Extinction is Not Forever: Q&A With The Long Now Foundation's Ben Novak
"Conservation has done 40 years of 'Save the pandas, save the rhinos; if they go extinct, everything's going to hell.' It's been a lot of doom-and-gloom, without a lot of emphasis on, 'Here's a problem. How do we solve it?'" says Ben Novak, lead researcher on a project aiming to bring back the passenger pigeon from extinction.
Novak's work is part of a broader campaign of "de-extinction" being funded by The Long Now Foundation, a nonprofit organization devoted to fostering, in its own words, "long-term thinking and responsibility in the framework of the next 10,000 years." The Long Now wants to bring back other species, too, and even has a team devoted to de-extinctifying the woolly mammoth.
Novak and his team are studying DNA from taxidermied museum specimens and planning to insert key genes into the genomes of band-tailed pigeons.
"The bird we create will, hopefully, be a bird that looks like a passenger pigeon, acts like a passenger pigeon, could fool anybody into thinking, 'That's the original passenger pigeon.' But at the genetic level, it's a band-tailed pigeon that's been adapted into being a passenger pigeon," says Novak. The process will also involve teaching the birds to behave like passenger pigeons did, possibly by pairing them with homing pigeons dyed to look like passenger pigeons.
The last passenger pigeon died in 1914. So why bother bringing back a bird that clearly couldn't cut it in the modern world? Novak says his primary motivation creating a more robust ecosystem by reintroducing greater biodiversity.
The passenger pigeon existed in million- or even billion-bird flocks that Novak believes had a profound effect on the ecosystem of the Eastern United States when they would roost and feed in trees, breaking branches and clearing out huge tracts of forest along the way. These massive "disturbance cycles" would clear the way for new growth and reinvigorate the ecosystem in the same way that controlled burns of forest do today.
Novak says that undertaking research on projects like this is difficult in a world filled with anti-GMO hysteria and notes that the project has already drawn ample criticism from individuals and groups who fear a Jurassic Park-esque catastrophe on a global scale.
"I got an email telling me to 'Pull out now before our monster pigeon destroys the world,'" says Novak.
In response, he points out that humans successfully wiped out the species in the 19th century using muzzle-loaded shotguns and nets. In an age of satellite GPS tracking, he says we likely have little to fear from the pigeons.
A critique he takes much more seriously comes from certain segments of the conservation movement that see "de-extinction" as a flashy distraction from more traditional, proven methods of saving endangered species and reviving ecosystems. But Novak rejects that sort of zero-sum thinking and believes he's only bringing another potential solution to the table.
"The real, moral fiber of the conservation movement for the past 40 years has been, 'Extinction is forever, so prevent it,'" says Novak. "In my mind, 'extinction is forever' should've never been the foundation of motivation to begin with, because it implies there's a finite end to solutions."
Watch the video above for the full interview with Novak, and scroll down for downloadable versions. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.
Approximately 10 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Shot by Alexis Garcia. Music by Chris Zabriskie. Additional stock footage drawn from the Creative Commons.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
...groups who fear a Jurassic Park-esque catastrophe on a global scale.
I know the movie wasn't the greatest but to call it a catastrophe is a bit much.
It is the best movie ever made.
Watched it with my 7 year old yesterday. Too bad the sequel sucks.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. How many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?
Sigh. Young Guns II. I've said it before. Don't make me say it again.
Star what?
I'm instructing the United States attorneys in my district to issue a subpoena for the IP addresses, devices and addresses of the two of you.
There he is! There he is! Ah...not so toothless as we were led to believe. So much the better!
THIS IS HIT & RUN V!!!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!!
Phantom what?
It's like you guys have never heard of Gymkata.
+1 sound of the axe
*standing ovation*
What about "Howard the Duck", fer Chrissakes!?!?!?!
LookI've been pretty clear about Die Hard's place in this discussion.
Pulp. Fiction. That is all.
Pulp Fiction is great, but it's not even Tarantino's best film.
I'm sure sarcasmic has come to see it my way in the past eleven days.
It's pretty fucking obvious that the Dark Crystal is the best movie ever.
Piranha Part Two: The Spawning
Written and directed by James Cameron. Has he made a better movie yet?
I got a new job in Feb 1983. They had just hired a salesguy also named Scott 10 days earlier, so my boss called me "Scott Two- The Spawning"... soon shortened to just "Spawn".
A billion pigeons were wiped out with shot guns and nets? I find that a little hard to swallow.
