OK Bill Would Ban Hoodies, 'Ansel Adams Act' Would Protect Public Photography, 18 States 'Extremely Hostile' to Abortion: A.M. Links

|

  • ohoski/Flickr

    U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) has introduced the "Ansel Adams Act", which aims for the "restoration of first amendment rights to photographers" by prohibiting restrictions on taking photos in public places.

  • An Oklahoma lawmaker wants to ban hoodies, a plan he says would help prevent robberies. 
  • The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether laws barring judicial candidates from explicitly seeking campaign contributions are a violation of the First Amendment. The case comes from Florida, one of 30 states that prohibit directly soliciting contributions to judge campaigns. 
  • A new report finds 18 states with legal climates "extremely hostile" to abortion, up from five states in 2010. 
  • Timothy DeFoggi, a former Department of Health and Human Services cybersecurity chief, has been sentenced to 25 years in prison for child pornography. 
  • The family of Montana's Kaileb Cole Williams, who was killed by a Missoula police officer last week, say they plan to challenge the officer's version of events. Police say Williams had kidnapped and was trying to choke his fiancee; the woman disputes that she was in any danger.
  • This CNN video is being held for release "till end of the world confirmed."

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

NEXT: The Originalism Top Ten of 2014 [comments now available]

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. An Oklahoma lawmaker wants to ban hoodies, a plan he says would help prevent robberies.

    And warm heads.

    1. That is a new stretch for Peak Derp.

      1. Just suffer the winds sweeping down the plain in silence, you.

        1. OOOOOOklahoma where the wind comes sweeping down the plain
          Where the wear-in hoodies can sure be banned
          When the wind comes right behind the rain
          OOOOOOklahoma ev’ry night my Rep and I
          Sit alone and talk and watch a cop car
          Makin lazy circles in the lot

          1. Hey, Swiss, do you guys insure this? Because…. ouch:

            http://www.roadandtrack.com/ca…..nded-ship/

      2. Better ban sports coats with interior pockets as well. Just to be safe.

      3. Meh. It’s quite possible the guy knows this won’t pass judicial review and is just grandstanding. Legislators pull that crap all the time so they can say they “did something.” But that’s the worst sort of cowardice.

        1. They will kill their monthers to get mentioned on the TV news.

      4. Don’t forget to ban saggy pants too. We all know its criminal style.

        1. Don’t forget to ban saggy pants too.

          Don’t be homophobic, gaijin. Everyone knows sagging pants is the down low way to signal receptivity to anal penetration.

          1. well, I…uh. As they might say in one of those PSA’s with the rainbow stars, “Now you know!”

          2. “Don’t know what ‘anal penetration’ means, but I think you just dissed me!”

            1. That’s what is so damaging about being in the closet because culture is so unaccepting of your lifestyle. I think we should all be able to live in a world where we don’t have to code our desires, but until we are there, some men will have to sag their pants.

              1. *** re-evaluates use of ‘rapper gestures’ ***

      5. The law is unnecessary, overly broad and criminalized innocent activities, but it is worth mentioning that it is about intentionally concealing identity in public and doesn’t specifically mention hoodies or hoods.

        1. What part of not letting facts ruin the narrative don’t you understand?!?!?!

        2. So it’s actually criminalizing the activities of some observant Muslim women? That makes it better.

          1. No, it’s bad however you look at it.

        3. Here’s some images of people wearing hoodies. Most of these people aren’t concealing their identity. I concede that some of them are wearing them in an identity-concealing way, but I don’t think that’s inherent in wearing hoodies.

          (Google images)

          http://ow.ly/GSz8B

    2. Hello.

      Not that you “libertarians” heard or even care but freedom and democracy won last night.

      http://www.worldjunior2015.com/

      YOU’RE WELCOME!

      1. Bunch of adolescent Canooks playing slap the urinal cake, whoopee…

        1. Ugly Americans.

          All of youzzz.

          1. Ugly Americans was a great show. Too bad it only lasted 2 seasons.

      2. I didn’t think either Canada or Russia believed in freedom or democracy. :-p

        1. Canada does believe in being free from heat.

      3. Meh, call me back when they hoist a cup for an NHL team.

        1. In fairness, the worst parts of Canada are still more free than L.A. or Chicago.

    3. Hey, a hoodie led to a very good conversation last night with a girl I’ve started dating. And now that I think about it, the last girl that I dated long term started because she was wearing a Cornell hoodie.

      So I guess it would also prevent Auric flings.

    4. If you read the law it doesn’t ban hoodies. Ms Brown needs to learn to do research, starting with a course on how to read her own links.

      1. When you define the needs of your audience, you’ve lost them. You’re welcome.

      2. It’s right there in the headline!

        “Chris Mautner | cmautner@pennlive.com
        About Me: I am the community engagement lead for PennLive. When not doing that, I write about really nerdy things — mostly comics — for the blog Robot 6 and the Comics Journal website.”

      3. This is true (but it’s a terrible law anyway). At least in the article linked here they seem to mention hoodies so they have an excuse to bring up Trayvon Martin.

      4. Fer fux sake.

        Here’s the new language:

        To intentionally conceal his or her identity in a public place by means of a robe, mask, or other disguise.

        See that “other disguise”? That covers any and every article of clothing that “conceals” your “identity”.

        This law is easily and cleanly read to apply to anyone wearing a hoody pulled up so that their face isn’t clearly visible.

        I don’t think Ms. Brown is the one who needs to learn to do research, starting with a course on how to read links.

        1. A hoodie is a robe, mask or “disguise”?

          1. Why doesn’t a ban on ski masks get the appropriate emotional outrage?

          2. That’s why they couldn’t film Eyes Wide Shut there.

          3. Anything used to conceal your identity is a disguise.

            Its right there in the dictionary, fer cryin’ out loud.

            This ain’t rocket surgery.

        2. “State Sen. Don Barrington wants to amend a 1920s law that targeted the Klu Klux Klan, which makes it illegal to wear a hood or disguise during a criminal offense.”

          It was already illegal.

          1. I think the change is to make it illegal even when you are not engaged in a criminal offense at the time.

        3. I still think that calling it a ban on hoodies is misleading. For the most part, wearing a hood doesn’t disguise your identity and isn’t a disguise.

          It is a terrible law and I am sure it would be applied selectively to people wearing hoods. But it’s not hard to give a little more information about what it actually says.

          1. For the most part, wearing a hood doesn’t disguise your identity and isn’t a disguise.

            Anyone wearing their hood up and pulled forward at all will be sufficiently “disguised” to be hassled by the cops, fined, and/or assaulted, caged or shot if they protest.

            Close e-fucking-nough.

            1. Yes, it is a terrible law that will give cops more reasons to hassle people on the street. And it will be applied selectively and inconsistently, I am sure, if it goes into effect.
              Calling it a ban on hoodies is too narrow a description of the law (you could just as well call it a balaclava ban or a wearing nylons over your head ban) and is a bit misleading. It wouldn’t be too hard to write “a ban on disguising your identity in public which could effectively criminalize wearing hoodies”.

        4. My underwear is disguising the identity of my penis right now.

        5. “This law is easily and cleanly read to apply to anyone wearing a hoody pulled up so that their face isn’t clearly visible.”

          Of course, but that’s not the same as banning the wearing of all hoodies.

          1. Sometimes hoodies conceal your identity, sometimes not, as indicated by these photos from Google Images.

            http://ow.ly/GSz8B

            Of course if the bill passes cops will hassle people who are obeying the law, and that’s a strong objection to the bill. But predicting lawless behavior by cops doesn’t mean the bill *itself* bans *all* hoodies.

            1. I’d say the fact that the law bans doing things that are peaceful and harm no one is good enough reason to dislike it.

              1. Well, I don’t like it. I’m not sure it will pass.

                Wanting a more accurate description of the law /= supporting it.

        6. I think you’re overlooking

          intentionally conceal

          .

          I think

          intentionally conceal

          is the salient point.

  2. This CNN video is being held for release “till end of the world confirmed.”

    Which is the day Obama leaves office?

    1. I thought it was when Team Red takes over congress. Another end of the world hoax just like the Mayan calendar and deep fried snickers

    2. CNN will then finally admit that Christiane Amanpour is actually Alice Cooper in drag.

  3. A new report finds 18 states with legal climates “extremely hostile” to abortion, up from five states in 2010.

    ENB doing AM Links today, huh?

    1. More or less hostile that being forcibly removed from your pre-birth home and killed?

      1. And we’re off….

        1. No no! I am feeling much better. Stupid bronchitis takes a while to shake…what?

        2. ? like a clipped foreskin!

