I fully support what they did. Disrupting a speech is a perfectly legitimate form of protest and given Israel's continued policies in the Gaza strip it is certainly warranted, in my opinion.

I do not support them trying to get the charges dropped, though. The whole point of civil disobedience is to break the law peacefully and to go to jail for what you believe. If they feel that strongly about the issue they should do whatever jail-time they're given with pride--and be willing to do it again if necessary.

Honestly, I don't see how they even have a case. As this article clearly explains, the Supreme Court has routinely ruled in favor of governments' (both local and federal) right to limit the time, manner, and place of speech so long as there is no infringement on content. Given that the speech-place will probably not be considered a "traditional public forum" (see the article) I don't think they have much of a legal chance of winning.

Related article: Woman tackled and arrested for disrupting Netanyahu's speech in front of U.S. Congress

Food for thought (from the article above):

And after I spoke out, Netanyahu said, you know, “This is what’s possible in a democracy. And you wouldn’t be able to get away with this in other countries like Tunisia.” And I think that is ridiculous and absurd. If this is what democracy looks like, that when you speak out for freedom and justice, you get tackled to the ground, you get physically violated and assaulted, and then you get hauled off to jail, that’s not the kind of democracy that I think I want to live in.

“Faces” from Vimeo user Arturo. This is totally badass. Tons of potential here.

Real-time face substitution. Made with Kyle McDonald’s ofxFacetracker + Jason Saragih’s facetracker library, a C/C++ API for real time generic non-rigid face alignment and tracking.

Inspired by Kevin Atkinson’s image clone code.

I like when he goes from being Michael Jackson to Dali to Obama at the end. That’s the best part.



*Art
*Science
*Videogames
*Anatomy

@SDGundamX

On the So-Called Benifits of Religious Belief

First, I'm going to assume that you simply googled "religion+health+studies" or stg like that, and did not read before posting; frankly, I don't blame you. I can only hope you are not as intellectually (and downright) dishonest as the second link you posted: the very first study cited is completely misinterpreted; basically, since kissing multiple partners can increase probability of meningococcal disease, and strict religious tradition would prevent that, religion prevents meningococcal disease. Yeah, really strong science in favour of faith right there. Some of the studies cited actually prove the opposite of what the site is peddling, but they excuse this by accusing the meddling of "Jews and Buddhists" in the prayer groups. I'm actually surprised at some of the studies the website cites, one of which concludes that "Certain forms of religiousness may increase the risk of death." Some of the studies make no mention of religion whatsoever. I could go on, but the point is made.

As for the studies - and they exist - that show positive correlation between health and religion, they concern only the social benefits of religion as community*. The so-called "New Atheists" are the first to point out this positive role, although the uniting and socially reinforcing factor of religion is the same force that fosters and reinforces hate, prejudice and discrimination against the self (guilt) and the "Other" (non-members of the ingroup, "heathens", gays, blacks, "Westerners", you name it). When people use the socially unifying and reinforcing benefits of religious organisations to defend religious beliefs, a certain comparison quickly comes to mind, which Godwin's law prohibits me from making...

As for faith itself, a recent study suggests that it can actually have negative effects on health, because of the stress and guilt believers put upon themselves when prayed for (link). Regardless, even if a positive placebo effect could/can be attributed to faith/rel. belief, it does not make it any less idiotic or objectionable than the belief in homeopathy or vaudou.
_{(if interested in what I think of the "faith is comforting" argument, pm me, I'm filling this thread enough as is)}

Your "two-sides of same coin" analogy fails entirely: telling a believer they're delusional is not denying their perception of their own happiness. A child happy at the prospect of Santa delivering presents is delusional, but truly happy. The idea that there is the same amount of evidence against and for religious belief is pure ludicrous. The Abrahamic God (let's not bring in the thousand and one others for now) has been logically disproven, even before el Jeebs showed up with his promise of hellfire. There is also substantial evidence that he is man-made, as are the book(s) describing him, which are full of inconsistencies (and outright fallacies) themselves.

Your comment about John Smith suggests that the only evidence that could convict a fraudster is confession; good thing you aren't a judge! Seriously though, your doubt probably stems from your lack of acquaintance with the evidence. You can start by reading his brief biography on Wikipedia; his con trick of "glass-seeing" (looking at shiny stones in a hat and pretending to see the location of treasure), for which he was arrested several times, is eerily familiar to the birth of the Book of Mormon (looking into a hat and "transcribing" gold plates that probably did not exist). He even had to change a passage after losing some pages of the transcript He received a divine revelation that the exact pages of the transcript that he lost needed to be changed, and that God had foreseen the loss of those papers (link).

