Flibbertigibbet

Redefining the Terms

CNN.com: Blackwater boss defends contractors' 'honorable' work

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The founder and chief executive of Blackwater USA defended his company against allegations that his contractors were trigger-happy mercenaries Tuesday, saying that his personnel have distinguished records and have never intentionally killed civilians.

I'm actually surprised that this story took so long to break. Mister Bookworm has a friend who works for some oddball organization that has been working on this story for a while now. She told me about it and I was actually surprised by the basic facts -- even without the allegations of war crimes.

Maybe I'm naive, but when the news says "defense contractors" or "military contractors" I've always thought they meant people involved with logistics like delivering food supplies, rebuilding infrastructure and such. I did not know that they are armed personnel conducting military/police efforts.

I did not realize that the US government was in the practice (at least in modern times) of hiring mercenaries. Forget the trigger-happy part. These are missionaries. Calling these people "contractors" leads a person to believe that they are engaged in legitimate business activities.

I am more than a little miffed that I have been led to believe that these people are anything other than hired guns.

First of all, policing another country and helping them rebuild after a war is not a legitimate function of our military or government.

Second of all, being a mercenary is not a legitimate business activity under the Constitution of the US. That our government is hiring them is simply outrageous.

It's late. I have to go to bed, so I will likely talk more about why mercenaries are not allowed in a free society tomorrow.

A Lesson in the Obvious

TMZ: Britney Spears Has Lost Her Kids

Apparently, if you're trying to retain custody of your children in a messy, public divorce suit, you should not do the following:

- Wave your vulva around in public
- Show up late to your job
- Show up apparently drunk with margarita in hand to your job
- Allow the help see you naked, drunk, and high around the kids
- Totally bomb your "come back" which was staged in front of the whole entire world
- Be photographed driving with your baby in your lap
- Run your car into someone else's car and then drive off

To do any of those things, let alone all of them, leaves one wondering: did she even WANT custody of those children? Seriously.

All my lurve to Buddhista for keeping me plugged in on this.

New York City Charges More to Avoid Mechanical Ineptitude

I know you all stay riveted to your televisions, newspapers, and globular tubal-webs for news about NYC, so I don't have to tell you that the MTA has proposed some pricing changes for subway rides.

It's actually kind of smart in terms of revenue management. The current price is $2 per ride all day long. They're changing this to $2.25 for rides during peak hours and just $1.50 during off-peak hours.

This in itself doesn't affect me too much because I buy the 30 day metrocards. Unfortunately, the price of those is going up from $76 to something like $82. Anywhoodles, that's not what I want to tell you about.

I have just learned from Subway Blogger that the reason the hike is $2.25 instead of just $2.10 is actually because the Metrocard machines can't dispense dimes.

WCBSTV.com: Commuters: MTA Fare Hikes 'Turnstile Injustice'

As CBS 2 HD reported Tuesday night, one reason the MTA is seeking a 25-cent fare hike instead of just 10 cents is because the machines don’t deal in dimes, only quarters and nickels. Buying a $2.10 ticket with a $5 bill would give you 58 nickels or 11 quarters and 3 nickels in change, which is why they say they dealing with quarters is more convenient for everyone. Almost everyone.

I like the subway a lot, but I also have a long list of complaints. To make matters worse, I don't believe that this fare hike is going to address any of those complaints. Most of it will likely go to placating those surly little autocrats employed at the MTA.

Value of Trash

trash

1. anything worthless, useless, or discarded; rubbish.
2. foolish or pointless ideas, talk, or writing; nonsense.
3. a worthless or disreputable person.
4. such persons collectively.
5. literary or artistic material of poor or inferior quality.
6. broken or torn bits, as twigs, splinters, rags, or the like.
7. something that is broken or lopped off from anything in preparing it for use.
8. the refuse of sugar cane after the juice has been expressed.
9. Computers. an icon of a trash can that is used to delete files dragged onto it.
–verb (used with object)
10. Slang. to destroy, damage, or vandalize, as in anger or protest: The slovenly renters had trashed the house.
11. to condemn, dismiss, or criticize as worthless: The article trashed several recent best-sellers.
12. to remove the outer leaves of (a growing sugar cane plant).
13. to free from superfluous twigs or branches.

By the very definition of the word, trash is worthless -- at least to those who discard it. It is assumed that when you put something out on the curb or put it into a garbage can or dumpster that you are relinquishing ownership of it to whomever either owns the garbage can/dumpster or whoever picks the trash up from the curb.

We can also safely say that whoever takes the trash away to the landfill or recycling center is getting something for their trouble. Maybe the city pays them some dollars to pick up trash (that's how NYC does it) or maybe you pay them directly (that's how it worked in Georgia where I lived) or maybe you do it yourself to keep the trash from burying your house.

I don't know that in any of those situations, it is actually more profitable for the trash taker-awayers to haul off MORE trash. I don't know about NYC, but in Georgia I paid the same amount no matter how much trash and recycling I put out there. And if I took it to the landfill myself, I would have to pay more based on the weight/amount.

So, I am perplexed by a new law in NYC that seeks to increase fines for people who steal recyclable trash.

New York Post: City Council Increases Fines for Theft of Recyclable Trash

The City Council unanimously passed a bill yesterday that would sharply increase fines for people who steal recyclable material from curbsides — to $2,000 from $100 for a first offense, and $5,000 for each subsequent offense within a year.

Officials say the bill is aimed at organized enterprises that use vehicles, which would be impounded under the new law, adding that the $100 fine had not been large enough to prevent these thefts. Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is expected to sign the bill, according to an administration spokesman.

According to that same article, the city is actually making SOME money on the recyclable materials they cart off, but that's not to say it's a profit.

Sanitation officials estimated the city might be losing as much as 15,000 tons of paper a year from Manhattan alone. Based on the city’s current recycling contract, which pays $10 to $30 a ton, that means an annual loss of $150,000 to $300,000.

Nevertheless, the article also states that the city's recycling program has been historically woefully unprofitable. Apparently, "theft" of trash has caused an overall 2% drop in the amount of paper available for the city to haul off.

I object to this whole thing for a couple of reasons.

First of all, we can't call this "theft." The trash doesn't belong to anyone. The owners, by placing it on the curb, have clearly stated that they are relinquishing ownership of the articles in question. The things there do not yet belong to the city as the sidewalk is "public property" and the garbage trucks have not claimed it yet. (I also object to the notion of public property, but that's a whole different topic.)

Also, it seems capricious to extend this law to just recyclable materials.

What if some band of unmarked trucks came in and started picking up all the trash? I dare say the city would not complain. Instead, they see that they have a chance to make a little bit of money back on their misguided recycling program and they're using the law to bully private concerns from getting at it. Again we see that the state sees no need to compete for its dollars: it merely threatens.

If the city wants that money so badly, why don't they wake up earlier? Or clean up more frequently? Oh, that's right, it would cost them more.

Just a few weeks ago, Mister Bookworm and I were walking down the sidewalk and found that someone had tossed out lots of piles of books for the garbage man. We went through them and picked out several that we wanted. This is a common occurrence in NYC, actually. People put their "trash" on the curb and if you see something you like -- such as an old sofa, books, lamps, whatever -- you pick it up and take it. My roommates and I were unloading our car from Home Depot one afternoon and had to push away some vultures who thought we were throwing out perfectly good potted plants, pant, and our other purchases.

I doubt that this scavenging is considered illegal and according to Joe. My. God., the city swears that the law isn't intended to be used against homeless people either. I don't care about the homeless, but if they want to pick up trash, that's their business as much as it is mine to be rid of it.

This law also gives me very strong suspicions that it is illegal to run or hire your own trash collection service in the city.

Civil Rights and the Jena 6

I really don't understand the protests from last week over the Jena 6. CNN kept saying that there was a civil rights march going on, but then they said it was in support of some hoodlums who beat some person within an inch of his life.

I am pretty sure that no part of our "rights" civil or otherwise entitle us to rousting a bunch of of friends and mauling hapless strangers.

So, I went and looked up on Wikipedia where we can always turn to complete, unbiased information on any topic:

The Jena Six refers to a group of six black teenagers who have been charged with the beating of a white teenager at Jena High School in Jena, Louisiana, on December 4, 2006. The beating followed a series of racially-charged incidents in the town. The six black students were initially charged with attempted second degree murder and conspiracy to commit attempted second degree murder.

The Jena Six case has sparked protests by those who believe that the arrests and the subsequent charges were excessive and racially discriminatory, alleging a lack of arrests and serious charges against white youths in Jena in earlier incidents in the town. U.S. Attorney Donald Washington—an African American and a Bush appointee — who led an investigation into events in the town, has concluded that there is no evidence of unfair prosecution.

Yes, it is relevant to this article to point out that a certain judge is both black and a Bush appointee. Nope, not bias there!

Anyway, the Wikipedia article, in spite of its additional information, does make clear the racial confusion going on in the town.

But what I understand from the article is that the protesters weren't there really in support of the Jena 6. They were protesting the alleged disproportionate charges against the Jena 6. From my very limited perspective on the matter, people don't seem to be protesting the idea that charges are brought against these characters.

This is certainly not the most apparent or egregious example of rights violation I've ever heard of.

If the charges are disproportionate, you challenge them in court. There are mechanisms for this sort of thing.

The argument is that the court system is biased against the defendants based on their race.

Even if we accept that the people in that area and the people in those particular courts are biased against the defendants, it doesn't follow that our entire legal system is racist. There are mechanisms for appeal. There are mechanisms for getting the case reviewed.

I am not inclined to go to the primary sources and review this case. But I don't see why no one has gone and done that, but taken out all of the references to race, just to see if the charges make sense.

What I am irritated about is the civil rights protest and, more than that, the idiotic attitudes about race that seem so popular. It's as if as an individual, I am expected to choose between the white supremacist racists or the non-white supremacist racists on the other side.

Ideas about race in the US are idiotic and I do think it is because of this whole multiculturalism thing that is so popular. As if the color of a person's skin gives them some particular insight into... well, anything. It's like that episode of Seinfeld where Elaine is dating a man that she thinks is black and he thinks she's Spanish, and they're both really thrilled about being in an interracial relationship, but it turns out that they're both regular, old white people.

Ok. I'm done with that. I do want to ask this: why are Spanish people considered non-white? I thought that was a country... a western European country, too. I know they were occupied by the Moors (See? It's not like they've never done it themselves.) and all that, but still. "Spanish" isn't a good adjective for a particular ethnicity.

Gays Spot Legal Problem, Propose Flaboyantly Idiotic Response

Gaywired.com: Passage of Historic Hate Crimes Act Hailed, Bush Veto Feared

The passage today of the Matthew Shepard Act by the U.S. Senate is being hailed as a "historic moment for equality" by gay rights organizations across the country. However, President George W. Bush has threatened a veto of the legislation, which the White House contends is unnecessary as existing law already covers the issue.

I am against hate crime legislation.

First of all, it's already illegal to kidnap people, drag them to the country, tie them to a fence post, beat them, and leave them for dead. I think this is probably one of the first laws ever made by people wishing to organize themselves into a state.

Among the other things that are illegal and rightly so:
- Vandalizing property that does not belong to you
- Hitting people without their permission
- Killing people without their permission
- Threatening people
- Menacing people
- Following someone around yelling foul things at them while they are trying to mind their own business and you're being a nuisance

It is stupid to pass a law that says that not only are you not allowed to do that, but you're ESPECIALLY not allowed to do it to someone because you don't like them because you're a bigot.

I don't know what your being a bigot has to do with anything, really.

Some people argue that these so-called hate crimes are worse than regular crimes because they function like terrorism. Say some gay person is beaten up for being gay, then all gay people get scared.

Someone should write a letter. It should go something like this:

Dear Straight People:

I hope this letter finds you well and that you are enjoying your regular sex. Sodomy is great; it's pretty much the same as since it was invented a bajillion years ago and going strong.

So, I heard from a friend of mine that there are some maniacs among you and not the good kind that remain confined to the floor. It is alleged that there are people among you who beat people up.

Yeah.

If you're not terrified of this, you're the maniac in question. Please turn yourself in. We have you surrounded.

Thanks!

Love
Gay people.

P.S. Hope you like the sodomy as much as we do.

In all seriousness, I'm terrified by the idea that there is someone out there robbing banks. I'm not a banker, but I regard that as a pretty serious problem. One that should be resolved by a high-speed chase, and ass-whuppin', and speedy and public trial, and a lengthy jail sentence. I'm sure the bankers in the audience would agree.

My point is that everyone is being terrorized when a crime is committed. As a friend of mine puts it: every crime is a hate crime.

The whole idea that your criminals get worse punishments for their crimes because they have particularly odious ideas is antithetical to the notion of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, or freedom in general.

I say, let's punish our criminals. Hard.

And then be done with it. George Bush should veto that Matthew Shepherd thing and also stop being just a homophobe, too.

Naegleria fowleri

Yahoo! News: 6 die from brain-eating amoeba in lakes

PHOENIX - It sounds like science fiction but it's true: A killer amoeba living in lakes enters the body through the nose and attacks the brain where it feeds until you die.

Even though encounters with the microscopic bug are extraordinarily rare, it's killed six boys and young men this year. The spike in cases has health officials concerned, and they are predicting more cases in the future.

[...]

According to the CDC, the amoeba called Naegleria fowleri (nuh-GLEER-ee-uh FOWL'-erh-eye) killed 23 people in the United States, from 1995 to 2004. This year health officials noticed a spike with six cases — three in Florida, two in Texas and one in Arizona. The CDC knows of only several hundred cases worldwide since its discovery in Australia in the 1960s.

[...]

Beach said people become infected when they wade through shallow water and stir up the bottom. If someone allows water to shoot up the nose — say, by doing a somersault in chest-deep water — the amoeba can latch onto the olfactory nerve.

The amoeba destroys tissue as it makes its way up into the brain, where it continues the damage, "basically feeding on the brain cells," Beach said.

People who are infected tend to complain of a stiff neck, headaches and fevers. In the later stages, they'll show signs of brain damage such as hallucinations and behavioral changes, he said.

Once infected, most people have little chance of survival. Some drugs have stopped the amoeba in lab experiments, but people who have been attacked rarely survive, Beach said.

"Usually, from initial exposure it's fatal within two weeks," he said.

What a horrible and terrifying thing!

Read the article and spot the subtle endorsement of global warming.

Thanks to Orb McQuilkin for the article.

Chillingly Laughable

Readers of my blog know that I pretty much hate the present Iranian President. I think he's a whacko. (Some readers of my blog do contend -- rightly, I think -- that even though he's a whacko, he's done less harm to Americans than our own whacko, Dubya.) Well, he gave a speech at Columbia U today.

When they announced that they were going to allow him to speak, lots of people were upset by this. I think they're right to be upset.

I also think that so long as the American government allows dictators to visit our shores as they do, Columbia is within its legal rights to allow him to speak. I point this out to be clear that the question here is not a political one but moral one.

