Here is another O'Reilly remix that's even funnier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck2CPqVKz_c

There's an extended section of O'Reilly saying "Fox sucks!" over and over. Hilarious. I posted this yesterday, but this thread is more appropriate.

Speaking of funny news remixes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck2CPqVKz_c

@ AAHMYEYES:

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Derren Brown is very entertaining, he seems likable, but he's also a charlatan. Houdini would have much to say about his claims and methods.

@ WILLIAM:

True, he is mostly aboveboard in his admission that he occasionally employs trickery, except for all those times when he knowingly misleads the audience with his often disingenuous and semi-insulting explanations. What exactly is he accomplishing by continuing to mislead the audience following a trick? He's certainly not making them any wiser by not showing them how it's done.

One thing he is very good at is leaving the audience members with the impression that what they have witnessed isn't real psychic phenomena or magic, but is instead something that they could learn for themselves, if only they were as smart as he is. There is a congenital duplicity involved, and it could be interpreted by some as unnecessary and injurious. Perhaps that is not his goal, ultimately. I'm no psychic.

I respect Derren Brown for a lot of reasons, but his purported knowledge of psychology isn't one of them. Similarly, I have a great amount of respect for Penn and Teller, but their show "Bullshit!" is (ironically?) loaded with misinformation. One episode suggested that scientists aren't in agreement about the existence of global warming, which is false. They further repeat the myth that scientists in the 1970s predicted imminent global cooling. In another episode, they claim that secondhand smoke has not been linked to cancer; another outright falsehood.

People who argue the simple fact that most scientists broadly agree as to the causes and existence of global warming are often accused of being dogmatic ideologues. Penn and Teller are so tied in with the Cato Institute that they have to reject legitimate science on occasion, but it is dangerous when opinions as trusted as theirs are blithely founded on half-truths and lies. They are not ignorant by definition, but, like Brown, they are occasionally guilty of either ignorance or calculated insincerity.

One problem, as I see it, is that magicians such as Penn Jillette and Derren Brown are presumably intent on following in James Randi's footsteps, without entertaining the necessary skepticism to ensure the veracity of their own claims.

@ Arkizzle:

"Have you got any sources on what you say about us being genetically altered due to using artificial light? "

I looked around for a source, but unfortunately I could only find one mention of the initial study on Wikipedia. Not that it matters. Antinous cited Wikipedia in this thread without attribution.
http://webdrive.service.emory.edu/groups/research/lchb/PUBLICATIONS%20Worthman/PUBLICATIONS%20CMW%202002/Ecology%20of%20Human%20sleep.pdf

I will continue to look for the source for the followup. I remember that it had some connection to the National Sleep Foundation. But yes, it has been determined that people with prolonged exposure to artificial light sleep differently than those who do not, and that the trait further carries over to their children.

That notwithstanding, you have completely ignored my earlier point that human beings have indeed consciously altered the evolution of other species.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/284831

@ NEKO:

"I don't know why people are saying 'You die if you don't sleep; this kid is alive; therefore this kid has slept'."

Two reasons:

1. Because you die if you don't sleep.
2. It is the only good explanation.

I guess that's only one reason, really.

@ ARKIZZLE:

"How do you suppose a change might be less random?"

I have already given you an example. The fact that human beings' sleep patterns are irrefutably altered by the introduction of artificial light, and that these changes can be perceived in infants whose parents were exposed to artificial light, means that external forces contribute to our evolution, and not necessarily entirely at random. You can say that it's not evolution, but you'd be wrong.

When humans began using artificial light, I'm sure that they weren't conscious of the longstanding evolutionary effects it would have. Now that we do know, it stands to reason that we will make conscious efforts to alter our own evolution. Of course, we have begun to do that already. Similarly, we have consciously altered the evolution of other animals, creating new species entirely. And incidentally, speciation is an evolutionary process. When discussing the two, it is important to note.

A square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is only rarely a square.

@ Antinous:

"I know that you think that you're arguing evolution, but you're not. You're arguing ID. "

Just because you keep repeating something does not make it true. Perhaps you think you've taken a page from Ed Bernay's playbook, but you're only kidding yourself.

"But I don't know that we have created anything that's been designated as a new species or subspecies. Anyone know on this one?"

Domesticated sheep, for one. There are others, too, but you can use the Internet. I think.

"The giraffe does not evolve a long neck because it needs to reach the high-up leaves. A giraffe randomly evolves a long neck and lives to breed because it can reach the high-up leaves. There is no suggestive factor."

Who said anything about giraffes? You are arguing that, because no "suggestive factors" were present in the evolution of giraffes, such a thing can never happen in any species. Epic fail. Again, look to our own species, and you will see that technology can and does alter evolution. I would assume that other conditions would, as well. You're the expert.

"Yes. Evolution is a series of accidents that turn out well."

Unless they don't. It might all blow up in our faces eventually. Who are any of us to say, really? Did evolution turn out well for the dinosaurs? You and I agree that these initial developments are chance operators. Yes, some traits stick around because they are useful, and somehow, amazingly, that seems considerably less accidental to me. Certain evolutionary features seem to support that notion, but I am certain that you will respectfully disagree.

@ ARKIZZLE:

The quote you selected was written to Antinous, not you. I was being facetious. Of course DNA isn't conscious. Hell, some scientists would argue that a creature at the cytogenic level of a spider can't be conscious.

I have never said that there is an element of intelligence to selection. Re-read what I wrote. I was saying that any belief that a spider could affect its evolutionary changes implies a level of intelligence that is simply not there. It is still possible that the spider's DNA "regards" the trait as advantageous, but the spider itself hasn't a clue.

It does not alter my belief that some evolutionary changes are less random than others, a point with which you have already agreed.

@ ARKIZZLE:

I should've been more specific. I wasn't saying that the spider consciously made an effort to adapt, but instead that we have. At one time, human beings likely had flattened, snout-like noses, much like apes. Over centuries of diving for fish, the nose became downward-sloped to prevent drowning.

Of course, we humans didn't consciously decide to alter ourselves. I was using the term as a kind of shorthand, because I believe that we do have some say, however slight, in our evolutionary progress. One good example is that exposure to artificial light leads to increased, uninterrupted durations of sleep. I mention this because, although not a conscious decision, it is a technological development that has changed us neurochemically to some degree; not some explicit change that came about randomly.

Yes, these are due to environmental changes, and human beings, more than any other species, have some control of their environments, as with the introduction of artificial light, better forms of shelter, increased levels of pollution, etc. Inasmuch, they have some detectable influence over their own evolutionary paths. A spider? Not so much. I would only suggest that we more fully investigate these happy accidents before stating with pseudo-authority that they're all completely random.

@ Antinous:

"Now you're openly arguing Intelligent Design."

No, I'm not. I'm not the first one you've pulled that one out on, either. What you are saying, in no uncertain terms, is that anyone who disagrees with you is arguing Intelligent Design. Hogwash, and most transparent.

What I am saying is that the evolution of a lizard into a bird was very likely a multi-tiered process. Or are you suggesting that a lizard was born with wings, but also miraculously had hollow bones enabling him to lift off? The chances of it occurring that way are slim to none.