          1. Or the taste of a thin-crust pizza!

    2. But remember, they’re not pro-abortion. No, never. They are just very worried about hostility to abortion.

      1. Well, no one (or close to it) is pro-abortion in the sense of wanting it as a good unto itself.
        I’ll go ahead and call myself pro-abortion in the sense that if that’s what you think is the best thing to do, then you should do it. It’s none of my business how rare or not it should be.

    3. She does seem to have branched out a bit from her start, but the focus is still there. At least she’s usually good on alt-text.

      1. No one likes a one-note wonder. Unless it’s Bobby McFerrin. I could listen to that song all day long.

        1. I worry about you, Fist

          1. Don’t do that. Just be happy.

    4. Hostile = up to 4 restrictions
      EXTREMELY hostile = 5 or more restrictions of abortions on the books.

      Hmmm…

      Absolutely no mention of what kind of restrictions or considerations for their severity.

      Derptastic!

      1. If Christian bakers aren’t required by law to bake you a post abortion, “Non-Birthday” cake, it counts as extremely hostile.

    5. Hopefully, the “hostility” will increase as new laws get passed to protect these vulnerable Americans.

  4. U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) has introduced the “Ansel Adams Act”, which aims for the “restoration of first amendment rights to photographers” by prohibiting restrictions on taking photos in public places.

    Everyone knows Adams was the country’s first terrorist.

    1. How come a new law has to be created to restore first amendment rights rather then having the law that restricted them repealed?

      1. Because rescinding a law would mean an admission of wrongdoing.

      2. Repeal laws? Are you crazy?

      3. I think new laws are like soapboxes…pols get to stand them up and stand on them. Repeals not so much…more like cleaning out cat litter.

      4. “To repeal any element of an enacted law, Congress must pass a new law containing repeal language and the codified statute’s location in the U.S. Code (including the title, chapter, part, section, paragraph and clause). In this way, Congress (and the president) must follow the same rules and procedures for passing any law. When statutes are repealed, their text is simply deleted from the Code and replaced by a note summarizing what used to be there. Once deleted, the repealed statute no longer has the force of law. All repeals of parts of the US Code are, therefore, express repeals.”

        1. Thank you for posting this. It sometimes boggles my mind that this is not more widely understood by libertarians.

    2. Those birch trees were subversive

      1. And don’t get me started on those highly suspicious rock formations!!!!!

        1. One guy wandering Yosemite for weeks at a time with all that equipment?

          Shades of Kaczynski, if you ask me.

      2. Not subversive, just a bit overzealous in their patriotism.

      3. Birch? BIRCH!

        Check your white privilege Scruff.

        #BlackOakLivesMatter

        1. Jim Dandy to the rescue?

        2. There is such a thing as black birch.

          1. Sure, sure, sure. Next you will be prattling on about white hispanics hibiscus too.

          2. I thought he was referring to John Birch.

            1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betula_lenta

              is the one I am familiar with. Tastes like wintergreen.

              1. Zeb, stop while you are ahead. Are you seriously trying to tell us that not only does Black Birch exist, but it for some unknown reason likes menthol wintergreen.

                Stop stereotyping dude.

                1. So I shouldn’t say anything about the fried chicken and watermelon tree?

  5. http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/05/…..-peta-dogs

    Sarah Palin supports Stand Your Ground and Stand on Your Hound.

      1. That was actually a good article to the extent it gets right to the heart of all the bull shit.

        Good for Palin.

    1. The dog was unhurt and not complaining. (seriously, if you look at the picture the ‘meh’ attitude of the dog is very evident)

      1. C’mon, don’t be cruel, it ain’t nothing but a hounddog.

      2. PETA is a bunch of twats.

        1. PETA the group the equates the life of a rat with the life of a child, an organization opposed to animal testing even if it produces a cure AIDS. A group with a history of supporting the domestic terrorist group ALF (Animal Liberation Front) in their acts of violence, and intimidation.

          I think calling them twats is an understatement.

          1. My sister lives close to their HQ in Norfolk. A bunch of them live in her immediate neighborhood. Based on my interactions with them, they’re certifiably retarded.

            1. Oh, I’d love to hear stories…

              1. Well there was the one who lived upstairs in the condo building. She liked to lean out her window and scream “MEAT IS MURDER!” and “COWS HAVE FEELINGS!” at the people leaving the steak restaurant across the street.

                  1. The Chick Fil A cow almost died at the Rose Bowl in a mini tornado this week. His bodyguard saved him:

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGhqlJnFIXU

                1. PRICELESS.

                2. I have feelings too and right now I feel like a hamburger

            2. They’ve even figured out how to annoy teenagers by doing their thing at Warped tour dates.

          2. Don’t forget that their leader is an insulin-dependant diabetic and keeps shooting up that sweet animal-tested juice every day.

          3. PETA the group the equates the life of a rat with the life of a child,

            And kills nearly every pet they can get their hands on. Which makes them mass murderers, by their own theology.

            1. They complained about virtual whaling in Assassin’s Creed IV.

      3. I hadn’t seen the picture before now. That is clearly not a problem for a dog. If it was, the dog would have moved.

        But combine the general insanity of PETA and the special insanity of people who hate Sarah Palin and it’s not surprising.

      4. When I was a kid we had a Rottweiler, and while he was laying in the backyard my little sister and her friend built a big pile of leaves on top of him, and they then took turns taking big swan dives onto the leaf/dogpile. He never even budged.

        Greatest dog I ever had in my life. It’s amazing what some of them will put up with. I guess we were lucky PETA wasn’t snooping around our neighborhood.

        1. Two of my friends tried to stuff one of their cat in a small playhouse.

          It was surreal to watch them as they giggled watching the cat squirm in what I remember to be stunned disbelief they could be so retarded.

        2. Big family dogs are generally really good about handling kids. A lot of the time it seems that they realize the kids are just pups that don’t know better.

          1. Yep. When my daughter was still crawling she used to sneak up on my big mutt while he was sleeping and try to pull his head up by the ears. He was very tolerant of her.

          2. My parents had a komondor mix that was extremely sick as a puppy and suffered brain damage, so as a result he was literally the stupidest dog you’d ever meet. He absolutely loved the niece and nephew, standing at the baby get and letting them pat his head over it, but would bark incessantly at their father (a good guy, but extremely tall). The dog also let my parents’ cairn terrier chew on its ears.

        3. We have a mastiff my son pretends to wrestle with. She just lays there and lets him – then swats him with a giant paw for stopping.

      5. The dog was unhurt and not complaining

        at least she didn’t eat the dog

    2. Bo bitched at a few other posters about this yesterday. How dare Palin defend herself!

      1. It’s nice of the media to allow PETA and Sarah Palin to use each other and them like this to stay relevant.

      2. Lemme guess. Because she willingly posted a picture ergo deserves progtard scrutiny while Ellen gets a pass, right?

        1. Ellen Page? Cuz she’s hawt!

        2. Complaining about how Palin must be some sort of attention whore because she does what every other woman her age does and posts every little bit of her life to Facebook, and then thinking anybody who defended her against PETA must be TEAM RED shills.

          1. Yeah, that’s, erm, retarded (word of the day) given how many women do that shit.

            1. What do you think of it when non-famous women do it?

              1. I think it’s stupid and continue looking for pics with cleavage. I certainly don’t write a polemic against the woman.

                1. I didn’t write a polemic either, check out my original post on it.

              2. I don’t give a shit nor do I waste time distinguishing between ‘famous’ and ‘non-famous’ in a case like this.

                Not to mention the irrationals (and retarded) sophistry that follows from the idiotic anti-Palin camp.

                If you’re gonna make a stink of something make it count and don’t employ a double standard.

                Other than that, you’re wasting my time and making me thirsty with these pretzels.

                1. I didn’t use any double standard, PETA did, and if you check out my original post my only comment on the fight was that PETA was stupid and both PETA and Palin were media whores. Don’t believe everything you hear second hand from a commenter here.

                  1. That’s what I meant -PETA. Not you.

                    1. Sure, PETA is godawful.

                      All I said was that Palin and PETA are media whores, then John went ballistic cursing me out in his defense of Palin. I have no irrational hatred of Palin. She’s done and said some good things, and done and said some bad things.

                  2. You did single out Palin for posting every detail of her life, which seems to be the entire purpose of facebook.

                    Calling anyone a ‘media whore’ for posting to facebook means that there are roughly a billion media whores in the world.

                    1. I do think people that post to social media the daily details of their life are seeking media attention, kind of by definition. I could care less if a bunch of people do that.

          2. Well, she is some kind of an attention whore. I don’t care as I am perfectly capable of ignoring her (and PETA), but he’s not wrong.

        3. She has done a reality show, which does open one up to the accusation of being an attention whore, I suppose.

          But, other than being a backwater governor unready for the shitstorm came down on her because she accepted McCain’s seemingly impulsively made offer, she really hasn’t done anything too bad.

