The Russian government not only hacks computers to get information, they also plant false information to attack their foes.

What? Child porn was found on your computer? That is a shame.

Courtesy of The New York Times:  

Hacking is not only a good way to get real information, like the emails of the D.N.C., but a relatively easy and usually untraceable way to plant fake information. For example, when unidentified hackers last year broke into the computers of a government research center in Lithuania, they stole nothing, but planted bogus reports on its website that the country’s stoutly pro-American president had worked as an escort and K.G.B. informer while a student in Leningrad during the Soviet era. 

A similar break-in affecting the Lithuanian military’s website replaced a bland announcement about a coming NATO exercise with a fake statement that presented the exercise as part of a plan to annex Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea, and join it with Lithuania, a member of NATO. 

The supposed NATO plan outlined in the phony text closely mimicked methods used by Moscow in 2014 to annex Crimea and stir up unrest in eastern Ukraine, including the seizure of military posts and police stations and calls for the establishment of the Kaliningrad People’s Republic. 

Written in faulty Lithuanian, the statement was “immediately obvious as a fake,” said Rimtautas Cerniauskas, the director of Lithuania’s National Cyber Security Center, which was set up last year in response to increased alarm over Russian aggression. 

But, he added, the stunt nonetheless succeeded in distracting cyberdefense staff members from their normal work for days and in spreading a lie that, though immediately exposed, polluted discussion about NATO.

But that is not the extent of it:

This blurring of all boundaries between truth and falsehood in the service of operational needs has created a climate in Russia in which even the most serious and grotesque accusations, like those involving pedophilia, are simply a currency for settling scores.

Much of this article talks about the Russians hacking computers to place child pornography on its hard drive and even send those photos and videos to other sites that then will lead back to their victim's computer.

This should send a chill right up the spine of journalists and opponents of Putin's puppet president here in the US as to the kinds of tactics that might be directed their way if they make life too hard for Comrade Trump.

It also might explain just how Donald Trump became a puppet of Vladimir Putin.

Just something to think about.

Utah declares pornography a "public health hazard."

Courtesy of the BBC: 

The US state of Utah has become the first to declare pornography a public health risk in a move its governor says is to "protect our families and our young people". 

The bill does not ban pornography in the mainly Mormon state. 

However, it calls for greater "efforts to prevent pornography exposure and addiction". 

Pornography, the bill says, "perpetuates a sexually toxic environment" and "is contributing to the hypersexualisation of teens, and even prepubescent children, in our society". 

Further steps must be taken to change "education, prevention, research, and policy change at the community and societal level" against what it calls an epidemic, but it does not suggest how changes should be implemented. 

The bill was signed by Republican Governor Gary Herbert, who said the volume of pornography in society was "staggering".

Yeah especially in Utah where researchers found in a 2009 that it was the number one consumer of online pornography.

So you can only imagine how this new law will be received by the oh so Mormon residents.

When will these people learn that suppressing sexual expression is never the answer?

Adult site blocks North Carolina's access in response to anti-gay legislation. Okay now things just got real.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Arkansas preacher would like to remind the ladies that their body is not theirs, it belongs to God.

Courtesy of Raw Story: 

During a Sunday sermon at Crosschurch about the dangers of pornography, Crawford likened the issue to abortion rights. 

“We have bought into what I want to call this morning theological dualism,” the pastor opined. “This is the idea that you can separate what goes on with our bodies with what goes on soul and spirit.” 

According to Crawford, the Bible contradicted the belief that people had a right to control their own bodies. 

“This idea that you hear about in the abortion debate that it’s a woman’s right to choose and she has the right over her own body, no, that’s not true!” he exclaimed. “What that means is that your arms and your legs and your head, it all belongs to God.”

"God owns you."

And we wonder why the Bible did not seem to have a problem with slavery.

I continue to be amused that so many people living today do not realize that the concept of the soul is a primitive contrivance for understanding consciousness and placating fears over mankind's mortality.

There is no scientific evidence to support the concept, and in fact mountains of data which refute it out of hand, and yet so many reasonably intelligent people cling to it like a drowning man to a piece of driftwood.

Which of course leaves them susceptible to the kind manipulative religious claptrap that this idiot is spewing in that video.

And that is just sad.

Worst popcorn ball recipe ever.

Just a note on that last note.

Pornography is bigger than ever and driving much of the innovation in computers, website design, and online purchasing, just like it drove much of the innovation in home video technology in the 1980's.

And so demonstrates the power of prayer.

Who Would Jesus Choke Out? Some churches are now using MMA fights as a way to spread the gospel.

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars:  

“The whole reason we’re having the fights [at the church] is so we can bring people in and tell them about God,” one fighter says. “The hope is that through the fight I can create a relationship with the person I’m fighting and extend Christ to him.”

You know you might think that a loving god would allow you to win the fight WITHOUT getting kneed in the groin first.

I'm just saying.

You know I am no expert on religion, but exactly HOW is pounding somebody's face in helping them to understand the teachings of Jesus? I totally missed that passage in the New Testament.

But hey if you are not horrified enough, then you will be when you learn that the pastor in the video, one Paul Burress, is also accused of trying to convince church members to swing with him and his wife.

This is from a letter sent to Victory Church leadership from a former member: 

In 2009, I was at Paul Burress’s house, where I was asked to perform a back-rub on Jill Burress, who had removed her shirt and bra. Paul made sure that my hand made contact with the side of a breast by moving it there with his own hand. Paul also made sure that I touched her bare bottom. This happened on 2 occasions that year. Also in 2009, Paul showed me fully nude photos of his wife, and also showed me a pornographic video of him having sex with his wife. This occurred on several occasions that year. I was a single, 21 year-old at the time. 

Damn, mixed martial arts, sex, and pornography. Boy church sure has changed from the days when I was attending.