More likely is the situation in which the lizard was born with one or the other feature, and eventually through trial and error the other came along. It is not as if the lizard's DNA was conscious, having an understanding of the relationship between weight, wings, and flight. If anything, it seems that you are the one ascribing an improbable intelligence to an evolutionary progress that you simultaneously attest is totally random.

Likewise, it is equally improbable that a spider could suddenly mimic the mating scent of one of its prey, and more specifically one so close to home. Even if it did, how easily do you suppose the spider or its DNA arrived at the conclusion that the scent was what attracted juicy female mayflies to its web in the first place?

Again, such an event would suggest some element of intelligence, but like you I am given to think that random particulars are of the essence. Unlike you, however, I realize that it is more likely that some suggestive qualities exist, inflating the chances of such phenomena occurring to the organism's advantage.

"Well, I agree that the probability of any non-lethal mutation is tiny. "

Non-lethal mutations happen all the time. Still, that doesn't mean that this kind of change would occur "instantaneously." Whether it's been documented makes little difference. It's a preposterous and mostly indefensible assumption to make that a human being could go without sleep indefinitely. It would not be a simple change in chemical processes, as you have suggested. It would require a physiological alteration, with neurochemical results.

"However, we are currently exposed to large numbers of new mutagens due to the rise of the chemicals industry. I would expect to see a statistically significant increase in mutations. We've seen it in a number of other species. I don't see why humans would be immune."

Of course we're not immune, but it's mathematically inconceivable that the kind of mutation you're talking about would happily coincide with the unfortunate medical situation described in the article. I agree that it's possible, theoretically, but it's loony. One thing we know for certain is that sleep helps the human brain to stay healthy, or rather that a lack of sleep causes death. That much is simply irrefutable.

"Once you've seen a few eight-limbed babies, the idea of a possible minor change in brain chemistry just seems like not a big deal."

I've seen enough pictures of spider-babies to last ten lifetimes, thanks, but do indulge me: if it's such a "minor change in brain chemistry," why has it taken so long to occur? If it was so minor, we wouldn't even be in disagreement.

"All evolutionary leaps occur instantaneously. "

Um, not really. So, you've witnessed it firsthand, eh? Evolutionary processes are complicated, kiddo. Without question, they are the result of (mostly) random mutations. But if you believe that Homo sapiens were "instantaneously" born of gracile australopithecines, you are mistaken.

"But reptiles did have that happen. So the likelihood of such a grand evolutionary change is 100%. Not for humans perhaps, but for some organisms."

I never said that it was impossible; only highly doubtful that a human would be born with that inherent capability. Of course, if a human being was born with such advantages, he would no longer be regarded as human. So, really, the chances are 0%. And no, lizards did not become birds (or even flying lizards) overnight. Sorry to burst your bubble.

"You are arguing against history, against science and against evolution."

No, I'm not. And even if I was, I would not be doing so merely because you say I am. I have rather a firm grasp of evolution, but your insistence that it is merely a collection of random mutations, with no discernible connection aside from the fact that some of the mutations happen (totally by chance, of course) to be advantageous, only further illustrates your own misunderstanding.

You seem to be suggesting that certain spiders have learned to mimic the scent of a male mayfly completely by accident. You must concede that doing so means that more pregnant female mayflies will end up in the spider's web, with greater nutritive content. Do you really believe that it was all by chance? That conditions of the spider's appetite or need for nutrients didn't assist in the cultivation of such a drastic change? You just don't know, and neither do I. But what I do know about evolution is that we have had a hand in it, even consciously to some extent.

And I also know that a kid surviving three years without any sleep is impossible. For now, at least. In spite of your unflinching obstinateness, it is not less likely than bipedalism, becoming aquatic, or developing flight. None of those things are immediately necessary to a species' survival; only advantageous. To be fair, though, I'll bet the chances are roughly the same.

Oh, and a series of discreet events? Please. You know I'm not a proponent of Inelegant Design, but any series of events, discreet or otherwise, could indeed be seen as a process. Words are flexible, you know.

We have downward-sloped noses from diving for fish. Adaptation can and does occur in increments, though not exclusively. Sad to say, any explanation of such a bold evolutionary leap would be better than "it could happen, so it must have."

@ ANTINOUS:

"Why, with six billion chances, shouldn't someone be born with brain chemistry that does not require sleep for functioning?"

Sure... someone should be. Why not? If there was a pill I could take to give me an additional eight hours a day, I'd be the first in line at the pharmacy. I'm not arguing that it could never be possible, but from the information currently available to Earthlings, it seems utterly infeasible.

With a limitless number of possibilities, anything is possible, but that's just not the Universe we live in. The fact is: it's never happened yet, and unless pseudoscience is your thing, you must accept that this kind of evolutionary leap would almost certainly not occur overnight. Again, it would be the same as someone not needing water. We know enough about sleep to know that it is intimately and (for now) inextricably connected to our survival.

I need it, you need it, this poor kid needs it, every human being who has ever lived has needed it, and as a point of observation it is very likely that we humans will continue needing it until a few of us are born who need it less, and we continue breeding until eventually a kid is born who doesn't need it at all. But the odds of that very kid being born with an abnormality such as this are astronomical, and the very suggestion borders on the macabre.

Again, what makes you think that this kid who has an extremely rare condition would be the one to step up to the evolutionary plate? Why would he magically adapt to these structural defects he had a one in a trillion chance of inheriting? Or if it wasn't adaptation to that, but rather he is so evolved that he doesn't need sleep, why would his mother think that he needs it so desperately? I guess there are a few reasons, but none of it really matters. Fact is, people need sleep to survive. I'm sorry that you are unable to prove otherwise.

"We don't even understand how sleep works."

Yes, we do, somewhat, and a Hell of a lot better than we did even fifteen years ago. I would contend that we understand it as well as we understand gravity. And for the record, I'm someone who believes that, given enough time, everything could be explained in mechanistic terms. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, however.

"I don't think that Ockham's Razor is meant to substitute 'they must be lying' to explain heretofore unobserved phenomena. That would be the death of science."

I don't think so, either. You are attempting to make it seem as if I am saying the poor woman is lying. I'm not. It is more likely to assume that she's never seen her child fall asleep, but like every thinking human being she deserves to be informed that it is impossible to survive without it. An explanation for this phenomenon is all I'm after, and it is clear that my explanation is both simpler and more scientifically grounded than yours.

To put it even more simply, this kid sleeps, and his mother doesn't realize it. That is a far simpler and more rational explanation than yours, which is frankly unexceptional. As BOOKYLOO suggested, there are countless examples of people sleeping without shutting their eyes. Some people walk, talk, and even drive themselves to work in their sleep. Solely depending on a highly improbable series of circumstances to attempt to validate your argument for the existence of an unprecedented phenomenon is just bad science.

Sure, it could happen, but it hasn't. And just so we are clear: it is doubtful that a human being will ever be born with hollow bones and wings, enabling him to fly, either.

Oh, sorry, I should have said that the likeliness of his surviving after three years without sleep is zero. I'm not saying that he can't have a condition that will make him stay awake until he dies, but that would have occurred long ago.

The idea that he would have this ultra-rare insomnia-inducing condition and be the only person in history to survive without sleep is fairly remote, I'm sure you'll agree.

@ BLACKBIRD:

Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't telling you to read the article. I was saying that I'd just read it myself. I sometimes forget how easily certain things can be misinterpreted when typed.