I, for one, look forward to serving our new pigeon overlords.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRW06RZ7aWw
This was totally in the wrong spot.
Perhaps you can find a link and make them eat crow.
http://www.audubon.org/magazin.....nt-extinct
So yeah it wasn't just shot guns and nets. They poised them and burned trees to the ground to kill them. It's like saying the problem with fishing is sportsmen and not mentioning the Spanish fishing fleet.
I was looking for a bird pun. Show yourself to the exit, sir.
He tried to wing it.
Ok...um...your mom is like Sternidae, everybody gets a tern.
I bet that would really tern heron
Bonus points for a double.
Well of course toucan get you more points.
So you might say that passenger pigeons are Wood Chirpers?
Look up the origin on the term "stool pigeon". It's not nice.
eeeeewwwww.
Well, many of the "shotguns" were punt guns. 10 to 12 feet long, 50mm+ barrel (2"+), a pound or so of shot, mounted on a punt (small boat). Sneak up on a flock of birds resting on a pond.
This was market hunting. Fifty birds with one shot, then sell them to restaurants as cheap meat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punt_gun
WANT
The telegraph is what really did them in.
This time around, they will be sliced and diced by giant, "eco-friendly" windmills!
He's just trying to pay off Brom Stikk instead of having to call sidekicks for help.
Bring 'em back so we can wipe 'em out again!
Simpsons already did it.
Life finds a way. And then eats Richard Attenborough.
Mmmm. Tasty.
/earthworm
I wish some critter *would* eat that Maluthusian piece of crap.
I'll be honest, I wish Pleistocene rewilding was big in the environmental movement. I'd take it over the 'clean energy sans nuclear' scams.
No kidding. I bet a megatherium could fuck up those overgrown shrubs in my yard.
That music made pigeons seem dreamlike.
If they're anything like the pestilence birds that infest the grounds of my office, I don't want them back.
According to the hipster in the video, they are not. They are much, much worse.
Be thankful they're not whippoorwills.
But without whippoorwills how will I know how long randy Travis' love will last? HOW?!?
That would be a small price to pay.
More poeple should read science fiction. The traditional stuff. It gives you a sense of optimism in the future by exploring what the human race can do if it wants to.
Instead, most people think Earth is all we have and we're killing it and we're all gonna die for that sin. They refuse to look up and out.
I'm all for moving forward in science, but
I'd like to get rid of guessing before bringing back something from the dead. Has no one seen Pet Sematary?
"No fair daddy. No fair."
I don't think his idea is to bury a million dead birds in a cursed Indian burial ground. But I could be wrong.
But that's a brilliant idea! How could it go wrong? Pet Sematary Three: the Pigeoning sounds great! They could bring back Denise Crosby!
(crickets)
Clearly Alfred Hitchcock was a man ahead of his time.
It doesn't sound like they're really back the passenger pigeon, just a mutant version of a band-tail that looks like and has some characteristics of a passenger pigeon.
Which is fine, but it's being oversold as an un-extinction, and it certainly won't placate fervent environmentalist who decry extinctions. OTOH, it nevertheless will increase diversity.
OTOH, it nevertheless will increase diversity.\
That should make their happy--losing diversity, especially of cute animals, is a contact cry from them.
But I'm assuming they don't trust the Long Now's kind of science.
Genetically Modified Organism Alert! Frankenv?gel!
Wundersch?n!
Gotta start somewhere.
OTOH, it nevertheless will increase diversity.
Really? Sounds to me like you could collapse the pigeon population into a couple of behavioral phenotypes and keep the rest in the tube, waiting for the day when Jesus comes back and says, "Where the hell did all the biodiversity go?"
OTOH, it nevertheless will increase diversity.
Not likely. They'll still breed with rock doves and the human-created mutancy will probably get wiped out. Or else the mutancy will overtake the existing species and the band tails will get wiped out.
you dont really know what biodiversity is do you?
his primary motivation [is] creating a more robust ecosystem by reintroducing greater biodiversity.
Well, I suppose that's better motivation than -- dare I say it -- *ruling the world!*
Fly my pretties, fly.
I wonder if we could crowdfund that...
I'd be in for $50.
Great- more people who fetishize stasis.
"Boo hoo, why can't everything stay the same, and never change?"
Good gravy.
Great- more people who fetishize stasis
Exactly. The proper term for them is "conservative".
If you wanna save an animal from extinction, bring it the US and let people hunt it. Considering that almost every other game species is thriving right now and some estimates say we have more deer, turkey, and ducks than when the country was founded.
