dip at the Sea of Galilee by a freshman GOP Congressman during a privately-funded trip to Israel.

    Having Paul Ryan front-and-center has really raised the bar for what kind of bodies the American people will tolerate imaging naked.

    1. *insert “legislative bodies” joke*

      1. I’d rather not insert anything near a legislative body, thanks.

  23. The FBI investigated a late-night skinny dip at the Sea of Galilee by a freshman GOP Congressman

    It was a Baptism. All perfectly legit.

    1. Maybe they’re looking for the next lawmaker who can walk on water.

  24. Actual headline from Slate is no doubt a huge surprise to Slate readers:

    Confessions of a Romney Wife
    Yes, my husband works for Mitt’s campaign. But I still have my own opinions.

    1. Politics would be much more interesting if each side lived up to the others’ gross caricatures of it.

    2. reading the headline makes you wonder if some folks believe that contrary opinions are NOT allowed in such homes. Or if those are only news when looking into Repub windows.

    3. The author is an opinion journalist. She’s talking about full disclosure of her spouse’s activities. She seems to intend it as an article about journalistic ethics.

      1. as if someone would be surprised that a former tv newschick leans left. Besides, there are oxymorons greater than “journalistic ethics.” It’s right up there with athletic scholarship and jumbo shrimp.

        1. jumbo shrimp actually ARE jumbo compared to most shrimp though.

    4. The real stunner would be her saying:

      “Yes I work as a journalist, but I have libertarian opinions”.

      1. You trying to get her fired?!

        1. Or even worse, moved to Features (which is what eventually happens to most of us)?

  25. some OT notes of interest:

    my buyer of my house backed out at the very last moment, citing money issues because of her divorce. So the house selling odyssey continues as we battle for a piece of her earnest money. Ever since the number of house showings has dramatically decreased since (I imagine that) the other realtors are assuming our house is in the process of being sold. And the other interested party we had has long since made an offer on another house. I am not amused.

    And on the northern front, my dad has a few acres of wooded land that butts up against a farmer’s field. My old man is buying some more frontage to provide for a future road to said northern part. He had a surveyor come through and found that the farmer had cleared out 15-20′ deep / 30′ long of land, right over into our property line. So I spent part of Saturday afternoon installing posts and fencing to stop the farm equipment from using this turnaround.

    1. No landmines?

    2. we battle for a piece of her earnest money

      What battle, isnt that a no-brainer?

      1. apparently not… they had some time-frame to back out but only gave a verbal response, not a written one per the purchase agreement. So no one is budging. The law – we checked with a lawyer who teaches property – is on our side, but according to him, judges get a little pissed if you try to enforce your contract too hard. Yeah… what do I know?

        1. judges get a little pissed if you try to enforce your contract too hard.

          WTF? That’s the most retarded thing I’ve heard today.

          1. my thoughts too… but according to said lawyer, it’s a West Michigan thing. “Why can’t we just all get along.”

            1. Glad I’m dealing down in New Orleans on mine. Nobody expects to play nice.

              1. I assume yours will involve vampires, zombies and jazz?

                1. I think we’ve got the vampires covered, given the number of lawyers involved at this point. No zombies yet, though, unless the seller missed closing to go look for brains.

            2. She did put down a sizable sum for the earnest money, right? RIGHT?

        2. What’s the point of having a contract?

        3. I’m sorry…did you actually say judges get mad when you try and enforce law? And lawyers wonder why people look at them with massive skepticism if not contempt.

          1. People don’t know the difference between a judge and an attorney?

            1. Are most judges not former attorneys?

              1. Sometimes. My point is that if a judge sets his mind to do something a certain way there isn’t a whole lot an attorney can do about it.

                1. yeah, but do you expect setting his mind to include ignoring the terms of agreements that parties made? I can see a lawyer making excuses for a client, but for some reason expect better from judges. Probably a character flaw on my part.

                  1. No, that’s why I said its the most retarded thing I’ve heard all day. In a just world judges like this would be fired on the spot and disbarred if they are also members of the bar.

                    1. just when you think it is impossible to be surprised by anything, along comes the judge. When full retard has been achieved, what is the next level?

                    2. When full retard has been achieved, what is the next level?

                      Something wholly incomprehensible to a 4-dimensional consciousness.

                    3. When full retard has been achieved, what is the next level?

                      penaltax?

                    4. HYPERTARD! FULL RETARD was a law made to be broken.

                    5. behold hypertard

                    6. My God… it’s full of tard…

                    7. I Am SamSimple Jack deleted scene?

                      ftfy.

                  2. yeah, but do you expect setting his mind to include ignoring the terms of agreements that parties made?

                    Sadly this is frequently the case. Try leaving all of your money to someone not considered part of your family, for example, and watch what happens if your relatives challenge the will.

          2. “did you actually say judges get mad when you try and enforce law”

            No, he/she said they get mad if you enforce it ‘too hard’, like with a boner or something.
            I agree with the judge in this case.

      2. Sadly, its not. I had the same thing happen to me.

        The way it works is, the money won’t be released from escrow unless the ex-buyer consents. And you will have a hell of a time getting another contract on the house while the first contract is outstanding.

        Basically, the buyer is now holding your house hostage, and the ransom demand is the earnest money.

        1. yep – we’re pretty much holding firm until another buyer comes along, and then we’ll be rushing to sign the (first) buyer’s release of contract. So I lose out a few thousand dollars and a bunch of time.

        2. Yep, I have experienced the same thing.

          Expect the same thing from a condition disclosure when you purchase a house. While the seller is supposed to tell you about any known issues, proving it in court is much more difficult. Don’t believe a word on one of them.

    3. That sucks, did you negotiate a deposit?

    4. Battle for a piece of the earnest money? I dunno about your state laws, but that should be yours no question if she backed out after the contract was signed. That’s why you get earnest money, isn’t it?

      I’m still waiting on our earnest money from our December 2011 closing where the seller flaked out and didn’t show up to closing. Lots of handwaving and fingerpointing and blamecasting going on there. I expect I’ll have to wait until the court case is settled at this point.

