Patterico's Pontifications

Obama had a super-awesome night last night.
“tye” seems to be having a horrible morning.

JD (318f81) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:00 am

The “cigarette tax to cure cancer” failed. Amazingly there are some stupid ideas that Californians won’t fall for. It may be a rational position to jack up the cig tax to close the state deficit, but to hike a tax to fund new, non-critical spending when you can’t fund the schools seems a bit, well, crazy.

Failed badly everywhere but the SF area. BUt then they’re the source of crazy.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:02 am

My hard drive is new!

sarahW (b0e533) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:03 am

Ray Bradbury has passed.

sarahW (b0e533) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:05 am

Remember when raising money was indicative of how popular and historic a candidate was?

Wy does the MFM neglect to Kenton the millions and millions and millions that the Unions spent in WI?

Oh, Kock Brothers. BOO

JD (318f81) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:06 am

Orca wetsuits are an excellent choice, by the way.

JD (318f81) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:06 am

I served as a poll worker yesterday in California. With the bilingual ballots and party primaries, we had to sort through 40 different ballot types and 80 pages. I may write up my experience in a post if anyone is interested. Let me know if you have any questions.

aunursa (199523) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:18 am

D-Day Anniversary. http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictures-video/d-day-anniversary-of-the-allied-invasion-of-normandy-pictures-20120606

gp (5a38d9) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:26 am

I went to vote yesterday; the process in NM is, they ask you for your name, DOB, current street address, etc., and if you’re in their system (usually from having voted before) they hand you your ballot (or a provision ballot, if you’re registered third-party).

So the guy next to me is like, “Whyownt yew ask fer some kinda idennyfication?” and you can tell he’s super butthurt because he just knows that these polling places are teeming with illegal immigrants waiting to job out and steal his vote or job or something in the blink of an eye. But the pollworker’s like, basically, “because that’s against the law in this state. We just ask you these questions.”

And the guy’s like “well I got my idennyfication. Don’t see what the trouble is.” And the pollworker’s like (in his head) “whatever bro.”

I don’t care that the guy thinks you should have to have a driver’s license to vote. It irritates me that he decided to hassle a poll worker about it. A guy who would get on a poll-worker’s case over something like that is a guy who would bully the wait-staff at a restaurant. I really, really don’t like that guy.

Leviticus (e445f5) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:34 am

DrewM @ AoS

don’t buy the “Walker and the Koch brothers bought the election” spin. The left spent plenty of money on this. Besides, when did the left start caring about outspending opponents? I seem to recall (SWIDT) a guy named Barack Obama promising to take public funding and abide by equal spending limits only to change his mind and outspend John McCain 3-1.

One final thought, a lot of the lefty whining over Wisconsin and Walker is that by preventing the state from collecting dues for unions Walker is destroying the Democratic party’s main funding and organizing sources. Think about that for a second, liberals think they have an inherent right to have the state subsidize and compel financing for their political operations.

So the unions spent 20 million on this recall, and democrats are angry that they can’t automatically deduct funds from paychecks to continue doing that. Just raw power, and screaming as it’s finally being taken away. That’s what Wisconsin has been going through for quite a while over several weird episodes.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:37 am

What’s the line about coincidence and circumstance;

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/05/rev-wright-made-claim-before-about-being-offered-bribe-to-stay-quiet/

narciso (494474) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:40 am

It irritates me that he decided to hassle a poll worker about it. A guy who would get on a poll-worker’s case over something like that is a guy who would bully the wait-staff at a restaurant

A few years ago, they moved our polling place from an easily accessed place to the local high school that had construction taking up half the parking lot.
It was ridiculous, because while school was in parking was scarce and some older people were having to walk uphill in the California sun.
I complained to the poll worker, telling her it was a terrible place to hold the vote. You know why? Because she was there.

MayBee (2f6e35) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:41 am

Walker raised all that money just because we were recalling him!

It’s not fair!

(Typical liberal whiner)

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:42 am

Here (http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2012/06/christian-newsom-murder-case-latest.html) is what I wrote about the latest news in the Christian-Newsom torture-murder case under the name “David In Tennessee.”

DN (ad6cba) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:42 am

We had a number of people show their driver’s license. It’s helpful because it makes it easier for us to find their name and address on the voter register. Others presented the address label on their voter guide.

The only people who are required to show an ID are those voting for the first time in a federal election. (This applied to nobody who showed up in my precinct.) Acceptable forms of ID include a utility bill, employee ID or card, credit or debit card, bank statement, vehicle registration, government check, and many others.

aunursa (199523) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:43 am

The left would have spent more if they had it. That they didn’t have it ought to tell them something. But it won’t.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:46 am

I don’t care that the guy thinks you should have to have a driver’s license to vote. It irritates me that he decided to hassle a poll worker about it.

It is outrageous that they don’t require ID to vote.

Of course that doesn’t justify being rude to someone, but it’s great to hear people are complaining, which they should, and often. Hopefully a lot of voters complain and get other voters interested. Hopefully without being rude to volunteers, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t note right then and there how easy it would be to check the ID of legitimate voters, and how outrageous it is that democrats fight tooth and nail to prevent this.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:46 am

An employee ID card or credit card must have the voter’s photo to be valid.

aunursa (199523) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:48 am

Don’t complain to the poll workers about the non-requirement for voter ID — we have no say or influence. If anybody complained to me, I would tell them to contact their state legislator or the secretary of state.

aunursa (199523) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:50 am

If anybody complained to me, I would tell them to contact their state legislator or the secretary of state.

Getting that information is reason enough to say something to the poll worker.

When someone feels like they have something to say, for better or worse the person on the front line is going to hear about it first.
When I’m volunteering for something and someone tells me something, I also try to tell them who to tell or I pass the information along to my supervisor.

MayBee (2f6e35) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:53 am

If anybody complained to me, I would tell them to contact their state legislator or the secretary of state.

Then it sounds like you’re a good person for folks to talk to about it. So long as they are polite, I think it’s great for people to point out, at the polls, that it’s trivially easy to require a legit ID (and an employee ID card is not one).

Then the poll worker can answer with some productive ideas about who to contact about it.

Maybe if we all do this, candidates will make sure to note their stance on those signs on the street outside the polling station. Then, states might reform their elections to be honest. OK, then, Eric Holder will shut it all down, but it’s the thought that counts.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:53 am

I can’t buy cold medication without a driver’s license, by federal law. What about all those poor undocumented people who get colds?

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:55 am

The “cigarette tax to cure cancer” failed. Amazingly there are some stupid ideas that Californians won’t fall for. It may be a rational position to jack up the cig tax to close the state deficit, but to hike a tax to fund new, non-critical spending when you can’t fund the schools seems a bit, well, crazy.

Its main problem was that it did not guarantee that then revenue would be spent in California.

Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:55 am

Cross posted with Maybee.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:56 am

Getting that information is reason enough to say something to the poll worker.

That’s a good point.

aunursa (199523) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:59 am

A good, responsive organization (like the government!) should have a way to debrief the poll workers to find out what the public was saying about their voting experience.

That’s what our grocery store does whenever the local city commission decides to make some law that the public doesn’t like and the check-out clerks will have to enforce (like the plastic bag bans).

MayBee (2f6e35) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:03 am

Republican Scott Walker wins in Wisconsin. Stock market up 200+ points today.

Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:03 am

A good, responsive organization (like the government!) should have a way to debrief the poll workers to find out what the public was saying about their voting experience

I was told by the precinct coordinator that I should expect to receive a survey to complete about my experience and voting process.

aunursa (199523) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:10 am

and the voting process

I’m getting used to a new laptop.

aunursa (199523) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:11 am

Leviticus,

That’s awesome how you can ~~read other people’s minds~~ attribute xenophobic motives and extrapolate rudeness toward waitresses by people in such a casual manner.

It didn’t sound at all like the guy next to you in line was “hassling” or bullying the poll worker. Sounded like he was merely asking questions about the process. Many states are passing laws requiring photo ID to vote—perhaps he was genuinely surprised that New Mexico had not yet followed suit.

Before you continue to play the “He must hate Mexicans !” card against that guy in line, I’ll kindly remind you that the Democrat talking points regarding photo ID laws is that the photo ID is less likely to be possessed by the elderly, young voters, non-white people, and the disabled—not just illegal immigrants.

In other words, the Democrats would have us believe that on Election Day, people who are elderly, young, non-white, disabled, and illegally here, cannot be expected to “remember” to bring the photo ID they use for driving their car, cashing a check, obtaining a library card, renting a car, sliding a credit card at a department store, checking into a motel, or boarding an airplane.

The photo ID that one should be expected to produce at the polling station is the same photo ID that Eric Holder’s Justice Department requires before someone can enter the Department of Justice building.

But apparently, it’s not the same photo ID that is required to receive Eric Holder’s ballot at his local precinct !

(Ouch. Score another victory for Project Veritas.)

Elephant Stone (0ae97d) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:19 am

Republican Scott Walker wins in Wisconsin. Stock market up 200+ points today.

Comment by Chuck Bartowski — 6/6/2012 @ 9:03 am

Why does Wall Street hate America?

Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:28 am

Stone, there was nothing unreasonable about Leviticus’s story.

I suspect someone was upset about the outrage that voter ID isn’t checked, and instead of politely making a comment about it, showed too much emotion to a person who isn’t at fault.

I’m glad this blog attracts people with different takes, but common courtesy.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:40 am

What’s new? I heard that Democracy is over now because in Wisconsin an election was decided by a majority of the votes.

The libs keep crying about how Walker outspent Barrett 8:1 or 10:1 or so. But that doesn’t include how much money and manpower the Unions spent getting out the vote. Does anyone have an actual dollar figure on that?

CrustyB (69f730) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:08 am

Did any of you guys see the liberal lose it and start crying, saying that democracy died last night?

He was crying about how Walker outspent Barrett by 7 to 1 (true, but that’s not counting total spending by all groups on the campaign; the libs weren’t outspent by the conservatives). While he was crying, he pointed to the people behind him and said basically, that’s it; we’re done. The only resource we have is the people behind me. We don’t have that kind of money to spend.

Basically, his theory was that if “people power” isn’t enough then they have no hope.

As a TEA Party enthusiast the thought occurred to me, “If you whiners got actual jobs instead of ‘occupations’ you could have both people and money.”

I think I’ll keep that to myself.

Steve57 (958caf) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:10 am

You know, when your guy wins an election and becomes governor, and the other guys pervert a mechanism designed to remove someone from office for malfeasance, and your guy has to take time away from actually doing his job in order to counteract this bullsh*t, you are justified to spend some money to retain your guy in office.

It’s not like Walker picked this fight. Unions decided to bet it all on this play, and they lost. Walker and his allies had a bigger stake in the game? Nobody asked you guys to play.

Quite the opposite, really.

Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:12 am

That’s a good way to put it, Pious.

Walker already won this term he’s serving. He did his job as he said he would. The democrats went overboard trying to stop reforms. In every branch of the state government, they crossed the line.

And now they’re mad that Walker spent enough money to win his recall election, when the recall was merely about policy differences? That’s obnoxious.

Meanwhile, the unions who complain about Walker’s campaign operating on donations are angry that they can’t require state employees to support union funded political campaign.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:20 am

It’s wierd; I wasn’t really worried at all about the vote in WI last night. I was confident that Walker was going to kick tail (although when I heard Obama had Holder send in his DoJ “voting rights” goons I was somewhat concerned.)

I’m much more optimistic that we’ll have a future w/o Obama in the WH. (By the way, did you see the WH spin? “The voters sent a strong message to Scott Walker.” Yeah, they did. They said, “Take Biden’s job when we replace Barack with Mitt.”)

Still, just in case we lose Northern Tool & Equipment is having an online sale on Hobart Handler 140 MIG/wire welders. It’s only $5 off the regular price, but w/free shipping plus they throw in a free (as in no tax, either) welding helmet, welding cap, and a pair of welding gloves. Altogether, that’s like $50.

I’ve seen Obama’s economic vision. He has no ideas that are new. And I’m too old to lean on a shovel when he conscripts us to work on his “intercontinental” high speed rail project or whatever 21st century version of the Volga canal he’s conceived of.

I’ll need a skill.

And on the other hand I won’t have to keep paying people to do stuff on my cars that maybe I can do myself.

Steve57 (958caf) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:21 am

______________________________________________

there was nothing unreasonable about Leviticus’s story.

Then again, Dustin, if a person at some precinct were raving and ranting about the unfairness of a would-be voter (who was, say, Latino or black) being told he needed to show at least a bit of formal identification before being allowed to go into the booth — and the would-be voter was confused and couldn’t verify his background — Leviticus possibly (quite possibly) would have gone, “hmm, I do think the person making the ruckus is a bit boisterous, but he does have a good point! The poll worker needs to sooth everyone’s feelings.”

Mark (aa1ab7) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:24 am

@35

Pious Agnostic, you are of course correct. You’ll get no argument from me. You WILL get an argument from that blubbering crybaby I mentioned earlier seeing on TV, or Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz or any other MSNBC host.

But I repeat myself.

I marvel at the liberal mind. They didn’t even see all that union money being poured into the campaign. All they can see is what the Walker campaign spent vs. what the Barrett campaign spent. Walker spent more than Barrett = “we got outspent.” If you ask them about all those millions of dollars the unions spent, they’ll probably say “what unions?”

