A.M. Links: Hamas Fires Rockets into Israel, Teenage Brothers Charged With Murdering Girl, Another GOP Senate Candidate Wades into a Rape Controversy, American Novel a Hit in North Korea, Syrian Government Will Observe Cease-Fire, Gold Hits Seven Week Low

|

  • Tea Party-backed GOP Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said that pregnancies from rape are intended by God. 
  • The Syrian government has agreed to observe a cease-fire during Eid al-Adha, says the UN envoy to Syria. 
  • "Gone With the Wind" is a hit in North Korea. The government, which enforces some of the strictest censorship laws in the world, publishes the American classic. 
  • Hamas fired rockets into southern Israel Wednesday afternoon, injuring five. Israel responded with strikes on Hamas mortar crews.
  • Gold has hit a seven week low ahead of the Fed's policy statement expected later today. 
  • Two brothers have been charged with the murder of a 12-year-old girl. The boy's mother alerted police after finding a potentially implicating Facebook posting. 

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

Have a news tip? Send it to us!

The updated Reason app for Apple and Android now includes Reason 24/7!

NEXT: Prince Harry Party Model Claims British Secret Service Pushed Her Arrest, Detention

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. “Gone With the Wind” is a hit in North Korea.

    Frankry, my dear, me no give damn.

    1. I wonder…is it published by the government of the North as inpsiration for what it will eventually do to the South?

      1. “I’m going to live through this and when it’s all over, I’ll never be hungry again!”

        1. As Kim Jong-un is my witness…

    2. Your breakin’ my bars, Scarret, your breakin’ my bars!

      1. Bleakin’ my bars, Scarret!

      2. “I’m so ronery… but tomorrow is another day!”

  2. Denmark shocked by story of brain-dead donor’s recovery
    http://www.bioedge.org/index.p…..icle/10278

    The world of organ donation in Denmark is in turmoil. A documentary was aired earlier this month which showed family members reacting in anguish to the news that their 19-year-old daughter was brain dead after a car accident, agreeing to donate her organs and allowing doctors to turn off her respirator. About 1.7 million viewers tuned in to the heart-rending drama.

    But Carina Melchior did not die after her respirator was removed. She is now undergoing rehabilitation and may make a full recovery. About 500 people immediately removed their names from Denmark’s organ donor register.

    1. In other news, medical “science” involves a lot more guess work than its practitioners care to admit.

      1. I think their practitioners freely admit that.

        It’s people who ‘report’ on science and consume those reports that ignore the math.

        1. Quite a few of its practitioners are pretty quick to hide the math from the plebs who are too ignorant to understand it.

          1. Mostly just the ones trying to sell books.

        2. Yes, but they resist any proposed practice changes that would take thier faliability into account. For example, organ extractions are generally performed without anesthesia, which becomes horrifying when you consider cases like this.

  3. The boy’s mother alerted police after finding a potentially implicating Facebook posting.

    The rare parent who checks their kids’ online activity.

    1. I suppose *she’s* been unfriended.

    2. I bet she’s really glad she did.

    3. My niece called someone a “faggot” on her Facebook page. I alerted her father, my BiL. I was instantly unfriended, despite the fact that I may have saved her from a lot of uncomfortable inquiries from police and school administrators, not too mention saved her chances of getting into one of those “good” school that her parents obsess about constantly.

      1. You should have your sister smack that girl across the face and teach that little bitch some goddamn manners.

        1. Funny thing is, her parents wanted to encourage “free and independent thinking” in their kids…so they disposed with the discipline and kept a hands-off approach. Conveniently enough, this worked for the parents since the mom is unbelievably lazy (the one thing you absolutely cannot be if you want to be a halfway decent parent) and the dad is laser focused on his career. Consequently, the kids are now ungrateful, nasty brats.

          Gee, what a surprise.

          1. what could possibly go wrong with all that independent thinking. I saw a story yesterday that talked about how all the nekkid pics of young folks that get hijacked were self-posted to begin with.

            1. Yeah I saw that story too and I am still waiting for some enterprising journalist who can think independently to ask the question…

              Who the fuck cares

              I mean seriously, what are the odds that ANYONE recognizes YOU from a random naked pic they saw on some porn site? Not just recognizes you but does so well enough to ever even question you on it.

              Sure you might not want those pictures on YOUR Facebook page where they are directly associated with your name and potential employers might see them but outside of that the fact that there are pictures of your junk out there on the net is approximately as relevant to your life as what color underwear you put on in the morning.

              Unless of course you are a mental patient constantly fretting someone might recognize you from them and it come back to haunt you somehow and there it is your fear and not the actual pictures that is the problem.

              1. Well, like with guns, the best solution is MORE such pictures on the net, not less.

                If everyone has some out there then no one cares. It’s the prudes ruining it for everyone.

                1. I’m looking your way, IFH.

              2. I mean seriously, what are the odds that ANYONE recognizes YOU from a random naked pic they saw on some porn site? Not just recognizes you but does so well enough to ever even question you on it.

                True story: quite a few years ago in the early days of the internet a coworker of mine asked me a series of questions about how all those pictures get posted on the internet. I explained UUencoding and news reader software to him and didn’t think much more about it.

                A few weeks later a different coworker called a few of us into his office. “Check this out,” he said, turning his monitor for us to see. Across the screen played a series of photos of the first coworker’s wife, sans clothing. “Do you think it’s her?” he asked. Oh yeah, that’s her, we all agreed.

                And no, nobody ever mentioned it to either of them.

          2. I hate seeing this happen with my sister’s kids. The dad is never around (career) and my sister is too lazy/too guilted from being a pediatric oncologist to discipline them.

            The three-year-old girl is delightful when she’s behaving well, but that is incredily rare (well, she behaves well when her parents aren’t around). The boy is still a baby, but I’m sure he’ll learn manipulation soon enough.

      2. Yes but was the person she called a faggot actually a faggot?

        1. he wasn’t homosexual, but he’d slept with a guy who’s one

        2. He’s on Facebook. So yes.

      3. I alerted her father, my BiL.

        What’s a BiL?

  4. Robots Will Steal Your Job?
    http://www.transparencyrevolut…..-your-job/

    Some will argue that, based on history, only luddites and the technologically (or economically) ignorant fear a machine takeover of the full human employment space. The “threat” of automation has never panned out. So far. Then again, machines are getting smarter and faster at an exponential rate; we are not. So it could be that we will all end up being yoga instructors, experiencing a transition to a whole new economic model, one wherein we are increasingly employed in the lucrative field of value-added intermediation ? filling the gaps the machines can’t.

    On the other hand, machine capabilities may improve so fast that they leave very little gap for us to intermediate. Or there might be limited economic value in the gaps we can fill. The possibility of a truly painful transition is out there and it’s very real.

    1. Imagine a world where robots pay all the taxes and humans vote democrat.

      1. Wait, that’s already happened, and why Rombot is on a ramapage.

      2. Oh, so just because a robot wants to kill humans that makes him a ‘Radical?’

        1. Hey baby, want to kill all humans?

    2. So in this nightmare world the robots are doing all of these things humans used to do…. and then not sharing it with the humans?

      1. I’m working on a robot that will lie on the couch all day and randomly channel surf.

    3. That’s why I have Old Glory Robot Insurance. Don’t cower under your afghan any longer.

      1. Cowering under Afghans sounds like the current exit strategy.

      2. Clearly the Medicare Prescription Drug benefit was a ploy by Big Robot to ensure their food supply in the years to come.

    4. Unless machines become efficient enough to overcome the first law of economics, there will always be jobs for people.

  5. Tea Party-backed GOP Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said that pregnancies from rape are intended by God.

    Unfortunately political campaigns from idiots are intended by Satan.

    1. I can hear Mittens screaming obscenities at his advisors from hear.

      1. Oh, yes.

        “And find at least *one* of Obama’s gay lovers!”

    2. Other than the stupidity of saying that out loud, Im not sure what the problem with the statement is.

      It does require assuming the existence of God, which I realize some of you wont do.

      1. Does he think that the subsequent abortion is intended by God as well?

        1. I’m pretty sure everything is intended by god.

          1. Then I guess I don’t follow Murdoch’s point.

            1. Well, you pointed out the contradiction inherent in the concept of free will below.

            2. Mourdoch’s point (Murdoch was from the A-team, IIRC) was that God can make blessings from bad situations.

              That is it. That was his entire point.

              1. Yes, I think you’re right about that.

              2. Mourdoch’s point (Murdoch was from the A-team, IIRC) was that God can make blessings from bad situations.

                Then I guess the resultant abortion is a blessing too?

                1. Randian, since he’s arguing that we should not make the child suffer for the sins of the father, no, he wouldn’t find the abortion a blessing.

                  Especially since the religious are a lot more likely to see a random low probability event like pregnancy as God’s will than something that is obviously the direct result of human action.

                2. Well, presumably God can make a blessing out of that too. Perhaps something like allowing a person to live their life unburdened by a child they didn’t want or couldn’t care for.

                  Well, that’s nice. I think we have solved the whole abortion debate right here. What a relief.

                  1. didn’t god rape Mary?

                    1. She was askin’ for it.

                  2. In’sha’allalah can work for us infidels too.

      2. Deaths resulting from thermonuclear war are “something that God intended to happen,” despite the “horrible situation” from which they derived.

        1. Face it, God’s a jerk.

          1. Well, look at it this way: if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away. If you never give it a lollipop to begin with, then you would have nothin’ to cry about. That’s like God, who gives us life and love and help just so that he can tear it all away and make us cry, so he can drink the sweet milk of our tears. You see, it’s our tears, Stan, that give God his great power.

        2. lf one does what God does enough times, one will become as God is. God’s a champ. He always stays ahead. He got 140 Phillipinos in one plane crash last year.

      3. Other than the stupidity of saying that out loud

        So, you’re advocating dishonesty. Nice.

        It does require assuming the existence of God…

        It does, but it goes further than that to an angry, vengeful, interventionist god. That’s the real issue.

        1. So, you’re advocating dishonesty. Nice.

          it’s more advocating thinking something through. No one got in trouble by saying too little. Sometimes, you’re better not sharing opinions on everything, particularly in a campaign.

          1. No one got in trouble by saying too little.

            A hard lesson, that too many learn too late, if at all.

          2. My understanding is that xtians are not supposed to hide their faith.

            1. My understanding is that xtians are not supposed to hide their faith.

              Folks at your average college campus would beg to differ.

      4. He specifically said “I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen”.

        He later followed up with “Are you trying to suggest somehow that God preordained rape, no I don’t think that… Anyone who would suggest that is just sick and twisted. No, that’s not even close to what I said.”

        What I presume he meant was that the creation of the life of a child is a gift from God even when it arises from horrible circumstances. Which is not really that awful in and of itself, but for the usual GOP moronic verbal dyspepsia that smothers the internal point.

        1. the usual GOP moronic verbal dyspepsia

          The usual anti-GOP interpreting everything in the most insane light, you mean. It is completely as insane as right-wingers who read the most ludicrous things into things Obama says.

          1. When Obama said John Thacker was going on his disposition matrix, I spoke up and said with my objections, but now I realize it was ludicrous of me to do so.

        2. What I presume he meant was that the creation of the life of a child is a gift from God even when it arises from horrible circumstances.

          one of my schoolfriends is raising her rapist’s child, and that is definitely her attitude. She adores her daughter

          1. Good for her. “Living well is the best revenge.”

            1. Even better would be tagging the dirtbag with child support, and I bet no court in the world would give him any kind of visitation or parental rights.

              1. sadly he has not yet been caught, 10 years on. Here in Australia there are no parental rights as such when it comes to custody or access when the parents aren’t together – it’s all about what’s in the best interests of the child. We used to have the concept, but this changed after a court in the late 70s ordered a 14 year old girl to visit her dad in jail. He was of course in jail for raping her

                1. All children belong to the Queen.

          2. I’m saddened to hear of your friend’s experience, but glad that she was able to feel that way about her child.

            However, her experience and feelings in this may not be universal.

            And your happy ending anecdote ignores the whole root question of whether the best outcome would have been for KLG to prevent rapes in the first place, or at least prevent rape pregnancies if the first option is too much to ask.

      5. That’s sort of what I was thinking. I don’t agree myself, I think stuff just happens, but don’t a lot of Christians think that everything that happens is God’s will? Or at least that God can make good things come from bad ones.

