Bowe Bergdahl Charged with Desertion, Zayn Malik Quits One Direction, ISIS Conquers Tataouine: P.M. Links

Duck Dynasty's Phil Roberts not winning converts.

|

  • Zayn Malik
    Instagram

    Bowe Bergdahl has been formally charged with desertion. The two counts are "desertion with intent to shirk important or hazardous duty," and "misbehavior before the enemy, endangering the safety of a command, unit or place." The latter charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

  • Zayn Malik is leaving teen uber-band One Direction. So it's a rough day, if you're a 13-year-old girl.
  • Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson thinks that if atheists' families were raped and murdered in front of their eyes, they might change their minds about this whole "God does not exist" thing.
  • ISIS has conquered Tataouine.
  • POLITICO says Sen. Lindsey Graham is positioning himself as the "realist" Republican 2016 candidate. Okay.
  • The Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control needs to control itself.

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

Advertisement

NEXT: Threat of Grexit Looms as Things Heat Up (Again) in Europe

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. Bowe Bergdahl has been formally charged with desertion.

    I forget, what domestic blunder was the prisoner swap supposed to distract from? Bergdahl should be charged with that, too.

    1. Hello.

      “Bowe Bergdahl has been formally charged with desertion.”

      Now that was one awesome trade.

      Obama is just too damn smart for us all.

      1. He didn’t even get a first edition Garbage Pail Kid in return.

    2. Also hold him accountable for the five guys who died searching for him.

      1. That 2nd charge is meant to do just that, thus the possible life sentence.

        1. Good. Somebody should go interview that Marie Harf moron who told everyone that the administration had a better understanding of Bergdahl’s situation than his squad mates did.

      2. Wasn’t he on guard duty at the time, too, when he left?

    3. I think that was the IRS scandal? Or it was the one right after the IRS.

      1. Veterans! That was it, I’m almost positive. The VA hospital scandals.

    4. It’s so long ago, I can’t even remember. IRS? Obamacare website?

      I also don’t remember what blunder they used to distract from the prisoner swap.

      1. It’s blunders all the way down.

        1. “It’s blunders all the way down”

          -Inscription over the entrance to the Obama Presidential Library

          1. What about the Obama Monument, which will be a taller, darker obelisk built next to the Washington Monument?

            1. He’ll likely opt to just cover the original in pitch, set it on fire and rename it after himself.

            2. Or a sparkling fountain in front of the library, ‘The Cascade of Blunders’.

              1. Just one fountain? Or two separate fountains?

            3. You’re thinking of the Clinton Monument.

              1. The one with the, um, distinctive feature?

                1. It curves slightly to the left about 2/3 of the way up.

          2. There won’t be any inscriptions…because the Most Transparent Administration in History will be memorialized in an empty glass building with all signage redacted.

            1. So, kind of like a secular Crystal Cathedral?

      2. I think it was the VA scandal.

        1. The what now?

          1. You know, the thing that was like 17 scandals ago.

      3. That’s the point, this administration counted on the short term memory of the American people. Long story short: Obama and his ilk are douchebags.

    5. See?! It *worked*!

    6. Im no Obo fan, but what are we saying here, exactly? we shouldve left a US soldier to die?

      1. Some turn of phrase regarding making ones bed and then sleeping in it comes to mind.

      2. If that soldier was a deserter, no. But we sure as hell shouldn’t have traded any of our prisoners for him.

      3. The right solution was to bring him back in chains and publicly announce we don’t leave our people there, but we don’t forgive capital war crimes either.

        Trading prisoners to get him back was a mistake.

        Bringing out the cheerleaders to welcome the dude back on TV was beyond a mistake.

        1. Beyond the pale I prefer.

          1. kinnath lives beyond the pale.

            1. Dublin is kind of a boring town, anyway.

    7. “I forget, what domestic blunder was the prisoner swap supposed to distract from? “

      I believe that was the Veteran Affairs Department “letting people die from neglect, then covering it up, and the rest of the Federal Government knowing all about it for many years, and even pretending to care when it was politically convenient, but then sweeping it under the rug when it wasn’t“-thing

    8. I make up to usd90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to usd86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link……… Try it, you won’t regret it!… http://www.wixjob.com

  2. ISIS has conquered Tataouine.

    We don’t know how many yet. They marched in single file to conceal their numbers.

    1. Jesus, I didn’t know they had a military capacity in space.

      1. Thank NASA for making it a priority.

        1. Good one, Fisty.

          1. Say, that’s right! Wow, who knew all those crazy theories were true?

    2. And you thought it was hard to find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy before

      1. Before, you’d only get your arm chopped off. But now…

      2. How would know? They don’t serve your kind there.

      3. It isn’t just my mind that went there first.

        Whew.

    3. These are not the Muslims you are looking for.

  3. So it’s a rough day, if you’re a 13-year-old girl.

    It always appears to be a rough day if you’re a 13-year-old girl.

    1. …he says from personal experience.

      1. Is this Zayn Malik the same guy who bombed the Boston Marathon?

    2. Alternately:

      …especially the ones in Warty’s “club.”

      1. It’s much sadder to be a 13 yo boy in said club.

        So I’ve been told…

        1. Or happy, if you’re into that sort of thing. Some people are. Not me, but some people.

          1. Hey, stop talking about me when I’m not here.

    3. “OH MY GOD!! LIKE YOU EVEN KNOW!!! YOU HAVE NO IDEA! UGGGGGH!!! AHHHHHGGG!!!!”

      *runs to room*

      /lived through two daughters teen years

      1. Were you at peak booze back then?

        1. No, Peak Booze was when my wife went through The Change?. Holy Mother of God, that is some heavy shit….

          1. My teenage daughter wasn’t too bad. The wife is going through the change now and it is everything it was billed as and then some.

          2. I duct taped my daughter to the fridge for two years when she turned 13. It worked so well I made it through the wife’s menocrazy that way too.

          3. I read you guys loud and clear. Trade the wife in for a newer model when she’s 45.

            1. That can get expensive. 8 cows would be a bargain.

    4. maybe this makes me a bad person, butI thought the picture was of Dzhokar Tsarnev(sp?), who, I understand, some 13yo girls also find dreamy.

      I did not know that One Direction was a terrorist organization.

      1. Some boy bands have been known to promote military action:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UAnq33zRq8

  4. Wow! A NY Times article that criticizes zero sum economic thinking!!1!!on1
    The Libertarian moment is here?

    Whenever I’m tempted by the notion that humans are rational beings, carefully evaluating the world and acting in ways that maximize our happiness, I think of our meager immigration policies. For me, it’s close to proof that we are, collectively, still jealous, nervous creatures, hoarding what we have, afraid of taking even the most promising risk, displaying loyalty to our own tribe while we stare, suspiciously, at everyone else.

    Come for the decent article, stay for the comment section replete with economic fallacy, racist projection, environmental nonsense (Ehrlich mentioned of course). You know, gems like this:

    The real racists are those who claim that they should have as many children “as they feel like,” and the rest of us should just accept it.

    1. “The real racists are those who claim that they should have as many children “as they feel like,” and the rest of us should just accept it.”

      I’m desperately trying to figure out how this is racist and just can’t do it.

      1. Yeah, I got nothin’

      2. Was that a comment from the NYT?

        Because they can derp it up with the best of them.

        1. ’twas a comment. ’twas minor derp, but I couldn’t take that cesspool much longer.

      3. *Channels NYT prog commentator*

        Because southern, white Christians want to have as many kids as possible but are opposed to brown Latino coming here with their kids.

      4. Perhaps the commenter meant “speciesist”.

      5. Having more children than

        1. Welp, less/great than signs are still borked. THANKS, OBAMA

          1. It’s Obama’s interwebs – we’re just surfing it.

      6. I’m desperately trying to figure out how this is racist and just can’t do it.

        Try harder, Hitler.

        1. You know who else tried harder?

          1. A steel town girl on a Saturday night?

      7. Seems like being more “privileged” correlates pretty well with having fewer children. I can’t figure it out. Maybe “racist” just means “I don’t like it” now.

    2. Whenever I’m tempted by the notion that humans are rational beings, carefully evaluating the world and acting in ways that maximize our happiness, I think of our meager immigration policies. For me, it’s close to proof that we are, collectively, still jealous, nervous creatures, hoarding what we have, afraid of taking even the most promising risk, displaying loyalty to our own tribe while we stare, suspiciously, at everyone else.