Then there’s the martyr complex. Poor babies, liberals are always being victimized by the people they attack. There was an election in 2010; both sides contested it, and Walker won & the GOP. Then they went on the attack because liberals love democracy up until the point they have less votes. So they launch a recall of state legislators, supreme court justices, and finally go after the Governor.

All the while blaming conservatives for starting a “civil war.”

They lose each time. What does that mean? Apparently it means conservatives and “special interests” did something to them, which ended up killing their democracy.

It’s fascinating to watch. I could never go through the mental contortions you have to go through to attack someone and wind up convincing yourself you’ve just been victimized. (An aside; is this why conartists like Kimberlin always rip off liberals, as they recognize kindred spirits but just have a stronger predatory drive?)

I find it not only entertaining, but I enjoy watching them self destruct. It reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles where the new Sheriff puts his gun to his own head and threatens to blow it off.

The really cool upside is that this hurts the unions and the liberals the most, and only5 months before the general election.

The momentum is all on the GOP side nationally. Obama was already losing donors, now he’s even more solidly linked to the losing side after his 2010 debacle. The GOP is now not only more solidly associated with winning but also just spent over a year building up an organization and voter contacts in WI that’s now in place and ready to go for Nov, in a state that except for democratic initiative wouldn’t be in play.

It’s beautiful. It smells like victory.

Steve57 (958caf) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:53 am

“The poll worker needs to sooth everyone’s feelings.”

A voter is not allowed to intimidate another voter.

If someone suspects voter fraud, the poll worker can provide the person with a phone number at the secretary of state’s office that investigates such complaints.

aunursa (199523) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:53 am

All they can see is what the Walker campaign spent vs. what the Barrett campaign spent. Walker spent more than Barrett = “we got outspent.”

Hopefully some of them realize this is cynical cherry picking.

Had it been the other way around, with special interests pouring enormous funds in and the democrat getting large donations, they would take a different cherry pick to show the same predictable angst.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:56 am

KOCK BROTHERS !!!!!!!!!!!!!

JD (318f81) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:02 am

Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing En Banc in California Same-Sex Marriage Case

The immediate effect is that the district court in Hawaii hearing challenges to state marriage laws may now schedule initial briefing, and of course the litigants in that case must take Perry into consideration.

Judge O’Scannlain’s dissent was short. He did have a lengthier dissent in Diaz v. Brewer,
No. 10-16797 (9th Cir. Apr. 3, 2012) (O’ Scannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc)

Of course, this sets us one step closer to a showdown between Ted Olson and Paul Clement in the Supreme Court.

Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:03 am

Dustin @ 32,

To be fair, I was trolling a little bit. But the guy wasn’t just asking an honest question. He was passive-aggressively getting on the poll worker’s case for not requiring would-be voters to show a photo ID. Which is not the law in NM.

Mark’s point would be … something… if the law in NM required you to show any kind of formal identification to vote. But it doesn’t, so it’s not.

Leviticus (e445f5) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:07 am

They were all ready for a recount in Wisconsin last night. The margin was a big shock, to them.

I wonder if they will demand a recount when Obamacare is overturned, since they don’t expect that either.

You can wish away a lot of things. But then you wake up.

Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:19 am

Leviticus,

Hypotheticals help us frame the issues and decide on solutions. So what would your answer be if NM law required an ID to vote and Mark’s scenario happened while you were voting?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:19 am

Hopefully some of them realize this is cynical cherry picking.

Dustin, hopefully if they do figure it out it won’t be until after November. I’m all about winning, not enlightening my opponents as to why they’re losing.

Really, though, the hypocrisy is breathtaking. This isn’t an original observation, nor should it be as the it’s so glaringly obvious, but remember 2008 when Obama ditched the whole idea of publicly financing his campaign (one of the first in a long line of promises he’d go on to break)? Because he had such a huge fundraising advantage, and he didn’t want to put any caps on the amount of money he could raise/use? What was the lesson? Obama’s popular.

This year Obama was supposed to be raise records amount of money. What was the reaction to the prospect? Obama’s still hugely popular?

No problem with money in politics there, eh?

Now that Walker outspent Barrett all of a sudden money is killing our democracy.

Steve57 (958caf) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:40 am

Looks like Brett or one of his minions is starting to get a bit worried if the post tsunami on Eugene Volokh’s thread is any indication:

http://volokh.com/2012/06/05/consulting-on-the-aaron-walker-brett-kimberlin-case/

(click on most recent, someone has been VERY busy)

TomB (4a72e4) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:43 am

Yeah, that’s a great comparison. Obama rakes in support from Goldman Sachs and even takes in huge donations from Bain capital. He’s got the elitists in Hollywood.

No problem there, apparently.

Even with the tone Obama had about public financing… before he rejected his back patting promise to rely on it.

Walker’s the real deal and I see him as top contender for the next contested GOP primary.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:44 am

I can’t buy cold medication without a driver’s license, by federal law. What about all those poor undocumented people who get colds?
Comment by Kevin M — 6/6/2012 @ 8:55 am

— They fill the ER’s around the country, running up costs and lowering profits (except for those that are owned/managed by the commenter Bill) and since federal law says they cannot be turned away, they get what they need . . . no I.D. required.

Icy (b95ea4) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:48 am

sarahW already said it, but:
R.I.P. RAY BRADBURY

Icy (b95ea4) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:53 am

I wonder if they will demand a recount when Obamacare is overturned, since they don’t expect that either.

They could just move to D.C., Guam, or Puerto Rico. ObamaCare will still be in effect there.

Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:59 am

TomB – DrDocGeneralIP, while bemoaning defamation, appears to have no problems smearing those that he does not like.

JD (318f81) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:59 am

Indeed JD, he does seem to be quite confused about the workings of an actual criminal trial. 😉

And funny how he’s happy with restricting Pat’s free speech simply on the basis he’s a “prosecutor”.

I’d give my right nut to see his IP.

TomB (4a72e4) — 6/6/2012 @ 12:04 pm

I would give your right nut to see it too.

JD (318f81) — 6/6/2012 @ 12:05 pm

Watching Ed “Sgt.” Schulz trying desperately to spin the Walker recall vote is pure comedy gold!

First, he flip-flops from practically demanding that Obama go to Wisconsin to campaign on behalf of the Democratic challenger to (post-election) defending Obama’s distancing himself, saying “He’s kind of saying, this is your game, you’ve got to get it done. I can’t lift all the time.”

Then, he doubles down on Teh Stupid by making a totally baseless claim that Walker might be indicted at any minute for some alleged campaign finance scandal, along with the predictable “he outspent his opponent” whining.

Icy (b95ea4) — 6/6/2012 @ 12:09 pm

“A voter is not allowed to intimidate another voter.”

aunursa – Minor correction needed.

“A voter is not allowed to intimidate another voter unless the first voter is a member of the New Black Panther Party.”

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/6/2012 @ 12:13 pm

Dustin, one more point about the cognitive dissonance.

Absolutely no one has complained, or is complaining now, about the fact that Obama spends all his time (when he’s not golfing or vacationing) fundraising.

To be honest, I never watch Red Ed Schultz, or MSNBC for that matter, except on occasions like this because gloating is good for my soul. But the implication there is that, of course Obama didn’t show up to help, he’s President! He’s too busy!

Too busy doing what? Flying over Wisconsin or near its borders, repeatedly, in the days leading up to this recall as he shuttles from one fundraiser to another. He’s taking a week off between his NYC Wall St. private equity/Waldorf Astoria gala/”Broadway for Barack” series of fundraisers before heading back to NYC for his Sarah Jessica Parker/Cruella DeVille Wears Prada “Dinner with a Peasant” fundraiser.

Just like all that union spending they didn’t see, the people who are complaining about money “killing our democracy” have no problem with it. If they even notice.

If President “Broadway for Barack” Obama outraises and outspends his opponent, it just shows he’s such a man-of-the-people that the people are willing to send in contributions from what they can scrape together from their meager paychecks. If Romney outraises and outspends his opponent this year? He’s an out-of-touch rich guy backed by monied special interests.

I think it’s perfect; a match made in heaven. President wagyu-and-arugula is the self-unaware candidate for the party of the self-unaware.

Steve57 (958caf) — 6/6/2012 @ 12:24 pm

Re: photo ID. Our local Indian (yes, I said Indian) casino has a big sign in customer service that says: No players cards issued without photo ID. I have no idea if they follow the rules or not, but was happy to see the sign. Also, if someone wins a jackpot of $1200 or more and has no SSN, the taxes are taken out immediately.

Hopefully I haven’t told this story before, but I am old and forgetful.

PatAZ (032efa) — 6/6/2012 @ 12:39 pm

Well, well, well.

“Today, U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder regarding recent reports that several conservative political commentators have been targeted with harassing and frightening actions. Chambliss demanded that Holder examine these cases to determine if federal laws have been violated.”

http://www.chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=9f27a0be-cc7d-43e7-bbd8-6b794f5ba0fd

I’m sure the DOJ will get right on this.

Joan of Snark (89d2af) — 6/6/2012 @ 12:48 pm

#60 Joan,
It is a start. Sen. Chamblis at least stood up. 1 patriot in the Senate may lead to 50. It is a good letter and brings attention to the issue. In a short period of time for politics the issue is being raised before someone gets seriously hurt. Better than after the fact.

Sanmon (98e434) — 6/6/2012 @ 12:59 pm

“Hypotheticals help us frame the issues and decide on solutions. So what would your answer be if NM law required an ID to vote and Mark’s scenario happened while you were voting?”

– DRJ

Honestly, I would be irked at the guy harassing the polling worker. The law’s the law; polling workers don’t make the electoral laws, just like cops don’t set speed limits and waiters don’t undercook your food. People feel far too entitled to kill the messenger.

I’m not a huge fan of the idea of requiring a photo ID to vote, and I don’t have a huge problem with allowing undocumented immigrants to vote (seeing as many of them pay taxes) but I’m not so opposed to the idea of a photo ID requirement that I’d lower an expectation of civility over it.

Leviticus (e445f5) — 6/6/2012 @ 1:00 pm

“Our local Indian (yes, I said Indian) casino…”

– PatAZ

You edgy fellow you.

Leviticus (e445f5) — 6/6/2012 @ 1:01 pm

I more worried about Ashley Judd’s puffy face than any of the minor issues raised so far on this thread. I haven’t been so upset since Kim’s divorce.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/6/2012 @ 1:07 pm

“Democracy died tonight!@”

On the upside, our Republic is still doing fine.

Pious Agnostic (ee2c24) — 6/6/2012 @ 1:11 pm

This just in from ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=16511064&sid=77&cid=77&p=3

June 6, 2012
Politics
Secretary Gates’s STFU Policy
Jake Tapper
27 minutes ago

An interesting detail in David Sanger’s excellent new book about President Obama’s foreign policy, Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power:

After the raid, Pakistani military officers “got even more pissed as the Americans, who had been so disciplined in the months leading up to the raid, made the situation even worse with a series of triumphalist-sounding comments. There was a huge and understandable hunger among the media for a play-by-play of the hunt for, and demise of, the world’s most wanted man. As day broke in a stunned Washington, John Brennan was rolled out in the White House press room to describe events that he only understood in fragmentary detail – much of it, as it turned out, suffered from the inevitable wild inaccuracy of first reports…

“At the Pentagon, top officers fumed at Brennan’s blow-by-blow description of how the SEALs operated; they believed that the former CIA officer had given away operational secrets never shared outside the tribe. (In fact, it appears no real secrets were divulged.) No one was angrier than Mullen himself, who still fumed about that news conference nearly a year later…

“By Wednesday of that week, Gates went to see Donilon, offering up a barbed assessment of how the White House had handled the aftermath of the raid.

“‘I have a new strategic communications approach to recommend,’ Gates said in his trademark droll tones, according to an account later provided by his colleagues.

“What was that, Donilon asked?

“‘Shut the fuck up,’ the defense secretary said.”

-Jake Tapper

Joan of Snark (89d2af) — 6/6/2012 @ 2:28 pm

http://minx.cc/?post=329916

narciso (494474) — 6/6/2012 @ 2:31 pm

I don’t have a huge problem with allowing undocumented immigrants to vote

And there, we part company, since a non-citizen voting in a federal election is bad enough and an illegal alien sneaking into the country to do so is beyond the effing pale.

Monsanto pays taxes, how many votes should they get?

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/6/2012 @ 2:41 pm

I don’t have a huge problem with allowing undocumented immigrants

What euphemism would you refer to immigrants who have documents … but the documents are expired or fraudulent?

aunursa (199523) — 6/6/2012 @ 2:52 pm

FUNNY YOU SHOULD ASK!

We learned that your would-be benefactor, Ali Akbar, has a criminal record, involving credit card fraud, burglary and failure to appear. I have some really cool mugshots from “Mugshots Online” on my site. But you probably don’t want to talk about that, do ya. All your buddies have been deleting my comments as soon as they’re posted.

What are they hiding? What EVER could they be HIDING?

The Liberal Grouch (fc8502) — 6/6/2012 @ 2:58 pm

DO NOT click the above link. I’ll tell you why in a moment.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:06 pm

Ace reported that links to leftist websites with malicious code have been recently posted in comments on his site.

