Friday Funnies

Richard Dawkins vs Bill O'Reilly

Hump Day Hunnies

White Privilege!!!!!!

Charlotte Protesters Have Made a List of Demands

The past week has been a straight mess. Betty Shelby shot Terence Crutcher in Tulsa and charges
were filed before the investigation was complete. People lost it because the helicopter crew member said Crutcher looks like a bad dude. Then the Charlotte officer shot Keith Scott, who was armed, and told over 10 times to drop his gun. The mainstream media reported it as a “Disabled Black Man Shot by Police While Reading a Book in his Car”, which resulted in dozens of injuries, lots of property damage, and the death of a protester.

A follower of our Facebook page sent us a picture of a list of demands from a group called “Charlotte Uprising”. We honestly thought it was a joke at first until we took a look at their website.

Here is their list of demands, along with our thoughts.

“1. THE IMMEDIATE END TO THE STATE OF EMERGENCY, CURFEW & THE REMOVAL OF THE NATIONAL GUARD”

Contrary to what you may think, the national guard isn’t activated just because they’re bored. They normally reserve mobilization for natural disasters, like when thousands of homes are destroyed and hundreds of thousands of people are displaced from floods. But unfortunately, because a bunch of overgrown children threw a temper tantrum before waiting for a thorough investigation and the release of solid evidence, they have to come babysit Charlotte.

“2. THE IMMEDIATE DEMILITARIZATION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE IMMEDIATE RETURN OF ALL MILITARY EQUIPMENT ”

We’re going to assume that you’re talking about the riot gear with this one. Again, that wouldn’t be necessary if people didn’t throw cinder blocks at police and destroy millions in property.

“3. THE DEFUNDING OF THE POLICE  DEPARTMENT (2017 Budget: $246,644,617) AND THE REDIRECTION OF THOSE RESOURCES TO THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITIES (INCLUDING RESOURCES FOR JOBS PROGRAMS, AFFORDABLE QUALITY HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, HOLISTIC HEALTH AND QUALITY SCHOOLS)”

I’m pretty sure that you don’t like how police are trained right now, correct? You’re probably also not a big fan of people breaking into your house and taking your things. De-funding the police department means that there will be less officers on the streets. It also means that those officers would lose valuable training money.

“4.  AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE KILLING OF KEITH L. SCOTT AND AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE  AND A FREEZE ON THE NEARLY 1.5 MILLION DOLLARS AWARDED IN FEDERAL GRANTS ANNUALLY TO THE DEPARTMENT”

The North Carolina Bureau of Investigation is already on it. Again, taking away a police department grants takes officers off the streets and takes money from valuable training.

“5. A RELEASE OF THE POLICE REPORT AND BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE CONNECTED WITH THE KILLING OF KEITH L. SCOTT  & ALL OTHER KILLINGS TO THE PUBLIC AND IMMEDIATELY REPEAL OF HB 972, WHICH RESTRICTS THE ABILITY OF THE PUBLIC TO ACCESS POLICE BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE”

They released all of it. He had a gun. Officers told him to drop it several times.

“6. THE IMMEDIATE AND UNCONDITIONAL RELEASE OF ALL THOSE ARRESTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE UPRISING RESULTING FROM THE KILLING OF KEITH L. SCOTT & THE DROPPING OF ALL CHARGES”

Are you joking? No. Take responsibility for your actions. No-one forced those people to terrorize the public. I guess you want to free Justin Carr’s killer too.

“7.  THE RELEASE OF ALL THE NAMES OF THE OFFICERS INVOLVED IN THE KILLING OF KEITH L. SCOTT TO THE PUBLIC FOLLOWED BY THEIR FIRING, ARREST AND PROSECUTION”

They released the name of the officer that fired the shots. I don’t see them firing, arresting, and prosecuting officers that shot an armed felon who was given a dozen chances to drop his gun.

