Hack of the Day: MSNBC’s Touré excuses presidential crimes

There’s nothing like the recent revelation of the Obama administration’s legal justification for assassinating U.S. citizens suspected of terroristic activity to help expose the more dedicated partisans out there, and MSNBC’s Touré was quick to take the cake:

He's the Commander in Chief. RT @kirstenpowers10: You are fine w the White House deciding who is guilty and who should die?

— Touré (@Toure) February 5, 2013

Maybe I’m growing blind(er) in my old age (*cough*), but I could’ve sworn that reads “Commander in Chief”, not “king”, “emperor”, or “judge, jury and executioner”. The Office of the President is responsible for executing the law and representing the people, not subverting the whole purpose of the separation of powers by declaring who gets to live or die by fiat based on whatever loose interpretation of the law they chose. (Even if that’s what they’ve been doing for a while, now.)

Even President Bush (whose executive overreach Obama has now matched or exceeded in several ways) never dared try to declare himself the sole party responsible for wantonly murdering U.S. citizens. Yet, is there any doubt at all that apologists like Touré would have cried bloody murder if Bush had tried to pull a similar stunt as Obama’s secret kill list? But because it’s a Democratic president who does it, well, it’s just necessary to combat them evil terrorizers, then. (And really, who cares if we even know what they’re accused of, or if we’re even sure they’re the right targets in the first place?)

But that’s not all:

Daily Blend: Wednesday, January 16, 2013

Pres. Barack Obama

Sorry for the repeated link dumps, only there’s this awesome story I just … must … finish …

President Obama ^[pictured] finally proposes some basic, obvious, commonsensical gun control regulations.
(via Pharyngula)

… Which, of course, means he’s out to disarm Americans to make it easier for the government to kill them all! (Seriously, Vox, take a toke.)

California lawmakers present bill to fix ridiculous legal loophole used to exculpate rapists posing as someone’s partner.

Radley Balko has a great write-up about the inordinate and dangerous amount of power and immunity granted to U.S. prosecutors.

And finally, I don’t agree with everything in it, but Robert Brockway at Cracked has an interesting piece about the U.S.’s culture of glorified violence and the role of videogames as a symptom.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

An impossible question for torture apologists

One of the weights dragging back the discourse on accountability in torture and whether or not the U.S. actually engaged in it with Islamist suspects (hint: yes, it did) is the idea that because the CIA’s interrogators were given acrobatically-defined legal memos making exceptions for “enhanced interrogation techniques” such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation, therefore, the U.S. totally never tortured any of the “enemy combatants” in its extrajudicial prisons. Many on the Right (and a few on the Left) still hold to this brazenly illogical excuse, and Paul Waldman at The American Prospect would like these defenders of the would-be indefensible to explain their rationale for why these “techniques” don’t count as torture:

Here's the question I've never heard someone like Rodriguez answer: Can you give a definition of torture that wouldn't include waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation? I have no idea what such a definition might be, and I have to imagine that if they had any idea they would have offered one. Because here's the definition of torture you'd think everyone could agree on: Torture is the infliction of extreme suffering for the purpose of extracting information or a confession. That's not too hard to understand. The point is to create such agony that the subject will do anything, including give you information he'd prefer not to give you, to make the suffering stop. That's the purpose of waterboarding, that's the purpose of sleep deprivation (which, by the way, has been described by those subjected to it in places like the Soviet gulag to be worse than any physical pain they had ever experienced), and that's the purpose of stress positions. The "enhanced" techniques that were used weren't meant to trick detainees or win them over, they were meant to make them suffer until they begged for mercy.

So to repeat: If what the Bush administration did wasn't torture, how would its apologists define the term?

Oh, I’m sure the answer is obvious: “Torture is the infliction of extreme suffering for the purpose of extracting information or a confession – except for pseudo-drowning or pushing captives to the brink of insanity, because Washington said those are okie-dokie, so there.” See? Simple.

(via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Is there still a rational basis for the Second Amendment?

This post developed from an idle thought I had during a conversation with a friend, and as a result, is more of a meandering than anything else. But I thought it would be interesting to share here should it spark any interesting discussion. Quite simply: Is there still a rational and reasonable basis for the continued existence of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment in this modern day and age? (Note: This post is about the Second Amendment specifically, not the right to bear arms in and of itself. More at the bottom of the post.)