      Hey, hold on. My partner’s green card was approved this week — now the country is full.

      1. HE TOOK MY JOB!

        1. THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!

      2. Congrats!

        *Closes national portcullis*

    3. Holy mother of God, those comments are idiotic:

      “If anything has convinced me that I am right, as a Democrat, to oppose illegal immigration, it is this article.

      “People in the middle and upper-middle classes don’t mind poorly educated, low-skilled immigrants entering the country.”

      Seriously? First of all, it’s a blanket assertion that if you oppose illegal immigration–or, in the writer’s convolution “immigration” overall–you must be in the lower classes.

      But since when do Democrats ignore anything that does not harm them directly? Since when do we say–hey, I’m OK, fend for yourself.”

      Okay – you realize that when you tell a poor immigrant not to come into the country, you’re telling them ‘hey, I’m ok, fend for yourself?’ Or do only Americans count as people?

      1. Somebody needs to use italics or blockquotes or better opening/closing “”, because that was confusing and scary.

        1. Don’t tell me what to do. I’m a loose cannon commenter who doesn’t play by the rules.

          1. Irish is a maverick

          2. So which commenter is your partner who is only days away from retirement?

          3. If you’re Irish, you must be McBain!

    4. How much you want to bet that they’re under investigation for using illegals as cheap labor?

  5. ISIS has conquered Tataouine.

    Holy shit, they’ve invented a hyperdrive!?

  6. Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson thinks that if atheists’ families were raped and murdered in front of their eyes, they might change their minds about this whole “God does not exist” thing.

    Just like Kitty Dukakis?

    1. Drinking rubbing alcohol will do strange things to your mind.

    2. Robertson kept going: “Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, ‘Wouldn’t it be something if this [sic] was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head, have a nice day.'”

      What a fine beard to waste on such a man.

      1. Um…

        1. DON’T TALK SHIT ABOUT HIS BEARD

        2. In an unusual turn of events, I’m going to have to agree with Nikki on this.

          1. I was going to defend Warty and point out that he was using “beard” in the context of a slang term describing a person who is used, knowingly or unknowingly, as a date, romantic partner (boyfriend or girlfriend), or spouse to conceal one’s sexual orientation.

            Then I looked at a picture of Phil’s wife (aka the Beard) and decided that if Warty was referring to her as a “fine beard” then he should have his driving privileges revoked due to his virtual blindness.

            1. HE HAS A NICE BEARD ALL RIGHT???

                1. Fuck, I love Crowbar.

              1. Extensive ? “nice”

      2. He is just making the same point that I make from time to time and stole from the Marquise de Sade, if there is no God, who are you to tell me what I am doing is wrong? You think murdering and torturing people is wrong. Well that is nice, I happen to think it is fun. Without some higher authority to appeal to, who is to say you are right and I am wrong?

        1. Exactly. He’s just accidentally saying it in a way that tells us his sexual fantasies.

          1. Maybe. But to know that you would have to read his mind. I think he is just making his point in a way calculated to shock people. I often argue with anarchists in the first person saying things like “that is nice but I am taking everything you own and if you try and stop me, me and my friends are going to blow your head off.” And often it goes right over their heads and I am accused of really being a secret want to be mad killer. I think the same thing is going on here.

          2. He does talk graphically about gay sex and cocks a lot.

            1. He does talk graphically about gay sex and cocks a lot.

              And they are always the ones that get caught with a rentboy and a bag of meth.

        2. So your argument is that the appeal to authority, which in every other instance you would mock as a moronic logical fallacy, is completely reasonable if you just call that authority God.

          1. And it’s not like I can’t respond with, “Nuh uh, my god says you’re wrong!”

            1. Sure you can. And at least withing your moral universe, your response makes sense. If however, your moral universe doesn’t include any higher authority, it makes no sense at all for you to claim your moral values are anything other than what you like. You like people and being nice. Good for you. Others feel differently. You have no ability to claim they are wrong.

              1. I don’t believe in absolute morality so I don’t disagree with you entirely. I just don’t think God gets it for you either. I mean, if He exists, and you correctly identify him, you still don’t have anything but your own judgment and reason to tell you His morality is correct.

                1. I don’t believe in absolute morality so I don’t disagree with you entirely. I just don’t think God gets it for you either.

                  Sure you don’t. You don’t believe there is a God. So how could you?

                  f He exists, and you correctly identify him, you still don’t have anything but your own judgment and reason to tell you His morality is correct.

                  Yes, I suppose he could be an evil God who leads you astray. That however is something that you are never going to know if true. If he is powerful enough to create the universe, he is certainly powerful enough to fool you. So if you believe he exists, you have to believe he is moral and his morality is authoritative since you have no way of knowing if it isn’t.

                  1. So if you believe he exists, you have to believe he is moral and his morality is authoritative since you have no way of knowing if it isn’t.

                    That really doesn’t follow. It would be completely possible to believe in and be suspicious of him–people do hold those two beliefs simultaneously. You don’t “have to” react any specific way to believing there is a god. You still have power over your own judgment to decide whether you ought to worship Him or not.

                    1. Sure it follows Niki. It is just a restatement of the whole Matrix thing. What if life is an illusion? Well what if it is? I will never know that so I can’t possibly consider it or act on it being that way. If I can’t ever know it, it is effectively an impossibility from my perspective.

                    2. Above replace “life” with “God” and you should now be an atheist. Congrats.

          2. No you fucking half wit. My argument is that everyone has to have assumptions from which to reason. Without a higher authority to appeal, there is nothing that says your assumptions are any better than mine.

            It is a simple argument. I don’t understand why atheists can’t ever grasp it.

            1. The problem is that your final authority is a childish fantasy. Not only are your assumptions not better than mine, they’re much worse./

            2. We grasp your argument just fine, John. We just think it’s horseshit.

            3. It absolutely is an argument from authority. “This is the correct morality because the highest possible authority said so” is arguing morality from authority.

              1. No its not Niki. First, I am not making a moral argument. I am talking about the ability to even have a morality. Can’t you see that difference.

                If you don’t think there is a God, good for you. Nothing that I am saying says you are wrong. All I am saying is that if you don’t think there is a God, stop pretending that your moral assumptions and morality are anything other than your personal tastes or have any sort of primacy over anyone else’ morality. That is all this is about.

                1. But the reason you believe God provides morality is because you believe God is correct about what is moral. But He is only correct about what is moral because he is God. That means you are arguing “correct morality is correct because an authority said it was.”

                  1. So what Niki? Really so what? Just because there is a right and wrong in an ultimate sense is no guarantee I or anyone else is going to get it right. I might get it wrong, but it is there so I am wrong. If it is not, then it doesn’t matter. I can’t be right or wrong. I just am what I choose to be.

                2. You can still have morality. It just can’t be absolute. Why would you think it would be?

                  I can accept that the views of the more thoughtful people I disagree with come from different assumptions about what it right and desirable and that we can’t come to an agreement based on first principles, but only by convincing people that my principles are better in some way.

                3. We are order creating replicating machines evolved over billions of years. Our existence only makes sense if we value our selves and value order.

            4. Do you get your impeccable manners from god too?

            5. I doubt it’s that atheists “can’t” grasp it and more that it’s a retarded and irrelevant argument to them.

              Even within a single denomination of a single religion the interpetation of God’s morality will vary person to person. Even the most basic rules that the religious broadly agree on end up with a laundry list of exceptions and justifications.

              Thou shall not kill (unless it’s self-defense, or there’s a war, or the voices in your head command you to strike down an unbeliever, or).

              1. No Jesse, you claim it is retarded because you would rather live in fantasy land where there is really a right and wrong instead of the abyss. You call it retarded because you are a fucking child who doesn’t want his make believe disturbed.

                The dumbest theist is less pathetic than the atheist running around pretending there is not an abyss.

                1. I got no problem with the abyss. I don’t know why people think that the abyss means that nothing else can be meaningful. There is no absolute morality, so what? There are plenty of other kinds of morality that seem to work pretty well.

                2. You call it retarded because you are a fucking child who doesn’t want his make believe disturbed.

                  I sometimes wonder if you’re afraid that it’s only your belief in god that keeps you from doing terrible things.

                3. A) Not an atheist. I believe that the the full breadth of the universe is unknowable to my very limited senses, but have not personally experienced divinity.

