A Sydney judge has compared incest and paedophilia to homosexuality, saying the community may no longer see sexual contact between siblings and between adults and children as “unnatural” or “taboo”.
District Court Judge Garry Neilson said just as gay sex was socially unacceptable and criminal in the 1950s and 1960s but is now widely accepted, “a jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having [a] sexual partner”.
He also said the “only reason” that incest is still a crime is because of the high risk of genetic abnormalities in children born from consanguineous relationships “but even that falls away to an extent [because] there is such ease of contraception and readily access to abortion”.
"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”
Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.
The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.
Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”
Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.
Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”
There's more and it's a pretty sickening but not really surprising.
This is the inevitable result when a culture removes, dismantles or attempts to redraw traditional sexual boundaries.
You read that headline and what first comes to mind? Someone speaking to those serving in a homeless shelter? Or maybe an address being delivered at an orphanage? Or what about someone looking to pump folks up at a children's hospital?
If that's what you initially thought, you'd be a decent caring person with a huge heart... but... you'd be dead wrong:
With just weeks left to sign up for health care under the Affordable Care Act, Michelle Obama zeroed in on recruiting the crucial young adult demographic during a visit to a Miami community health center Wednesday.
The first lady congratulated a handful of residents who had just enrolled during an intimate event, asking one woman whether she had gotten her son to enroll.
“Tell him he could get hit by a car. It’s crazy. They don’t think about that kind of stuff,” said Obama, who moments later applauded another mother for signing herself and adult son up for insurance plans. “Did you get his friends?”
“We have our most precious people walking around here at any point time being hit by a car or being struck by an unforeseen illness and they will not be able to get the care they need when it costs so little. … We need people to make sure we reach out to the young people in our lives.”
Wednesday’s event is one of dozens that the White House is planning to entice last-minute consumers into the federal marketplace, reminding folks they can sign up online, over the phone or in-person with trained counselors.
President Obama will host a televised town hall focusing on Latino enrollment Thursday. Vice President Joe Biden promoted the Affordable Care Act in Atlanta on Tuesday, and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is making stops in Houston and Phoenix.
In Miami, the first lady, dressed in a black patterned wrap-style dress, spoke to nearly a dozen enrollees and application counselors individually, high-fiving some for getting insurance, asking how long the process took (about 20 minutes for individuals and up to 45 minutes for a family). She encouraged counselors to stay busy and enroll as many people as possible.
“You’re changing lives. You realize that. … Keep it up,” she said, affectionately squeezing counselor Suze Diogene’s shoulder.
Before leaving, the first lady reflected on her time serving on the board of a community health center in Chicago, where she said she saw firsthand how primary care “can make a difference in the life of a community and a family.”
“These places are not easy places to run, but you are doing God’s work.”
At the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, President Barack Obama said that “killing the innocent” is the “ultimate betrayal of God’s will.”
But the president was talking about terrorism, not abortion:
“Extremists succumb to an ignorant nihilism that shows they don’t understand the faiths they claim to profess, for killing the innocent is never fulfilling God’s will. In fact, it is the ultimate betrayal of God’s will,” Obama said.
Then you Mr. Obama are an ultimate betrayer.
Yet Obama is a long-time supporter of abortion rights.
Last April, he became the first sitting president to address Planned Parenthood, thanking conference attendees "for the remarkable work that you’re doing day in, day out in providing quality health care to women all across America." That health care includes abortion. In fact, Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest abortion provider.
In 2008, while running for president, then-Sen. Barack Obama mentioned his own daughters in connection with AIDS, contraception and abortion:
"I've got two daughters, 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16."
At an Oregon fundraiser in July 2012, President Obama once again invoked his daughters as he denounced Republican Mitt Romney for wanting to defund Planned Parenthood:
"I think that's a bad idea," Obama said. "I've got two daughters. I want them to control their own health care choices." (Planned Parenthood talks about choices, it includes abortion.)
Obama's defense of "the innocent" on Thursday was came as he discussed global threats to freedom of religion:
“We see governments engaging in discrimination and violence against the faithful,” Obama said. “We sometimes see religion twisted in an attempt to justify hatred and persecution against other people just because of who they are, how they pray or who they love.
“Old tensions are stoked, fueling conflicts along religious lines as we’ve seen in the Central African Republic recently, even though to harm anyone in the name of faith is to diminish our own relationship with God,” Obama said.
Tell that to the Little Sisters of the Poor, Mr. Ultimate Betrayer.
Anyone who believe this guy to be sincere is a complete idiot. The country was so fooled by this charlatan.
“Its called Kuru, an extremely rare disease which virtually became extinct after extinguishing cannibalism in Papua New Guinea. Amazingly Kuru has now been found in 8 to 20 people, out of all places, in war-torn Syria, and the only way it could have come about, doctors confirmed, is through cannibalism and the consumption of human brain, as first reported by Arabian news source Zaman al-Wasal and substantiated by Orient News Television.”
The rest here , including links to how it all relates to Islam.
About 10 years ago, Marla Fisher and her husband, Everett, were leaving their Pasadena, Texas ranch-style home for a weekend getaway. As Everett backed out of the driveway, Marla remembered that
she’d left her curling iron in the bathroom, and she went back to retrieve it.
The couple had been renting the house for about four years, and every once in a while Marla would reach over to turn on a lamp and nothing would happen. Then she’d tighten the bulb and the light would come on.