          Bo is far more driven by his prejudices than he realizes.

          1. So you admit there’s good reason to call her a media whore, but I was of course just driven by my prejudices when I called her that…

            1. So everybody who’s ever been on a reality show is a “media whore”?

              1. I think when you do a television show where tv cameras follow you and your family around, then that’s some evidence of being a media whore, yes.

                There’s others with Palin. I mean, do you really think Palin shys from the spotlight, or runs to it?

                1. Fine.

                  Still doesn’t detract from the retardation that was revealed in lieu of the photo.

                  That you waste energy building a defense on this is a form of being an intellectual whore.

                  1. What am I defending Rufus? Certainly not PETA or its claim. So what?

                    1. See above.

                      They’re time wasting losers.

                      I have to go make a bank deposit.

                    2. I have to go make a bank deposit.

                      *secures tire iron, ski mask and map*

              2. So everybody who’s ever been on a reality show is a “media whore”?

                Yeah, pretty much. Why else would you be on a reality show? I got no problem with whores. Most people are whores who just haven’t been offered their right price yet.

          2. She initiated the “death panels” critique of Obamacare in 2009. Which, sadly, turned out to be the most effective attack against it, and may have saved us from the public option.

            1. I think Joe Lieberman, for his many faults, deserves credit for killing the public option.

      3. Well, yeah, she’s a socon, so therefore wrong about literally everything, ever.

      4. Read Palin’s entire Facebook response, it’s a bit over the top, no?

        1. I have, and I don’t think it’s over the top.

          Given the way the woman has been hounded in the media, with a nationally syndicated columnist demanding she supply proof she didn’t give birth to her granddaughter and hounding her for her gynecological records, given the way she was blamed for a nutjob shooting a congresswoman that he thought had been rude to him, her exasperation at the fashionable proggie blob is quite understandable.

          Ar you open to the idea that perhaps you are prejudiced against her?

          1. Bo is as pure as the driven snow. He doesn’t have an “evil SOCONZ are coming to get us” fetish.

    3. There’s a picture floating around on Facebook of a photo promoted by Ellen Degeneres showing a little girl standing on her dog to reach the counter to brush her teeth. No media outrage. Just “awww” and “adorable.” But Sarah Palin posts one of her son doing similar, and “EVUL RIGHT-WINGER!!! ANIMAL ABUSE!!!”

      1. I wouldn’t equate media outrage with PETA making a statement to Politico, Palin responding, and the media covering the cripple fight.

      2. Topless underage girl. Isn’t that technically child porn? And yea, I get it that her back is turned, but the law and stuff.

    4. That’s when Seth MacFarlane, creator of the Fox animated comedy, “Family Guy,” thought it would be a hoot to air an episode that demolished all the preaching that liberals have done over the years about tolerance and the importance of defending those with special needs. In the episode, the character Chris is dating a teenage girl with Down syndrome, and when he asks her what her parents do, she says, “My dad’s an accountant, and my mom is the former governor of Alaska.”

      How is that even funny? I mean even beyond being offensive I don’t see the humor.

      Thanks for reminding me why I don’t watch FG.

      1. I don’t find it offensive, but I don’t see any humor in it either. But just because the premise itself isn’t humorous, doesn’t mean they failed to get any good jokes out of the execution.

        1. I seriously doubt they did. Half of McFarlane’s “jokes” are just pop culture references that the viewer is supposed to say “hey, I know what he’s talking about HAHAHAHAHAHA.” It’s really the death of humor.

          1. The only redeeming character is Herbert the Pervert.

            Let that marinate for a minute…

    5. PETA said in a statement on Saturday, in response to her second post, “Palin’s Facebook response shows us that she knows PETA about as well as she knows geography.”

      Holy crap, that sounds pathetic. Yes, I do dislike the organization, but try to act remotely professional.

      1. And PETA shows that they don’t know about, well, facts, their ownselves.

        They are obviously playing off the “I can see Russia from my house” fake quote.

  6. Police say Williams had kidnapped and was trying to choke his fiancee; the woman disputes that she was in any danger.

    Uh, I think the police would probably know better why they shot the man than some civilian.

    1. Obviously he must have reached for his waistband. What a minute maybe instead of banning hoodies they should go after waitsbands instead.

      1. To avoid having waistband-free pants falling down, everyon will wear jumpsuits. Orange is the preferred color.

    2. Police say Williams had kidnapped and was trying to choke his fiancee; the woman disputes that she was in any danger.

      She’s obviously lying, the police wouldn’t have shot him unless she was in danger. Or maybe she just didn’t have the keen perception to realize the danger she was in.

      1. She should have left it to professionals who were trained to perceive such things.

      2. She probably also had a substandard insurance plan that the govt was forced to cancel for her own good.

        These ingrates never seem to appreciate all the good things the govt has done for them.

  7. An Oklahoma lawmaker wants to ban hoodies, a plan he says would help prevent robberies.

    Dude, you don’t want to get crosswise of Facebook like that.

    1. I was going to steal a gun, jack a car and rob a bank but then I heard about this hoodie ban and gave up.

      1. If you outlaw hoodies, only outlaws will have hoodies.

          1. I didn’t know steroids caused your eyelashes to get that big.

            1. Overcompensation, perhaps?

          2. I am not sure that sleeveless shirts count as hoodies (with Belichick style as the only exception).

    2. Know who I hate?

      Kids who DRIVE with their iPhone earplugs AND a hoodie.

      Wtf?

      Are they that aloof?

      1. Not for long, Rufus.

        1. I mean. How do they see their blind spot?

          And I doubt they’re attentive enough to hear the siren of a fire truck or ambulance or police with those stupid things in their ears.

          I bet if they’d get in an accident they’d swear it wasn’t their fault too.

          GET OFF MY LAWN!

      2. Do the wear saggy drawers too?

  8. An Oklahoma lawmaker wants to ban hoodies, a plan he says would help prevent robberies.

    And low pregnancy rates.

  9. Jim Webb Charges Democrat Party with Hostility to White Men, WaPo Writer Concerned

    “‘I think this is where Democrats screw up, you know?’ Webb said. ‘I think that they have kind of unwittingly used this group, white working males, as a whipping post for a lot of their policies. And then when they react, they say they’re being racist.'”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..4&hpid=z17

    1. Oh, that’s not going to go over well.

      1. He is either making a reach to an unrepresented part of the Donkey Party, or he just blew his own foot off.

        1. I have no idea why Webb is still in the Donkey Party.

          1. You kidding? He is to the left of Obama.

            1. Webb is hard to categorize. He’s all over the place, depending on what the issue is.

    2. somethingsomething chickens coming home to roost somethingsomething

    3. used this group, white working males, as a whipping post

      I think he means “whipping boy”, which would have been an unfortunate metaphor in the circumstances. One place where a mixed metaphor is probably better than the real thing.

      At least he said “unwittingly” which is more than they deserve.

    4. “unwittingly”?

      I don’t think so.

  10. Contest: What video *should* be playing at world’s end?

    A modest proposal.

    1. +1 Anti-Christ/Devil Cult

    2. Les Mis with Hugh JACK-MAN! Because I’ll want to die if that is playing.

      1. Nice.

        How about this?

        1. Oh god no! My eyes and my ears!

        2. for fuck’s sake, what is that?

        3. Thank the Lord.

          Perhaps this might be more appropriate for the end of the world, however.

    3. Did that AC/DC dude go to trial yet for that contract killing rap yet?

      1. IIRC, it was somehow OBE.

        1. Old Bastard Einstein? I thought he finally got out of the rap game.

      2. Judge threw out the charges. Either he was bribed, or the prosecutor is a class A asshole.

    4. Hitler ranting about the world ending.

  11. One more use for our orphans
    This past year, science found new evidence for an old theory ? that infusing new blood into old people could make them younger and more vital. According to reports, “Scientists at Harvard University also discovered that a ‘youth protein’ which circulates in the blood is responsible for keeping the brain and muscles young and strong. The protein, known as ‘GDF11’, is present in the bloodstream in large quantities when we are young but peters out as we age.”

    Meanwhile, Stanford researchers are experimenting with transfusions of young blood to treat Alzheimer’s disease. “Work in animals,” writesThe Washington Post, “has shown that a transfusion of young mouse blood can improve cognition and the health of several organs in older mice. It may even make those animals look younger. The ramifications for the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries could be huge if the same thing happens in people.”….

    1. How do you think that Keith Richards is still living?

      Don’t all of you take the blood of your orphans? I thought that was pretty much SOP.

      1. Richards is living proof that booze will kill you faster than drugs. There are all kinds of old druggies out there, Richards, Willie Nelson, William F Boroughs lived to a very old age. But old drunks? Not so much.

