Stephen Coughlin, Part 6: The Boston Attack and ‘Individual Jihad’

Parts 1-5 are posted here.

Reason TV’s Nanny of the Month for April 2013

Finally – a valid argument for ‘public transit’

Animals are way smarter than most of us give them credit for.

(Well, most animals – my dog excepted…but he is beautiful and loving and we don’t mind that he has the intelligence of a tuberous begonia.  Our rabbit has enough smarts for both of them!)

Mastering the Moscow subway system is something stray dogs can, apparently, achieve!  And, they seem to be better at assessing our psychology than most of us are at learning theirs…

Hats off to these clever canines!



Chick-fil-A’s ‘Family Values’

Remember Chick-fil-A?

They got their 15 minutes of fame by publicly opposing gay marriage on the grounds that it wasn’t ‘Biblical’ (and funding – second-hand – some nasty homophobic groups) in the name of ‘family values’.

Aside:  Don’t get me wrong, they are a private company and they are free to present any image they like and spend their profits in any way they choose.  All I am doing is pointing out how they live up to the values they themselves profess to live according to.

Well, now they are revealing more about exactly what constitutes these ‘Biblical family values’ that Chick-fil-A promotes:  Mother-Son Medieval Date Night!!!

They even promote it on their own website!  Here is a screenshot:

Screenshot from 2013-04-29 15:09:15

So, what exactly are ‘Biblical family values’?

The Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old Testament Morality has taken the time to compile brochures on both the Biblically correct Marriage and Biblical family values – though, they do quote the New Testament as well as the Old one in order to support their points.  Do check them out!

We learn from ‘Biblically Correct Family Values’ that Deuteronomy 21:18-21 gives instructions to parents how to go about having a disobedient son stoned to death, Judges 11:30-39 gives instructions how to sacrifice your daughter to God (and no, this time there is no last-moment intervention to stop the sacrifice), and, among other things, tosses in the New Testament Biblical family values as instructed by both Matthew (10:34-36) and Luke (14:26).

From ‘Keeping Marriage Biblically Correct’, we learn from Genesis (16:3) all about Abram and Sarai and how she gave him her maidservant Hagar for a wife and we also learn (32:22) about Jacob and his two wives and his two concubines.  The booklet also gives useful tips on rape-crisis counseling (from both Deuteronomy and Leviticus) and how to find a wife (Deuteronomy and Exodus)  and other useful bits of advice on how to live according to Biblical values.

However, unless one goes all the way back to wondering whom exactly did the sons of Adam procreate with if the only female in existence was their mother, Eve, there is nothing there about mothers dating their sons (though there is plenty about fathers impregnating their daughters…).

Perhaps Chick-fil-A will enlighten us all…



FBI investigation of the Boston Marathon


PJTV: Enemies of the State

Food for thought:


FBI Fake Terror Plot History: Judge Napolitano

The European Crisis Continues: No Solution on the Horizon


Thomas Sowell: The Incentives of Affirmative Action


Dzhokar Tsarnaev and his Miranda rights

I am not well versed in legal matters, much less US ones.  So, I found it baffling that it is permissible for US authorities to interrogate Dzhokar Tsarnaev without having first ‘Mirandized’ him.

A nephew of mine who was up last weekend from the US for the funeral of our aunt tried to explain to me both the legality and the logistics behind it.  Because of the family obligations the past weekend, I could not really track this down right away, but my nephew did point me in the right direction.  (Thanks, PJ!)

It seems that it boils down to this:  a person can be arrested and interrogated without having been ‘Mirandized’ and it is perfectly legal – it’s just that what the person says cannot be used against him/her in the court of law.  Here is an excellent legal analysis of this very topic.   (Via Popehat)

‘… But recall that under (1), the government is still free to question Tsarnaev outside Miranda as long as the government accepts the uncertainty of whether those statements would be admissible in a criminal case against him. Assuming that the evidence against Tsarnaev’s many different crimes over the last week is likely to be overwhelming, agents may not need any statements from him for a criminal case…’