“8.  REPARATIONS FOR THE FAMILY OF KEITH L. SCOTT AND ALL VICTIMS OF POLICE VIOLENCE AS WELL AS THE FAMILIES OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN KILLED”

Honestly, the way thing go these days, they probably will get paid in some way, shape or, form. Just like how child abuser Korryn Gaines’ family is suing police for a few million.

“9. COMMUNITY CONTROL OF THE POLICE, STARTING WITH THE CREATION OF A CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT BOARD THAT HAS THE POWER TO HIRE AND FIRE OFFICERS, DETERMINE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS AS WELL AS DICTATE POLICE POLICIES, PRIORITIES, AND BUDGETS. THE BOARD SHALL NOT INCLUDE POLICE REPRESENTATION AND WILL BE CONTROLLED BY COMMUNITIES MOST IMPACTED BY POLICING AND INCARCERATION IN CHARLOTTE”

How are people who want to de-fund the police, who know nothing about policing, who have never been through any type of law enforcement training going to run a police force? Here’s an idea, become a police officer and help your community however you see fit.

“10. AN END TO THE REPRESSION & TARGETING OF PROTESTORS AND ALL THOSE ENGAGED IN THE CHARLOTTE UPRISING”

There were plenty of peaceful protests that the police weren’t worrying about. Perhaps, and this is just a thought, if some “protesters” didn’t try to drag a journalist into a fire then they wouldn’t target protesters. The police weren’t repressing peaceful protests, they were repressing the idiots that were destroying Charlotte.

Final thoughts

Terrorists and bank robbers are the only people that make lists of demands. How about, instead of making demands, you go volunteer for one of the many peaceful organizations on your “Solidarity” page? Go on a ride-along with a police officer to experience it first hand.

What are your thoughts? Let us know on our Facebook page.

Source:
Charlotte Protesters Have Made a List of Demands - Blue Lives Matter

If the Bible Were Law, Would You Qualify for the Death Penalty?

by Valerie Tarico

Thirty-six different offenses in the Bible qualified for capital punishment. How many of these apply to you?

Cursing Parents
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9

Working on the Sabbath
Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 31:15

Premarital Sex (girls only)
… If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman’s virginity was not found, then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father’s house and the men of her town shall stone her to death. Deuteronomy 22:20

Disobedience (boys only)
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. Deuteronomy 21:18

Worshipping any god but Yahweh
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that … hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; … Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

Witches
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22: 18

Wizards (epileptics? migraine sufferers? schizophrenics?)
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27

Loose Daughters of Clergy
And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. Leviticus 21:9

Girls who are Raped within the City Limits
If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city … But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. Deuteronomy 22:23-25

Blasphemers
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. Leviticus 24:16

Anyone Who Tries to Deconvert Yahweh Worshipers
If anyone secretly entices you–even if it is your brother, your father’s son or your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend–saying, “Let us go worship other gods,” … you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them. Deuteronomy 12:6

Men who Lie With Men
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:13

Adulterers
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20: 10-12

Men who Lie with Beasts and Beasts who Lie with Men
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. Leviticus 20:15

So. Are you up for the death penalty?

Just so you know, it could be worse. As I am reminded by people who want me to make nice, this list represents an advancement from mob justice. They are right, and the Levitical Code would a fascinating window into human moral history were it not for the fact that juries in Texas, politicians in Colorado, and clergy in Africa all advocate the death penalty for one person or another on the basis of these texts (murderers, homosexuals, and child witches respectively).

When people put God’s name on Iron Age documents, and then make those documents a golden calf, they get stuck with Iron Age moral thinking. Maybe it’s time to take the Bible down off of its pedestal, and acknowledge the obvious human handprints on the texts. Maybe it’s even time to do again what Thomas Jefferson did: cut the book apart, keep the parts that are worth keeping, and leave the rest on the floor in the cutting room of history.

Reprinted with permission from the author.