I don’t pretend to be a legal or historical buff, so I’ll keep things simple. From what I do know, Amendment II’s raison d’être was generally bipartite:

1) Ensure national security through a well-armed militia to defend against invaders; and

2) Grant U.S. citizens the means to overthrow the federal government should it become tyrannical.

(I’m well aware that there’s more than enough detail and nuance with these points and others to sustain countless endless legal and historical debates, but for the purposes of this post, that was basically the basis for including the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights.)

Both of these points were quite valid during the days when the Second Amendment was created and enacted. Tensions with then-imperialist Britain meant constant worry about being attacked, and one of the overarching themes throughout the Constitution and other writings from the Founding Fathers is a general concern for freedom from dominion one way or another (a natural reaction, considering how they’d recently warred for their independence). Allowing commoners to arm themselves and form militarized groups was an obvious and rational solution to the very real concerns of the time.

But that’s the thing: Times change. The fledgling and vulnerable United States during the ratification of the Bill of Rights bears little resemblance to its current form as a global superpower, and the centralized, well-equipped federal military that grew out of the Civil War renders both previous premises all but moot:

1) The risks of any U.S. territory (much less the mainland) being invaded by any external force beyond a rogue flock of seagulls is outright laughable in the age of rapid mobilization and nuclear arsenals (among many other factors); and

2) For essentially the same reason, nothing short of having every single American man, woman and child march into Washington, DC with rifles in hand would be sufficient to destabilize a government as broad and powerful as the United States’s, and given that even the revelations of the federal government’s extrajudicial surveillance, assassination and indefinite detainment programs couldn’t spur more than renewed pointless partisan chicanery, I have my doubts that the American population retains much interest in forcefully opposing their government’s possible tyranny.

In other words, for better or worse, the two key reasons why the Second Amendment was necessary in the first place simply don’t apply anymore with the might of the U.S. Military.

So then, what other evidentiary basis might there be for the lingering enshrinement of the U.S. citizenry’s right to bear arms in the U.S. Constitution? Or in other words, why shouldn’t it be repealed should the opportunity arise?

Note: My position on gun rights is that sensible control is best: Civilians should be allowed to purchase and own firearms so long as they submit to criminal and behavioral background checks to weed out as many undesirables as possible, followed by mandatory safety training and with obligatory checkups every few years or so. Assault rifles and other high-powered weapons one would expect to see on a military battlefield should be restricted, as I can’t see a good reason why any random schmuck would need to walk around toting an AR-15 for “self-defense”. As for limits of gun and ammo quantities, that’s another tangent I’m not interested in broaching at the moment.

If anything, repealing the Second Amendment might be worth it just to put an end to the fetishism it’s subjected to from the rabidly pro-gun lobby.

Vox Day loves his slippery slope: Brazilian polygamy edition

Vox Day

That really didn’t take long. Barely a day after reports broke about Brazil’s consideration of three-way unions, here comes our favorite slippery slope enthusiast, Theodore “Vox Day” Beale:

The advocates of homosexual "marriage" have been proven to be completely wrong, as the push for polygamous marriage has gotten rolling before homogamy has even been made legal in most states.

[…]

As I pointed out, correctly, once you start messing around with the nouns in "one man + one woman", you eliminate all the grounds for not messing around with the numbers too. Besides, the multiculti idiots have no choice but to support polygamy, since their precious third-worlders both practice and demand it.

Today’s lesson in logic: Some other country is thinking about maybe someday debating a change to some of their laws, which can only mean that your country is now on the brink of legalizing some behavior you personally find questionable. Mark my words. (Or, well, his.)

Of course, that’s not even mentioning the question of why polygamy is thought of as wrong or should be illegal in the first place. There’s nothing bad about polyamory in itself; easily one of the most fundamental truths in our modern society is that people have the right to love whoever they want and for any reason, regardless of what current local expectations may be. Some people simply have too much love to give (to phrase it in admittedly simplistic terms), or else may feel torn between two people they love equally; who are lawmakers or pearl-clutchers to decide who they may or may not be with?