    5. Hope she put down a fat deposit.

      1. That’s what the earnest money is.

        1. Can I be Frank, or just Ernest?

  26. Neighborhood stunned by Eastern Market assault.

    29 year old Thomas Maslin was viciously assaulted and knocked unconscious early Saturday morning while walking home from the Washington Nationals baseball game. There was no apparent motive at all for the attack. Was he yet another victim of a “polar bear hunt”?

    1. They found him like 2 blocks from my old apartment. Why would anyone who lives in DC be surprised that someone was assaulted at night?

      1. Don’t most (or a majority of) assaults, everywhere, occur at night? Or is it just a consequence of the rampant vampirism in DC?

        1. (craven, heathen mobs of lobbyists, legislators, and bureaucrats roaming the night, thirsty FOR YOU BLOOD, MUWAHAHAHAHA.)

        2. Yeah, I should have just said “assaulted.” I still don’t think anyone should be surprised.

        3. But, but…Eastern Market is young and vibrant and perfectly suited for the fun-loving, midscale 20-something!

    2. I had a family member who was also viciously assaulted and knocked unconscious early Saturday morning in Washington DC, and I’m confused by what your point might be, or why this is news. From what I gather this is pretty routine stuff in the shithole that is the District of Columbia.

      1. Was your family who was attacked robbed, or was he/she the victim of a hate crime?

        1. Are you claiming that when white people get assaulted in DC it’s a hate crime?

          The article doesn’t say whether or not he was robbed, nor does it say the race of the attackers.

          I think you’re jumping the gun on your outrage.

        2. What the fuck is a “hate crime”?

          Hint: it’s a bullshit made-up word.

  27. Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood has run amok, with reports from several different media agencies that the radical Muslims have begun crucifying opponents of newly installed President Mohammed Morsi.

    Middle East media confirm that during a recent rampage, Muslim Brotherhood operatives “crucified those opposing Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi naked on trees in front of the presidential palace while abusing others.”

    Raymond Ibrahim, a fellow with the Middle East Forum and the Investigative Project on Terrorism, said the crucifixions are the product of who the Middle Eastern media call “partisans.”

    “Arabic media call them ‘supporters,’ ‘followers’ and ‘partisans’ of the Muslim Brotherhood,” Ibraham said.

    Ibrahim also says the victims can be anyone, including Egyptian Christians.

    “It’s anyone who is resisting the new government,” Ibrahim said. “In this particular case, the people attacked and crucified were secular protesters upset because of Morsi’s hostile campaign against the media, especially of Tawfik Okasha, who was constantly exposing him on his station, until Morsi shut him down.”

    Ibrahim said extra brutality is reserved for Christians, but the crucifixions are because of Islamic doctrine and are required by the Quran. The time and other details about the crucifixions were not readily available.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/ara…..cifixions/

    1. Hey, it’s the “Arab Spring” baby, it’s cooool, don’t be such a downer!

      Everybody together now, it’s springtime, for Mohammed, and the Middle East…

      1. …the Umma is happy and gay
        Nailing infidels and hammering home our point
        Is just a part of our day

    2. but but but democracy, arab spring, mubarak must go. Hillary and Obama said so. On a serious note, this is why they are evil as opposed to incompetent. They knew what the Brotherhood was, what the outcome of elections would be, and what would follow.

      1. But these are democratically sanctioned crucifixions. So it’s cool.

      2. And if we hadn’t spent 40 years helping Mubarak crush every source of secular opposition, we wouldn’t be stuck in a position were Islamists were the last man standing when the inevitable end came.

    3. I’ll believe it when I see the pictures.

    4. Given the source, I think I’ll wait until the time and other details about the crucifixions are available before I put too much into this.

    5. Can you link to a story about this from a legitimate news source?

  28. http://www.independent.co.uk/n…..60091.html

    Isn’t the criticism of Rihanna for not hating Chris Brown itself a feature of the patriarchy?

    As far as I can determine from reading the reports of what happened between Rihanna and Brown, Brown was driving her in his car when he got a text from another girl. She freaked out, and started hitting him, and grabbed the wheel of the car and attempted to crash it. He then pulled the car over, and beat the crap out of her.

    I’m pretty sure that if I was in Chris Brown’s car and started hitting him and tried to grab the wheel, if he pulled the car over and punched my lights out, I wouldn’t be anybody’s cause celebre.

    Isn’t the differing treatment the incident receives if you change the gender of the participants itself sexism? There’s an attitude out there that when women hit men, it “doesn’t count” because she’s “jus’ a girl, and girl slaps don’t hurt – they’re more like shouting”. And so if I hit Chris Brown and he beats the crap out of me, people will shrug and say that I started a fight and lost it, but if Rihanna tries to kill the fucking guy and he beats the crap out of her, he’s a monster forever.

    Maybe Rihanna has committed the crime of not blaming Chris Brown because she realizes that the incident was actually her fault.

    1. We’re back to complaining about differing treatment when it disadvantages me, but it’s fine when it’s a benefit. Don’t see many feminists demanding to be included in the draft, do you?

    2. Maybe Rihanna […]realizes that the incident was actually her fault.

      God, just like a typical Rethuglican- blaming the victim.

      /jez

    3. My thought is that she would probably like to drop the matter before someone points out her attempted vehicular murder-suicide.

      “She hit him, then he hit her”….ummm, bitch tried TO KILL THEM BOTH…and we’re still talking about blows?

    4. You are right. If you want equality of the sexes, it has to be applied in all cases. Some women are stronger and better at beating people up than some men.

  29. San Francisco singer Scott McKenzie dies at 73

    Apparently he co-wrote Kokomo. Christ I hate that song

    1. Kokomo

      Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. Aruba, Jamaica ooo I wanna take ya
      Bermuda, Bahama come on pretty mama
      Key Largo, Montego baby why don’t we go

      If he was genius enough to rhyme Jamaica with ‘take ya’ and Montego with ‘don’t we go’, he is now God’s court composer.

  30. Stream the new Animal Collective album here.

    Sounds great, to me.

    1. LE LE LE LE LE LE LE LET GO

  31. I can’t believe that no one’s linked this yet.

    Rep. Todd Akin, the newly-christened GOP Senate nominee in Missouri, said in an interview airing Sunday that “legitimate rape” rarely causes pregnancy.
    Explaining his no-exceptions policy on abortions, Akin was asked why he opposes abortion even when the pregnancy is the result of rape.