Briefly on the political question: I don't think leaders like Ahmadinejad should be allowed in the country. If I were president, I would not meet with people like him except perhaps as a plot to kill him. Of course, if I were president, policies foreign and domestic would be radically different and I would have more leisure time in which to plan the assassination of dictators. Those scenarios are obvious fantasies.

On to the moral question.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has nothing of value to communicate to any rational person. The notion that any good can come of allowing him to prattle on to Americans is an insult and, frankly, I can only imagine that it is out of morbid curiosity (and perhaps journalistic assignment) that any person in their right mind attended the speech. By the furor that many raised over his presence at Columbia, I also assume that others have made similar observations.

Even still, Columbia allowed him to speak and it was that furor that led Columbia University president Lee Bollinger to heavily qualify the presentation. Not to put too fine a point on it, he called Ahmadinejad a "petty and cruel dictator." True enough, but then he followed it with the perplexing assertion that "We do not honor the dishonorable when we open our public forum to their voices."

Now, I am assuming that the government did not in any way influence Columbia University's decision to allow Ahmadinejad to speak. In spite of receiving state funding, this was a private decision made by individuals on a quest to present the students of Columbia the broadest possible opportunities for a superb education.

I return to my point above that Ahmadinejad hasn't anything of value to teach us. He's a madman, so it begs the question of what this sideshow could possibly due to contribute to anyone's education. Surely we can get close enough to madmen through reports on CNN and descriptions in text books.

So, the claim is that it isn't an honor to address Columbia students to the benefit of their education. This is a bald contradiction.

Either presenting Ahmadinejad is of value or it isn't.

I suspect that Mister Bollinger suffers from the deplorable line of thinking that leads one to believe that everyone's point of view is worth consideration in itself simply by virtue of being someone's point of view.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean that anyone has to listen. So, do I think they should have given him a forum to speak? No. Do I think they should be charged with a crime? No.

I didn't mean to get on that rant. I really just wanted to point out this funny thing that I heard from Joe.My.God. he said.

In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I do not know who has told you that we have it.

Joe rightly responds with this:

Of course, what Ahmandinejad didn't say was that he keeps Iran free of homosexuals by killing them.

That Mahmoud kills me.

Lines in the Head

NYT Headline: Fund-Raiser Is Held Without Bail

Makes you wonder what the story is about, huh?

Click here to see.

They're Probably Egoists, You Know

BBC News: Police defend drowning death case

Police chiefs have defended two community support officers (PCSOs) who stood by as a 10-year-old boy drowned in a pond.

Jordon Lyon leapt into the water in Wigan, Greater Manchester, after his eight-year-old stepsister Bethany got into difficulties on 3 May.

Two anglers jumped in and saved Bethany but Jordon became submerged.

The inquest into his death heard the PCSOs did not rescue him as they were not trained to deal with the incident.

Mister Bookworm sent this article to me in light of recent discussions that have contained lengthy diatribes about drowning little children.

This case is very difficult to judge since I wasn't there and I do not know these Public Safety people or their swimming skills. Once upon a time I was a certified life guard, though, and the dangers of unskilled people leaping into unknown water are well-documented and clear.

What a horrible, horrible thing for a parent. And it is doubly frustrating to know that there were people present who had judged the situation such that they could not save the child.

This is certainly a tragedy.

But to those unfamiliar with the arguments here, I want to be clear that the title of this post is sarcastic; this incident cannot be judged as supporting or refuting ethical egoism.

Dancing on Graves

As you've probably heard, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad AKA DJ Mack Mood AKA Lick Madinejad the Mad Thrillah AKA That whacko over there has asked to be allowed to visit the World Trade Center construction site.

Everyone has said no.

No. No. No.

Even Hilary Clinton announced that she recognizes it as unacceptable.

Of course, I agree, but part of me wants someone to figure out how would could drop a building on him when he's down in there. Or not a building, but a huge pile of American dollars. Enough to crush him, of course. Or maybe pour a large vat of boiling transfats on him while he's down there celebrating the death of Americans.

That man is vile.

It's Not Right, But It's AWESOME

Reuters: Man stripped, shaved for posting ads

BEIJING (Reuters) - Security guards in a southern Chinese city stripped and shaved the head of a man they found illegally posting advertisements on walls to earn a bit of money, a domestic newspaper reported Tuesday.

The victim, Xiao Liu, a 17-year-old migrant worker from the impoverished central province of Henan, was stripped to his underwear by about 10 men in Dongguan in the southern province of Guangdong, the Beijing News said.

Obviously, I do not want to be beaten and have my head shaved, but I can't tell you the number of times I've wanted to police to come tear my clothes off. I mean, in my mind it's usually just one or two. I don't have the imagination to project ten policemen doing that, I guess.

Who says China is a draconian backwater nation that perverts justice?

I don't know either, but I will keep an eye out for the video.

Not Worth the Shower Rape

ETOnline: Hit Ordered on Kevin Federline?

ET has several reliable sources that the FBI and LAPD are investigating legitimate leads on a contract hit on KEVIN FEDERLINE's life.

Multiple sources tell ET that the FBI made attempts to contact Federline to inform him of the potential danger.

Sources within the FBI tell ET that this is the bureau's standard operating procedure when someone's life is threatened.

ET has been working this story for the past two months. When contacted, the FBI told us that the bureau cannot confirm or deny an investigation.

There are so many more people that I'd like to see dead before Kevin Federline, so I find myself stumped trying to imagine the life of the individual who would want him dead badly enough to actually put a hit out on him. That kind of thing costs money, you know!

Did someone come back from a vacation in the Bahamas and just snap when they saw one more stupid-looking white person with cornrows in their hair? Was it someone who fell within earshot of his Popozão?

I really just don't understand this.

Secondly, why did the FBI have such a hard time reaching him? I know he has a cellphone because Britney told him she wanted a divorce by way of text messages and judging from his reaction, he takes text messaging seriously. Does the Federal BI not know how to send text messages?

yo k afawct sum sumbich wan u ded call me @ 911 4 deets

Finally, why is ET just now telling me about this? This is the whole reason they exist and it took them two months to break the news that someone wanted to snuff the Fedster?

You know what? I'll bet it was either Cheetoh or Redbull. I know Brit-brit isn't the best mom, but I'll bet that when they were threatened with the possibility of having to go live with daddy K-Fed, they turned to desperate measures. All we have to do now is find the hit man with spit-up on his shirt and we have our man!

Update: I was informed by a friend of mine that his turned out to be an exaggerated claim.

San Jose Mercury: Police close K-Fed threat probe

LOS ANGELES—Police investigated a possible threat against Kevin Federline earlier this year, but closed the case because of insufficient evidence, authorities said Monday. The Los Angeles Police Department probed the allegations in June, but later determined there was not enough information to keep the investigation active, LAPD spokeswoman Norma Eisenman said.

"There is no current investigation," Eisenman said.

And Did You Know...

Britney went out without her panties on AGAIN! Right after the VMAs.

Access Hollywood: Britney's Post-VMA Party: No Panties Required!

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (September 10, 2007) – Hours after Sarah Silverman made a joke about Britney Spears’ waxed genitalia on stage at the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards, the singer was caught with out her panties, hitting the strip.

Silverman made a joke about the birth of Spears’ children during her opening VMA monologue saying, “...they are so cute. They are as cute as the hairless vagina they came out of.”

The comedienne’s joke appeared to reference an incident last fall, when following her split with Kevin Federline, Britney ventured out in Los Angeles where photographers caught her without underwear.

The photos, which surfaced today on gossip blogs including Dlisted, were taken last night in Vegas as Spears partied with her brother following her opening set at the VMAs.

*sigh*

That girl. I don't know what it's going to take for me to be just through with her. She's such a mess, but I still want to give her a hug, give her some panties, brush her hair, wipe the cheetohs off her face, sit her down and explain that she needs to act like a big girl now.

And then, I want to show her pictures of Reese Witherspoon and say, "Sweetheart, when you aren't on stage, you need to look and act like her."

THEN, I would demand that she hand over her pocketbook so that I can hire her a publicist, a nanny, and a full-time stylist and I'd explain, "Britney, you are a pop diva. You are not a domestic diva, so leave the child rearing to the professionals. You are also not a fashion oracle, so leave dressing yourself to the professionals. And I hate to say it, but when it comes to public speaking I actually trust George Bush (!!!) to speak extemporaneously more than I trust you. To address this, your publicist and I will handle the press and we will coach you on how to answer the questions. You may not speak to anyone in the press without speaking to us first."

Then, I would lead her over to the big, blue, bouncey ball of doom and say, "Hon, you are not fat, but you are not in the shape you were in when you made us all love you. Sit." And then I would show her all of her old music videos, paying close attention to the midriff baring outfit she was wearing in "Oops! I Did it Again." And then I would say, "Brit-brit, do you know the difference between you there and you here? 1,000 crunches a day and a rigorous dance schedule. We'll start slow. Give me three sets of 25 crunches on the ball. Make it quick, because I've booked you some time in the dance studio with your backup dancers and choreographer."

On the way to the dance studio, I would turn to her and put my hand on her knee and look deep into her brown (or are they blue today?) eyes and say, "I need you to understand something: there is an army of people working behind the scenes. We are Team Britney. Do not EVER insult, demean, or rage at Team Britney, least of all the person who is doing your hair. I don't know what you said to him last time, but after your workout this evening, we're going to dinner with him. Just you, me, him, and the publicist I hired. We're going to a nice restaurant and we have a cute, classy new dress for you and some nice panties. The press will love it and you'll love it even though cheetohs and red bull is nowhere on the menu. But, do you understand? Don't be mean to the help. We're the help because we're here to help. If you have a problem, tell me or tell your publicist. We will fix it."

But that will never happen. I heard a rumor a while back that she was going to have some kind of reality show where she was going to hire an assistant to help her get her career back on track, but obviously that never materialized.

I think Britney is over. She's white trash and she's somehow got it into her mind that she doesn't have to listen to anyone. So, now, everyone can see the mess that should be a completely private matter.

Maybe I can adopt Kylie Minogue instead. Her worst problems involve dressing like a European. A German one.

Kathy Griffin Offends the Almighty, Gets Applause

I'm slow on the uptake on this one, folks, but I have to get it out there.

Yahoo! News: Griffin's Emmy remarks to be censored

LOS ANGELES - Before Kathy Griffin won a creative arts Emmy last weekend for her reality show, "My Life on the D-List," she joked that an award would move her to the C-list.

She was right: "C" as in censored. The TV academy said her raucous acceptance speech will be edited when the event, which was taped, is shown Saturday on the E! channel. The main prime-time Emmy Awards air the next night on Fox.

"Kathy Griffin's offensive remarks will not be part of the E! telecast on Saturday night," the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences said in a statement Monday.

Her exact quote according to Towleroad was:

A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus...Suck it, Jesus. This award is my God now.

Griffin is a self-described militant atheist and she has built her reputation on being offensive and edgy, so these remarks aren't really a surprise.

I disagree with Yahoo!'s use of the word "censored" to describe the actions of private concerns because it calls to mind and confuses the action with that of the government to suppress free speech. Let's do be clear: Kathy Griffin's right to free speech has not been violated. E! and the TV Academy are within their rights to not air her comment.

In response to Miss Griffin's remarks, Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League, has demanded an apology and threatened her with the scarlet letter B for Bigotry if she doesn't comply.

The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences reacted responsibly to our criticism of Kathy Griffin’s verbal assault on 85 percent of the U.S. population. The ball is now in Griffin’s court. The self-described ‘complete militant atheist’ needs to make a swift and unequivocal apology to Christians. If she does, she will get this issue behind her. If she does not, she will be remembered as a foul-mouthed bigot for the rest of her life.

Since the word is bandied about so, I took the liberty of looking up "bigot" to see if it is something I should be worried about.

big·ot (bĭg'ət)
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Sweet baby Jebus' dirty Huggies! I'm a bigot!

I love how Bill Donahue appeals to the mob in his threat. 85% of Americans, huh? What about the other 15%? What about those, like myself, who are offended by his demand for apology? I think he's a bigot!

BILL DONAHUE IS A BIGOT!

I hope Kathy Griffin doesn't apologize to those people.

The simple fact of the matter is that you can't have any beliefs about anything without implying that the opposite belief is wrong and incompatible with [insert your epistemological method of choice here.].

Theism and belief in the supernatural in general is incompatible with reason. Reason and scientific thought in general is incompatible with faith.

Mysticism in general, and Christianity in particular, is an arbitrary assertion for something that has no supporting ever been presented and none can ever be presented. It's patently absurd, regardless of how many people subscribe to them, no one owes them the least bit of respect, admiration, or even silence when the opportunity for a funny joke is presented.

If mysticism weren't so pervasive, I would even say that the only proper way to address those ideas is with derision, mockery, and open, laughing disdain.

So, Jesus-freaks, get over yourselves already. Blasphemy is the new Thanks to the Academy.

ENOUGH ALREADY.

It's been 6 years!

The events of 9/11 were tragic and heart-breaking. I'm glad that no one I know or worked with was killed or injured in the attack, but as New York is a symbol of the greatness of the humanity, it was still painful and sad.

Those who lost family or friends in the attack have every right to feel pain and loss regarding the event. I think it's proper for them to reflect on those events -- when they reflect on them -- with deep sadness.

But I also think those who lost family and friends must go on living their lives. I think it is wholly inappropriate to continue bemoaning the loss on a daily basis. I also think that the city-funded and endorsed memorial services that happen annually are beyond the pale.

This reading of the names of everyone who died... the putting construction on hold (as if it weren't going slowly enough already) ... the numerous moments of silence... the takeover of all the headlines... it's wallowing in the misery and pain!

CNN: 9/11 attack victims honored six years later

NEW YORK (AP) -- Relatives of World Trade Center victims bowed their heads in silence at a small park Tuesday to mark the moment exactly six years earlier when the first hijacked plane struck the towers. The dreary, gray skies created a grim backdrop, and a sharp contrast to the clear blue of that morning in 2001.

Construction equipment now fills the vast city block where the World Trade Center once stood, and work is under way for four new towers, forcing the ceremony to be moved away from the twin towers' footprints for the first time.

Kathleen Mullen, whose niece Kathleen Casey died in the attacks, said the park is close enough.

"Just so long as we continue to do something special every year, so you don't wake up and say, 'Oh, it's 9/11," she said.

I disagree with Miss Mullen. I think we do need to get to a point where we wake up and just say, "Oh, it's 9/11." I do not think it is necessary for all of us -- least of all city officials -- to do something every year. I think it is sick to forbid building on the former Trade Center towers' footprints in favor of a giant tombstone. I also think it is unseemly and morbid that these people conduct their mourning in public like this.

People have to mourn and express their emotions in the way that they see best for their lives, but this demand that the rest of the city, nation, world participate in it is sick and ridiculous. It is as if mourning has become the definition of existence.

Yes, please mourn for your losses. Give due recognition to the values that were destroyed in the terrorist attacks. But go on with life. Don't let loss become the motif of your life. Honor the memory of those who've died by living a life of happiness, success, and prosperity.

And also, let's kill all the terrorists and destroy the countries that harbor and support them.

Is This Because of the Atomic Bombs or Global Warmings?