                  B) you’re claiming that atheists are living in a childish fantasy world because they don’t want to face the abyss but theists are somehow accurately assessing the universe by pretending there’s a father figure waiting to hug them when they get to said abyss?

                  Am I understanding that correctly? Because that seems…backwards to me.

                  1. A) Not an atheist. I believe that the the full breadth of the universe is unknowable to my very limited senses, but have not personally experienced divinity.

                    No, that means you are an atheist. It sounds like you do not have a belief or faith in spirits or gods.

                    1. Possibly. They aren’t really mutually exclusive, it’s just that agnosticism fits how I interpret the world around me in a very accurate way.

                      The essence of Huxley’s agnosticism?and his statement, as the inventor of the term, must be peculiarly authoritative?was not a profession of total ignorance, nor even of total ignorance within one special but very large sphere; rather, he insisted, it was “not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle,” viz., to follow reason “as far as it can take you”; but then, when you have established as much as you can, frankly and honestly to recognize the limits of your knowledge.

            6. Just because we do not want a god to decide morality doesn’t mean we want to morality.

              And in any case, given some of the things religious people think are perfectly moral these days (the Russians are being very good christians these days and the folks with ISIS and al-Queida are very devout) I’ll take my chances with no god at all.

              1. Just because we do not want a god to decide morality doesn’t mean we want to have no morality.

                1. Sure Susan. You want to make shit up and pretend that there is meaning in the universe. Yeah you want morality, but tough shit there isn’t one. There is just your will to pretend. That is it.

                  1. You want to make shit up and pretend that there is meaning in the universe. Yeah you want morality, but tough shit there isn’t one. There is just your will to pretend. That is it.

                    Said the atheist to the believer…

                    You’re really not dealing with the fact that even the faithful have an individual morality shaped by culture, experience and personal preference, which they then link back to God. A capitalist looks to the rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem and sees the benefit of enlightened self interest, the communist sees Jesus telling his disciples to give up their worldly goods and follow him.

                    As my mother always says, people are very good at justifying what they want to believe. That’s no less true for the Christian, Buddhist or anarcho-syndicalist.

            7. there is nothing that says your assumptions are any better than mine

              By George, I think he’s got it!

            8. It’s just question-begging into infinity. The “higher authority” begs the question. Your fealty to said authority begs the question. Ad infinitum.

        3. The statement “murder is wrong because of God” doesn’t contain any more information than the statement “murder is wrong”. You don’t need God for any of this.

          1. Yes you do. God is a higher authority than man and thus can provide real authority to give assumptions from which to reason. If you don’t believe there is a God, then your assumptions are your own. You like them but there is nothing to say I or anyone else has to.

            What usually happens is atheists dream up “natural rights” in place of God and pretend that there is some kind of rational imperative that requires people to respect those rights. In fact, there is no such thing. Nothing requires me to respect your rights or necessarily says my doing so is the right thing.

            1. Nothing requires me to respect God or his arbitrary preferences, either.

            2. But your assumptions about God are your own as well. How do you know your understanding of God is correct? Maybe God doesn’t give a shit about murder. Maybe more important things are going on that our puny minds can’t comprehend. Maybe the radical Islam terrorists have it right and God wants them to murder lots of people.

              And even supposing God exists and people can know God’s mind to some extent, what is to say that there isn’t an even higher authority than that?

              I think Warty is right. Inserting God doesn’t get you anywhere. If people want to use God as the source of moral authority, that’s fine. But it isn’t any different in content from an atheist saying “natural rights”.

              1. The Founding Fathers starting point was that all their writings flowed from the authority of God.

                Vico – among the greatest of all historians – asserted the same in his epic ‘New Science’.

                They felt the source was God.

                1. The Founding Fathers starting point was that rights–not ‘all their writings’– came from one’s Creator.

                  Not ‘the Creator’, or ‘Our Creator’, but ‘their Creator’.

                  This an incredibly important point–one that is constantly overlooked. The Founders removed rights from anything public or anything held in common and made them personal and individual.

                  Your Creator may not be my Creator, but both of our Creators endowed us with inalienable rights.

              2. If people want to use God as the source of moral authority, that’s fine. But it isn’t any different in content from an atheist saying “natural rights”.

                YES. That’s what I’m saying. It’s the same thing as the argument about the Prime Mover – “God set the universe in motion” is the same thing as saying “I dunno”.

                John, if you’re unaware, there are compelling arguments for a biological basis for the concept of rights. Here’s one that I haven’t read but I heard is good.

                1. And those arguments are horse shit Warty. How can you believe such shit? So fucking what, my biology compels me to respect rights. Since when can we not ignore our instinct? Instinct doesn’t make something right or wrong. So what? I don’t like my instinct and plan to ignore it. Who are you to say I am wrong/

                  1. And those arguments are horse shit John. How can you believe such shit? So fucking what, my God compels me to respect rights. Since when can we not ignore our deities? God doesn’t make something right or wrong. So what? I don’t like my god and plan to ignore him. Who are you to say I am wrong/

                  2. You are providing a master class in missing the point today. Do you think the Hebrews were on the verge of dying out from murdering each other and raping each other’s wives before Moses came down with his tablets? People knew how to act long before they invented god.

                    1. Yes. John has the causality backwards. Humans constructed a system of morality and codified it into a religion with an all-powerful enforcer, one that transcends even death. You get your carrot at the end.

            3. Yes you do. God is a higher authority than man and thus can provide real authority to give assumptions from which to reason.

              My God says that you must not eat bacon. And we had him before you did. Why do you think it’s right to offend God?

              1. So what Old Man? Maybe you are right and I am wrong. There still is a right and a wrong. I just am on the wrong side. That is totally different than there being no God and no right or wrong.

                My God you people are dense.

                1. My God you people are dense.

                  I never took you for an antisemite before.

                  1. Show me on the doll where that nasty Jew touched you.

                  2. I think “you people” refers to everyone who is not John.

                    1. I think “you people” refers to everyone who is not John.

                      E.g., Jews. That’s really very vicious.

                    2. I never knew I was jewish. Does this mean I can use the hard J?

                    3. Only if Antisemite John says that his god allows it. The Jew god is apparently a worthless piece of shit.

                2. So what Old Man? Maybe you are right and I am wrong. There still is a right and a wrong. I just am on the wrong side. That is totally different than there being no God and no right or wrong.

                  This means that at the absolute best, your argument shows that if there is an absolute morality determined by a being that has the power/authority to decide such things, this as humans does us no good, since we have no way of knowing anything about the nature of that being, or its tastes, or what the absolute morality it has designed for us actually is (since any scriptures/prophecies it chooses to give us could just be mistakes or lies).

                  How is that any better than a position stating that there probably is no absolute morality?

                  1. Android,

                    It is better in that it is at least internally consistent. If you don’t believe in God, fine. Perhaps you are correct. To me the worst thing to be is to not even be consistent in your own system. So, if you don’t believe in God be consistent and say your morality is your own and not necessarily applicable to anyone else. That is all I am saying.

                    1. It is better in that it is at least internally consistent. If you don’t believe in God, fine. Perhaps you are correct. To me the worst thing to be is to not even be consistent in your own system. So, if you don’t believe in God be consistent and say your morality is your own and not necessarily applicable to anyone else. That is all I am saying.

                      But to bring it back around to the original topic of discussion, it doesn’t make the statement of an atheist who tells the people murdering his family “what you are doing is wrong” any more or less valid than the believer saying the same thing.

                    2. Android,

                      The point is that from a theists perspective, they can say it is wrong but the atheist, if he is being honest and taking his views to their logical conclusion, can’t. What Robertson is saying here is “without God there is moral chaos”, which is true.

                    3. I don’t think that is true, John. The atheist and the theist just mean slightly different things by “that is wrong”. I say that what is wrong is hurting other people except when necessary for self defense, or defense of others who are not harming anyone. To me that seems like a far better moral standard that “what God says is wrong is wrong”. People sincerely believe that God says all sorts of terrible things.

                      I do see what you are getting at. And at a very deep level, you are right. Morality is something that applies in the context of human beings relating to each other and I wouldn’t say it is necessarily universal. I wouldn’t say it applies to non-human animals unless I can be convinced that they can comprehend and act in a moral way. It’s not immoral to kill a cow just to eat it. It’s not immoral for a polar bear to eat cubs so it can mate with a female. Morality exists for people because we are capable of thinking that way. Unless you want to say that there is such a thing as morality in a “state of nature”, I don’t think you can say that it precedes humanity in any meaningful way.