Just a thought process to generate some further thought, not like I consider this a serious proposal.
Chickens certainly aren't going extinct anytime soon.
The reason there were so many passenger pigeons during the American push west was because the keystone predator of their particular ecosystem - Indians - had been recently wiped out. The enormous populations of pigeons observed during the 18th and 19th centuries were anomalous, and no more natural than the shotguns and nets used to hunt them.
Same goes for bison.
The indians were never 'wiped out'.
not like I consider this a serious proposal.
But it is.
Down here in Texas we long ago (1930s) imported several species of animals. Today some of them are endangered in their original habitat. There are programs to bring wildlife biologists over, teach them our methods, and reintroduce the surplus from Texas back to their home ranges.
tpwd.texas.gov/publications/ pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_w7000_0206. pdf
(Squirrel food. Delete the spaces.)
Around the world, where countries like Namibia have scientific wildlife management systems, largely financially supported by hunting (as the U.S. system is) herds are thriving. Namibia's rhino herd has doubled since they became independent, and is growing at a sustainable 5% per year.
Is biodiversity really as significant as the environmentalists claim? Isn't there plenty of evidence there is still more biodiversity on the planet than ever before still?
A lot of it seems to be based on the idea that nature is some sort of living create that has achieved homeostasis and humans are screwing it all up. Now, this guy here may not fall into that camp since he's looking to just introduce a worthless pigeon into the environment a hundred years after it vanished and hoping everything ends up swell, but I don't see that flying with most green types.
Even if man could engineer nature and preserve it, the green types would still throw a bitch fit.
Even if man could engineer nature and preserve it, the green types would still throw a bitch fit.
Yeah, I get the impression that this will draw *more* ire from greenies for turning outrage totem into a straw man.
If no species can ever go extinct again, is biodiversity really a (necessary) thing?
I don't care about "preserving biodiversity", "undoing human harms", or any of that horsecrap. I see it as more of a chance to say, "Fuck you nature, you say extinction's forever, I say it's optional. Who's your daddy?"
The greens, of course, flip their shit at this notion, having substituted Gaiaism for other religions.
I think there is an audio drop out from 2:25 to about 2:50. There is some extremely light music playing, but nothing else. Is this on purpose?
Goddamnit science. Jurassic Park was a *warning*, not an instruction manual.
They got the message - no frog DNA.
Use basilisk DNA next time. Makes for more profitable assets.
The Right People will be in charge, and nothing will go worngue.
The Long Now Foundation has a bar in San Francisco where they un-extinct old cocktail recipes, and is actually pretty cool (if you're into steampunkish whimsy). It seems like a better use of their time.
There's a particularly idiotic commercial I see once in a while which makes some preposterous claim about "half of all species will die in the next fifty years, UNLESS YOU SEND US MONEY!!!!"
I'm sure the moolah rolls in.
It's dead, Jim. Just leave it alone.
Sometimes, dead is better.
XL squab will soon be on the dinner plate once again.
Have you noticed the collectivism built into the concern for species, rather than individuals?
You may call me a racist but... no. One individual pigeon (within a species) looks like another as far as I'm concerned.
'So why bother bringing back a bird that clearly couldn't cut it in the modern world?'
It wasn't that they 'couldn't cut it' they were hunted to extinction by humans.
It's exactly that they couldn't cut it in the modern world. Because humans hunting is the modern world.
It wasn't that they 'couldn't cut it' they were hunted to extinction by humans.
"Think of it as 'Evolution in action'."- Larry Niven
can someone explain to me how the same people who battle extinction are the same ones that believe strictly in evolution
Just because someone believes something doesn't mean they understand it. I once worked with a guy who said he believed in evolution because "that's how I was raised".
Mankind is no longer a part of nature and so anything he does thwarts the evolutionary process.
Mick Foley has transcended from this plane of existence and now craves it's destruction!
I think it's weird that people who embrace nature and evolution gasp at the thought of decentralized coordination. Apparently, the universe needs no god, but people do.
What we need is a Designated Driver Pigeon.
Invented by Coogle.
I am looking forward to when there are enough mammoths around so we can farm them so I can pick up a nice mammoth steak at my local supermarket. Humans hunted those beasts into extinction eons ago - basically searched the globe asif in a race to eat the last one. That must have been some good eating.
Brontosaurus Burgers!
No way, I don't want my car to tip over!
I wouldn't be surprised if the mammoths had been put on some sort of caveman government protected species list.
OT: And now it's the Minnesota flag that's racist.