Reuters: Leech invasion makes residents see red

TOKYO (Reuters) - Long confined to the mountains, Japanese leeches are invading residential areas, causing swelling, itching and general discomfort with their blood-thirsty ways.

That's right. Land leeches.

I think I speak for everyone who has never heard of such a thing before when I say, "What in the name of Athena's bull-testical bedazzled aegis?!?!"

They crawl into your socks and they're just a smidge longer than a half inch and they crawl out six inches long.

Here's my favorite part, though:

The real problem is that the bleeding won't stop and the affected area swells up and really itches.

Oh, yes. That is quite a problem, and it certainly does get one's attention, but I don't know if it really surpasses the importance of the basic fact that herds of land leeches are roving the suburbs of Japan.

The non-stop bleeding is a result of the first and I don't think that if you took the non-stop bleeding away that it would be ok to just let this go on. I don't care what the land leeches are doing, but they really aren't allowed to do it around me unless they are being carefully supervised and I certainly do not want to find out they've been napping in my socks.

Arrested for Tapping Your Foot

Joe.My.God. had a quote from some guy who apparently supports cruising public restrooms for sex who said of the Larry Craig incident, "I keep waiting for the news media to grab on to the fact that this man has been arrested for tapping his foot. When did that become a crime?"

This is kind of my point, except I would also point out that he did more than tap his foot. He touched the man in the next stall and he also made some hand gestures to the guy under the stall wall.

When you add all of these things up, now former senator Craig's behavior is wholly consistent with a person requesting public sex. Further, he was charged with disorderly conduct, not a lewd act or soliciting sex or anything like that.

Newsflash: New York Times Reports the Obvious

I posted this video before:

It's hilarious. It's also an OBVIOUS satire. Of course, I couldn't possibly have known that without the help of the New York Times.

NYT: BET Says Cartoon Was Just a Satire

“It’s meant to be very satirical, and in a real way kind of mimics and mocks the current state of hip-hop and hip-hop videos,” said Denys Cowan, senior vice president of animation for BET. He said the video was not part of any literacy campaign or “Schoolhouse Rock” alternative, but was intended for BET’s demographic of 18- to 34-year-olds.

Opinion online has been divided. Someone who posted the video on YouTube praised its “positive message” and “social satire,” while another anonymous user uploaded it under the title, “BET racist rap?”

I can only shake my head. For those unfamiliar with the form and function of satire, several online resources are available to you. But, why spend your time with ivory tower pursuits like that when there's a perfect solution for stopping world hunger that the global mega-corporations don't want us to know about?

Act now! Read a book!

Much thanks to Mister Bookworm for the NYT link.

Health Care System Woes

Reuters: Fake dentist's 29-year career?

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - Malaysian police have arrested a man who practiced as a dentist for 29 years although he had no medical training and treated patients at his home in a cast-off examining chair.

Now, obviously, given my current financial situation and country of origin, I would not go to a Malaysian house for my dental care. But if I were poor and lived in Kuala Lumpur, I'd probably give it serious consideration. The government really shouldn't be involved in this sort of thing.

The Reuters article doesn't give any indication that he mistreated anyone who entered his care.

The biggest problem I had with what he did is that he misrepresented himself to his patients, which constitutes fraud.

This is Real Life

Reuters: Blind driver caught again

TALLINN (Reuters) - An Estonian man who was caught driving a car even though he is blind has been at it again, police said on Monday, and this time he faces jail.

Police first arrested the man, 20, a week ago.

[...]

"He was drunk. There were three people in the car with him giving him instructions."

Drunk and blind. Driving a car. With three willing passengers shouting directions to him.

It's like Jackass, but with a Cyrillic alphabet.

Doggess, Please

Warning: this post contains offensive language bandied about with relish and a spot of mustard.

I want to open this post with a cartoon that Diana posted the other day:

heh heh heh... 'vagina squirrels' heh heh heh...

Ok. So, anyway.

Nigger.

There. I said it.

Bitch.

What do those two words have in common? Some people in New York want them banned.

With regard to "nigger," the efforts were successful in February when the New York City Council decided to symbolically ban the word.

Granted, the ban is merely symbolic. No one will go to jail or receive citations for having uttered the word. It's a good thing, too, because then I wouldn't be able to rap along with Ludacris' interlude in the Missy Elliot song "Gossip Folks" without the secret police pushing me down in the street and taking my iPod away.

Well, now people are talking about banning the word "bitch." Mister Bookworm sent me this article this morning:

NY Times: It’s a Female Dog, or Worse. Or Endearing. And Illegal?

The term is hateful and deeply sexist, said Councilwoman Darlene Mealy of Brooklyn, who has introduced a measure against the word, saying it creates “a paradigm of shame and indignity” for all women.

But conversations over the last week indicate that the “b-word” (as it is referred to in the legislation) enjoys a surprisingly strong currency — and even some defenders — among many New Yorkers.

And Ms. Mealy admitted that the city’s political ruling class can be guilty of its use. As she circulated her proposal, she said, “even council members are saying that they use it to their wives.”

It's hard to take this sort of proposal seriously what with image of councilmen walking around calling their wives 'bitches' in my head. And how seriously should we take this when the people writing the legislation aren't even mature enough to actually say "bitch" in the legislation.

Which b-word? Bootylicious? Bulemia? B*A*P*S? Badonkadonk? There are so many.

Ten rappers were cited in the legislation, along with an excerpt from an 1811 dictionary that defined the word as “A she dog, or doggess; the most offensive appellation that can be given to an English woman.”

I was planning to start using "doggess" in place of "bitch" anyway.

Can we talk about how few English women there are in New York compared to all the other sorts of women we have?

And I think it is agreed now that "cunt" is the most offensive appellation these days and I said it, too.

You know my position on this. If you mean "nigger," "bitch," "cunt" or whatever, then you should use exactly the word you mean. Don't insult me further by coyly referring to it as "the n-word" or "the b-word."

“They buried the n-word, but what about the other words that really affect women, such as ‘b,’ and ‘ho’? That’s a vile attack on our womanhood,” Ms. Mealy said in a telephone interview. “In listening to my other colleagues, that they say that to their wives or their friends, we have gotten really complacent with it.”

If people are becoming 'complacent' with the word "bitch," then doesn't that indicate that the word does not carry the same weight as it did in the 1400's? Won't enshrining it with this law draw more attention to the word and remind people that it is one of the words to choose from when you really want to insult a bitch? Indeed, others agree:

Robin Lakoff, a Brooklyn-born linguist who teaches at the University of California, Berkeley, said that she despised the word, but that enforcing linguistic change through authority “almost never works,” echoing comments from some New Yorkers who believed a ban would only serve to heighten the word’s power.

This is extremely ridiculous.

If you want people to behave with courtesy and civility, you don't ban words. You have to teach people why civility and courtesy are good and necessary. You also have to acknowledge that the standards of courtesy are at least as variable and changing as the use of certain words.

To stop people from actually using "bitch" to insult people means that you actually have to change their minds about insulting people in that way. You actually have to somehow police their thoughts. You can see where I'm going with this.

Banning words is plainly idiotic. These are your tax dollars at work.

How Not to Sell Stuff

Soooooooo... a certain New York firefighter has an enormous penis and washboard abs.

I know about the abs because the FDNY calendar was released last week. (See? that's him on the cover.) It's full of humpy firefighting menfolk. I kind of think it is un-American that none of you guys offered to buy it for me.

Well, it's too late now.

The news of this young, ripped, sweaty, axe-toting young man's endowment* broke on the global intarwebs because he appears in a 2004 edition of Guys Gone Wild. Apparently, he waves it around or something. I honestly have not seen it, so I do not know.

I do intend to find out as soon as I'm at home, though. These are the internets. We have our ways. (NSFW) Provided I have an internet connection at home when I get there, of course.

Well, because Mister Michael Biserta went waving his wang around in front of a camera, FDNY has announced that they aren't selling any more of these calendars.

I don't get it.

They didn't know that he was in that video. They aren't condoning that behavior; they could even issue a statement saying they don't condone the behavior. But they acknowledge that firefighters are (to $150,000 worth of people) sexual objects by the very fact that they're publishing a calendar of muscley, shirtless men in their firefighting gear.

So, why not issue some statement saying that they don't condone the behavior but will continue to offer the calendars for $15.99 to support FDNY?

Sounds like pretty good, free marketing for this calendar to me.

* This blog is deliberately avoiding references to this man's penis as a "hose." It's been done. It's not that funny. And I think my indignation should earn me at least a half-hearted attempt on the part of Mister Bookworm to acquire a firefighter costume.

In the News

A couple of oddball news reports for your enjoyment:

News.com.au: Sheep baa'd in sex case

A MAN who was accused of having sex with a sheep has walked free because the animal was unable to testify.

[...]

Under Dutch law, bestiality is not a crime unless it can be proved the animal didn't want to have sex.

This is awful, but I would be SO tempted to sheer the sheep's wool into the shape of hooker clothing and then simply explain that she was dressed like she wanted it.

Fox news.com: Woman Had Pencil in Head for 55 Years, Suffered Chronic Headaches

A 59-year-old German woman has had most of a pencil removed from inside her head after suffering nearly her whole life with the headaches and nosebleeds it caused, Bild newspaper reported.

[...]

At the time no one dared operate, but now technology has improved sufficiently for doctors to be able to remove it.

The news story didn't provide any specific clues as to how this sort of thing happened to the lady. The original injury happened when she was just 4 years old.

Sigh

There really isn't anything you can say about something as effed up as this.

Reuters: Man cuts off hand for Hindu goddess offering

KATHMANDU (Reuters) - A 23-year-old Nepali man cut off his right hand after morning prayers and offered it to Kali, the Hindu goddess of power, the Annapurna Post local daily said on Wednesday.

Animal Cruelty in Ethics and Politics

Unless you're the sort that doesn't watch the news or sticks your fingers in your ears and screams while the sports segment is on, you know that Michael Vick, Quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, is being charged with a couple of felonies associated with his alleged involvement with a dog fighting right.

New York Times: Vick Faces Day in Court on Dogfighting Charges

Michael Vick, the starting quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, is due in court in Richmond, Va., later today to respond to charges that he was involved in a dog fighting conspiracy on property he owns in rural Surry County.

I've killed animals before. I eat animals almost all the time. I wear animals and I support their continued slaughter for my benefit and comfort.

I ALSO support the keeping of animals for my entertainment and comfort. Animals like puppies and kittens and maybe a fish.

When I am able to inflict death on a spider, I am greatly pleased because those things skeev me out.

So, let's talk about killing, torturing, and abusing animals just for sport. This includes dog and cock fighting as well as having sex with whatever species of animal ewe prefer.

In politics, my position on this matter won't come as a surprise to my regular readers. If you own the animal or animals in question, you should be permitted to do with them as you please in the eyes of the law.

Animals do not have rights because they do not have the same sort of volitional, rational consciousness as human beings and as such can be granted no other consideration under the law above that of any other property.

Legally, you should be allowed to kill, torture, or molest your animals as you see fit.

If you're so inclined, you should be permitted to enter your dog into fights with other dogs, so long as the owner of those dogs agrees to the match as well. Naturally, you accept the risks associated with such an activity and would have little standing in the eyes of the law should you sue for damages to your property (dog) in the event that you lose the match.

That's politics.

In ethics, however, the wanton, pointless destruction of animals may be regarded as foolish, barbaric, and wrong. (Of course, it depends on the situation.)

I will go a step further: the wanton, pointless destruction of anything may be regarded as foolish, barbaric, and wrong.

I would equate killing your own cat for no other reason than to watch it die with throwing paint all over your furniture. It's totally your business because it's your cat, your paint, and your furniture, but I have very real doubts that such actions could be undertaken to achieve or maintain any rational values in your life.

Basically, my question would be: What good does it do?

The actions you undertake in life ought to be done to the end of improving and maintaining your life as a human being. You work to produce wealth so you can afford things you need for survival and comforts that will make your survival enjoyable and fulfilling. You take vacations so that you can rest, break out of your routine and experience a broader perspective on the world.

But destruction for the sake of destruction can't possibly produce anything that could be rationally defended as happiness.

I suppose if you weren't quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, you might find yourself in a position where dog fighting is a means of acquiring wealth on which you could survive, although I would expect a rational person to abandon that occupation as soon as is feasible just because it is more satisfying for the rational individual to do something productive and not merely destructive.

Some might argue that watching dogs or chickens fight is entertaining. I fail to see the amusement there. I've seen dogs fighting and it's horrible. An attempt to defend dog fighting as a wholesome, life-affirming way of entertaining one's self would be patently absurd. The whole notion flies in the face of the meaning of the word "life-affirming."

Basically, I stand here in moral condemnation of dog fighting, animal torture, and the senseless destruction of any property for mere amusement.

"Private property will respected" Hugo Chavez, July 2007

If you've spent much time reading my blog, you know that I hate Hugo Chavez more than most of the other yahoos in the current cast of dictators and tyrants.

Maybe it's because I had a horrible Spanish teacher on semester in college from Venezuela, but I'm pretty sure that it's actually because it's a jackass.

Well, thanks to Cox & Forkum, I know that he's doing more things to piss me off.

*sigh*

Seriously, someone, Pat Buchanan, anyone, go shoot that man in the face.

And speaking of Cox & Forkum, why doncha go buy their books?

Black & White World I

Black & White World II

Black & White World III

J'reve les Yeux Ouverts

Mister Bookworm offers the following calling it his "half-hearted penance for distracting [me] from [my] book all weekend":

Scotsman.com: Rowling poised to work her magic on classic tale of underworld hero

JK ROWLING'S next major project is set to feature a charismatic hero who uses magic powers to overcome diabolical and grotesque adversaries.

Yet the next chapter of the author's literary career is expected to focus on Orpheus rather than Harry Potter.

Edinburgh-based publishing firm Canongate has offered Rowling the chance to retell the adventures of the legendary Greek hero, who is best known for attempting to rescue his wife Eurydice from the underworld.

Rowling has already expressed an interest in covering the classics after her studies in Greek and Roman mythology at Exeter University in the 1980s, and now Canongate has invited her to become its latest celebrity writer to contribute to its best-selling Myths series.

...

Penning a book based on the classics might bring critical acclaim for Rowling, but the fee, which normally doesn't reach much higher than a five-figure sum for such works, would be a barely noticeable addition to her estimated £545m fortune.

A host of characters in the Harry Potter series - from Chiron the centaur to Fluffy the monstrous three-headed dog - were directly inspired by Rowling's love of ancient mythology.

A literary insider said: "She has expressed an interest in updating the story of Orpheus and Eurydice, but the whole thing is being kept under wraps so not to overshadow the launch of the final Harry Potter book."

It is understood that the invitation was made personally to Rowling by Canongate owner Jamie Byng. The publisher launched the acclaimed Myths series in 2005.

Mister Bookworm can't fool me. I know that he is completely and utterly unrepentant. Adding to the litany of sins and deviant behavior, this article only tempts me with more books to read.

An entire series of modernized myths? Sounds like fun!