                    4. ayy lmao…

                      John|3.25.15 @ 5:29PM

                      To me the worst thing to be is to not even be consistent in your own system.

                      John|6.13.14 @ 10:43AM

                      Consitency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

                    5. Carl,

                      Internal rational consistency is not the same as petty consistency in the real world. That second statement doesn’t mean what you think it does.

                    6. I’m quite aware of what it means.

                    7. My morality is my own. Most libertarians understand this. I do not share a morality with progressives, I do not share a morality with conservatives. I do not believe rights are granted by governments or deities. My rights are granted by those around me who chose whether or not to infringe on them. My morality likely comes from a combination of logic and empathy that I use to navigate the waters of society. Even though my morality is my own, that does not stop me from hoping other’s morality will align with mine, and therefore make pleas to others’ logic and empathy so we can coexist.

            4. Yes you do. God is a higher authority than man

              As soon as the heretofore invisible sky god appears and says ‘well here I am unbelievers, you’re all living in this simulation that i built on my PC, and if you don’t say I’m the one and true god, I’m unplugging this rig’, then I’ll admit that you are right.

              1. I’ll add this. If there really is an invisible sky god who created this entire universe, then invisible sky god is a being that is so far more technologically advanced than we mutated tree monkeys that it would be incomprehensible to us in our current primitive state.

                Now who created the invisible sky god that created us? It’s just fucking turtles all the way down, we may as well accept that.

                1. I figured it all out one night, but the DMT wore off, and I didn’t take notes.

                  1. I figured it all out one night, but the DMT wore off, and I didn’t take notes.

                    I really hate it when that happens. I’ve written some songs complete with guitar solos that are better than anything ever in the history of music, but I couldn’t remember any of it the next day.

              2. Hyperion,

                See my comment to android above. If you don’t believe in God, fine. But do yourself a favor and not believe in God. Don’t claim not to and then sneak him in when you need some kind of absolute to reason from. Don’t put him in a “natural rights mask” or a “rational morality” costume and pretend you don’t believe. If he is not there, then all of that shit is nothing but your preference. A good preference in my view for sure. But a preference none the less.

                1. I neither believe or don’t believe in a god. You know why I say that? Because unlike other people who claim to know one way or the other, I’m not afraid to admit that I can’t know.

                  Not trying to get into a pissing contest here. I respect your beliefs or opinion or whatever. Everyone has a right to their own opinions. Just that at this time, no one can prove they are right.

                  But if there is a god, like I said, it’s a super technologically advanced being, that is all.

                  1. All I ask for Hyperion is internal consistency. I don’t know is a fine answer.

                  2. I neither believe or don’t believe in a god. You know why I say that? Because unlike other people who claim to know one way or the other, I’m not afraid to admit that I can’t know.

                    This is a bit of a copout. What you just said is that you don’t believe in god, but you don’t want to start a fight over it, so you don’t want to call yourself an atheist.

                    And for what it’s worth, none of us claim to know for sure that gods don’t exist.

                    1. Sorry, Warty, You’re way off there. In my first post I clearly said that if there is a god it’s a technologically advanced being. I’ve been saying this for a long time because it’s what I believe.

                      Does this god exist? I don’t know, neither does anyone else. I’m not trying to avoid a fight, as I have no problems with fighting for the right reasons. But I’m not going to fight over something that I can’t know if I am right or not. So I just admit, I don’t know.

                      Maybe none of us here don’t claim to know anything for sure, but there are millions of people around the world who do claim to know for sure, and they even kill each other over it.

                    2. Also, I don’t want to be called an atheist because I’m not. An atheist is someone who claims to know there is no god. That’s not me. I think agnostic is the proper term for me.

                    3. I think agnostic is the proper term for me.

                      I had a Mormon missionary burst into tears when I described myself as a “devout agnostic”. I wish I’d recorded the encounter.

                    4. I had a Mormon missionary burst into tears when I described myself as a “devout agnostic”. I wish I’d recorded the encounter.

                      Probably because felt a loss of power. Religion has been used as a control mechanism for a very long time. Now we just have government with all of their weapons and so they don’t really give a shit if we believe their bullshit or not. They try, but in the end, they just use force on us deniers.

                    5. The agnostic says the existence of god can’t be proven one way or the other. The atheist says that he doesn’t believe in god. The two terms are answers to two different questions.

                      But I always argue that the agnostic, by stating that there can’t be any evidence for god, has already stated that he doesn’t believe in god. It’s a built-in copout term.

                    6. But I always argue that the agnostic, by stating that there can’t be any evidence for god,

                      But this is not what the agnostic says. The agnostic says that there is currently no evidence for god. The agnostic admits that humans do not know everything–that humans may not even comprehend the depths of their ignorance.

                      The atheist makes a definitive statement out of the incorrect assumption that humans understand now all that they can understand.

                      For humans, agnosticism is the logical stance. Religion and atheism rely on unproven assumptions.

                    7. Also, I don’t want to be called an atheist because I’m not. An atheist is someone who claims to know there is no god. That’s not me. I think agnostic is the proper term for me.

                      Agnostic is a type of atheist. If you are an agnostic you are an atheist. Atheist just means without belief in a god.

                    8. It’s a semantic point, and not terribly important, but what you said is equivalent to saying that you don’t believe in god. I don’t have enough information to know whether there are advanced alien civilizations in this galaxy. There might be, there might not be. I haven’t seen any evidence to convince me that they exist or that they don’t exist. So, you tell me, do I believe in advanced alien civilizations?

                    9. This is a bit of a copout. What you just said is that you don’t believe in god, but you don’t want to start a fight over it, so you don’t want to call yourself an atheist.

                      And for what it’s worth, none of us claim to know for sure that gods don’t exist.

                      I know this is one of your “things”, but if “us” means “atheists” rather than “H&Rers;” (which it has other times you’ve brought it up), then your last statement just isn’t true, whether we like it or not.

                      Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (archived because it appears to be down):

                      Atheism is the view that there is no God.

                      Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

                      ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.

                      Wikipedia, being a bit more ecumenical:

                      Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7]

                    10. Any atheists who claim positive disproof of God don’t know anything. You can’t disprove a negative, as you know.

                    11. Well, you can’t prove a negative outside of math, at any rate.

                  3. But if there is a god, like I said, it’s a super technologically advanced being, that is all.

                    God is Izaya the Highfather?

                    Hail Darkseid!

                  4. I neither believe or don’t believe in a god.

                    ugh, this means that you DON’T believe

                2. Don’t go sneaking God in when you need some sort of absolute proof of the pythagoean theorem.

            5. Question: If god is the ultimate arbiter of morality how do YOU know what you are being told/commanded is actually right/moral? If you’re just obeying rules, how do YOU know if the rules are actually moral? The rules given by god could be capricious or arbitrary. If god tells you something is moral and you find it personally repugnant, you’re probably a better judge of the thing’s morality. You still have to figure the commandments through your own human filter.

              1. So far, this god hasn’t told me jack shit. I know and have known people all my life who claim that god told them this, that, and you know I think they are full of shit. People lie all of the time, and saying god told me this, it’s just a way of saying that hey I’m right because god said so! I’m waiting for proggies to start using this any time now, not sure how they missed it.

                As soon as god tells me something, I’ll let everyone know. So far, he’s chosen to remain silent.

                1. I give up here. I’ve clearly stated that I don’t know if there is a god or not. I’m open to the possibility until I see evidence one way or the other.

                  It’s no different than if a scientist before Newton would have said, ‘you know there might be some invisible force causing an apple to fall down from a tree, instead of up. But I don’t have any proof of it’. I hope to one day know.

                  To me, someone who says ‘There’s a god, I talk to him every day!’, and someone who says ‘There’s no fucking god because I can’t see him and we’ve proved evolution is real!’, are equally dishonest.

                  And yes, I believe that there are probably advanced civilizations out there, far more advanced than us. It’s hard to look at the vastness of the known universe and not think that is probable.

            6. Yes you do.

              No, YOU do, I don’t. Your limitations are not mine.

        4. But that’s not really an argument for the existence of God. The fact that a universe without a God seems like a nasty amoral place to some people is in no way evidence for God’s existence. Maybe the universe is just amoral.
          Then there is also always the possibility that God doesn’t agree with the human notion of morality and wants people to rape and murder your loved ones. It sounds terrible, but who are we to tell God what to think?

