Westboro Baptist Church is going to come to Raleigh to picket Elizabeth Edwards' funeral. I don't know why, I don't know what it's supposed to accomplish besides getting them publicity (I think I just answered that question).
I don't know a lot about Elizabeth Edwards, she seemed nice enough, but I've heard stories about how she behaved to staffers during her husband's campaign. John Edwards is a conscienceless weasel, who only ever looked out for #1, and is probably one of the worst senators any state ever had.
Regardless of all that, WBC are a bunch of assholes, and nobody deserves to have their funeral disrupted by them.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Good judgement
Today, juxtaposition of the Koran burning nutjob and politicians who protested the Ground Zero Mosque for political means.
1) The GZM protesters were not (for the most part) lighting their torches, they were exercising free speech (perhaps poorly, true).
2) The GZM builders and the Koran burner have more in common than the burner and the BZM protesters. Builders and burners are both operating completely within the law, however, they are, in least in part, if not in the whole, knowingly doing what they're doing to annoy people.
1) The GZM protesters were not (for the most part) lighting their torches, they were exercising free speech (perhaps poorly, true).
2) The GZM builders and the Koran burner have more in common than the burner and the BZM protesters. Builders and burners are both operating completely within the law, however, they are, in least in part, if not in the whole, knowingly doing what they're doing to annoy people.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Ground Zero mosque
Well hell, every other dickhead who can hunt and peck or speak three words in a row has said something about the ground zero mosque, so why not me. Particularly regarding the Cracked article about it, which makes some good points.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/
Specifically, point three - you can not simultaneously admit they have the legal right, and ask the government to block it. Of course. The sane people are not the ones saying this; the sane people are the ones saying they don't like it, but that it's completely legal to do, and that's what makes American great (insert flag waving here). The point is, if you're all for peace and tolerance, you could take into account how people would react. If you want to prove a point, you could at least make an attempt at recognizing the sensitivities of others; as a white male, that is apparently my purpose in life these days - to recognize the hot buttons of others.
And, I haven't seen plans, I don't know what's in the Islamic center, yes, there's probably plenty of other stuff besides the mosque, but I've seen an "Islamic Cultural Center" here locally, and it's a mosque. There are signs on the doors saying where the men and women are to enter separately, and prayer instructions. All the other stuff is great, and not related to prayer, but if there wasn't a mosque, there wouldn't be any of that other stuff either.
But in case I wasn't clear - the rules are clear, if they are followed, build the dang building, whatever it is. But don't go changing the dang rules to screw with it.
Next lecture (get your reading done in advance) - Bills of Attainder.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/3-reasons-the-ground-zero-mosque-debate-makes-no-sense/
Specifically, point three - you can not simultaneously admit they have the legal right, and ask the government to block it. Of course. The sane people are not the ones saying this; the sane people are the ones saying they don't like it, but that it's completely legal to do, and that's what makes American great (insert flag waving here). The point is, if you're all for peace and tolerance, you could take into account how people would react. If you want to prove a point, you could at least make an attempt at recognizing the sensitivities of others; as a white male, that is apparently my purpose in life these days - to recognize the hot buttons of others.
And, I haven't seen plans, I don't know what's in the Islamic center, yes, there's probably plenty of other stuff besides the mosque, but I've seen an "Islamic Cultural Center" here locally, and it's a mosque. There are signs on the doors saying where the men and women are to enter separately, and prayer instructions. All the other stuff is great, and not related to prayer, but if there wasn't a mosque, there wouldn't be any of that other stuff either.
But in case I wasn't clear - the rules are clear, if they are followed, build the dang building, whatever it is. But don't go changing the dang rules to screw with it.
Next lecture (get your reading done in advance) - Bills of Attainder.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Sphincters
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/08/31/west.bank.shooting/index.html?iref=allsearch
So, Hamas claimed responsibility for shooting four Israeli civilians in the West Bank. Every report on this makes sure to point out that one of the victims was pregnant in the first sentence, because it's such a great lead.
Following that, there was some sort of celebratory riot of 3000 people in the Gaza strip. This happened on Tuesday the 1st, and I didn't hear about it until today, Friday the 3rd, on someone's blog. Either this isn't news anymore because its happened too often, or no one wants to pick on Hamas. One response also indicated that that poster had not heard about it before, and only found a blog reference to it. Leaving aside that person's apparent complete ineptitude at web searches, a few comments. The Blogger took the position that the celebrators were the scum of the earth, less than human, etc. ALL of the respondents (six at that point) took him to task, pointing out how oppressed and suffering the Gazans are, and how the US military keeps killing civilians all the time, so how dare he complain.
Well, as far as I understand, the suffering people in Gaza brought it on themselves, and continue to bring it on themselves, and the rest of the middle east wants them to keep bringing it on themselves. But that's not really what I want to talk about.