        I am totally pro-legal-abortion, but damn, a lot of those who agree with me on that really have a hard time arguing in good faith on the subject.

        1. a lot of those who agree with me on that really have a hard time arguing in good faith on the subject.

          There is a reason for this.

          1. Well, yes. A lot are team blue players who desperately grasp at anything they can beat their opponents with.

        2. The problem is that even if you do think that way, it isn’t a reason for invalidating the suffering of others, which seems to be Mourdoch’s implication here. Even if he does believe rape pregnancies are God’s will, what is the purpose of telling rape victims that?

          1. Can’t see much purpose in that. It’s a pretty dickish thing to do. I just like to try to honestly and charitably try to understand the views of people I disagree with sometimes.

          2. “Even if he does believe rape pregnancies are God’s will, what is the purpose of telling rape victims that?”

            It’s not the rape victims that get offended by this. It’s the victims’ emotional defendants, and you never run out of them. There could be one rape victim in the entire world, or the memory of one, and that would be enough for a whole thriving political interest group to police language and raise awareness until the day the sun crashes into the earth.

    3. I assume he’s trying to say that the resultant life is one of God’s children. The religious tend to couch any new life as a blessing, regardless of circumstances, and leftists seem to see new life as a potential burden. So a “God’s children” argument isn’t going to do much to convince non-religious to take your rape comments as intended.

      Then again, I’m just guessing.

      1. I take this as more of a punishment type thing – ie, somehow those women deserved to be raped and have to raise the resulting rape baby.

        Yeah, but wouldn’t a kind, loving god spare those poor women the burden of rape babies? Hell, wouldn’t a KLG spare those women rape in the first place?

        1. There is zero chance that he means it as a punishment thing, or as anything else than “even babies born from rape are God’s children and deserve life and to be loved and treated equally.”

          I can see how nonreligious people unfamiliar with how the religious think would read it another way. Just as religious people look at the nonreligious people objecting and assume that they’re saying that they think that people born of rape would be better off dead and can never be viewed as equal or as anything other than a tragic existence.

          1. people unfamiliar with how the religious think

            Sure, whatever, but bullshit is still bullshit.

            Also I went to Catholic school and took theology courses in college so, yes, I do know a bit about how the religious think.

            IOW, epic fail.

            1. No kidding. I am extremely familiar with how the religious think because I used to be one.

            2. See, with the religious it always comes down to special pleading.

          2. No response, eh Thacker?

        2. where did he say anything about deserving to be raped? At worst, he’s saying that chicken salad can be made from chicken shit. I don’t hear him imposing his beliefs on anyone.

        3. The term “rape baby” is exactly the kind of callous sounding thing he’s trying to oppose here. He’s saying that the child should not suffer for the sins of the father.

          You apparently think that the child is inherently cursed and attainted, which honestly strikes me as a far more superstitious and unscientific point of view. Though I grant that many, perhaps most, people would have that sort of instinctive revulsion and sense of taboo, and some might indeed take it out on the child.

          1. Again, no. See your epic fail, above.

            This is about the child being a constant reminder to his/her mother of the circumstances under which the child was received.

            No amount of special pleading or strained bullshit can change that.

            1. “This is about the child being a constant reminder to his/her mother of the circumstances under which the child was received.”

              I would say that given how you are not a mother and don’t have a rape-baby of your own, you don’t know fucking shit about fuck, let alone the likelyhood of “the child being a constant reminder to his/her mother of the circumstances under which the child was received” you stupid fuck.

              1. “conceived” of course.

                And I reject the notion that one has to be religious, or a rape victim, or whatever to hold an opinion on the proper public role of religion in public life, or the notion that rape babies are not the best thing ever.

                And when you rely on profanity and personal attacks you got nothing else.

                1. It’s the opposite of special pleading.

                  Mourdock is saying that all children deserve equal protection under the law. He’s saying that a “rape baby” is no less human then a child conceived in love, or in a one night stand, or from a turkey baster. He’s saying they all deserve the same protection.

                  You can disagree with that if you wish, but it isn’t special pleading. Not even close.

                2. My post has nothing to do with religion, so fuck you for interjecting it where it wasn’t. The point is that you have no fucking idea what any person thinks in that situation. For you to assert that the child will ALWAYS BE A REMINDER OF HER RAPE. is fucking stupid. You. Don’t. Know. Fuck. About It. Stupid little bitch.

            2. I think the problem is that you’re weighing a life against a feeling. No matter how awful a feeling that is, it’s hard to justify to those who see life as precious ending one in order to help someone cope emotionally with trauma.

              1. No matter how awful a feeling that is, it’s hard to justify to those who see life as precious ending one in order to help someone cope emotionally with trauma.

                Especially in a society where adoption exists.

              2. Again, ignores that an all-powerful KLG could have prevented the rape in the first place, or prevented the resulting rape pregnancy.

                1. 11:30 was reply to Fist’s 11:14.

                  1. I fear we’ve moved into the inevitable “arguing past one another” phase of the discussion.

      2. Children are always a burden. Some burdens people willingly take on and can be very rewarding.

        1. It’s the willing part. Coercion changes that.

    4. If he loses the election, that too will be God’s will.

    5. Actually in this case you have to commend his honesty and consistancy.

      If you believe as many fundies do that god is all powerful and has a plan then it stands to reason that all that happens is gods will, including such apparently horrible things as getting raped and getting pregnant from that.

      Of course what all these wacko’s usually overlook is if you then get an abortion it is also gods will, but somehow actions they don’t like are the result of human free will and sin while the ones they do are gods will.

      Still as a fundie he was at least honest enough to publicly state his beliefs which in some ways makes him far superior to politicians like Mitt Obamney who quite readily throw their personal convictions under the bus for political expediency.

      1. Any inexplicable tragedy was God’s will.

        Sin, though, is freely chosen by the human actor.

        The reason I stopped being a Christian is because of the “heads I win tails you lose” backstop that undergirds its theology.

        1. That was part of it for me. The straw that broke the camels back for me however was sermons on the evils of DD (of which I was an avid player) and backwards masking (which I knew to be complete BS) convincing me that these morons didn’t have the slightest clue what they were talking about.

          1. god intended for you not to have ampersands.

      2. But he isn’t saying the rape is God’s will, he’s saying the pregnancy is God’s will. If the start of a pregnancy was a question of choice instead nature, abortion wouldn’t actually be much of a subject of interest.

    6. Was Mourdock expressing his opinion or describing how he would legislate?

      If it’s just his opinion, then he shares it with Ron Paul.

      If Mourdock is suggesting that Federal Law should not allow abortions, he has lost me and Ron Paul.

      I’m curious about the context because Mourdock makes a big deal about being a Federalist – but I’m wondering if he’s suggesting we overlook the Constitution in this case.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_eMZj_kW-4

  6. Morning Joe this morning had the nerve to show a clip from The Daily Show about how Romney and Obama said, essentially, the same thing during the foreign policy debate. The Joe of the Morning then mused about how these candidates never say anything. This, of course, all took place the morning after the 3rd party debate where plenty of opinions and topics never discussed by Romney and Obama were addressed.

  7. Obama: The Dictator’s Choice For U.S. President
    http://news.investors.com/ibd-…..sident.htm

    From Moscow to Caracas to Havana, something disturbing is happening: Dictators with long records of enmity toward the U.S. are endorsing Obama for president. What does that say about the Obama presidency?

    1. That maybe they really want Romney? Successful tyrants are adept at manipulating opinion and fear.

      1. Yes, because they’re always so subtle.

      2. You’re giving these guys way too much credit for their ability to impact public opinion in another country.

  8. The Hobbit’s second breakfast about to hit Denny’s. Most of it looks stomach-turning, but the Dwarves Turkey and Dressing Dinner could be OK

    http://io9.com/5954327/the-hob…..-happening

    1. Have they no shame?

      1. One Slam to feed them all, One Slam to tempt them,
        One Slam to bring them all and in the fatness bind them.

        1. “We loves it forever!”

        2. I’d suggest you be flung into Mount Doom, had I not laughed so hard at that.

          1. I’m pretty sure Mount Doom is the dessert offering. Sort of like the Vermonster.

            1. mmm… Chocolate Mount Doom with Fudge Lava

      2. The restaurant that serves a bacon milkshake?

        1. Hold the whipped cream, and it’s probably OK.

          1. Fuck OK, it’s delicious.

    2. Because there are no black Hobbits, that’s why.

    3. I like the Radagast reference but I doubt anyone will understand it since he isn’t in the movies.

        1. Yes, and they aren’t bad – especially the extended versions. Just avoid the Ralph Bakshi abomination.

          I think Jackson is going to royally fuck-up The Hobbit.

          1. Why? I thought he did an excellent job, all told, with the LoTR. Sure, the last one dragged on, but translating books into movies is famously difficult.

            1. Dragged on? They cut entire chapters from the end of the book. I think Jackson ended it about as quickly as possible considering the source material.

      1. Actually I think he should be in the Hobbit since he actually appeared briefly in the book.

    4. Fried Hobbit is a filling break fast.

  9. Doesn’t Mourdock’s view just jibe with the fundamentalist opinion that everything that happens is God’s will?

    1. Yes it does – it just doesn’t jibe with the abiding principle that anything a fundie says about rape is likely to be stupid and is certain to be hysterically twisted and used against him and should therefore be left unsaid.

      1. It’s like they can;t control their own fucking mouths.

    2. Not just fundamentalist.

      1. Or maybe you’re just a fundie but don’t know it. Cheers.

        1. Its impossible for me to be a Fundie, Ive never read The Fundamentals.

        2. There are many more useful definitions for fundamentalist than “person who allows their religion to influence their life too much for my taste.”

          1. There are many more useful definitions for fundamentalist

            I stick with the orginal, a person who follows the concepts and beliefs in the book The Fundamentals.

            Which makes my lol at the phrase “fundamentalist moslem”.

          2. Sure, whatever, Secret.

    3. It’s not necessarily fundamentalist unless you are a Calvinist and believe in pre-destination. There are many who subscribe to free will and that we get where we are based on the choices we make.

      1. There are many who subscribe to free will and that we get where we are based on the choices we make.

        Except free will has always been an inherent contradiction in Christian doctrine, but few are courageous enough to admit it.

        1. Ah. Randian expounding on Christian doctrine. Isn’t that like John opining on who is and isn’t a libertarian?

          1. I used to be pre-seminary. 😛

            1. No kiddin’? That would explain a lot.

            2. you know who else used to be pre-seminary?

              1. Traci Lords?

                Oh, wait, pre-seminary. Never mind.

              2. Sam Kinnison?

          2. More like anyone opining on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

        2. No it isnt.

          Free will and predestination both exist and are non-contradictory.

          Next you will tell me that light must either be a wave or a particle.

          You will be wrong.

          1. BTW, about 22-23 years ago, I claimed that God created the Wave-Particle Duality of light for the sole purpose that so I, robc, would be able to understand the Free Will v Predestination conundrum.

            Ive backed off that a bit over the years, I doubt sometimes it was “solely” for that reason.

            1. I’ll just leave this here.

            2. Well, you should back off it, since there is no Wave-Particle Duality of light.

              1. Really? Can you explain that for me?

          2. Christians like to latch onto wave-particle duality as proof that free will and predestination are noncontradictory.

            Please, robc, explain to me how an omniscient god somehow still does not know the outcome of every single choice every person is going to make, and how that differs from predestination.

            1. that god knowing and that god acting are different things. Your statement presumes that the individual knows what god knows. What god may see as predestination, humans would see as the result of choices freely made. Damn, we’re philosophical early today. More coffee, please.

              1. But everything that happens is God’s Will. Not just something God permits to happen, but something that an omnipotent God enabled.

                That makes the Christian version of free will an illusion. Even more damning is that Christians posit free will as an explanation for why some go to Hell, even though God knew a million years ago that I was going there. That’s a farce.

                1. Christians posit free will as an explanation for why some go to Hell

                  That varies. The more-predestiny denominations do no such thing.

                  You should learn more, the more you speak about topics you dont know, the dumber you sound.

                  1. That varies. The more-predestiny denominations do no such thing.

                    I am aware, but given that we are talking about the sects that believe in free will, I didn’t consider the predestination followers relevant to the conversation, because they aren’t.