I didn't realize that the father had been quoted, but obviously we are on the same page with regard to the article. Of course, it was probably less than a page long, anyway.

@ ANTINOUS:

"The fact that a phenomenon has not previously been documented does not mean that the phenomenon can't occur."

Well, Takuan beat me to it. The likeliness of such a thing happening is ridiculous. Yes, certain animals (including several human beings) have been born with more than one head, but being limited to one head is not essential to human survival. A child surviving without sleep for three years is every bit as impossible as the same child surviving without water for three months. It just can't happen... sorry.

The scientific principle is Ockham's razor. The simplest explanation is that this child, although very sleep deprived, is still able to catch a wink every now and then. Or else, just like every other human being who tried to go without sleep for three years, he would die. The assumption that anyone could go three years without sleep would necessitate a belief in the most outrageous series of coincidences. According to the kid's mother, his moods change frequently, so another safe assumption would be that he's not genetically predisposed to function normally without sleep. In general, children require more sleep than adults, and my guess is that this poor kid is no exception.

@ DAEMON:

The lack of death implies that he's slept. Actually, it more or less insists. But yeah, sleep deprivation is terrible for you. And even if he sleeps once every other day, sleep debt has been shown to have all sorts of nasty side effects. Depending on which study you look at, these may include irreversible brain damage.

A warning for all you workaholics out there.

@ BLACKBIRD:

Just read the Bay News article. Unfortunately, what we have is a "report" consisting of little more than anecdotal information from the parents of the unfortunate child. In fact, the only person quoted in the article is the child's mother.

My first assumption is that no doctor was contacted for comment. In reference to the impending operation, the article states that "doctors say there's a 50-50 chance for success." Which doctors said that remains a mystery, and since no quote is attached, one is led to believe that this information came from the same source.

It is entirely possible that the Arnold-Chiari malformation could be responsible for long-term sleep deprivation, but the notion that this 3 year old "has never been able to fall asleep" is categorically absurd.

@ RAZZABETH:

"He must be tripping balls already, considering that normally one who goes without sleep for even a couple weeks starts hallucinating."

Most anyone would start hallucinating within five days. In fact, it has not been proven that any human being can stay awake for two weeks. Thai Ngoc is said to have gone without sleep for more than 30 years, but this claim is unsubstantiated and has been disputed by countless neurophysiologists. Given what we know about sleep, it is almost certainly a fabrication.

Sleep is among the most studied phenomena related to animal life. We have determined incontrovertibly that circadian rhythms affect the quality of sleep. We have also established that an undeniable relationship exists between prolonged exposure to artificial light and increased sleep durations. This report, however, comes from a TV station, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Must be goofing around a lot. I read that an experienced GTA player should be able to complete the game in 50 hrs. Although if we're talking about percentage of missions and sub-missions completed, that could take weeks.

After what little I've seen of it, I can't wait to own GTA IV. The improved physics, and the fact that you rarely (if ever) see the same two people walking the streets is enough for me.

Any word on whether you can access a BoingBoing parody site from within the game?

@ Evidence:

"See how it runs like a finely tuned clock."

Yes, all those rapes and murders every day are proof of God's greatness and limitless power. All those planets that collide, all the animals extincted by giant asteroids, all those countless imperfections in nature's "design," beginning with the fact that I have organs that I don't even need!

Go God!

http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/CM/Mister_Hopkinsons_Computer_-_Where_Is_My_Mind.mp3

@ Evidence:

"Did I miss any of the answers you cling too?"

No, but you missed the spelling of the word "to." Jesus, I swear. If you can't discern between the two, I'm threw with yew.

Doesn't matter how old the video is, or how disagreeable the cameraman is. Cops should be held accountable whenever they break laws.

@ Pipenta:

"I don't think cops are allowed to do anything. That's not what I wrote."

Wrong.

"I'm sorry, but I just don't care if a cop double parks or even runs a red light..."

Those are your words. And don't try to give me the old "I'm your Grandma, so you'd better respect me" routine. It's presumptuous, and I'm not having it. I'm probably older than you, anyway. To me, your "point" is imbecilic and empty. So sorry.

"Situations are nuanced. I would hope people would be able to manage a sophisticated response."

Like running a red light when there is no need to do so? Personally, I don't give the first damn about whether there is any imminent danger... cops shouldn't be allowed to break the law. As someone who's worked with law enforcement, I have as much of a right to express that opinion as you do to attempt to accuse me of being part of some imagined "every-cop-is-bad" conspiracy. Deal with it.

@ Nick D:

"Per cops being held to a higher standard: no, they shouldn't."

Yes, they should.

"So explain to me again how a cop double parking outside a Blimpy Burger is making the public safer?"

That isn't the point. He broke the law, and should be held accountable, just as any other citizen would.

"[Cops] should be held to the same reasonable standard as the rest of us. "

Seems like you're thinking in circles.

Excrementum cerebellum vincit.

"We, and all creatures, are fearfully and wonderfully made."

Why was God so fearful when he created us? Or is that not what you meant to say? Your inability to use the English language, combined with your attempts to portray yourself as a serious thinker, leave me with the feeling that you're most likely a very slow reader.

Ten bucks says I've read the Bible more times than you have. And an extra fifty bucks says that I understand it better than you do. In fact, I'll bet that I read more books in 2007 than you've read in a lifetime. But this isn't about who's read more books, really... I am every bit as convinced that your retention stinks, too. You may not be "trashing anyone," but you are indeed making an effort to trivialize the observations and diminish the reputations of scientists who are infinitely more reasonable than you. Hundreds of years of earnest investigation down the toilet, if you had your way.

Let me ask you a question. What kind of just and caring God, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, would allow infants to be raped to death on a near-daily basis? I'm sure you'll endeavor to explain it away with "free will," so the question then becomes: what kind of just and caring God, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, would allow man to plot his own destiny, knowing that some would choose evil over good? No just and caring God would allow evil to proliferate, assuming He or She could do anything about it.

Either God is uncaring, or He / She has no authority. There is also a third possibility: there is no God.

But then you'd have nothing to whine about.

"We, and all creatures, are fearfully and wonderfully made."

That's not a more compelling argument than the one given in the article. It's not an argument at all. It's a myth. Hell, it's barely a sentence.

I don't speak for everyone, but I never said that I wanted to discuss the article. I just joined the discussion to call you an imbecile.

"How does evolution explain things that are irreducibly complex?"

This argument only works if you're stupid enough to believe that anything is "irreducibly complex."

Any scientist will tell you that, while evolution is staggeringly complex, it is defined by a finite set of particulars. But we're not going to get anywhere by thumbing our noses at empirical research.

"Might be! Might be!"

Evidence stamps foot in righteous indignation. What a crybaby. You're not offering a more compelling explanation for the phenomena, I hate to tell you.

@ Evidence:

"The Earth is about 6,000 years old"

And you're about 6,000 IQ points shy of an eggplant, evidently. Hey, listen, I've been to the Creation Museum. I've seen the fatuous swill you natives claim as "the truth," and it's faulty science, plain and simple.