        1. To be fair there are a lot of druggies who never got old out there. But I know what you mean.

      2. That is a feature of booze, not a bug.

    2. Heinlein already figured this out ages ago.

      1. So when do we steal the starship, Auric?

        1. Sadly only two of my grandparents lived to 80….

          Which is why I’m going with a slightly different strategy involving asteroid “insurance”.

  12. Conservative Columnist: Torture Debate is Over, Torture Supporters Won

    “As we begin 2015, we can take solace that the “torture” debate is finally behind us. But before we close the book on six sordid years of Democratic demagoguery and investigations, let the record show that the opponents of the CIA interrogation program were completely and utterly defeated…The more Feinstein and the CIA critics voiced their objections, the more the needle of public opinion has moved in favor of the CIA’s position.”

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

    1. That Marc Thiessen. What a charmer.

      1. Marc-Amber Thiessen.

    2. Disingenuous at best that the writer mentions a 6000 page report, but not the fact that all we’ve seen is the 600 page summary.

      1. The remaining 5400 pages are puppy photos and recipes, nothing you’d want access to.

  13. prohibiting restrictions on taking photos in public places.

    When restrictions on taking photos in public places are outlawed only outlaws will restrict taking photos in public places!

    1. Does anyone need public places?

  14. For those who have followed with me the career of Tracy Moore, the Jezebel writer who is in deep denial about her crumbling marriage, I present you the most Tracy Moore-y of all Tracy Moore articles:

    How to Have Maintenance Sex

    Reveal in the comments, where Jezebellians once again talk about their low sex drives and rampant use of anti-depressants.

    1. So “maintenance sex” is what Warty is calling it nowadays?

      1. Maintenance sex is for the man to keep a colony of sperm in a woman to fight off another man’s sperm. If she isn’t up for it, she wants someone else to get her pregnant w/ your inferior sperm out of the way and for you to just pay for the kid.

    2. Love Italian Style, which helpfully suggested that readers can “do anything for ten minutes.”

      Apparently not Harry Reid.

    3. Mental illness comes up a lot on radfem blogs, but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.

      1. What you did there…

        But remember that these women are constantly seeking victimhood and MI is one way that even the richest, whitest woman can get a victim pass.

    4. SF, I have one question: IS SHE HOT?

      Or else I don’t care. Meh, even then.

        1. Hm.

          She looks a little…crazy.

          1. I’ve been told to never stick it in crazy.

            And yet that is apparently the only thing I stick it in.

        2. Does she have a lazy eye, or is that just a bad picture?

          I hope it’s the former. My wife won’t let me watch Dateline any more because I can’t stop ogling Tamron Hall’s.

          1. Your lazy eye fetish sickens me.

            1. You haven’t lived til you can’t quite figure out if your girlfriend is looking deep into your eyes or staring at herself in the mirror.

              1. This made me chuckle. Hard.

                Here I was wondering what ‘lazy eye crazy’ sex must be like.

                1. Been there, done that. Lots of screaming on her part and me wondering if there was someone behind me with a knife that I couldn’t see.

    5. Those things always make me feel guilty, as if I’d toured a mental ward to laugh at the inmates. But then I remember that people take Jezebel seriously and feel a lot better.

        1. How else would you fund an asylum?

          1. ‘ey there Guv’nor. Tuppence to see the disheveled madwomen!

    6. Great minds discuss ideas.
      Ordinary minds discuss events.
      Small minds discuss people.

        1. The greatest minds discuss all three.

    7. you sometimes just go along with sex because the other person wants it

      Sounds like a setup for later deciding that she didn’t actually “go along” with it.

      1. Sounds like she’s being raped, to me.

    8. When it comes up, I always find the idea that sex is somehow different than affection when it comes to whether or not you should be able to expect some to be bizarre.

    9. Wouldn’t having your entire identity based on the belief in an ideology that said men were evil and oppressive have a negative effect on your sex drive? If I woke up every day thinking my wife was a lesser sort of human who somehow manages to be just a little bit better than the rest of her species, I can’t imagine it doing a lot for my sex drive. Also, if convinced myself that nearly every form of sex was really some form of rape, I can’t see myself having much of a sex drive then.

    10. “How to have maintenance sex”

      I’m not going to read that whole thing, but I’m guessing it involves engaging in “duty sex”, without trying to improve your attitude, in hopes of instilling him with guilt and self-loathing. Because an equal partnership means never having to do something selflessly or out of love.

      1. oh and if they’re talking about maintenance sex with someone they’re not married to, then God help them.

        1. They are effectively married to them, they just don’t want to admit it. Either that or they are just someone’s cheap lay and they are too stupid and self loathing to admit that.

      2. Women not understanding that Lap83 is what breaks up a lot of marriages. Women don’t understand that for men sex is emotional, just in a different way than it is for women. For men, his wife not being willing to do things sexually is a direct expression of his value to her as a man. It is her saying, “you are not good enough for me to do this.” She may not mean it that way but that is how men take it. If woman does that enough and makes her husband feel like she is doing him a favor every time they have sex, eventually another smarter women will come along and say “you are so great of course I would do anything you want” and he will move on and she will likely never understand why.

      3. in hopes of instilling him with guilt and self-loathing.

        Jesus Christ you nailed it. Having had a marriage fall apart and getting only the sporadic duty sex during its death throes, this so perfectly encapsulates the post-coital mood. I felt far more accomplish masturbating in the shower. At least one person enjoyed it.

        1. Not a marriage, but my last long-term relationship ended that way, and I have to agree. The “just lie there and get it over with” was actually worse than “not tonight, maybe tomorrow”.

  15. Researcher Explores How Men ‘Size Up’ Other Men

    “Fessler and his postdoctoral assistant, Colin Holbrook, have spent nearly four years chasing the notion that humans, particularly men, super-size or shrink a mental picture of their adversaries and themselves when figuring out whether they can win a potential conflict.

    Funded by the Pentagon, which is eager to know what makes men fight and choose sides, the pair have shown that foes “grow” larger when they hold a handgun, or if they’re known to be risk takers (a study dubbed the “Crazy Bastard Theory”). They grow larger if you’re by yourself, rather than in a group. And they may grow larger based on racial biases.

    Correctly gauging “relative formidability” probably gave distant ancestors an advantage when only size and muscle mattered. But that mode of reckoning remains in the human mind, like a neurological stone tool hacking at the complexities of human society.”

    http://www.latimes.com/science…..tml#page=1

    1. “He looked bigger when I couldn’t see him.”

    2. I’ve believed for a long time that a lot of or even most human behavior can be explained by our ancient survival programming.

      1. Is that actually a controversial belief? I thought it was fairly obvious.

        1. Well it depends on who you bring it up with.

          I’ve brought it up here and there in deep progtard Westchester, NY and the reactions I’ve gotten have been shocking. I think this is driven in part by the fact that there is no way anything proggie will ever work given human nature and our ancient programming, and this is an egregious affront to their mindless progressive sensibilities.

          1. Progtards believe that their god Government, through magical incantations called Legislation, can actually change human nature.

            1. Yes, and anything that challenges that is shouted down. Progressivism really is just a secular religion with dogma that can’t be challenged.

              1. I think the human brain is wired in a way that requires religion.

                I think that Joseph Campbell’s description of archetypal myths that pop up across all human cultures is a product of that wiring.

                For example, I know a couple of professed atheists, who have bought into the CAGW cult. It’s fun to map their beliefs to Christianity, with industrialization playing the role of original sin.

                1. I think a person can think AGW is correct without being guilty of religious thinking. The extreme or wacky forms of it, sure, but that’s true for most anything.

                  1. We aren’t talking about AGW, Bo. Rather, I speak of the state religion of CAGW Bo.

                    1. What is CAGW? Crazy AGW?

                    2. Catastrophic…

                    3. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming

                      The religion of Obama’s science advisor, Al Gore et al. It is utterly falsified by observations, but rolls on like the seventh day adventist movement after Christ failed to return (the Great Disappointment).

                      Anthropogenic Global Warming is a nonfalsified set of hypotheses that the Earth is being warmed somewhat by humans. The hypotheses haven’t really been tested yet, either.

                    4. OK, yes, I think the extreme versions of AGW you’re talking about do have some aspects of a religion or social movement and not science.

                    5. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a nonfalsified set of hypotheses that the Earth is being warmed somewhat by humans.

                      AGW is a textbook case of circular logic. The premise is that human activity must be harming the planet because there’s no way that it couldn’t, and the conclusion is that the climate is changing due to human activity because human activity is bad. Textbook question begging.

                2. I think the human brain is wired in a way that requires religion.

                  I don’t know about that. I was raised in a religious home, and it never caught on. I’m just not a faith kind of guy. Never have been. I need proof. Be it physical or logical. Faith doesn’t do it for me.