    “First of all, from what I understand from doctors, (pregnancy from rape) is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in a clip posted to YouTube by the Democratic super PAC American Bridge. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..pregnancy/

    1. People like him are why the prolife movement can’t have nice things.

    2. Most of the controversy around this quote is an exercise in deliberate misunderstanding.

      Try differentiating in a conversation between “rape” and “rape-rape”. I believe that we give Ms. Goldberg hell for that one on a regular basis, but it is known what she meant, and it similarly is known what Akin meant.

      1. “Legitimate rape” isn’t the stupid part, the idea that the female body defends itself from pregnancy when raped the “right” way is the stupid part. He’s suggesting that women who are violently raped aren’t getting pregnant, so the whole rape exception is a canard. He’s an idiot and deserves to be raked over the coals about this until his skin comes off.

        1. He said “pretty rare” and “try to shut that whole thing down”. So the question is whether it is a fact that women who are violently raped conceive less than women who engage in consensual sex?

          This is actually a high-level scientific inquiry, and the man is repeating what he has heard from (admittedly likely biased) doctors (“from what I understand“). The fact is that most people who are “raking this guy over the coals” have no idea what the science on this issue says, and instead are engaging in reflexive outrage because a Republican said something questionable about PC hot-button issues.

          I have yet to see a cogent post that dispels Mr. Akin’s misunderstanding. Why he deserves to be “raked” is beyond me.

          1. The only reason to say that legitimately raped women don’t get pregnant, is to dismiss the rape and incest exception to abortion bans that most people accept, without directly confronting the moral issues involved in those beliefs. Which makes it an inherently cowardly and dishonest argument.

            Not to mention that the verbiage he used is inherently offensive and politically moronic.

            1. Not to mention that the verbiage he used is inherently offensive and politically moronic.

              Very little in this world is “inherently offensive”.

              The proper level of outrage is to evaluate what was said and what was meant by it.

              The scientific part is a misunderstanding common to a lot of older people. Yes, you’re right, that’s a mistake, but that is not what is being engaged.

              Very few people are outraged that he talked about the body’s defenses, because very few people have a completely true notion that counters his pseudoscience. Hell, I can’t cite a study or anything, and very few people can.

              1. I cited a study below that suggests that he is kinda sorta right, at least a little bit, if for the wrong reason.

                1. Per the usual, I suspected there would be more to this story that the Manufactured Outrage Industry would immediately proceed to ignore.

          2. Because he’s suggesting that women who are pregnant and say they were raped are probably liars because if they were really “raped-raped” they aren’t likely to be pregnant (pretty rare.)

            He’s offering an argument to get rid of the rape exception. He’s free to do that, and you are free to not care, but there are a lot of people who are going to be outraged by his phrasing and they aren’t out of line for doing so.

            But the people who should be outraged are the pro-lifers… he let the mask slip and in the public-eye. He should have known better than say what he really believes in public.

            1. They are free to outline why he is wrong on a scientific level, but that is not what is happening here. The whole Social Media-o-Sphere blew up making fun of this guy not for the “raped women don’t get pregnant” thing, but because he had the audacity to say “legitimate rape”, and HURR DURR ALL RAPE IS LEGIT RAPE.

              1. “Legitimate rape” isn’t the stupid part, the idea that the female body defends itself from pregnancy when raped the “right” way is the stupid part

                Argue with me, not what would have been convenient for you for me to have said.

                1. Except what I am telling you is where 99% of this guy’s grief is coming from.

                  If you want to take him down over the science, by all means, be my guest. Like I said, no one has taken the responsibility to challenge the true controversy here.

                  There is at least a related scientific discussion in this right-wing rag.

                  1. All it says is that the body protects against the physical damage of rape, nothing at all about either squeezing the cervix shut or inhibiting ovulation or implantation. Actually actively preventing pregnancy during and after a rape is what Akin’s is suggesting.

            2. But the people who should be outraged are the pro-lifers… he let the mask slip and in the public-eye

              Because he speaks for all of us?

              At this point, rape and incest restrictions are a canard, anyway. Since Casey, it is very difficult to deny women an abortion for ANY reason. All they have to do is claim it is for their “health”.

              I am always amazed how many people believe in punishment for the child because of the actions of the father. Yes, his father was a rapist so killing him is now moral? Two wrongs always make a right?

              1. Marshall, exception for rape and incest is one of lubes that let people on the fence about abortion swallow restricting it. That’s why Akin’s statement is controversial.

              2. Although I am quite strongly in favor of legal abortion, I had quite a similar thought this morning. If people who are anti-abortion (stop saying pro-life, it is just as stupid as pro-choice) are really taking a principled stand, then how is a rape or incest an exception? It’s kind of absurd (assuming you are opposed to abortion because you think it is the same as murder), yet very common.

          3. I’m strongly pro-life and think this guy is a fool for what he said. And the onus is on him to prove that women’s bodies will essentially “shut down” a pregnancy resultant of a rape, not the other way around.

            By the way, the correct answer to the question would have been: why is it OK to terminate the personhood of someone because we don’t like the way or place they were conceived? Would it be OK to do the same if paternity tests determined the father of a 2-year old was a rapist instead of a woman’s husband?

            1. Would it be OK to do the same if paternity tests determined the father of a 2-year old was a rapist instead of a woman’s husband?

              no, because legitimate argument remains over whether life begins at conception or at birth. Your scenario presumes that question to have been settled.

              1. That’s actually the point he’s making, wareagle.

                1. Exactly, he is trying to move that line earlier, applying the logic that everyone* agrees applies to the 2 year old and apply it to the 2 month old fetus.

                  *within 3 standard deviations

                  1. well, we’re not getting to that level of equivalency, probably ever. MS came fairly close recently to making abortion damn near impossible, then a judge stepped in. I hate it as a political issue.

                  2. That’s exactly what I’m doing, robc. And I will suffer the outrage of the pro-choicers on here for it. It’s a thorny issue, but I have always been solidly in the “life begins at implantation” camp.