While there may be other malicious code, some of it includes tracking cookies and also capturing your IP address. Remember, these are domestic terrorists we’re dealing with.

Hopefully the FBI gets involved following Senator Saxby Chambliss’s letter.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:08 pm

Liberal grouch is one of occupyrebellion/Rauhauser/Sheridan’s buddies.

JD (c543e6) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:16 pm

They attack everyone. Everyone.

JD (c543e6) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:18 pm

Big deal, domestic terrorism with bombs trumps burglary any day. Yawn.

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:21 pm

Yes, The Ed Show was passing strange. “He might be indicted tomorrow!” Sure. And aliens might land on Earth too. And Larry O dressed in a black suit and black tie like a funeral director, LOL.

I am happy today. America is reclaiming its heritage. There may be bumps on the road but we are now going stop the drones over Iowa and the IOUs flying around D.C. too. It’s all possible now.

Patricia (e1d89d) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:21 pm

By the prosecutors that all signed the recall petition, no doubt.

narciso (494474) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:23 pm

OK for good news, how about Sen Saxby Chambliss sending a letter to Holder encouraging him to look into the harassment of conservatives and then having Jake Tapper tweet about it? https://twitter.com/#!/jaketapper (I don’t know how to link to an individual tweet, Tapper sent this out about 4:30 eastern time.

John Pomeroy (80b8c4) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:29 pm

Let’s assume all of that nonsense is true. How does that compare to drug smuggling, bombing, domestic terrorism, perjury, filing false criminal complaints, abusive lawsuits, compjaints to employers, attacking spouses and families of critics, and being an all-around douchenozzle?

Kthxby

JD (c543e6) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:30 pm

Let’s assume all of that nonsense is true.

I don’t buy it. I even see the language used in it talking about “buddies”. It sounds like Patterico’s SWATting call, and I wonder if the same person wrote it.

Plus there’s Ace’s warning about links being posted to harvest right-wing commenters’ IP addresses and insert tracing cookies. You’d be a fool to accept those allegation at face value. It’s a ruse, is my bet.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:33 pm

“Monsanto pays taxes, how many votes should they get?”

– Kevin M

They vote with their money. I’d imagine you don’t have a problem with that.

Leviticus (102f62) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:33 pm

I got to have breakfast with someone from FIRE, which for a free speech wonk is like going to breakfast with Han Solo. Plus, my deposition ended early, so I got to spend time with the kids. And my new 2T cloud drive arrived. And I started drafting the motion for fees based on our win on an anti-SLAPP motion yesterday, which is as good a feeling in law as you can have without violating Title VII.

Ken (c24d1b) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:37 pm

I would give your right nut to see it too.

Comment by JD — 6/6/2012 @ 12:05 pm

We have a winner!

peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:38 pm

JD, we are just jealous that we don’t have a terrorist on our side….

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:38 pm

Ken, you just posted that to piss me off since I had lunch out of a paper bag with the bankruptcy court judges today, and am now drafting an petition for probate.

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:39 pm

Liberal Grouch:

We learned that your would-be benefactor, Ali Akbar, has a criminal record, involving credit card fraud, burglary and failure to appear.

“We”? I don’t know if your statement is true but, if it is, I guess Judge Vaughey would say you’re a mob posting information on the internet about one poor guy.

In other words, I guess that makes you like Aaron. Although I doubt your motive is to spread information.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:39 pm

Ken,

That sounds like a great day.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:41 pm

Sure, DRJ, encourage him. ** grumble **

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:42 pm

Or were you talking about Ken’s comment?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:45 pm

Ken. Liberal Grouch can, to steal from Ken, snort my taint.

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:54 pm

They vote with their money. I’d imagine you don’t have a problem with that.

Fine, let the undocumented residents vote with their money.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/6/2012 @ 3:56 pm

I would give your right nut to see it too.

Comment by JD — 6/6/2012 @ 12:05 pm

We have a winner!

Comment by peedoffamerican — 6/6/2012 @ 3:38 pm

You can have it. I’m done having kids and it just gets in the way of the cucumber anyway.

TomB (4a72e4) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:04 pm

I took the roundabout way and looked up the mugshot. Unless Ali found the fountain of youth, it isn’t the same guy.

I was SHOCKED, I tell you.

SHOCKED!

TomB (4a72e4) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:06 pm

Mittens should run the famous “Daisy” attack ad from the 64 Goldwater/Johnson presidential election. With obama telling Russia’s dictator to wait quietly until after the Nov. elections, after which obama will make more concessions on Americas National Defense.

mg (44de53) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:07 pm

You’re saying you’d be fine with foreign money buying American elections? I think the Framers might take issue with that.

Leviticus (102f62) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:07 pm

“We”? I don’t know if your statement is true but, if it is, I guess Judge Vaughey would say you’re a mob posting information on the internet about one poor guy.

In other words, I guess that makes you like Aaron. Although I doubt your motive is to spread information.

Comment by DRJ — 6/6/2012 @ 3:39 pm

Maybe we need to get the ol’ pickup truck, get the boys together, and take LiberalGrouch for a “ride”.

The Judge said we could, officer, honest!

TomB (4a72e4) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:08 pm

“You’re saying you’d be fine with foreign money buying American elections? I think the Framers might take issue with that.”

The propaganda that speech, in the forum of ideas that is the United States, is “buying elections” got tiresome a long time ago. Buying elections involves paying off voters, or poll workers or other election officials.

Not communicating an idea via speech.

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:11 pm

Leviticus, you are playing troll and I’m done now.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:12 pm

Liberal grouch is echoing that which Rauhauser and Kimberlin are pushing via occupy rebellion and breitbartunmasked. It is really transparent.

JD (318f81) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:13 pm

from my porch I hear
gnashing of liberal teeth
cries throughout teh land

p.s. and it’s a beautiful thing.

Colonel Haiku (61c904) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:14 pm

JD, vicious little slanderers are all they’ve ever been. Its the only talent they can share among the BK crime family.

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:22 pm

“We learned that your would-be benefactor, Ali Akbar, has a criminal record, involving credit card fraud, burglary and failure to appear.”

I haven’t donated any money to the cause (yet), because I never heard of Ali Akbar or the National Blogger Club, and I like to check things out BEFORE I start handing over cash, or providing credit card numbers.

As a matter of fact, I’d much prefer sending a check to a PO Box, rather than do it online.

Under the circumstances, I think I’ll hold off donating until I feel comfortable with how this whole thing is being handled.

Step 1: Set up a legal defense fund that isn’t run by someone with a past history of criminal activity.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:25 pm

They simply repeat their same actions on every new player.

Random, I don’t believe it for a moment. Hence, the let’s assume portion of what. I wrote.

JD (318f81) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:25 pm

Now I see that even Tapper’s tweet has become an article at Drudge is linking to abcnews and Drudge is linking to it. He who must not be named may possibly soon become a household name.

John Pomeroy (80b8c4) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:38 pm

Surls, why are you believing anything posted by the BK crime family associates?

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:41 pm

I guess Ali really is a hardened criminal (safe link to his facebook page):

http://www.facebook.com/notes/ali-a-akbar/my-mistake-brett-kimberlin-and-attacks-on-my-mother/279888128775027

TomB (4a72e4) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:43 pm

California is banning Foi Gras because people pay money to eat it.

mg (44de53) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:47 pm

To those who were involved in the discussion on the previous open thread about suicide and assisted suicide, I made 3 more comments on it about yet another benefit — a real, tangible benefit — to the policy change I and at least a few other commenters here support.

Comment or read or not if you like, but I think it is an extremely solid point: it would save lives of many of those who wish to live directly, in addition to reducing a lot of the trauma and suffering our current policies cause in several ways.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:48 pm

#77 John: Click on Expand on the tweet, then Details. That will give you a unique URL for the particular tweet. Example: https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/210506426978803712

Joshua (9ede0e) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:54 pm

It’s funny how Saxby Chambliss’s press release makes the distinction that it is conservative political commentators being harassed. (Plus, my confidence in the AG being even-handed if it were just conservatives doesn’t run high)…

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder regarding recent reports that several conservative political commentators have been targeted with harassing and frightening actions.

However, his actual letter does not make the distinction, which seems the smart way to go. This will be a more urgent request when both sides of the political aisle are seen as being impacted by the harassment.

I am writing with concern regarding recent reports that several members of the community of online political commentators have been targeted with harassing and frightening actions.

Dana (4eca6e) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:55 pm

“Leviticus, you are playing troll and I’m done now.”

– Kevin M

Kevin and SPQR,

I actually wasn’t trolling with that second (third?) comment. Would you be alright with foreign corporations, organizations, or individuals contributing money to candidates in US political campaigns?

Leviticus (102f62) — 6/6/2012 @ 4:57 pm

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/06/06/gloria-allred-has-finally-outdone-herself-did-you-see-this/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_camp

narciso (494474) — 6/6/2012 @ 5:07 pm

Now I see that even Tapper’s tweet has become an article at Drudge is linking to abcnews and Drudge is linking to it. He who must not be named may possibly soon become a household name.

Comment by John Pomeroy — 6/6/2012 @ 4:38 pm

He already has a name around my household. The short version is S.O.B.

peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 6/6/2012 @ 5:07 pm

Joshua at #109. Thanks for the steps. Now let’s see if I remember them next time I tried to link a tweet!

John who’s heading to the TV to watch the Kings demolish the Devils.

John Pomeroy (80b8c4) — 6/6/2012 @ 5:08 pm

Leviticus, I don’t like it. But I think the answer to not liking it is to use that information, in the form of speech, attacking the candidate for being the tool of foreign corporations.

Not using it as another propaganda point to restrict speech.

SPQR (26be8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 5:16 pm

“Surls, why are you believing anything posted by the BK crime family associates?”

Because, it appears to be true, that’s why.

Smooth move guys. You appear to have a convicted felon running the fund raising for your legal defense fund.

And, ironically, this whole thing started out because we were lambasting the lefties because they’re hooked up…with a conviced felon!

Brilliant.

Btw, what are you folks going to do for an encore? Start up a childcare service run by a convicted pedophile?

Bunch of freaking amateurs.

Well, with any luck the things being said about Akbar will turn out to be totally fabricated, only I don’t think we’re going to get that lucky.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/6/2012 @ 5:17 pm

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/06/pacific-institute-reinstates-peter-gleick/

narciso (494474) — 6/6/2012 @ 5:23 pm

Random,

I’m glad you left that warning. Folks need to take such warnings seriously. These folks are creeps, and they are attacking everyone they can track down.

Ali’s story of making a mistake is full of remorse and it’s honorable. I’m impressed that he made something of himself despite making a mistake. Makes me a little sick to see anyone who exercises free speech scrutinized by thugs. We are headed into a pretty crappy world if we can’t nip this trend in the bud.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 5:42 pm

Surls – did you read what Ali did?

JD (c543e6) — 6/6/2012 @ 5:42 pm

Ali’s story of making a mistake is full of remorse and it’s honorable.

Not sure I totally buy the he didn’t know about it until after thing, but a bit of crime and young men goes together like hand and glove. If he moved beyond that, that’s fine with me — especially since he seems to have been a terrifically ineffective criminal.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 5:44 pm

Because, it appears to be true, that’s why.

Dave, I don’t get it.

They spin and twist everything to an extreme degree, and toss in as many lies as they can.

Smooth move guys. You appear to have a convicted felon running the fund raising for your legal defense fund.

Sounds like he’s remorseful of his mistake and is an honorable man.

ronically, this whole thing started out because we were lambasting the lefties because they’re hooked up…with a conviced felon!

It is very disappointing that you would equivocate between Ali and Kimberlin.

Bunch of freaking amateurs.

I don’t see you lifting a finger, except to insult those who are braver than you.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 5:44 pm

Part of me obviously wishes it had never happened, but frankly, another part of me is glad it happened. It was the wake up call that I needed—it shook me out of my selfish, self-destructive funk and motivated me to surround myself with good influences—people who were ambitious just as I was and who would hold me accountable for my actions.

I don’t see any attempts to justify, obfuscate, or blame others. He screwed up, owned it, accepted the consequences and recognizes the power that event had in his life to get him back on the high road. He understands he is where he is because of that moment.

Remorse, repentance, restoration. The trifecta of a changed life.

Dana (4eca6e) — 6/6/2012 @ 5:51 pm

No one is ultimately responsible for anything, Dana, including Brett Kimberlin. We are deterministic machines, part of the physical universe.

Even his story verbatim is an example of this: intervention in the form of arrest changed him — the external event impacted the system.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 5:55 pm

Okay, Random, if you think we’re autobots without a soul, I guess that works.

Me, I think humans have a soul and we have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, and more importantly, to have a relationship with God who instills such knowledge.

If determinism were all there is, we would know intuitively that life had no meaning and we wouldn’t be compelled to seek out any reason to live or discover something that gives purpose to our lives. Ironically, man has forever been doing just that, compelled and driven to find the meaning of life and the reason we are here.

Dana (4eca6e) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:02 pm

Smooth move guys. You appear to have a convicted felon running the fund raising for your legal defense fund.

Is it just him, or is there an organization involved with oversight?

ronically, this whole thing started out because we were lambasting the lefties because they’re hooked up…with a conviced felon!