But he knows that I am not supposed to add books to my book list (he's added four books to my pile already) until I reduce the size of the pile significantly.

Yes, this one is quite wicked and will have to be punished.

Rumors of my Death Are Greatly Exaggerated

CNN: Air clean, dust still a concern after New York steam pipe burst

NEW YORK (CNN) -- No asbestos was detected in the air Thursday after a steam pipe burst in Midtown in Manhattan the day before, killing one person and wounding 26 others as the ruptured pipe sent thick plumes of smoke and ash into the air.

[...]

The New York Fire Department said three firefighters and one police officer were treated on scene for minor injuries. The other 22 injured were transported to various hospitals, a fire department spokesman said.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the person who died suffered from cardiac arrest.

The New York Fire Department said it received a call reporting an explosion at 5:56 p.m. More than 170 firefighters were dispatched to the site at Lexington Avenue near 41st Street.

Hundreds of people fled as dozens of police, fire and utility workers arrived. Officials said the explosion was not related to terrorism.

I was in Chinatown last night when all of this went down. The Bookworm and I were shopping for cologne and shoes as I mentioned yesterday. We stopped in the H&M down on Broadway & Spring to look at clothes. I wound up getting some socks and undies there.

Anyway, the clerk at H&M informed us that there was a bomb in the Times Square subway station and all the subways on the east side were shut down.

This greatly vexed me because 1) I don't like bombs and 2) I need those trains to get home.

So, Mister Bookworm and I went back down through Chinatown to sup at this vegetarian dim sum place he had heard of. (He's veggie. I don't know if I've mentioned that.)

Thinking that train service would be improved, we went to try to N/R/W uptown, but when we got to the station, there was a train there but it was out of service, so we walked further west and got on a 1 train to Times Square.

After he and I parted ways, I went to the N/Q/R/W tracks and found that service was restored and I made it home safe and sound.

I found out later that it wasn't a bomb, but a ruptured steam pipe that caused the explosion.

Today, I'm wearing my new shoes, socks, cologne and underwear and I have one complaint: these underwear from H&M, while quite comfortable, have a long tag right in the back which dangles down the cleft between my buttocks. It is a MOST disconcerting sensation so I went to the bathroom just now to cut it out. Sweet relief.

Right Said Fred News

Reuters: "Too sexy for my bus," woman told

BERLIN (Reuters) - A German bus driver threatened to throw a 20-year-old sales clerk off his bus in the southern town of Lindau because he said she was too sexy, a newspaper reported Monday.

"Suddenly he stopped the bus," the woman named Debora C. told Bild newspaper. "He opened the door and shouted at me 'Your cleavage is distracting me every time I look into my mirror and I can't concentrate on the traffic. If you don't sit somewhere else, I'm going to have to throw you off the bus.'"

The woman, pictured in Bild wearing her snug-fitting summer clothes with the plunging neckline, said she moved to another seat but was humiliated by the bus driver.

A spokesman for the bus company defended the driver.

"The bus driver is allowed to do that and he did the right thing," the spokesman said. "A bus driver cannot be distracted because it's a danger to the safety of all the passengers."

These are the days of our lives.

Feminist Cows

Reuters: Women demand female Pamplona bull run, with cows

MADRID (Reuters) - Women in the northern Spanish city of Pamplona, world-famous for its ferocious bull-running festival, are demanding their own version complete with cows instead of bulls.

A student website, www.estudiln.net, set the ball rolling with its campaign "Cows want to run" which asks for a separate encierro, as the bull-runs are known, where only women are allowed to take part.

Women have been allowed to take part in the San Fermin bull-running for some years but they still represent a tiny minority of the thousands of runners who attempt to dodge 600-kilo bulls along an 800-metre course through the streets of Pamplona.

The students say it's only logical that women should have their own bull-run.

Why should there be another, separate run when women are perfectly welcome in the one that exists?

My understanding is that the bulls are run to the arena where the bull fighting happens and they are slaughtered. They don't run cows because the cows aren't involved in the bull fighting.

As usual, this goal of sexual equality reveals itself to be ridiculous and superfluous.

More Unhealthy Relationships

Reuters: Blinded by love, man stabbed in eye by girlfriend

HONG KONG (Reuters) - A Hong Kong woman who blinded her boyfriend in one eye in a fight six years ago has been jailed for jabbing a chopstick into his other eye, a newspaper reported on Wednesday.

Last November, Po Shiu-fong, 58, accused long-time boyfriend Kwok Wai-ming, 49, of having an affair, the South China Morning Post reported.

During the row, Po stabbed a plastic chopstick into his left eye, which she had already blinded six years ago when she poked it with her finger.

"Po became hysterical when she saw the wound and mopped it with a towel. The pair then went to bed," the paper said.

"The next morning they had another argument in which she grabbed a chopstick and stabbed Kwok's right eye," it said.

[...]

"If I forgive her, God would not forgive me," the paper quoted Kwok as saying. "No matter what, nothing could compensate for the loss of my eye."

My favorite part is that he won't forgive her.

I hate when people do horrible things and then their victims are like, "Oh I forgive them." That is a hideous betrayal of justice.

If someone jabs out your eyes, you don't forgive them. You call the police to have them restrain you from jabbing their eyes out in return. Smite! Smite! Smite!

The News is Fit to Print, But We Can't Write It

AL.com: Girl, 11, faces DUI charge after chase

Orange Beach police arrested an 11-year-old girl Tuesday night and charged her with driving under the influence of alcohol after a high-speed chase that ended when the child flipped the Chevrolet Monte Carlo she was driving.

[...]

According to Duck: The Monte Carlo exceeded speeds of 100 mph in the ensuing chase, which flew west along the beach highway through Orange Beach, past Gulf State Park and into Gulf Shores -- a distance of about 8 miles. The Monte Carlo eventually sideswiped another vehicle and then flipped over near the easternmost condo towers of Gulf Shores.

[...]

While the legal blood-alcohol content for adults is .08 grams per 100 milliliters of blood, the limit for anyone under 21 is .02. Without disclosing her blood-alcohol content, Duck said the 11-year-old had enough alcohol in her system that she could have been charged with DUI even if she had been an adult.

Though the child's weight is undisclosed, a 140-pound adult would generally have to drink four beers in one hour to achieve a blood-alcohol level of .08.

Finding an adequately written article for this story that I originally heard on CNN Headline News this morning was a pain! I'm so frustrated with how poorly written these news stories are that I can't even comment on this insane story.

I will say this: my favorite part of the story is that on CNN they reported that the girl said that she was on her way to pick up her sister.

Say whaaaaaaat?

In trying to find this article to cite for you guys, I came across this report of the incident on WKRG.com: Drunk Driver In High Speed Chase Only 11-Years Old. I couldn't use it because the article is such a poorly written news story. Seriously, what kind of lead is that? Why are the details buried in all this needless narrative?

On CNN Headline News this morning, they gave all of the relevant details in about three sentences. Of course, I couldn't find the story on CNN.com.

Who is teaching people who to write the news these days? Come on, people! Does the AP have to do everything for you?

Update: Reader Netbuzz brought this to my attention. It's kind of tragically hilarious.

China: Where Image is Everything

Guardian Unlimited: China: Media Is Hyping Safety Issues

BEIJING (AP) - China warned the media Tuesday against exaggerating its food safety problems and stirring consumer panic, even as officials announced dozens of snacks for children had failed standards and more fake blood protein was found in hospitals.

China's dismal product safety record - both within and outside its borders - has increasingly come under the spotlight as its goods make their way through global markets. Major buyers such as the United States, Japan, and the European Union have pushed Beijing to improve inspections.

``I think it would be better if the media would stop playing up this issue,'' Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said at a regular news briefing. He warned the widespread media coverage would ``lead to panic among consumers.''

[...]

Fears that China's chronic food safety problems were going global surfaced earlier this year with the deaths of dogs and cats in North America blamed on Chinese wheat gluten tainted with the chemical melamine.

U.S. authorities have also turned away or recalled toxic fish, juice containing unsafe color additives and popular toy trains decorated with lead paint. Chinese-made toothpaste has been banned by numerous countries for containing diethylene glycol, a toxic ingredient often found in antifreeze.

Qin acknowledged there are ``some illegal and unscrupulous retailers'' and also attributed the problems to differences between China's monitoring systems and those of other countries.

I heard about this story on CNN Headline News this morning and I was struck again by China's preoccupation with their image, but of course they couch it in terms as if they are concerned about "panic" among the public.

Riddle me this: Who cares if the public panics and stops buying products made in China?

Do you think it's the public? No. Do you think it's the government of any relatively free countries? No.

It's a China!

If you read the rest of the article, they cite NUMEROUS examples of how products made in China fail minimum standards for health and safety. And we're not talking about band aids that are just a little too sticky. We're talking about toothpaste that contains poison and bad blood plasma. We're talking about acts of criminal negligence and fraud.

Consumers have a right to know about these things and should be left to manage their panic on their own.

The other part of this story that strikes me as odd is the use of the term "warned." "China warned the media"

Warned them about what? What will happen if they don't listen?

Typical of The People's Republic of China to threaten the media for reporting on the very real threat their products present to consumers. Lest we forget: China is a communist state, a tyranny. They maintain their power only by violence and fraud and millions are suffering the consequences.

Freedom-minded companies should not do business with Chinese companies or the Chinese government.

Cameron Diaz: Inconsistently Selfish

I don't like Cameraon Diaz. I first became aware of her existence with the movie My Best Friend's Wedding in which she appeared to me as a whining, sniffling, lowly sort of woman, the sort of creature unworthy of the romantic attentions of any self-respecting human being.

Some people disagree with me on that, but I really hated her character in that movie and ever since I've found it hard not to see her in that light.

It's either that light or the one in which her bangs are held upright by dried semen. Take your pick.

well, she was on the internet today and she is quoted as making a remark that really bought her a lot of points in my book. I'm actually a little impressed at this very small display of a backbone.

24dash.com: 'Selfish' Cameron Diaz refuses to give up car to save planet

Cameron is quoted in new book 'The Green Book - The Everyday Guide to Saving the Planet One Simple Step at a Time' as saying: "I don't want to be running around barefoot, pushing my car like Barney Rubble. I don't want to go back to the Stone Age. I just want to maintain what we have for a long period of time - forever. How nice would that be? I'm very selfish."

Of course, I agree with most of what she said there except I don't want to maintain. I want to progress. Get me a nuclear-powered flying car, dammit!

The article points out that she was called out earlier last month for carrying a purse with the political slogan of a tyrant written on it.

"Last month, the actress came under fire for carrying a bag bearing the political slogan of Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong in Peru."

So, she's not consistently of the right mind of things, but for what it's worth, I still have to applaud her environmental selfishness there.

Unhealthy Relationship

Reuters: Woman returns to husband who took her hostage

RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters) - A Brazilian woman whose estranged husband held her hostage at gunpoint on a bus for 10 hours along with dozens of passengers last year has decided to reunite with him.

"I forgave him out of love ... I believe it was an irrational act and that we can resume our life in peace," Brazil's Globo news agency quoted Cristina Ribeiro, 35, as saying on Monday, eight months after the nationally televised hostage drama.

That is totally grounds for break up in my book.

WANT

Thx icanhascheezburger!

iPhone stuff:

- One of my coworkers played with it in the store this weekend and loved it.

- Sales over the weekend are estimated to have broken 500K units. Impressive! Apple "has set a goal of selling 10 million iPhones by the end of 2008, and analysts are generally looking for it to sell about 3 million units this year."

- A friend of mine said that a friend of his played with it and found the means of dialing fussy. I don't know what he's talking bout. The demo made it look rockin' and I haven't heard that from anyone else.

- HNN reported this morning that some users reporting problems getting their accounts activated.

- Another friend played with it and said it's pretty cool but he's waiting for the second generation because the data speed was slow (Edge network) and the hassle of having to zoom in on a page every time he clicked bothered him.

- Rumors abound that the second generation will be out in Q42007.

- In California, most stores sold out, but here in NY, NJ, and CN, only one store actually sold out of the weekend. Is that a portent of doom?

- I might have to drop in to play with one some time, but here's my question for you: Did any of my wonderful readers take one for a spin this weekend? If so, what did you think? Did any of you actually buy one? How is it?

I'd love to hear what you think so far.

Update: WOOHOO!!! Diana went and bought herself an iPhone! Please give us a review, Diana!

Repression and Education

Everything that I've heard about attitudes toward sex in India tell me that a significant part of the population is quite repressed when it comes to sex and romance. So, it really surprised me when I read this article.

Reuters: India looking for "Mr Condom"

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India, struggling to promote greater condom use among its population, is looking to hire its own "condom man" to follow the example of a former Thai cabinet minister who successfully pushed for safer sex, the Times of India reported.

[...]

"He has to feel passionately about the cause as Mechai does ... have a dynamic personality to change both government policy and public perceptions about HIV/AIDS, sex and condoms," [National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) chief Sujatha Rao] said.

India is the home of people who protested Richard Gere's affectionate, but closed mouth kisses, with Shilpa Shetty not long ago. Male-female contact in public is regarded generally as impolite and inappropriate at the very best.

Periodically, India makes the news because of the "hundreds, if not thousands" of honor killings each year. An honor killing is where a woman's relatives may kill her to preserve family honor in the event that it is suspected that she has had sex outside of marriage or committed some other "sin" related to sex.

Homosexuality is illegal in India and some see that as "not likely to change in the near future because the society is based on religious traditions where procreation is an obligation for the performance of various religious rituals." Violence against gays is said by some to be relatively common in certain areas and even condoned by law enforcement officials.

But now they're going to have a man who is going to campaign "passionately" for the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS?

Methinks this is an uphill battle for Mr. Condom.

Not Art

I was reading about Greg Packer this morning and I happened across this line in this CNS article:

When told of the lengths Packer has gone to to be at major events and meet celebrities, Robert Thompson, a Syracuse University professor of pop culture, said Packer has turned a passion into an art form.

"If you're totally obsessed with Shakespeare and James Joyce and go to the ends of the earth researching them, we call you an English professor," Thompson said. "This guy has chosen his body of art to consume, it just so happens he can't make a living off of it. The only fundamental difference is he doesn't have tenure."

Greg Packer is the first guy in line to buy an iPhone this morning.

But listen to me: English Professors are not artists by virtue of their obsession with a writer. If you write fiction, then you may be an artist, but simply being a professor doesn't.

I get tired of this cliche, the one that refers to every parsimonious solution or tenacious effort as art. It's not art.

And there is a deeper fundamental difference than tenure between a professor and the guy who waits in lines for things.

I hope that guy was joking when he uttered those things.

Don't Be a Retard

Reuters: Court acquits teacher in "retard" case

PALERMO, Italy (Reuters) - A teacher who forced a pupil to write "I am a retard" 100 times was acquitted by an Italian court on Wednesday of abuse charges.

Reuters, Reuters, Reuters.

That lead and that headline are a leeeetle bit misleading. Way down at the end of the story they clarify:

In Italian, she made the boy write: "Io sono deficiente," which literally means "deficient" but is more commonly used as a disparaging term meaning "moron" or "mentally retarded.