                    Seriously, though, this guy Akin is a numbskull if he thinks the female body “fights off” an unwanted pregnancy.

                    1. Seriously, though, this guy Akin is a numbskull if he thinks the female body “fights off” an unwanted pregnancy.

                      Not entirely. Once again, I refer you to the “oral sex” study from last week.

                    2. Not entirely.

                      But only insomuch as the rapist is a new sexual partner. Which means it does nothing for marital rape or rape by a former sexual partner. So that mechanism is not about rape, or at least rape in those circumstances don’t seem to carry the same protection. So I don’t think it validates in any way Akin’s assertion.

                    3. So I don’t think it validates in any way Akin’s assertion.

                      I think he completely overstates it with “rare”. As I said above it “suggests that he is kinda sorta right, at least a little bit, if for the wrong reason.”

                      I stand strongly behind that waffely position.

                    4. “marital rape”

                      He might not consider that “legitimate rape”.

                    5. He might not consider that “legitimate rape”.

                      He introduced legislation that rape had to be forcible. Some of the language was interpreted to define drugging a woman and having sex with her as not a rape.

                      It makes sense if he also subscribes to the “once you’ve have sex with a guy, no matter what happens it can never be rape” horseshit.

                      Here’s the problem with your waffely position:

                      If Akins had said: “There are a few studies that suggest that it is more difficult to get pregnant from sex with a completely new sexual partner, so if the rapist is a new sexual partner a woman might be less likely to get pregnant by this rape through some process we don’t understand.” I’m not sure how much controversy he would have raised.

                      But he didn’t say that. So he’s an idiot.

                    6. So he’s an idiot.

                      I didnt think that was in doubt. I thought the point was whether the idiot might have kinda/sorta been a bit right.

              2. legitimate argument remains over whether life begins at conception or at birth.

                No there are not. The argument is what rights, if any, the known, living human individual has. Does anyone with an IQ above room temperature really think that new life begins at birth? I don’t think so.

                1. Life begins at birth. Personhood does not.

                  1. Isn’t that backwards, Randian, or am I missing something?

                    1. Not backwards, but just wrong completely (IMO). The egg is “life.” Sperm are “life” insomuch as both are living organisms. And a fertilized egg is also “life,” but incapable of personhood until they implant (a large % of which don’t).

                      Once implanted, the cells will result in a person unless interfered with by an outside force. Birth is but a step along the timeline of the unique organism’s development. And to be honest, the birth process has a lot more to do with the mother’s body than the baby’s.

                    2. No, you’re right. I meant to say “life begins at conception, but personhood does not”

                2. Life began several billion years ago and has been doing fine ever since. Life should not be the issue. When your existence as a being with the full moral status of a human being begins is the issue. The whole life thing is a distraction. Eggs and sperm die all the time. They are human life too.

          4. ‘First of all, from what I understand from doctors, (pregnancy from rape) is really rare,’

            Randian commented: “So the question is whether it is a fact that women who are violently raped conceive less than women who engage in consensual sex?”

            The statement from the doctors does not imply this. Pregnancy from any unprotected sexual intercourse is relatively rare (in the sense that the average number of fucks/pregnancy is ‘high’) , so it shouldn’t be a surprise that pregnancy from rape (which is far less frequent than consensual sex) is ‘really rare’.

          5. The guy is a politician. It isn’t his job to understand science, but it is his job to understand what will cause swing voters to think he’s a jackass, and not do that. He’s getting raked over the coals because he sucks at his job.

        2. The misinterpreted “oral sex prevents morning sickness” study from the other day made a similar point.

          Apparently, evolution has decided that sex with someone new (whether rape or not, but “legitimate rape” would fall into this category) is less likely to lead to a fetus reaching term. Whether due to reduced preganancy or increased miscarriages or both, I cant say (although I think its both).

          1. The Discovery Channel had an interesting show about sexuality. One of the things that they discovered was that some sperm do not attempt to fertilize the egg at all. Some form barriers to prevent other sperm from reaching the egg and others literally attack and kill other sperm.

            So to some extent a failure to conceive after rape could be because of a male partner’s body’s defense.

    3. Assuming that he believes the only legitimate reason for legalized abortion is cases of rape, his position isn’t all that inconsistent or unpredictable. Insofar as you should not base a law on exceptions , and insofar as pregnancy resulting from rape is an exception, his position makes sense. I disagree with him, but it’s not an insane thing to say.

      1. Still don’t see how, if you’re “pro life,” you can make any exceptions.

        1. the exceptions tend to come from cases where the pregnancy is the result of a crime, like rape or incest, or when it poses a bona fide threat to the mother’s life. Few people are so callous as to insist that a woman impregnated by a rapist or relative should have to be reminded of that in a very visible way every day.

          1. Yes, but it still is inconsistent. Either the foetus has a right to life or it doesn’t. If you think the former, how do the circumstances of its conception affect that right? Pro-life people who make the rape/incest exception don’t want to be callous, but they end up looking punitive to women who enjoyed the act leading to conception.

          2. Yes, but if the fetus really is a human being, then wouldn’t killing it, no matter how it was created, still be a crime?
            What if the woman was raped and imprisoned until she gave birth? Should it be ok to kill the infant so she’s not reminded of her violation every day for the rest of its life?

            1. I think it’s mostly about not treating the victim as criminal. And lots of things about the abortion debate are inconsistent, from both sides. When the pro-choice side screams “keep your hands off my body” then demands govt funding to pay abortions, that’s a contradiction.

              The circumstances of lots of things make a difference. If you shoot and kill someone who breaks into your house, it’s self defense. If he shoots you, it’s murder. Someone is still dead. You can have all the legal arguments you want about the fetus; I have no issue with those exceptions.

          3. So, if a woman is rendered comatose by a violent rape, wakes up when her rape-baby is two, should she be given the option to euthanize the toddler so she isn’t reminded of her rape every day?

            Either the fetus is the moral equivalent of a baby or it isn’t. If it is, then its rights shouldn’t hinge on the crimes committed by its parents any more than a baby’s should. If it isn’t, then there doesn’t need to be a rape exception, abortion should just be legal.

    4. I don’t know how accurate his understanding of biology is, but “legitimate rape” is, imo, different from a post hoc complaint about a consensual or apparently consensual encounter.