Some of the "evidence" highlighted, for those of you unwilling to spend the $20 in Christian-bilking admission fees:

1. Pangaea is a myth. Diversity among species is the direct result of monkeys traveling back and forth between continents on rafts made of sticks and moss. I shit you not.

2. Men hunted dinosaurs into extinction. Oh, and classical depictions of dragons are man's visual interpretation of this dramatic occurrence. BWAHAHAHA!

3. Roman centurions were actually frat boys from the south. (In one of the films, a soldier is heard to say, "I tell you what," more than once.)

Jesus, save us.

Man, the evolution of hardcore Creationists into sane, thinking humans is gonna take forever.

"Consider the lilies of the field. They do not toil, neither do they spin."

@ Pipenta:

"There are these things called stop signs. They're admittedly low tech. But used properly, they work a treat."

Yes, my son, there are such things as stop signs, and they are NOT stop lights. I spoke too soon, however, when I said that running a red light is dangerous. What I meant to say is that running a red light is dangerous if you happen to be a dumb-ass cop who thinks it's a good idea to disobey traffic laws with impunity.

Your point is moot. The police should be held to a higher standard than the average citizen. You might think it's okay for the cops to do whatever they want, but you're flat wrong.

@ Pipenta:

Running a red light in a non-emergency situation is driving dangerously.

Also, what do you think the penalty would be if the average citizen refused to move his vehicle and continued to watch basketball?

I'm guessing arrest, or a $540 fine at best.

@ 61:

Oh, I agree completely. As is evidenced by abstinence-only programs, America leads the world in the careless distribution of misinformation, half-truths, and lies.

It varies, but yes... in many cities, the definition of what constitutes a "simple assault" is just plain idiotic. I have even heard of people being brought up on charges for mumbling. Basically, if you disturb your neighbor in any way, they have the right to press charges.

Playing pattycakes is probably safe, though.

@ Semiotix:

My apologies for a hasty reply. Still, I think you're missing my point, which is that the heaviest allowable penalties should be applicable, because of the simple fact that cops should be held to a higher standard.

Some cops are more lenient than others, God bless 'em, but even those officers should be subject to scrutiny and ridicule when they break the law. Practically every day, I see cops break the law with impunity and the kind of smugness expected of a fourth grade bully. None of that really matters, though. If we are too lenient, where is their incentive to behave?

@ Craphappy:

You seem to be implying that because other people break the law and occasionally get away with it, cops should be allowed to get away with it every time. That strikes me as indefensibly shortsighted.

If anything, cops should be held to a higher standard than the citizenry they're paid to protect and serve. Period. I agree that cops have dangerous jobs, but so do lion tamers and electricians. In cities like New York and Chicago, or even Portland, parking tickets are handed out like religious pamphlets.

More money is made in a single year off of booted cars than you or I will ever see in our entire lives, and much of those funds are misappropriated, or else utterly wasted on policies and programs that the average citizen doesn't give the first damn about. Get real.

@ jgriffiths:

I'm sure they do. Fact is, MDMA can kill you. It's not so common, but it does happen. People with heart conditions should not take more than a 150mg dose, and even that is probably too much for some.

Also, the question of neurotoxicity is still on the table, but it appears that moderate use (250mg or less, once or twice a year) is mostly harmless. Being that MDMA is perhaps the greatest psychotherapeutic drug known to man, it's a shame that it is as illegal as PCP and heroin.

@ Semiotix:

I disagree. Big cities take great pride in enforcing parking violations. About time they got a taste of their own medicine. Even if the cop gets off completely, this establishes a precedent... no one is above the law.

http://ratemycop.com/

Okay... here's one.

http://ratemycop.com/

Not sure how popular it is, but it does seem to have search features.

@ Michael Brutsch:

Not true. That's what they want you to think. Most cities have Code of Conduct offices, and in most cases complaints are taken very seriously. What some people don't seem to realize, also, is that a lot of Internal Affairs investigators dislike beat cops. A lot of IA are promoted through the ranks, but their review process is understandably very rigorous.

The biggest reason cops get away with this sort of thing is because no one ever complains. There is a belief that making a formal complaint is ineffectual, or that the police might retaliate against the tattletale. All complaints are supposed to be anonymous, and I understand why people would be skeptical, but sometimes the system can work for you. My feeling is that publicly shaming the cops into good behavior might be one way of decreasing the number of these kinds of infractions. Getting people involved is the first step, and unfortunately there is no popular database that I know of where citizens can post badge numbers and voice their complaints. I'll do a little digging, though.

A few of you are getting hung up on the language issue. Let's be clear on this. If someone calls you a "tree" and you feel that the words are said in a threatening way, you can have them charged with simple assault. If you retaliate by calling them a "happy-go-lucky astronaut" and they take offense, they can do the same to you.

Giving the finger, shaking your fist, winking, sticking your tongue out, picking your nose, playing a game of pattycakes... all of these can be interpreted as illegal activities. Welcome to America.

And if parking your police cruiser in front of a fire hydrant while you take advantage of your civil servant's coffee discount prevents a firefighter from doing his or her job, or slows them up in any way, even if only for a millisecond, the perp should be held accountable.

@ MasterSauce:

I take issue with your "no harm no foul" assessment. I, too, am friends with a few cops, but I'm no apologist.

Let's assume that there is some potential harm that could arise from this. Like, oh, I dunno... the building catching on fire, and the fire department being unable to do their job because this cop didn't want to walk the extra block.

Yes, cops are working stiffs. Fine. Go ask a hundred working stiffs if they've ever received parking citations that they felt were undeserved.

Whoops. Spoke too soon. EMI is denied access to the files.

http://michaelrobertson.com/archive.php?minute_id=259

@ markfrei:

You hit the nail on the head. And if EMI forces such a service to hand over your original material, you can sue for copyright infringement.

I would only suggest that MP3tunes allow the law to work for them. And us.

@ jgriffiths:

Godwin's law still applies. Context doesn't matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

You know, I was against disemvowelment until li'l Spunkers came along.

@ LogrusZed:

If a cop flips you off, and you feel like pursuing it, it's simple assault. If a retired cop calls you an "asshole," simple assault. If you call a retired cop a "cunt," simple assault.

It doesn't really matter who does what first. If the retired cop punched the guy, and he defended himself, he would have a good defense, but the fact that the retired cop calls him "asshole" doesn't really mean too much. Basically, if anyone says anything to you that you're not happy with, threatens you, looks at you funny, or in any other way demeans or belittles you, you have the right to press charges in most counties and municipalities.

One of the side effects of living in an overly litigious society.

@ Antinous:

The first invocation of Godwin's law is at the beginning of the video.

If that .jpg can be re-converted into a recognizable MP3, then yes, it is arguably illegal. It would be like turning a Photoshop installer into a ZIP archive.

You can read some of it by clicking on "the story" link from the main page.

I've got to say, as someone who supports responsible drug education, this book leaves me scratching my head. I'm not sure that the best way for the mother in the story to have taught her daughter the facts about marijuana is to take her by Farmer Bob's house. Even still, it's better than the part where she lets her daughter talk to random loitering potheads, only to witness their arrest.

They have a great quote from Stanley Kubrick on the front page of the website, talking about how fear should never be used to educate. It's a bit surprising to me, then, that a Hitchcockian fear of police is used to "educate" the daughter about responsible drug use. Since the preview cuts off, though, it's hard to say. Perhaps there's a whole section on mandatory sentencing provisions. It's still worlds better than Go Ask Alice.