Anywhere there was an exposed lightbulb—a lamp, a ceiling fan—at some point the bulb would loosen just enough for the electricity to misfire. The Fishers lived in the flight path of a nearby airfield, so they attributed the loose bulbs to the slight shake the house underwent each time a jet approached.
Once in a while they’d joke, “We must have ghosts.”
On the day Marla went back into the house for her curling iron, she walked through the door to the master bedroom and saw what she thought was a shadow going into the bathroom.
“There’s someone in the house,” she thought. But she and Everett had just left the house moments before.
To be sure, Marla checked the back door. It was locked. And then she realized the light was coming into the house from the back door, meaning the shadow she saw couldn’t have been a shadow. The light was coming from the opposite direction. The hair on the back of her neck stood straight up.
Marla, who calls herself a “cradle Catholic,” is involved in her parish. Before this experience, she hadn’t really thought much about ghosts, or what the church teaches about them.
“I felt that this was a spirit, but does that mean this was someone’s soul?” she asks. “Why would someone’s soul be here in my house? Are the souls of those in purgatory living among us? What do ghosts mean in the spiritual sense?”
Scientists, engineers and policymakers are all figuring out ways drones can be used better and more smartly, more precise and less damaging to civilians, with longer range and better staying power. One method under development is by increasing autonomy on the drone itself.
Eventually, drones may have the technical ability to make even lethal decisions autonomously: to
respond to a programmed set of inputs, select a target and fire their weapons without a human reviewing or checking the result. Yet the idea of the U.S. military deploying a lethal autonomous robot, or LAR, is sparking controversy. Though autonomy might address some of the current downsides of how drones are used, they introduce new downsides policymakers are only just learning to grapple with.
The basic conceit behind a LAR is that it can outperform and outthink a human operator. "If a drone’s system is sophisticated enough, it could be less emotional, more selective and able to provide force in a way that achieves a tactical objective with the least harm," said Purdue University Professor Samuel Liles. "A lethal autonomous robot can aim better, target better, select better, and in general be a better asset with the linked ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] packages it can run."
Though the pace for drone strikes has slowed down -- only 21 have struck Pakistan in 2013, versus 122 in 2010 according to the New America Foundation -- unmanned vehicles remain a staple of the American counterinsurgency toolkit. But drones have built-in vulnerabilities that military planners still have not yet grappled with. Last year, for example, an aerospace engineer told the House Homeland Security Committee that with some inexpensive equipment he could hack into a drone and hijack it to perform some rogue purpose.
Drones have been hackable for years. In 2009, defense officials told reporters that Iranian-backed militias used $26 of off-the-shelf software to intercept the video feeds of drones flying over Iraq. And in 2011, it was reported that a virus had infected some drone control systems at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, leading to security concerns about the security of unmanned aircraft.
It may be that the only way to make a drone truly secure is to allow it to make its own decisions without a human controller: if it receives no outside commands, then it cannot be hacked (at least as easily). And that’s where LARs, might be the most attractive.
Though they do not yet exist, and are not possible with current technology, LARs are the subject of fierce debate in academia, the military and policy circles. Still, many treat their development as inevitability.
We're moving quickly into very dangerous territory.
Striking a tone of disgust, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi ridicules the GOP as obsessed with its loathing of President Obama and hell-bent on hurting him politically, regardless the cost. She
assigns little to no blame to the president (even though Democrats privately say that’s laughable) and instead portrays him as saintly, above reproach and the victim of jealousy or something worse.
After 26 years in the House, she says, “I haven’t seen anything like it. I haven’t seen anything like it.”
Throughout a 50-minute interview on Thursday in her second-floor Capitol office, where the late Speaker Tip O’Neill used to receive supplicants, Pelosi was sharply derisive about the scorn Republicans have for this president.
“You know why it is,” she said. “You know why it is. He’s brilliant, … he thinks in a strategic way in how to get something done … and he’s completely eloquent. That’s a package that they don’t like.”
Then she added a line that she has used before, that drives Republicans batty: “He has been … open, practically apolitical, certainly nonpartisan, in terms of welcoming every idea and solution. I think that’s one of the reasons the Republicans want to take him down politically, because they know he is a nonpartisan president, and that’s something very hard for them to cope with.”
Nancy Pelosi represents everything, and I do mean everything, wrong with our political leadership today.
Earlier this month a widow in her early 40s, referred to as Ms H, obtained a court order in the UK to get surgeons to extract sperm from her dying partner so that she could bear his child. The man, who had
suddenly lapsed into a coma after a heart attack, had never given his consent.
Apparently the couple were not legally man and wife, although they had been married in the UK in an unrecognised Islamic ceremony.
Extraction without consent is of questionable legality in the UK. Physically, the procedure is quite brutal and in a conscious person, would be described as assault. As bioethicist Anna Smajdor, of the University of East Anglia, said about a similar case in 2008, “The bodies of dead and dying individuals are vulnerable to assault and exploitation, and the law's function is to protect them.”
However, a judge agreed to Ms H’s request so that she could search for evidence of her partner’s consent. Although this was never produced, she took the sperm out of Britain to an overseas IVF clinic, perhaps to Romania or Cyprus, where it is legal to use sperm without proof of consent. Transporting the sperm out of the country without consent is also illegal.
The UK’s fertility watchdog, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, did not contest any of these breaches. This means, as the Daily Mail’s correspondent put it, “the regulatory body effectively supported her and her doctors in breaking the law”.
Wait a minute, doesn't a man, like a woman (we're constantly told) have a right to his own body?