Apparently, she issued this punishment after the deficiente harassed another boy and called the other boy a froscio. So, gay rights people actually sided with this teacher and called for the acquittal.

I think there are more effective ways to punish children than what was done here and I'm really perplexed as to why anyone would support such foolishness. This is one of the reasons I'm not very active in the gay "community." I refuse to agree with people on issues just because they like the same kind of sex I like.

Happy Solstice!

It's the longest day of the year in the northern hemisphere! The point at which the north pole is tilted the further toward the sun occurs today at 2:06 EDT.

It's all down here from here... until December, anyway.

Gossip

Buddhista sent me a link to this Variety article on PerezHilton.com.

Variety: Perez Hilton blog having problems

In what may be the first hit against bloggerazzi star Perez Hilton's empire, his main webhost has dropped Perezhilton.com.

After numerous warnings against Hilton's (aka Mario Lavandeira) use of copyrighted celebrity images, the Oz-based Crucial Paradigm took the site off line; it was dark for a number of hours before it returned to the Internet with a different host.

Hilton is currently named in four lawsuits involving eight photo agencies for his alleged theft of photographs that appear on his site, one that's been a popular gossip destination for some 2½ years. Hilton frequently adds his own captions to the shots.

[...]

Hilton, who has contended that his actions fall under the fair use provision of the Copyright Act, did not respond to Daily Variety.

As I told Buddhista, I predict that Mr. Lavandeira is going to lose this suit. She and I agree that he SHOULD lose the suit.

From the U.S. Copyright Office:

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I wrote back to Buddhista with my take on the law behind this.

On the first rule,he loses because his site does generate commercial revenue through advertising and there's no way that his site could be considered non-profit.

His defense might claim that his site is for personal use, but the copyright law restricts that as well and that argument doesn’t exactly apply to the internet which is more comparable to a broadcast transmission.

For the second and third rules, I think he loses because he is reproducing the photos in whole and his scribbled captions do not constitute any significant modification of the material in a way that could be construed as artistic, scholarly, or anything else that might even remotely excuse the reproduction.

Finally, his site is effectively a tabloid, which places it in direct competition with the market to which companies like X17 sell their photos. By reproducing the photos, he is eroding the market value because the print or commercial online tabloids will protest paying higher prices due to the competition presented by perezhilton.com.

Frankly, I’m surprised that he’s been allowed to persist for two and a half years.

Buddhist put it more simply:

I think he should lose. He is making money directly off of other people’s work. That is robbery.

Perez does usually have the latest celebrity gossip, but he is a bit to snarky and dark for my tastes, so I never read his site. I much prefer Pink is the New Blog.

Trent Venagas who runs "Pink" always gives photo credits and immediately removes any images upon request from the photo owner. (Of course, he really ought to get permission BEFORE using them.) But Trent is much nicer than Mario and I like that.

P.S. Suri Holmes Cruise is a demon. No baby is supposed to be that cute.

NO TOUCHING!

Reader GyroJim sent me this article this morning:

MSN: School penalizes students for hugs, high-fives

VIENNA, Va. - A rule against physical contact at a Fairfax County middle school is so strict that students can be sent to the principal's office for hugging, holding hands or even high-fiving.

[...]

But at a school of 1,100 students that was meant to accommodate 850, school officials think some touching can turn into a big deal. They've seen pokes lead to fights, gang signs in the form of handshakes or girls who are uncomfortable being hugged but embarrassed to say anything.

How does any rational person agree with this policy? Let's talk about the reasons they give for instituting this draconian policy.

Pokes that lead to fights.
Fighting is against the rules. Touching anyone who doesn't wish to be touched is against the rules.

If someone pokes you and you don't like it, you say, "Excuse me, please don't poke me like that. It makes me uncomfortable." Or you find some other way to tell them not to do it. If they do it again, you alert the authorities because they persist in assaulting you.

You do not start a fight about it.

It doesn't follow that because neither the pokers or the pokees can conduct themselves as civilized people that policies should be made to stop friendly, welcome/accepted, consensual... um... poking.

Gang signs in the form of handshakes
So? I understand that they want to dissuade children from joining gangs and prevent their proliferation, but I am certain that the cornerstone of the gang-mentality is not handshaking or even the gang signs themselves.

Outlawing touching to prevent gangs is like installing a window to keep out the sun.

Girls who are uncomfortable being hugged but embarrassed to say anything
These ladies need to grow up.

Unfortunately, what this shows isn't that some people are fools, because that isn't a revelation. Instead, this is yet another reason why public schools do not work and should be dissolved.

Keep the government out of education!

Mamas, Don't Cut Your Babies

CNN Headline news reported this morning that according to a recent survey by National Health and Social Life that only 57% of the male children born in 2004 underwent circumcision. This is down from 90% in the early 1960's.

Good.

Circumcision is a completely superfluous procedure and amounts to nothing more than male genital mutilation. Foreskin is not a health risk. It is not any more dirty. And aesthetically, foreskin has been included in marble sculptures for millenia.

The foreskin contains a lot of nerve endings that make the sexual experience more pleasant. You wouldn't have your daughter's clitoris or labia removed, so why are you cutting off your son's foreskin?

The foreskin also serves as protection and a lubricating membrane for the penis as well.

Anyway, I'm against circumcision and I'm glad to hear that fewer parents are choosing to mangle their baby boys like that.

Update: Here's the CNN article on the same report:

CNN: Fewer baby boys being circumcised in the U.S.

According to a study by the National Health and Social Life Survey, the U.S. circumcision rate peaked at nearly 90 percent in the early 1960s but began dropping in the '70s. By 2004, the most recent year for which government figures are available, about 57 percent of all male newborns delivered in hospitals were circumcised. In some states, the rate is well below 50 percent.

Experts say immigration patterns play the biggest role in the decline, which is steepest in Western states with big populations from Asian and Latin American countries where circumcision is uncommon. The trend has also accompanied a change in Americans' attitudes toward medicine and their bodies.

"The rates of drug-free labor and breast-feeding all rose during the 1980s, while the initial declines in male circumcision rates began during the 1980s as well," said Katharine Barrett, an anthropology lecturer at Stanford University. "It may have been part and parcel of the wider effort to reclaim bodies -- adult female and infant male -- from unnecessary and potentially harmful medical interventions."

The article has some interesting statistics and discusses some of the very dubious claims about the benefits of circumcision.

Though I was circumsized (my mother has since apologized.) I remain staunchly opposed to the procedure, but I'd like to highlight one more aspect of the circumcision tradition:

Ruth Katz, 38, of San Francisco had both her sons circumcised at brises. She and her husband, Michael Rapaport, were astonished when the teacher in their birthing class described circumcision as "immoral" and "not consensual."

"The edict to have your son circumcised was the first covenant with God -- the first challenge to being Jewish," said Katz, pursuing a master's degree in business administration. "I am a progressive person and think a lot about human rights issues, but I have never questioned this

So, there you go. God said so. All the more reason not to do it.

Point of fact: it is a violation of the child's right to his own person and is, therefore, immoral.

I understand that the unfortunate decision is often made in ignorance. Many people are taught that having a foreskin is bad or something, and in the chaotic, emotional period immediately following the birth, people don't have time to weigh all the options and information. And, understandably, when preparing for the birth of a child, foreskin is not at the front of one's considerations.

So, I'm not upset or angry with my mother for making the decision she made and what's done is done. But these people who walk into the situation informed, but decide to do it because God told them to are not so easily excused.

Circumcision is a sin.

More Good News

Reuters: "Robin Hood" banker sent to prison

BERLIN (Reuters) - A German banker who stole money from rich clients to help poor ones has been sentenced to two years and 10 months in prison, a court said Thursday. The 45-year-old, dubbed by German media as a modern day Robin Hood, diverted 2.1 million euros ($2.79 million) to clients he felt were needy while holding a senior position at a savings bank in the southern region of Tauberfranken.

Good. I'm glad that fool is going to jail.

Stealing is evil and wrong. Being poor is not.

Who Do I Have to Set on Fire?

So, the mosselmen are burning things down because some Danish newspaper published some cartoons.

I didn't know we were allowed to do that, so my question now is, what do we need to destroy to get Ed, Edd, and Eddie and Camp Lazlo off the air? Because I am offended by those cartoons.

Happy Day!

Super-gorgeous, the spy who could turn me, Jennifer Garner has finally given birth to a bouncing baby girl.

It's about time. I was really getting scared for her. It's been like a year and a half that she's been hauling that thing around.

Jennifer, if you're reading, you're beautiful; I love you. Congratulations! (Call me!)

P.S. I was not reading e!Online. All of my celebrity gossip sites are completely disreputable. I would not be caught dead reading MSM gossip. At least not reading it before the rest.

Update: Rumor has it that the child's name is "Violet Ann Affleck" and not "Estrella Bucks Garner" as I had requested.

You Ask and I Answer

Reader Liberal Fury writes in response to my post "Republicans Make Me Sick":

Why in the hell would you vote for that illiterate s.o.b.? Honestly! You seem to be a person of relatively high intelligence. Why lower yourself like that? And why help screw the rest of the country?

If you think I'm intelligent, why do you assume that I'd make a decision with the intention of lowering myself and screwing the rest of the country?

Also, Bush isn't illiterate. He has written his name on several bad laws in this two terms so far, so I know he is at least functionally literate.

All kidding aside, the reason I voted for Bush is because I assessed him to be the lesser of the two evils.

If we follow the logical path of either of the major parties, we end in some form of totalitarianism, so I wouldn't even attempt to say that I think either are headed in the right direction. However, I think either could be headed in the right direction.

The reason I chose Bush is because I think it's more likely that the Conservatives will get more liberal in their social policies than it is that the Liberals will get more conservative in their economic policies. For some reason, it's easier to pursuade people to make "feel good" decisions than it is to make rational ones.

A "feel good" decision that the Republicans could make would be to allow gays into the military. The arguments against it are silly on their face and the arguments for it tend to go like, "But gays have a right to serve their country" or some such. Few people are pursuaded by the sound arguments for allowing gays into the military like "gays can shoot people just as well as straights." So, people are usually pursuaded to allow gays into the military because they don't want to be seen as harsh, uncaring, or judgmental.

Slowly, I think the Republicans will come around to the right policies. They may get there by the right or the wrong reasons and I think the wrong reasons tend to serve rhetoricians better in most cases.

The Democrats, however, are very unlikely to change economic policies because the "feel good" reasons argue against it. What on earth feels good about free market economics? Nothing. It means people have to either sink or swim. But every rational reason in the world supports free markets, but none of the feel good reasons do. So, the Democrats are that much less likely to turn from the error of their ways.

So, why did I vote for Bush over Kerry when I think they're both morons? Because even though I think either moron can make the right decision for the right reasons, it's more likely that they will make right and wrong decisions for the wrong reasons and given that Kerry uses the wrong reasons against right decisions and Bush uses the wrong reasons for the right decisions, I chose Bush.

I do not agree with Bush's wrong decisions or his wrong reasons for right decisions. I don't think it is helpful that any decisions are made for the wrong reasons. I think both candidates are wrong, wrong, wrong. But given that I had to choose, I chose the one most likely to make the right decisions but for wrong reasons.

An interesting turn of events in the form of the national budget shows why you can't count on either party BECAUSE they both use the wrong reasons to make decisions. Just as the Democrats are pursuaded against free markets because it feels good, so are the Republicans. This doesn't show that voting for Bush was bad any more than if Kerry had been elected and made mistakes that it would have shown that it was a bad decision to vote for Kerry. What it does show is that Bush is making bad decisions and probably for the wrong reasons. We knew THAT going into the discussion, though. It was bound to happen.

The other reason I voted for Bush is because Democrats often make me throw up in my mouth.

So, that's why.

Now, don't come on my website and insult me again or I will ban you. I'm not even kidding.

I Do Not Have HIV

As a sexually-active adult, I get tested for HIV every 6 - 12 months. (It does make me wonder how active one has to be to be called 'sexually-active,' but to quote Lauryn Hill, "If you did it once then you'll prolly do it again.")

And then I called my ex to let him know that I am, once again, affirmed as a person without HIV.

I'm only sharing all of this because I read this cool article about a new medicine they invented for HIV in Japan.

KOBE, Japan, July 6 (UPI) -- Japanese researchers have developed a durable new drug that blocks HIV from entering human cells and causes almost no side effects.

[...]

The researchers conducted clinical tests on 40 AIDS patients in the United States. When the patients took 0.02 ounces of AK602 twice a day for 10 days, the number of HIV viruses dropped to an average of 1 percent.

Almost no side effects were reported, the professor said.

Nice.

The next step in evolution is ours to take.

To Those Supporting the Ban on Gay Marriage Among Other Things

If you'll permit me a small appeal to authority, I came across the following quotes out on the web this evening:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others." -- Thomas Jefferson

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -- Thomas Jefferson, February 10, 1814

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" -- John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." -- Ben Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanac, 1758

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." -- Treaty of Tripoli, 1796

What if Government Fails?

As my regular readers well know, I support no form of taxation. All government funding and support should come by way of voluntary donation and pay-per-use fees.

Challengers to my position always respond to this suggestion by saying that our government would not survive if we left it to the dilligence of the citizenry. I really think they're being overly-cynical, if for no other reason than such an arrangment would require each person to be actively involved in the defense of the rights of all. But a quick trip to Wal-mart reminds me that many of our fellow citizens are not fit enough to survive urban living. (Clarification: they aren't surviving it. Many, if not most, are quickly dying as a result of excesses made possible by modern conveniences.)

But my question to those challengers is: So what?

If my system were set into motion and then it failed, what difference would it make? The topic of discussion would be the failure of a state that its own citizens REFUSED to support.

I passed a beggar, not a homeless person, but a beggar, on my way to pick up dinner. It is a stretch for me to think of anything I see on a regular basis that compares to the disgrace of begging for money on the street. Here we have people who make their living that way. Others merely supplement their income with the proceeds of their panhandling.

So, consider the person who will not work to support himself. What do you think of them? Do you think they deserve pity? Compassion? Does your heart go out to the person who, for no reason other than true laziness, does not support himself?

I feel disgust and revulsion at those people and that’s the same thing that I feel for those people who would (and do) refuse to take an active role in defending their individual rights.

The same would be my feeling toward the citizens who had a state governed by a system of completely rational political philosophy and let it fail. They would be people who enjoyed perfect freedom and the general welfare that freedom provides, but forsook it for reasons inexplicable.

But the failure of such a state does not defile the virtues or refute the arguments that would have brought it into existence in the first place. No more than the existence of beggars illustrates the futility of those who work for a living.

"The evaluation of an action as 'practical', Dr. Ferris, depends on what it is that one wishes to practice."

Atlas Shrugged

Given that freedom is what I want to practice, I can only conclude that those who say that taxation is the only 'practical' solution to government funding wish to practice slavery. I am sure they hope they're the masters in the arrangement, but which is worse, morally speaking, the parasite or the willing host? The killer or the voluntary victim? The slaver or the slave who demands heavier shackles?