Second, the US military does try to not deliberately target civilians. Especially women walking down a public street in broad daylight. And when things like that happen, and they do, nobody feels good about it, and certainly doesn't celebrate it like a great military victory, bringing me to my next point -
You killed FOUR unarmed civilians, and treat it like winning the Battle of the Bulge? How fucking petty and stupid are you? You are small assholes, with small minds, and this is why people hate you. This was not a victory, this was not useful, and all you are doing by celebrating is publicly showing how stupid you are. Bringing me to my real point -
The protesters may be hoping for martyrdom (possibly many are), but they're also demonstrating, and probably even counting on, the moral superiority and restraint of the people they hate so much. 3000 people just went out and identified themselves as some of the biggest Israel haters in existence, essentially painting a huge fucking bullseye on themselves. The IDF could have wiped them all off the face of the earth in about 2 minutes, with almost no collateral damage. But didn't. Yes, if Israel had done that, they would have gotten all the international condemnation that Hamas doesn't, but over and over again, Israel has shown astounding restraint with people who, over and over again, profess that they want every Jew to die. Would Hamas avoid a big juicy target of 3000 undefended Israelis milling around shouting about how much they hate Palestinians? I doubt it.
I see this shit over and over. Angry protesters scream bloody murder and call the targets of their vitriol monsters, killers, and everything else - knowing that there is almost no chance of retribution. Yell at the government, yell at the police, yell at all the institutions that have the guns, and yet, no one gets shot. The fact that the screamers know that they can get away with it means that they know that their targets are not really soulless, heartless, inhuman killers, or else they'd be dead.
Look around. Who are the groups that no one criticizes, or gets warned off that they'll get themselves in deep if they do? (And don't say there aren't any, we all know some.) The groups that actually respond with retribution or violence to criticism. Who really needs to be criticized to change their ways? People who react violently to those who are different or disagree. Israeli politicians get assassinated for opposing Hamas, but when they had the chance to squish Arafat, they let him go. Who looks like the better people in this picture.
Anyway, one last peripheral thing. In thinking about these Assholes, I was thinking about what to call them in more polite places than here. I thought of orifices, which is decent, and sphincters, which is the "polite" euphemism that I've heard the most, but then something occurred to me. A sphincter is a ring of muscle with the task of keeping something under control. The pyloric sphincter controls when food moves out of the stomach. The rectal sphincter (asshole) controls when shit comes out. That is exactly what these people are not. They have no control, and shit flies everywhere around them. Those words are too good for them, so I will start calling them cloacas, which is what birds and frogs have. The cloaca has no real sphincter or asshole, and the shit just comes out whenever it's there. That's what those people are.
So, Hamas claimed responsibility for shooting four Israeli civilians in the West Bank. Every report on this makes sure to point out that one of the victims was pregnant in the first sentence, because it's such a great lead.
Following that, there was some sort of celebratory riot of 3000 people in the Gaza strip. This happened on Tuesday the 1st, and I didn't hear about it until today, Friday the 3rd, on someone's blog. Either this isn't news anymore because its happened too often, or no one wants to pick on Hamas. One response also indicated that that poster had not heard about it before, and only found a blog reference to it. Leaving aside that person's apparent complete ineptitude at web searches, a few comments. The Blogger took the position that the celebrators were the scum of the earth, less than human, etc. ALL of the respondents (six at that point) took him to task, pointing out how oppressed and suffering the Gazans are, and how the US military keeps killing civilians all the time, so how dare he complain.
Well, as far as I understand, the suffering people in Gaza brought it on themselves, and continue to bring it on themselves, and the rest of the middle east wants them to keep bringing it on themselves. But that's not really what I want to talk about.
Second, the US military does try to not deliberately target civilians. Especially women walking down a public street in broad daylight. And when things like that happen, and they do, nobody feels good about it, and certainly doesn't celebrate it like a great military victory, bringing me to my next point -
You killed FOUR unarmed civilians, and treat it like winning the Battle of the Bulge? How fucking petty and stupid are you? You are small assholes, with small minds, and this is why people hate you. This was not a victory, this was not useful, and all you are doing by celebrating is publicly showing how stupid you are. Bringing me to my real point -
The protesters may be hoping for martyrdom (possibly many are), but they're also demonstrating, and probably even counting on, the moral superiority and restraint of the people they hate so much. 3000 people just went out and identified themselves as some of the biggest Israel haters in existence, essentially painting a huge fucking bullseye on themselves. The IDF could have wiped them all off the face of the earth in about 2 minutes, with almost no collateral damage. But didn't. Yes, if Israel had done that, they would have gotten all the international condemnation that Hamas doesn't, but over and over again, Israel has shown astounding restraint with people who, over and over again, profess that they want every Jew to die. Would Hamas avoid a big juicy target of 3000 undefended Israelis milling around shouting about how much they hate Palestinians? I doubt it.