    5. The guy’s getting grief for two reasons, one of which is legitimate and one of which isn’t.

      Some people are griefing him because his overall position is an old wive’s tale. There’s no evidence that “the uterus protects itself against rape”. People making public policy based on notions with about as much support as the idea that horseshoes are lucky is a concern.

      But other people are griefing him because he used the expression “legitimate” rape, and I think that’s unfair. Although I’m pretty radically pro-choice, I have to be honest and admit that the pro-life movement has every reason to expect bad faith from women’s health organizations. If abortion became illegal again, with exceptions for rape and to save the life of the mother, the women’s health groups would immediately begin speciously claiming that pregnancies were the result of “diminished consent” rapes, and would start claiming that women needed health-related, life-saving abortions due to depression, anxiety, hangnails, and dandruff. So that leads to people using expressions like “legitimate rape” – to distinguish it from all the BS rapes activists would “discover” if abortion were made illegal.

      1. All the more reason to leave early term abortion legal. And i say that as a moderately pro life person.

        The problem that hard core pro lifers cannot face is that pretty much everyone, including pro lifers, do not actually view abortion as murder.

        As proof, I offer the fact that no one is advocating the prosecution of women that have abortions. Yet almost everyone favors prosecuting mothers that kill their infants.

        So there is clearly a perceived difference between a baby being in the womb or out of it.

        1. So there is clearly a perceived difference between a baby being in the womb or out of it.

          Except for the whole boatload of states that will slap two murder charges on you for killing a pregnant woman.

          So I don’t think we’re as consistent as you think.

          1. I am apparently contradicting you below, so what are those states? Asking because in a former career, I saw numerous instances of a pregnant woman being murdered. There was never a second count of homicide, but again, it was a former career and things have apparently changed. This was in NC which, on things like abortion, is fairly conservative.

            1. There are a large number of states, including CA which had legalized abortion before Roe, where you can be charged with 2nd degree murder, felony murder or manslaughter if you cause the death of a fetus of a pregnant woman.

              I’m not sure how often it is prosecuted, and yes it’s completely inconsistent with pro abortion arguements.

              Oh, and Randian is side stepping my observation that no one advocates prosecuting women that have abortions for murder.

              1. Oh, and Randian is side stepping my observation that no one advocates prosecuting women that have abortions for murder.

                Sidestepping? I agree with you on that. Still, that does not make us consistent.

                1. How is it inconsistent with pro-abortion arguments? There is a difference between the mother of the fetus consenting to an abortion and another individual forcing one upon her.

                  1. RBS, yes, but that does not mean you can prosecute one as a homicide and the other as ‘nothing’.

                    In other words, a man who kills a pregnant woman is not being charged with Assault or something similar, he is being charged with murdering a person, that person being the fetus.

                2. The question of when a person gets rights, including the right to life, is a muddled up mess.

                  The most logical and scientifically valid pov would be that life begins and conception and so do human rights. But almost no one is going to go there for numerous reasons.

                  A plurality of people believe that rights begin at viability, which is a slippery concept and point in time for each individual baby.

                3. Still, that does not make us consistent.
                  ——————

                  this is the one issue where consistency may well be an impossible standard. Lapses are evident on either side.

              2. no one advocates prosecuting women that have abortions for murder.

                I can name some.

                1. I can name some.

                  There is no exemption in Paul Ryan’s H.R. 212: Sanctity of Human Life/Personhood Bill to keep the woman from being prosecuted for murder if she auto-aborts.

                  1. Was that intentional or an oversight?

                    And what does auto-abort mean anyway? Does it include taking a morning after pill?

                    Let me know when any politician, anywhere in the US advocates for the prosecution of women who have abortion, or when any da actually attempts such a prosecution.

                    1. I made up “auto-abort.” It’s not in Ryan’s bill. I was trying to get at the fact that the law will allow the prosecution of women doing even home abortions for murder.

                    2. And then every miscarriage will require a murder investigation, one would think. Sounds like fun.

                    3. Actually, some do, at least if it happens in a hospital. If the mother seems like she might be a drug user or engages in other “risky” behavior.

        2. All the more reason to leave early term abortion legal.

          maybe I’m wrong, but isn’t that how the initial Roe decision played out, to make it legal up to a certain point in the pregnancy?

          On a different note, there are no prosecutions for abortion, or for the acts of an outside party that kill the fetus, because the law recognizes life as beginning at birth. Kill a pregnant woman and it’s one count of homicide.

          1. Kill a pregnant woman and it’s one count of homicide

            Wrong wrong wrong.

            1. as asked above, where is this? I am relating what I actually saw in a couple of states. I freely admit that things may have changed since then, but the law at the time treated life as beginning at birth.

              1. Browse at your leisure.

                My state (Ohio)is one of the states that calls for another count of murder:

                2903.01 Aggravated murder.
                (A) No person shall purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy.

                As used in sections 2903.01 to 2903.08, 2903.11 to 2903.14, 2903.21, and 2903.22 of the Revised Code:

                (A) “Unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy” means causing the death of an unborn member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another, as a result of injuries inflicted during the period that begins with fertilization and that continues unless and until live birth occurs.

                1. times change. I stand corrected. Even NC’s newly-minted GOP legislative majority is in on it. Wonder if anyone actually gets a conviction out of that since the abortion decision, for the most part, defined life as beginning at birth rather than conception. Maybe that has changed, too.

                  1. I don’t think it matters what the courts say the beginning of life is. If the murder statute says it is murder, then it is murder.

                2. Texas does, too. Pretty recently (a few years ago) the change was made.

          2. Kill a pregnant woman and it’s one count of homicide.

            Many of the “fetal homicide” laws are being pushed through as a back-door attempt to ban abortion. If you can establish a legal precedent for fetal personhood, passing a latter law to ban abortion on the same grounds has precedent behind it.

            1. Most state statutes that criminalize fetal homicide specifically exempt abortion.

              1. While still establishing that killing a fetus is homicide. It’s a long con.

              2. but if the line defining when life begins gets pushed back, what stops a pro-life legislative majority from taking that extra step? Wasn’t that long ago that there was no criminalization of feticide.