            2. That’s pretty good, Sarc. Ima stealin’ that.

            3. Of course it can. Didn’t you know that human nature is just a construct used by the ungoodthinkful to justify their incorrect views? Also, when you mention any possible effect of evolution on human nature, progtards instantly go 99% of the way to becoming creationists.

              1. I do think that some things that people call or used to call ‘human nature’ are more cultural ‘constructs’ for lack of a better word.

                1. I don’t think you can isolate cultural constructs from human nature.

                  1. Wouldn’t things that people think are ‘set’ and human nature but which differ from culture to culture and time to time be correctly identified as cultural constructs?

                    1. For example, it is human nature to, when the price of something goes up, use less or find substitutes.

                      But with the magic of Legislation, God government can, with the swipe of a pen, negate that aspect of human nature!

                    2. “it is human nature to, when the price of something goes up, use less or find substitutes.”

                      What about conspicuous consumption?

                    3. What about conspicuous consumption?

                      For males that engage in it, it is signalling to potential mates of their prowess at acquiring wealth. Wealth is attractive to women because it guarantees greater resources for which to raise her children and a greater chance of success later in life for those children. For females that engage in it, it is signalling to other women her greater position of status and her ability to require other women to assist in her raising her children.

                      For both the male and the female, this assures that their genetic material is passed to the next generation.

                    4. This is my problem with evolutionary psychology. It seems to just provide ad hoc explanations. So, you see people behaving in the way sarc described, using less of a scarce item or using substitutes and you say ‘well, that must be human nature, an attitude that would have contributed to our survival because X and Y and thus was naturally selected.’ Then when you see behavior that doesn’t fit, you just spin another web ‘oh, well you see, that’s useful too, it’s part of sexual signaling and….” It’s unfalsifiable.

                    5. Ok, then let me ask you, can you put a definition on ‘conspicuous consumption’ that I can address, and do you have your own thoughts on why people engage in it?

                    6. I’m not sure we disagree with what it is, I just don’t think everything can be explained by our evolutionary hardwiring. Lots can, but not everything.

                    7. I think CC can be perhaps be explained just by something like that SNL skit with Will Ferrel wearing the cheap blue that said I’m #1 on it. That wanting of status for its own sake is explanatory enough, sensible enough for me without having to think about how it might have been useful in having and raising progeny and thus was selected among our ancestors.

                    8. Lots can, but not everything.

                      I agree completely, as per my comment above.

                      I’ve believed for a long time that a lot of or even most human behavior can be explained by our ancient survival programming.

                    9. Fair enough, we seem to agree on this.

                    10. This is my problem with evolutionary psychology. It seems to just provide ad hoc explanations.

                      You are correct Bo. That is exactly what it does. It just makes up convention explanations for behavior and then attributes it to “genes”. It is total unscientific nonsense. If a given behavior is the result of genetics, then show me the gene structure that is responsible for the behavior and explain how the mechanism by which those genes cause the behavior. Until you do that, and no one ever has to my knowledge, you are just making shit up.

                    11. John, show me the gene for hunger.

                      Right, no can do. Don’t discuss what you don’t understand.

          2. I’m not sure about that. Following the leader and defending our TEAM at all costs, to the point of deluding ourselves that it is always right, is very ingrained in human nature.

      2. Some of it for sure. The problem with that theory is that you either have to take a dualistic view of human consciousness, something every modern rational atheist is loath to do, or give up on the idea of free will.

        I am a duelist, so it makes sense to me. These are our desires and preferences and we have a will that can ignore them if we choose. But if you are not a duelist, you have a hard time fitting free will or explaining behavior that deviates from the norm.

        1. Interestingly, as a species we could not have gotten to the point of being able to think about free will without first surviving to become the dominant species on the planet.

          As we have grown and evolved the opportunity has risen for us to stop and begin to think on our actions, what causes them, and what the repercussions are. So we have a mix of free will and genetic predisposition. Some choose to go with the flow while others choose to be so free they appear abnormal. Many of us probably live in some sort of middle ground.

          1. I hope you’re not including progtards in this “we” who can think. I’ve never met a progtard who could think. They emote, like animals, and only use the rational part of their brain to reverse engineer something to justify how they feel. As far as repercussions go, since when did progtards look beyond their good intentions?

            1. “I hope you’re not including progtards in this “we” who can think. I’ve never met a progtard who could think. They emote, like animals”

              Yes, yes, and the proof, of course, is they are always disagreeing with you and not convinced by your logical arguments.

              Lord, the arrogance.

              1. Sarc is correct. By an large proggies rely on emotions or straight up fantasy instead logical thinking.

                I had a disagreement recently with a proggie over the whole campus rape ‘epidemic’. He asked my if I had a daughter – thinking that I don’t since I was airing concerns about the rights of the accused. When I responded that in fact, yes, I do have a daughter, all he could come back with was ‘don’t I want her to be safe’? Nevermind that women on college campuses are safer from rape than women who aren’t. It was all about emotion, feelings, and damn the facts, logic, and reason.

            2. I was speaking about humanity in general. When shit hits the fan everyone reverts to our ancient programming in order to survive, including proggies.

              I do agree that proggies have willingly abdicated their ability to think in order to fully embrace feel.

              1. I do agree that proggies have willingly abdicated their ability to think in order to fully embrace feel.

                It’s easier, that’s for sure. I know because I used to feel that way. Now I think. It’s not as easy, and certainly less popular, but I’m fine with it.

                1. It’s easier, that’s for sure. I know because I used to feel that way. Now I think. It’s not as easy, and certainly less popular, but I’m fine with it.

                  Exactly right.

              2. I think there are progs who are irrational, and progs that are rational. The same for socons, neocons, and, yes, libertarians. Disagreements usually come not from one side being smart and rational and the other dumb, but from different starting points in values. Reason actually had an article about this not long ago. The good thing about libertarians is we’re the only group that doesn’t want to impose our views, some of which are going to be irrational too, on others.

              3. The thing about thinking is that it must be learned. Emoting is easy. You just feel. Any monkey can do it. Even Bo. Thinking though, that requires suppressing or ignoring what you feel and instead being rational. Responding instead of reacting. Some people just can’t do it.

                1. Thinking also requires you to challenge your assumptions and to admit you’ve been wrong and that isn’t easy for people to do. It requires a lot of direct, conscious effort and it seems most people like autopilot.

                  1. It requires a lot of direct, conscious effort and it seems most people like autopilot.

                    Yep.

                  2. “Thinking also requires you to challenge your assumptions and to admit you’ve been wrong and that isn’t easy for people to do.”

                    And yet hasn’t sarcasmic said that he’s never been wrong in his discussions with progs, it’s always they’ve that have been wrong (which he chalks up to their irrationality)?

                2. I think it’s incredibly arrogant for you to think that you think while others emote. Worse than that, it actually might be an irrational belief itself (since more and more science and philosophy suggests our thinking follows our emotions more than the other way around).

                  1. I think it’s incredibly arrogant for you to think that you think while others emote.

                    That’s right, nothing is real or concrete. Everything is a construct. Derrida was really on to something.

                    1. I’m not sure why you’re confusing what I wrote with Derrida and deconstructionist philosophy.

                      The ironic thing here is this discussion started with sarcasmic and Restoras saying how much our evolutionary past influences us, and then they turn to how they are logical and rational while others they disagree with are irrational and emotional. I don’t think any leading evolutionary psychologists would discount how irrationality and thinking-following-emotion are ‘hard wired’ in us all by our evolutionary past.

                    2. It’s the philosophers of a more naturalistic bent, like Hume and the analytic tradition that followed him, that are the ones that emphasize ‘reason as a slave to the passions’ as inherent aspects of our humanity, it’s the idealists who argue otherwise.

                    3. I can only go by what I’ve seen and heard from proggies. They emote, the feel and that drives their decision making process. This is not to say that others do not engage in this process – they absolutely do. I chose and generally choose to focus on proggies since it is progressive political philosophies and legislative action that have been the greatest enemy of freedom for the past 100 years.

                    4. There’s an irony here, since progressives started as a movement almost singularly focused on science, the merging of science with politics. Part of the foundation of progressivism as a modern movement was the rejection of the idea that dominated politics since the Age of Jackson that politics was about values, not rationality, and thus things like expertise were irrelevant and patronage was justified.

                      Sure, a lot of this changed with the 60’s when much more ‘arational’ liberal movements emerged. But I think there are still a fair amount of progressives who argue rationally, they just usually start from very different value points or basic axioms.

                      Have you read Haidt’s work on this subject (Ron Bailey has highlighted it quite a bit)? It’s very good.

                    5. But I think there are still a fair amount of progressives who argue rationally, they just usually start from very different value points or basic axioms.