I see this shit over and over. Angry protesters scream bloody murder and call the targets of their vitriol monsters, killers, and everything else - knowing that there is almost no chance of retribution. Yell at the government, yell at the police, yell at all the institutions that have the guns, and yet, no one gets shot. The fact that the screamers know that they can get away with it means that they know that their targets are not really soulless, heartless, inhuman killers, or else they'd be dead.
Look around. Who are the groups that no one criticizes, or gets warned off that they'll get themselves in deep if they do? (And don't say there aren't any, we all know some.) The groups that actually respond with retribution or violence to criticism. Who really needs to be criticized to change their ways? People who react violently to those who are different or disagree. Israeli politicians get assassinated for opposing Hamas, but when they had the chance to squish Arafat, they let him go. Who looks like the better people in this picture.
Anyway, one last peripheral thing. In thinking about these Assholes, I was thinking about what to call them in more polite places than here. I thought of orifices, which is decent, and sphincters, which is the "polite" euphemism that I've heard the most, but then something occurred to me. A sphincter is a ring of muscle with the task of keeping something under control. The pyloric sphincter controls when food moves out of the stomach. The rectal sphincter (asshole) controls when shit comes out. That is exactly what these people are not. They have no control, and shit flies everywhere around them. Those words are too good for them, so I will start calling them cloacas, which is what birds and frogs have. The cloaca has no real sphincter or asshole, and the shit just comes out whenever it's there. That's what those people are.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Arizona lawsuit
The feds have filed a lawsuit against Arizona, claiming the Arizona law regarding the checking of immigrant status by non-federal law enforcement is unconstitutional. The quote I heard is "only the federal government can regulate immigration".
Hmm.
If the feds win this one, it seems to me an interesting precedent shall be set. Anything that is a federal law can then only be enforced by federal agents. Two possibilities exist:
1) The feds are ignorant of this ramification, and local law enforcement agencies can then stop making arrests on anything that violates federal law, leading to the collapse.
2) The feds are exactly aware of this, want to take all power away from local law enforcement authority away, and create a national police force, which can not be funded without stealing all the money that used to be used by states and municipalities for their police forces. Then if you piss them off, they'll be able to stop arresting criminals, or use the brown shirts to take over.
Either they're acting out of ignorance or lunacy. Yay.
Hmm.
If the feds win this one, it seems to me an interesting precedent shall be set. Anything that is a federal law can then only be enforced by federal agents. Two possibilities exist:
1) The feds are ignorant of this ramification, and local law enforcement agencies can then stop making arrests on anything that violates federal law, leading to the collapse.
2) The feds are exactly aware of this, want to take all power away from local law enforcement authority away, and create a national police force, which can not be funded without stealing all the money that used to be used by states and municipalities for their police forces. Then if you piss them off, they'll be able to stop arresting criminals, or use the brown shirts to take over.
Either they're acting out of ignorance or lunacy. Yay.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Facebook Jackass Signal
So, I just joined Facebook, primarily to access a page for a group I belong to. I already know lots of people doing the Facebook thing, making their silly little updates, sending their silly little messages, playing their silly little games. I was going to go on, connect to them, use the group page, and keep a low profile, so as to not be a public asshole. That didn't make it 24 hours. A politically active friend posted a comment, the Jackass Signal went off, my blood pressure jumped, and I got tunnel vision. So, I posted my own thoughts on the subject, good intentions to keep my mouth shut shot to hell.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Liberal Democrats
So, the latest parliamentary elections in the UK are over, and the fallout continues. The Liberal Democrats (heirs of the Whigs) became the last girl standing at closing time, as neither Labour nor Conservative could form a majority government without them. It appears that the Conservative party gets to take the Lib Dems home, having bought their affections with the LD drug of choice ever since the Liberals fell from grace early in the 20th century.
Not only will promising this to the Lib Dems get them in your car, the thought of it makes their underwear spontaneously fall off, and they'll let you have a 6 way with their grandparents. The reason they'll abandon all standards is because they expect to be able to kill you in your drunken post-coital stupor with the unthinking promises you made to them in order to get laid.
What's the promise? As they put it, "electoral reform". As others might put it, "election rejiggering". Having been lucky to manage 10% of parliament and other government offices, their idee fixe has been to change the rules so that they can win more elections. Well, why not? That's the typical goal of people without power - trying to get more power. If you can't get enough people to vote for you to win, the best move is to change the rules so that you can win more with the same # of votes.