                1. The right to an abortion is never, ever going away, and it’s infuriating that it’s the only liberty that TEAM BLUE goes Full Hulk Retard about.

        3. It’s because the abortion wars are always being fought on two fronts: The Kultur War and the Political War. The GOP loves to use abortion to firm up and energize its base, but they know that if abortion was made illegal–especially the “zygote is a person”, sort of illegal–it would be a political disaster.

          It would either have to not be fully-enforced (I offer the fact that no one is advocating the prosecution of women that have abortions) or it would have to have so many exceptions carved that pretty much any woman that wanted one could still get one.

          If it was a full-bore “Our records indicate you missed you last period, ma’am” level of enforcement that would actually protect the personhood of a barely fertilized egg, the GOP would be in the political wilderness for decades.

          1. You realize we’ve had laws against abortion before, right? Comments about enforcement should be based on the actual enforcement history of these laws.

        4. leave early term abortion legal.

          pretty much everyone, including pro lifers, do not actually view abortion as murder.

          almost everyone favors prosecuting mothers that kill their infants.

          i say that as a moderately pro life person.

          ?_?

          1. What’s inconsistent?

      1. After five seconds in the sun without dinner plate-sized sunglasses, cigarettes, or Organic Coke Zero, she burst into flames. Like, ironic flames.

      2. We should start a charity to buy a model a cheeseburger. That girl would be hot if she had some muscle tone and a layer of adipose tissue.

        1. I’ve never understood that argument that thin girls should eat more. If you don’t like thin girls, aren’t there enough not-thin to fat girls already to suit you? If not, Kentucky is waiting for you with open, chubby arms.

          1. I like thin girls. I just don’t want them to die of hypothermia when I turn the AC down to 73. Also, being poked with a sharp pubic bone during sex is a turnoff for me. There’s a continuum and that one is on the Japanese POW camp side of thin.

            1. Maybe some sicko digs that. Don’t advocate that his one true path to nirvana be taken away. There’s some girl wearing two pairs of Spanx out there just waiting to make you a happy man.

              1. I like fit girls. You know, one who can beat me mercilessly without having to take a break every 10 minutes to catch her breath. That girl couldn’t wield a whip with enough force to even count as cute foreplay.

                1. It’s OK for you not to be a cadaver-fucker, but a little consideration for the cadaver-fuckers is just polite. Politeness costs nothing.

                  1. “You’re one of those necrophiliacs, a corpse fucker!

                    1. Could be worse – could be a Corpse Grinder

                    2. You’re one of those necrophiliacs, a corpse fucker!

                      I don’t expect you to understand me- I am not an ordinary man.

                  2. Did the old man with candy use that “politeness costs nothing” line on you just before he talked you into the van with blacked out windows?

                    1. I beat him up and took over his business for myself.

                    2. Don’t let Warty hear you say that. No horning in on his turf!

        2. “Please give generously to Sammiches for Skinny Bitches.”

          1. I’m thinking something like this.

          2. “Sammbitches”?

          3. How about “Sammbitches”? “Bitchwhiches”?

    1. what? Women fart? How come I was never told about this?

  32. Yahoo finds the most vapid men in America. Asks their turnoffs.

    However, this one is obviously not Buffalo Bill:
    “My wife spends 20 minutes after the shower putting on body lotion. Apparently it has to be applied evenly. For me, it is just a time suck.” -R.D.S.

    1. never dawned on him to be the applicator. Let’s guess which spouse has changed the most since the wedding day.

      1. You haven’t seen his wife…

        1. I’m guessing that if she gives a shit about how she looks, he’s the one with the problem.

    2. “My wife uses scrubs and bath salts in the tub, and the grains never go down the drain. All that oil makes the bath so slippery.” -Darrell

      This is a legitimate safety issue.

    3. That dude is going to be miserable if his wife ever gets pregnant.

    4. “My wife doesn’t dye her hair often enough. I don’t like to see those dark roots.” -Anonymous

      What a horse’s ass that one is.

      I agree with the one about tattoos though. There’s nothing I find more hideous on a lady than a gigantic arm or neck tattoo. If I wanted to bang a member of the Crips, I’d go to Folsom State Prison.

      1. My husband is also anti-lady tattoos. As he says, he turns that porn off.

    5. It puts the lotion on its skin . . . .

  33. The flying teddy bears of freedom claim a victim:

    BELARUS strongman leader Alexander Lukashenko has fired his foreign minister as part of a sweeping reshuffle that follows a diplomatic crisis in ties with Sweden after a pro-democracy stunt involving parachuting teddy bears.

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breakin…..z245vuzKMH

  34. Slate: Where FULL RETARD is sometimes never enough.

    Turns out cats can be very convincing when they mew their sack of lies to their gullible owners about how they’ll behave themselves if they’re let out to wander free. Owners often expressed shock at discovering their beloved fur balls took full advantage of their opportunities to torture and kill small animals for fun. Mother Jones collected the reaction of one distressed owner: “I stopped watching because I knew what the end point was, that the bird wasn’t going to live. I was very upset with my cat.” Concerns about bird-killing go far beyond just the unwelcome knowledge of the sociopathic tendencies in your purr machine, however. A conservative estimate of the number of birds killed by cats a year is 4 billion, but a representative for the American Bird Conservatory suggested that this new research could put the number as high as 10 or even 20 billion birds a year. Since cats don’t bother to check if a bird is on the endangered species list before they torture it to death, these massacres are contributing to the problem of species decimation.

    1. I was wondering at what point it got beyond full retard then I got to that last sentence. They’ve gone plaid.

      1. That sentence is not retarded. Cats (both feral and domestic ones going for a wander) are a factor in species endangerment, at least in Australia where they are a recentish arrival and the local animals are pretty tasty

        http://www.environment.gov.au/…..bs/cat.pdf

        1. I understand that but the idea that cats are somehow responsible for being unable to to differentiate between endangered and non endangered is pretty fucking retarded.

          1. agreed

        2. Adapt or die.

    2. Cats are killing machines? Who knew?

      1. This weekend I was camping in the backyard with the kids and we watched one of our cats playing with a field mouse. Suddenly the mouse, who probably knew he was a goner, ran straight into the burning campfire with the cat right behind. One of the kids grabbed the cat just in time. That was one smart suicidal rodent — I salute you, Mr. Mouse.