The options open to us aren't between slaver and slave, though. We can all be free. Why try to choose the lesser of evils when you can choose good?

I Keep Forgetting that I Live in a Land of Puritanical Hypocrites

I don't have cable television. I only use my TV to watch movies from Netflix these days, so I don't really get to see all the "hot and steamy" things that FCC chair Michael Powell recently referenced as quoted in this CNN.com article:

The opening, which has generated complaints to ABC and the FCC, featured actress Nicollette Sheridan in the locker room, supposedly dressed only in a white towel. She drops the towel and jumps into the arms of Philadelphia Eagles star Terrell Owens. Sheridan was shown only from behind and above the waist after dropping the towel.

Apparently, some people complained about this.

They complained about seeing less creamy, female skin than they've seen on Rose McGowan and even John Kerry's eldest daughter. They complained, because they saw her back.

There are two things that really irritate me about this whole deal: 1) the FCC's charter to regulate broadcasts to ensure that they do not cross the bounds of decency. (Where are those things anyway?) and 2) that ABC apologized.

On the first item, I really shouldn't have to go on at any length at all about how it is not a legitimate function of government to safeguard our decency. The government is not here to make sure we're all 'good' people. The government is here to make sure that you're only bad on me when I give you permission to do so and at no other time.

This quotation from Powell is very telling, however:

"It would seem to me that while we get a lot of broadcasting companies complaining about indecency enforcement, they seem to be continuing to be willing to keep the issue at the forefront, keep it hot and steamy in order to get financial gains and the free advertising it provides," Powell said during an interview on CNBC.

In essence, he is saying, "If you cooperate with us, you will have no reason to complain about us." Isn't that a classic line from the Handbook of Thuggery? It's in the chapter about extortion.

The second item is really what galls me, though.

ABC quickly apologized for the locker room intro. And the NFL called it "inappropriate and unsuitable for our 'Monday Night Football' audience."

There is no reason to apologize for that.

Also, though I am not part of the Monday Night Football audience, I think I speak for a majority of them when I say that it was not inappropriate or unsuitable for them.

Not that it should matter to the government whether or not it was inappropriate or unsuitable for any of them at all.

And though obscenity is not a concern for the government, there is certainly a moral question here: Is it moral or immoral to apologize when one did nothing wrong?

The FCC and the tiny, little tyrants and bullies all over this country rely on apologies like this. As Ayn Rand would put it, they rely on the sanction of their victims and ABC is giving them just what they want.

ABC has something to be sorry for now: that apology.

I am reminded of Hank Rearden's trial in Atlas Shrugged.

One of the judges, acting as prosecutor, had read the charges. "You may now offer whatever plea you wish to make in your own defense," he announced.

Facing the platform, his voice inflectionless and peculiarly clear, Hank Rearden answered:

"I have no defense."

""Do you-" The judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. "Do you throw yourself upon the mercy of this court?"

"I do not recognize this court's right to try me"."

"What?"

"I do not recognize this court's right to try me."

"But, Mr. Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime."

"I do not recognize my action as a crime."

"But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal."

"I do not recognize your right to control the sale of my Metal."

"Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?"

"No, I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly."

He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretense which all those people played for one another's benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.

Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.

"No. I am complying with the law - to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defense is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."

That Loathesome Sean Hannity

Sean Hannity was talking again today about an amendment to the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage. Bolstered by 11 states, including my home of Georgia, passing amendments to their own constitutions on November 2, Hannity feels certain that such an amendment will be added to the national constitution.

While we're at it, could be please stop referring to ourselves as "the land of the free?" Maybe we could call ourselves "the land of the most free slaves in the modern world."

The Constitution was written to establish limits on, here comes the shocker, THE GOVERNMENT. The Constitution was written to establish the universal supremacy of the individual and protect his rights from the whims, machinations, and righteous indignation of the mob.

This is not a democracy! This is a constitutional republic and that is way better.

I'm not sure when our representatives felt it their perogative to do less than protect the rights of citizens, but all this talk of amendments makes it very clear that they are shirking their jobs for something more lucrative: robbery and slave trading. (As if the other signs weren't plain as day.)

This amendment question is bigger than just that of who should be allowed to visit whom in the hospital. Mark my words: gay or straight, the very idea of an amendment establishing a definition for the word marriage is a threat to your freedom.

Flat Tax v. National Sales Tax

Has anyone seen a good side-by-side comparison of Flat Rate Income Tax plans versus National Sales Tax plans?

Naturally, I oppose them both -- I'm nothing if not obstinate about my rights -- but I'm interested in seeing what folks have to say.

Here's a link to a National Sales Tax plan.

And here's a link to a flat tax write-up.

11th Hour of the 11th Day of the 11th Month

Hats off to those who've had the courage to voice their self-interest in freedom by action.

Thank you!

Republicans Make Me Sick

Yes, I voted for George Bush, but Republicans really make me sick lots of the time.

Case in point: I just heard Georgia's soon-to-be, new, Republican Speaker of the House, Glenn Richardson, obviously emboldened by the 78% popular endorsement of Georgia's state constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, say that "marriage by any name is between a man and a woman" and that civil unions are "out of the question."

Who the f!bomb are these people to say what I will and will not do with my stuff?

Straight folks! Wake up! This applies to you, too!

The government is not concerned with your romantic affiliations.
The government is not concerned about whether or not you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior.
The government is not concerned with who yanks your crank.

What the government IS concerned with is your property and who is allowed to do what with it.

Marriage, from the government's perspective, is NOTHING more than short-hand for a very complex contractual relationship between you and someone else and its impact on your respective property.

That's right! As unromantic and callous as it sounds, marriage is just a contract. Gay men can marry gay women at any moment and the government of the state of Georgia will honor and defend your respective rights in that contractual relationship. But if parties of that agreement are of the same sex, the state will not.

How is that fair to ANYONE?

Try this one on for size, my hetero-readers: As a gay man, I might marry a lesbian. Together, the state will afford us benefits and all kinds of niceties. My lesbian wife can then have an affair with ladies and I can go romp with the men-folk.

Under ordinary circumstances infidelity is grounds for divorce. Given that we are both professed homosexuals, however, does it not stand to reason that infidelity is even expected given that we are not inclined to consummate our marriage physically and that is well known by all upon formation of the union?

Does that or does it not fundamentally alter the 'institution' of marriage?

Only if you think it's more than a contractual relationship about property.

But Republicans prefer to delude themselves into thinking that marriage is "a fundamental building block of our society" and that gay marriage will "undermine the very foundation of western civilization."

Pardon me, ladies and gentlemen, but that is complete bullsh!t. Marriage is not a fundamental biulding block of our society. Gay marriage will not invalidate heterosexual marriage nor will it desanctify those so-called holy unions.

There is no rational argument against allowing gay people to enter into the same sorts of contractual arrangements as heterosexual people.

The only argument that could be made in opposition to state-recognized gay marriage is that the state should not recognize marriage as a contract different from any other regardless of what kinds or amounts of people form those contracts. I even think that there are terms of the marriage contract, particularly those regarding mutual ownership of property, that are not rationally defensible.

But so long as the state is in the business of recognizing marriages, there is no reason gays should not be allowed to join the fun.

More on Suicide

The news is full of suicide today:

CNN: 'Suicide' theory over train crash

LONDON, England -- Police investigating a train crash in southern England in which seven people died are focusing on a theory that a driver parked a car on the rails in an attempt to commit suicide.

I think it needs to be said: Suicide is not a good answer for pretty much anything that you might encounter in your life.

Is it worthwhile to blow yourself up to kill a few Jews? No.
Is it worthwhile to shoot yourself to protest the presidential election? No.
Is it worthwhile to drink poison because this ice-cream is so good that you can't live when life is never going to be this good again? Unlikely.

The problem with this scene is that the man parked his car on the train tracks to commit suicide. It would have been easier, less costly, and other people probably would not have died, if he had just gotten out of the car. He still would have died but it would have been less of a disaster for the rest of us.

He ruined a train. He ruined several other people. He ruined the car. He ruined himself.

There are better ways to commit suicide, people! What happened to the days when folks would just stick their heads in the oven or leave their car running in the garage?

Nooo... people have to get all dramatic about it.

Mark my words: This is the influence of cable television.

How Suicide is Not Effective Protest

CNN: Suicide suspected at WTC site

NEW YORK (AP) -- A 25-year-old from Georgia who was distraught over President Bush's re-election apparently killed himself at ground zero.

Andrew Veal's body was found Saturday morning inside the off-limits area of the former World Trade Center site, said Steve Coleman, a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

A shotgun was found nearby, but no suicide note was found, Coleman said.

So, this guy hates George W. Bush so much that he drove some 14 hours or so to the site of America's most devastating terrorist attack and killed himself in an effort to say to the world, "I hate George Bush so much right now!!"

First of all, driving to New York to protest? I don't think so. If I'm going to protest something I really don't think I'm going to leave my yard, let alone the state. Maybe that's just me, a blogger with an armchair.

Second of all, how is the World Trade Center a good place to protest Dubby? I mean, isn't that more like a statement of sorrow over our loss after the terrorist attack? Like he can't bear to live after such a loss for which justice has yet to be completely served?

Third, and maybe most importantly, suicide? You don't kill yourself to protest something, yo. You kill OTHER people to protest what they're doing. The whole point of protest is to stop or slow people from doing what you don't like. If you kill yourself, you're really just getting out of the way. Not effective protest.

So, to the world: If you are upset about Dubby being president again, don't kill yourself in protest. You can kill yourself if you want, I don't care, but just know that it is not an effective protest because when it's all over, Dubby will still be president and you will be dead. There is no way that adds up to something good for you.

And Now for Some Sad News

CNN: Wisconsin district to teach more than evolution

GRANTSBURG, Wisconsin (AP) -- School officials have revised the science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed.

Members of Grantsburg's school board believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.

[...]

There have been scattered efforts around the nation for other school boards to adopt similar measures. Last month the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania voted to require the teaching of alternative theories to evolution, including "intelligent design" -- the idea that life is too complex to have developed without a creator.

First of all, let me comment on the phrase "totally inclusive of just one scientific theory." So, are they saying that the curriculum should contain only parts of any given theory?

I doubt that teachers are teaching just one scientific theory in their classes. What about relativity? What about electormagnetism? In my highschool, we even discussed a little bit of quantum theory.

The real key to this is the word "scientific." Religion is not scientific. Faith is not scientific. Creationism is not scientific.

There should be no objection to teachers teaching all manner of scientific material to students, but that does not subsume ideas derived from mythology, emotion, or conjecture.

Science is rigorous in its standards and clearly defines what may and may not be called a theory. Creationism is not a theory; it's a fairy tale.

It is incredible to me that we are still having this debate here in the year 2004 and to the extent that we are seriously debating this matter is the extent to which our children will be ill-equipped to confront the facts of reality as they grow up believing the wanting is sufficient foundation for truth and is even stronger than the facts themselves for providing insight into life in reality.

Divisive? Good.

Yesterday, the radio guy was interviewing some foreigners to get their thoughts on the election. An Austrian lady said that she would vote for Kerry so that we would have a president who has not polarized the world so clearly into Pro-Americans and Anti-Americans.

Have you ever noticed how the really good and really bad things in life polarize folks? Lost in Translation is a good example. Lots of people hate it. Lots of people love it. Clearly, it's either really good or really bad. Given that it sucked, we should all agree that it was really bad.

America is that way. America is really, really good. It's not George Bush people hate, they just hate how he has brought up the fact that America is so good. Before, the Anti-Americans were content to grumble about it and work on their subversive plots to bring it down. But Dubby put the spotlight on them and now they're upset.

People around the world were already Pro- or Anti-American, they just weren't saying so.

I think it's good that this has come up and people are so divided. Now if only we could get all the Anti-Americans to move to North Korea so we can bomb them all at once.

I'm actually kind of pissed that people aren't MORE divided on this matter. I think George Bush is slacking a bit and the lack of polarity is telling on the matter.

'Hate' is Such a Strong Word

I was talking to a Liberal friend of mine tonight and he asked me what I made of the election results. I told him that though I am no fan of George Bush, I was not displeased that Kerry lost.

I have to put things that way lest someone mistake me for a supporter of the Republican Party and all that it has in store for the American people. It is sufficient at the moment to say that I do not.

My friend pointed out that George Bush hates me. In his words, our president hates me because I am the member of a minority, that sinful lower 10% (ish) of the population that is homosexual. It cannot be denied.

Another friend of mine said that she does not think Bush hates me as a homosexual. I smiled grimly to that and said, "I have no doubt that he is one of those hypocritical Christians without the strength of his convictions; his claim is that he hates the sin not the sinner." I make no such distinction as the sin does not exist without the sinner. George Bush does hate me because I'm gay whether he admits it or not.

But my being gay is not something George Bush or any soft-headed, right-wing mystic can take from me. If Bush were a white supremacist, he could not take the color from racial minorities. If he were someone who hates fat people, wheel chairs, or ben gay, he could not make people thin, walk, or young again.

Something that can be taken from me is my money, my property, my freedom to move and speak my mind.

In the end, George Bush will likely take some of each of those things from me, indeed he already has with things like medicare legislation, campaign finance reform, and even the Patriot Act.

I did not vote for John Kerry though. When it comes to hating me, John Kerry hates me and many others for another reason. In the most essential ways, John Kerry hates me for the same reason George Bush hates me, but on the surface there is some nuance to grasp. John Kerry hates me for my success.

When my friend told me that George Bush hates me as a minority, I told him that John Kerry hates a minority, too. He hates the rich. He hates the independent. He hates me, too.

I am a person not destined for success. I am a person who has chosen success. I am a person who has chosen happiness. I am a person who has chosen freedom. And John Kerry explicitly hates me for that.

How do I know this? Because John Kerry is a Liberal, whether he will admit it or not. But he has stated explicitly how much he thinks the "rich" should be punished for being rich and how they owe something to those who can't or won't do for themselves. Kerry has stated that he doesn't think that the defense of our freedom is worthwhile unless other countries agree to it.

John Kerry is of the political breed that venerates minorities for the fact that they are so woefully downtrodden. I'm gay, so John Kerry wants to love me because I have to put up with people yelling silly things from their cars when they see me holding hands with a date. John Kerry thinks it's an outrageous thing that three of every four of my fellow Georgians think I am unworthy of a union recognized by the state. (Sometimes Kerry agrees, but let's not digress.)

But John Kerry hates me because for reasons that are unclear to him and those who support him; I am successful. "The man" can't hold me down.

There are others like me. Some of them are some kind of minority or another. The kind that are most loathed by Kerry are the rich. In that we are all singular individuals we are each our own minority.

Nevermind that without the "rich" there is no poor. Nevermind that apart from people who get paid by the government for failure, laziness, and general worthlessness, we all have to earn what we own. Nevermind the fact that what we earn is ours and not, as Liberals often believe, everyone else's.

To add insult to injury, I'm not the sort of person who can be anything else but successful. My accomplishments are as certain to me as Newton's apple falling to the ground because they come from my mind and my hands as a result of who I am. My very identity as an individual and the success it brings is, for my intents and purposes, axiomatic.