                    1. You said “Christians”. That includes all: free will, predestination, both, neither.

                2. But everything that happens is God’s Will.

                  The why the bitching about Mourdock’s comments?

                3. there is no arguing with the truly devout; you probably know that. I’m content with man having free will. Just saying I can see a gap between what man knows and does, and what a god might know.

              2. Oh, the illusion of free will would definitely be there.

                1. Oh, the illusion of free will would definitely be there.

                  If the illusion is so strong that I think I am making my own choice, how is that different from me making my own choices?

                  Cogito ergo cogito.

                  /I dont know latin so if I screwed up tenses, screw you.

                  1. If the illusion is so strong that I think I am making my own choice, how is that different from me making my own choices?

                    It’s an exercise in self-deceit.

                    And here’s the thing: if you want to have free will, we can have that without throwing in an extra, Occam-violating entity in an omniscient God.

                    There are two ways to get to free will: one is the silly and ultimately illogical synthesis between an omniscient god and what we know or believe to be the plain truth, the other is to discard the exercise in synthesizing (that is, ditch god as a concept) and just go with the truth.

                    1. It’s an exercise in self-deceit.

                      Self-deceit requires knowledge, in which case the illusion isnt an illusion, you have seen thru it.

                      I dont know if Im about to veer down a Descartian path or a Philip K Dickian path, but I think they both would understand.

                    2. Self-deceit requires knowledge, in which case the illusion isnt an illusion, you have seen thru it.

                      Except that I have seen “through it” by engaging in this conversation.

                    3. if you want to have free will

                      It has nothing to do with “want”. We either have free will or we dont.

                      we can have that without throwing in an extra, Occam-violating entity in an omniscient God.

                      Ditto for this, either God exists or he doesnt, it isnt a matter of throwing him in. Or what we want.

                    4. I can see that you aren’t capable of grasping Occam’s Razor, eh?

                  2. If the illusion is so strong that I think I am making my own choice, how is that different from me making my own choices?

                    If the illusion that the magician made my selected card magically appear in a locked box is so strong that I think he really did it, how is that different from his actually doing it?

                    1. If the illusion that the magician made my selected card magically appear in a locked box is so strong that I think he really did it, how is that different from his actually doing it?

                      Analogy doesnt hold.

                      One is about myself, the other is about someone else.

                      Im saying that Cogito ergo Sum holds.

                      I think (or at least, I think I think) therefore I am. If its all just an illusion and Im an automaton, is Descartes wrong? In my reality, he is still right.

                      To quote a song already posted: I choose free will.

                      I just happen to acknowledge that predistination also exists.

                    2. Analogy doesnt hold.

                      One is about myself, the other is about someone else.

                      Sure it does. Whether you believe strongly enough that the magician really moved the card with magic, it’s still an illusion.

                  3. “Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.”

            2. From one perspective, it doesnt differ from predestination, from another, the person still has free will to make the choice.

              1. From one perspective, it doesnt differ from predestination, from another, the person still has free will to make the choice.

                *mumble mumble* god’s will great mysteries of the universe *mumble mumble*

                That’s a punt and you know it.

                1. That’s a punt and you know it.

                  Nope. And I said nothing like what you said before that.

                  1. Nope. And I said nothing like what you said before that

                    I know where it’s headed. You still haven’t explained the contradiction other than to say “it’s not a contradiction. I learned that through W-P duality…not that that example should convince anyone else, anyway”

                    1. I know where it’s headed.

                      So now Randian is omniscient?

              2. None of this explains Donald Trump.

            3. I tend to take a somewhat Humeian (that can’t be how that is spelled) view of free will. I think it is a mistake to see free will and determinism as opposed. Free will does not mean random or unpredictable behavior. It simply means that if I will myself to do something, and I am not constrained form doing it, I will do it. I am free in the sense that I am not contained, not in the sense that absolutely anything might happen. The decisions I make and actions I take are for reasons or causes and so are probably in some sense deterministic, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have free will.

              1. You can choose a ready guide
                In some celestial voice.
                If you choose not to decide
                You still have made a choice
                You can choose from phantom fears
                And kindness that can kill;
                I will choose a path that’s clear-
                I will choose free will

                1. Usually its me posting that, but I have the good sense to post to it directly so people can listen.

                2. or…

                  I’ve got twelve disciples and a Buddha smile
                  Garden of Allah, Viking Valhalla
                  A miracle once in a while

                  I’ve got a pantheon of animals in a pagan soul
                  Vishnu and Gaia, Aztec and Maya
                  Dance around my totem pole
                  Totem pole…

                  I believe in what I see
                  I believe in what I hear
                  I believe that what I’m feeling
                  Changes how the world appears

              2. Hume is a badass, but if he applied the same rigor to the possible illusion of free will as he does the “illusion” of cause and effect, he’d probably have gotten a different answer.

                If God is omniscient, Hume is constrained, even if he isn’t, and can’t be, aware of the constraint.

            4. Why exactly does choice have to be unpredictable to be free? Sure, if you travel back in time as a disembodied supernatural (thus, no Heisenburg bullshit) observer and change absolutely nothing at all, everything will probably play out the same way over and over. That doesn’t mean that people weren’t freely making the same choices each time.

              1. That is my point. Choice is not random or unpredictable. We are free and somewhat predictable. We don’t make the choices we do for no reason. As moral agents we are still governed by cause and effect.

                1. Merovingian!

          3. Free will and predestination both exist and are non-contradictory.

            Not buying it, physics analogies be damned.

            1. I do have a friend who thinks that wave-particle duality explains the philosophical concept of free will, but he isn’t throwing an extra Occam-violating entity into the mix.

              1. Not sure how an omnipotent God is more “Occam-violating” than It Just Happened.

            2. I didnt ask you to buy it. I said the W-P duality exists solely for ME didnt I?

              1. Does God know what I’m having for breakfast tomorrow?

                1. whether or not god knows has nothing to do with the choice you will make.

                  1. whether or not god knows has nothing to do with the choice you will make.

                    Are you claiming that my choice supersedes the power of God to do anything about it?

                    That would render god less than omnipotent.

                    1. Are you claiming that my choice supersedes the power of God to do anything about it?

                      That would render god less than omnipotent.

                      Not necessarily. God can be all-powerful but also one who values giving humans the power over their own destiny. He has the power to intervene but chooses not to in favor of letting humans freely choose to love and serve him. Of course many humans do not choose that path, but it is one that a loving god would prefer to forcing worshippers to adore him (a la Barry Obama).

                    2. That gets to another logical problem: there is no reason an omniscient, omnipotent being should have any desires whatsoever.

                    3. Why not? Because you said so? I am beginning to believe that logic does not mean what you think it means.

                    4. so, delegation of powers! God shall make no law that abridges the rights he gave us 😉

                    5. For somebody dead-set on his conviction that there is no God, you sure spend an awful lot of time dwelling on Him, randian. I’m not trying to be a dick, but seriously, give it a rest. People that believe, believe (me included). You’re not going to change our minds and we’re not going to change yours.

                      This is one problem I have with many atheist libertarians in how they treat their Christian libertarians or Christians interested in finding out more about libertarianism. They spend more time mocking the 1-2% of things where we differ (like on belief in God) than on the 98% of core beliefs we tend to share. It doesn’t help the cause, especially since libertarianism fits hand in glove with Christian belief systems and morality.

                    6. For somebody dead-set on his conviction that there is no God, you sure spend an awful lot of time dwelling on Him, randian. I’m not trying to be a dick, but seriously, give it a rest.

                      Oh yes it’s MY FAULT that we’re having this discussion.

                      Why don’t you give your Christianity ‘a rest’? See how that works?

                    7. I can’t speak for Randian, but I think discussing theology is interesting, even though I don’t believe in God or any religion. When so many people believe something and have put so much intellectual effort into something that seems to counter-factual to me, I am going to want to understand it more.

                      On the surface, your beliefs are ludicrous to me, but since so many believers are otherwise apparently intelligent and thoughtful people, I figure there must be more to it and challenging people on their beliefs is a good way to try to figure out what that might be.

                    8. but I think discussing theology is interesting,

                      Randian is not discussing anything, merely mocking and condescending.

                      I am with sloopy on this one. One of the biggest obstacles I have found in bringing more of my friends and family into the libertarian fold is the quite hostile reaction to their faith from the more vocal elements of the anti-religious sect of the libertarian movement.

                    9. I don’t know. His questions seem mostly legitimate to me.

                    10. Are you claiming that my choice supersedes the power of God to do anything about it?

                      No, he is saying that God has granted you the free will to make that choice.

                      He has the power to do something about it, but chooses not to.

                      But he also knows what choice you are going to make, even if you dont.

                    11. But he also knows what choice you are going to make, even if you dont.

                      Which makes the outcome predetermined.

                      And makes, in the Christian theology, the concept of hell, eternal reward and punishment and all the rest even more damnable than before.

                    12. Which makes the outcome predetermined.

                      The problem is you are hung up on the word “pre”. Time is a construct of our universe. The concept of “before” and “after” only make sense within the universe (and not always then, depending on distance between events).

                      God, IMO, doesnt experience time as he is extra-universal. So there is no “before” or “after”. Today and 1 billion years ago, and 2112 are “concurrent” to him in some sense we probably cant quite understand, except by analogy. Just like I cant point to the 4th dimension, doesnt mean I cant understand its possible existence.

                      So, IF we have the power to make decisions, there is no way for him to not know the result of our decisions, but that doesnt change the decision making process.

                  2. whether or not god knows has nothing to do with the choice you will make.

                    If He knows I am going to have eggs over easy and bacon, in what meaningful sense can I have anything else, which would be contrary to His omniscience?

                    If I cannot act in a way contrary to how He knows I will, I have nothing more than an illusion of free will.

                    1. If I cannot act in a way contrary to how He knows I will, I have nothing more than an illusion of free will.

                      See my comment on this above.

                    2. He knows all possible outcomes. You choose the path that you feel is best for you. Just because he knows what you choose does not mean you did not have the freedom to choose it.

                      You say it is an illusion of free will, but that is only because you are viewing it from the perspective of your decisions already being known by someone. If you want to consider how God knows everything you will do before you do it FOR EVERY ACTION, then yes, it is an illusion of free will. But since you don’t take that into account for all actions and only when waxing philosophically, I think it is safe to state that we have free will.

                    3. Just because he knows what you choose does not mean you did not have the freedom to choose it.

                      Yes it does.

                      If you want to consider how God knows everything you will do before you do it FOR EVERY ACTION, then yes, it is an illusion of free will.

                      Which I do. Which is why god is not necessary.

                    4. Yes it does.

                      No it doesnt.

                    5. It’s an interesting concept of ‘free’ wherein (1) I am aware of the illusion (2) someone could change my mind for me with his mighty right hand and (3) the outcome is predetermined.

                    6. Which I do. Which is why god is not necessary.

                      I call bullshit on that. You are telling me that for all daily decisions you make, the fact that God knows what it is factors into your decision making?

                    7. god doesn’t factor into it for me, so no.

                      The fact remains that I have identified the contradiction and therefore the illusion no longer ‘works on me’, by your own terms, therefore continued faith would be nonsensical.

                    8. No. Accepting that God is completely all-knowing, and all-powerful, means that any choices you make were known, and due to the all-powerful part, pre-determined, before your existence. There is obviously a difference between your knowledge of a decision, and that of an entity that is both omniscient and omnipotent.

                    9. It’s kinda funny. As a Christian, who believes very strongly in free will, I absolutely agree with your statements, Randian.

                      The difference is, I find that the preponderance of the evidence points to a non-random actor in the forming of our existence. Also, that based upon the available writings, primarily biblical, God is an entity who created a system where, in order to have relationship between he and his creation, certain restrictions were necessary. If an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient creator, creates a system within which there is time and space, it is not outside of reason that he determined that his creation necessarily must restrict his omni-ness, in order to allow for that relationship. I believe that there are plenty of examples of this in stories in the Bible, that show that God changes his mind, or doesn’t know the future actions of humans.