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org. Her articles about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society have been featured at sites including AlterNet, Salon, the Huffington Post, Grist, and Jezebel. Subscribe at ValerieTarico.com.

If the Bible Were Law, Would You Qualify for the Death Penalty?

Birtherism Isn’t Going Away

Iwas a stranger in a strange land—even though I was an American in the United States of America. That’s what it felt like recently as I was jogging through Surfside Beach, South Carolina, a mostly white area known for its beachfront homes, and stopped on a sidewalk for a few moments to turn my GPS watch on. A young white cop pulled up and asked me politely what I was doing, saying, “We got a call saying someone was just urinating in public.”

“I don’t know anything about that. It wasn’t me,” I responded.

“Well, you know we have to check these things out,” he said.

The cop was nonconfrontational, and I thanked him. Indeed, before returning to my jog and as he turned to get back into his car, I almost apologetically reached to give him a handshake. I felt compelled to do whatever possible to make sure he believed me when I said I belonged where I said did, on a street in the country where I was born and where citizens are supposed to be able to move around freely, as long as they don’t harm anyone else. A part of me was grateful, even, that he didn’t ask me for my papers (I didn’t have my wallet), because I was half-expecting to be treated like a black man who had wandered into the wrong area at the wrong time during Apartheid South Africa.

That scene came rushing back into my mind this week as Donald Trump once again began resurrecting the “birtherism” that made him so popular among white Americans for the past five years—and then, on Friday, without apology, without explanation, as TV hosts hung on his every word, just dropped it all, declaring in a single sentence that he now believes Barack Obama was born in America. Only a day ago, he was still playing the birther card, evading the question of Obama’s nationality in an interview with The Washington Post.

Before that moment, it had always been hard for me to articulate why birtherism was such a big deal—though I’ve always known it was—and why that single, benign, incident-free interaction with a white cop ruined the rest of my day and made me feel ill.

Now I think I understand better. Birtherism, like a criminal justice system with racial disparities at every level, means that to be black in America is to forever be suspect. It means that someone like Trump can arbitrarily raise questions about your identity without evidence or justification—and it will stick. To many white voters, even the many who despise Trump and dismiss birtherism as nonsense, this issue has been little more than an unsavory campaign tactic. But to black Americans like me, it is deeply personal. It has confirmed things about the United States we had hoped were no longer true.


Read more:
Birtherism Isn’t Going Away - POLITICO Magazine

Friday Funnies

Atheist Neil deGrasse Tyson Exposes Bill O'Reilly TheoIdiocracy

Hump Day Hunnies

The Fallacy of Income Inequality

By Steve Feinstein

 

There was a delicious ditty in the news a few months ago about how the world’s wealthiest 62 persons own more assets than half of the world’s population:

Last year, just 62 individuals held wealth equivalent to the amount owned by 3.6 billion people, about half the world’s population. That’s according to a new report by Oxfam published ahead of the World Economic Forum in Davos, which aims to show just how deep the gulf of inequality has become.

Ah, the canard of so-called “income inequality.” The feeling by liberals -- especially American Democrats -- that greedy conservatives are hoarding too much of the world’s finite wealth for themselves, thereby denying the hard-working Average Joe and Jane (particularly Jane) of their right and ability to earn a fair middle-class wage.

If Bill Gates or Warren Buffet -- no, wait, not them; they’re liberal, so they’re ok -- if the Koch brothers didn’t selfishly stockpile all that money for their own coffers and instead “paid their fair share,” then that extra taxed money would somehow miraculously find its way directly into the pockets of the “deserving,” and income inequality would be a thing of the past.

“Income inequality” is an artificial, contrived term that has no meaning at all in the real world. The relative income of any two persons is irrelevant. Bill Gates’ next million in income does not take food off my table or negatively impact on my ability to live my life. Conversely, if Gates were to see his income reduced, that reduction would not redound to my direct financial benefit in any way whatsoever. Our two financial situations are unrelated. Unrelated. If some random person hits the Powerball lottery and becomes an overnight half-billionaire, their stroke of financial fortune does not negatively impact me at all, despite our newly-created “income inequality.” So go ahead. Win the lottery.