Granted, this particular debate is more about legal recognition of unions rather than romantic attachment in and of itself, but the overall point remains the same. And as of now, the only argument anyone opposed to polyamory/polygamy has bothered to bring forward (beyond the tautological “that’s just wrong!”) is whining about how progressives are trying to “redefine” marriage, which is absurd for any number of reasons. There have been more types of legal marital unions throughout human civilization than can be counted, so that’s obviously not an issue; not a single critic has ever advanced a credible explanation as to why broadening the scope of marriage beyond “one man and one woman” would be deleterious to anyone else, anywhere, and the continued existence (if not prosperity) of the various countries (notably my own motherland) that presently allow for married same-sex couples categorically debunks any fantasy about non-heteronormative legal unions harkening the demise of society, itself.

The entire crux of a loving relationship, recognized under the law or not, is that it’s a romantic bond between two or more individuals based on mutual affection and consent. Anything else is mere details and background noise. And until the critics and haters have anything more to present than tired and profoundly irrational canards serving as thin cloaks for their bigotry, then all the rest of us can do is point and laugh as they inexorably quibble and splutter themselves out of existence.

Tags: Brazil • polygamy • polyamory • Theodore Beale • Vox Day

Daily Blend: Thursday, August 23, 2012 [1/2]

Tony Nicklinson

I managed to forget all about posting yesterday’s Daily Blend, so enjoy this double digest edition! (Part 1/2; stupid label length limits. Part 2 here.)

Not all evil originates in malice. Mindless adherence to heartless legal principles does the job just fine. (Update: Tony Nicklinson ^[pictured] finally passed away of pneumonia a week later.)

Meanwhile, British “pro-lifer” Richard Carvath devotes 2,700 “love”-filled words to calling Nicklinson a “selfish”, “dishonorable” “coward” and smearing those who wanted him to have the right to die on his own terms as a pro-“murder” “lobby”. Also, Jesus.
(via @RichardDawkins)

Hearteningly positive and insightful write-up about Atheism+ at the New Statesman.
(via @jennifurret)

Guess which virulently homophobic, “traditional values” preacher is now caught in a terribly embarrassing sex scandal today?

Once more debunking the patently false claim that nonreligious people are less charitable than believers are. Maybe if poll-takers stopped considering money given to fatten preachers’ wallets as “charity”?

Record-setting petty fascism leads an Oklahoma high school to refuse to give top student her diploma because she said “hell” in her valedictorian speech.
(via The Agitator)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Tony Nicklinson • quadriplegia • quadriplegics • High Court of Justice • paralysis • pneumonia • euthanasia • Richard Carvath • pro-life • pro-lifers • Atheism+ • A+ • New Statesman • Jennifer McCreight • Greta Christina • atheists • Grant Storms • preachers • sex scandals • family values • traditional values • charity • The Chronicles of Philanthropy • nontheists • religious nones • theists • believers • nonbelievers • Prague, OK • Kaitlin Nootbaar • Prague High School • Rick Martin

Federal court declares illegal wiretapping is not actually illegal

Here is today’s update in How the Courts are Aiding and Abetting the Government’s Secret and Most Likely Illegal Activities:

The federal government may spy on Americans’ communications without warrants and without fear of being sued, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in a decision reversing the first and only case that successfully challenged President George W. Bush’s once-secret Terrorist Surveillance Program.

“This case effectively brings to an end the plaintiffs’ ongoing attempts to hold the executive branch responsible for intercepting telephone conversations without judicial authorization,” a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote.

I don’t think I’ll ever understand how any appointed defender of the rule of law could pen the above quote and not start looking for the nearest window to hurl themselves out of. And they’re not only okay with it; they’re doing all they can to excuse it and clear the way for further abuses – by pretending they aren’t actually abuses. The mind absolutely boggles.

(via Wonkette)

Tags: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals • warrantless wiretaps • Al-Haramain Islamic v. Obama

Anti-feminist’s threats excused because Norwegian court doesn’t understand how blogs work

Eivind Berge

Remember Eivind Berge? The proudly and virulently “anti-feminist” Norwegian chap whose contributions to the blogosphere include denying the existence of female rapists because he totally would’ve loved it if a teacher had molested him as a teenager, and that women are horrible selfish harpies ’cause they’re the sole gatekeepers of the world’s reserves of teh secks, among several other nuggets of classy brilliance? Ah, thought you would.