                      To my way of thinking, a completely unrestricted God, who knows all, and is all powerful, eliminates the possibility of free will. I can not accept a god who doesn’t allow me to be a free agent in my life or future. However, I don’t see that as necessary. It is clear in the Bible, that God values relationship highly. Relationship can only truly exist between two entities that are free to choose to engage in that relationship. So it is necessary for God to allow for true, not illusionary, free will.

                    10. Which makes the outcome predetermined.

                      If I cannot act in a way contrary to how He knows I will, I have nothing more than an illusion of free will.

                      Are you two serious with this? It does not make the outcome predetermined, only pre-known. If a shortstop scoops up a grounder when there are no base-runners, I know he is going to throw it to first. That doesn’t make his actions not free will. Now, move from me “knowing” with limited knowledge and understanding, to an omniscient God. It easily follows that God could know all that you will do, but allow free will. Being a slave to your own personality or predilections does not mean God did not grant you free will.

                      Now, I’m just an agnostic, so I don’t know; I’m just saying the argument holds logically. It was actually the “everything is planned” argument, along with the afterlife promises, that initially pushed me away from religion.

                    11. You are neither all-knowing or all-powerful. Were you, than your fore-knowledge would necessitate the known outcome.

                      Even ignoring that, just the idea of my being pre-destined to heaven or hell, is highly offensive to me. Were I to believe that John Calvin had it correct, I would either have to find a way to accept that the vast majority of humanity was created as fuel for hells fires, or some convoluted justification for free will within a system where my personal outcome is pre-determined.

          4. Light is a particle. That’s what Feynman said and I’m sticking with it.

            1. PI IS EXACTLY THREE.

              1. Well, no. If you listen to his argument, it makes sense. When we detect a photon, it is always a discreet particle. The only way to predict where the photon is going to be is by using equations that describe waves, but you never detect a light wave. Only discreet photons. So photons are particles, albeit particles that behave in a very strange way compared to the macro world.

                1. It’s a point particle (possibly a brane), which is just a math-less way of saying it’s not a particle at all.

                  1. Well, I guess ultimately the words we use to describe the macro world are not adequate to describe the quantum world. Neither wave nor particle is correct. It just behaves like a photon.

        3. No it hasn’t.

          There is a tradition that dates back AT LEAST to the reformation of free will being the controlling theme in Christianity. Or have you not read Milton? God knowing what will happen does not mean that he dictates it.

          1. I have long been under the impression that the free-will condition has been the background construct for our existence since the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. I could be wrong though.

            1. I think you could make the argument that since expulsion from Eden humans have lived in a far more “free will”-esque environment, but Old Testament God was also a lot more interventiony than New Testament God. I think it has to do with the sin factor. Before Jesus came, humans were far more responsible for their actions and had to atone personally for sins they committed.

              With the sacrifice of his sinless son to wash over all of humanity’s transgressions, God released us to live more freely knowing that it is impossible for us to live perfectly, but sort of hoping that we would choose the correct path.

              At the end of the day though, it is impossible for us to know God’s thoughts and everything that he knows. That is why it is called faith.

      2. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended, even with God. Believers in free will have to accept that God intends for acts due to disobedience to happen, even if they don’t ascribe full moral responsibility. The only way God could not intend rape pregnancies would be under open theology, the idea that God is not truly omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent–usually considered heterodox.

        1. Believers in free will have to accept that…

          I beg to differ, Secret. They don’t have to accept anything. Religion is about faith, not about rational thought.

    4. No doubt his losing will be god’s will too.

    5. Except when it’s not.

      Hurricane Katrina? God’s punishment for NOLA tolerating teh gays, except inexplicably the French Quarter (aka decadence central) was spared, and the areas inhabited by poor black people who tend to be religious were wiped.

      1. I think God just wants us to know that he can fuck shit up any time he wants to and it doesn’t have to make sense. That’s how you know it is a god not to be fucked with.

        1. So if your god will randomly smite the faithful while leaving the sinful alone, what’s the point of faith? And could that same god really be trusted to make good on the promises of eternal reward? Sure, Charlie Brown, Lucy won’t snatch the football away at the last moment this time. LOL.

          1. Does it matter if you can trust God? He’s God. If he can destroy cities for no good reason just because, then you had damn well better do what he says.

            Of course, I think it is all absurd, but if you really believe in an angry vengeful God, then you had better do what he says. Of course then you get back to your question of whether the promises of reward and punishment are to be believed.

            Fortunately, I see no evidence that we live in a world with an activist god.

  10. Bryan Saunders Does Self-Portraits On Drugs, Reveals What Taking Bath Salts Feels Like
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..weird-news

    Meet Bryan Lewis Saunders, an artist who’s spent more than 10 years making self-portraits while on a variety of drugs.

    Saunders took bath salts in March and drew a picture of himself. Bath salts are synthetic drugs that are causing nationwide panic as newspapers link the easily accessible substance to violent — and sometimes fatal — outbursts.

    Warning: Slideshow

    1. But Saunders, a peaceful man who claims he “doesn’t do drugs,” chalks all the bath salts attacks up to psychos going psycho. It’s not going to turn the user into a face-biter, Saunders says, unless that person is predisposed to face-biting.

      An artist is more knowledgeable than “experts”? Up is down? Black is white?

      1. a peaceful man who claims he “doesn’t do drugs”

        ZZZTT!

    2. The bath salts self-portrait is a bit Stedman-ish.

    3. Huh. He’s a brony.

      1. Is that his MDMA portrait?

        1. It has this caption: “Abilify / Xanax / Ativan (dosage unknown in hospital)”

  11. Live Shark Drops Onto San Juan Capistrano Golf Course
    http://www.nbclosangeles.com/n…..79481.html

    1. He got on the green in one?

      1. And they say Greg Norman was a choker!

    2. The shark had two puncture wounds, which made McCormack think a predatory bird had scooped the fish up out of the water, dropping the shark down onto the course.

      What kind of bad ass bird hunts sharks?

      1. A European Swallow?

        1. No, no, an African Swallow!

          1. He could grip it by the dorsal fin!

        2. It’s a question of weight ratios.

      2. dunno, but it’s probably a mutant flying honey badger. They’re badass, don’t you know….

      3. It was a baby. So just about any sort of eagle.

    3. A blessing from the lord!

  12. Why is Cartman wearing a dress? more…

    1. “Whateva! Whateva! I do what I want!”

    2. In less than 10-years that kid is going to OD in an Ihop parking lot at 5:30 am.

  13. About 500 people immediately removed their names from Denmark’s organ donor register.

    D’oh!

  14. in case there was a question, peak retard is still out there:

    http://times247.com/articles/u…..t-s-sexist

    1. The question they must now confront is, can a fresh become a chair?

    2. Is there anything more idiotic than a college student with an agenda?

      1. How can you spend so much time at HyR and still ask that question?

        1. I attribute Tony to a sockpuppet.

        2. I attribute Tony to a sockpuppet.

          1. squirrels

            1. Tony is a sockpuppet of the HampersandR squirrels?

              1. That would explain a lot

    3. They hadn’t “banned” it, but they were starting to try to promote “first-year” when I was at UVM undergrad. Anyone who worked for res life (e.g. RAs, etc) all had to say “first-year” and correct people who said “freshmen”. It didn’t work at convincing the general student body, at least while I was there.

      However, my insistence on saying “freshmen” coupled with me completely ignoring her every time she corrected me, did lead to a rather enjoyable couple of weeks with the junior who ran social events for the freshmen in the honors college, so it wasn’t all bad.

      1. She had daddy issues, huh? Slept with you as soon as you started ignoring her?

        1. I didn’t ignore her in general, just when she tried to “enlighten” me. Didn’t even acknowledge that I heard her. Which seemed to be the perfect amount to drive her crazy.

    4. The movie Rashomon shall now be referred to as Rashaperson

  15. A War on Religion?
    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/10/6548/

    In today’s increasingly secular society, the threat to religious freedom comes not at the point of a sword, but from imposed values at odds with the truth that there is a Creator who has given us certain inalienable rights that government is supposed to secure, not supplant. People of faith in America may not be seeing squads of soldiers pounding on their doors in the dead of night, demanding that they renounce their faith or be dragged off. But they are being confronted by lawmakers, bureaucrats, regulators, human rights commissions, and even college deans demanding that they submit to so-called “neutral laws of general applicability” that venerate such concepts as toleration, non-discrimination, and “choice.”

    1. more like a war on self-awareness. If I read this right, it’s okay to be intolerant, even discriminatory, against religious folks if done in the name of secularism. How is this better than the state seeking to impose a certain faith?

      1. How is this better than the state seeking to impose a certain faith?

        I think it is the state trying to impose “secularism” or “statism” as a faith. If people believe there is a higher power than the state, it makes it difficult to control those people when their beliefs conflict with the laws of the state. Therefore, you have to get rid of the believers.

      2. How is this better than the state seeking to impose a certain faith?

        Not only is it NOT better, but it is the state seeking to impose a certain faith. The faith in Top Men?.

    2. “neutral laws of general applicability” is one of the damn smartest things to come out of the Supreme Court, even if I didn’t like the near-term results.

    3. Sure, I’ll let you discriminate against the homos if you let me discriminate against the religious. Deal?

      1. Sounds good to me, if that means anything.

      2. History shows that the homos ultimately tend to come out on the short end in those particular conflicts.

        1. It’s a numbers thing. The percent of gays is usually way less than the percent of the religious historically. And in a conflict, going with the biggest army may not always get the right answer, but it’s the way to bet.

      3. I take irony isn’t visible via gaydar?

    4. Did my brother write that?

  16. “Gone With the Wind” is a hit in North Korea. The government, which enforces some of the strictest censorship laws in the world, publishes the American classic.

    They’re going to think “Frankly, my dear, I just don’t give a damn” represents our political ideology. If only it did.

    1. One slave society enjoying a film about another

  17. Tea Party-backed GOP Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said that pregnancies from rape are intended by God.

    WHAT THE FUCK

    IS wrong with those people.

    1. Logic seems sound, what is the problem with his argument?

      1. I’ll ask again: what would be wrong with the rejoinder that the subsequent abortion was intended by god as well?

        1. Logically? Nothing, if you want to make that argument.

          But Im not discussing that, Im discussing the initial statement.

          1. Logically if the pregnancy is god’s will then so was the rape.

            Get it?

            1. That is what a lot of Christians believe.

              “That’s the way she goes, buddy.”

      2. his argument becomes turned into one of those “war on womynz, the GOP is going to take away my right taxpayer funded abortion, they’re all crazy” things. If there is a part where he goes on to say “not only do I believe this, I wish to make it law”, then we have a story.

      3. Logic seems sound, what is the problem with his argument?

        The problem is that if the pregnancy was intended by God, so was the rape.

        If he was to stick with that hand, he’ll get torn apart.

        1. I think the argument goes something like this:

          God allows free will, so some people will do bad things (such as rape), but he may also use those bad situations to bless people (such as provide them with a child).

          Now, getting pregnant may not seem like a blessing at the time, but she may feel different sometime down the road. How many unplanned pregnancies of the non-rape variety are considered bad at the time, but end up with a child the parents cant imagine not having?

          1. I call this the Micromanaging God. I can at least tolerate theists who believe that a Higher Power had a role in the formation of the Universe. But believing that various individual events in humanity on some middling planet in the middle of the vastness of the Universe are dictated by a Higher Power always and forever?

            Oh my…

            1. Calvinists – this is why my family left Freisland, and all of the Netherlands, actually, to come here.

          2. Theology is just a cul-de-sac. We don’t agree, but there’s no need to go over it again and again.

            But politically, he was an idiot. Like Akin. He forgot his audience and tried to posit a complicated theological concept that many don’t hold or don’t want to think about the difficult implications of as if it didn’t need to be explained–aka he thought everyone agreed with him and was shocked–shocked I say–when people thought he sounded like an asshole.

            1. But politically, he was an idiot.

              Which was my very first point on this thread.

              I just dont see it as a complicated theological concept, but I agree its one that doesnt easily come across in a sound bite, hence the idiocy of saying it at all.

            2. Shoulda stuck with: “good jobs at good wages”.

        2. Why? It’s all God’s will.

          Theists have explained away every natural disaster and human evil as “God’s will”. Why is rape a special case?

          God wanted her raped.
          God wanted her pregnant.
          God doesn’t want Tebow to be the starter for the Jets.

          It’s all God’s will.