John Kerry hates me for what I am and if we look back, George Bush is the same. There is so little difference between the two that it is hardly worth the effort to make a distinction. Unfortunately, a distinction is to be made and I voted for George Bush.

Just don't tell me George Bush hates me. I know all about it.

Raise the Roof at Thomas Jefferson's Party

So, ol' Dubby won a popular and electoral majority. Great.

One of the questions put before the nation now is what is to become of the Democratic party? After such a resounding defeat, what can the party learn in order to become a dominant force in American politics again.

I have a few ideas.

Abandon Communism
It's been done. We all know it doesn't work even in small measures. The Republican Party beats Democrats here because of the lip service they pay to Capitalism.

Don't let's be fooled by the Republicans. Let's actually have some real Capitalists in politics! If the Democrats made that move, many of the off-chart voters such as myself would have been hard-pressed to find a reason to vote for Dubby.

Do Not Question the Virtue of America, the Land of the Free
Democrats know all about some social freedoms. The Democratic party is full of pot-heads, orgy-goers, abortionists, and devil-wirshippers. We all know it. Now, how can you make that a virtue in the eyes of the far right? Well, you can't. But what about the near right? Get loud about it.

It is as much my RIGHT to engage in "wang tag" as it is to ride the baloney pony to tuna town. And if you don't back up out of my business I'm about to get real up in your grill.

That's the attitude the Democratic party needs. Do not apologize for being right. Do not apologize for being the best. AND DO NOT APOLOGIZE FOR LOVING EVERY MINUTE OF IT!!!

But it doesn't stop there; it's not just other Americans trying to tame the natural heathenry of Americans.

Terrorists hate our freaky ways and for that they should be bombed.

The Democratic party has a terrible mix of ideas right now. That's why they lose. They need to pick the things they have that are better than the Republicans and throw away the rest.

In practice, this will result in a major schism in the Republican party between the near and far right. The "near right" is more predisposed to the classical liberal ideas of individual freedom minus the religious moralizing of the far right, but it comes at a price -- an understanding of basic microeconomics.

Surely the Democrats can afford to take a lesson from Adam Smith, von Mises, and Hayek. Maybe Madam T.H. Kerry can foot the bill.

Basically, the oldest party in the nation needs to get back to its roots and join the rest of us here in the real world.

Two Steps Sideways, One Step Back

WSB 750: Georgia Backs Bush, Isakson, Gay Marriage Ban

ATLANTA (AP) Flooding the polls in what looked to be record numbers, Georgia voters picked President Bush, sent Republican Johnny Isakson to the Senate to replace maverick Democrat Zell Miller, and endorsed a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Now, the exact wording of the amendment I voted against read, "Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?"

I would swear to you that when I voted it actually said, "one man and one woman" but my protestation is the same on behalf of gays and polygamists alike.

When I express my disappointment over the state's approval of Amendment 1, at least one has remarked, "You can't lose what you never had."

Point of fact, however, it wasn't banned before. Polygamy and gay marriage were both things that were not expressly forbidden by and constitutionally defensible law. Technically, speaking they were permitted.

Now, however, our state constitution will forbid gay marriage.

WSAV.com: Putting "Amendment 1" to the Truth Test

Here what your ballot says: Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?

But that is just Section (a) of the amendment. What you don’t see is Section (b), which does a lot more than just define marriage.

Section (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties´ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.

Basically Section (b) says any same sex unions created in other states and the rights that come with them will not be recognized in Georgia. It goes further to restrict Georgia courts from considering or ruling on disputes that come up in those same sex relationships.

It is very sad to me that Americans seem to have forgotten that freedom is the default here. It is the fundamental principle that our government was set forth to protect and ensure for ourselves as citizens. Nevertheless, here we go, voting ourselves into slavery; ELECTING to thwart freedom.

Gays getting married has nothing to do with heterosexuals. Nothing at all.

The word "marriage" does not include a description of what two entities are united. Animal husbandry is an appropriate term because it means what it says. In terms of government, marriage is an agreement, a contract, between individuals regarding their property.

But there are Americans who seem to think that it is important that some people are not allowed to mix their property in this way. Wise or no, what business is it of theirs if they have no intention of exercising that freedom?

November 2, 2004 is a grim day in history. What with Ohio outstanding, I can only hope it doesn't get worse, but with people voting the way they do, I can't say America deserves any better.

Mark of the Beast

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Revelations 19:20

That verse is what sprung to mind when I read about this on CNN.com a while back.

CNN.com: FDA OKS implanted medical info chip

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday approved an implantable computer chip that can pass a patient's medical details to doctors, speeding care.

VeriChips, radio frequency microchips the size of a grain of rice, have already been used to identify wayward pets and livestock. And nearly 200 people working in Mexico's attorney general's office have been implanted with chips to access secure areas containing sensitive documents.

I don't know if my dad has heard about this, but I just know he is totally freaking.

Me? Oh, I'm not worried about the beast or anything like that. Christian mythology, fascinating though it may be, is still just mythology.

But I'm still not down with getting microchips put into my arm just yet. In principle, I think this is a fabulous idea. I would personally like to have a tv remote and maybe a garage door opener in my arm. That way they never get lost and I don't have to fuss with them. I would also like to mount laser cannons to my roof and control those, too.

We're a ways out from having this technology to my satisfaction, but I am pleased that we're advancing in that direction.

Back to the chips, though. There is a ton of information about me available out there in the world. The Federal BI probably has a huge file on me stashed away in a warehouse somewhere in Area 51. And as much as that bothers me, this chip thing bothers me because it links my person to that information.

Sure, the same could be done with DNA. It's been done with finger prints. But you can't get my DNA or finger prints from satellite or wireless internet cloud.

I don't like the notion of me not being able to get away. I don't like army guys being able to find me so easily when I'm trying to hide. I'm not saying I need or want to hide right now, but I'm still very young and things could go to hell pretty quickly.

So, please don't put me on the chip in the arm list right now. I'll continue to carry credit cards in my wallet where god intended them to be.

Terrorists: Stupid or Crazy? You Decide.

So, terrorists implicitly want to destroy freedom all over the globe and subjugate the world to their violent, irrational beliefs. What I have a hard time figuring out is what they want explicitly at any moment.

Sammy bin Laden says he wants everyone to leave muslim folk alone. Some terrorists say they just want da Joos to get off of their pile of rocks. Lots of terrorists recently have been saying they want John Kerry to be president of the United States.

Really?

I mean, even if you're a terrorist, you should be able to figure out that an endorsement from a terrorist will not help the candidate you endorse. So, would it not make MORE sense to publicly endorse the one you DON'T want to win?

If you look at it that way, Mucktard al Sadr endorsed Kerry, but he REALLY wants Dubby to stay. Right?

That makes sense to me. Kind of.

Terrorists are not reknown for making sense. I looked up terrorist and there was no mention at all of sense making.

So, it could be that terrorists really do want Kerry to win.

*sigh*

I can never figure those guys out. Let's just kill them all.

Patronizing?

I was scooting around my blog and found some link love from Irregular Verbiage. Over there is a post on some legislation that has been proposed in the UK to allow the prosecution to introduce a defendent's past criminal record in as evidence.

This is the first I've heard of this and it is an outrage. I hope this gets stopped and never comes up in any country ever again.

If you're trying to prove that I committed a particular crime, what relevance does my other activities, good or bad, have to do with it? None. Any defending attorney would be well within reason to object on the grounds of relevance.

This isn't about giving the accused the benefit of the doubt. It's not patronizing the jury. (Point of fact, many would not discount recidivism as irrelevant to the case.)

I don't know if the UK uses the same rigors when regarding the burden of evidence in trials, but here in the states you can't (in theory) get a conviction based on conjecture, misdirection, and speculation.

What if our doctors took to diagnosing disease this way? What if engineers opted to certify the viability of our machinery that way?

Such legislation is a thinly veiled attempt to give the prosecution license to act as propagandists. I, for one, would not want the defense of my person and property to be decided on the balance of who can manipulate public opinion better. And if anyone complains that trials can be bought, this legislation would only make it worse - marketing firms are pricey!

Frankly, I'm surprised to hear about this sort of thing outside of France or the Middle East.

Oh wait.

Do they do trials in the Middle East? With the exception of Isreal, I thought they just threw big rocks up in the air and whoever is struck must be guilty of something per the guiding hand of Allah.

Ok. Well, I'm surprised to hear about it outside of France. How's that?

Advanced Voting in Georgia

I voted in the Presidential election on Wednesday. I LOVE the advance voting idea. It's so convenient! Last time, I had to stand in line for two hours (a short time compared to some stories I heard) but this year I was in the polling place for less than 27 minutes!

Anyway, one of my coworkers wrote this:

No joking around. Here's an important heads up ...

Yesterday a friend voted early at a polling location in Austin. She voted straight Democratic. When she did the final check,lo and behold every vote was for the Democratic candidates except that it showed she had voted for Bush/Cheney for president/vice pres.

She immediately got a poll official. On her vote, it was corrected. She called the Travis County Democratic headquarters. They took all her information, and told her that she wasn't the first to report a similar incident and that they are looking into it.

So check before you leave the polling booth, and if anything is wrong, get it corrected immediately. Report any irregularities to your local Democratic headquarters.

Make sure you pass this along to your friends ...
hopefully this is all over the airwaves by tomorrow ...
check your ballet, regardless of who you vote for.

Obviously there is the implication that there is some sort of corruption at play here. I, personally, like to be more optimistic about things: See? Democrats can walk upright and work a touch screen voting machine -- more or less -- without pounding the equipment to bits with a club.

Alas, there is yet insufficient evidence to say the same about Republicans at this late date.

Now for Some Good News

HoustonChronicle: Top state court throws out Georgia hate crime law

ATLANTA -- The Georgia Supreme Court unanimously threw out the state's hate crimes law today, calling it over-broad and "unconstitutionally vague."

The four-year-old law calls for stiffer criminal penalties for crimes in which a victim was chosen because of "any bias or prejudice."

[...]

Originally, the legislation defined a hate crime as one motivated specifically by the victim's race, religion, gender, national origin or sexual orientation.

That language was removed by the Legislature and replaced with a section defining a hate crime as one in which the victim or his property was targeted because of bias or prejudice.

I wish that I could say that 'having no sensible relationship to reality' is what the Court means by "unconstitutionally vague," but unfortunately it would appear that the absurdity of hate crime legislation has not come to the realization of the high court of this delightful state of Georgia.

Let's listen to a story I will make up right now:

Once upon a time David Duke is walking in a dark alley in Atlanta, Georgia when he lays upon some hoodlums. In the darkness, he cannot see them but he starts shouting the N-Word as he guns them down. They turn out to be white.

Poor David Duke. He's going to jail for a hate crime. Everyone knows he was in the KKK. He thought he was attacking black folks, so it's a hate crime.

But what if they turn out to be black? Doesn't matter. The N-Word and Davey's KKK history make it clear: a hate crime happened here.

Let's listen to another story:

Once upon a time Mother Theresa is walking in a dark alley in Atlanta, Georgia when she lays upon some hoodlums. In the darkness, she cannot see them but she starts shouting the N-Word as she guns them down. They turn out to be white.

Oh, Mother Theresa. You silly goose! That's no hate crime. You're just a bad guy! Shame on you. tsk. tsk. You're going to jail!

What if they're black?

Everyone knows Mother Theresa is no bigot. Look at how many black people she knows! Oh, Mother Theresa. You silly goose! That's no hate crime. You're just a bad guy! Shame on you. tsk. tsk. You're going to jail!

What's the difference?

You have two people of different opinions on the matter of race but commit the same action. The reason I know that Mother Theresa would not be convicted is due to her street cred as a helpful person and not a bigot. The reason I know David Duke would be locked up and the key thrown away is because of his reputation.

This is the problem with ALL hate-crime legislation. They create a class of thought-crimes.

I think a better system is to simply hold people strictly accountable for the actual, objectively definable and falsifiable crimes they commit. Heaven forbid we treat the burden of evidence with any sort of scientific rigor!

The Most Useless News Story Ever

AZOnline: Relativity prediction is correct

key prediction of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity has been confirmed by an experiment showing that the Earth's rotation drags the surrounding fabric of space-time along with it.

The phenomenon, known as frame-dragging, was one of the last untested predictions of general relativity. A NASA satellite, Gravity Probe B, was launched earlier this year to test the same effect.

"Frame-dragging is like what happens if a bowling ball spins in a thick fluid, such as molasses," said Errico C. Pavlis of the Joint Center for Earth System Technology, a leader of the international research team that measured the effect.

That's it. That's the whole story.

Kind of makes you wonder why they even bothered if they weren't going to explain anything. Like I'm suddenly Einstein or something.

Hat tip to Another Matt

'Zzz' means 'Yes! Take Me Now, You Beast! Take Me in a Frenzy of Nightie-rending Passion!'

New Scientist: Sleepwalking woman had sex with strangers

Sleep medicine experts have successfully treated a rare case of a woman having sex with strangers while sleepwalking.

The behaviour had disrupted the lives of the woman and her partner. At night while asleep, the middle-aged sleepwalker - who lives in Australia and cannot be identified for reasons of confidentiality - left her house and had sexual intercourse with strangers. The behaviour continued for several months and the woman had no memory of her nocturnal activities.

"Okay. I know what this looks like. But I SWEAR I'm asleep. And if you don't believe me, wake me up and see how distressed I am." From JD

~or~

"Let's play good news bad news. The good news is that you have sex with strangers while you're asleep. The bad news is... well, there is no bad news right now since you dosed off in the waiting room of an ED clinic. People are calling you a miracle worker."

~or~

Maxim Magazine adds a new pickup line to canons: You are getting sleeepy... veerrrryyy sleeepy.

~or~

Dear Diary

An angel visited me in my sleep last night and I am now carrying the child of God. Unfortunately, I am carrying his holy syphillis, too.

I'm afraid this could go on for quite some time.

A friend of mine comments:

I like how the one section caries the subhead "sleep driving" and yet the most notable sentence includes the words "where he strangled his father-in-law unconscious, and stabbed his mother-in-law to death"

But, he DROVE there in his sleep!

Remarkable!

Sob Stories

I try to remind people as frequently as possible that I am a heartless bastard. The truth of the matter is that I'm really just not stupid enough to be so generous that it hurts. Sometimes being smart means that you have to make some tough calls.

I'm listening to a radio show right now called Handle on the Law. Bill Handle is the host and he gives out "marginal legal advice" to callers. I don't really like listening to him much because he yells a lot, but on the other hand he does give out "marginal legal advice" and where else can I get that?

Anyway, a caller just told him that her father died one week after his $100K life insurance policy expired. She wanted to know if she had any legal recourse for making a claim against the policy. Bill told her 'no.' I would add 'duh.'

It's most unfortunate that the man died and it is even more unfortunate that his timing (and financial planning) was so bad. But what difference does that make to the insurance company? They weren't paid to write $100K check out to strangers and when the policy expired that poor man essentially became a stranger to the company. His estate has as much claim against his company as they would any other company out there.