          I’ll stick to my morality based on rights and self ownership, even if it rests on assumed axioms. I don’t see how God is anything but another name for assumed axioms.

          Though I will say that the fact that some people think this way makes me glad that religion exists. If it makes some people behave who wouldn’t if they thought there was no punishment coming in the afterlife, that’s good.

          1. No it is not an argument for the existence of God. It is pointing out the implications of there not being a God. Nothing about it says there must be a God. It just says without God, there isn’t any morality or ability to claim moral superiority of one system over another. That is all it means.

            1. But, as I say, there being a God does not imply that your notion of God is the correct one or that God’s moral standards are the ones that you like. How do you know that the Islamic terrorists don’t have it right? You can’t. So saying that God is the source of morality doesn’t get you any closer to what morality actually is.

              1. So what if they do Zeb? That just means I am wrong. It still means there is a right, which isn’t true if there is no God at all.

                1. Well, the whole discussion seems pretty irrelevant then. So what if there is an absolute right and wrong if no one can know what that is?

                  1. ZEb,

                    Who says we can’t know it? I say we can. You just don’t agree. The point is that whatever you think, live with the rational consequences of it. So if you don’t think there is a God, stop telling yourself there is any right or wrong.

                    1. I guess I can’t say that we can’t know it. I don’t know how anyone could tell if we did, though.

                      stop telling yourself there is any right or wrong.

                      I will if you stop telling yourself there is a God.

                      I think morality is something that arises from the way humans interact with each other. It may well be a complete accident. But it’s what we have to work with. By and large, people’s sense of right and wrong is fairly consistent. At least in modern cosmopolitan societies where tribal ideas about in-group don’t dominate. I think that’s all we have and I think it is good enough to go on.

                    2. Morality is no more an accident. Why do sharks not have the teeth of a wholly mammoth? For reasons entirely different from accident and reasons long predating and wholly independent of our local deities of choice.

          2. Though I will say that the fact that some people think this way makes me glad that religion exists. If it makes some people behave who wouldn’t if they thought there was no punishment coming in the afterlife, that’s good.

            Hayek’s post-script in The Fatal Conceit is a good rendering of this point. He’s basically agnostic, but he appreciates religion’s ability to transmit valuable rules and customs over generations.

        5. So God told you that murder is wrong. Got it. Who, then, told you that God is the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong?

          1. And how do you know it was really God and not some part of your own mind? Or some people who wrote some books in the desert thousands of years ago?

          2. And why is it all right for God to murder? Because he seems to love it.

            1. And why is it all right for God to murder? Because he seems to love it.

              Dude, he had a shitty few millennia. He sent his son as an apology and we should be square now.

        6. You think murdering and torturing people is wrong. Well that is nice, I happen to think it is fun. Without some higher authority to appeal to, who is to say you are right and I am wrong?

          Oh, oh, can you skip to the part where you argue Nietzsche backs up your sky-daddy bullshit???

          Your infantile and profoundly ignorant understanding of philosophy is always amusing…

        7. ITT, John is a moron who projects his inability to create a moral framework without higher instruction onto others.

          1. You are a child Cyotoxic who likes to play make believe. That is all you are. It is pathetic you and your little “morality”.

            1. The guy who believes in God and can’t reason his own morality without that belief is accusing others of pretending and being pathetic. Oh delicious.

        8. Yes.

          But he’s wrong. As are you.

          Any reference to ‘morality’ in the bible/torah/quran is incidental. The point God makes in all three books is this–worship me and you get to go to heaven. And nothing else.

          All the ‘moral codes’, ‘laws’, and ‘lessons’ are incidental to the thing God wants.

          Morality comes from within–

          Moral things are things you wouldn’t mind someone doing to you.

          Immoral things are things you would mind someone doing to you.

          Doing immoral things puts one outside the system until restitution is made.

          All of this stems from internal human nature.

          The gods do not exist to moniter every action of every sentience. The idea that they (or, more properly, it) do, is a tenet of the cult of the One God and is not borne out by prior human/god interaction.

      3. Projection isn’t just for progressives anymore.

        1. What is so hard to understand? What part of it eludes you?

          1. None of it eludes me, John. I got what you were arguing the first time you argued it. But there’s no “counter-argument” because of the flawed axiom at the heart of it.

            As long as you believe God exists, you are working on faith. Arguing against faith with reason is impossible. We have irreconcilable differences in viewpoint.

            1. No SF. You miss my point. This argument has nothing to do with the existence of God. It is only saying if there is a God, there are no absolutes and thus nothing beyond our personal likes. There is no right or wrong. That is it.

              You think I am trying to convince you of God. I don’t give a fuck if you believe in God. That is between you and God. What bugs me is not that people don’t believe in God. What bugs me is people who claim not to believe in God and then also pretend there is any kind of absolute or right or wrong.

              1. Who is saying that there is absolute right and wrong? There is right and wrong in the context of human relations. That’s it. Nothing that happens on the moon is right or wrong unless people are there. It is something that either people invented or is somehow inherent in our biology. I think that most people arguing with you here will agree more or less with that. Maybe there is some other race out there in the universe for whom eating most of their children is the right thing to do (if you haven’t read any Frank Herbert books featuring the Gowachin, you should, if you like that sort of thing). To us that is morally abhorrent. To them it may be how life works and the only way things can work.

              2. But if God doesn’t exist, then there isn’t an argument anymore. Or the argument turns into “Is a morality made up by humans better than a morality made up by different humans?”

                See, from my point of view, asking if there is an absolute right or wrong doesn’t matter because a source that could provide such a thing doesn’t exist.

            2. SugarFree, You give too much credit for the ability of faith to sustain itself in a mind where reasons contradict it, in social environments that do not reinforce it and in a universe fundamentally indifferent to it.

      4. Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it’s an ethos.

    3. I would have thought the opposite.

      Actually, I would have thought that most people would just hold tighter to their beliefs if anything when something horrible happens. The old “no atheists in foxholes” fallacy.

    4. Sorry, Phil, I would just take that as further proof that an all-powerful and all-benevolent God did not exist.

      1. A single line of footprints only means HE WAS CARRYING YOU!!!

        1. Does this comment belong in the Tatooine part of the thread?

          1. Help me Obi Wan, you’re my only hope?

  7. After the Jeremy Clarkson Top Gear news, I have started watching the show from season 16 on (netflix). Great god damn show.

      1. Without watching the video, I’m going to say no. Tanks, yes, but not cars.

        1. Lada?

          Skoda?

          AT LEAST I’M TRYING.

          1. Lada? LOL. They bought the plans and the plant from Fiat. Finicky Italian engineering, combined with Russian assembly = surprising any of them even ran.

            1. I wouldn’t down play FIAT. They have come up with some of the most innovative designs in car history. And they have a car track on top of their building.

              Bad ass.

              1. Fiats are pieces of shit. Period.

                Thanks.

                1. Nah.

            2. My grandpa had a Lada with letter F stamped on the engine. It ran for more than 20 years.

          2. Come on, Trabant was the least most awesome Commie Car! I remember they tested one in Car and Driver back in the day, and it caught on fire.

            The body.

            Which was made of cardboard and plastic or some such thing….

            Spectacular!

              1. Exactly!

              2. That was great. Thanks!

            1. Some Trabs were powered by a 2-stroke V2 that was actually the starter motor for a Soviet Tank.

          3. Hey, I rode in a Skoda when I visited Romania a few years back! My brief exposure did not leave a positive impression…

        2. Not even the tanks. Storing all the ammo in the hull? Incredibly stupid.

          1. True, but T-34.

            1. Yeah, one of the few things the commies did worth a damn.

            2. Ok, I’ll give you that one.

        3. I knew a guy that had a Yugo. When asked about it, he said, “Yeah, Yugo. You go five miles an hour.”

          1. There were a whole string of jokes about how bad those things were.

            You know why all Yugo’s have rear window defrosters? To keep your hands warm.

            1. Yes, and that guy heard then all. The 5 MPH one was his favorite.

              There are also similar versions of those jokes for all the Eastern Bloc cars. Trabants had a rear window defroster for the same reason. 😉

    1. Hopefully they move to Sky or Netflix.

    2. I fucking love Top Gear. Even if you aren’t really into cars, it is a very funny and well put together show.

      1. Sadly, until a few weeks ago Netflix had seasons 2-20 of Top Gear. Don’t know what happened. BBC getting all bitchy maybe.