          1. My god’s will Become me
            When he speaks He speaks through me
            He has needs Like I do
            We both want To rape you.

            Maynard knows this

          2. Jesus he knows me
            And he knows I’m right
            I’ve been talking to Jesus
            All my life

      4. Logic seems sound, what is the problem with his argument?

        He’s running for office not teaching a class on philosophy or religion.

        Most Christians, let alone the general public rejects the idea of predestination which is implicit in saying that anything isGod’s will. And saying that the pregnancy is god’s will implies that the rape was too, which is inherently offensive to just about everyone. Is that really hard to see?

        Oh, and there would have been no controversy if he had left it at all life is a gift from god.

        1. If you see my first post above, I said it was stupid of him to say it. Politically, I get that.

          But logically, it still follows.

          1. Only if you believe in predestination.

            Which is an idiotic half baked heresy.

        2. Yeah, but some gifts you don’t want. Like that rape baby you want to love because it’s like your baby and stuff but every time you look into his face you see the face of your rapist.

          Id. Ee. Ot.

        3. Most Christians, let alone the general public rejects the idea of predestination which is implicit in saying that anything is God’s will.

          Christians reject the explicit doctrine but deal with the logical impossibility of both an omniscient and omnipotent God existing and free will existing by implicitly endorsing “God’s Will” when it’s convenient.

          1. logical impossibility

            Bullshit.

            1. Bald assertion sans evidence is bald.

              1. I agree, and that is exactly what you did.

          2. BTW, you also realize Rand was wrong about contradictions, right?

            Aristotle had an excuse, but Rand was writing after G?del, so she had not excuse.

            1. If you are going to expound on a subject, please try to be a little more expansive.

              1. I have.

                Many, many times. There is a search function at the top of the page.

                But, really, how many things is Kurt G?del known for, that that isnt obvious?

                1. Strictly speaking, Goedel’s work was related to provability, not contradictions; his famous theorem was proof of incompleteness, not of inconsistency.

          3. I should note that I’ve recently find myself starting to doubt the existence of free will. The impression we have a concious choice over our actions is largely an illusion created by the subjective experience of our mind; every thing we do is strictly determined by the laws of physics.

      5. Logic and faith are mutually exclusive.

    2. Well, the good thing about politicians is that they talk so much they eventually reveal just how truly stupid and utterly unfit they are for any other pursuit in life, including politics.

      1. If only.

        They demonstrate themselves to be incredibly stupid all of the time, but somehow never stupid enough to be thrown out on their asses, banned from political life ever again.

    3. What was the question asked? I’m really curious how he arrived at this answer, or what it was in response to.

      1. I assume it’s something along the lines of “why are you against abortion, even in cases of rape?”

      2. It doesn’t matter. He articulated a general principal that rape babies were deserved punishment. The implication is that when sinless women are raped that Mourdock’s Kind Loving God(tm) spares them the burden of a rape pregnancy.

      3. “If you could say one thing to ruin your political career, what would it be?”

        1. “So after we finished snorting the blow off the dead hooker’s tits, we decided to vote to repeal the Patriot Act”

  18. Robots Will Steal Your Job?

    Obama’s worst nightmare.

    1. I said it first, but you said it better.

  19. We find out how many Reasonoids will be voting for Gary Johnson later today, sez Welch

    1. I hope Emily Ekins says Romney and says she just hates ugly people.

      1. Don’t kill my hopes man.

      2. That will drive the final nail into the coffin of your lust?

        1. Guess what I’ll hammer that nail with.

          1. Now you wanna date the asshole professor’s hot daughter? I’m guessing the part of Liberia you’re in doesn’t have a lot of singles bars.

            1. Who said anything about dating?

              And actually there’s a ton of bars here. Not sure if they’re “singles” bars or whatever, but people certainly hook up there. Not exactly my cup of, uh, coffee.

              1. THAT’S RA… aww, fuck it.

  20. Man shows up to his own funeral in case of mistaken identity.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..asket.html

  21. I posted this yesterday, but it’s worth repeating. Kim Basinger’s daughter got all the right genes!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..awaii.html

    1. But does she talk like a Baldwin?

    2. You’re wrong. That’s not worth repeating.

      1. I’ll second that.

      2. I’ll third it. She’s attractive in a gawky teenage way, but nothing that special (yet). A few more years though and she should blossom.

        1. I agree with the all-knowing Lord Humungous.

      3. You guys are all gay.

        1. Relax. Her stomach’s awesome, but so is Ryan Reynold’s. Give her a few years to add to the fleshy deposits on the top and bottom. If that’s gay, so be it.

  22. Woman found guilty of disorderly conduct for not allowing TSA agents to grope her daughter.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ghter.html

  23. Man charged with assault against cop has charges dropped after video evidence shows cops as the aggressors. PoliceOne reacts predictably.

    Ex (emphasis mine): This is frickin rediculous!! Get arrested, make a stink about it, and enjoy as the flippin liberal retards throw the pity card and drop all charges. It’s getting to the point where shooting criminals should be mandatory. It may be the only way they’ll ever see any justice.

    Remember, folks. These are the unfiltered words of real police officers across America.

    1. so if a cop stops you or questions, that alone confirms that you are a criminal? Where in the world are sane cops who get that with the badge and its power, there is also a responsibility to be professional?

      1. so if a cop stops you or questions, that alone confirms that you are a criminal?

        Not quite. If you talk back, argue, resist, or in any way disrespect their authoritah, then your life is forfeit.

      2. “Where in the world are sane cops who get that with the badge and its power, there is also a responsibility to be professional?”

        They’re drummed off the force, or at least cowed into keeping their mouths shut.

    2. The callous disregard for life that these animals have is disgusting. They’re the ones who should be shot.

      1. no surprises, the bigorati is out in droves today.

        ime of banging super models (married now to an nfl cheerleader) and power lifting, criminals are criminals not because they break the law but because the cops stop them.

        if you don’t get stopped by the cops, you aren’t asking for it.

        hth

        /dunphy

        1. I like how dunphy keeps leaving these 30 paragraph rants at the tail end of dead threads.

          1. 30 sentences on different lines != 30 paragraphs. I wish dunphy would figure that out.

            1. There isn’t much hope for a man that can’t be bothered to capitalize a few letters every now and then.

              1. he ALREADY used up ALL the capitals he’s got allotted to him.

                hth

    3. It’s getting to the point where shooting criminals should be mandatory.

      Had there been a criminal involved in this incident that sentiment could, I suppose, be germane to some.

      1. It’s getting to the point where shooting criminals should be mandatory.

        Statements like this should be grounds for immediate and permanent dismissal.

        1. Or promotion!

      2. There are criminals involved in this situation, and I wholeheartedly agree with his sentiment.

      3. … that sentiment could, I suppose, be germane to some.

        “The goddamn Germans got nothing to do with it.”

        /some cop

        1. gotta assume every perp is germane, so keep your distance, wear gloves, and don’t get carried away while cuffing them and and stick your tongue down their throats

          /some other cop

          1. Neg. Too many germs.

          2. Don’t you people know Smokey and the Bandit?

            This is why nobody takes libertarianism seriously.

  24. Children in theater are shown Paranormal Activity 4 instead of Madagascar 3. Whoops!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..staff.html

    1. Now the kids know that even adults have to deal with endless movie franchises.

    2. Thank Thor. Madagascar 3 could have scarred them for life.

      1. Thor 2 comes out in the spring, BTW.

  25. Tears of a clown….
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ernet.html

    1. I hate that song!

      /P Diddy

    2. That ain’t right.

  26. ‘I miss my exquisite breasts sometimes,’ admits Christina Applegate. Ahh, don’t we all. Don’t we all.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..times.html

  27. I saw this over on NRO

    some more background on what Mourdock said:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..ina-trinko

    Asked tonight at a debate about abortion in cases of rape, Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said, “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

    Now, after the debate, Mourdock said in a statement, “God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that He does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick.”

    1. Did he need to clarify? Wasnt that obvious from the original statement?

      1. Well, the clip they used on the drive in this morning didn’t make it sound like that. granted i wasn’t paying attention , but at first listen it sounded like he was saying the rape and not the pregnancy was meant to happen. but they immediately tied it to a recent Romney endorsement, complete with audio.

      2. that it is something that God intended to happen

        Is an idiotic and unnecessary add on.

      3. Yes, I think he did.

        “when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen”

        seems to me to say that God intended for life beginning “in that horrible situation of rape” to happen. Not that God took lemons and made lemonade. He definitely should have kept his mouth shut (as you have said).

    2. life is that gift from God

      Sure, whatever, but couldn’t an all-powerful Kind, Loving God(tm) arrange to give them a baby through means other than rape?

  28. Liberals boo nine year old girl for supporting Romney. Stay classy!
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..omney.html

    1. Too young to understand free birth control. So Sad.

    2. She just doesn’t understand that Romney wants to enslave her and put her in a birth camp.

    3. And yet Honey Boo Boo is allowed to roam free.

  29. Head teacher resigns after primary school pupils were shown violent scenes from Chuck Norris kung-fu video

    Read more

    1. When a Chuck Norris video is shown, the primary school actually resigns from the head teacher. Or something like that.

  30. PoliceOne’s reaction to a murderer getting TV in his jail cell.

    The story doesn’t say whether Ian Birk is a fan of DirecTV or cable.

  31. This just in! Incumbents frustrated that “outside groups” (I.e., those who aren’t political insiders and media lackeys who are more concerned with access to said political insiders than with being ethical journalists) have a voice in public political debate, and a means to contribute to the narrative.

    An expansive onslaught of negative political advertisements in Congressional races has left many incumbents, including some Republicans long opposed to restrictions on campaign spending, concluding that legislative measures may be in order to curtail the power of the outside groups behind most of the attacks.

    While Democrats have long denounced a 2010 Supreme Court decision that opened the gates on unlimited spending on advertisements, some Republicans are now growing more disenchanted with the system that has allowed the barrage of ads, often by shadowy groups, and the effects it has had on what they see as a sullen and disenchanted electorate.

    Because it’s those who participate in public discourse that cause a disenchanted electorate, not the shitty-fuck politicians doing shitty-fuck things.

    1. some Republicans are now growing more disenchanted with the system that has allowed the barrage of ads, often by shadowy groups, and the effects it has had on what they see as a sullen and disenchanted electorate.

      I’m Altair, and I approve this message.

    2. Well, other issues aside, the net effect is to weakly compensate for the Dems’ 90% support in the press, the highly unbalanced equivalent of a whole lot of (anti-Dem) PAC ads. Boo hoo.

      1. Well, other issues aside, the net effect is to weakly compensate for the Dems’ 90% support in the press, the highly unbalanced equivalent of a whole lot of (anti-Dem) PAC ads.

        WHich is exactly why the left hates it; because the media no longer has sole control over the narrative thread in public political discourse, which means that the narrative thread is no longer controlled by leftists.

  32. So I started a shit-storm on Facebook by having the audacity to point out that teachers make good money on a friend’s post. We have a 1/2 cent sales tax increase on the ballot in my county that specifically goes to funding capital improvement of schools (I’ll still be voting no), but the friend drank the koolaid on “why don’t we give it to teachers, don’t they deserve it?!”
    Man, you want to get an angry mob together on Facebook, all you have to do is say that (a)being a teacher is no more a calling than being a garbageman and (b)an average salary of $51000 (according to the county school district website) is good money for working 40 weeks a year. The butthurt was delicious. I followed it up by posting the Cato graphic of school spending versus test results.

    My favorite was the teacher who said she worked at least 50 and sometimes 60 hours a week during the school year. Ooh, you mean salaried professionals sometimes work more than 40 hours a week? Cry me a fucking river. When I was a junior programmer, I spent 4 months working 13 days out of 14 for 10+ hours a day for about 55% of that average salary. Kiss my ass. Eventually, I got a job as an independent contractor, so that my employer’s use of my time and my valuation of it matched up. Its funny, when the 41st hour costs the same as the 1st, you don’t work nearly as much overtime, and it doesn’t suck nearly as much when you do.

    1. You can only argue with teachers obliquely and through intermediaries. Trying to engage them directly is the absolute worst.

    2. good for you for calling bullshit. Anyone curious why education should not get the glorification it gets needs only to drive through the central office parking lot. Plenty of nice cars, paid for with overly generous salaries for deputy assistant vice-supers of something.