        1. One of the kids grabbed the cat just in time.

          A true LOLcat opportunity, wasted.

        2. Some weeks back my neighbor’s cats were cornering a field mouse (or, an escaped gerbil, looked more like the later). He ha one called Marbell for it’s marble looking non functioning eye. Marbell pounced to claim the rodent as her own. Another cat came along from her blind side and took it from her, and ran off with it. Marbell kept searching the three of four feet around her for several minutes. Looked up at me accusingly from time to time.

          1. We’ve got a deaf cat that likes to hunt, but is easily eluded. He’ll chase critters around until they are out of his vision, then sit back on his butt and wail until another cat comes along to assist.
            It’s pretty funny that the most vocal cat I’ve ever had is deaf.

            1. It’s pretty funny that the most vocal cat I’ve ever had is deaf.

              Makes sense. It’s like a person who’s hard of hearing shouting at you.

              1. Hard of hearing isn’t the same as being born deaf as a haddock.
                People who are born deaf are often mute as well.
                But not this cat!

      2. My favorite cat used to hide in the sunflowers that grew behind the bird feeder and get the squirrels who were eating the fallen seeds. He was the worst fucking hunter ever, but he was at least smart enough to use a blind when it was convenient.

    3. my favorite part is how folks like the writer insist on ascribing human qualities to animals: as if the cat understands what “fun” is, gets the concept of “torture”, and so forth. It’s like these folks have never bothered to make the connection between these cats and their predatory relatives.

      1. I was watching satellite TV – a rarity for me – and the Dog Whisperer was on.

        Some lady was having a problem with her lazy beagle and going on about “how the dog looked at her with sad eyes and she could tell by his expression, etc etc.”

        The Dog Whisperer said bluntly: “It’s just a dog, don’t read human emotions into it.”

        1. the Whisperer just moved up in my book.

          1. A classic ep had the owners of a lapdog called Gucci, who was bought $150 of toys a week, and had its own room with a humidifer. It turned out that they were guilty their other lapdog, Prada, had died a few years before and left Gucci all sad and alone.

            “Gucci don’t care.”

            “But – ”

            “No. Gucci don’t care. She’s forgotten Prada. She don’t care.”

            The look of shock on their faces was priceless.

            1. they are becoming the new breed (pardon the pun) of insufferables – people who pretend dogs are children and/or have these furry rats they carry everywhere, to include places where most reasonable folks would conclude dogs do not belong. And I love dogs, but mostly the large breeds.

              1. I used to only like large breeds, I had labs growing up, but my parents have a Yorkie and my step-dog is a Papillon and they are both great dogs. Of course neither of them are treated like they are little children, so that probably has something to do with it.

              2. Have you never heard the expression “fur children”, for pets?

                Those that use it make me glad they don’t have any human children, and their lines are at an end.

            2. “Gucci don’t care.” goes into my quiver alongside of “Charlie don’t surf”.

      2. as if the cat understands what “fun” is, gets the concept of “torture”

        Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. It is a trait that is not known to the higher animals. The cat plays with the frightened mouse; but she has this excuse, that she does not know that the mouse is suffering. The cat is moderate (unhumanly moderate: she only scares the mouse, she does not hurt it; she doesnt dig out its eyes, or tear off its skin, or drive splinters under its nails) man-fashion; when she is done playing with it she makes a sudden meal of it and puts it out of its trouble. Man is the Cruel Animal. He is alone in that distinction.

    4. I have noticed this about a certain large subset of cat owners. They appear to be totally clueless (or in denial)about what a brutally efficient little killing machine they keep around the house. Dog owners usually have more of a clue that Fido will treat any small animal he catches as a chew toy. The main difference being that Fido, by himself, is less likely to get a live chew toy. Of course, I have a pack, and they’re damn good at enrciclement. If they can close the circle on something, it’s not getting away. It’s gotta break out quick or it’s through.

      1. Discovery has a show about the most prolific predators. They estimate that the house cat preys upon the largest number of species, as many as 1500.

        To be fair, my dogs are the same way. They are as gentle and friendly as they can be…and then they change. They will let a small child do anything to them but if they can catch a small animal, it is a goner.

        1. Yeah, I have West Highlands. Cute little fluffy white terriers, all happy and cheerful and look like the sweetest things ever.

          And then a squirrel touches his paw into their yard and they turn into a blood-crazed lynch mob. DEATH TO THE INTRUDER! Squirrel leaves or is dispatched and then they come back, all cheerful and wagging and back to fluffy cuteness.

    5. I stopped watching because I knew what the end point was, that the bird wasn’t going to live.

      She should be plying those predictive powers for the NOAA, not wasting time with her cat.

      species decimation

      10% survival rate sounds decent to me. Hell, don’t only like 1% of baby sea turtles make it to the water? And they still seem to do well.

      1. and why is “species decimation” a problem? It’s like these folks never heard of Darwin. Species either adapt or they die. The cats are culling the flock of its weak and stupid.

        1. Lean, healthy gene pools aren’t fair to the culled though!

    6. When I was a kid, our extremely mild mannered cat used to go into the back yard and goad the birds into attacking her. Then she would lay on her back and knock them out of the air with her paws as they swooped down on her. It was awesome.

      1. One smart cat. My cat use to get the mockingbirds riled a lot, and all he ever did was run from one car underside to another to escape their wrath. But then again I had to put the bird feeder up higher because he snatched a bluebird from a midair jump on another occasion.

        1. One of my mom’s cat’s, after having a bell hung from her collar, used to nap below the bird feeder. When she’d wake, only her ears would move, till she leaped straight up and nabbed one that was slow to fly away. Mom sure tried to keep that cat from eating birds, but only keeping her inside succeeded.

    7. Had these people ever heard of cats before they got one? Doesn’t everyone know that all cats want nothing more than to torture and kill small rodents and birds (and perhaps the occasional shrew or toad)?

  35. UN threatens US with probe over drone footage.

    I think the US should respond by turning the NYPD loose and telling them to treat Turtle Bay like the South Bronx.