Well, I haven’t paid him any mind since Personal Failure pointed me in his direction for that aforelinked blog post, so it’s news to me – of the entirely unsurprising sort – that dear sweet Berge has apparently been naughty boy. As in, he’s openly blogged about his titillation at the idea of police officers being murdered as a coup against the evil feminist-sympathizing overlords, or something. And for some reason, local law enforcement took notice [Google translation of original Norwegian article]:

There were items including Police Security Service said were calls to the police homicide and specific threats, which triggered the arrest of Berge three weeks ago. Some of the most controversial statements was:

• "I wish men as a group the police inflicted such losses that the community was forced to calculate that the most hateful feminist laws are worth enforcing"

• "Do malice that even a Norwegian cop hell is killed. How should it be done when the cops come to your door "

• "(...) attack on the police is something that blends in 100 percent of everything I stand for. Other supports murder I did not. "

Berge also wrote that he "planned" to attack a policeman with a knife on a Saturday evening at Torgallmenningen in Bergen, and in police questioning, he confirmed that he supports the killing of police officers as a tool in the fight against male feminists.

- He has encouraged and glorified the killing of policemen. The police see this as an immediate threat . We feared that he would do serious of threats within a short time, said police lawyer Rudolf Christoffersen of bt.no after his arrest.

Previously, Berge has also attracted attention by seeming to give support to Breivik.

"I had no idea that a formidable activist named Anders Breivik Behring already for years had been a meticulous planning of an attack that would show the world what the Vikings are made of," wrote Berge, who later denounced the attack and Utøya stressed that there were police officers his aggression was directed against.

Balko debunks hysterical myths about Indiana self-defense law

There was quite a bit of hubbub last May when the Indiana Supreme Court declared that Hoosiers had no right to defend themselves or their homes if law enforcement officers chose to barge in unlawfully, effectively undercutting the state’s “Castle Doctrine” as well as hundreds of years of common law precedent dating back to the Magna Carta.

In response, state legislators presented a bill to reverse this ineffably absurd (and dangerous) decision, and the issue remained dormant until last week, when the legislature widely approved the amendment and Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) signed it into law.

At once, a fresh outcry erupted, this time over concerns that (as headlines variously, and totally responsibly, phrased it) “Indiana legalize[d] shooting cops”, conjuring imagery of troopers being blasted away with shotguns if they so much as knocked at a citizen’s door at night, presumably frightening any meth-hammered inhabitants into thinking they were suddenly in mortal peril.

Naturally, the ever-vigilant Radley Balko has a detailed write-up at The Huffington Post explaining everything that the newly revised law does – and most certainly does not – allow:

Jeffersonville, Ind., police Sgt. Joseph Hubbard told Bloomberg News, "If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he's going to say, 'Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property. Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law."

Added Tim Downs, head of the state's largest police union: "It just puts a bounty on our heads."

Fortunately, the law does nothing of the kind.

[…]

The Castle Doctrine law says that if someone has entered or is attempting to enter your home without your consent, you're legally permitted to use a reasonable amount of force to expel the intruder from your residence. If you reasonably believe your life or members of your family are in danger, you can use lethal force. The revision to Indiana's law simply states that public servants aren't exempt from such treatment.

Rutherford pointed out that the word "reasonable" appears throughout the revision to the Indiana law. "That's important. The amount of force you use must be reasonable," he said. "So if a police officer pokes his head inside your screen door because he heard something suspicious, no, you don't now have free rein to shoot him."

Daily Blend: Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Church of England ^[pictured] and Catholic bishops get all pissy over government’s plan to legalize same-sex marriage.

Another senseless tragedy, another stupid and counter-productive dead person law proposal.
(via The Agitator)

How does your country compare in the 2012 Global Peace Index? (Canada is the 4^th most peaceful nation, so we must now war with Iceland for #1.)
(via Joe. My. God.)

Middleborough, Massachusetts now punishes public swearing with $20 fines.
(via Joe. My. God.)

So that’s why all them drugs an’ illegals are getting through.
(via The Agitator)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: England • Britain • Church of England • Catholic Church • Catholic bishops • same-sex marriage • gay marriage • marriage equality • David Cameron • Christy's Law • Christy Wilson • Paul Wilson • dead person laws • guns • Second Amendment • Global Peace Index • warfare • Institute for Economics and Peace • Middleborough, MA • swearing • bad language • fines • U.S. Border Patrol • Cirque du Soleil • border security •

Daily Blend: Tuesday, March 06, 2012

A.G. Eric Holder

A.G. Eric Holder ^[pictured] in short: Having the President accuse someone of terrorism and declare them guilty counts as “due process”, which is also not the same as “judicial process”.
(via @ggreenwald)

Lawsuit: Seymour, CT police wrongfully raid grandmother’s home on suspicions of pot, brutalize family and ransack house, then have children removed because of deplorable living conditions they created.
(via The Agitator)

Radley Balko has more about the man appealing his child molestation conviction from a quacktastic “pedophile test”.