Read more:
Articles: The Fallacy of Income Inequality

Worst. President. Ever.

by Robert Strauss

As my 25th wedding anniversary approached, I tried to be creative in buying gifts for my wife. I had the idea of a silver coin that marked 25 years of something or other. I went to a local coin shop, and as I idled over some of the display cases, I noticed a set of coins from the mid-19th century. Oddly, the coins from the 1840s and 1850s were large—up until 1857, when the coins started becoming, at best, half the size of the others.

“Oh, the Panic of 1857,” the owner said when I asked him about the change of size. “It was really bad. The president didn’t seem to have any solution except to use less gold or silver in the coins.”

Now that is inept presidential decision-making. During the current election campaign, there has been a lot of gnashing of teeth over the possibility that—whoever the winner is—he or she will be so terrible as a leader they will bring down the republic as the worst president since independence. And before the current candidates were known, the two most recent White House occupants, Barack Obama and George W. Bush, have been consistently reviled by their detractors as the worst men to lead the country.

But Obama and Bush can both take heart. And Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton can gain solace, perhaps, from knowing that no matter how badly they do, they almost certainly won’t rank last. By my reckoning, that place belongs to James Buchanan, genial a man though he was. I’ve made quite a study of him. My innocent encounter at the coin shop only reinforced my lifelong determination to take an offbeat look at, let’s say, the lesser presidents. My father was definitely the only one in our suburban neighborhood with a biography of Franklin Pierce. Everywhere we went, he forced me to read historical plaques—stopping the car in a shrieking halt at times to view them. If I were to write a book about a president, it surely wouldn’t be about Washington or Lincoln, or even Silent Cal Coolidge. It would have to be about someone as ineffectual as possible.

Buchanan, the only president from my native state, Pennsylvania, turned out to be my man.

Read more:
Worst. President. Ever. - POLITICO Magazine

Religion in US 'worth more than Google and Apple combined'

Religion in the United States is worth $1.2tn a year, making it equivalent to the 15th largest economy in the world, according to a national study.

The faith economy has a higher value than the combined revenues of the top 10 technology companies in the US, including Apple, Amazon and Google, says the analysis from Georgetown University in Washington DC.

The Socioeconomic Contributions of Religion to American Society: An Empirical Analysis calculated the $1.2tn figure by estimating the value of religious institutions, including healthcare facilities, schools, daycare and charities; media; businesses with faith backgrounds; the kosher and halal food markets; social and philanthropic programmes; and staff and overheads for congregations.

Co-author Brian Grim said it was a conservative estimate. More than 344,000 congregations across the US collectively employ hundreds of thousands of staff and buy billions of dollars worth of goods and services.

More than 150 million Americans, almost half the population, are members of faith congregations, according to the report. Although numbers are declining, the sums spent by religious organisations on social programmes have tripled in the past 15 years, to $9bn.  

Read more:
Religion in US 'worth more than Google and Apple combined' | World news | The Guardian

Americans Suck At Fractions

Americans have loved McDonald’s Quarter Pounder ever since a franchisee introduced the iconic outperformed McDonald’s in blind taste tests, with consumers preferring the flavor of A&W’s burger.
burger to the country in 1972. In the 1980s, A&W attempted to capitalize on the success of the Quarter Pounder—and drum up a little competition for Ronald and friends—by introducing a third-pound burger. The bigger burger gave consumers more bang for their collective buck. It was priced the same as the Quarter Pounder but delivered more meat. It even

But when it came down to actually purchasing the third-pound burgers, most Americans simply would not do it. Baffled, A&W ordered more tests and focus groups. After chatting with people who snubbed the A&W burger for the smaller Quarter Pounder, the reason became clear: Americans suck at fractions. Alfred Taubman, who owned A&W at the time, wrote about the confusion in his book Threshold Resistance:

More than half of the participants in the Yankelovich focus groups questioned the price of our burger. "Why," they asked, "should we pay the same amount for a third of a pound of meat as we do for a quarter-pound of meat at McDonald's? You're overcharging us." Honestly. People thought a third of a pound was less than a quarter of a pound. After all, three is less than four!