No this whole thing started because a convicted terrrorist bomber felon was threatening other bloggers. It has nothing to do with “guilt by association”.

Are you purposely lying or just making shit up?

TomB (4a72e4) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:06 pm

124. Let us pause in quiet remembrance of ‘Logical Consequence’. It was a poor, mean existence our friend eeked out.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:09 pm

Okay, Random, if you think we’re autobots without a soul, I guess that works.

We could be decepticons…

Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:10 pm

Heh. 126, I’m still trying to keep track of whether I’m inside or outside of the matrix… can’t every keep it straight.

Dana (4eca6e) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:15 pm

Me, I think humans have a soul and we have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, and more importantly, to have a relationship with God who instills such knowledge.

If determinism were all there is, we would know intuitively that life had no meaning and we wouldn’t be compelled to seek out any reason to live

lol So silly.

And, quite frankly, thick.

Intelligent organisms that realize this are less likely to reproduce or survive (to wit: me). Therefore, through natural selection, organisms that have the tendency to delude themselves on this score (with any of thousands of different religions, all of which you’d have been perfectly happy to believe if you’d been raised with them, or secular optimism if not) are adaptive, to use the technical term, and reproduce in greater numbers. Thus, are our tendencies toward religion and “meaning” born.

This is exactly as you’d predict through determinism and evolutionary processes.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:16 pm

Ron Brynaert starting following me on Twitter on May 25th and I blocked him. But I looked at his feed today for kicks and man is he “@Patterico” like a crazy man.

Harrison (975823) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:16 pm

If you’re in the Matrix, dana, you wouldn’t know it.

narciso (494474) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:19 pm

Remorse, repentance, restoration. The trifecta of a changed life.

Comment by Dana — 6/6/2012

Yes. He is a model for many others to follow. Including those whose mistakes are not quite as well documented. None of us are perfect. All of us need redemption.

No one is ultimately responsible for anything, Dana, including Brett Kimberlin. -Random

Tell that to Sandra Delong.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:20 pm

“I don’t see you lifting a finger”

What do you think I’m typing with with, my nose?

“…except to insult those who are braver than you.”

Hell, I never claimed to be brave. In fact, I’m the biggest coward here. I’m about the only person around that posts under his own name and flat out tells people where he lives.

You know why I do that?

Because I’m such a coward, that I’m afraid people will THINK I’m a coward if I hide behind a pseud and try to hide where I’m located.

It don’t get much more cowardly than that.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:22 pm

Brett Kimberlin was the proximate cause of Carl DeLong’s suicide, undoubtedly. But Brett Kimberlin was caused as well.

We all are.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight against certain things or do things, but robust moral responsibility is just an error.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:23 pm

But Brett Kimberlin was caused as well.

If everything has a cause, we seem to run into a metaphysical paradox. There would be an endless chain of causes… itself caused by…?

“I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.” (Job 42: 1-2)

That’s a way out of the problem.

Regardless, morality is useful and I think it’s also inherently true (though what is and isn’t moral can be debated in many cases, most of the things Brett has done to other people are immoral).

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:27 pm

“We are deterministic machines”

Shoot, no wonder this guy is depressed.

If I thought I was nothing more than a pre-programmed machine, powerless to alter my own destiny, I’d think about ending it all too.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:28 pm

Regardless, morality is useful

Sure, so is religion and optimism and belief in an afterlife and all sorts of things. In fact they increase group inclusive genetic fitness, through deterministic processes.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:28 pm

If I thought I was nothing more than a pre-programmed machine, powerless to alter my own destiny, I’d think about ending it all too.

Then may you ever believe your self-protective illusions of whichever flavor.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:30 pm

You owe Dana an apology . You are being a complete arse towards her for no justifiable reason.

Did you inquire about his resume today?

JD (c543e6) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:33 pm

lets be precise about we are talking about:

n the first six days of September 1978, a series of bombings struck Speedway. Initially there were no injuries; however, the last bombing led to the amputation of Vietnam veteran Carl DeLong’s right leg, as well as leaving DeLong and his wife with a series of other injuries that required significant hospitalization and rehabilitation.[10] DeLong committed suicide in February 1983.[9] Investigators traced the Mark-Time timer and the Tovex 200 used in the bombings to Kimberlin, and he was placed under surveillance.[7][11][9] The police believed that Kimberlin had conducted the Speedway bombings to divert attention from the murder investigation.[10]

narciso (494474) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:35 pm

Greetings:

As if to give the Google-meisters a run for their stock options this D-Day, the sixth of June, the Progressive (née Public) Broadcasting System included an appropriate in their minds several minute report on its “PBS Newshour” program this evening. The report was about a female Japanese-American medical doctor who was interned at the Manzanor relocation camp during the dark days of World War II. Apparently, she suffered some. As did my departed father who was drafted (interned ???) in the US Army at age 35 and got to spend some of his time in similar camps on Saipan and Peleliu.

While I saw this report that will live in my infamy on KQED, one of the San Francisco Bay area’s PBS stations, the other, KCSM is just as bad. Last December 7th, they ran a half-hour program with a similar theme.

But this is probably all just accidental in a plausibly deniable kind of way.

America 2.0

11B40 (a7c7dd) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:35 pm

Ken, my half-sister was very involved with FIRE when she was at Princeton around the turn of the aughts. It was brand new then, and I remember thinking it just might save America.

Glad to see they are still working on it, and with the right people.

SarahW (b0e533) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:43 pm

His cabinet or
0bama’s Team of Mascots
which describes better?

Colonel Haiku (61c904) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:43 pm

Random:

lol So silly.

And, quite frankly, thick.

What a shame you talk this way online. I hope you don’t talk this way in your real life.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 6:58 pm

Here are some reasons why the Supreme Court should grant cert to the Ninth Circuit Proposition 8 ruling.

– Proposition 8 satisfies strict scrutiny under current Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court held in Davis v. Beason that “certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.” 133 U.S. 333 at 344-345 (1890), quoting Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885)Proposition 8 clearly furthers this compelling government interest. It is narrowly tailored, as it only defines marriage, and it is the least restrictive means, as it leaves undisturbed other legal privileges held by homosexuals, either as individuals or couples. The only way the Supreme Court can strike down Proposition 8 is to overrule Davis or create an even stricter level of scrutiny.

– The Ninth Circuit purpoted to rule on the constitutionality of stripping a right from a group it had previously enjoyed on equal terms with others, while not deciding whether a state’s ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional. But this contradicts the Supreme Court ruling in Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406 (1977). In Brinkman, the Supreme Court held that “[t]he question of whether a rescission of previous Board action is, in and of itself, a violation of appellants’ constitutional rights is inextricably bound up with the question of whether the Board was under a constitutional duty to take the action which it initially took” id. at 414, citing Brinkman v. Gilligan, 503 F.2d 684 at 697 (6th Cir. 1974) Applying Brinkman to this case, the question of “whether a [state’s] rescission of [same-sex marriage, but not opposite-sex marriage] is, in and of itself, a violation of appellants’ constitutional rights is inextricably bound up with the question of whether the [state] was under a constitutional duty to take the action [of recognizing same-sex marriage, if it recognized opposite-sex marriage], which it initially took.

– The ruling violated equal protection.Courts must comply with equal protection just as much as the other branches of government. A court can not, without satisfying strict scrutiny, prohibit criticism of the government nor segregate public schools on the basis of race. It can not, without at least satisfying rational basis scrutiny, protect its heterosexual employees from sexual orientation discrimination while denying such protection to its homosexual employees.

If Congress passed a law that prohibited homosexuals from Oklahoma, and only Oklahoma, from serving in the armed forces, such a law would effectively deny homosexuals in Oklahoma a federal legal privilege available to those in other states, whether homosexual or heterosexual. It is doubtful that such a law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

The same Constitution that forbids Congress from doing such a thing forbids courts from doing such a thing. But that is what the panel did. It effectively granted homosexuals in California, and only California, a right to marry their same-sex partner. Homosexuals in California who want to marry their partners may now rely on the protections of the 14th Amendment if their ability is infringed because of the sex of their partner. Homosexuals in Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon may not rely on this protection if their ability to marry is infringed because of the sex of their partner, but instead must appeal to their respective states to amend their respective state constitutions.

– The ruling also places California “in a solitary class”, Romer, 517 U.S. at 627, with respect to the power to regulate marriage. The ruling stripped California, and no other state, of the power to define marriage as a “union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony” Murphy, 114 U.S. at 45, a power it previously enjoyed with all other states on an equal basis.

If the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution mean anything, it means that its guarantees protect people equally across the states, and burdens the states equally. Until now, every appellate court had adhered to this basic principle.

Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:18 pm

but robust moral responsibility is just an error.

If existence is completely meaningless, for you to inject meaning or purpose after the fact is hypocritical.

IOW, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Dana (4eca6e) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:22 pm

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight against certain things or do things, but robust moral responsibility is just an error.

Shouldn’t implies a moral obligation. If you believe in determinism, there’s no such thing as morality. Shit happens, so why do you fight? And fight for what?

This is circular at best, hypocritical at the least.

Dana (4eca6e) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:24 pm

No way I’m going to apologize. This is one of the dullest things I’ve ever read:

If determinism were all there is, we would know intuitively that life had no meaning and we wouldn’t be compelled to seek out any reason to live

Can no one spot the obvious flaw in that, in light of natural selection?

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:25 pm

If existence is completely meaningless, for you to inject meaning or purpose after the fact is hypocritical.

IOW, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Life isn’t an I/0 (binary) switch. The brain evolved to create meaning (or at least the illusion thereof).

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:27 pm

“No one is ultimately responsible for anything, Dana,”

Except Bush, according to Obama.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:34 pm

I think there is a medication for that;

http://www.rollcall.com/news/Nancy-Pelosi-Remembers-25-Years-in-Congress-215120-1.html?pos=hln

narciso (494474) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:34 pm

If Dana is thick (which she is certainly not)
Random is a dlck (which you certainly are)

It must be wonderful to be as awesome as you believe yourself to be.

JD (c543e6) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:34 pm

It must be wonderful to be as awesome as you believe yourself to be.

All good things come to an end.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:39 pm

“No one is ultimately responsible for anything”

Random – Your former girlfriend, she is not responsible for her decision to commit suicide. She had no choices. The “system” forced her to do it.

Brett Kimberlin was forced to choose a life of amorality and crime and the “system” intervened and arrested him, changing his subsequent life.

Interesting how you can point to these situations as if people have no choices when they actually do. Being a hindsight hero is great, isn’t it?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:39 pm

Apparently the lesson for today is Nihilism.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:44 pm

“Apparently the lesson for today is Nihilism.”

DRJ – Random is ultimately responsible for perseverating on that subject.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:46 pm

Random – Your former girlfriend, she is not responsible for her decision to commit suicide.

As usual, you can’t be bothered to get basic facts right. I answered your question there. She isn’t my ex girlfriend. And you’d know this if you could read. Nor did I ever say she was. But whatever, you’re an arse.

Yes, we make choices. That’s what our brains do. But we can’t make any different choices than the ones we in fact make.

Rewind the tape: you’ll do the same thing every time.

Unless the randomness of quantum physics intervenes, and that’s still no kind of free will.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:49 pm

“Then may you ever believe your self-protective illusions of whichever flavor.”

I’d rather have an illusion that makes me happy than an illusion that fills me with despair.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:49 pm

Why are you so thick, DRJ?!

JD (c543e6) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:50 pm

I read Aaron has filed an appeal of Judge Vaughey’s Final Peace Order. Maybe that’s simply a notice of appeal, but does anyone know if the appeal document(s) are online yet?

Also, I don’t recall if the appeal is to the District Court or the Circuit Court. Anyone know?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:51 pm

Random,

I may be thick, dull, silly, and a brunette, but what I have that you don’t have (as evidenced by your upset and subsequent grasping for meaning over your friend’s unfortunate death) is peace of mind. I know that beyond this vale of tears is purpose and meaning.

Perhaps hope is found with maturation or perhaps it comes to those who have at one point, hit the come to the end of their own rope. I don’t know. But what I do know is you can do intellectual cartwheels all day long as you struggle to find meaning and dress up your lack of it in determinism and behaviorism, etc., and try to convince us you know best. However, at the end of the day when you lay down at night and are alone in the silence with just you and God, what you do right then and there about Him is what determines your next day, and every day after. Yes, simple. Because aside from an inflated view of self, that’s what we in essence all are: simple, mortal, fallible, fallen, and in want.

I suspect you thrive on the mental gyrations and smugly preen when you believe you’ve landed a hit. But, frankly, I just don’t care enough to play. I’m without need or will to best anyone, or to deftly slice and dice in order to be right. IOW, I have nothing to prove.

But I will say, you have strongly reminded me exactly why I believe what I do. So thank you for that.

Dana (4eca6e) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:53 pm

JD,

Probably because I took philosophy more than 30 years ago. It doesn’t hold the same appeal for me today as it did when I was Random’s age.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:54 pm

Eh…~~hit the~~ come to the end of their own rope

Dana (4eca6e) — 6/6/2012 @ 7:56 pm

I saw notice of that, DRJ, but haven’t seen anything beyond the announcement.

In related news, occupy rebellion/Rauhauser is in yet another manic phase on twitter.