                      Generally, they just ignore evidence to the contrary.

                    6. Or they ‘explain it away.’ But everyone does that. Again, Haidt has some excellent research on this phenomena.

                    7. Science and rationality are very different things.

                      Rationality is essentially to apply logic to arrive at conclusions.

                      Science is a system of testing hypotheses by comparing their predictions to observations and rejecting the ones that make false predictions.

                      Progressivism has time and time again gotten the reins of power and implemented policies that utterly failed to deliver what was expected, yet they do not abandon those policies.

                      The notion that they are scientific is really an expression of their emotional desire not to be emotional. They are every bit as deluded as the objectivists whose desire to not be emotional causes them to embrace what they claim to be “Reason”.

                      As far as rationality goes, the proggie faith that the ideas that failed to work three, then two then one generations ago are going to work this time around is just that… faith driven by their emotional inability to accept that what they desire won’t happen.

                    8. “the proggie faith that the ideas that failed to work three, then two then one generations ago are going to work this time around is just that”

                      The problem is that there is a lot of evidence in the historical record, it’s very difficult to prove causation rather than correlation, and one can gravitate to the points in the historical record that seem to confirm the values one has. So it’s very difficult to say progs, or anyone, is being ‘irrational’ in the way you’re talking about.

                    9. Yes, the original progressive movement in part included a desire to use science, fact, logic and reason – in order to manipulate whole societies and use government as a tool, sure but yes you are correct.

                      I don’t know at what point progressivism began to abandon observation, facts, science etc. as tools for decision making but if I had to guess it would be in the 30’s when, despite policies that weren’t working, they kept on doing them, doubling and tripling down. Or maybe it was later, in the 60s and 70s.

                      I don’t know Haidt, I’ll have to add him/her to an already overlong reading list.

                    10. If you only have time to read one thing by him, I’d suggest the Righteous Mind.

                    11. I’ll check it out, thanks Bo.

                    12. I don’t know at what point progressivism began to abandon observation, facts, science etc. as tools for decision making but if I had to guess it would be in the 30’s when, despite policies that weren’t working, they kept on doing them, doubling and tripling down.

                      The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

                    13. I’m relating it simply because you’re headed down the relativist road, which I associate with deconstructionism and other philosophical ridiculousness.

                      While everyone has tendencies to be irrational, there are those who challenge themselves to rise above their base nature and those who consign themselves to emotion and shun logic.

                    14. Naturalism doesn’t lead so much to relativism as it does the idea that humans are not programmed for Truth. There’s an objective world out there, and the scientific method and rationality is the best way to get to it, and human beings can strive towards that, but we are not programmed for it and will always fall somewhat short of it. Thinking that we evolved in order to fathom Truth with a capital T is pretty unnaturalistic actually.

                    15. Naturalism doesn’t lead so much to relativism as it does the idea that humans are not programmed for Truth.

                      They share a common path. Naturalism just doesn’t follow the road quite as far.

                      The rules of morality are not the conclusion of our reason.

                      Is that an observation or a rule? Could be just an observation, but I think most people interpret it as a hard and fast rule.

                    16. I was debating Tony here a while ago and it never seemed more apparent that the differences between us were not so much factual ones like what is the effect of the minimum wage on black unemployment or wages generally or productivity, but rather disagreements on values like fairness and justice. He thinks its unfair to pay someone below a certain wage in this society, I think it’s unjust to force a person to pay (and an employee to accept) what others think is a ‘fair’ wage. Of course we both look for empirical evidence that would suggest our value positions are ‘better’ for the world in terms of utility, but I know I for one would not support the minimum wage even if it were somehow proved that it had an overall positive effect on the general utility of society. It would still be unjust. And that’s the basis of most political disagreement ultimately, imo.

                    17. While everyone has tendencies to be irrational, there are those who challenge themselves to rise above their base nature and those who consign themselves to emotion and shun logic.

                      Well put. Though in Bo’s eyes if you rise to that challenge while recognizing that others do not, then you are nothing but arrogant.

                    18. The definition of arrogance is the belief that one is better than others in an insulting way, sarcasmic.

                      The opposite of arrogance as an attitude can be found in Matthew 7:3.

          2. We all live in a middle ground because we all succumb to our more base urges even when we rationally know better. The old description of human conscious as a soul trapped in a base body full of desires is pretty consistent with experience. Indeed, it is the only thing that I have seen that reconciles free will with genetics and evolution. Our genes give us our bodies and from our bodies come these desires, for sex or for blonds with big boobs or whatever. But then we have a will and a soul that can when it chooses, ignore those things and convince itself to do other things.

            1. Well said. Couldn’t agree more.

            2. Nobody’s perfect.

              1. No. And we all want and do things that we know are bad for us even though we know better. It is just how we are.

        2. I am a duelist

          Really, we’d prefer it if you left your legal disputes to be settled nonviolently in the courts.

          1. Don’t sell trial by combat short.

            1. Trial by ordeal is better.

        3. John, you sound like a Deist. The problem I have with rational atheists is that their atheism is political, and not based upon science, or philosophy.

          IMO free will is a product of Determinism, and The Uncertainty Principle.

          Anyway, your Dualism makes sense to me. =)

          1. The problem with attributing it to uncertainty is that “random” really isn’t free. I don’t see a lot of difference between saying my actions are the result of random and uncertain interactions in my body and saying they are the result of deterministic evolutionary psychology. In both cases, there is no “me” exerting any will or control. In that case, I think Satre called it when he corrected Descartes “I think therefore I am” and made it “there is thinking going on”.

            The fact is that we have a self and experience a self. I think arguing that it is an “illusion” makes no sense. An illusion for whom? An illusion necessarily assumes an observer. Without a self or a soul, who or what is observing this “illusion of consciousness”?

            1. I see Free Will not as illusion of Consciousness, but as choices made by calculating the probability of potential outcomes. That’s the “free” part, and some people pick really bad odd’s, and should remain free do do so.

              A person who has Free Will put’s a gas mask on the cat before he/she places said cat into the box. =)

          2. I am not a Deist. I think the problem with most theists and their critics is that they all assume that we can understand God on our terms. And that is patently ridiculous. We don’t understand the universe or nature on our terms. We can use our clever math and experimentation to describe it and predict how it behaves but we don’t understand it in any ordinary sense. God created the universe. He isn’t some old man in the sky with beard. If we can’t fully comprehend what he created, we sure has hell are not going to fully comprehend or be able to express in our primitive language and concepts God himself.

            1. Even though the probability of understanding God, and the Universe through observation, and experimentation is almost nil, we as human beings still have a choice to do so on our terms.

            2. He isn’t some old man in the sky with beard.

              Could be. You don’t know that he’s not.

              Whatever your response is to that, use the same logic for the existence itself of a god and go atheist.

    1. The Internet in pill form you say…hmm.

    2. I don’t know the proper feelings to have about an imaginary-sex pill. Should it be force-fed to bepenised persons to spare the world their evil sex drive, or, since a pill cannot give enthusiastic consent, should it be considered a form of rape?

    3. And it will just shut down the economy.

      Baby shortage imperils Japan’s economy
      http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/0…..-shortage/

    4. Hmm. Is there an ‘imaginary sex’ pill?

      In the imaginary event you have a painful or prolonged orgasm lasting 4 or more hours, stop using this pill and get medical help right away, or permanent problems could occur

      1. If I had a four hour orgasm, I’d just queue up the CNN Apocalypse video and call it a day.

    5. Imaginary sex comes in a lotion not a pill.

      You apply the lotion directly to the penis and rub it in for 10-15 minutes.

    6. If Willie Wonka made the pill which stops you being hungry, then I suppose the person who made the sex pill is his lesser-known cousin Willie Wanker?

  16. This CNN video is being held for release “till end of the world confirmed.”

    I am pretty sure the LA Times has the same policy about that video of Obama speaking at the Palestinian dinner.

  17. This CNN video is being held for release “till end of the world confirmed.”

    “Gerald Ford, was mauled by a circus lion today.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2ZKpq5QfDE

  18. Bacon-scented pillowcases.

    Why didn’t anyone tell me BEFORE Christmas?

    And for home safety in the kitchen, safely cook bacon in the nude.

    1. Dunphy has a whole set of these.

  19. So the National Enquirer is all over the Bill Clinton underage sex story.

    Bill Clinton has been identified in a sex lawsuit involving underage girls ? and the sleazy scandal threatens to blow up his wife Hillary’s bid to be president!

    In a bombshell exclusive, The ENQUIRER has obtained shocking court documents that reveal details of Bill’s close relationship with billionaire money manager Jeffrey Epstein, a convicted sex creep.