The further one goes back in history, the harder it is to get historical evidence against religious beliefs, but there are always logical arguments that count as evidence as well (in arguing the idiocy of certain beliefs). Since my Santa analogy above seems not to have appealed to you, here's a different one. Imagine Kate were to have said "I do not believe in witchcraft/vampires because I'm not an idiot." Audience response? "Duh!" or stg similar. And yet there is the same amount of evidence for witches and vampires as there is for deities and afterlife**. The only difference between these three once highly common delusions is that one of them persists, even demanding respect, when it deserves at best critical scrutiny, at worst nothing but scorn.


<sub>*(and sometimes those benefits stemming from certain rules, like no alcohol/extra-marital sex etc... still nothing to do with belief.)

**Actually, there is relatively more evidence in favour of vampirism than of deities and afterlife</sub>


tl;dr: faith/rel. belief has no health benefits (check sources b4 posting); argument of religion's social role is double-edged; delusions are still delusions if they make you happy (try drugs); Joseph Smith Jr was a (convicted) fraud; idiotic beliefs are still idiotic when shared by the majority, just more socially unacceptable to mock.

>> ^SDGundamX:


See my answer to @BicycleRepairMan--what people accept as evidence in this matter and how much evidence is required for people to believe (or not believe) in a religion varies from person to person. Further complicating matters is that belief is not binary--it's a very wide continuum that includes people who aren't sure but practice the religion anyway.
My point about the New Atheists is that they feel the evidence against religion is sufficient. They are entitled to that opinion--but at the end of the day it is only an opinion. They should be free to express that opinion and tell people their reasons why they came to that conclusion. But they shouldn't pretend that their opinion is "fact" or belittle those who haven't come to the same conclusion.
About the "faith improving lives" bit--there is a fair bit of empirical evidence for the benefits of religious faith (in terms of both physical and psychological health: see here and here for more info) so I can't see how you can argue it is "delusional." Unless you meant that religion isn't the only way to obtain the same benefits, in which case I absolutely agree. But I find an interesting parallel in your thinking the New Atheists can tell a religious person that he/she is delusional if that religious person believes religion has a positive effect on their life with Christians who claim that atheists think they are happy but in reality suffering because they aren't one with Christ. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.
I'm glad I amused you with my reference to Scientology. But this is a very rare case where we have a "smoking gun" so to speak. While I agree with you that there is a some suspicious stuff going on with Mormonism (how some passages in the Book of Mormon are very similar to other books available at the time John Smith lived), I'm unaware of any hard evidence that John Smith actually admitted to making it all up. Again with Mormonism, we're back to people having to personally decide for themselves what to believe (and all the issues that entails). [...]

>> ^hpqp:

What a trustworthy source, Webster Tarpley, 9/11 "it's-an-insidejob"er and climate change denialist.

Did man also never set foot on the moon, oh bearer of unwanted truths?
>> ^marbles:
The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq
Al Qaeda: Pawns of CIA Insurrection from Libya to Yemen
edit - link added:
Is the “Imminent Liberation of Libya” Propaganda?



Typical hpqp response. Scared to address the facts but has no problem tossing out lazy ad hominem static.
For the record 9/11 was an inside job, and Tarpley is not a "climate change denialist".

Furthermore, Tarpley's first article is completely sourced so I guess those idiots at West Point must be wrong about North-eastern Libya having the greatest concentration of Al-Qaeda fighters anywhere in the world.

The Telegraph and Washington Times must be conspiring with Tarpley also.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html (link dead?)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/feb/24/al-qaeda-offers-aid-to-rebels-in-libya/

The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq

Al Qaeda: Pawns of CIA Insurrection from Libya to Yemen

edit - link added:

Is the “Imminent Liberation of Libya” Propaganda?

@Lawdeedaw more data.

Highlights from more data.

I haven't read much of what's at these links, but I'm guessing since it's a compilation of data it won't really try to answer "why" type questions.

Wikipedia seems to have some links to studies that try to dig into what factors are and are not involved. Mostly they try to account for the factors you raise as alternatives to some form of sexism, and find that it doesn't explain the whole difference.

Oh, and it's not TED as in TED Talks, it's actually TED, the blog of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's the same government agency that puts out the official unemployment statistics (aka "jobs reports").

here's another example of some russian guy growing mashrooms in his bathtub http://englishrussia.com/2009/12/21/growing-mushrooms-at-home-%E2%80%93-detailed-recommendations/

>> ^bobknight33:

You have some good links, thanks. It clearly points out that both parties spend like there is no tomorrow. Nothing like spending others people money.
Thank GOD that the TEA PARTY was able to infiltrate the Republican party and start holding these jackals feet to the fire. Hopefully the Democrats can get some TEA PARTY members on their side and together the TEA PARTY can stop this wasteful spending. >> ^NetRunner:
>> ^bobknight33:
To see how much the Government spends click the link
What 15 trillion dollars look like.

Where the debt actually came from:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3490
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms




Kinda not sure what you're talking about.

The first link shows that the deficit would be 0 if we unwound everything Bush did, and the second one shows that the bulk of the debt we have today was the result of Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, and that Obama will be the first Democrat since FDR to preside over a deficit, and yet it'll still be a smaller one than Reagan ever ran...