JD (318f81) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:01 pm

The year I turned 27 I got into existentialism after clearing my head of dope for good. Read 50 books, honest, Sartre, Camus, Gide, Beckett, Lawrence, Nietzsche and a host of others.

Then, like Jan. 2, I read John, the Gospel of, and decided to make a new start and take Him for what He claimed.

Prolly haven’t read 50 books since. I blame the dope but a surfeit of books has its downside as well. Reminiscent of Ecclesiastes, no?

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:06 pm

“Probably because I took philosophy more than 30 years ago. It doesn’t hold the same appeal for me today as it did when I was Random’s age.”

DRJ – Me too. For me it’s a question of mind over matter. I don’t mind that much because Random doesn’t really matter, other than his tendency to hijack threads and constantly repeat himself.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:07 pm

Dana, they’re a series of evolved, if culturally modulated, delusions that prevent despair, apathy, and, yes, suicide. They keep us going in a pointless situation.

Life is the DNA molecule endlessly replicating itself and doing battle with other versions of DNA.

Random (27bd11) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:11 pm

Random doesn’t really matter

Well this much is true.

Random (27bd11) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:16 pm

“As usual, you can’t be bothered to get basic facts right. I answered your question there. She isn’t my ex girlfriend. And you’d know this if you could read.”

Random – Your words follow, dipshit:

“A friend of mine — a girl I loved, really — hanged herself 3 days ago and mentioned me in her suicide: that she loved me and I loved her.”

She was a girl you loved. Call her whatever you want. The only question you answered was that she was not the love of your life. You would know that if you reviewed the thread.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:18 pm

It’s good to study philosophy and think about our role in the world. But life has a way of undermining even the best philosophies.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:21 pm

166. I’ve encountered it a number of times but again this year in squirt’s Montessori class.

Three sets of twins, one identical, perfectly so. Yet they are emotionally very different. One given to dissolution at slights, clingy, high-maintenance, although she made strides after her third Bday. The other confident, independent, copacetic, equable.

Their DNA is identical, but the organism itself is responsible for its own development, engaging its environment, and from 4 months on inescapable to the patient observer.

It is a self-serving myth that we know squat. You want a hilarious treatise of pseudoscientific pomposity? Read Skinner’s “Autonomous Man”.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:23 pm

gary,

Your comment reminded me of a theory I developed after watching my kids and their friends grow up: With rare exception, you can tell what someone’s personality will be as an adult by the time they are 3 or 4 years old.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:27 pm

Maybe Random is just an extremely bright 4 year old…

Gazzer (c65123) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:33 pm

Fortunately, Random, you are still young and life will give you plenty of opportunity to see what you can’t yet see and to understand that what we have is so very much more than just existing.

It will also give you time to improve your manners.

Dana (4eca6e) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:34 pm

Dana, how the h— do you know how old I am?

And you’re wrong. My life is virtually over.

Random (27bd11) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:36 pm

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/abc-covers-kimberline-saga/

narciso (494474) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:38 pm

170. Agree completely. Now squirt is by no means a finished product at 4, thankfully so considering a willful nature. But at 4 months she was babbling and creating words to go with role play amongst her toys.

At six months she played a game with her mother, making a progression of noises that her mother repeated. Then she made another, laughing as she awaited the response. This went on for perhaps 15 minutes.

At 3 she was playing ‘baby dolphin’ in the tub and I told her for the 10,000th time not to drink the bath water, or something similar. Her response “Talk to the flipper”!

Today she’s a fearless extrovert. Introducing herself on the playground, hugging anyone who smiles at her,…

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:40 pm

I assumed by your writing you were young, Random. That you’re not makes me feel all the more sorry for you.

Dana (4eca6e) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:46 pm

173. “My life is virtually over.”

Mine in a sense began at 56 with my first child. Grandparents seem to have an even better time.

The problems come when the body peters out.

I’m not thinking the soul has a life without a body, but the spirit I trust will survive having a life with God.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:48 pm

“Mine in a sense began at 56 with my first child.”

Dude, you’re a late bloomer.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:56 pm

My youngest (not counting strays) just turned 35 today.

I’m 58 (going on 12).

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:58 pm

With rare exception, you can tell what someone’s personality will be as an adult by the time they are 3 or 4 years old.

I am so totally screwed.

JD (318f81) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:58 pm

I assumed by your writing you were young, Random. That you’re not makes me feel all the more sorry for you.

Comment by Dana — 6/6/2012 @ 8:46 pm

You believe in angels and nonsense, Dana.

That you would assign a juvenile age to someone who understands far more of reality than you do isn’t surprising.

Random (27bd11) — 6/6/2012 @ 8:59 pm

“Dana, how the h— do you know how old I am?

And you’re wrong. My life is virtually over.”

Dana – Do not be fooled. Random is not contradicting you.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:00 pm

Why so hostile to such kind and gentle people, Random?!

JD (318f81) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:00 pm

On our bud, AW…

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/302060/re-arrested-blogging-jonathan-h-adler

Colonel Haiku (a1a83b) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:02 pm

Why so hostile to such kind and gentle people, Random?!

Comment by JD — 6/6/2012 @ 9:00 pm

It’s one of my faults, JD. I find the stupidity and outright insane delusions of my species as frustrating as everything else.

But hey — there ought to be a legal humane solution to that dilemma. 😛

Random (27bd11) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:02 pm

It actually had nothing to do with Dana’s personality. I’m sure she’s nicer than me, when she isn’t telling people they remind her of children and that she feels sorry for them, all of which is overlooked because of her gender.

But aside from that, I’m sure she’s nicer than me.

No, it was the assertion of something as factual, when natural selection would (and did) produce the exact opposite of her assertion that annoyed the heck out of me. It was the idea. The blindness. The failure to understand what’s right in front of one.

Of course natural selection would select against traits that undermine will to live.

For goodness sakes, that’s basic.

Random (27bd11) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:05 pm

Eff off

JD (318f81) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:05 pm

Ah, he can’t help it, JD. He is a psychological Calvinist.

Seriously, dude. People were nice to you here when you were processing fresh tragedy. You ought to be nice to them in return.

Don’t make the rookie mistake of confusing honesty with tactlessness.

Simon Jester (d3420a) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:06 pm

, all of which is overlooked because of her gender.

Lie.

JD (318f81) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:08 pm

Seriously, dude. People were nice to you here when you were processing fresh tragedy. You ought to be nice to them in return.

I just said Dana is a nicer person than I am. What more can I do?

Her statement, however, was inane. It’s totally irrational. And it is an exceedingly basic error. It isn’t some kind of advanced error or something.

If a person can’t grasp that basic of a concept, what an they grasp?

The concept is this: natural selection would tend to do away with intelligent organisms that lack meaning, i.e., a will to live. Ergo, natural selection would tend to produce intelligent organisms that make meaning and have a will to live.

It isn’t complicated.

Random (27bd11) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:10 pm

*can

Random (27bd11) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:11 pm

Don’t make the rookie mistake of confusing honesty with tactlessness.

I am not, as a rule, a tactful person.

Random (27bd11) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:14 pm

I work here is done.

Dana (4eca6e) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:14 pm

Or maybe more self loathing. After all, why go out of ones’ way to be rude to others? Always more than meets the eye with these angry types.

Simon Jester (d3420a) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:15 pm

No, Dana, is being more understanding than you deserve, one tries to imagine what you’re going through, but you insist on rationalizing a Thanatos impulse, human beings aren’t wired that way, there’s a reason why every moral code was against suicide, including the hippocratic,

narciso (494474) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:16 pm

Its main problem was that it did not guarantee that then revenue would be spent in California.

No, that was the idiot tobacco companies line, since they didn’t like the obvious “sure a tobacco tax sounds like a good idea but shouldn’t it go to the schools?” argument. So they appealed to morons and cynics with non sequiturs like that one. I got about two dozen of those idiot flyers and they didn’t convince me AND I ALREADY OPPOSED IT.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:16 pm

Oh wait, that was a compliment? Are you allergic to tact, or does your awesomeness not allow for that? Did you reach out to Gibson today?

JD (318f81) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:17 pm

After all, why go out of ones’ way to be rude to others?

It actually isn’t that. I’m not angry at Dana.

It’s the idea was utterly daft. It was a little “thick”. Sorry. It’s completely wrong.

“Surely Dana must see that?” he asked rhetorically, while fearing very much that Dana doesn’t see that at all.

It’s very frustrating trying to relate with delusional creatures who insist on reaching the exact wrong conclusion because of their religious biases.

Pray tell why and how would determinism — i.e., natural selection — favor the evolution of organisms that lack meaning and the will to live?

Anyone want to sketch out that mechanism for me?

Random (27bd11) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:19 pm

I work here is done.

Comment by Dana — 6/6/2012 @ 9:14 pm

Well said.

Random (27bd11) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:20 pm

Amazingly enough, you were more pleasant when you were spewing crackpot theories about Big Pharma

JD (318f81) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:22 pm

Heh…I work is done…IMA someone (can’t remember) joke…

Good luck, Random.

Dana (4eca6e) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:26 pm

Good luck, Random.

Comment by Dana — 6/6/2012 @ 9:26 pm

Thanks. You too.

Random (27bd11) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:31 pm

“…Pray tell why and how would determinism — i.e., natural selection — favor the evolution of organisms that lack meaning and the will to live?..”

Which no one actually said, of course.

You know, when people call me condescending, it always hurts my feelings and makes me wonder. Thank you for a vivid example of how thoughtless and rude a person can be, quite independently of your knowledge base.

And thoughtless and rude toward people who literally went out of their way to be kind and understanding toward you, when you were in pain.

A hint: please be careful with the way you describe natural selection. I’m very aware that you are trolling to fight, but I am also aware, based on how you explain your point of view, that you come at simple models of natural selection as a way to explain sociology and class structure. And that path has demonstrably led to some awful historical actions.

Which you will want to fight about, as well. Not interested, because you are not interested in discussion, but fighting.

I would simply observe that you are dealing with personal issues, and hope to feel better by making yourself feel superior to others. Which is sad, regardless.

Simon Jester (d3420a) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:34 pm

“…That you would assign a juvenile age to someone who understands far more of reality than you do isn’t surprising….”

Where is nk, when I need him, to deliver Socrates’ admonition in Greek?

Simon Jester (d3420a) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:37 pm

“…Pray tell why and how would determinism — i.e., natural selection — favor the evolution of organisms that lack meaning and the will to live?..”

Which no one actually said, of course.

“If determinism were all there is, we would know intuitively that life had no meaning and we wouldn’t be compelled to seek out any reason to live ….”

Random (27bd11) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:38 pm

178. Yeah, aspies, health clubs, red wine and german beer was my life for too long.

Glad all that useless freedom is behind me now.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:44 pm

Comment by Simon Jester — 6/6/2012 @ 9:34 pm

I’m not arguing all of natural selection here. I’m saying that the idea that determinism would cause natural selection to favor the development of organisms without a strong desire to find reasons to live is daft, because obviously those organisms would be at a survival disadvantage.

Yes, that is simplistic and doesn’t account for all impulses (taking risks to reproduce, or altruistic impulses like sacrificing oneself for the benefit of others, who one is likely related to), but it’s pretty much the most basic natural selection concept you could get at: of course it is going to favor, in general, organisms that want to live.

I’m being repetitive since there’s so little to say on this, as one struggles to think of a more basic natural selection concept.

Random (27bd11) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:46 pm

Anyway, I am sorry if I offended you, Dana, or you as a group. That wasn’t my intention.

But yes, her conception of it was backwards.

Random (27bd11) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:47 pm

204. Yeah, I was trying, in his absence, to draw on my Greek but drew the usual blank. I was a lousy student.

Envy the native command.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:48 pm

How about Demosthenes:

“A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true.”

“I am looking for a man.”

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:53 pm

Determinism has been proven false. There is no underlying truth to the universe. God throws his dice where only He can see them, then calls out the results. He may cheat. We’d never know.

Go read up on quantum mechanics. The only real question is whether there is one sequence of reality or an infinitely branching set of realities. If the latter, suicide is amazingly pointless. And time travel has no paradoxes.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:55 pm

207. Nice try. Thank you for participating.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:55 pm

Ah, Random.

You might rethink your interpretation of Dana’s statement, if not your inexcusably rude response (if you think being tactless and rude is all strong and certain, I recommend you head over to Jeff Goldstein’s place; he is all over that meme). I certainly know what she meant, and it’s not how you interpret it.

“…I’m not arguing all of natural selection here…”

No, none of us are fooled. You aren’t talking about natural selection at all in this thread. You are processing your own pain. You saw how people were willing—even given how differently you perceive the world—to be kind to you when you discussed (at length) your pain. It would have been easier for them to ignore you…but they wanted to show you kindness.

It’s telling you aren’t willing to do the same in return.

Be well.

Simon Jester (d3420a) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:55 pm

“If determinism were all there is, we would know intuitively that life had no meaning and we wouldn’t be compelled to seek out any reason to live ….”

Random – The above fits exactly with your philosophy of none of us asked to be born and that don’t actually have any choices in life and therefore cannot be responsible for our actions. It’s as if, as Dana suggested earlier, we are all part of some giant matrix, but that would involve some type of belief in a higher power or guiding principle, which is just crazy talk.

