Last night I carefully observed a gentleman who thinks that criticizing someone violates the First Amendment. You have to be very still in the wild or you spook them. After some irritable flailing our subject — a communications director — offered this:
A reminder that the First Amendment does not include the right to incite actions that hurt others: http://is.gd/Ah8ZU5
What a pointlessly vague, ambiguous, and misleading summary of First Amendment law, I thought. I wonder what unschooled blogger, what anti-speech advocate, what twelve-year-old's Livejournal post, what ungrammatical cat picture is he relying on for that statement?
SCIENCE IN THE HANDS OF ANGRY LIBERAL ARTS MAJORS: That DOJ attorneys are threatening scientists with criminal prosecution for the "return" of Kennewick Man, to Indian tribes whose ancestors were in Siberia when he died, is disgraceful. If only the Tsar knew what evil his ministers are doing.
AND HOLLYWOOD WONDERS WHY DOMESTIC BOX OFFICE IS DECLINING: An "Abortion Rom-Com"
"The movie isn’t saying that abortions are funny. It’s saying that people are funny.”
And people who procure and provide abortions are doubly funny. I look forward to the tv spinoff, Welcome Back, Gosnell!
YOU NEVER LEAVE A MAN BEHIND! Unfortunately, we all too often leave man's best friend behind:
Even if it did come at some additional cost, so what? Going by simple cost-benefit analysis, the military wouldn't go to such great lengths to retrieve the bodies of fallen soldiers or protect the American flag, and yet it does. Why? Because everyone understands that such obligations are morally required and vital to morale.
"There are those who consider our military working dogs to be pieces of gear," Ferrell says in Glory Hounds. "I, for one, do not believe that at all. To try to remove your heart from the situation is really asking too much of a handler."
If you believe it's wrong for the army to abandon its dogs in the wilds of Iraq and (coming soon) Afghanistan, why not call your congressional representatives to let them know you support Walter Jones' bill prohibiting such practices, and may vote accordingly come November?
"IT'S NOT MY FAULT IF WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT. I'm only drawing them. Women's bodies have taken this form over the millenia."
Kid, if you have "forty years of experience" but you think that comic book covers depict women realistically, it's time to drop the pencil and maybe … go out and meet a few? Of course, comic books are hardly the worst media offenders with regard to horrifying displays of the female body. That honor goes to glossy "women's magazines" and the fashion industry to which they cater.
THERE ARE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF HELSINKI, MAJOR, THAT I WOULDN'T ADVISE YOU TO INVADE: Finwonish Air Force moves to high alert after repeated airspace violations from Russia.
The giant brains in our administration seem not to have a clue on how to handle Putin. They could learn a lot from the Finns, who are masters of asymmetric warfare. An engineer of my acquaintance, who served as a frogman in the Finnish Navy, once told me that in the event of war the Finns would block access to the Baltic by destroying cargo ships at the mouths of Russian harbors. I believe him.
A GREAT BLOG POST on how to think. I know of a city where no one seems to have read it.
THE RAI SERVICES COMPANY(part of R J Reynolds tobacco) has some feedback for the FDA re e-cigarettes: (1) they strongly think that e-cigs should be regulated by the government ; (2) they strongly think that the government should regulate them in a way that harms nicotine users (through higher prices) and competing firms (through playing-field tilting competition).
Someone ought to write a blog post about this.
MY BRAIN HURTS!
Luddite celebrity pseudoscientist Susan Greenfield, on her inability to publish peer-reviewed research by which one could test her claims that technology damages the human brain: "The whole point is that it is not a hypothesis, it’s an umbrella subject, like climate change, that encompasses many facets. What specific kind of study I should have done?"
As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, a world view or, ahem, "umbrella subject," which can't be verified through testable means, is not science. It's religion. But dress it up in technical-sounding gobbledygook, and the "reality-based community" will bow down and worship it all the same.
HIGHER EDUCATION: The blacklisting of Steven Salaita by the University of Illinois. Key point:
But Salaita’s commentary was too extreme, you say? You know the line when you see it, and Salaita crossed it? That’s exactly what censors think they know, and it is just what they’ve thought when going after Tengatenga and a long list of right-of-center professors and, not so long ago, a long list of left-of-center professors.
If you have to qualify "I support free speech" with a "but," if you support free speech only so long as it's inoffensive, you're a censor. Read the whole thing.