    According to the legal papers, Clinton traveled on Epstein’s private jet numerous times and partied on a Caribbean island owned by Epstein, who served 13 months for soliciting a minor for prostitution.

    “While it’s been reported that the two men were friends, Bill’s name is all over the legal papers, which are chock-full of sordid claims about Epstein,” a source told The ENQUIRER.

    “This could end up being the final nail in the coffin of Hillary’s bid to be president!”

    The documents filed in Florida’s Palm Beach Circuit Court, are part of a legal dispute between Epstein and lawyers Scott Rothstein and Bradley Edwards.

    http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon…..-enquirer/

    1. Given Bill’s proclivities and known lack of self control, what are the chances he didn’t partake? And Epstein must have been completely out of control. The guy is a billionaire. You can get away with a lot when you have that kind of money, including the odd romp with an underage hooker if you are careful. Epstein must have been way out of control to manage to both get caught and convicted. Doubtful Bill didn’t know what was going on.

      1. You know who else was guilty by association?

          1. Have you dealt with the Gypsies? They are an entire society based on stealing and begging. They are the one ethnic group and culture I have ever seen that manages to live down to the worst generalizations and stereotypes about it.

            1. +1 Driveway Sealcoat

            2. Well, John, after you’ve been placed under a gypsy curse and turned into a monkey, I hope you’ll regret saying those things.

        1. Yemeni wedding guests?

          1. +1 Drone Strike

          2. And Pakistani ones too.

        2. Hillary?

          If this story has legs, she might as well hang it up now and save her self a whole lotta trouble.

      2. Given Bill’s proclivities and known lack of self control, what are the chances he didn’t partake?

        Come on, dude. He’s obviously a horny bastard but sex with kids is not a “proclivity” he’s been shown to have. This is pure guilt by association.

        1. If this were with ten year olds, I would totally agree. He is not a pedophile. But this was with teen age hookers, who were underage but had adult bodies and were sexually attractive. So, partaking in this doesn’t make him a pedophile molester, the laws of consent not withstanding. It would just make him a creep and someone with poor judgement and impulse control, which is pretty consistent with what we know of his character.

          1. It really irritates me that people conflate ephebophilia with pedophilia. Two very different disorders which should be viewed very differently.

            Of course, when I insist on people using the correct terminology, it does come off a bit creepy.

            1. I tried to turn this into a sheep joke but couldn’t quite pull it off.

            2. A bit. Try arguing that the age of consent should be 16 rather than 18 sometime. I really want to have kids for a lot of reasons but one side benefit would be that I would no longer have to hear the “if you had a 16 year old daughter you would think differently”. I don’t think I would or will. If some creepy old guy is touching my 10 year old, I will shoot him. If my 16 year old has decided to get it on with some old guy, I am holding her responsible for having poor judgement. Sixteen is old enough to make a choice and know better.

              1. It is in a lot of the US (I may have researched this a bit a few years ago when I was early college and had a couple of younger girls after me).

              2. If you are like most dads, you won’t necessarily want to choose between holding her responsible and shooting the guy.

                1. Well, lap, there is always both. That is true. Shooting him is not inconsistent with holding her responsible as well.

              3. The age of consent is 16 in most of the country.

                The argument “if you had a daughter, you’d change your tune” always makes me think that fathers of teenage daughters should be ignored when it comes to this sort of thing.

            3. I think people conflate them because there is a predatorial aspect to trying to date a high school person due to their immature brain circuitry and emotional development. Also, there can be a wide age range in which puberty can happen. I was a late bloomer at almost 15. But I know a girl who got pregnant at 11. I’m not advocating a specific age of consent, but I’m not sure you wouldn’t still have problems unforeseen by the law at a younger age of consent.

              1. Also, there’s the matter of parental obligations. If a 16 year old becomes pregnant, her parents are still legally obligated to provide for her in most states. So you can see why they’d have an incentive for her to wait until they are free of caring for her.

                1. The parental responsibility issue is an important one lap83. But if the girl can consent, the fault lies with her with regards to her parents. And the father most certainly will be on the hook for child support.

              2. The problem lap is that you are right there is no way to tell when a person really is mature enough to “consent”. You wouldn’t want a system where courts tried to determine that. You have to draw an admittedly arbitrary line that is as close to the mean as possible and live with it.

                I am fine with their being an age of consent. There has to be some rule and that is the best we can do. I just think 18 is a bit too high. I would make it 16 with an exception going down to 13 as long as the other person is within say four years of minor. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for older people who sleep with teenagers. It just bugs me to see people who obviously consented to sex treated like they didn’t.

            4. It really irritates me that people conflate ephebophilia with pedophilia.

              Me too. There is a huge difference. Wanting to have sex with pre-pubescent children is fucked up and pathological. Wanting to have sex with young but sexually mature girls is the most natural and normal thing in the world.

            5. How is a male being attracted to fertile, post-pubescent females a disorder?

        2. It sounds like the girls were like 16, which is often not that different physically from 22 (a proclivity he is known to have). Using “kids” makes it sound like we’re talking about 8 year olds.

          1. Exactly. This was not a pedophile ring. In fairness, if I were king, the age of consent would be lower than 18 and most of this would not be a crime. If this clown coerced them in some way, it would be a crime. But it would be the coercion not their age. I think the age of consent is too high, because girls that age are clearly not children and they are by that age most certainly able to choose to have sex.

            That being said, the law is what it is and anyone who can’t forgo screwing teenagers and takes the risk of doing so is asking for whatever they get.

        3. 17-year-old. He might not have known.

          1. Many jurisdictions don’t even allow that as a defense.

            1. Even if the 17 year old lies and produces a false ID.

      3. It’s also good news for ? Jerry Brown, [who] has never given up his presidential aspirations. This may be his chance.

        Right.

        1. Why not? If Hillary goes down, someone has to stand up and be an alternative to Warren. Warren is going to make a terrible candidate. She has no executive experience and has only run one campaign in her life, and she didn’t run that one very well.

          The progs actually think California is doing well. Gerry Brown is to them what Rick Perry is to conservatives. I could totally see Brown getting the nomination. That doesn’t mean I think he has a chance in hell of being President. It just means the Democrats, once you get past Hillary are that desperate.

          1. She has no executive experience and has only run one campaign in her life, and she didn’t run that one very well.

            History has shown that, bizarrely, these aren’t as damning in a presidential race as you seem to think…

            1. The MA democratic party hopes that she is the next JFK.

              Fortunately, the bathit craziness in MA isn’t really shared throughout most of the country (other regions have their own variant of batshit craziness).

              1. What if she tried this approach: “My fellow Massholes, ask not what your country can do for booze, ask what booze can do for your country.” (Goddamn the liquor laws here are insane)

              2. People quickly forget that unlike the grand kids, the Kennedy brothers were not bat shit crazy progs. Even Teddy only became pro abortion to get back into good graces with Democratic women after Chapaquiddic. And even though he was the “liberal lion” of the Senate, Ted Kennedy worked with every Republican President from Nixon to Ford up though George W. Bush and passed legislation they signed and took mutual credit for. As much as I loath Ted Kennedy, he was for his faults a serious person who was willing to work with the other side. A fanatical nitwit like Warren isn’t fit answer Ted’s mail.

                1. …”As much as I loath Ted Kennedy, he was for his faults a serious person who was willing to work with the other side.”…

                  So a real cynic?
                  I’d rather pass on bi-partisanship, thanks.

                  1. Sevo,

                    One of the lessons of the Obama era it is that you can’t govern by telling the losing side “I won, now go fuck yourself”. It creates too much bad blood and even if your policies work the country will never accept them.

                    Ted Kennedy was the Senator from Massachusetts. The Massholes are generally idiots, but they are Americans, they do have the franchise, and they have a right to expect their Senator to represent their interests and views. I therefore can’t rightfully claim that it was wrong that Kennedy managed to get a few things passed or that Republicans worked with him. I don’t want them running a majoritarian dictatorship over me, so I shouldn’t be supporting one over them no matter how wrong I think they are.

                    1. John|1.6.15 @ 10:38AM|#
                      …”It creates too much bad blood and even if your policies work the country will never accept them.”…

                      Sounds like gridlock to me; I’ll TAKE it!

                    2. Nah Sevo. Illegitimate government is still bad even if it does the right thing. It is why you want a Republic instead of even the most benign dictatorship. Even an enlightened dictator is still illegitimate and that fact does more harm than he can ever do good.

            2. The country has a way of learning even if no one will admit to it. I honestly don’t think that the country will be too keen on electing a one term Senator from either party for a while. This is the only thing that makes me doubt Rand Paul’s chances in a general election. Obama has left a very bad taste in the country’s mouth about a lot of things including the wisdom of electing the new guy who has all of these bright ideas.