      I’m sick of every teacher being portrayed as the patron saint of children and anyone pulling on a uniform being termed a hero.

      1. My wife volunteers at my kids’ elementary school. The teachers, in general, do a good job, she reports. But they’re not exactly rocket scientists, if you get my drift.

        1. sometimes, I feel sorry for teachers because their bosses set them up for failure. It’s the educrats, the true black hole of payroll, that I have the biggest problem with. Again, compare the central office parking lot with that of any school. They are not the same.

        2. Knowing several education majors in college, you can imagine my surprise.

          1. Ditto. It’s either an MRS degree or a do-gooder about to get a cold bucket of water in the face upon getting a job.

    3. I always try to use the angle that good teachers might be underpaid, but only because many terrible teachers and school administrators are way overpaid.

      Doesn’t work either.

    4. I have posted a similar thing and gotten similar responses. As soon as you start to point out the flaws with the sacred cows in this country (any first responders since 9/11, the military, teachers) people you didn’t even know you knew on Facebook come out of the woodworks to attack you.

      My two best posts were:

      “Cops are nothing more than whores, and the state is their pimp, telling them who to fuck. No offense to actual prositutes, though.”

      AND

      “People don’t understand how the Electoral College works. They don’t understand (insert math problem I saw on Facebook). Yes, by all means, let’s throw MORE money into public education. It’s worked sooo well.”

    5. When they’re on a Bahamian cruise during their vacation weeks, do they still think to themselves, “Well, this is ok, but if I was paid what I’m really worth, I’d be in first class”?

      1. I have a good friend who teaches in Jacksonville. He spent the summer working as a lifeguard to help his training for an Ironman. My heart bleeds to think that he, being relatively new to teaching, only got paid $40000 plus whatever he made as a lifeguard.

        1. Don’t sell him short, he also got benefits and a year closer to a pension.

          1. Don’t sell him short, he also got benefits and a year closer to a pension.

            Yes, that $2m pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is the real prize. You find this out whenever you suggest, in light of the state constantly pissing away the money supposedly reserved for the PubSec pensions, that the pension be removed entirely and the money spent on it be added to salary.

      2. When they’re on a Bahamian cruise during their vacation weeks, do they still think to themselves, “Well, this is ok, but if I was paid what I’m really worth, I’d be in first class”?

        Nah,

        They know they’ll be in first class when they retire.

    6. Man, you want to get an angry mob together on Facebook, all you have to do is say that (a)being a teacher is no more a calling than being a garbageman and (b)an average salary of $51000 (according to the county school district website) is good money for working 40 weeks a year.

      If you really want to get them in a frenzy add that:

      c) Teachers are no more important to society than garbage men.

      and

      d) That teachers are have the same effect on education that garbage men have on refuse collection.

    7. Depending on where you live, $51000 is a pretty good salary for working 50 weeks a year.
      I still think about becoming a teacher from time to time, but I can’t imagine that working out very well.

      1. Particularly good when you add a guaranteed pension and medical benefits for life.

    8. That wouldn’t by chance be Shelby county? If so, it would be the height of irresponsibility to give those grifters a half pence more to work with.

    9. My favorite was the teacher who said she worked at least 50 and sometimes 60 hours a week during the school year.

      The irony is that if these teachers gave less bullshit homework and focused on maximizing their classroom lessons, they’d have less work to bring home in the form of papers, tests, etc.

      My first AP US History teacher (before moved out of town and I switched schools) never assigned any homework other than reading. All of our paperwork was done in the class, on Mondays, with quizzes. So he basically had 1-2 days out of the week where he had to focus on grading our stuff during his work period, and could focus the rest of the time on classroom lecture.

  33. Where in the world are sane cops who get that with the badge and its power, there is also a responsibility to be professional?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Seriously, you slay me.

    1. man’s gotta be able to dream, doesn’t he? Seriously, I’ve know cops who were decent people; if those posters are the norm, then concealed carry for citizens should be mandatory.

  34. City in New Jersey fires it’s entire police force due to corruption and replaces them with unarmed civilian force. So far, there have been no ill effects, but PoliceOne hopes there is blood in the streets to “teach people a lesson”.

    1. Have they punched any dogs to death yet?

    2. “teach people a lesson”.

      Lesson = Pay the Danegeld (union contract) and lets us do whatever we want.

      1. Danegeld. I like the cut of your jib, sir.

    3. Dude, I worry that your excessive time on Police One might damage your brain or somehow affect your new child. Be careful.

    4. So far, there have been no ill effects, but PoliceOne hopes there is blood in the streets to “teach people a lesson”.

      It’s Camden. There will be blood in the streets regardless.

  35. More Benghazi info coming out – all looks terrible for Obama who just shrugged and went to a fund raiser.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18…..MixRelated

    Then he fibbed about it to 60 Minutes.
    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012…..e/#respond

    1. I turned on Morning Joe this morning just to see if they’d address this. They didn’t in the first 8 minutes or so. Possibly because the news was too fresh for a take this early in the morning or possibly because they don’t think it’s news or something in between.

    2. I approve this commment: “People died, Obama lied, Media complied.”

  36. Tea Party-backed GOP Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said that pregnancies from rape are intended by God.

    Is that one of those good intentions that pave the road to Hell?

  37. Logic seems sound, what is the problem with his argument?

    Well, if you believe we are all “God’s creatures” in exactly the sense that we are His property, and playthings to torment and abuse for His extra-special amusement, nothing, I guess.

        1. Ok, now that is a reference I never expected to see made, even in here.

  38. Barack Obama to U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens: DIAF

    “White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails”

    http://www.reuters.com/article…..2C20121024

    1. Candy Crowley says you’re a towel!

      1. Man I am so high right now…

        1. Funkytown!

        2. What is this, some sort of Towlie ban?

  39. More shocking unintended consequences:

    “Two Albany women who were turned away in October from holding their wedding at Liberty Ridge Farm have filed a discrimination complaint with the state Division of Human Rights, a move that may set the groundwork for testing the extent of same sex marriage in New York….

    “…When Robert and Cynthia Gifford, the farm’s owners, found out it was a same-sex couple seeking the site, they indicated that the women should seek a different wedding location….

    “‘In your own private home, your privacy trumps anything; in your own religious institution, religion trumps anything. In a public business, public policy trumps,’ said [law professor Laurie] Shanks. Because the Giffords are offering the use of their property to the public for use as a marriage venue, the Human Rights law stipulates that they cannot discriminate based on any protected class.”

    http://www.registercitizen.com…..=fullstory

    1. Those dykes and faggots are just ruining your America.

      1. There farm-owners who want to decide how to use their own property are simply destroying this country!

        1. Damn those damn dykes and faggots. It couldn’t possibly be a lawsuit culture run amok that needed to addressed. It has to be those damn faggots.

          1. Why not both?

            1. Because you hated faggots long before they tried to get married; this is just the new excuse.

              1. Why do you call people “faggots”? Is that some kind of new multicultural inclusive thing?

                Or do you assume that because your politics are correct, you cannot possibly be a bigot?

                1. Be more evasive. That’ll work.

                  1. Ignore my question – check.

                    Call other people evasive – check.

                    Use the word “f____t” – check.

                    Call other people haters – check.

                    I think you can now collect your self-awareness prize!

                    1. So, you only object to gay marriage because of the law suit opportunity? Why not just get rid of the public accommodation nonsense? Oh, that’s right.

                    2. I gotta say sug, I thought all that “force churches to marry them” thing was bullshit. I am no longer so sure about that. In fact, it becomes an increasingly likely possibility as time goes on.

                    3. Coeus, I think it’s bullshit too. And I disagree with public accommodation law. You should have to do business with anyone you don’t want to.

                      But one bad law is not an argument against gay marriage (or converting all marriages to non-gendered civil unions or getting rid of all recognition of romantic partnership and converting it all to contract law).

                      It is like saying the War on Drugs is justified as long as some people are kept from driving with high.

                      And besides… there is a huge component of the opposition to SSM that has no founding in a principle other than a new excuse to hate on gay people.

                    4. there is a huge component of the opposition to SSM that has no founding in a principle other than a new excuse to hate on gay people

                      Amen!

                    5. And besides… there is a huge component of the opposition to SSM that has no founding in a principle other than a new excuse to hate on gay people.

                      Agreed.

                      It is like saying the War on Drugs is justified as long as some people are kept from driving with high.

                      Disagree, cause it doesn’t. But reserving the word “marriage” would keep people from suing churches.

                      Shit, I got no dog in this fight. I’m a straight atheist. Just noting that the detractors are turning out to be correct in this instance.

                    6. But reserving the word “marriage” would keep people from suing churches.

                      You could also just keep from suing churches.

                      Either way, marriage is not going to stay M-W in even the short term. Walk away from the Culture War nonsense and the largely economically conservative gay community might break away from the left.

                    7. Disagree, cause it doesn’t. But reserving the word “marriage” would keep people from suing churches.

                      What about churches that believe SSM is perfectly okay? Why should my religion be limited by the bounds of what the Catholic church considers acceptable?

                    8. What about churches that believe SSM is perfectly okay?

                      Why would you sue a church that was willing to host your marriage for not hosting your marriage? These are not the churches we’re talking about.

                    9. there is a huge component of the opposition to SSM that has no founding in a principle other than a new excuse to hate on gay people.

                      There is a vocal religious component, but I’m not sure how “huge” it is.
                      In my experience the SSM opponents simply believe a marriage is composed of a husband and a wife, not two genderless spouses.

                    10. There is a vocal religious component, but I’m not sure how “huge” it is.

                      I’m reminded of how the person I know that spends the most time complaining about the lack of public prayer in schools is my Dad, who hasn’t been to church (outside of weddings and funerals) in 20 years.

                    11. Why not just get rid of the public accommodation nonsense?

                      I second that.

                    12. I second that.

                      Then you had better come up with another way to make white males second-class citizens. Cause they ain’t gonna give that up.

    2. You really think that that’s unintended?

      I don’t. Not one bit.

      As I’ve said before I supported SSM until they decided to take the civil rights approach in their argument. At that point I realized that it was all about lawsuits.

      I’m writing a letter to the local paper to the effect of “If marriage is redefined to ‘spouse and spouse’, how long before the words ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ are labeled hate speech? I mean, aren’t those terms insensitive to same sex couples? Once same sex marriage is totally acceptable, and these couples adopt or have surrogate children, will words like ‘mother’ and ‘father’ not also be considered hate speech? Aren’t they insensitive to children of same sex couple homes?”

      1. I would suggest keeping the pair in quotations, so “Husband and Wife” not, “husband” and “wife”. Same with “mother and father”. Individually, they could still apply to same-sex couples. It’s when they are paired together that it becomes offensive, or something.

        1. Good point.

          1. Still pretty genderish, has historical connotations, etc. For the grievance industry, that would be plenty, since the point is to profit off of grievances. I suspect that we will be looking at state-enforced requirements that the term “partner” be used.

            1. Here in Maine, Question 1 seeks to redefine marriage legislation to refer to “spouse and spouse” instead of “husband and wife”. No mention of the word “partner”.

              1. “Spouse” then, will be the mandatory term, with the terms “husband” and “wife” being subject to legal sanction as hate speech.

      2. It is all about law suits and fighting the culture war.

      3. Why don’t you just lie back on the couch, Sarc. Here’s some smelling salts…

        1. Sorry, but you’re not my type.

      4. If it was “all about lawsuits” don’t you think there’d be, well, a lot more lawsuits? Instead of the one or two anecdotes you hear about?

    3. In a public business, public policy trumps

      Where the fuck is barfman when you need him?

      1. Barfing somewhere, I suspect.

  40. PoliceOne hopes there is blood in the streets to “teach people a lesson”.

    And the “happy ending” to this sick fantasy is when they ride to the rescue just like John Wayne storming the beaches of Normandy and free the helpless little sheeples from the oppression and terror of teh Kartelz.

    1. And if they have to shoot a couple dogs, beat a few people and seize some “assets” along the way…well, break a few eggs…

  41. E-mails: White House knew of extremist claims in Benghazi attack

    Two hours after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the White House, the State Department and the FBI were told that an Islamist group had claimed credit, government e-mails obtained by CNN show.

