4/10?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

YO! Root_FU! I really like these couple posts you got goin and I'mma let you finish -- but Paft had the best string of random posts of ALL TIME!
[the names have been changed to protect the identity of those involved.] {no harm intended y'all}

I like the Confucian notion of "rectifying names" and how important it is.

When we talk about "drugs" we must always remember that caffeine is a drug; so is alcohol, but we rarely forget that.
It's not helpful to talk about "drugs" as a whole. [but I'mma do it anyway]

Assume I do not accept determinism and accept that we all have free will*.** No matter what drug a person is taking, they choose to do it. We cannot prove causality when a drug user takes action X in relation to the drug.

Prohibit the bad behavior drug users exhibit that are harmful to society.
Do not prohibit the user their drug.

*free will meaning we have the option of not doing or doing particular things in our life[caveat: breathing, heartbeat, etc]
**not true but take for the sake of argument suppose

WTF?????

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

20 yo woman is at a club and convinced to dance in front of a Girls Gone Wild camera (she knew she was being filmed and was dancing specifically for the camera) but consistently refused to show her breasts (this can be heard in the audio).

Then while dancing someone reached around from behind her and pulled her top down.

She never signs a consent form for the pictures to be published and yet published they are.

Flash forward 4 years and she's married with a kid and her husband gets a call from a friend telling him that his wife's breasts are famous.

Open and shut defamation of character lawsuit right?

Apparently not...

http://jezebel.com/5594774/jury-decides-consent-is-not-required-for-girls-gone-wild



Can someone find the idiots who were on this jury and hit them upside the head with a clue stick?


When I first saw the article linked I figured it was a case where she intentionally exposed herself in the club but did not realize she was being filmed, in which her case would be much weaker and I could at least see an argument for her losing.

With the facts the way they are forget her winning the lawsuit I can't see how the Girls Gone Wild Camera Crew are not facing sexual assault charges right now (at a minimum they are guilty of being an accessory after the fact).

Shit like this really destroys my faith in humanity.

JournoList possibly to become JournoLite as conservatives possibly out-conspire those damn liberals.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

The Daily Caller's main meme is that JournoList members were collaborating to formulate messages. Yet, it seems they didn't read their own quotes, or they rely on the general public to be stupid enough to not actually look into what was said. As shown here...

Consider today's lead story on the Daily Caller, the conservative site that's led the charge on the J-list "scandal." The story "exposes" a J-List thread in which the topic of some kind of journalistic coordination came up. It has this huge headline:

Journolist debates making its coordination with Obama explicit

But way down in the 13th paragaraph, the story quotes a post from the very same thread in which J-List founder and Post blogger Ezra Klein excplicitly rules out any such coordination:

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, the founder of Journolist, quickly jumped in: "Nope, no message coordination. I'm not even sure that would be legal. This is a discussion list, though, and I want it to retain that character," he wrote.

(source)

So here we have an article talking about coordinating messaging, but for some reason most people involved in the discussion on the conservative side seem to keep "forgetting" that when it was explicitly brought up it was also shot down by the owner of the list.

Why is that? Is there some kind of self-reflecting nervousness about a listserv where journalists and politicians themselves collaborate in order to discuss and formulate messaging? Boy, it sure would be awkward if conservatives did that while also lamenting JournoList, wouldn't it?

The rule for Journolist was that no one who worked for the government in any capacity could join or, if they took a job with the government, remain. But it turns out that there is exactly such a list on the right. Dan Riehl, a prominent conservative blogger, revealed its existence today when he quit in a huff because John Boehner's director of new media hurt his feelings.

It was, he said, "a private RNC-related Listserv," and in publishing comments from it, he was "violating the presumed TOS [terms of service] for the private list." Andrew Breitbart, who has now offered $100,000 to get his hands on the Journolist e-mails in which a bunch of journalists argue among themselves, has not, as of press time, put out a bounty for the transcripts of this latest threat to our delicate republic.

(source)

Now that there is apparently evidence that right-leaning journalists were directly associating with and [possibly] formulating stories with right-leaning politicians, unlike JournoList where politicians were not allowed and members were explicitly told not to collaborate, will there be any sunlight shined on that list to show what back-door discussions were taking place? Will The Daily Caller or BigWebsiteX selectively present quotes and headlines that do not reflect the context of the emails themselves, or is that kind of revelation only meant for what counts as "mainstream liberal media"?

Religion - Is God a Socialist?

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

Hi folks. So, we have chosen religion , ethics and all that stuff as a weekly topic. Fair dos, so here is my contribution. ( Read more... )