"The pornography of Anne Frank." Wait, what?

Courtesy of Christian Post:  

The Anne Frank Diary is 'pornographic' according to one mother who has lodged a formal complaint over the book being used in school to educate her own child. 

Mom, Gail Horalek, has filed a formal complaint against her daughter's school district over its use of the Anne Frank Diary, saying that many of the passages contained in the book are far too graphic for seventh graders like her daughter. 

The mother highlights one part of the book in which Frank discusses discovering her genitalia, and Horalek has said it is akin to pornography, and is completely inappropriate for her child and her schoolmates. 

She has complained that Meads Mill Middle School should have asked parents to sign a permission slip before they assigned the book to the children to read, due to the content. 

She has said, "The problem is the school is giving the seventh graders inappropriate material and not explaining it to the parents," according to the Northville Patch. 

Horalek has explained that the school has sent permission slips home for parents to sign when they have looked to use various other books and films that may contain strong material that some could deem "inappropriate." 

Apparently the part of the book that has so offended this lunatic is this portion:  

“What’s even funnier is that I thought urine came out of the clitoris … When you’re standing up, all you see from the front is hair. Between your legs there are two soft, cushiony things, also covered with hair, which press together when you’re standing, so you can’t see what’s inside. They separate when you sit down and they’re very red and quite fleshy on the inside.”

Okay look I think I know a little something about pornography, after all I am immoral, but if reading about the terrible fate of this young woman gets your juices going, you may have MUCH more to worry about than appropriate reading materials.

This is simply an honest description of a young woman writing about discovering her body parts. and in no way does it come off as salacious or prurient. At least no in my world.

This mother is obviously deeply disturbed and it makes me wonder how she handles all of those Donald Duck cartoons where the foul fowl is constantly running around without any pants on?

Here is the part that REALLY get me:

Horalek has now demanded that the book be removed from the curriculum: "It doesn't mean my child is sheltered, it doesn't mean I live in a bubble and it doesn't mean I'm trying to ban books." 

Yes, yes it does! If you are demanding that a book be removed from a library, then you are by DEFINITION banning books!

You know if this idiot would spend more time on her reading comprehension, instead of focusing all of her attention on combing books for the mention of genitalia, she MIGHT have been able to figure that out for herself.

Larry Flynt endorses Mark "Appalachian Trail" Sanford. "The liar has exposed the greater lie."

Courtesy of Mediaite:

Flynt praised Sanford for exposing that “traditional values are shameful” and his openness in rejecting such a life for himself. He said that Sanford violating his marriage vows was “an act of bravery,” and acknowledged that while Sanford revealed himself to be a wildly dishonest man in the wake of his 2009 scandal, he trusts Sanford enough now to contribute the maximum amount to his campaign. 

Flynt asks in his endorsement video to meet with Sanford so he can be properly thanked for his public endorsement.

Oh yes, this is EXACTLY who Sanford needs to come out and endorse him right now.

This, plus his abysmal performance in his debate with Elizabeth Colbert Busch, would seem to signal the end of this particular idiot's political aspirations.

Which, by the way, I kind of think was Mr. Flynt's intention all along.

"Is that your nipple I see?" Those words spoken by a North Carolina police officer might soon mean jail time, as a new bill is set to make a woman's areola indecent.

Actress Milla Jovovich should probably avoid North Carolina.

Here is the portion of the bill referred to in the headline:

 (a1) Unless the conduct is prohibited by another law providing greater punishment, any person at least 18 years of age who shall willfully expose the private parts of his or her person in any public place in the presence of any other person less than 16 years of age for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire shall be guilty of a Class H felony. An offense committed under this subsection shall not be considered to be a lesser included offense under G.S. 14‑202.1. 

(a2)For the purposes of this section, the term "private parts" means external organs of sex and of excretion, including the nipple, or any portion of the areola, of the human female breast.

That's right ladies. Your next nip slip in North Carolina might see you locked up in a prison cell for up to ten years where you and your now pornographic body part can rethink your wardrobe choices.

Here is a bit more about how this whole thing came about:

Brown, whose district is more than 100 miles from Asheville, said she hadn’t planned to get involved with the issue until she started getting calls about it from her constituents. “I felt that, if this was of concern to my constituents, it was going to be of concern to others as well.” 

Brown says topless protests are actually illegal under the current law, but there’s some confusion about it, dating to conflicting court rulings from the 1970s. 

North Carolina law already forbids “indecent exposure,” but it doesn’t specifically define “private parts” as including breasts. 

The proposal adds that definition, including “the nipple, or any portion of the areola, of the human female breast,” with an exception made for breastfeeding. 

“All we are doing is codifying the Supreme Court definition of ‘private parts,’" added committee Chairwoman Rep. Sarah Stevens, R-Surry. “That’s it. “

Well at least they are giving a pass to women who are using the offending protuberance to feed their babies.  But if you don't have a baby hanging off of those things then you are headed up the river my dear.

Okay well as you know I am quite liberal, and probably never more so than when it comes to the issue of sexuality and nudity.  If you want to walk around with your goodies hanging out, regardless of your age or gender, I have nothing negative to say about it. (Except in Alaska of course. Some things are simply not meant to be exposed to the elements.)

However I do have a question.

Exactly WHY is it that the aerola is the portion of the female breast deemed unacceptable? And why is it ONLY the female's that is considered so?

Now look I'm a guy, and I dearly love breasts. But personally I find the entire breast rather pleasing to the eye and do not necessary consider the actual nipple to be any more erotic than say the cleavage, or the side, or really ANY other part of the breast.

So why exactly is THIS, according to this new North Carolina bill, okay?

And the above picture, which actually covers up much more of the breast, considered "indecent?"

Anybody have an answer?