And John says we're bored. There's a university professor with way too much time in his hands thinking about loinclothed indians in state flags.
Why is that racist? It's obviously just a white college guy streaking on a horse in some hazing ritual
Judith Harrington, of New Richmond, Wis., is an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.
Sheesh, Judy -- the Wisconsin flag has only white men on it.
Affirmative Action for passenger pigeons. Cool.
I have to wonder what exactly is wrong with the current level of biodiversity.
Well, if your whole world revolves inside West coast liberal circles, of course you will feel anti-GMO hysteria is so compelling and important.
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=357688
There is a hilarious huffington post comment at this link about how .223 rounds are 'amongst the most deadly ever invented' and how their inventor should 'go to hell.' You'll have to scroll down to find it, but man it is worth it. He is particularly pissed because this was the round used to kill the kids at Newtown, as if they would still be alive if he'd just shot them repeatedly with a smaller caliber at close range.
He goes on to extol the virtues of the .30 06 instead of the .223 because I guess shooting something with a .30 06 makes it less dead than shooting it with a .223 for some reason I'm not entirely sure of. It's especially funny since a .30 06 is way larger than a .223. Shooting someone with a .30 06 at close range is actually more damaging than the bullet he's claiming is the most evil round ever invented.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but a .30 06 is a huge round, right? I know that even though I don't know shit about guns, which makes me think this guy has no idea what he's talking about.
I would rather not be hit with any bullet. I don't even understand this guy's preoccupation with the killing qualities of the .223 cartridge. What kills is the speed of the bullet.
Also, if one wants to talk about the damage caused by bullets in history, let's talk about the 7.62x39 which is used by the AK-47 and derivatives. That slug is really destructive.
.30-06 is a .30 cal bullet, much the same width as a 9mm or a .38, but the rifle bullets are generally longer. However, it is a high-powered rifle round that has far more gunpowder in the casing, thereby giving it the much higher velocity (and therefore energy) that rifles have over pistols. The .223 is a smaller bullet, but also is a medium-to-high powered rifle round and has similar energy. I wouldn't want to get hit with either one, ever.
Basically, this guy is an idiot. He sounds sort of like the idiots who used to assure me that M-16 rounds were "designed to tumble" so that they cause "wicked more damage" (yes, they were frequently Massholes for some reason) than "regular" rounds.
High powered rifle rounds are all pretty fucking deadly. If he wanted to hate on a round for being insanely powerful, .223 is not a good candidate. I'd go with the .500 Nitro Express. Really any of the old safari hunting rounds will do. And for actually super powerful, go with .50 BMG.
"Basically, this guy is an idiot. He sounds sort of like the idiots who used to assure me that M-16 rounds were "designed to tumble" so that they cause "wicked more damage""
THAT'S IN THERE TOO!
"Add to that - the bullet is much longer than a simple .22 long rifle - and it tends to tumble when tearing through flesh"
I find it very unlikely that if you shot someone at close range with a .223 there would be much tumbling since the bullet would likely bass through them awfully quickly.
Yes, they cause fishures.
Hunting rounds are actually designed to peel back and split into a starfish shape that basically becomes a little spinning/cutting metal propeller in the target. However, most target rounds and what they use in the military are full metal jacket and tend to deform much less. Any bullet can tumble inside the target; the idiots I was referring to had no idea about ballistics and actually thought they tumbled in the air.
Regardless, as high powered rifle rounds go, the .223 is one of the lighter and smaller bullets, but it's really energy that matters, and they have a lot. They typically are operating at around 1300 ft-lbs. High-caliber pistols, in comparison, are running around less than half of that.
Protip: don't get shot. By any round. Just ask NutraSweet.
Most rifle ammunition that has hollow tips use a little plastic plug to keep the spitzer bullet shape, like Hornady's SST line. Almost all purpose-built hunting ammunition mushrooms, though. The "little spinning/cutting metal propeller" is mostly marketing bullshit; whether it's self defense ammunition or hunting ammunition, the point is to increase the diameter of the bullet and make a larger wound channel.
Linkage: http://www.hornady.com/store/SST
The 165 gr. .30-06 I use for hunting deer comes out at around 2600 ft-lbs, so it's about twice as much.
Somebody should tell that guy that assault *rifle* rounds are the caliber they are *specifically* because they are less likely to kill (rather than incapacitate) from a single wound than the rounds fired from a 'battle rifle' (which class the 30-06 round falls into). Along with being smaller and lighter than battle rifle rounds, you can carry more individual rounds for the same weight because we figured out long ago that even trained soldiers miss a lot. And when you *do* get a hit, you're likely to get more than one hit.