    One of the e-mails — sent from a State Department address to various government agencies — specifically identifies Ansar al-Sharia as claiming responsibility for the attack on its Facebook page and on Twitter.

  42. Tea Party-backed GOP Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said that pregnancies from rape are intended by God.

    Now I don’t condone rape, and I certainly don’t wish it on anyone. But, if Mr. Mourdock were to be raped, I would hope that, though some sweet, divine miracle, the act somehow imseminated a turd deep inside Mr. Mourdock’s colon, and that turd become a perfectly viable fetus – and that knowledge of this blessed event were somehow leaked to the public. The ensuing hijinks would be tons of fun.

    1. At least he is being consistent. Either you believe life begins at conception or you don’t. If you do, I can’t see how you can claim with a straight face that abortion is okay in the case of rape. And if you do not, I don’t see how you can claim that abortion should ever be illegal.

      1. The constant focus on rape exceptions, which implicates only a small minority of abortions, is designed not only to throw prolifers on the defensive, but to keep up the impression that the abortionists are mostly treating women raped by their fathers, etc.

        The choicers are aware that aborting pregnancies arising from voluntary sex acts doesn’t poll well – which is inconvenient since that describes most abortions in this country. By keeping up a national conversation which focuses almost exclusively on the rape exception (and mammograms!), the choicers are acknowledging that they are not in a position to defend abortion as it is actually practiced in most cases.

        1. The other thing is that any exception becomes nearly universal. Say it is okay in case of rape, and then any woman who wants an abortion just says she got pregnant because of rape. Who is going to question her? Say it is okay in the case of the health of the mother and every abortionist just declares any abortion necessary for the woman’s health. That is what Akin was trying to say that he got in so much trouble for.

          What Akin didn’t understand and no one seems to ever mention, is that that makes banning abortion effectively impossible since the public will always want some kind of exception and abortionists will always abuse any exception. Best just not to fund it and try to convince people not to do it.

          1. The other thing is that any exception becomes nearly universal. Say it is okay in case of rape, and then any woman who wants an abortion just says she got pregnant because of rape.

            Not that the woman should have to provide anyone with an acceptable reason to exercise sovereignty over her body, but hopefully someone claiming, for any reason, to have been raped would be able to provide a police report to back that up.

            1. but hopefully someone claiming, for any reason, to have been raped would be able to provide a police report to back that up.

              So you plan to force women to report rapes? Good luck with that. That will never happen. No way would anyone on either side want to get into the business of second guessing women on that.

              And it is only “her body” to the extent that life doesn’t begin at conception.

              1. So you plan to force women to report rapes? Good luck with that.

                I don’t plan to force anyone to do anything, including carrying an wanted pregnancy to term.

                1. don’t plan to force anyone to do anything, including carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.

                  Derp.

                2. I don’t plan to force anyone to do anything, including carrying an wanted pregnancy to term.

                  Them my point still stands. Any exception will be universal.

          2. The law and public opinion both have a lot of catching up to do. I don’t think either one will work without the other. When public opinion is sufficiently advanced, any abortion exceptions might actually be administered in good faith – it’s been known to happen.

            Without public opinion to back it up, the law will in many (not all!) cases be ignored or nullified. Conversely, a public opinion in favor of the right to life, without legal backing, will be largely meaningless, in the same way that a majority opinion against honor killings won’t be of much use if honor killings are legal.

          3. Best just not to fund it and try to convince people not to do it.

            Yep, and the thing is that the pro-lifers are winning on the cultural front. Abortion is seen as ‘dirty’ by just about everyone. At this point, pushing the legal angle is probably doing more harm to their side.

          4. Say it is okay in case of rape, and then any woman who wants an abortion just says she got pregnant because of rape.

            Make it a requirement that she file a criminal complaint, and I don’t know if this is as much of a problem.

            Not saying this is what we should do, but if you want to make a rape exception that isn’t a wink-and-nod open door, it can be done.

            1. Make it a requirement that she file a criminal complaint, and I don’t know if this is as much of a problem.

              That is the bait and switch. They will never do that. The abortionists would never allow it. For example, Planned Parenthood routinely gives abortions to minors who are the victims of statutory rape but refuses to do anything to find out who the rapist was.

              1. The rape exception doesn’t come about unless there is a general prohibition on abortion, so, yeah, this is all fanciful.

            2. Requiring women to file false rape claims to get desired abortions would have as a consequence putting a LOT of innocent men in jail because defending yourself against a rape charge is largely impossible assuming you actually had sex with the woman in question.

        2. they are not in a position to defend abortion as it is actually practiced in most cases.

          “I’m late. Uh oh. Better get an abortion.”

      2. “And if you do not, I don’t see how you can claim that abortion should ever be illegal.

        Um, possibly by beliving that life begins at some point post conception but pre birth?

        In fact I would bet that if you got a really good survey on peoples opinions an outright majority of people would hold something very close to this view.

  43. A morning links post featuring abortion and religion! Oh joy! This thread should have been aborted. As god intended.

    1. So you do not support an exception for rape.

      1. Well H-ampersand-R was wearing a short skirt.

  44. So are Gloria Aldred and Trump going to have a Thunderdome style fight to the death today?

    1. Insh’allah, that is what will happen.

  45. I reading that the Trump thing is that Obama once almost got a divorce. If that is all he has, he is more pathetic and insane than I thought he was.

    1. Yep. I imagine that the Romnoids have been on the phone with Trump all night pleading for him to not do this.

      1. I think most people know Trump is insane. I doubt they will impute this on Romney. It will just be a big nothing. What a marroon.

        1. You are talking about Trump. I’d call it an unqualified success.

    2. In divorce papers, Michele accuses Barack of getting it on the Down Low.

      1. LOL. If that is true, that won’t help black turnout.

        1. Maybe not with the sistahs.

      2. Hey, maybe Benghazi was State trying to use Al Qaeda to remove a potential scandal.

    3. Especially because the Obamas nearly getting divorced at one point is fairly common knowledge. They’ve been pretty open about the fact that they went through a pretty stressful period in their marraige where they almost split up.

  46. OT: tube amplifier update.

    Output transformers have been ordered from Edcor, but they build on demand so there will be a 5-6 week wait until I get them. In the meanwhile, I will have the top panel (via Front Panel Express – I highly recommend for their metalwork designing freeware) next week so I can at least start the build.
    http://imageplay.net/img/tya22….._plate.jpg

    I’ve also bought seven 1625 tubes in their original WW2 Army-Navy cardboard packaging.
    http://imageplay.net/img/tya22289385/1625tubes.jpg

    1. Depends on if she was drunk herself. Then he raped her.

      1. Ya, I know they love them some double standards, but one of their favorite lines is “if you have to ask ‘how drunk is too drunk’, you’re just a rapist looking for an opportunity. If she’s puking or passing out, she’s too drunk.”

        1. I think pretty much everyone will agree with “If she’s puking or passing out, she’s too drunk.”, but that doesn’t mean you don’t ” have to ask ‘how drunk is too drunk'”. All we’ve established is that that drunk is too drunk, but is everything up to that point OK?

          1. You asking me my personal rule of thumb? If we’ve been out on at least one date, then yes, everything up to that point is OK (they just got drunk cause they were nervous about the sex they were planning anyway).

            If i just met her at the bar and she’s all over me but she’s falling over? Then I’ll help her find her friends (got laid by one of the friends a few months ago when that last happened, anyway).

            1. Oh, and if it’s a long-term relationship? The only thing that stops me is a verbal no or she’s too gross for me to be aroused.

              But if you’re asking about the feminists, well there’s a wide range of opinion on “how drunk is too drunk”. And besides the fact that they all know they have different opinions, they all agree that it should be illegal.

              Thinking ahead is not their strong suit.

              1. Oh, and if it’s a long-term relationship? The only thing that stops me is a verbal no or she’s too gross for me to be aroused.

                Of course this doesn’t go over too well when she’s super drunk and horny.

                1. Of course this doesn’t go over too well when she’s super drunk and horny.

                  No shit. And for some fucking reason “I’m not in the mood” just isn’t allowed when you have a penis. I had an ex I still see occasionally get really fucked up on wine after we’d already gone at it for two –looong– bouts. I literally had shredded knees from banging on the carpet for so long. She got drunk and hornier, and she would not leave me alone. So I caved. Put on the spurs and played through the pain.

                  Told her about it the next morning (no idea if she really forgot or was just pretending) and she appeared mortified. Took me a second to realize why. I had basically just won the one major argument we’d ever had.

                  Of course we’d been broken up for over a year at that point, but it was still satisfying to see that look on her face.

          2. The standard I see most of them pushing is “too drunk to drive. too drunk to consent.” The hypocrisy comes in were they refuse to admit that men can be drunk enough to not be responsible for their actions.

            1. too drunk to drive

              Legally or actually?

              1. Legally. So 0.08 in most states. They are seriously twisted. And accusing you by implication of how many rapes under that standard?

                See, all men really are rapists.

                1. Legally. So 0.08 in most states. They are seriously twisted. And accusing you by implication of how many rapes under that standard?

                  80% of all of my sex outside of a long term relationship was apparently rape. And that’s just me being raped. God knows about all the poor little lassies.

            2. Unfortunately this “too drunk to consent” standard crosses over with “too drunk to drive” in more than one locus. We had this argument back in the 80’s when the whole “enthusiastic consent” idea was born.

              By their logic drunk driving should not be a criminal offense, because it would be impossible for a drunk person to be responsible for his actions in getting into the vehicle. The same goes for a host of criminal activities while ‘under the influence’.

              It is a stupid argument, but we’ve mostly lost that one a long time ago. No means no. And yes means no, unless it really, really means yes. And even then it might have been no. So just be careful.

              1. Or it might have been yes at the time but some time later retroactively becomes no.

      2. But if he was drunk, then he also couldn’t give consent, so then she raped him, too.

    2. The couple avoided arrest for the sex allegations however because none of the parents wanted to make statements.

      Story sounds like bullshit if no one was willing to give the cops a statement.

      1. I am curious how you would convince your date to just start screwing right there (not even going to the restroom!).

        “Hey baby, I know you’re into other people watching. Wanna do it in front of these kids?”

        Also, why the families wouldn’t have moved.

        1. Also, why the families wouldn’t have moved.

          They saw it as a golden opportunity for someone else to do the heavy lifting in the sex talk?

    3. ORLANDOOOOOOO!!! I heard about this story on the morning radio show, and was pretty surprised how it seemed to have gone down based on the report. Apparently there was no nudity whatsoever, so that is why charges could be avoided.

  47. I think the punk teenage boys that killed that lil girl should be beheaded at once!

    http://www.Anon-Whiz.tk

  48. The Syrian government has agreed to observe a cease-fire during Eid al-Adha, says the UN envoy to Syria.

    I see the Syrians are behind on the maintenance rotations for their heavy weapons, and need an opportunity to catch up.

  49. Sterling Taylor-Santino, 33, faces an assault with a deadly weapon charge after he used his Taser on Nakina Williams, who was handcuffed. The officer said Williams spit on him immediately before he used the Taser.

    At the time of the June 24 incident at the Pittsburg County jail, Taylor-Santino had been involved in 10 of 16 Taser incidents involving McAlester police officers, according to the department’s use-of-force reports. The officers began carrying the nonlethal weapons in February 2010.

    High assault rate

    Taylor-Santino also has been the victim of a high number of on-duty assaults, said Jeremy Beaver, an attorney representing Williams.

    “He’s like 10 times more likely than any other MPD officer to get into a violent confrontation,” Beaver said. “Why is that?”

    Read more: http://newsok.com/mcalester-po…..z2AE7oKkhM

    Its the new professionalism.

    1. assault with a deadly weapon

      At least someone realizes what a taser is.

      The officer said Williams spit on him immediately before he used the Taser.

      Lets assume that is true? Does that justify deadly force? No, no it doesnt, so a taser is still out-of-bounds.

  50. Taylor-Santino also has been the victim of a high number of on-duty assaults, said Jeremy Beaver, an attorney representing Williams.

    CLAIMS to have been….

    hth

    1. atfpapic*?

      *Or whatever. My brain doesn’t seem to retain cop-ese.