Read more:
Why No One Wanted A&W's Third-Pound Burger | Mental Floss

Friday Funnies

EPA's Fondness for High-End Furniture Costs Taxpayers $92 Million

The federal agency that has the job of protecting the environment doesn’t seem to have too much
concern for trees, at least the ones cut down to make furniture.

The Environmental Protection Agency over the past decade has spent a whopping $92.4 million to purchase, rent, install and store office furniture ranging from fancy hickory chairs and a hexagonal wooden table, worth thousands of dollars each, to a simple drawer to store pencils that cost $813.57.

The furniture shopping sprees equaled about $6,000 for every one of the agency’s 15,492 employees, according to federal spending data made public by the government watchdog OpenTheBooks.com.

And the EPA doesn’t buy just any old office furniture. Most of the agency’s contracts are with Michigan-based retailer Herman Miller Inc. According to the contracts, the EPA spent $48.4 million on furnishings from the retailer known for its high-end, modern furniture designs.

Just one of Herman Miller’s “Aeron” office chairs retails for nearly $730 on the store’s website. The EPA has spent tens of thousands of dollars to purchase and install those types of chairs in its offices.

Read more:
Golden Hammer: EPA's fondness for high-end furniture costs taxpayers $92 million - Washington Times

Hump Day Hunnies

Christopher Hitchens - Don't waste my time with Islam

Remembering 9/11

Debunking The Income Inequality Fallacy, Step By Step

by John Glenn

Reading books about economics can be tedious, but when a sharp analysis of a prominent debate becomes available, that’s enough to pique my sustained interest. Equal Is Unfair: America’s Misguided Fight Against Income Inequality is the kind of analysis that pulls back the curtain on one of today’s most contentious topics, and as such, should interest many others. President of the Ayn Rand Institute Yaron Brook and fellow Don Watkins work methodically to refute the mainstream notion that income inequality is one of the greatest threats facing American society.

Their opening salvo is grounded in a truth that those concerned about income inequality are working hard to obscure: “The reason Americans have never cared about economic inequality is precisely because they recognized that it was the inevitable by-product of an opportunity-rich society.” I suspect that the vast majority of Americans still don’t really have a problem with rocket scientists earning more money than cashiers or with superstar basketball players raking in more pay than professors.

Equal Is Unfair is really a critique of the misleading nature of the income inequality debate, which plays on people’s emotions and economic angst. Watkins and Brook make good use of history, statistical data, and economic theory to dispel the notion that economic mobility is no longer possible in America.

The book sets out to explain what it means to live in a free society. And it quickly stakes the claim that a free society places demands upon individuals—to think and produce, to be self-supporting, and to make the most out of their own advantages, as well as overcome challenges.

So what is income inequality? According to Equal Is Unfair, the catchphrase is rarely spelled out by pundits or the media, but it has a lot to do with the idea that middle class incomes have stagnated over the last thirty or forty years while the rich have seen an enormous increase in wealth. The solution invariably offered is to increase taxation on the 1 percent.

Before going on to critique the oversimplifications in some of the leading studies on income inequality, Watkins and Brook dismantle the argument that income inequality is somehow unjust by questioning the “fixed-pie” and “group-pie” assumptions. The fixed-pie narrative assumes that one person gains wealth at the expense of another; when, in fact, the wealth pie expands as more wealth is created. The group-pie narrative wrongly assumes that all wealth belongs to the nation and that it should be distributed by society evenly.

Read more:
Debunking The Income Inequality Fallacy, Step By Step

Friday Funnies