IIRC, the stats say that they get about 25% of the votes, but only about 10% of the seats. They want proportionality, i.e., more seats without more votes. Once they have more power, then they can throw a wrench into the works by demanding legislation on all the issues that only get them 25% of the vote.
So, by having alleyway sex with the Lib Dems to build a coalition, the Conservatives have likely laid the groundwork to make future coalitions 1) Harder to build, and 2) More schizophrenic.
Whenever I hear the whine that there should be proportionality, and that whatever percentage of any group exists in the population should be represented in the government, I consider that the National Institute of Mental Health stats say that 26.2% of Americans 18 and older suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. Should 26.2% of congress be mentally ill? I know, I know, they may already be that way (ha ha) but is that what you want? Perhaps the mentally ill would be better served by representatives who are informed on mental illness, sympathetic to the mentally ill, but closer to sane themselves.
How about this one. In 2009, there were 18,573 known homicides, so in 2009, 0.0088% of Americans were murderers (assuming negligible multiple murderers). The average life expectancy is about 80 years, and again, assuming only one homicide per murderer, 0.704% of Americans will kill someone in their lifetime. That means there should be three killers in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Or, in 2009, there were 1.8 million emergency department visits for assault. To be generous, let's allow the average assaulter 5 ER victims in their lifetime. That means that at some point in their life, 9.6% of Americans will attack AND hurt someone badly enough to send them to the hospital. Should 42 current representatives, 9 current senators, and 4 past/current presidents have sent someone to the hospital?
How about this one: 10.6% of surveyed adult women and 2.1% of surveyed men had experienced forced sex at some point in their lives. In addition, 25.5% of female and 41% of male victims were raped before they were 12 years old. You do the #s on how many kiddie rapists should be in government. Yes, they have been there, and they are there, but should they be entitled to be there as representatives of their group? (Actually, proportional representation may actually take their numbers down. Something worth checking into.)
Of course I'm exaggerating some things, and my calculations are certainly flawed to a degree, but I hope I make a point, and my point is:
Just about any group can claim enough members for proportional representation, but if you can't get anyone else to agree with you, you should still lose.
Not only will promising this to the Lib Dems get them in your car, the thought of it makes their underwear spontaneously fall off, and they'll let you have a 6 way with their grandparents. The reason they'll abandon all standards is because they expect to be able to kill you in your drunken post-coital stupor with the unthinking promises you made to them in order to get laid.
What's the promise? As they put it, "electoral reform". As others might put it, "election rejiggering". Having been lucky to manage 10% of parliament and other government offices, their idee fixe has been to change the rules so that they can win more elections. Well, why not? That's the typical goal of people without power - trying to get more power. If you can't get enough people to vote for you to win, the best move is to change the rules so that you can win more with the same # of votes.
IIRC, the stats say that they get about 25% of the votes, but only about 10% of the seats. They want proportionality, i.e., more seats without more votes. Once they have more power, then they can throw a wrench into the works by demanding legislation on all the issues that only get them 25% of the vote.
So, by having alleyway sex with the Lib Dems to build a coalition, the Conservatives have likely laid the groundwork to make future coalitions 1) Harder to build, and 2) More schizophrenic.
Whenever I hear the whine that there should be proportionality, and that whatever percentage of any group exists in the population should be represented in the government, I consider that the National Institute of Mental Health stats say that 26.2% of Americans 18 and older suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. Should 26.2% of congress be mentally ill? I know, I know, they may already be that way (ha ha) but is that what you want? Perhaps the mentally ill would be better served by representatives who are informed on mental illness, sympathetic to the mentally ill, but closer to sane themselves.
How about this one. In 2009, there were 18,573 known homicides, so in 2009, 0.0088% of Americans were murderers (assuming negligible multiple murderers). The average life expectancy is about 80 years, and again, assuming only one homicide per murderer, 0.704% of Americans will kill someone in their lifetime. That means there should be three killers in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Or, in 2009, there were 1.8 million emergency department visits for assault. To be generous, let's allow the average assaulter 5 ER victims in their lifetime. That means that at some point in their life, 9.6% of Americans will attack AND hurt someone badly enough to send them to the hospital. Should 42 current representatives, 9 current senators, and 4 past/current presidents have sent someone to the hospital?
How about this one: 10.6% of surveyed adult women and 2.1% of surveyed men had experienced forced sex at some point in their lives. In addition, 25.5% of female and 41% of male victims were raped before they were 12 years old. You do the #s on how many kiddie rapists should be in government. Yes, they have been there, and they are there, but should they be entitled to be there as representatives of their group? (Actually, proportional representation may actually take their numbers down. Something worth checking into.)
Of course I'm exaggerating some things, and my calculations are certainly flawed to a degree, but I hope I make a point, and my point is:
Just about any group can claim enough members for proportional representation, but if you can't get anyone else to agree with you, you should still lose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)