    1. Followup: “US threatens UN with drone over footage probes.”

    2. The US must open itself to an independent investigation into its use of drone strikes or the United Nations will be forced to step in, Ben Emmerson QC said yesterday.

      How many supercarriers does the UN have again? Oh, yeah, they’ll be forced to write a Very Stern Letter. Do these people even realize how rediculous they sound?

      1. “And now, the comfy chair!”

      2. “UN, you got a problem with that. You know what you should do. You should sanction me. Sanction me with your army. Oh! wait a minute! You don’t have an army! So I guess that means you need to shut the fuck up! That’s what would I do if I don’t have an army, I would shut the fuck up. Shut. The. Fuck. UP!. That’s right! Kofi Annan, I ain’t takin’ orders from an African. You might speak sixteen languages, but you gonna need them when you in Times Square selling fake hats.”

    3. Pretty fucking sad that the inept UN is looking for accountability for our murderdrone program and our congress and senate are sitting there with their thumbs up their butts not questioning a thing.* I guess killing a bunch of dirt farmers and their neighbors is acceptable to our elected officials.

      *With few exceptions.

      1. Don’t confuse the UN looking for a stick to beat the US with and the UN looking to hold anyone actually accountable for human rights violations.

      2. why are you expecting questions? Most Repubs, if not all, have no issue with the droning except that a president from the other party is the one ordering it.

  36. the unwelcome knowledge of the sociopathic tendencies in your purr machine

    Anybody who uses “sociopath” as a descriptor for cats should be fed to one; preferably a really big one with stripes.

    1. “psychopath”?

  37. I changed the channel to escape the demented ramblings of some sleazy fuck “security consultant” on Bloomberg, just in time to catch a frenzy of hyperventilating about the “real rape” controversy on MSNBC. Apparently, it’s all Paul Ryan’s fault.

    1. How’s the cable up there, P.B.? You get National Geographic channel in HD?

  38. Satellite; you don’t have to worry about trees obstructing the dish.

  39. BOSTON – A new study on the generosity of Americans suggests that states with the least religious residents are also the stingiest about giving money to charity.

    The study released Monday by the Chronicle of Philanthropy found that residents in states where religious participation is higher than the rest of the nation, particularly in the South, gave the greatest percentage of their discretionary income to charity.

    The Northeast, with lower religious participation, was the least generous to charities, with the six New England states filling the last six slots among the 50 states.

    The study also found that patterns of charitable giving are colored in political reds and blues.

    Of the 10 least generous states, nine voted for Democrat Barack Obama for president in the last election. By contrast, of the 10 most generous states, eight voted for Republican John McCain.

    http://www.startribune.com/nation/166744606.html

    1. Do they provide the numbers in a way that lets you net out contributions to churches?

      1. Can we net out the United Way too?

        I dont see the point of netting out churches without netting out lots of other charities too.

        1. I don’t know why anyone would include contributions to churches as charitable donations anyway. The church may or may not devote some fraction of its resources to charity, but even if it does, its likely to be a pretty small fraction.

          1. Do we really want to be drawing a line between what is charity and what isnt?

            Is the money spent on the minister’s house charitable or not? How about his salary? How about the salary of the CEO of United Way?

        2. Because counting contributions to churches is like counting the dues I pay to the gym.

          “I joined a social club and gave them money to keep up the building and recruit new members and pay their staff.”

          1. I doubt you get a tax write-off for your gym membership.

            And actually, if the church charged a membership fee, it (probably?) wouldnt be tax deductible either, its only the donations that are.

            Not sure though because of the way university season-tickets work. Some require a “mandatory donation” to the school to be eligible to purchase tickets in a certain section, for example. The price of the tickets isnt deductible, but the “donation” is, and would be considered charity.

        3. If you gave money to some church where you weren’t a member, I might consider it charity.

          1. The membership fee at my church is $0. Everything above that is a donation.

          2. I do not think that either you or RC answered Rob’s question. The fact that you don’t like what a charity does makes it not charity? While I personally agree with you, I don’t consider the Komen foundation or the American Red Cross much in the way of charities, either. What about Planned Parenthood? How much of these organizations money is spent on promoting certain ideologies, or lobbying or simply raising more money? What defines a charity?

            1. What defines a charity?

              Whatever the Social Engineer du Jour says it is, noob.

  40. On Brazilian drug dealers prohibiting the sale of crack:

    Looking over the following linked news report from June (US papers are only now getting around to it), it appears that the dealers were not so much worried about destabilized communities or the more difficult control of government-abandoned areas – they were threatened by invasion and occupation by the national security forces, if crack sales are not suppressed. The government is jittery and hyped-up and on a violent anti-crack crusade. The state threat is also credible: the police (really military) literally invaded and militarily occupied one community, Santo Amaro, in May, confiscating all sorts of guns, drugs and such from the local crime gangs. So, one might interpret this as one really big violent organization threatening the local crime lords to cool it, or the police will show them what destailization really looks like.

    http://oglobo.globo.com/rio/an…..451154.asp

  41. Would you like to submit something to Yale’s Dictionary of Modern Proverbs? If enough of us do it, we might be able to get “Fuck off, slaver” into it

    http://yalepress.wordpress.com…..-proverbs/

    1. Or any of the Iron Laws:

      1. You get more of what you reward and less of what you punish.

      2. Money and power will always find each other.

      3. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.

      4. The less you know about something, the easier it looks.

      5. You aren’t free unless you are free to be wrong.

      6. Me today, you tomorrow.

      7. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

    2. Fuck off, slaver

      The first instance of it was by P. Brooks, concisely wrapping up an argument I was making thruout a thread.

      I picked it up from there and ran with it.

      1. As a newish libertarian, I must say that phrase was part of the attraction. Bravo, P. Brooks!

      2. I’ve used it on non-libertarian forums, where I’ve ceased to care about their tender feelings.

  42. I’m sure I’m not the only Devin Townsend fan here. Here, listen to him talk about his new record.

  43. Brandon Raub:

    http://www.businessinsider.com…..911-2012-8

    He might actually be crazy. But sure smells a lot like Soviet practice of disappearing people into a loony bin when they get too uppity.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.