Oh, and that's not even taking into consideration that the .223 Remington is a bit less powerful than the 5.56 mm NATO - which is what the M-16 fires (not .223).
tl;dr
AR rounds are *intended* to be less lethal than BR rounds.
BR rounds are in the same class as hunting rifle rounds - a single 30-06 is far more likely to put you down permanently than a single .223
Reminds me of a table top RPG supplement I was looking at where there was a list of firearms and the 1911 .45 did X damage but the GLOCK .45 did X +1. I guess it was that excellent Austrian craftsmanship.
They don't care about the particulars, they say anything to demonize any type of gun. Handgun, rifle, small bore, large bore, small gun, big gun; it does not matter.
They don't know about guns and they don't care. All that is important is that we don't have them. And if that happens then they can do whatever they want, micromanage us at a level they can only dream of now. So talking to them about the issue is pointless.
Their ultimate goal is slavery. And it doesn't matter how bad things suck as long as their material needs are met and they are at the top of the social pyramid and get the benefits (the best reproductive opportunities) of that, then they've succeeded.
The 30-06 cartridge comes from the generation of military rifle bullets developed when smokeless powder was being adopted by the world's militaries. The standard was to arm their soldiers with a bullet powerful enough to enable massed infantry to turn back or stop a cavalry charge out to 800 yards.
The 5.56X45mm rounds was adapted from the civilian 223 Remington which was designed for hunting varmints ? basically animals up to the size of coyotes.
A few years back I took a buddy shooting to introduce him to a variety of firearms. I brought along a piece of cinderblock wall with about an inch of concrete on one surface. We started shooting at that block with 5.56 ball ammo ? which only left small, lead smudges on the surface of the concrete.
Next we started shooting that block with an M-1A in 7.62X51mm ? a ballistic equivalent to the 30-06. The bigger round tore chunks off the concrete and blasted holes through the cinderblock behind it.
"Hey guys, have you seen my pigeon growth hormone?"
"Last I saw it, the mutant carrier pigeons were eating it."
"OMG, that helicoper sure is loud!"
"That's no helicopter, IT'S A GIANT PIGEON! AND IT'S ABOUT TO..."
"LOOK OUT BELOW!!!!"
[the same scene, by Michael Bay]
"Hey guys, have any of you seen my giant pile of nitroglycerin?"
"Last I saw it, the gigantic mutant carrier pigeon was eating it."...
[etc]
I'd totally watch War Birds 2025.
In the gay-marriage oral argument* Justice Alito asked the Solicitor General (who represents the U.S. in the Supreme Court) if a decision to recognize gay marriage would endanger the tax-exempt status of large numbers of religious schools.
The Solicitor General said "it is going to be an issue." The Solicitor General was probably embarrassed at having to show his hand like this, but the Court issued its gay-marriage decree anyway.
The precedent here is Bob Jones University v. U.S. Here, the Internal Revenue Service took away the tax exemptions of private segregated schools, and even of integrated schools like Bob Jones which banned interracial relationships.
The Supreme Court said the IRS had the power to issue what was in effect a tax increase, even though Congress had not specifically authorized it. "Public policy" was a sufficient reason to justify the revenue-collection agency jacking up taxes.
As for Bob Jones' religious freedom - they had none, even though their policy was based on sincere religious conviction. Government policy prevailed over religious objections.
Now we have a public policy by which same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue just as important as the struggle against Jim Crow. If the IRS can raise taxes on racist private schools, then public policy dictates that it also raise taxes on any private school which tries to confine students' activities within the bounds of true marriage. And since Bob Jones had no religious right to be racist, then "homophobia," the moral equivalent of racism, should have no religious rights, either.
Well, the First Amendment had a good run.
"Because the Court found a constitutional guarantee to same-sex marriage, will faith-based institutions be faced with a decision to deny their convictions or lose their tax-exempt status? Will their students be denied Pell grants and other forms of direct-to-student government aid? The consequences could be catastrophic for private, faith-based education, secular education and the common good.
"If faith-based educational institutions cease to exist, the state educational system will not be able to accommodate the number of students then dumped into the pool. Moreover, to force students by default to attend secular schools is a form of mind control. Would our government embrace the tactics of regimes in the past that made hypocrites of citizens by insisting that they agree by force of law, if only outwardly, on matters of faith?"
http://www.firstthings.com/web.....university
The backlash is going to be....interesting.