The more you talk the more you contradict yourself, which is fun to watch, because it just make you angrier when people point it out, putz.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/6/2012 @ 9:58 pm

“But we can’t make any different choices than the ones we in fact make.”

Hilarious

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:02 pm

Determinism has been proven false. There is no underlying truth to the universe. God throws his dice where only He can see them, then calls out the results. He may cheat. We’d never know.

Go read up on quantum mechanics ….

I addressed this, and have been studying quantum mechanics since I was a boy, and mentioned it on this thread already. Chance does not give free will. But you’ll just ignore the fact I already covered this.

Random (27bd11) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:23 pm

and, the atheistic despair-fest goes on.

Man, wake when it’s over.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:25 pm

“…I addressed this, and have been studying quantum mechanics since I was a boy, and mentioned it on this thread already. Chance does not give free will. But you’ll just ignore the fact I already covered this….”

Sigh.

Socrates covered hubris a very, very long time ago. I have found that people who aren’t physicists who claim to have been studying quantum physics for many years are actually talking about something quite different than what Dirac wrote about. They want to feel smart, like a quite silly troll who posts here from time to time, nishi. She also claims deep knowledge of many fields, and likes to call other people names.

Funny, huh? You at least can use punctuation and capital letters.

Please quit trying to pick fights. If you are truly so certain about so many things (and again, you fool no one regarding your motivations for that sad pose), why come here to fight? Why not just laugh and move on?

Because you aren’t certain at all, of course. Which explains why you are so rude to people who were kind to you, so that you can fight them, and feel strong and wise.

Go heal for a while. And consider that the people you described as “thick,” “daft,” and “stupid” showed you far more humanity and kindness than you have shown others today.

Simon Jester (5554dd) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:36 pm

Well, this thread took a lame turn.

I just wanted to say I noticed that Aaron’s story is being discussed on a Chinese blog. Pat’s is on Drudge Report. ABC News covered the story and I think they are continuing to.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that many find this story interesting and important, though.

A few have noted a discrepancy here:

(Brett Kimberlin:)I’m the director of several non profits in the area I work with human rights issues and government accountability issues and so it’s part of my job to to work on the internet because it’s basically a social networking job

and

Kimberlin denied he was responsible for the post, even saying that he does not maintain any online presence […] “I don’t blog, I don’t comment, I don’t tweet on any blogs at all. Kimberlin said.

I guess this is silly. No one believes anything this guy says after they pay attention for any length of time. He simply cannot tell the truth, even if there’s no good reason to lie in that instance.

Senator Chambliss is asking the Department of Justice to solve the swatting case. I suggest they ask the Dallas FBI office to guide the investigation, as they have been successful with solving this type of crime.

And there are many other wheels turning right now. It’s exciting, yet bittersweet because it seems like every day they find another innocent person to target.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:41 pm

and, the atheistic despair-fest goes on.
Man, resuscitate me when it’s over.
Comment by Dave Surls — 6/6/2012 @ 10:25 pm

— FTFY

Icy (086a9e) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:44 pm

When actor George Sanders took his own life, he left a note which said, in part,
“Dear World, I am leaving because I am bored…”
Random’s could say, “…because I am so boring…”

Gazzer (c65123) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:49 pm

News for Wednesday was the death of Ray Bradbury; John Scalzi remembered him with On the Passing of Ray Bradbury “Meeting the Wizard”. Go, read, reach to your bookshelf and be enchanted again.

htom (412a17) — 6/6/2012 @ 10:49 pm

218. I guess I might mention that unlike Random I do have a physics degree.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:13 pm

Random has some serious issues to deal with, so let’s show some grace.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:18 pm

To all those ascribing other motives, you are totally mistaken.

I’m taking issue with a specific, completely illogical, idea more than anything. Even if evolution is completely false, the theory of evolution itself clearly predicts that natural selection would select for organisms with — by and large — a desire for life.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:19 pm

Random has some serious issues to deal with, so let’s show some grace.

Comment by Dustin — 6/6/2012 @ 11:18 pm

Oh get real, Dustin. What she said made no sense. It was the exact opposite of what determinism would predict (and in my opinion, did cause to happen). One can be religious and still grasp that natural selection — were it true — would lead to organisms without a desire to live being cast aside, over time, in favor of ones with such a desire. What she said was just silly.

Irrespective of my current mood.

And if you want the truth, I’ve been in a better mood than usual this week, one day excepted.

I appreciate that you’re trying to be compassionate by assigning everything I say that you don’t approve of at the moment to grief or what have you, but really this isn’t that. There isn’t any emotional state I could be in where I would credit such an inanely illogical statement.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:26 pm

I think that’s true, Random, and I think the theory of evolution is plainly accurate about changes from generation to generation over the entire course of life on Earth.

But sometimes I think people who are trying to ‘prove’ evolution practice confirmation bias. Everything they see … they find some way to explain how it’s natural selection. In many cases, I bet it’s just how things happened to be.

Like 80 year old people. Why in the world are there any? They take resources away from those who can procreate. Oh, I know… it’s because their wisdom promotes survival and meta-clans with old folks thrived! Except that’s probably BS.

Saying things that want to live are going to survive better than those that don’t is pretty obvious, though. I doubt anyone disagrees with that. No offense, but many of your comments express something that everyone agreed with already.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:27 pm

I appreciate that you’re trying to be compassionate by assigning everything I say that you don’t approve of at the moment to grief or what have you, but really this isn’t that.

Actually, that isn’t what I meant. I was simply annoyed at how hard people were being on someone who probably could use some slack.

I didn’t read most of your comments, actually.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:28 pm

natural selection would select for organisms with — by and large — a desire for life.

That’s what I was saying is true.

But Dana’s point about purpose and meaning was true as well, and I’m not sure why you are making such a big deal out of it.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:31 pm

But sometimes I think people who are trying to ‘prove’ evolution practice confirmation bias.

Probably — and maybe the theory’s totally wrong — but that is still numero uno prediction you would make with the theory.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:37 pm

Saying things that want to live are going to survive better than those that don’t is pretty obvious, though. I doubt anyone disagrees with that. No offense, but many of your comments express something that everyone agreed with already.

Except for Dana. Dana fundamentally said the opposite. That’s why I criticized it.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:40 pm

“I’ve been in a better mood than usual this week…”

Brother, I’d hate to see what you’re like when you’re in a downer mood.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:45 pm

Dustin, you are way too accommodating of the psycho-babble spewed by R, in its angst driven quest to overcome its existential ennui and shed the tedium of earth bound existence.. Or something. Best left ignored, IMHO.

Gazzer (c65123) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:46 pm

But Dana’s point about purpose and meaning was true as well, and I’m not sure why you are making such a big deal out of it.

It’s sort of true. We create meaning naturally although whether that’s because there is an ultimate meaning to life or we just evolved to do so to survive is debatable. That’s not the part I’m taking biggest issue with, although I think it likely there is no purpose to life, as such.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/6/2012 @ 11:51 pm

Even I assign meaning to things. For example, I give primacy to subjective experience, alleviating suffering and, if possible, giving joy. I don’t always do this, but I think that’s about the best one can do in this universe.

So, by my way of looking at it, a cook who cooks a nice meal is doing something meaningful. Etc.

But do I think this is ultimately, in some universal sense, true? No, probably not. But experience is the only thing I can even imagine having importance.

What value a rock in the middle of nowhere forever?

But a feeling, thinking thing? OK, even if it isn’t true, objective meaning, I’ll assign it some … if only because my psychology evolved to do so.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:00 am

Random’s girl friend committing suicide was natural selection based on his logic.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:07 am

Silent Friday is going to be a blessing, I feel…

Gazzer (c65123) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:08 am

Random’s girl friend committing suicide was natural selection based on his logic.

Comment by daleyrocks — 6/7/2012 @ 12:07 am

Yes. Obviously.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:08 am

And predetermined.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:08 am

And predetermined.

Comment by daleyrocks — 6/7/2012 @ 12:08 am

It happened as a result of causes that lead her to it, yes. Had something different happened, she would have done something different.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:14 am

Silent Friday is going to be a blessing, I feel…

Comment by Gazzer — 6/7/2012 @ 12:08 am

I plan on commenting, but limiting myself to support of the goal of this Friday, per Ace’s plan.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:21 am

I just got home from a four hour plus production of The Iceman Cometh. God, this thread and characters are even more depressing than the play and its characters were.

elissa (6dc970) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:26 am

There’s a lot to be depressed about.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:27 am

“I plan on commenting, but limiting myself to support of the goal of this Friday, per Ace’s plan.”

Which is to miss the point completely, but you knew that…

Gazzer (c65123) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:27 am

Which is to miss the point completely, but you knew that…

Comment by Gazzer — 6/7/2012 @ 12:27 am

No, actually, read his post.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:31 am

Even if evolution is completely false, the theory of evolution itself clearly predicts that natural selection would select for organisms with — by and large — a desire for life.
Comment by Random — 6/6/2012 @ 11:19 pm
— OR, an instinct for survival.

That’s not the part I’m taking biggest issue with, although I think it likely there is no purpose to life, as such.
Comment by Random — 6/6/2012 @ 11:51 pm
— Perhaps your purpose is to discover THE purpose and share it with the rest of us. Only a truly selfish person would keep such a secret to himself.

It happened as a result of causes that lead her to it, yes. Had something different happened, she would have done something different.
Comment by Random — 6/7/2012 @ 12:14 am
— For instance: if the same thing had happened, BUT she had responded to it differently (sought help, or something), THAT would constitute something different happening.

Icy (086a9e) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:30 am

For instance: if the same thing had happened, BUT she had responded to it differently

The brain makes decision through physical processes according to physical laws. If the starting conditions and all random conditions (quantum events) happened the same, she’d do the same thing.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 2:02 am

Anyway, there’s cell phone video. Unlike the first rape years ago, the police are investigating.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 2:07 am

I need a barbiturate to cope with life after reading this thread.

mg (44de53) — 6/7/2012 @ 2:22 am

The brain makes decision through physical processes according to physical laws. If the starting conditions and all random conditions (quantum events) happened the same, she’d do the same thing.
Comment by Random — 6/7/2012 @ 2:02 am

— What a load of crap! It happened, therefore it was the only possible outcome?

Icy (086a9e) — 6/7/2012 @ 2:50 am

What a load of crap! It happened, therefore it was the only possible outcome?

Comment by Icy — 6/7/2012 @ 2:50 am

Well that’s the free will debate in a nutshell, isn’t it?

But if the world is governed by physical law, then yes, exactly.

Or, possibly, there’s some kind of mystical exemption carved out for the infinitesimal fraction of the universe’s matter and energy that is Homo sapiens, but this seems unlikely.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 2:53 am

This is great.

Nothing I like better than a good old-fashioned psycho-babble wankfest!

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/7/2012 @ 3:43 am

123.No one is ultimately responsible for anything, Dana, including Brett Kimberlin. We are deterministic machines, part of the physical universe.
Even his story verbatim is an example of this: intervention in the form of arrest changed him — the external event impacted the system.
Comment by Random — 6/6/2012 @ 5:55 pm

I tried to previously make the point, along with at least one other person, that IMO, FWIW, Random you are finding long and involved ways to say nothing while thinking/pretending to be profound.

If we are deterministic machines, there is little point in discussing much of anything, as there is no real thinking, no real feeling, no real learning in any way we think we normally think of them. It seems like you want to be profound in your thinking while being reductionist. Perhaps you claim that to be an ironic paradox of existence, I think it is irrational.

The argument I’m thinking of is akin to Lewis’ in The Abolition of Man.
If someone else wants to discuss topics in reference to Random I’ll keep an eye on things and possible enter the discussion, but I’ve come to the conclusion that random likes to discuss all manner of new and interesting things, but would never consider learning anything. This is a reference to Paul’s description of the Athenians in the book of Acts.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:12 am

I just read a funny story via “Smoking Gun” about a woman that was arrested for hitting her pink sex toy at a cops forehead.. it was really worth a laugh.

Alissa Dirks (a95d6f) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:16 am

At ABC’s “The Note“. “Senator Asks DOJ to Investigate SWAT-ting Attacks on Conservative Bloggers”

geoffb (1f4c30) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:23 am

211, 216, 218, 223. Got a B+ in Nuclear Physics, but unlike Diff Eq, had no effin’ clue what I was doing.

Math minor, perhaps 50 credits in applied and pure physics, and I don’t know squat.

Feynman knew, “QED” is a wonderful little book. He led a discovery expedition late in life pursuing Siberian Throat Music. An early date with my wife(engaged in 4 mo.) was to Paul Pena’s movie with a Feynman intro:

http://www.fotuva.org/music/index.html

Smell the roses, look over the next hill.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/7/2012 @ 5:58 am

They don’t give the Darwin Award out for nothin’, folks.