Explaining why the U.S. Government thinks it can police any .com, .net or .org domain around the world.
(via @radleybalko)

Gripping exposé by a U.S. soldier-turned-private contractor about the discrepancy between soldiers in reality and how they’re portrayed in the media: “[T]he vast majority of us are straight up sociopaths.”
(via Rob F)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Eric Holder • Obama administration • due process • judicial process • Kimberly Pignataro • Seymour, CT • drug raids • Pal Satkowski • Michael Arena • pedophile test • Abel Test • child molestation • wrongful conviction • United States • USA • U.S. Government • VeriSign • W. • soldiers • warfare

Daily Blend: Friday, February 24, 2012

Card. Timothy Dolan

Glenn Greenwald on those weak wanna-be politicians who care about such silly things as “the Constitution” and “the law”.

A good start for ethics blog’s claim that vegetarians & vegans have “moral obligation” to eat “Frankenmeat”: Stop calling it “Frankenmeat”.
(via The Agitator)

Empire State Building owners refuse to celebrate elevation of Cardinal Timothy Dolan ^[pictured].
(via Joe. My. God.)

… Which has the satisfying effect of predictably pissing off Bill Donohue.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Glenn Greenwald • U.S. Constitution • U.S. President • Practical Ethics • Julian Savulescu • Frankenmeat • vegetarians • vegetarianism • vegans • veganism • Empire State Building • Timothy Dolan • Bill Donohue

Daily Blend: Friday, January 20, 2012

USAF LCpl Esther Garatie

Busy news day, wot.

• VICTORY: After U.S. House shelves SOPA, Sen. Harry Reid now postpones Senate debate over PROTECT IP Act.

• FOLLOW-UP: Christianist VA nurse who harangued a depressed Marine veteran ^[pictured] for being a lesbian is being forcibly retired tomorrow. Sayonara to garbage.

• 2011: The 9th hottest year on record. (But, hey, it’s all a myth. Scientists are pranksters like that.)

• Karma alert: Quackery-peddling Burzynski Clinic sued for fraud by former patient.

• WTH: Missouri law requires fledgling moving companies to get permission from other moving companies first. I’m sure they’ll all play fair, right?
  (via The Agitator)

• Utah school board vetoes “cougar” mascot after parents complain that it’s offensive towards women.

• Insanely grandiose quotes from Newt Gingrich, compiled by Mitt Romney’s research team. I know I first talked about saving civilization back when I was trying to stop those monstrous Skedar from disintegrating the planet …
  (via The Agitator)

• Real subtle, there.
  (via @briandaitken)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Harry Reid • PROTECT IP Act • PIPA • US Senate • Lincy Pandithurai • Esther Garatie • Veterans Affairs • VA • Global Warming • climate change • Burzynski Clinic • Stanislaw Burzynski • Lola Quinlan • fraud • Missouri • Department of Transportation • Transportation Department • moving companies • Michael Munie • cougars • women • Corner Canyon High School • Newt Gingrich • Subway • Hawaii Five-0 • product placement

Daily Blend: Sunday, December 18, 2011

DNR

Posting at the 11^th hour again … #WellActuallyThe23rdHour #PedantryRules

• Investigators: Catholic Church covered up the widespread abuse of up to 20,000 Dutch children (one in five) in various Catholic institutions. Cue Bill Donohue’s braying defense in 3 … 2 …

• Bullshit artist extraordinaire Kevin Trudeau ordered to pay $37.6 million for violating FTC order to stop scamming. Phil Plait has more.
  (via @BadAstronomer)

• North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il finally snuffs it. I don’t think the “don’t speak ill of the recently deceased” folks will mind with this one.

• Dog disguise kits to get around breed-specific legislation. I applaud the initiative, but I don’t see how it could fool much of anyone.
  (via The Agitator)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: Catholic Church • Netherlands • child molestation • clerical child abuse • Kevin Trudeau • scam artists • con artists • fraud • infomercials • commercials • FTC • Kim Jong-il • North Korea • dictators • dogs • breed-specific legislation • dig disguise kits

WB demands deletion of files they’ve never seen and don’t own

Here’s a rather disturbing preview of the sort of arrogant malfeasance we can expect if lawmakers succeed in granting major studios the right to demand that websites delete any content that allegedly violates copyright without any burden of proof:

In a Monday court filing, Warner Brothers admitted that it has issued takedown notices for files without looking at them first. The studio also acknowledged that it issued takedown notices for a number of URLs that its adversary, the locker site Hotfile, says were obviously not Warner Brothers' content.