Taking away tax exempt statuses of religious institutions is not anti-1st Amendment. In fact, I don't think they ever should have been tax exempt in the first place since the tax code should not be used to favor certain entities over others.
Religious institutions should not be forced to marry gay people if it is against their convictions (though I fear they will be), but tax exemptions are a privilege, not a right, and the elimination of such exemptions from religious institutions is long overdue.
You're discussing a proposal which has never been made...a proposal to deny tax breaks to *all* religious institutions.
No, the proposal which will soon be on the table is...taking away tax breaks from religious institutions *which promote real marriage."
It's as if President Santorum's IRS proposed to revoke the tax exemptions from "theologically liberal" schools while leaving religiously conservative school with the full exemption.
The difference is that the real-world Santorum wouldn't do this because he has greater respect for religious freedom than the Obama administration.
"a proposal which has never been made"
I should correct that to say "a proposal which has never been made by the Obama administration or any real-world major-party politician."
Oh, and out of curiosity, have any of you written off donations to *this* organization on your taxes?
Suppose the IRS revoked the Reason Foundation's tax exemption because "they're totally against gay rights and disrespectful of federal prosecutors?"
Would that raise any 1st Amendment issues, do you think?
I have just discovered one of the greatest left-wing false equivalencies of all time:
"If you're singling out Islamic theocracies as countries with repressive laws about sex, you likewise need to think about why. In the civically secular, socially Christian U.S., it was only ten years ago that sodomy laws (used against unmarried heterosexual couples as well as gay sex) were struck down in Texas, and it was only in 2005 that the state of Virginia legalised premarital sex. In civically Christian, socially secular Britain, HIV-positive and transgender people are criminalised for having sex; in mainly Christian Uganda, gay sex is illegal. All over the Western world and the planet generally, sex workers face state violence, harassment and imprisonment. What sorts of countries have terrible, oppressive, violent laws about sex? All sorts. Of course we can attack Islamic theocracies, but if you're not attacking them within a broader context ? if you're not discussing other nations with oppressive laws, and not talking about non-Islamic religious law's use in policing consensual sexuality ? you need to ask yourself why you're driven to attack the religion especially and disproportionately whose image is most strongly racialised."
Okay - let's break that down. 1. The Virginia statute regarding premarital sex had not actually been enforced in decades. In Massachusetts, blasphemy is technically still illegal because no one ever bothered getting that law off the books, but no one has actually been punished under it in over 100 years. If someone tried to punish anybody under pre-marital sex or blasphemy laws, it would immediately be struck down by the courts. This is not the same thing as Islamic countries where they stone adulteress women to death, you fucking idiot.
2. Most of the countries where it is illegal to be gay are Muslim countries. This includes Malaysia, Indonesia and all of the Middle East and North Africa. Also, there are 10 countries where homosexuality is punished by death according to WaPo: Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Mauritania, the Islamic parts of Nigeria and Somalia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and the UAE. Gee, what do those countries have in common?
It is astonishing the mendacity of people like this. They try and claim that laws that haven't been actually used in 40 years are the equivalent of laws in Iran that are actively being used today and they try and argue one Christian country doing something proves there's no problem with Islam, even though the vast majority of the countries engaged in that practice are Islamic.
It's just amazing.
And oh my God, how about this:
"It might in theory be reasonable to say someone with a journalist's critical nous is inconsistent if they believe in literal winged horses, but when Muslims are at heightened risk of falling victim to unemployment, a tweet which could be construed as endorsing discriminatory practice ? with Muslims turned away from jobs just the way the EDL's members would like ? almost certainly will be so construed."
Got that? Criticizing a journalist because they believe Mohammad literally flew on a winged horse is somehow an argument in favor of discrimination. Oh, and if people are unemployed it's because they're being 'victimized by unemployment,' not because they lack skills or work ethic.
White trash hicks are also at increased risk of being made 'victims of unemployment,' but if I criticized snake handling, I doubt leftists would whine that I was somehow being racist against Appalachians.
Where is this? I need to read the source.
http://alexgabriel.tumblr.com/.....-islam-are
"'you need to ask yourself why you're driven to attack the religion especially and disproportionately whose image is most strongly racialised."
whose "image" is racialized?
That's weird - "race" doesn't even occur to me
Doh
Nutpunch
The AJC version of this story is better but behind a paywall.
No statute of limitations on murder.
In an age of satellite GPS tracking, he says we likely have little to fear from the pigeons.
Would someone *kindly* explain this?
Passenger Pidgeons? Maybe the TSA could sponsor it...