Colonel Haiku (df3dff) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:00 am

Senator Foghorn Leghorn of GA, despite his comment on SWATting, is useless. He is a disappointment to his state and to the nation, a certified Bohner crying-towel holder. Unfortunately, he’s not up for replacement in November.

twolaneflash (40d2b8) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:11 am

never seen before
“Smart piece by EJ Dionne”
oxymoronic

Colonel Haiku (df3dff) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:12 am

No, credit when credit is due, for Saxbee, he blanched on the death panels and other issues,

narciso (494474) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:16 am

Pratfall:

http://minx.cc/?post=329931

Corey will be Allred before Z gets his day.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:23 am

No, she’s gone fully Fitz, recall how the former tried to censor a book that criticized his previous performance.

narciso (494474) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:25 am

MD in Philly – You can rent the movie, you don’t have to be part of the discussion.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/7/2012 @ 6:39 am

Senator Foghorn Leghorn of GA, despite his comment on SWATting, is useless. He is a disappointment to his state and to the nation, a certified Bohner crying-towel holder. Unfortunately, he’s not up for replacement in November.

Comment by twolaneflash

He is one of the few men in congress who did their job and exercised oversight on this matter. I don’t expect Senator Boxer will be demanding anyone help Patterico.

He deserves a lot of respect for this.

Dustin (330eed) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:10 am

‘Guilty as hell, free as a bird’ seems to be their
strategy,

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/06/06/2836311/book-us-taped-accused-911-mastermind.html

narciso (494474) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:16 am

I jokingly referred to 2nd semester P.Chem as “Voodoo Chemistry”. That electron has a 50-50 chance of being over here or over there, but you can never catch it going from one place to another. That, and the prof did mathematical work with linear algebra, and I had taken diff. equations.
There are very bright people who do theoretical chemistry without hubris, I am not one of them (especially the without hubris part, but not the other, either).

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:42 am

It is very disappointing that you would equivocate between Ali and Kimberlin.

I don’t see how “equivocate” fits in that sentence. I suspect that the commenter meant to write “equate”. I only note this because it’s the second or third time I’ve seen this error lately and it bugs me.

Milhouse (312124) — 6/7/2012 @ 7:45 am

” And predetermined.

Comment by daleyrocks — 6/7/2012 @ 12:08 am

It happened as a result of causes that lead her to it, yes. Had something different happened, she would have done something different.”

– Random

Conflating causality and determinism is a dangerous thing, I think. You’re making Butterfly Effect arguments and calling it determinism, when it’s really just chaos theory (which squares better with your earlier statement that “Chance does not give free will”). Chance may not give free will, but chance (in the quantum mechanical, infinite-interwoven-realities sense) doesn’t fit very well with determinism, either. If you’re acknowledging a significant role for chance, I think you’re advocating chaos more than determinism.

Leviticus (e445f5) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:44 am

If we are deterministic machines, there is little point in discussing much of anything, as there is no real thinking, no real feeling, no real learning in any way

?

How is thinking, feeling, and learning — occurring through physical laws — not “real”?

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:55 am

Basically, MD in Philly, you think we must have magic for what we do to be real?

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:57 am

Leviticus, I understand what you’re getting at, and I don’t disagree that QED may lead to unpredictable chaos in the macro world, but I am using the word “determinism” correctly in the in the philosophical sense:

The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.

That includes chance.

Even if one goes with a common, and slightly different definition of determinism:

The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

the difference is one of semantics, not substance — because I have repeatedly acknowledged the role that random chance, more properly stochastism:

Randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but may not be predicted

play. So if you don’t like definition #1 of determinism, where you see me use the shorthand phrase, substitute “determinism and stochastism”.

This is often called the GES model: Genes, Environment, Stochasticism — those would be the exhaustive sum total of what determine human behavior.

It’s interesting that because I do not buy MD in Philly’s particular 2,000 year old fairy tale, or religion if you prefer, he believes I’m incapable of “learning” — despite all of the above, and more, being the result of study and learning.

But he’s the man of science. OK then.

I can only say, I hope he runs his medical practice more based on scientific principles than his religious ones, and I expect he does. If he chooses to use some of his religious principles when dealing with his often-religious patients, while that’s cool, but the actual medicine should be more done along deterministic lines, in principle.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:17 am

* ~~while~~ well that’s cool

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:19 am

If someone else wants to discuss topics in reference to Random I’ll keep an eye on things and possible enter the discussion, but I’ve come to the conclusion that random likes to discuss all manner of new and interesting things, but would never consider learning anything. This is a reference to Paul’s description of the Athenians in the book of Acts.

I’m extremely interested in learning. I’m not interested in learning nonsenses in place of science, although I’m OK with learning about nonsenses — but that’s not what you mean by “learning”.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:22 am

Random is only dlckish on days that end in y

JD (c543e6) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:27 am

What a load of crap! It happened, therefore it was the only possible outcome?

Comment by Icy — 6/7/2012 @ 2:50 am

Well that’s the free will debate in a nutshell, isn’t it?

But if the world is governed by physical law, then yes, exactly.

Or, possibly, there’s some kind of mystical exemption carved out for the infinitesimal fraction of the universe’s matter and energy that is Homo sapiens, but this seems unlikely.

Comment by Random — 6/7/2012 @ 2:53 am

This is great.

Nothing I like better than a good old-fashioned psycho-babble wankfest!

Comment by Dave Surls — 6/7/2012 @ 3:43 am

Sure, Dave.

Because maintaining that — in a universe with physical laws that make science, the computers we’re typing on, and even MD in Philly’s profession possible — saying that humans are part of this physical universe, subject to its physical laws, is “psychobabble”.

Why, unless one endorses religion, mysticism, and magic, they aren’t being rational.

It’s all gobbledygook.

/heavy sarc

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:51 am

Shorthand Random: you cannot win, because the universe itself is against you.

Icy (521935) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:58 am

Shorthand Random: you cannot win, because the universe itself is against you.

I didn’t say that.

But there’s no evidence the universe gives a damn either.

In the end you’ll lose (die). That’s built into it from the start. You can obviously win this or that in the meantime. Including winning by being born healthy or having good parents or being born in a more secure and/or more free country — all totally outside of one’s control.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 10:01 am

Random, it isn’t up to “the universe” to give a damn.

It’s only up to you.

The fact that our human imaginations can conceive of Utopia does not make our imperfect world a hell-on-earth by comparison. The fact that bad things sometimes happen that are out of our control does not invalidate all of the work we have done to improve our lot in life. The fact that happiness may be fleeting doesn’t make it any less real when you are experiencing it.

Icy (521935) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:28 am

Dieing = losing is an established fact only if one believes all there is to existence is chemical processes, etc. That is an assumption, an article of faith.

And as Leviticus has tried to grapple with, your reasoning does not “hang together” with the logical consistency you would claim.

I’m sure you disagree with this view of the history of science, but many argue that Judeo-Christian faith is what made science possible. It is the Judeo-Christian world view that says the universe does have order and to study it is worthwhile. Newton, for example, did his physics as he did his religion, physics was simply “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”. Studying nature is a worthy endeavor, thinking one can manipulate nature to a degree that one “has no need for god” is foolish arrogance.

You are making the blind mistake that many make, you think that you can do definitive experiments and make definitive conclusions from within the system you are studying. From within a system you can make observations and conjectures and make decisions on what appears to be true. You cannot do a controlled study on “existence” because you can not step outside and make sure you are controlling all of the variables. The best one can do is gather information and propose a system which appears to be logically coherent.

But many who say they “believe only science” either do not see, do not understand, or refuse to understand that they have already made a “leap” or “step” of “faith” in making that claim.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/7/2012 @ 11:50 am

Random, it isn’t up to “the universe” to give a damn.

It’s only up to you.

The fact that our human imaginations can conceive of Utopia does not make our imperfect world a hell-on-earth by comparison. The fact that bad things sometimes happen that are out of our control does not invalidate all of the work we have done to improve our lot in life. The fact that happiness may be fleeting doesn’t make it any less real when you are experiencing it.

Comment by Icy — 6/7/2012 @ 11:28 am

There’s nothing I disagree with here, although it’s all compatible with naturalism/determinsm/materialism, etc.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:00 pm

MD in Philly, you make an excellent point which really needs to be made more often. Historically the Church was certainly not an enemy of science and in fact was often a patron of it. If you cherry-pick your data points, such as the conflict with Galileo, you can make it appear the opposite is the case.

If you want to take a look at a religion that is an enemy of science, you need not look any further than Islam. It is integral to mainstream Muslim thought that there are no natural laws that can be discerned by man. Allah is not confined by any natural laws. To say otherwise is heresy.

Which explains why if you look at the list of Muslims who earned the Nobel Peace Prize for Science you will find exactly two, a physicist and a chemist. Both of whom had to flee their homelands and continue their work in Europe and America as they were condemned as heretics in their home countries.

Literally; in the case of the Pakistani his entire sect was convicted of heresy by an act of the Senate because they weren’t anti-science.

We would do well to remember that the name of the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram in the local dialect means “Western learning is forbidden.”

The fact that some people conflate historical differences the Church may have had with individual scientists into the idea that the Church was anti-science in general simply means such people don’t have a clue as to what an anti-science religion really looks like.

Steve57 (958caf) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:09 pm

Dieing = losing is an established fact only if one believes all there is to existence is chemical processes, etc. That is an assumption, an article of faith.

What we know of personality and consciousness is that they are tied directly into the brain. Any claims to the contrary are extraordinary and require simlilar proof — there’s all sorts of medical proof that the brain impacts thought, is the center of thought, and etc.
And as Leviticus has tried to grapple with, your reasoning does not “hang together” with the logical consistency you would claim.

I’m sure you disagree with this view of the history of science, but many argue that Judeo-Christian faith is what made science possible. It is the Judeo-Christian world view that says the universe does have order and to study it is worthwhile. Newton, for example, did his physics as he did his religion, physics was simply “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”. Studying nature is a worthy endeavor, thinking one can manipulate nature to a degree that one “has no need for god” is foolish arrogance.

I’ve talked at length elsewhere about how Judaism and then especially Christianity’s teachings about a personal relationship with God, rather than family relationships (kin-selective altruism), lead eventually to a development of human rights — which ironically had to be wrested from the Church — and capitalism and rapid technological progress.

Mitchel Heisman’s work covered this particularly well.

However, the Greeks were great scientists and had their society persisted, we’d be far more scientifically advanced now. I’d simply say it was likely for evolution to hit upon science and technology for the simple reason that they provide obvious fitness advantages.

You are making the blind mistake that many make, you think that you can do definitive experiments and make definitive conclusions from within the system you are studying. From within a system you can make observations and conjectures and make decisions on what appears to be true. You cannot do a controlled study on “existence” because you can not step outside and make sure you are controlling all of the variables. The best one can do is gather information and propose a system which appears to be logically coherent.

In principle not everything is knowable. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, Gödel’s Theorem, and both the speed of light and the presumed initial FTL expansion of space provide barriers to knowledge … however, substituting an arbitrarily picked, culturally approved one of thousands of possible religions, involving virgin births, child sacrifices, circumcision, eating of bread cooked on sh-t fires, mass genocides, support for slavery, and multitudes of contradictions just isn’t an improvement.

But many who say they “believe only science” either do not see, do not understand, or refuse to understand that they have already made a “leap” or “step” of “faith” in making that claim.

Comment by MD in Philly — 6/7/2012 @ 11:50 am

It’s the best we can do. At least it’s testable and repeatable and subject to improvement as our knowledge grows.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:13 pm

Random, my point is that the ultimate “its” are not testable, let alone repeatable.

One moment you say not everything is knowable, the next moment you are saying that you definitively the basic structure of what is or is not true in the universe.

We know that physical structures, biochemical processes, and electrical phenomenon in the brain are linked with human thought, consciousness, etc. We do not know, by demonstrable fact, that those currently observable phenomenon are the sum total of what it means to have a human consciousness. If you are demanding proof of “something else” involved before you will consider it, you are simply once again already operating within a belief system of your choosing, not of logical or rational necessity.

To put it poetically, you are taking away the “soul”, you are creating a “soulless humanity”.
Of course, one could potentially find a problem with having the creativity of poetry, literature, art, music, etc., but one can easily dispense with that problem by deeming it accepted that since it exists, that somehow evolution accounts for it, because we know that evolution accounts for everything, because it does.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:30 pm

To put it poetically, you are taking away the “soul”, you are creating a “soulless humanity”.

This.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:31 pm

Well this is a shocker: ~~Holder doesn’t know or remember much about Fast & Furiou~~s.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:37 pm

Second try:

Well this is a shocker: Holder doesn’t know or remember much about Fast & Furious.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:38 pm

Random is like an Occupy person, only in his case he believes that 99% of the human population is fated to experience only brief moments of unsustainable happiness in their lives, while the 1% just happen to “luck out” . . . except that they die, too, so they’re only the 1% for a short little while on the grand cosmic scale of things.

Interestingly, this atheist in effect believes very much in God — in the sense that God IS the universe — he just thinks that the characterization of “God loves us and wants us to be happy” is 180 degrees away from the truth. Since the undeniable steamrolling of perfectly good and decent people’s lives takes place, it therefore follows that everyone’s fate is a roll of the dice. What good is it, really, to take steps to ensure a happier state of being when that piece of “blue ice” with your name on it is just a-waitin’

Icy (521935) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:49 pm

I realize — for good reason — the blog’s main focus is now Brett Kimberlin and co.’s domestic terrorist antics, but still. This is ha ha funny, and was once a topic covered by the blog when it had more volunteer help:

Pull the Plug: Zimmerman Prosecutor Threatens to Sue Harvard… For Alan Derschowitz’s Criticism of Her

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:58 pm

Misspelling in original, but Ace is kind of famous for that.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 12:59 pm

At the end of Planck Time, the universe determined that I, today, render 20 lbs. of gooseberries into jelly.