The biggest source of debt is tax cuts, starting with Reagan. Clinton got the budget balanced with tax increases and spending cuts, Bush & the Republicans unbalanced it again with tax cuts.

Democrats have essentially always cared about debt and deficits more than anyone else. Look back at historical campaigns, even as far back as the 19th century.

This link was broken the other day, but here's what our future deficit problems are being caused by:

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2%80%99s-driving-projected-debt/

@SDGundamX

I apologise for making assumptions about your knowledge of Pat's videos; it seems to be - again - a question of seeing the same thing through different lenses. After rewatching the video and reading your comment, I agree that there are elements of pure insult and sarcasm in this (and surely other of Pat's) video(s). That being said, I cannot agree with you that he's being a hypocrite, because I don't think the caustic sarcasm of the phrase you point out is supposed to be taken seriously, but to mock the similar responses that people like him get for criticising religion.

Btw, what's wrong with insulting religion, when much of religion itself is an insult (and injury) to the basic integrity and morality of humankind? There is another function of rants like Pat's, and that is the cathartic effect* it provides for people who share Hitchens' opinion that "religion poisons everything" and who, like me, are often sick of and enraged at not only religion's rampant influence, but the lenience it receives from moderates and timid atheists.

As for quoting Sagan, I simply used his elegant phraseology to make a parallel point about the danger of silent assent.

*edit: sure beats rioting in the streets and murdering people, don't you think?

I know better than to waste time arguing with you, champ, but I'll just make this point: by your logic, we should give the rich even more money than they currently get, so they can continue to pay more tax.

They pay an increasing proportion of tax because they're getting a disproportionately increasing share of wealth.

Honestly, up is down, black is white with you people.

At the risk of posting a link you'll never look at, here's how the US stacks up against Oz in the welfare stakes: http://inside.org.au/how-fair-is-australia%E2%80%99s-welfare-state/

Nyquist Theorem at play here folks.
Brilliant example.

What we are seeing in the camera is an alias of the true waveform, limited (as previous commentators have noted) by the sampling rate of the capture device (Cameras frame rate).

Info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^marbles:
Are you fuckin slow or something?
I've made no claims one way or the other. YOU HAVE. AND YOU HAVE NO LEGITIMATE EVIDENCE.
IT'S A MOOT POINT ANYWAY. SO WHY DO YOU INSIST ON REPEATING THE SAME BULLSHIT OVER AND OVER?
YOU ARE GOING TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE AND IGNORE EVERY ARGUMENT I'VE MADE.
SO IF YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO SAY, THEN FUCK OFF!

Well said. You have made claims though:
1:Foreign Intelligence members are the main instigators of the rebellions.
2:The truth is we don't know who is killing the civilians.
3:Yeah, much akin to the Kurds. Where did that get them? We encouraged them to support us in Desert Storm and then let hundreds of thousands get slaughtered after we pulled out.
4:The groups that we're "working together" with in Libya is al-Qaeda linked rebels.
5:North-eastern Libya has one of the greatest concentrations of jihadi terrorists anywhere in the world.
6:Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin
7:the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed.
You've made plenty of claims, all of them in favor of the stories given by Gadhafi and Bashir Al-Assad. Save for number 3 where you confuse the Iraqi Kurds with the Iraqi Shia. You've already made clear that even Al Jazeera is a pro-western entity, and that eye witness testimony is bought by foreign money, so it there can not exist any evidence you would deem credible, save the apparent exception of stories provided by the State run media of Libya and Syria...
If you dislike what you see in this, then I'd recommend changing yourself since the reflection is deadly accurate.


There you go being a moron troll again. I've made no claims on whether or not Assad is responsible for killing civilians. YOU HAVE. YOU CHERRY PICK WHAT YOU WANT TO BELIEVE AND IGNORE THE REST. Even your sources say they don't know.
Unlike you, everything I said is backed up with actual substance.

1. Arab Spring. Confirmed by multiple sources - sponsored by foreign groups (multiple links in this thread)
2. Al Jazerra even admits that.
3. From Google result:In the aftermath of Operation Desert Storm, the United States encouraged Kurds and Shiites to rebel against Hussein's regime--then withdrew and refused to support them, leaving an unknown number to be slaughtered. At one point, Hussein's regime killed as many as 2,000 suspected Kurdish rebels every day. Some two million Kurds hazarded the dangerous trek through the mountains to Iran and Turkey, hundreds of thousands dying in the process.
4. here and here
5. 2007 West Point Study
6. Already established Qatar support for NATO.
I never claimed number 7. Irrelevant anyway.

I know this is long and off topic. I found it linked on a male friend's facebook page and found it interesting.

http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-be
ing-maced/

I thought the combo of sex and science and violence might pique your interest, too.

This is NOT related to our previous exchange, except in the general sense of how it is different to be a man in our society versus a woman.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.