  8. POLITICO says Sen. Lindsey Graham is positioning himself as the “realist” Republican 2016 candidate.

    So he’s not running then?

    1. [after Fist drops mic and walks offstage]

      He’s here every day folks, but the material is always fresh. Just like the fish specials.

      1. Someone has to entertain you people.

        1. You people? We’re “you people now”.

          Mister “Big Time Show Guy, Got a Comedy Routine So Suddenly He Don’t Need His Old Friends No More”.

          OK, Mr. Hoity Toity Entertainment – fuck you, and good night.

        2. Here we are, now entertain us!

    2. It’s Politico, this is exactly the type of non-sense that you can expect from them.

  9. Mother sues B.C. Ministry of Children after baby dies in foster care

    A mother who says she was forced to hand her daughter over to government care is suing the B.C. Ministry of Children and Family Development after 21-month-old baby Isabella died while in foster care.

    1. My, how ungrateful of her. They were just trying to help. Plus, if they took the kid away she was probably in danger of an even worse death.

    2. The NDP would have prevented this.

    3. BIG EYE: What’s her problem?

  10. ISIS has conquered Tataouine.

    You spelled Tatooine wrong. *pulls lever, drops Robby into Rancor pit*

    1. I wasn’t sure at first if he was referring to Tatooine or not. It doesn’t even work phonetically.

    2. Tataouine is a Mos Eisley bar snack made from french fries covered with Bantha curds and Womprat gravy.

      1. Damn it. My lunch was inadequate and now I want poutine.

        Wait, I always want poutine.

  11. Realist?

    What fucking dictionary is he looking in, because he has to be using some other definition.

    1. That would be the FYTW/Political Hack dictionary.

    2. The same one as Cytotoxic?

      1. The book boasts over a million definitions, but all of them are for the word “peacenazi”

        1. Many but not all.

    3. He was looking at the wrong definition he meant “royalist”

    4. “Realism (noun): the art of depicting nature as it is seen by toads.” — Ambrose Bierce

    5. Well “realists” are assholes and so is Lindsey Graham, so….

  12. “Zayn Malik is leaving teen uber-band One Direction. So it’s a rough day, if you’re a 13-year-old girl.”

    Man, I’m having a rough day.

    1. Umm, yeah…

      *backs cautiously out of room without saying a word*

      1. You’ll be back.

        1. See you in 5 years. (too soon?)

  13. “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson thinks that if atheists’ families were raped and murdered in front of their eyes, they might change their minds about this whole “God does not exist” thing.

    Damn, if I’d have created a parody of an ignorant, backwoods fundie that statement would have been believably over-the-top. Also, the implied threat of conversion by the sword is a classic; reminds me of some other religion, just can’t put my finger on that…

    1. Is this God of his one to love or fear?

      1. It depends on what chapters of his book you want to emphasize.

      2. Both. He loves you as long as you obey. But don’t get him riled.

      1. I bet you could get even the most pious to feed babies to a Moloch furnace/altar if you trapped them together on an airplane for long periods of time.

    2. Since it was from Talking Points memo, I assumed that his words had been purposefully taken out of context for political reasons.

      They were not. It’s a pretty fair representation of what he said, except it’s even dumber because he followed it up with this:

      “And then they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now is it dude?'””

      That’s right! The only way to believe rape and murder is wrong is if God says so!

      1. Hey, without religion, some folks would have no basis for their morality.

        1. Can’t tell if sarc, but a whole lot of morality is selected for by evolution and can be seen in some degree in all sorts of other animals. So even if the feeble-minded think they need religion to direct them, they would have instincts without it.

      2. I’m always surprised that there are people who don’t realize that there are real christian bigots and homophobes in our society. Sure, the left exaggerates, but that doesn’t mean those people aren’t really out there.

      3. I love the argument that you should believe in God because it’s a more comforting thought. It’s a straightforward call for self-delusion. “Maybe you’re not convinced there is a god, but wouldn’t it be comforting to think there is and he will cast judgment on your enemies? And you have a purpose in life because of his will?” It’s apparently not about truth, but what helps you sleep at night.

      4. His point went right over your head. He is not saying he would do that or would want to. He is saying that if there is no God, he could do that and there is no way to say he was wrong in doing it.

        Now you may disagree with that and think the morality in your head has some kind of primacy. And that is a reasonable position. What is not reasonable is to read his comments as some kind of revenge fantasy. That is not what he is saying and it shouldn’t be hard to understand that.

        1. If there is a God there’s still no way of saying someone is doing something wrong.

          If God says something, that doesn’t make it morally right. Up until the advent of monotheism, gods were essentially just super-powered humans whose morality was no more advanced than our own. I’d actually argue that the God of the Old Testament’s morality is not only not more advanced than our own, but is actively more degraded and barbaric than 99% of people currently living on the planet.

          Tell you what, John. Go live for a year the way the God of the Bible tells you to. Unless you’re willing to do that (in which case you’ll spend a lot of time in prison), I’m willing to bet that you don’t get your moral sense from God, you just appeal to his authority without accurately understanding what that authority is.

          1. Plus your gods were always on your side, so TEAM! especially when going against (insert rival tribe name here).

        2. His point went right over your head.

          No John, it clearly did not go over Irish’s head.

          He just thought the point was fucking stupid.

          And you know what John, this is the point I’ll make about both Phil and you, if you need appeal to authority to have a moral compass, you are inherently immoral.

          The fact that YOU simply don’t get that people can have a rational moral framework based on reason without appeal to spectre reflects on you, not them.

    3. I didn’t read any threat in what he said. It sounded to me like he was just adding his sexual fantasies to the retarded premise that people who don’t believe in gods don’t believe in right and wrong.

  14. Scientists to Smithsonian: Cut ties with Koch brothers

    Three dozen scientists sent an open letter to museums of natural history calling on them to cut ties with the Koch brothers and anyone else with connections to the fossil fuel industry.

    Who on this planet doesn’t have connections to fossil fuels?

    1. The answer to these things is always Hitler, right?

      1. That is actually.. kinda accurate..

      2. You are correct, sir

    2. George Soros? His money’s clean and pure, right?

    3. Since climate change is going to kill millions of people why aren’t these scientists also demanding that every hospial the Koch Brothers donate to give back the money? It’s only ethical.

      1. I wish Chevy would bring back the Nova. They made Camaro wannabe’s happy, like all my friends who didn’t have a ’71 Rally Sport 350 like mine….

        /brushes back mullet

        1. Plus, they looked bad ass when pimped out like a hot rod – Cragar SS wheels FTW!

          1. My buddy Fisher had a really nice one with the Cragar SS’s – he put on about a $2000 (c~1980) paint job. It was SWAYT!

            He still wanted my ’71 Rally Sport with the split front bumper in Lime Green with a Jade Green interior. That car was a chick MAGNET, I tell ya….

            1. From 1978-1980 I had a bright green Ford Maverick Grabber, complete with factory racing striping and a spoiler. I guess mine was for Mustang wannabes. I don’t know about chick magnet, since the heater never managed to work despite trying everything — and that discouraged the chicks during Illinois winters from ever wanting to go for a second ride with me.

              I do remember one girl’s younger brother laughing hysterically when I tried to say it was a ‘sports car’.

              1. He was basically laughing at your penis.

    4. The hate for the fossil fuel industry is incredible. Nevermind that it has completely enabled our way of life, including long easy lives with heat and air conditions and no fear of starvation.

      1. Where are you with my fusion reactor, anyway? The sun tasks me with its fusing ways.

        1. I just need 10 more years!

          1. I hear the Russians are just FIVE years away! Hurry!

          2. Look, fusion this year, or I send Warty over to ask you why not.

            1. ….I’ll get it to you next week

              1. I think Kuhn wrote of this.

      2. The progtards and watermelons, in addition to thinking magically in the realm of legislation and reality, are also magical thinkers when it comes to things like food, shelter, and clothing.

      3. You hear it here first from Smilin’ Joe!

        The fossil fuel industry is a bunch on enablers!!!

        1. The Koch brothers are the devil in the progs view of government as the eternal saviour. The devil is an enabler of sin. It is beginning to all make sense in an insane sort of way.