Anyway, that does it. I'm off to write a children's book about MDMA.

@ TECHNOGEEK:

Your suspicion is correct. Not only is pot "probably" safer than alcohol... it is an indisputable fact, whether you take traffic fatalities into account or not.

@ AIRSHIP:

"In summary, kids don't get to choose. The answer is always 'NO!'."

That would make sense if only it were true. Kids choose pot all the time, but, given the fact that alcohol is legal, more kids have access to that. The real tragedy is that, for some kids, there is no choice. Grow up with alcoholic parents, and you're bound to raid the liquor cabinet every so often.

@ TAKUAN:

I am reminded of John Locke's assertion that Colonial mothers should bathe their infants in icy water, which resulted in hundreds, possibly thousands, of deaths.

Or this?

http://chromatism.net/current/images/hellokittygun.jpg

@ #201:

I agree with that position, mostly. As a gun owner, and as a free-thinker, I don't believe that guns should be banned outright, but anyone who says that any form of gun control is a bad idea needs to wake up to the 21st century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

Five school shootings this year, up from three last year... and the year's not even half over yet.

What's really funny is that he calls my degree "useless" because I haven't needed to use it. I make more money working from home, doing what I love... producing music. I imagine his career in the boll weevil extermination industry is every bit as gratifying.

Of course, I could make almost as much money working for Webster's, but who wants to hang out with old white guys every day?

No, good sir. You are in a losing battle with that kind of logic. You don't know the first thing about me.

I know everything I need to know about you, however. Ockham's razor. In this case, the simplest explanation is that you are a lonely, ever-so-slightly unhinged imbecile with too much free time, not enough love as a child, or most likely both.

And it is only too apparent that you are not very happy with the outcome. Best of luck with that.

Actually, I'm resourceful enough that I haven't ever needed to use my degree. I'd love to compare bank statements with you sometime.

You're the lone something-or-other, that's for sure.

Born to milky white, Church of Christ-attending Bible-thumpers in Corpus Christi, Texas, attended Tuloso Midway HS, graduated with honors in 1991, attended Rice University, degree in computational lexicography. I have no reason to lie to an anonymous heap of putrescence like you, about my race or anything else. You think I'd be embarrassed to be Japanese? I'm more humiliated to think that you're probably Caucasian.

Oh, and I can spell.

The "truth" being that the United States "didn't do a good enough job" in nuking Japan? Incidentally, I'm a white, 34 year old, Texas-born gun owner... not a gun nut.

And you're still a fly-swallower. Maybe a self-loathing homosexual, also. That's the impression I'm left with, anyway, and I'm a pretty smart guy.

Nope.

But witnessing firsthand your obvious obsession with guns, rectums, and cocksuckers (I think the preferred term is "lickspigots," but I'm sure you're still a hit with the ladies) I must admit: your insensate bravado smacks of insecurity and consternation.

How does it feel to be so stupid? Does it hurt? Seriously, try to answer the question as best you can. You're not being graded or anything.

I speak for Spunkers when I say that Spunky is a loony asshat. And a grade-A racist F-wad.

I enjoy how Spunky criticizes Takuan for his spelling, and yet he can't even spell the name of the person he's addressing. It's "Antinous," you unavailing gobemouche. How's that for an insult?

Listen, Spunkers, I've been in and out of some people's good graces here, but never in the entire history of the Internets have I seen a more egregious display of two-fisted wankery. If you're as starved for attention as you appear, perhaps you could dig up Chuck Heston and play a game of "hide the axe handle." Pry it from his cold, dead rectum. Seems right up your alley, anyway. And since we're on the subject, with all your talk of splintery rectums, I'm alarmed that you can even spell "gun."

Perhaps you are correct in stating that JLBRAUN doesn't speak for anyone else, but it does not help your cause when you ask Takuan to leave. You perpend to know what would better serve this discussion... your removal or his. Well, I'm casting my vote. JLBRAUN, Antinous, and Takuan can speak for me all they like.

Within reason, of course.

Extending Takuan's challenge, we should conduct happiness surveys of currently incarcerated former gun owners.

Let's not forget the time that Bugs Bunny successfully convinced a dog to kill himself. The dog becomes an angel, of course.

Yes, a Rhinoceros mention! The film version with Zero Mostel is truly wonderful.

@ Anonymous:

Thank God somebody noticed this was homage to Arkanoid, which is fifty times the game Breakout is.

Ah, yes. A little quick on the draw. Well, if I'd had some extra notice, I certainly would have made it out. Ivan Stang owes me money.

There's always next year (I'm guessing).

Um, right. We all know that the real final Devival won't be taking place until X-Day, AD 8661.

@ Nick:

Once again, and for the record, I never said that using your horn to alert a red light runner of their infraction was against the law. Read more carefully, please. I said that using your horn when someone "runs" a YELLOW light (which is not illegal) might constitute a misuse of the device. That is where this stems from. You spoke of honking your horn at someone who "ran" a yellow light. I do read carefully. Here is what you said.

"Whenever I stop at a yellow or red but the car next to me runs it, I lay on my horn."

Horns are to be used conditionally, as I'm sure you will agree, and likewise I'm certain that laws exist that make it illegal to use one with reckless abandon, so in this case I still believe that you would be culpable for using it to alert someone of "running" a yellow light. Makes perfect sense. I understand that you probably meant to say that you "lay on your horn" for people who run red lights, but the way your sentence is worded leaves the reader with the distinct impression that you feel it is your responsibility to honk at people who "run" yellows. So, in the future, please write more carefully, too.

Also, any overt racism you've detected in your perusal of Kipling's work was probably spoken by a fictional character he created. In 1983, however, in his review of a book called "God Cried," Roald Dahl claimed that when Israel invaded Lebanon, "we all started hating Jews." He made several other not-so-friendly remarks about Jewish people at the time, and unsurprisingly it cost him a sizable chunk of his Jewish readership. Was he a racist? Perhaps more so than Kipling, after all.

No more so than Rudyard Kipling, thankfully.

@ Antinous:

I wasn't saying that you shouldn't want to give RED-light runners heart attacks. Mandatory IQ testing for motorists is the only way.

@ Teresa:

I don't think it's inconceivable that being startled by a horn could cause someone to die, directly or not. What you are suggesting is that, if someone had a pre-existing condition then Nick wouldn't have anything to do with their death, which is absurd. Of course he would. If the sound of the horn startles the individual into a panic attack (which has, in fact, happened to some people) it stands to reason that the physical honking of said horn had something to do with it.

So, our old Uncle Jeff may have had a heart condition, but how could young niece Emily be blamed for his death when all she did was jump out of the laundry hamper, screaming at the top of her lungs and wearing a freaky gorilla mask? Sure, maybe Emily had no knowledge of her uncle's condition, but her actions led to his death. Accidents do happen, assuredly, and it's best to do what one can to prevent them, no? The sound of a horn is startling, and not just to people who have a predisposition to seizures and spontaneous limb atrophy disorder. That said, my only beef is with his irresponsible use of the horn. That is to say, the fact that he is using his horn when no danger is imminent could be interpreted as an unlawful or illegal use of the device. Add to that the fact that he freely admits to having used the horn to alert other drivers of a COMPLETELY LEGAL activity ("running" a yellow light) and you have some additional liability concerns.