Hotfile has been locked in a legal battle with Hollywood studios since February; the studios accuse the site of facilitating copyright infringement on a massive scale. Hotfile counters that it is immune from liability for the infringements of its users because it complies with the notice-and-takedown procedures established by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. But Hotfile has also tried to turn the tables by arguing that one of the studios, Warner Brothers, has itself violated the DMCA by issuing bogus takedown requests.

[…]

Warner Brothers also tacitly acknowledged removing the free software title, which it characterized as "software that had been posted alongside infringing Warner content in order to facilitate the rapid downloading of the infringing Warner content." The studio also requested removal of some gaming software, though it insists it did so with the permission of the relevant copyright owners.

Oh, well, as long as they insist they have the right to force sites to remove content that doesn’t belong to them. Also, I insist I really, really do have the right to paint the White House a shade of lilac. (Would break up the monotony a bit.)

And then come the usual ad laziness excuses:

The studio also "admits that it did not (and did not need to) download every file it believed to be infringing prior to submitting the file's URL" to the Hotfile takedown tool. That's because "given the volume and pace of new infringements on Hotfile, Warner could not practically download and view the contents of each file prior to requesting that it be taken down."

This is interesting because the DMCA requires a copyright holder issuing a takedown notice to state that it has a "good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." It's hard to see how anyone at Warner Brothers could have formed any beliefs—good faith or otherwise—about files it admits that no human being at Warner had even looked at.

Daily Blend: Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Controversial Charlie Hebdo covers

I managed to forget posting yesterday’s Daily Blend (and very nearly today’s), so enjoy this double digest edition.

• The Innocence Project: Five more DNA exonerations, five more innocent people go home. Prosecutors continue to throw as many sticks in their wheels as possible.
  (via Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

• More criminal injustice: SCOTUS to consider whether kids convicted of murder should be locked up for life without parole.
  (via ThinkProgress)

• YES.
  (via The Agitator)

• Charlie Hebdo ^[pictured] is officially the gutsiest publication ever. (And let’s hear anyone ever call the French cowards again.)
  (via @radleybalko)

• “We demand a vapid, condescending, meaningless, politically safe response to this petition.” Wish (most likely will be) granted!
  (via @todayspolitics)

• Five things everyone (including Christians) thinks are in the Bible (that totally aren’t). Includes non-Satan, a very boring Grail and millions of antichrists.
  (via The Daily Grail)

• This is one of the best things ever: SMBC’s Zach Weiner takes requests on Reddit.
  (via @BadAstronomer)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: The Innocence Project • DNA testing • false convictions • Robert Taylor • James Harden • Jonathan Barr • Robert Veal • Shainne Sharp • Cateresa Matthews • Equal Justice Initiative • child murderers • SCOTUS • US Supreme Court • warrants • Fourth Amendment • Charlie Hebdo • Muhammad • Islam • petitions • Obama administration • Cracked.com • Bible • Christianity • angels • Devil • Holy Grail • Antichrist • Hell • Zachary Weiner • SMBC • Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal • Reddit

New FoIA rule would allow government to lie about whether records exist

As if the Freedom of Information Act system wasn’t enough of a clusterfuck to deal with already, the Justice Department has proposed a new rule that would make it even more difficult to get any straight answers from the Most Open and Transparent Administration in History^TM:

A proposed rule to the Freedom of Information Act would allow federal agencies to tell people requesting certain law-enforcement or national security documents that records don't exist—even when they do.

Under current FOIA practice, the government may withhold information and issue what's known as a Glomar denial that says it can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records.

The new proposal—part of a lengthy rule revision by the Department of Justice—would direct government agencies to "respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist."

Is it just me, or is it somewhat telling – and disturbing – that we now require civil liberties groups to actively fight the government from making it legal for officials to openly lie their assess off about matters that usually ought to be on the public record in the first place? That a government bullshits its people at all with impunity is about as controversial as mincemeat pie (not that the idealist in me doesn’t scream in dismay at such a sentence), but now, they’re actually trying to make it so they don’t even have to tell the truth about whether various records even exist. I never thought I could long for a return to plausible deniability.