    5. Open letters are gay.

      1. Ah, so you think these scientists desire the Kochs in a sexual way? That would explain the odd obsession with them.

      2. Open letter to hit and run:

        Dear readers,

        Rufus is gay.

        Thank you and have a wonderful day.

        1. An obviously inappropriate open letter, indicative of a deep and abiding undercurrent of microagression.

        2. They should’ve sent a poet. So meta. So meta… I had no idea.

        3. DONT TALK ABOUT RUFUS LIKE THAT

          Lets go get some poutines and drink our labatt bleu’s, eh Rufus.

          1. I hate Labatt and don’t eat poutine.

            I’m a baaaaadddd Canadian.

            1. So gay

                1. ZAPPA!!!!!!!!!

                  Now that’s a compliment. Thanks Bobarian!

                  1. You’re welcome

            2. But do you drink Tim Horton’s?

        4. I’m more of a grumpy sort not known for my gaiety.

        5. Open letter to HyR commenters:

          Enough with the religion/morality shit.

          Someone here suggested permanent threads for shit like that. I think that’s a very good idea.

          1. Thor commands me to argue with you.

            1. Thor? I expected something quirkier from you. How about Perun?

              Also:

              The thunder god went out to ride
              Upon his favorite filly
              “I’M THOR!” he cried,
              And his horse replied:
              “Of course you are,
              You forgot your thaddle thilly.”

              1. Keep your fake gods. My God has a hammer and a movie franchise!

            2. ‘Cross the Rainbow Bridge of Asgard, Where the booming heavens roar, You’ll behold in breathless wonder, The god of Thunder, Mighty THOR

    6. The single largest consumer of fossil fuels on this planet is the United States Federal Government.

      Speaking of which, I have a crazy idea for reducing the usage of fossil fuels. I wonder if these scientists will like it?

      1. I like the way this is headed…

    7. Covered in the Mourning Lynx.

      1. As a Pacific Time Zone dweller, I do not recognize the Morning Links.

  15. I hope this becomes the Team Red outrage of the week:

    Hair buns for 400, Alex: Mystery over Michelle Obama’s new ‘do on ‘Jeopardy’ solved

    Just so we can call it Bunghazi.

  16. Question: How much does the Bergdahl thing hurt (or not) Obama?

    What was he motive or angle to go and rescue his sorry ass in the first place?

    1. Old News…

    2. Since the media is covering for him, does not hurt at all.

    3. FAYK SKANDULL – moving on dot org….

    4. MAYBE if they catch one of the five guys traded for him holding a smoking AK with the bullet-riddled bodies of an entire elementary school at his feet…it will make top of the fold on page 8 of the NYT.

  17. http://tinyurl.com/phqymtu

    “On galois representations associated to Hilbert modular forms”

    1. http://tinyurl.com/nw5omdv

      Sorry, screwed up the link.

    2. I hope you’re leading up to a history changing discovery by linking these papers in a slow build up day by day.

      1. Isn’t it obvious? I’m providing the scientific basis for a libertarian colony on the Jovian moon Europa.

        1. ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA

          1. Don’t tell me what to do.

        2. How about a libertarian prison colony.there? I prefer warm weather.

          1. Dr, nonlibertarian. The leftists get to talk about sending us to camps all the time.

          2. Nope, Rura Penthe is already reserved as the libertarian prison colony.

  18. ISIS has conquered Tataouine.

    What will Jabba do now?

    And there goes anymore more Tunisia scenes in the new Star Wars movies.

  19. Re-posted –

    “A teacher at a Los Angeles charter school has been removed from the classroom and hit with a lawsuit from the parents of a biracial student who claims he barraged his class with racial stereotypes and said that Michael Brown “got what he deserved.”

    “Other parents and students, however, claim the teacher is the victim of a preposterous witch hunt.”

    Apparently, he also mentioned that President Lincoln’s opponents called Lincoln a n-word lover.

    http://dailycaller.com/2015/03…..wn-a-thug/

  20. http://www.nature.com/nature/j…..8177a.html

    “Gravitational tractor for towing asteroids”

  21. nothing like the rape & murder of your entire family to make you love Magic Sky Daddy

    1. You will know nothing but infinite love after that.

    2. It’s all part of his plan. No one usually mentions that his plan is to watch messed up porn.

  22. Zayn Malik is leaving teen uber-band One Direction

    I’m not normally one to say this, but… why the fuck is this news?

    1. Reason desperately wants to show its relevance and hipness?

      1. I can see maybe Pat Robertson thinking One Direction is “relevant” or “hip” but not anyone at Reason.

        1. Well the entertainment news was all talking about Malik so I guess that makes him “relevant”.

          1. The entertainment news is being trolled.

    2. Winston needs something to complain about.

      1. Is Anchorman 2 the most important film of 2013?

    3. At least the news that Looking wasn’t renewed for Season 3 didn’t make it to reason. Oh, did it?

      1. Great, thanks for ruining the suprise.

        /stomps off in a huff

  23. http://link.springer.com/chapt….._32#page-1

    “The Iceberg and the Titanic: Human Economic Behavior in Ecological Models”

    1. Dibs on the Inara model.

      1. Dibs on the “Emma Stone” model…

    2. Kids, it’s no longer plastics. Get into robotics. Shit is getting real.

      1. robotics is so 2000s. Teledildonics is the future

          1. Plate o’ robot shrimp.

            1. Exactly. John Wayne was a fag.

              1. He answered the door wearing a dress.

                1. Really, Hit & Run should do a post on the glory that is that movie. Brought to us by Liquid Paper and the Monkees.

                2. No, it was like this.

    3. They done took our jerbz!

      /The dogs

      1. Actually, that’s a concern. Now, Billy, would you rather have a nice robot pet that will live forever and never makes a mess, or mangy old Fido here?

        1. Think of how that could apply to human like companions … just sayin …

  24. ISIS has conquered Tataouine

    The French restaurant in Tunis?

  25. http://link.springer.com/artic…..012-9461-8

    “Instabilities in the Sun?Jupiter?Asteroid three body problem” by John Urschel of the Baltimore Ravens.

    1. Was that the guy who just quit because of fear of brain injury?

      1. No. He’s still in the league. He just published another paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.0565

        1. I bet he’s quite the hit in the locker room. Probably hard to get the guys back on the field after half time when they’re having a lively conversation about cascadic multigrid algorithms.

          1. I hear he has a teaching job at Penn State this summer.

            1. I’m sure the NFL gig pays more, but it’s so short lived, I think I’d take the Penn State gig if it’s going to become a tenured position. Little easier on the body too.

              1. He’s listed as $546,140 with the Ravens: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/ran…..it/guard/.

                With a PhD in math, he could make about $150,000 a year.

                I’d say, he should stay in the league as long as possible. He should use it to gain name recognition. Then, when his body starts to decline, retire and finish his graduate studies.

                1. With a PhD in math, he could make about $150,000 a year.

                  Where? Maybe a math phd that found his way into finance is raking in that kind of dough, but the average one is not.

                  1. If he can do any kind of applied statistics/big data/machine learning/AI algorithms, he’s getting paid. And I suspect he can. Weirdly, before that chap, the Ravens had Matt Birk as center for years. He’s the dude who went to Harvard, lost 90 pounds the minute his playing days ended (but is extremely pro-life/nobama.)

  26. Feminism? So pas?. I’m more interested in the post-feminist wave that ISIS has to offer:

    Western analysts have also neglected the possibility that, through its repetitive disavowal of gender equality, ISIL’s manifesto may be targeting those women who have found feminism’s quest for parity hollow and unfulfilling. As such, these women may consider joining ISIL because they have given up on equality altogether.

    Let’s also not forget that forward-thinking muslim feminists know that gender segregation is the true answer to our problems:

    The emerging analysis fails to even consider the fact that ISIL’s female recruits may see gender segregation, freely chosen, as a solution to the discrimination, abuse and other problems facing women. Indeed, Al-Khansaa’s manifesto contains a critique of various feminist issues. For example, it denounces plastic surgery (and its inherent degradations), which leads women to “demand that surgeons change their nose, ear, chin and nails,” as well as an untrammeled careerism, which drives women to “farthest mountains and deepest valleys” in pursuit of an unachievable equality while accruing gobs of guilt for neglecting their jobs as mothers.

    1. I see it clearly now. The ultimate goal of feminism was always to willingly become the property of a bunch of barbarians who will stone them to death if they get too mouthy.