              1. One little nit to pick. Obama had no bright ideas, only vapid slogans and platitudes.

          2. “It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it.” – Robert E. Lee

        2. “It’s also good news for ? Jerry Brown, [who] has never given up his presidential aspirations. This may be his chance.”

          Please, no!
          “AB32, the state’s landmark 2006 law that forced steady reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, is on track to be a success, Brown said. Now, he added, it’s time to establish the goal for the next phase. California, he said, must show leadership in the battle against climate change. Specifically, he said California must do three things to help lead the way:
          ? Increase from 33 percent to 50 percent the amount of electricity derived from renewable sources.
          ? Reduce reliance on petroleum products by 50 percent ? largely by increasing use of electric and low-carbon vehicles.
          ? Raise building energy efficiency, partially by increasing use of rooftop solar panels.
          http://www.sfgate.com/news/art…..994824.php

          Moonbeam didn’t get that name for nothing!

          1. Jerry Brown would never win a general election. But the current Democratic Party is most certainly crazy enough to nominate him.

      4. You can get away with a lot when you have that kind of money,

        And he did. He bought a hell of a plea deal, and went on a rampage against the victims/witnesses.

        For what he did, life without parole seems more appropriate than 13 months.

        1. Exactly. For a guy with his money and connections to still get 13 months in prison and branded as a sex offender means he must have been completely out of control, otherwise nothing would have happened to him.

  20. Nice pic of a dog in a hoodie. You may want to scatter a few loosies on the ground around him and have a cop in the corner, gun trained on Fido while rubbing one out.

  21. Anybody got an opinion on the Marco Polo series on Netflix?

    1. Ridiculous but interesting nonetheless

      1. Seconded. It’s historically ridiculous, but also entertaining.

    2. On the plus side it has the enough of the obligatory harem nudity to make it watchable.

      On the negative side, Scruffy is right, it is pretty silly if you know much about history. It is also silly that all the main characters are Bruce Lee level martial arts masters.

      It didn’t help that I started watching this right after listening to Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History podcasts about the Mongols. http://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/

      The idea the Mongols were at all troubled by the idea of warfare is laughable after listening to those pod casts.

      1. Yeah, the only idea that troubled Mongols about warfare was “will we win fast enough for me to get the best women and loot?”

        1. That and dealing with ruling the place afterwards. They loved war, it was all the crap that came after they were not got at and hated. Ghengis Kahn had a saying attributed to him that went something like “winning a war is easy and many men can do it, what is hard is the moment you get off your horse”.

          1. Wait, the Mongols would sometimes get off their horses? Wouldn’t that be like removing their genitals?

      2. Why does everything that come out of Hollywood have to include the conflicted pacifist warrior? Yes, some people are like that. But that subject has been pretty well mined out.

        A subject that hasn’t been dealt with very well is the person who likes war and views war and the short glorious life as the ideal. Someone who isn’t bothered by dealing in violence and considers destroying his enemies his purpose on earth. That is an interesting character and one that rarely appears on screen. The Mongols are most certainly those kind of guys. Why ruin it by making them bleeding hearts victimized by events?

        Speaking of Mongols, did you ever see the Russian movie “Mongol” about the early life of Ghengis Kahn? That movie was fucking awesome and was very accurate in its portrayal of Mongol society. They were supposed to make two more covering the rest of his life but sadly I have never seen where any of them were made.

        1. I agree that I am tired too of the reluctant warrior trope. It would be nice to see a movie where the average Mongol was shown to love war because it gave him a good chance to get rich and it was way more fun than herding yaks on the steppes.

          I missed the movie about Ghengis. I’ll have to look that up.

        2. Game of Thrones exists to balance it all out.

        3. A subject that hasn’t been dealt with very well is the person who likes war and views war and the short glorious life as the ideal.

          Not a movie but, coincidentally, read this story at BBC this morning:

          http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30685433

          FTA:
          It says much for Carton de Wiart’s character that despite being one of the most battle-scarred soldiers in the history of the British Army, he wrote in his autobiography: “Frankly, I had enjoyed the war.”

          1. A lot of people do. The veteran as a victim trope drives me nuts. People don’t volunteer for multiple tours in war zones because they are victims. They do it in most cases because they like doing it. If you are not killed or maimed, war is the ultimate adrenaline rush. You never again get to live your life with life and death stakes every day. That gets very addictive for some people. And if they are lucky enough not to get hurt, it is compelling for anyone who experiences it. It is a terrible thing to admit to and thus most people won’t admit it. But the dirty secret of war is that if you walk away from it, it is a seductive experience. Veterans don’t all get together and talk about the good old days so much because they want to relive trauma or feel sorry for themselves. Some probably do, but not most of them.

            1. This urinates me off to no end. The only stories you see or hear in the media are always about some veteran who had something go really bad. Either the veteran has some physical or emotional scarring or you don’t hear about them.

              Nobody would have ever heard about Audie Murphy if he was fighting in Iraq. Why isn’t there a story about Brian Chontosh on TV yet?

              http://www.snopes.com/politics…..ontosh.asp

              The only story I remember hearing about a Medal of Honor story is the one in Afghanistan where Dakota Meyer got it. They immediately started looking into discrepancies about the guy’s story.

              http://www.mcclatchydc.com/201…..story.html

            2. The people I know with actual combat experience don’t talk about it at all. I have an uncle who was a Marine in Vietnam and I have never heard him say a single word about his military experience. He certainly doesn’t see himself as a victim, though.

          2. Or Chesty Puller

            “Our Country won’t go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won’t be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!”
            – Lt. Gen. Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller, USMC

            http://www.badassoftheweek.com/puller.html

            1. Fortunately, despite what you see on TV, we are still a long way from that happening. There are still some pretty rough and hard people out there Jimbo. I have been a lot of places in the world and I still consider Americans to be the last people I would want to screw with. Not everyone in America is some self loathing prog.

              1. Holy Shit!

                John please don’t tell me that you just called Chesty Puller a self loathing prog!

                😉

                1. No. I just disagree with his assessment of everyone else. The rest of the country isn’t as weak as Chesty thought it was.

              2. Yeah, whatever you can say about Americans, if you look at the rest of the developed world, they are much worse in terms of squishy wimpiness.

      3. “Scruffy is right, it is pretty silly if you know much about history.”

        The embellished subplots are what makes it entertaining for me and I think some of the acting is very well done, especially the female characters. I also think some of the sets are amazing in detail.

        1. Speaking of history and sets, my wife watched a documentary last night on the “Manners of Downton Abbey”. I don’t watch the show but my wife like most women does. The documentary was done by the technical adviser to the show. He is some British historian who is an expert of Edwardian habits and manners. It was an interesting documentary. The show may be a typical Brit soap opera, but it goes to tremendous efforts to make sure the people dress and act as Edwardian aristocracy actually did. This guy spends his days on the set correcting actors on every possible detail from the hat they are wearing to when they take their gloves off to how they sit and stand, everything. He steps in on something as small as two of the actresses clinked their champagne glasses in the background of a scene and he had them reshoot it because women in that era would never have done that. You really have to commend them for their commitment to accuracy. I wish every historic drama did the same.

          1. The show may be a typical Brit soap opera, but it goes to tremendous efforts to make sure the people dress and act as Edwardian aristocracy actually did.

            Mad props for that. I am sick unto death of movies set in historical times that are packed to the gills with cutesy anachronism, or just plain historical stupidity.

            The worst of it is, those anachronisms are never, ever necessary to make it a better movie. They are product of shallow, self-obsessed movie people who cannot imagine any other way of being than the way their inner circle of acquaintances acts.

            /rant off

          2. They should show movies on how absolutely deplorable REAL Knights and Samurai were. They had no qualms with testing their blades on random peasants. People were chattle to “nobles”. Nothing was noble about them.

      1. Rubio!

        1. Damn. I need to refresh moar!

  22. my buddy’s mother-in-law makes $61 an hour on the internet . She has been out of work for five months but last month her pay check was $19835 just working on the internet for a few hours. linked here………
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  23. Til I looked at the bank draft that said $9222 , I didn’t believe that my father in law woz like they say actualey bringing home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has been doing this 4 only about 1 year and just now repayed the morgage on there villa and bourt a brand new audi .
    Check This Out ………….. http://www.jobsfish.com

  24. U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) has introduced the “Ansel Adams Act”, which aims for the “restoration of first amendment rights to photographers” by prohibiting restrictions on taking photos in public places.

    Better idea: strip sovereign immunity from anyone who violates a person’s First and Fifth Amendment rights to photograph or record anything happening in public. Include mandatory sentencing and fines.

  25. It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it.

    Robert E. Lee

  26. my best friend’s mother-in-law makes $88 an hour on the laptop . She has been without a job for ten months but last month her check was $12564 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check out here………
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.