Of course, I'm not implying that he shouldn't use the horn responsibly. I am encouraging anyone and everyone to do so. The fact that the horn exists does not demand misuse, however. And as I see it, honking at people who "run" yellows seems like a dumb idea, but it's everyone's right, I guess, unless there are some wacky laws in place that prohibit horn abuse. I would imagine there are, and certainly they would be as open to interpretation as some of the yellow light laws. But even if you weren't responsible, wouldn't it just *feel* bad to know that you've contributed to someone else's death? Even if you weren't the overly self-blaming type, I can't imagine it makes the situation any better to say "oh well, the guy / girl died, but they had a heart condition so I had nothing to do with it."

Granted, my illustration was somewhat extreme, and I wasn't trying to give Nick the impression that I don't have the utmost sympathy... I have been in several traffic accidents that weren't my fault, but if we are to be fair, people honking their horns arbitrarily to alert other drivers of a mistake they didn't make is every bit as zany as "running" yellow lights. If the light's still yellow when you've entered the intersection, the only people getting broadsided are the ones who've jumped the gun on their own red lights.

@ NICK D:

I can understand your frustration, but how much of a chuckle would you get if the person you honked at had a heart condition or suffered a panic attack, careening off the road and killing innocent bystanders? As concerned as you are with traffic safety, I'm surprised that you regard the horn as your soapbox, and not a preventative measure. I mean: if someone "runs" a yellow light, is it really your responsibility to reprimand them, even if the law is unclear on what the correct procedure at a yellow light should be? By honking at someone who "runs" a yellow, you are lashing out, based solely on your misinterpretation of the law.

@ DOUGROGERS:

Actually, yellow doesn't "mean" anything. By saying "don't enter the intersection if you can't clear out of it," you admit that it open interpretation. Who evaluates the situation and decides? You're not in the car with these people. If left to drivers' best judgments, I'm not sure that any of us would last too long on the road. The point is, the language of the law is imprecise, and there is no definitive answer for what action one should take when approaching a yellow light.

This is true because one necessarily has to take several factors into consideration when making their split-second decision. How fast am I going? How fast is the guy/girl behind me going? How close are they to my bumper? How close am I to the intersection? So, no, it's not so black and white. You might as well say that a yellow light means "get ready to stop if you can," or "hey, bud, a red light is coming, and now you must decide your fate," but the very imprecision of the definitions offered here of what a yellow light "means" are irrefutable proof that it's not so simple.

I agree, if a person can safely stop, they should, but the language of the law is murky at best, and, as I pointed out above, in relation to California's wording, it is often utterly lacking in any kind of descriptiveness, or proscription, confusing or otherwise.

@ ASUFFIELD (and others):

Traffic laws in the United States are often confusing, and they depend on the state in question. I refer you to California Vehicle Code section 21452(a), which makes clear that a yellow light is the precursor to a red light, without explicitly stating that a driver must stop his/her vehicle before entering the intersection.

There are, of course, divergent interpretations, but in America yellow is the color of caution. Red means stop, green means go, but yellow? Well, yellow could mean all sorts of things, depending on one's velocity, their distance from the intersection, and so forth. As a footnote, however, no state that I know of prohibits a driver from entering an intersection when the light is yellow... even if that driver is planning to make a left turn, but is unable to do so until after the light has turned red. Still, IANAL.

Not surprising in the least. As someone also opposed to red light runners, I have to say that the previous comment seems a bit out of touch. This isn't about shortening the time between red lights, thus improving traffic conditions.

The amount of time that the light is yellow is the key here... if they wanted to improve traffic flow, the amount of time that the light is green could be shortened. It may not have any effect, but there's far more green time than yellow throughout the course of a given day. By making the yellow time shorter, two things are accomplished. First, unfortunately, those accustomed to the standard length of yellow time will, by and large, become inadvertent "red light runners" as the result of their unfamiliarity with the abbreviated time, potentially with disastrous results. And second, it will resultantly increase the number of tickets sent out for such infractions. Simple math.

Let's hope that there are some class action lawsuits around the corner. People whose family members have been killed by runners of red lights deserve to know what their public officials have been up to.

I'm pretty sure Cory makes the most typos.

Surely this will go down as the Great Butt-Milk Debacle of 2008. Stagliano makes a great point. Why can't we taxpayers have a say in whether the DoJ's money is better spent imprisoning someone called "Buttman" or fitting Iraqi children with prosthetic limbs?

There is no such thing as Justice anymore.

Interestingly, 3D photos have been around since the 1800s. I was surprised to learn that there are 3D photographs of the Lincoln conspirators being hung.

No doubt that Manson is criminally insane, but a monster? I can think of far worse. I try to reserve use of the word for those whose crimes are unmistakably ghoulish. Yes, Manson did kill people. He may not have been convicted for the murders, but it is widely believed that he was responsible for the death of Donald "Shorty" Shea and others.

Having said that, he's also quite a songwriter. "Eyes of a Dreamer" is a particularly good example of his guitar playing and singing abilities. Charlie allegedly ordered the Tate murders because the house that Roman Polanski and his pregnant wife were occupying was owned by producer Terry Melcher.

In fact, Melcher recorded two of Manson's songs with the Beach Boys, and had intended for a time to release Charlie's records and make a documentary about the Manson family. So, I think that, given a little guidance in his formative years, Manson might have gone on to great things. Compare to Hitler as necessary.

Another tragedy is the story of Bobby Beausoleil, the Manson family member convicted of killing music teacher Gary Hinman. As a substitution for Jimmy Page, Beausoleil created some interesting electronic music for one of Kenneth Anger's films, "Lucifer Rising," and has several other instrumental compositions to his credit.

The kid could've found the info anywhere, but "no way of knowing for sure"? Someone could always ask him, I guess. Anybody suggesting that this blog is even marginally culpable needs to have their head examined. I'd wait for some kid to off himself using a steampunk Rube Goldberg machine that spits crocheted Yoda dolls before worrying about contributing to BB's legal defense fund.

What the kid did was stupid, sure. That's what kids do. Bullying is awful, I know, and it's terrible to attempt to diminish the problem by saying that everyone goes through it. It's not true, many people don't, but plenty of folks think that if something awful once happened to them, it should be a rite of passage for everyone. Still, taking a principled stand in the comments section of a blog is about as meaningful and effective as doing so on your local cable access channel.

If you must become so enraged over an encounter that thankfully left no one dead, unlike the police Taser incident that recently cost a Goodyear employee his life, please do so at an upcoming city council meeting, in whichever city you happen to reside. Extra points if your appearance is uploaded to YouTube. Mention a rogue helicopter pilot and win the Internets. Really, though. You want to make the world a saner place? Stop btchng so much about what kids are doing, and figure out a way to hit their parents with an intelligence ray.

@ Takuan:

Didn't you get the memo?

Q. There's an old comment of mine I want you to delete.

A. Drop us a note, if it's really important; but the default answer is "no."

@ Takuan:

Not bad faith at all. As Sherlock Holmes would say, eliminate the impossible, and whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

The impossible? That Teresa could go a single week without making some grandiose statement about some idiot not having enough respect for people who question authority following a tragedy for which said authority is a likely culprit. Believe me, I have enjoyed many of her rants, but some of them are infantile and boring.