Pancakes in Waukesha, Jefferson and Rock Counties are trembling.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:33 pm

Random is like an Occupy person, only in his case he believes that 99% of the human population is fated to experience only brief moments of unsustainable happiness during their lifetimes, while the 1% just happen to “luck out” . . . except that they die, too, so they’re only the 1% for a short little while on the grand cosmic scale of things.

Interestingly, this atheist in effect believes very much in God — in the sense that God IS the universe — he just thinks that the characterization of “God loves us and wants us to be happy” is 180 degrees away from the truth. Since the undeniable steamrolling of perfectly good and decent people’s lives takes place, it therefore follows that everyone’s fate is a roll of the dice. What good is it, really, to take steps to ensure a happier state of being when that piece of “blue ice” with your name on it is just a-waitin’ to crash through your bedroom ceiling and cave your head in?

God fails to protect us from the hateful, hurtful things we sometimes do to each other; therefore, God (as conceived in the Judeo-Christian belief system, anyway) does not exist. Or, the existence of God is immaterial because He does not do anything “hands on” to protect us from evil.

Got some news for ya, sport: God is a mentor, not a nanny.

We PURSUE happiness; we strive TOWARDS perfection; and just because we can imagine a so-called ‘perfect world’ does not mark us as failures for coming up short on actually turning our little ball of water and dirt into a paradise. This goes for the personal, as well.

You want to talk about science in relation to this topic? Then talk about the mathematics of probability. Making responsible choices increases your probability of enjoying a safer, healthier, and (more than likely) happier life. It’s no guarantee; but then, there are no guarantees — death and taxes excepted — in life. And that’s ‘not fair’; but who ever said that life was fair? and who ever said that because life is ‘unfair’ it therefore sucks?

People that believe it is their destiny to be miserable are guilty of engaging in a self-fulfilling prophecy:
— You believe that A) your life sucks, and B) it’s always gonna suck (or that you have no purpose and are doomed to never find one)
— Since you believe your fate is to be miserable you make only half-hearted, at best, attempts to improve your lot in life. As a result of them being half-hearted, those attempts fail.
— Failure leads to “I told you so” and resigning oneself to fate.
— You live out your existence, secure in the belief that you did your best, but your best just wasn’t good enough.
— Meanwhile, objective observers wonder at all that you could have achieved had you made more than a half-hearted effort.

Icy (521935) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:48 pm

I don’t mean to diss Einstein as a philosopher, his thought ranged into the ineffably sublime, but I think I was 17 when first reading his essay on “Science and Religion”:

Paraphrasing, “Science is the human endeavor seeking to reconstruct the universe”.

Anyone see a problem with that? String theory originated like a half-century ago when Gell-Mann’s Chromo-dynamics did little to curtail the number of new particles found. Matter is, I gather, comprised of some 12 dimensions, most collapsed on each other to reveal but 4 to our experience.

String theorists have yet to produce one test, one experiment which might serve to validate the theory.

Just sayin’.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:50 pm

Random:

But many who say they “believe only science” either do not see, do not understand, or refuse to understand that they have already made a “leap” or “step” of “faith” in making that claim.

Comment by MD in Philly — 6/7/2012 @ 11:50 am

It’s the best we can do. At least it’s testable and repeatable and subject to improvement as our knowledge grows.

I think this illustrates what Dana was saying last night. You’ve really limited the quality of your life if you only believe in what you know is absolutely true, and you may find that the list of what you know to be absolutely true gets smaller as you age.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:50 pm

One-and-a-half times posting blamed on Steve Jobs — a man that persevered, and found his purpose.

Icy (521935) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:51 pm

you may find that the list of what you know to be absolutely true gets smaller as you age.

We’re taught a bunch of nonsense as kids, so this makes sense for a critical thinking person.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:52 pm

292. “Interestingly, this atheist in effect believes very much in God — in the sense that God IS the universe.”

Very astute-seriously-and no PhD? Spinoza, for further edification.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:56 pm

That’s pantheism, technically. It’s not true that all atheists are pantheists.

And Spinoza was more of a deist, which is different yet again.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 1:58 pm

But, Icy, God has given us “free will”, so supposedly we have the ability to influence our fate for both good and bad.

AD-RtR/OS! (2bb434) — 6/7/2012 @ 2:05 pm

“Interestingly, this atheist in effect believes very much in God — in the sense that God IS the universe.”

All you’re really doing with that is saying there has to be a God, and if a person doesn’t believe in your God, well by golly, they must see something else as God and that must be the universe itself.

But really, pantheists aside, a lot of people see the universe as the universe and not as a “god”.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 2:07 pm

Most atheists don’t look at a chair and go, “Ah ha! God.”

Neither do they look at a beautiful woman as god, but I can see how they might.

😉

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 2:07 pm

294. Indeed, Dana nailed it with “intuition” as our final arbiter.

Wittgenstein said “Of every reasoning there is an end”. Haldane said “I suspect the universe isn’t merely queerer than we believe, but queerer than we can”.

From Hume we know the reasoning man, the DesCartes dispassionate scientist, is a farce. Our convictions fired by our passions lead reason around by the nose.

We navigate life, at our best, as a grand master plays chess, by feel, by intuition, by pattern matching.

We are limited, primitive critters.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/7/2012 @ 2:09 pm

#289

I believe unsubstantiated hearsay from Dershowitz about as much as I believe the fairy tale Dershowitz helped O.J. Simpson prepare.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/7/2012 @ 2:18 pm

298. Deist, wherein God is Nature. I was reading Spinoza in high school long before finding that Einstein caught his higher power, Good Lord, from Spinoza.

Wiki is not an authority.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/7/2012 @ 2:18 pm

‘Most atheists don’t look at a chair and go, “Ah ha! God.”’

Most atheists I know look at a chair, don’t see God sitting in it, and then conclude that there is no God.

They’re mighty silly fellows.

Dave Surls (46b08c) — 6/7/2012 @ 2:23 pm

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/political-rivals-now-bunk-mates-in-jail/

Jun 5, 2012 4:10pm

From the State House to Big House: Bipartisan Cellmates

They used to share a gavel. Now, apparently, they’re sharing a jail cell.

John Perzel, a Republican from Philadelphia and Bill Deweese, a Democrat from Greene, share the distinction of both having served as Speaker of the Pennsylvania State House.

They also became convicted felons within a month of each other after separate convictions on corruption charges. Now they’re both at Camp Hill state prison, and according to the website PoliticsPA, they’re sharing the same cell….

…PoliticsPA reported that Deweese was uncomfortable bunking with his original cellmate, his own former chief of staff Mike Manzo. And why not? Manzo had testified against Deweese.

That’s when Perzel, who is serving two-and-a-half to five years, offered to move in, according to the website. Deweese was initially skeptical of his former political rival’s sway and is quoted as saying, “John, I don’t think we pick who we room with here.”

But Perzel was able to finagle the switch, and the former political rivals are now cellmates and even pals, it would seem. The two have reportedly been to be joking around regarding who is more aptly nicknamed “Sticky Fingers.”

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/7/2012 @ 2:26 pm

The “cigarette tax to cure cancer” failed. </i.

That will slightly help somebody in California I know, although it''s not his main financial problem.

The worst problem stems from Chase charging $34 every simngle time there';s an overdraft.

Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/7/2012 @ 2:44 pm

You are very correct about String Theory, gary. It is in large part just a wish-fulfillment fantasy on the part of scientists. They even admit that their adherence to it stems from a desire to bolster Einstein’s reputation by coming up with a ‘theory for everything’. Intellectual honesty should compel them to admit “this theory is neither proven nor disproven; it is currently our best guess.”

Icy (521935) — 6/7/2012 @ 2:54 pm

But, Icy, God has given us “free will”, so supposedly we have the ability to influence our fate for both good and bad.
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 6/7/2012 @ 2:05 pm

— But, Drew, Random believes that God is indifferent to our suffering, and that we mere mortals have formulated our religions in a desperate attempt to curry favor from an uninvolved and disconnected parent.

IOW, God is Bill Cosby (“I brought you into this world; I can take you out!”). Remember, the only TRUE “free will” we enjoy is the ability to cash in our chips on a whim.

Icy (521935) — 6/7/2012 @ 3:08 pm

308. And, correct me if I’m wrong, we still don’t know whether the electromagnetic interaction, mediated by the photon as its boson, is coupled or not.

One question hanging on that answer would be the fate of the universe.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/7/2012 @ 3:32 pm

You are very correct about String Theory, gary. It is in large part just a wish-fulfillment fantasy on the part of scientists. They even admit that their adherence to it stems from a desire to bolster Einstein’s reputation by coming up with a ‘theory for everything’. Intellectual honesty should compel them to admit “this theory is neither proven nor disproven; it is currently our best guess.”

Are you always this intellectually dishonest, Icy? As a general matter, most string theorists I’ve heard of don’t say it’s absolutely true. In fact, I’ve never heard one say that.

Maybe there is such a person (by all means, give evidence), but it isn’t the norm by any means.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 3:39 pm

311. Your retort to Icy does not pertain. I think we may have wasted our time on you, Gollum.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/7/2012 @ 3:46 pm

I will apologize and appreciate the correction if Icy can show a whole bunch of spring theorists saying their theories are absolutely true.

But I think most actually know it’s speculative, and Icy has built one heck of a straw man.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 3:52 pm

313. Dolt, nothing he said implied they even believe it is likely.

You’ve an undistributed middle syllogistic fallacy.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:01 pm

Intellectual honesty should compel them to admit “this theory is neither proven nor disproven; it is currently our best guess.”

This is what most of them do. To imply they don’t have intellectual honesty is bullcrap. Show me where they’re claiming otherwise.

Random (fba0b1) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:04 pm

Lubos Motl, very bright prolific blogger is a string theorist, as accessible as the species gets.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:06 pm

“Intellectual honesty should compel them”

implies “they have no intellectual honesty”?

What were you before you became a logician? Were you good at it?

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:17 pm

I count angels on the heads of pins. It amuses me, it puts food on the table, I like the conventions and the networking.

Its BS but no animals are injured in my cogitations.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:24 pm

Random,

Didn’t you say we should only care about what we know is true, or did I misunderstand?

DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 4:38 pm

123.No one is ultimately responsible for anything, Dana, including Brett Kimberlin. We are deterministic machines, part of the physical universe.
Comment by Random — 6/6/2012 @ 5:55 pm

So, what was the point in bringing up your friend’s suicide originally? The perpetrators (a prejudicial term) of the original gang rape were following the dictates of the multitude of factors that made them who they were, where they were, and what they were going to do. Her “decision” to commit suicide was not a “decision” at all in the way most people use the word. Whether I try to persuade someone that it is “OK” or not to commit suicide is not a choice I am making, and the idea of something being “OK” or not is an illusion. What is, is.

I guess I have answered my own question. There did not have to be a “point” in bringing it up, and if there appeared to be a “point” raised by a creative human intellect, there was nothing creative at all. Systems whose behavior is determined have no place for creativity.

I think your reasoning has twisted around like the proverbial Gordian Knot.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:38 pm

MD,

I think Random believes all intelligent people will ultimately give up hope, so they should at least be able to die like dogs.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:45 pm

And that’s an excellent comment, MD.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:50 pm

I think he is committed to the proposition that there is no God to whom he is responsible, and even if there was/is, he wants no part of such a god. It’s a legitimate view to hold, but he is all over the map in trying to persuade that such a view is also the only rational view to hold.

MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:52 pm

Yust for the jollies, jubilee delight from one of the half dozen greatest living analysts:

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2012/06/07/the_queens_decaying_throne_100076.html

Pseudonym, he’s some physician.

Greece and Spain are dead men walking. After they topple Italy, Belgium, France and Britain go tits up. Japan may jump the line any time.

Dog will have his day alright.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/7/2012 @ 8:53 pm

323. Agreed, prolly because ‘the case to be made’ is an outline on a to do list, items in no particular order.

God is sovereign over Brownian motion, one of Einstein’s papers in his annus mirabilis, let’s see determinism incorporate it without hand waving.

Only 10% of the cells in our body are directed by our own DNA, ad infinitum.

Too bad life is nearly over, they’s woik to be done.

gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:11 pm

That could be also, MD.

DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/7/2012 @ 9:26 pm

Thanks for having my back, gary!

Mr. Random, as gulrud explained to you, I am in NO WAY asserting that the scientists expressing excitement over String Theory are declaring it to be ‘settled science’ (to borrow a phrase from AlGrope and the AGW crowd). What I am saying is that in their zeal to embrace ‘the next big thing’ they are more interested in proving string theory than they are in re-examining quantum phenomena and seeing where it leads them.

Icy (521935) — 6/8/2012 @ 1:48 am

R.I.P. BOB WELCH

Icy (521935) — 6/8/2012 @ 2:31 am

The stuff about my website having malicious code? Really? You’re going to stick with that? Let’s see a screencap of the warning of the malicious code on my website, you lying sacks of shit.

The Liberal Grouch (fc8502) — 6/14/2012 @ 5:10 am

6/6/2012

Open Thread

330 Responses to “Open Thread”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out