At this point, the most honest thing the government could do is to just repeal the FoIA and be done with all the pretenses about transparency that they never have or will give the slightest damn about practicing.

(via @radleybalko)

Tags: FoIA • Freedom of Information Act • US Department of Justice • DoJ

Daily Blend: Tuesday, October 18, 2011

James O’Keefe

• More Christian pastors arrested for being utterly predictable at this point.

• Investigation: California private detective busted men on bogus DUI charges on behest of ex-wives and lawyers.
  (via @radleybalko)

• California Medical Association calls for marijuana legalization while a new Gallup poll indicates a majority of Americans now favor it.
  (via The Agitator)

• Breitbart School of Assclownery alumnus James O’Keefe ^[pictured] is still at it.
  (via @radleybalko)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: child molestation • pastors • Francisco Hernandez • Joe Cheater • Christopher Butler • DUI • California Medical Association • marijuana • pot • Gallup • James O'Keefe • Economic Policy Institute • EPI • Project Veritas

England considering moderating hate speech laws

As I’ve often said, in order for a society to truly uphold the ideal of free speech, it must be applicable in any and all cases, including in defense of offensive bigotry. Unfortunately, England has a history of arresting and prosecuting individuals who commit the latter “crime”, notably homophobic street preachers yelling at passing gay couples about their destiny in Hell and whatnot. Again, this does makes them crazy gits, but it should not turn them into criminals under the law.

Thankfully, it looks like English lawmakers are finally reacting to the mounting outcry against these injustices, and the law, currently so vague and overbroad as to stifle virtually any speech that anyone else may find insulting for whatever reason, may be about to receive a much-needed revision:

The Home Office is looking at the possibility of removing the offence of causing “insult’ from the Public Order Act.

Currently, section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 says that “a person is guilty of an offence if he … uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour … within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”

[…]

Civil rights groups – and gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell – have called for the law to be changed because it “criminalises free speech”.

Exactly right. The only valid exceptions to true freedom of speech are cases where actual violence or mass disruptions are threatened (such as with the common example of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater), or when someone’s quality of life is unfairly impacted as a result of lies and slander (such as ruining someone’s standing by accusing them of child molestation). In any other case where order and well-being are not credibly threatened, a person’s freedom of expression must be allowed to stand, no matter how offensive anyone else may think they are. (Of course, the corollary is that you may then fire back just as vehemently as you wish, and no-one can stop you then, either.)

Sadly, not everyone understands this, including those in a favored position to know better:

Gay rights charity Stonewall has opposed any change to the law.

Speaking in July, Ruth Hunt, Stonewall’s director of public affairs, said: “We believe that the law is currently settled in the right place balancing freedom of expression with people’s right to live free from abuse which can be hugely intimidating. We will continue to express this view firmly to ministers.”

Except that no-one has the right not to be offended, Ms. Hunt. They may wish to avoid confrontation and intolerance as much as possible, but in the end, if we start prohibiting certain types of speech or expression on the sole basis that they hurt some people’s feelings, whoever they may be, then we’re beginning down a very unpleasant slippery slope that will not end well for any of us. Either people’s right to free speech is protected, or it is not. Other than some reasonable and obvious legal exceptions (such as those noted above), there really cannot be any room for ambiguity in the matter.

(via Joe. My. God.)

Tags: England • Public Order Act

Daily Blend: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 – Late edition (redux)

John Smid, ex-ex-gay

I need to stop making these at the 11^th (or 10^th) hour …

• Victory: Even with their dishonest tactics, anti-gay groups still fail to garner enough signatures to overturn California’s FAIR Education (“LGBT history”) Act.

• As threatened, city of Topeka, Kansas officially decriminalizes domestic abuse to save money. Party on, spouse-beaters!

• Former director ^[pictured] of “ex-gay” ministry: I’m gay, and homosexuality is not a choice.

• Revealing and saddening article on how libraries everywhere are destroying priceless and irreplaceable books by the millions.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Tags: SB 48 • FAIR Education Act • LGBT history bill • California • Topeka, KS • domestic abuse • Love in Action • ex-gay • John Smid • homosexuality • S Peter Davis • Cracked.com • libraries • book burnings • digitization • British Library