And besides, what I was saying was exactly this: Teresa already HAS come up with reasons to disemvowel, and, as pointed out here, her decisions are not always circumspect.

Even if it is bad faith, it would seem that plenty of people here have no faith in her abilities as moderator. I do not share that position, but it is my right to do so, and I will admit to having my faith shaken from time to time.

@ #457:

Your argument doesn't cut it. Being bludgeoned to death is discouraging, and should be avoided at all costs. That doesn't mean that it *should* happen.

@ #425:

I respectfully agree that you have a right to an opinion. Personally, I think that deletion of the nastiness is better. It's tried and true, and not some gimmicky "innovation." After all, if Teresa had no one left to disemvowel, I'm sure that she could come up with a few new reasons.

@ Teresa:

My suggestion that BoingBoing had "jumped the shark" was said with tongue planted firmly in cheek. As mentioned here, I have been a long-time reader. And frankly, I mentioned that the comment in question was made in response to another comment asking if blogs could "jump the shark," so I don't need any lessons from you (or anyone else) as to the three or four differences between TV shows and blogs.

But once again, you display an utter disregard for anyone who differs with your oh-so-virtuous proclamations. You also seem to be suggesting that I should just go away. I'm sure that I needn't tell you just how petty and snotty that remark is, considering that I have both supported BoingBoing financially and offered thoughtful comments.

If BoingBoing *has* jumped the shark, I think I've made it quite clear that this post is the reason why. Perhaps you only care about unquestioning accommodation, but I've been reading BoingBoing for years without seeing your name, and it makes no difference to me whether you go or stay, honestly. I even said that you provide "a much-needed service" here, and I do believe that.

Still, I have the right to an opinion, just like you, O Masterful Vowel-Annihilator, and I *should* have the right to express it without listening to your drivel about how I shouldn't even bother. C'est la vie. You tend to be extraordinarily coarse with some of the people you're paid to police, and that is my only problem with you.

Mostly, I find you pleasant and encouraging, but occasionally, just like a lot of us, you behave like a spoiled child. Even if no one agrees with that sentiment, it is as certain as the sunrise. Of course, plenty of folks *do* agree with me. Like water off a duck, Sister. You should be thankful that people like me frequent this website, because if everyone were like you this place would, every so often, devolve into one giant btch-fst.

@ #31:

There isn't a neurophysiologist in the world who would argue that an animal at the cytogenic level of an elephant was devoid of consciousness.

@ #61:

In spite of how sure you are, there are, in fact, animals that demonstrate the skill you've described... human beings. Also, the cognitive ability of an ape may be comparable to that of a toddler, but a toddler can't defend against predators or feed itself.

@ #12:

I'm not sure it's really so important. Human beings (hairless monkeys) are first trained to make representative art. They may realize that they're painting a human being, but unless they've been trained to do so, they wouldn't be able to draw a picture of a human with a baby human.

It may be roughly the same as teaching a robot to paint a picture of a robot, but because the elephant has the capacity to think independently, it is also quite a lot like teaching a human to paint a human. And in my opinion, this does not mean that the animal in question isn't learning to express itself creatively. Plus, it might not take "hundreds" of instances of this happening for the elephant to realize that it's painting an elephant, although our species chauvinism prevents us from believing it could do so more quickly.

Go elephant!

@ Kip W:

The nasty ol' comments in question could always be replaced with a single, informative word: DELETED. Numbering problem solved. The question may have been answered, but obviously not to everyone's satisfaction.

Passing out scarlet letters is nothing to be proud of. It is base and self-important and hostile. Terribly sorry if you disagree. Does today's story about the social worker extending kindness to his teenage mugger tell us nothing? I for one am alarmed by the number of people who believe that public taunting is in any way meritorious.

Thanks for the reply, Teresa. For what it's worth, I admire your seemingly honest approach to this problem. My only concern is with your gleeful derisiveness. In my opinion, you have been immoderately churlish while addressing people in this very thread, and many others throughout your short tenure here at BoingBoing. Every one of them may have deserved your vitriol, but surely you are aware of the bountiful advantages of permitting such unpleasantries to roll off your back, like water off a duck.

Having said that, it is important to note that I never implied that you *don't* disemvowel rude comments. I disagree with disemvowelment, across the board, whatever your rationale. In a nutshell, I believe that it draws additional, unnecessary attention to the alleged perpetrator, and further that it is a kind of deliberate condemnation that serves no real purpose but to embarrass offenders into compliance. I have been following these threads with some regularity, and I can say with some conviction that I have personally witnessed the routine truncation of comments that were significantly less crude than many you have allowed to slide, including some of your own. Call it executive privilege if you like. It's petty and inexcusable, as I see it, but I'm not trying to judge you. If you really believe it's for the best, in light of the fact that some view it as a demeaning and somewhat disingenuous practice, do as thou wilt.

The fact is: disemvowelment could evolve into something quite a bit more appealing to all concerned, without much effort. Perhaps it is a good idea, but one whose time has passed. In the 1950s, squeezing thirty teenagers into a phone booth seemed like a good idea. Try that now, and you're inviting a DHS investigation. A good idea doesn't always have to be practical, either. It can serve as a blueprint for more forward-thinking endeavors. There is no shame in admitting that one's good idea could use some improvement, or that other ideas may be superior. In theory, disemvowelment is a perfect solution, but in practice it comes off as a bit of a production.

In brief, I am not expecting that you will agree with anything I've said. I only ask that you will extend the courtesy of allowing me to appeal to your sense of right and wrong. No good can come of belittling those whose opinions you regard as inferior to your own. Such displays are counterproductive at best,and they are beneath you. Let me put it another way. Real justice is about clemency, not retaliation. We have become so accustomed to seeking revenge that we often forget just why we are seeking it in the first place. Insulting someone because you found something they said to be objectionable is a lot like complaining about having to eat at McDonald's because you were too lazy to walk to the health food store.

Intolerant people are the most deserving of your tolerance. There are reasons they are so discourteous, and often it has a lot to do with the way they've been treated. You don't have to be friendly to be tolerant of others, but if you are unfriendly, you are guilty of an equal or greater form of intolerance, because you should know better. And my intolerance of your intolerance of intolerant people is no better. Still, it needs to be said. Your position seems to be that no one should be subjected to rude comments. How then can you expect to be regarded as any kind of authority on the matter? Your harangues are classic, and obviously inspire a bit of envy among some of your more ardent supporters here. Imagine how envious your peers would be, if only you could practice what you preach.

I'm no saint, but I can tell you with some confidence that, to some people, your treatises concerning mannerly exposition are bound to resemble vaniloquence in its ugliest form. I recognize that your position here is difficult, and that certain user's comments can provoke feelings of consternation, anger, and divisiveness. Obviously, many here (myself included) believe that you are providing a much-needed service, but I assure you that with a modicum of patience and experience you will accede to a level of moderation supremacy heretofore undiscovered.

And to those of you who've complained about others' complaints: give it a rest. There's been much circumspection on both sides of the aisle, and it weakens your position to dismiss others' enthusiastic pleas for impartiality as trolling behavior. It only makes you appear less concerned with the matter at hand than the methodical ridicule of anyone expressing a dissenting viewpoint. What kind of earnest discussion is that?