      1. it’s a red flag either way. either they don’t know how to talk to people (which is the #1 cue to make people assault you. lack of communication skills), OR they are ginning up bogus assaults to justify their excessive and possibly criminal force OR both

        imo, based on what i have seen in investigations – most likely both.

        communication skills, verbal judo for example, are extremely important. and fwiw, i have seen officers make phenomenal improvements in same based on good training. it’s ALWAYS preferable to treat people with respect, first and foremost, but beyond that, to have the skills and tools to defuse situations.

        not to too my own horn, but there are reasons why i have much lower UOF occurrence rate than the average officer in my district (high crime for much of my career), shift (night shift has higher) and targeted assignments (to include high risk street crime4s) – communications skills

        it’s also why we need to stringently choose and screen our training officers (i have been one for years), because they help teach the officer habits that will live with him as his “backpack”, the toolkit he carries around and uses throughout his career. get an officer started right, with the proper skillset, the proper tools to MEASURE improvement at same, and you will likely have an officer that will have to use force less often. and when they do, they will be more effective.

        it benefits everybody

  51. Dear Reason,

    Enough with the auto-flashplayer that freezes my Chrome brouser.

  52. “Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel will get his first parole hearing to determine whether he should be released from prison a decade after he was convicted of killing his neighbor.

    Skakel is serving 20 years to life for fatally beating Martha Moxley with a golf club in 1975 in Greenwich when they were 15. Skakel is a nephew of Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert F. Kennedy.

    from Reason newsfeed. what is not mentioned is that skakel is in prison largely because of the work mark furman did AFTER he took a guilty plea for perjury and moved to idaho. even in “exile”, he continues to catch bad guys and bring them to justice.

    and write a not-half bad non-fiction book to go along withi his investigation.

    props to furman for bringing a murderer to justice

  53. “He’s like 10 times more likely than any other MPD officer to get into a violent confrontation,” Beaver said. “Why is that?”

    where there is smoke there is fire.

    my agency, like many others, uses a rather sophisticated stats program to ferret out (it’s a ferret!) statistical anamolies and check them out EARLY before they manifest as a force problem

    by correlating use of force stats with district stats (average per officer per shift, etc.), officers will pop up as red flags early in their career and corrective action can and is taken

    “Lets assume that is true? Does that justify deadly force? No, no it doesnt, so a taser is still out-of-bounds”

    any weapon, to include a pencil CAN be deadly force depending on how it’s used.

    fortunately, tasers, when used properly, are not considered “deadly force”.

    the guiding case law is macpherson which places REASONABLE limits on taser use but hardly considers it “deadly force”.

    cites for macpherson available upon request

    regardless, props to the MPD for taking a proactive stance against a probable problem officer. thugs need to be culled from the ranks of the police force. they sully the profession

    1. Ive told you before, Macpherson is too permissive.

      Tasers should be limited to situations in which firearms would be justified, but you still hope to avoid killing.

      Personally, I dont think most cops should carry either. They will be smarter without a taser or pistol to fall back on.

      1. Personally, I dont think most cops should carry either. They will be smarter won’t have the opportunity to shock or shoot people and/or dogs on a whim without a taser or pistol to fall back on.

        FIFY

        And that assumes that the pistol or taser is actually the “fall back” ideology in copdom, which, I suspect, at least for some, aren’t the fall back ideology.

      2. and we can agree to disagree on that. imo, macpherson is ABOUT right. still needs a little fleshing out

        what is so wonderful about tasers is the high rate of voluntary compliance they get. iow, an officer pulls a taser and demands compliance, and (especially if the person has been tased before), BOOM instant compliance iwth lawful demands to include submission to arrest.

        that benefits everybody

        i’ve got , just on my squad (not including me, since i am out for illness right now, not duty injury) several officers out on injuries sustained when wrestlng with noncompliant subjects

        and tasers , by gaining voluntary compliance, help eliminate such injuries

        i do respect your opinion, but in MY opinion, tasers should be placed at higher scrutiny than they currently are, but clearly lower than firearms

    2. regardless, props to the MPD for taking a proactive stance against a probable problem officer. thugs need to be culled from the ranks of the police force. they sully the profession

      Um, a “proactive stance” would have been for one of the other several officers to arrest him on the spot, not for a prosecutor to finally charge him 5 months after the fact.

      See, this is what you don’t get. It’s the cops that allow criminal behavior to go on in front of their faces as much as the crooked cops that actually commit the crimes that piss us off so bad. It’s that your brothers in arms are just fine watching a fellow officer break the law and physically assault another person and not so much as lift a finger to stop the behavior or arrest the criminal.

      You can go on and on about this being a good thing, but the only reason it’s coming to light is because they didn’t delete the tape in time. God knows the ones standing there watching didn’t do a damn thing.

  54. Wow, the stupid has been turned up to 11 on this thread today. You see? This is why we don’t have the abortion debate anymore. It is pointless and boring and draws the stupid like shit draw flies.

    For those who wonder why you don’t feed the trolls on this topic; it is simple. If you believe that actual human life begins at conception then abortion is absolutely morally wrong, akin to murder. Therefore it would only be justifiable in situations similar to those where killing an adult would be justifiable.

    If you believe that a fertilized ovum is not an actual human life, then abortion is just another medical procedure with no moral component and restrictions on this procedure are an abominable affront to human rights.

    There is no way to reconcile these two positions. And there is no way through logic or argument from authority to prove one side or the other correct. It is the equivalent of arguing over Jesus vs Krishna. Sure, you can gin up a lot of passion and vitriol, but you could never resolve anything. So please, don’t feed the trolls.

    1. That’s the crux, right there. It all comes down to “belief.” Science cannot determine when a fetus becomes “human” and so all judgments are based on when an individual believes a fetus becomes human.

      1. there’s also a third beliefset.

        i don’t believe, for example, that a fetus at 5 months is EQUALly deserving of protection as a “birthed” human being, but clearly i believe it deserves protection beyond that deserved by a clump of cells at 2 weeks.

        one doesn’t have to have a bright line where it goes from not human to fully human. i don’t. nor does the law in most cases.

      2. there’s also a third beliefset.

        i don’t believe, for example, that a fetus at 5 months is EQUALly deserving of protection as a “birthed” human being, but clearly i believe it deserves protection beyond that deserved by a clump of cells at 2 weeks.

        one doesn’t have to have a bright line where it goes from not human to fully human. i don’t. nor does the law in most cases.

        1. That’s a ‘when’, not a ‘what’. It is still human/nonhuman. Just a matter of when.

          For the record, I think most people agree with your position, wherever they place the line.

          It doesn’t change the calculus though. Wherever you draw your lines, there’s no real “proof” you can point to that your lines are the one and only true lines. This renders argument kinda useless, unless you have two pragmatic people who are already mostly in agreement simply arguing over whether the line is at 3 months or 6 months.

          And even then you’ll have an “at conception” person and a “my body, my choice” (at birth) person come in and ruin your consensus building discussion. So the ‘please don’t feed the trolls’ rule still applies.

          1. oh yea. i i agree. i am not engaging my abortion discussion engine ™ here. talk about pointless.

            1. I will say this much about abortion-themed discussions:

              Compared to certain other discussions, there is a much lower chance of the debate degenerating into people calling other “bigorati,” employing bizarre acronyms, or urging others to die in a fire.

              Compared to certain other discussions, there is more teasing out of the nuances of the subject, getting a spectrum of views on the rights and wrongs of the issue in question.

              1. And more sentences tend to be capitalized.

              2. Compared to certain other discussions, there is more teasing out of the nuances of the subject, getting a spectrum of views on the rights and wrongs of the issue in question.

                That’s because there is no risk of any of us being aborted. Whereas a random, non-consensual fingerbanging from a cop is a very real possibility.

  55. fortunately, tasers, when used properly, are not considered “deadly force”.

    Interesting compilation of state law here:

    http://www.taser.com/images/re…..-chart.pdf

    A common operative term is “is known to be capable of producing death or serious bodily injury”. “Capable” is pretty broad, and would seem to be inclusive of tasers. Lots of variation by states.

    A couple of other random observations:

    I do see billy clubs and the like called out as “deadly weapons” in some states.

    I also note that tasers, when they are called out at all, are often lumped in with firearms for a variety of purposes (especially thou-shalt-not-carry zones).

    1. sure. like i said, even a pencil AS USED can be deadly force.

      the common distinction is deadly weapon per se vs. deadly weapon as used.

      tasers can and are placed in the latter category on occasion.

      billy clubs (batons) can also be deadly force AS USED

      if i swing at a target, like i have on a detail not too long ago – specifically, the side of the thigh, the risk of death or serious bodily injury is inifinitessimally small. iow, not considered deadly force.

      otoh, if i swing at the head – deadly force

  56. btw, for those interested, since we are discussing taser use , here is a link to macpherson

    note also in macpherson, that the 9th STRIPPED the officer of qualified immunity.

    wait for it…



    but the SCOTUS reinstated it 🙂

    key in macpherson was a NEW concept.. tasers were placed at “At the heart of our holding was the conclusion that the X26 taser and similar devices, when used in dart mode constitute an “intermediate, significant level of force that must be justified by the governmental interest involved.”

    intermediate and significant. that’s KEY language and distinguishes from wristy-twisty and stuff like pepper spray.

    macpherson is worth a read

    btw, i agree with the court that the cop in macpherson had his head up his ass, and stripping him of qualified immunity was fair to an extent. the primary problem with the strippage so to speak is past practice, but i don’t think that’s insurmountable

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/da…..-55622.pdf

  57. Kids overwhelming vote for Obama.

    This theory is just precious:

    But I like to also think that kids have a finely-honed bullshit detector?one that gets clouded, as we age, with financial stress and bitterness and fear and anecdotal bias. Kids don’t know to hate gay people or silence women or discriminate against other races unless we teach them. In fact, all of us?even conservatives?systematically teach our children to be to be tiny liberals for the first decade or so of their lives. Be fair, be nice, always share, don’t hit. I remember earnestly inventing socialism from whole cloth when I was 8 or so: “But mom, why don’t people with too much money just give some money to people with no money? Then everyone would have money!” I mean, DUH, MOM. It was the most obvious thing in the world. We are supposed to share, after all. Why would I share and share and share, as a rule, every year of my life, and then do a crazy 180 as soon as I become a grown-up?

    But that’s just what we do. For some reason, it’s perfectly normal for us (around half of us, at least) to throw out all that “sharing” bullshit as soon as we hit 18 and start voting. Hoard as much as you can, give as little as possible, sharing is stealing,

    I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

    1. Lower the voting age to conception, and see how many votes the Democrats get.

    2. But that’s just what we do. For some reason, it’s perfectly normal for us (around half of us, at least) to throw out all that “sharing” bullshit as soon as we hit 18 and start voting. Hoard as much as you can, give as little as possible, sharing is stealing,

      Amazing how working for a living rather the living off of mom and dad takes all of the fun out of sharing.

    3. People with these kinds of bullshit theories have never been around kids for any conceivable length of time, and has no understanding of evolutionary biology. Look how this moron contradicts herself in the span of two sentences:

      Kids don’t know to hate gay people or silence women or discriminate against other races unless we teach them. In fact, all of us?even conservatives?systematically teach our children to be to be tiny liberals for the first decade or so of their lives.

      You know who portrays kids in the most honest manner? South Park. Get them in moments of actual honesty, and children are bigoted, racist, selfish creatures. If they weren’t so, there wouldn’t be so much hysteria over bullying.

      Tolerance is something that has to be indoctrinated into people–it’s not something that comes naturally, because the first instinct of any group is to weed out and marginalize those who don’t fit in. For her to make this kind of assertion shows what a cargo cult progressivism has become.

    4. I hate that democrats conflate sharing with support for taxation and government programs.

      There have been plenty of studies done showing that those of us on the right side of the spectrum, are significantly more giving, than our lefty counterparts.

      So how does that sharing thing work out then?

      1. So how does that sharing thing work out then?

        Apparently giving to a church doesn’t count, despite how much charity work they do. I think the current rule is that it only counts if you’re paying for someone’s abortion.

    5. I teach my kids to share, but I also teach them not to take from other kids just because they want something. I guess that makes them little conservatives or libertarians?

  58. No alt-text on AM links? Feeney is history’s greatest monster.

  59. Ipsos state-by-state poll of registered voters has Obama crushing Romney.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.