Never mind, found 'em.

Links?

Yeah, they'll shoot if threatened. Liberals will imagine, foster, and sieze on threats, and demand that somebody with guns take those dangerous threats away. Much more, um, manly.

Speaking of gender, this is old, but given His Sagacity's grand, new, and, oh-so-reassuring government-run Brain Mapping moonrace, here's one for the ladies:

Men Locate the Clitoris: The Female Erotic Brain Is Mapped | TIME.com :Contrast and compare (sic)

"Wherever determinism appears, controversy attends, raising spectres of days when colonialists, eugenicists, public health officials, and political idealists believed they could cure the human condition through manipulation and force."....oh, wait. Wrong tense, anyway.

Why, that's crazy talk! An efficient, renewable energy source, plus essentially eliminate the nuke waste bogeyman? Are you mad???

So where's the Kickstarter?

Is Greenpeace itself handling its own funding with more transparency and, um, forthrightness than it was 10 years ago? Much less it's activism, which often makes me wonder if it's less engaged in saving the planet than in alarmist market manipulation.

Really, talk about PKB.

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,...
                                                                                        ---Bill S., 1600

Not a sparrow shall fall...
                                                                                        ---Matthew 10:29

Now if only one could get a copy of the script in advance....

jbd

"Whoa, kind of feel like God!"
                                                                                    ---"Cereal Killer" in Hackers I

ack. I was thinking of Porsche's diesel electric designs. Dunno if he did any turbine-electrics.

Ok, w/o the guns and missiles. Rats.

Seriously, Detroit could have mass-produced an automotive turbine-electric 40 years ago. Dr. Porsche was designing them at least by the '20s.

Next, while there are still tertiary wastewater treatment plants which just burn off the methane they produce, we will read about some 15 yo whiz kid getting kudos, grants and carbon credits for his "why has no one thought of that?" biomass digester for producing fuel gasses Oh, wait...

Now get off my lawn.

Let's dispense with the "shouting fire" strawman for once and for all. 1st, some context. Justice Holmes opinion on *falsely* shouting fire in a crowded theater was intended as an example of dangerous speech which serves no [presumed, see the theater scene in "Torn Curtain" for possible counter scenario] useful purpose. Bear in mind Holmes was writing a majority opinion *against* a pampleteer, Schenk, who was dstributing flyers against the draft during WW1. While you may or may not consider Schenk to be a scurrilous traitor, this does illuminate Holmes's motivation here, as he was using the "fire" example as a direct comparison to Schenk's speech. Subseqently, this decision was overturned, as well.

In the real world, anyone fool enough to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater for no good reason, if he weren't torn limb from limb by the mob, would be subject to all kinds of tort and criminal actions, from reckless endangerment to involuntary manslaughter, or even murder. Even if you want to argue that the speech should, somehow, be anticipated and proscribed by fiat, you'd still have to establish malicious or criminal intent, for which you have all kinds of existing law, with far more fitting penalties, as I just mentioned.

This old canard has no real bearing whatsoever on 1st amendment debates. It should have been retired long ago, but it has an emotional appeal which speech stiflers just can't get enough of.

"You do not have the right to speak in a way that harms people"

Bullshit. You know how hard it is to win a libel or slander judgement in the U.S.? There is no law against bearing false witness, except under oath. And then you have to prove it.

Or what about the truth, when it hurts? Careful with that broad brush, Doc. The ends don't justify the unintended consequences. (or are they?)

Yes, speech, or the publication of thought, is an act, and some non-verbal acts are speech, too. But speech is a protected act in the U.S. "Congress shall make no law", etc. That's why the "fighting words" concept is still part of U.S. law, despite the nanny state wanting to reserve all violence, justified or not, to itself.

These clowns deserve to be horsewhipped by the nearest Jew, but silencing them, silencing speech a priori, and sticking everyone else's head up some collective politically correct ass is not only tyrannical, but myopic and dangerous. I'm sorry U.S. jurisdictions dropped the ball on this one. Obviously they are anticipating the U.S. hate crimes, cyberbullying, etc. bills.

It was a nice run while it lasted, folks.

Reed-Elsevier announced, beginning July 4th of this year, a new licensing structure for Lexis-Nexis articles cited as precedent in court cases. "We expect volume discounting to keep the cost per cite down to $10,000 per case, per judge, and per referencing attorney", a Reed spokesman said.

Hey, it could happen, given Judge Posner's reasoning.

Yes, and after all that "tort reform", too.

Didn't want the Republicans to feel left out in all the flamage of politicians.