The Boingers have no obligation to their readership, but credibility is a concern for some. I'm not making demands that they 'fess up to anything. I will continue to respect them if they don't, because this is a blog, not the New York Times.

Still, it'd be nice to know that they're not accepting kickbacks from telecoms or wealthy Pastafarians.

Whew.

Quite an entertaining read. The comments, I mean. The post itself, not so much. The moderation policy is reasonable enough, even if it appears as rigid authoritarianism to some, but, as several have noted here, the implementation stinks. First off, this doesn't belong on the front page. Oh, sure, it's your RIGHT to post it there, but it's a terrible decision for way too many reasons.

I'm not going to go back and try to remember who said that the comments here were "overwhelmingly" in favor of Teresa's position, but I will politely disagree. Many of the comments here have expressed a discontentment, if not outright disgust, at the politicizing and arbitrary nature of many of these editorial decisions. The fact that this thread is so lengthy should be some indication of how polarizing this is. I'm quite sure Teresa has an edge here, but is that really so surprising? And even if only a fiftieth of BoingBoing's readership disagrees, considering the extreme popularity of this blog, isn't that enough reason to have this discussion? But too much disagreement gets you disemvoweled, or worse, so watch what you think. Nonetheless, kindly add my complaint to the list, please.

Here's what really rubs me the wrong way. I have been a fan of BoingBoing since the earliest days, and never has it seemed so insular and hive-minded as it does right now. Trolls are the scourge of the Internet, we all know that, but this post is pure showboating. Teresa has made it clear what the policies are, and although moderation serves to ease the conversation along, it only works provided that the moderator isn't making snide and unhelpful comments herself.

Malcolm Muggeridge once noted that "good taste and humor are a contradiction in terms, like a chaste whore." Civility is a virtue, but indignation's a vice. So often we believe that because an opinion is unpopular, it must be incorrect. We have proven that, as a species, we are uncivilized, and that we behave strangely in groups. We have further proven, time and again, that we are all deeply flawed individuals. Often we are capricious, and even more often we play favorites. Perhaps this very thread will help to expose the silliness and self-congratulation of such policies as disemvolwelment, and pave the way for similar, albeit somewhat more considerate and less humiliating forms of public shaming. After all, the haters need love, too. Even more than the lovers do. Lead by example.

Let's face it, if only a fifth of the people read the disemvoweled comments, they may as well just be deleted altogether. Yes, you thought of a neat new way to combat trolls, but so what? The term "troll" itself is dehumanizing and mean-spirited. Reader's opinions of their fellow contributors shouldn't be overtly influenced by the beliefs of a few, even if the few are virtuous. But it is not without precedent, this "us against them" mentality. Irreverence and mean-spiritedness are common traits among some of the world's finest thinkers. The world is full of idiots, and so you have the choice of being one of them, or becoming terribly alienated and brilliant. If you really believe that you're well-adjusted, chances are you're a moron.

Blindly agreeing with any kind of conventional wisdom, without even attempting to see why others might find displeasure in having to deal with such mindless complacency, doesn't even register as the expression of an opinion. And given the number of malcontents, cynics, skeptics, and misanthropes the Boingers have given innumerable pages of lip-service to over the years, this whole notion smacks of a "do as we say, not as we do" instinct. Yes, I mean censorship. Still, affixing scarlet letters might seem like fun to a sadist.

I have little appreciation for disemvoweling others' words. The sentiment has been expressed before: it is an insult to the readers of this blog who consider themselves capable of deciding for themselves what is or is not appropriate. Imagine that. Certainly many comments are deserving of deletion, but more rigorous standards should be established to ensure balance. Any suggestion that edits here have been unbiased is an outright denial of the facts. Every edit must be biased, or else the edit wouldn't occur. These prejudices with respect to certain uses of language, though arguably valid, are reflections of the moderator's best judgment, but hers is occasionally a righteously indignant judgment, regardless of how she sees it. For Pete's sake, throw in the vowel already. D'oh!

Someone asked not too long ago if BoingBoing had jumped the shark. I would say that, if it hadn't already happened, today's the day. Don't mind me, though. The fact that I disagree with this policy is proof enough that I'm disagreeable. Still, a condescending list such as this only emboldens the enemy. We're not children or terrorists, although some of the comments would seem to indicate otherwise. Most of these policies should be common sense to anyone by now, but some of them are just plain absurd. Beyond that, unless half or more of BoingBoing's readership are discourteous losers, the rest of us shouldn't be subjected to snotty primers on the merits of politely engaging in snotless discourse. Like I said, it's your right to post whatever you like, but so is scarfing down bizarre animal parts on reality TV shows. It may have not been your aim to incite such a discussion, but you must have known that it would. Who has the moral high ground?

As to the assertion that the practice of disemvowelment "emasculates" the culprit, once again I must restrainedly disagree. If after reading a disemvoweled comment I am unable to understand why such an action was absolutely necessary, I lose confidence that the practice as a whole is of any use. As is evidenced here, I know that I am not alone in this estimation. Likewise, if I am offended by any other reader's comments, I become even more upset that my needs weren't catered to with the sort of anal obsessiveness we've grown to expect from Thanatos, the Mod of Death. Just kidding, Teresa. You're catching a little heat here, and it's not entirely undeserved. Snarky mods who complain of others' snarkiness are a dime a dozen. But hey, I'm just one thinking human. I won't bother crafting a list of suggestions... I will merely state my opinion and move on.

One last thing, respectfully. According to Wikipedia, Xeni said of irritable vowel syndrome: "the dialogue stays, but the misanthrope looks ridiculous, and the emotional sting is neutralized." This would seem to imply that every person who has fallen victim to said disemvowelment is a misanthrope, which is every bit as ridiculous. Countless disrespectful comments have evaded Teresa's scrupulous eye, while several innocuous ones go the way of the spotted vowel. Bah-dum-CHING! Okay, the spotted owl isn't extinct yet... I couldn't help it.

Yeah, but what about this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKMYeXkYcgs&feature=related

Yeah, but what about this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKMYeXkYcgs&feature=related

@Schadenjoy:

I know where the Duke boys are from. As for whether or not my comment may be counted among the anti-Arkansas statements here, I'm not sure I much care how you see it, but still... you're flat wrong. What I said was far from hostile or even truly derisive. Besides, Andy Kaufman made fun of Arkansas, and it was pretty damned funny.

The fact is, I'm from Texas, the most unpopular state the south has to offer, and I love "The Dukes of Hazzard." Secretly, of course. But since when did it become off-limits to make jokes about how much people like you are freaking out over a few misguided comments on BoingBoing?

As far as *I'm* concerned, cultural sensitivity is important, but for some people, seemingly, it is not unlike a crack addiction. Go ahead and wave your digital fists around, indignant warriors. Tell these Internet jerks how to talk proper-like.

@ Corey

I find it humorous that in your quest to seek out justice for Arkansas, you missed out on the real reason for all the "Dukes of Hazzard" references.

Uncle Jesse was a bootlegger. One of the best, in fact. You could use his moonshine in place of gasoline. Anyone from Arkansas would know that.