      I hope the SJWs are read to follow them.

    2. It’s Al Jazeera.

  27. Obama Fails To Show After Being Introduced at ObamaCare Event

    The president finally arrived eight minutes after being introduced, but did not offer an explanation or apology to the crowd

    He probably thought *everything* about the Affordable Care Act had been rescheduled.

    1. I’m sure he was just finishing a quick 18.

    2. He was just reading the newspaper attending an impromptu briefing on important world matters that went over time.

    3. He’s done totally fucked up one of the best healthcare system on earth. Mission accomplished, nothing else to do.

      1. Libertarian Moment!

        1. Everything is a libertarian moment, no?

          1. Who is more delusional: the folks at Reason talking about the inevitable libertarian moment or the homeless guy with a sandwich board proclaiming that “The End of the World is Nigh?”

            1. The folks at Reason. Although both are to some degree delusional.

            2. Whoa, are you saying the same bright minds that put Weigel and Richman on the payroll make serious errors of judgement elsewhere?

            3. They’re equally delusional, but Reason folks probably smell better. Although I can’t say for sure.

      2. He’s the best worst president in history. No one can take that away from him.

        1. The next one?

          1. I meant not yet. As godawful as he is, a president could be theoretically worse.

        2. President Biden begs to differ b

          1. Not is president Hill can beat him to it.

    4. SIGNATURE ACHIEVEMENT

  28. Special Forces invade Texas. I say bring it on. I always wanted to mount a .50 in my pickup bed.

  29. Wow, people in Indiana are having a shit fit over this “religious freedom” bill. Apparently it means we will no longer serve black people at lunch counters and we will stone gay people here.

    1. They stopped stoning gay people in Indiana? Huh, I guess I haven’t been there since November, and things change quickly in Indiana. I mean it’s like one day there’s no corn and then ‘poof’, there the fuck it is!

    2. It does create a civil action by individual employees against their employers for failing to accomodate their religious beliefs, so as a business owner, you’re would be hostage to the whims over whomever your most religious employee is. That is, even if you’re fine baking a gay wedding cake, if your cashier won’t serve them, you’re now powerless to fire them for not doing their job.

  30. Speaking of the “Another douchebag named Bo”-story….

    …i think an angle which wasn’t widely seen was the degree to which the NYT really went above and beyond the call of TEAM UBER ALLES-duty to try and destroy the credibility all the other members of Berghdahl’s platoon who accused him of deserting.

    I know its like “par for the course” for the Times, and no one is the slightest bit surprised, but they sicc’ed Eric Schmitt on the story, and he was supposed to be one of their “best people”….

    (*notable= he’s also the same guy who attended briefings about chemical weapons munitions discovered in Iraq in 2004… and sat on the story for 8 years…. then ran it as an ‘expose’ that the Bush Admin had ‘repressed’ the story because it didn’t fit the WMD narrative)

    ….basically, the emphasis they placed on discrediting his *unit*, and the extensive effort made to try and paint Berghdahl as “driven away” rather than as “a deserter” was one of the more-blatant examples of ‘hack journalism’ i’ve ever seen in the paper of record. Basically because it was so unbelievably inconsistent with the actual *facts* of the story. “Piss on me and tell me its raining”-type journalism.

    1. So, what have you people done with Bo? I haven’t seen him in a while.

      1. I have no idea who you’re talking about

    2. It’s part of progressivism: those who disagree with you cannot merely be critiqued, they must be destroyed. Also, see my comment at 4:49.

  31. In today’s favorite-H&R-topics news:

    “A group of circumcision protestors have crafted an incredibly realistic foreskin sculpture in an effort to raise awareness for their cause. And you can buy one for only $1,000 on their Kickstarter.”

    http://www.cosmopolitan.com/se…..cumcision/

    1. It’s always about the protestors. They’re loud, they get the press coverage. But won’t someone think about the circumcision protestees?

    2. “A group of circumcision protestors”

      They have those?

      Personally, I think people who do that freaky shit with their earlobes are worse

      I mean, ears and dicks are both pretty ugly to begin with. but people don’t have dicks attached to their head. well, most people.

  32. Abraham Lincoln and plays just don’t seem to mix well:

    “About Face Theatre is pleased to continue its 2014-15 season with the Chicago premiere of ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS A F*GG*T by Bixby Elliot… [asterisks in original]

    “Discover the truth lurking just beneath the stovepipe hat in this clever, time-jumping play about history, family and the importance of heroes.”

    http://www.broadwayworld.com/c…..-20150324#

  33. Someone really needs to work on the “list of federal political scandals” on wikipedia concerning Obama. There are only FIVE of them!

  34. Reuters =

    Campus ‘Rape Culture’ is Complete Horseshit

    ” If you lived in Gallup, New Mexico in 2013, you were 47 times more likely to be raped than if you attended Harvard, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) statistics. Yet chances are you won’t see any protesters in New Mexico. ….

    A 2014 report from the Department of Justice called Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995?2013 found that non-students aged 18-24 were 20% more likely to be sexually assaulted than students. Also, as these Reuters graphics show, the severity of the assault was worse for non-students, the rate of completed rape as opposed to other kinds of assault being 50% higher.”

    Noting = no other media organization will draw any fucking attention to this point at all.

      1. DONT INVALIDATE MY EXPERIENCES

        Actual rape-culture-debunking report, here

        1. So…Scott Walker didn’t finish college because he was pursuing rape culture?

    1. actually –

      if any other media DO draw any attention to this report, it will be entirely to highlight *minor details far below the headline* which contribute to their ‘rape hysteria’ narrative rather than undermine it….

      specifically, things like =

      Rape and sexual assault victimizations of students (80%)
      were more likely than nonstudent victimizations (67%) to
      go unreported to police
      ….
      Fewer than 1 in 5 female student (16%) and nonstudent
      (18%) victims of rape and sexual assault received assistance
      from a victim services agency”

      while scrupulously avoiding ‘complicating’ data, such as

      “Student victims (12%) were more likely than nonstudent
      victims (5%) to state that the incident was not important
      enough to report.”

      …. which seems to suggest contradicting attitudes = a willingness to categorize ‘sexual assault’ much more broadly…but also treating it as less significant.

    2. Well, at least the media has no class bias, so we can rule that out as a motive for covering coeds-in-peril rather than waitresses and clerks.

  35. Obama = Imperialist Capitalist Pig, Say Venezuelans

    I lol’ed

  36. He does talk graphically about gay sex and cocks a lot.

    I noticed that. Like it’s on his mind all the time or something. Like he just can’t get the picture of a thick, hard cock out of his brain, and that disturbs him, so he just jabbers on about the gay. As if his words were a talisman warding off buttsecks.

    Reminds me of this.

    1. That, and the Smoove B editorials were the best things the Onion ever did.

      1. Don’t forget Herbert Kornfeld!

        1. Tha Letta Opener of Death was great, admittedly.

      2. Oh, yeah, Smoove B. “I’m gonna give it to you”

      3. That, and the Smoove B editorials were the best things the Onion ever did.

        Fuck yeah! That and Herbert Kornfeld, before they killed him off.

  37. ISIS has conquered Tataouine.

    And Al Qaeda has defaced Ratatouille.

    (*)By the way, now we know Robby is not a Star Wars fanatic.

  38. I have my reservations about Cruz, but he is excellent on energy and his willingness to take on King Corn.

    http://business.financialpost……king-corn/

  39. Bowe Bergdahl Charged with Desertion,

    Hasn’t this man suffered enough.

    He was fighting for conoco philips and the like…not the american people.

    1. Re: Alice Bowie,

      He was fighting for conoco philips and the like

      I thought he was fighting for souvenirs, just like every other GI that has invaded other lands since WWI onward.

      Maybe Afghan souvenirs are not as collectible and that is why he deserted. I don’t know.

      1. Maybe he was trying to get the whole set? Some of them are hard to find.

      2. If you count loot and rape as souvenirs, that’s been the motivation of many a soldier for a lot longer than that.

    2. 2/10 lacks effort

    3. lol

      Afghanistan, Alice. we were there on behalf of Big Ruby to steal all their *jewels*

      1. *note = the reference is to a Michael Yon piece from way back where he quoted some SOF guy who said that half the people he interviewed thought that the Americans were in Afghanistan to capture their *ruby mines* and kidnap their women.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.