Insurance companies aren't charities. If that lady wants money because her dad died, why doesn't she go ask a charity? Because there's no guarantee that they will give it to her either. She sagely recognizes that no one owes her any money at all and the only way she can be sure to get a payout is if she takes it by force.

I object to this.

I don't object to people giving their time, money, energy, and ideas away for free if they want. I have a problem with forcing people to do that, though. There's a word for taking money from people: stealing.

It's just a fact of reality that unfortunate things, like fires, tornados, earthquakes, meteor impacts, and stock market crashes, will happen to people. It's also a fact of reality that some people insist on being incredibly stupid and they get hurt for it. Examples of stupidity exist in infinite permutations.

Either way a great need is created but everyone's rights are intact.

Let's make sure we're clear on that point before we proceed; rights can only be violated by the action of another person. The Laws of Physics cannot violate your rights. Your jaw-dropping idiocy does not violate your rights. Even being in a state of ignorance is not a violation of your rights.

Nevertheless, there are people who suffer and they suffer greatly. Most people are not immune to having their heartstrings yanked by images of great pain and misfortune. Most people want to help other people out when trouble comes their way. They do so not out of complete altruism but also out of a hope that if something bad happens others will show compassion and generosity in return.

Fine.

But there is no reason any individual must help those who suffer.

When the government steps in to force citizens to practice generosity it is more than simple political stupidity at work; a case can be made for malice.

In politics, there is no addage more chilling than the one coined by Marx. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." And when the government comes to practice enforcing generosity it is no surprise that the number of sob stories across the board sky-rocket. Once suffering becomes something rewarded ability become scarce. Like stupidity, there is no end to need.

Update: I was just reading an article by Thomas Sowell with this very apt line:

California has long had more than its fair share of busybodies with a vision of the world in which it is necessary for them to force other people to do Good Things. That is not just a vision of the world, it is a vision of themselves -- a very flattering vision that they are not likely to give up for anything so mundane as facts or logic.

Some People...

I am not accustomed to people fervently believing that it is the government's proper job to wipe your butt for you.

I ran into one such person last night.

I'm sure he's a nice enough person, but I came to the above conclusion when he asserted that the Social Security Program is a legitimate extension of governmental power.

I'm not entirely certain why he is opposed to privatization of said program really, especially since that would require that the managing entity take reasonable steps to ensure that funds paid in can be paid back out. That nuance is something the government did not have the foresight to plan into the program, you know.

I'm not sure if people know it, but there is no actual social security account out there with your name on it and containing the money you paid into it. There just isn't. In fact, when you pay money into the Social Security Program, the money goes to the government and is spent in myriad ways.

When asked, the person with whom I was speaking said that the reason he wanted social security is because when he gets old or if something happens to him, he wants to make sure that someone is there to help him. He agreed that he is competent enough to invest his own money wisely enough to provide for those situations but he also said that most people are too stupid for that.

I tend to think better of most people, but my question to him was, "Why is it your fault that so many other people are so stupid?"

I didn't even get a chance to talk about the complete injustice of my property being siezed and used without my approval in ways contrary to my well-being totally without my permission.

But seriously, why is it anyone else's fault when some individual makes a rash of idiotic decisions with their life? Why should everyone else be held accountable when one individual flatly refuses to handle their own business properly? In a country founded primarily on the idea of individual rights, where do these people get off?

I just don't get some people.

Kerry's Global Test a la 1776

The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world for comment and approval.

Hat tip to a caller to the Neal Boortz radio show for that one...

Russia: Land of New Opportunity; Land of Stupidity

CNN: Iran, Russia nuclear deal 'close'

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran and Russia say they are close to finalizing a long-delayed protocol on returning spent nuclear fuel to Russia, paving the way for the launch of a Russian-built nuclear power plant in southern Iran in 2006.

Russia has said it will not ship nuclear fuel to Iran until both countries sign an agreement under which all spent fuel would be returned to Russia. The agreement is intended to prevent Iran from using spent fuel to make nuclear weapons.

A little known fact about me: I have a nasty mental condition that prevents me from entering into international diplomacy -- it's called memory.

Does Russia not remember who Iran is? Apparently not.

What incentive does Iran have to uphold the agreement once they have the nuclear powerplant of their dreams?

Seriously.

If Iran wants both nuclear power AND spent nuclear fuel to make weapons, what will stop them? The paper they signed? Might that paper not look similar to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty?

It's IRAN!!! Come on, people! Axis of Evil!

File This Under 'What the F!Bomb?'

CNN: Libya gives human rights prize to Venezuela's Chavez

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) -- Libya Sunday awarded its annual Moammar Gadhafi human rights prize to Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez for resisting "imperialism" and being a champion of the poor.

A citation accompanying the award, named after Libya's leader, Gadhafi, was read by a Libyan delegation attending a live television and radio show hosted by Chavez.

It praised the Venezuelan leader's "brave heart, intelligent mind, eloquent oratory and firm hand."

That is wrong on so many levels.

First of all, LIBYA has a Human Rights Prize?

Named for MUAMMAR AL-QADDAFI?

And past winners include FIDEL CASTRO?

And now HUGO CHAVEZ?

My head hurts too much right now, so I really need someone to go bitchslap Libya for me, especially Muammar al-Qaddafi. While you're at it, smack Hugo Chavez, too.

George Bush Pulls a Peter Popoff

Some wingnuts are out there claiming that Dubby was wired during the debate.

I wouldn't even believe a claim like that about John Kerry and I think almost everything he says is a lie.

Call me naive but I find it difficult to believe that anyone outside of an evangelical ministry could be so blatantly and concretely dishonest.

On the other hand, the ideological lies that Dubby and Kerry are constantly trying to feed us are pretty blatant in themselves. hmmm..

PS The title of this post is not supposed to sound that dirty.

What Do I Know?

I am of the opinion that Cheney lost the VP debate. I am also of the opinion that Bush won the second presidential debate.

People say that Cheney won, though.

And on the radio just now I heard that people are saying Kerry won last night.

Then again most people think that taxation is a legitimate function of government and many people have a list of things they claim as 'rights' that I don't recognize. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised to have a dissenting opinion...

Live Debate Blogging: Nexus of Hate

"Nexus of Hate"

Really. Need I say more?

Live Debate Blogging: Results are in!

Kerry lost this debate. HARD.

Kerry talked a lot about the secret plan. Dubby body slammed him and even took a couple of dives from the high ropes. Dubby did land on his head a couple of times, but all in all Kerry went home crying. I even heard the audience laugh at the Kerry once when Dubby made a joke.

Live Debate Blogging: Economics and Property Rights

"Speed the production of generic brands [of medicine]"

The only way that I can fathom this taking place, Mr. President, is by restricting owners have on claims to their intellectual property or their material property.

You can either say that people do not own their patents or you can offer not to take so much of their money (tax incentives) if they give up their patents.

That's not just bad economics. It's immoral governance.

Live Debate Blogging: Mind Your Business

"Equal pay for women"

What if no one wants to pay women equally?

Where does the government get off telling people what they will pay to whom and whether or not anyone is allowed to accept it?

Live Debate Blogging: Bush Offers Kerry Gay Sex

"Need some wood?"

I'll give you wood, big boy.

A cry is heard from the back of the room and John Edwards is seen storming out in a flurry of tears and mascara...

John Kerry's Voting Record

I hope that no one is disputing the notion that John Kerry is Liberal. Actually, I think the only person disputing that is John Kerry and perhaps some other Liberals.

Anyway, I got this email today and I have to play the devil's advocate a bit:

These ratings by 6 liberal and 6 conservative organizations indicate the percentage of times Senator Kerry voted for the organization's position. For example an 85 rating means that 85% of his Senate votes supported the interest of that particular group. The nonpartisan Political Junkie Handbook gives ratings of 15 organizations for all 535 Senators and Congressmen. http://www.politicaljunkie.org/

Please share this interesting information with your readers.

Thank you,
Michael Crane
Editor
The Political Junkie Handbook

Senator John Kerry's Senate Voting Record According to Various Interest
Groups:

Name of Group And Kerry's Lifetime Rating/
The Group's Interest:

American Conservative Union: 5%
Conservative Causes

Americans for Democratic Action: 92%
Liberal Causes

Human Rights Campaign: 100%
Gay Rights

Chamber of Commerce: 0% (2003 rating)
Business Concerns

National Taxpayers Union: 14%
Low Taxes

American Association of University Professors: 100%
Labor & Progressive Causes

Citizens Against Government Waste: 25%
Less Waste, Fraud & Abuse in Government

Public Citizen: 85%
Consumer Rights

Family Research Council: 0
Maintaining the Traditional Family Structure

Gun Owners of America: 10%
Second Amendment Rights

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence: 100%
Gun Control

NARAL: 100%
Abortion Rights

What is unclear to me is how many votes came up in which these groups had interest. I am assuming that NARAL took no official position on a large number of items since most things don't have to do with adortion.

Soooo... If I started the Flibbertigibbet club and took an interest only in one particular vote and John Kerry voted against it, I would report 0% for that single vote.

I'm sorry, but although I do not have a doubt that John Kerry is both irrational and Liberal I am skeptical about how these statistics are presented.

CNN Instapoll Madness

Today's CNN Instapoll asked:

Do you believe Saddam Hussein intended to produce weapons of mass destruction?

Of course, I voted 'yes' because no duh.

The results showed, however, that only 58% agreed with me while the other 42% said 'no.'

I'm sorry. I don't understand how ANYONE voted no on this, but let's entertain the notion that some didn't read the question the way that I did.

What if the question meant "Do you believe Saddam Hussein EVER intended to produce weapons of mass destruction?" Because at one point in time he did, in fact, have weapons of mass destruction. He even used them. I really doubt that Saddam accidentally produced those weapons so we have to conclude that it was his intention to do so when he did. The answer then is "yes."

What if the question means, "Do you believe Saddam Hussein intended to produce weapons of mass destruction at a later date in time like after sanctions were lifted from his country?" That new CIA report said that Saddam had nascent weapons programs in place. Evidence discovered during the War in Iraq corroborates this idea. Bits and pieces of WMDs have also been found.

Is it the contention of that 42% that Saddam also had these things accidentally?

Is anyone really that stupid?

The question is about SADDAM HUSSIEN, people!!! As yourself: Would I trust Saddam Hussien to be President of my country? If your answer is 'yes,' you're a dolt. If you answer 'no' then it's probably because you found out that he was a dictator who killed and tortured people in his own country on a regular basis.

42%. That's just crazy. Pure crazy.

Darth Vader Loses Veep Debate

Ummm... Are y'all Democrats sure you didn't mean to pick John Edwards as the presidential candidate?

I'm listening to John Edwards debate Dick Cheney right now and he is mopping the floor with the old coot.

If Edwards was running for president, Bush might not be getting my vote today. His voice is strong. He is clear and direct. He is convincing with his citations AND (most of the time) he's addressing the question that was asked.

Update: Since I'm listening to this on the radio, I asked someone who is watching it on TV. They said they think Cheney is winning and that he's "pulling gravitas." The radio broadcast makes Cheney sound like he's pulling an IV stand...

Update II: I'm now listening to clips from the debate and there were some real zingers both ways.

The Rest of the Story

I hate it when the people in the news just leave out relevant information and I happened across an example today.

CNN:

In a closed meeting, the Senate Intelligence Committee of eight Democrats and nine Republicans voted 12 to 4 for the nomination, with one senator making no recommendation on the nomination.

Which senator? CNN doesn't say. I mean, it's not like I can't guess. One of the members of this committee is running for the office of Vice President. By why didn't CNN tell us?

I don't mind that he didn't vote. I mean, he's running for office. A vote now either way would be somewhat rude.

But it irritates me that CNN wouldn't just say it.

New York Times Reveals: Most Terrorists are Islamic

NYT: School Siege in Russia Sparks Self-Criticism in Arab World

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims," Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of the widely watched Al-Arabiya satellite television station wrote in one of the most striking of these commentaries.

This situation is one of such dire circumstance that I find my response being simply, "No shit."

"The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses and buildings, all over the world, were Muslim," he wrote. "What a pathetic record. What an abominable `achievement.' Does this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies and our culture?"

Yes, it does. For everyone who thinks that it's wrong to use profiling to identify potential threats, please listen to this man. He is an Arab. He is a muslim.

Mr. Rashed, like several other commentators, singled out Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a senior Egyptian cleric living in Qatar who broadcasts an influential program on Al Jazeera television and who has issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, calling for the killing of American and foreign "occupiers" in Iraq, military and civilian.

"Let us contemplate the incident of this religious Sheikh allowing, nay even calling for, the murder of civilians," he wrote. "How can we believe him when he tells us that Islam is the religion of mercy and peace while he is turning it into a religion of blood and slaughter?"

Mr. Rashed recalled that in the past, leftists and nationalists in the Arab world were considered a "menace" for their adoption of violence, and the mosque was a "haven" of "peace and reconciliation" by contrast.

"Then came the Neo-Muslims," he said. "An innocent and benevolent religion, whose verses prohibit the felling of trees in the absence of urgent necessity, that calls murder the most heinous of crimes, that says explicitly that if you kill one person you have killed humanity as a whole, has been turned into a global message of hate and a universal war cry."

You should go read the rest. I'm glad people are saying this but the final comment I will make is this: They still aren't admitting religion categorically and by definition makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

New on Fox: When Beggars Attack!

I was listening to NPR again today. It never fails; if I spend any time listening to the news on that radio station I will go from zero to pissed in no time flat.

They were talking about the situation in the Sudan and how Sudanese officials have called the stingy aid policies of France, Italy, and Japan "mean." I couldn't find a news story with the exact words, but NPR quoted someone as actually saying that those countries were MEAN for not giving more money to the people in the Sudan.

By contrast, the United States and Great Britain are considered to be very generous. GB has given something like 57 Million pounds and the US has give upwards of $270 Million. (Sorry, I'm not going to look up how to make the pounds symbol here.)

What pisses me off is the impudence of these Sudanese beggars and moochers. Whose fault is it that they have these problems? I'll give a hint: It's not anyone outside of the Sudan. How DARE they criticize anyone's generosity? What sort of shameless and brazen animals bite the hands that feed them?

But that isn't what makes me the most angry of all. What makes me the MOST angry is the fact that France, Italy, Japan, USA, and Great Britain are falling for this crap.

These countries are robbing their own citizens through taxes, stealing food from the mouths of OUR children, to feed, clothe, and shelter people in another country that does nothing in return. I have legitimate doubts that any of it will ever be paid back.

That there aren't cries of indignation heard around the world on the sheer audacity of the Sudan is a sign of the times. We live in an age where beggars insult their benefactors and the benefactors feel guilt for it. We live in an age where being needy, not to mention patently irrational, gives a group of people the moral high ground.

I wouldn't have given them anything in the first place, but now I wish someone would really get with it and cut them off.

If you're not as pissed as I am, read this over again and place special interest to the part where this idiocy is funded by dollars that have come straight out of your paycheck.

Let's Talk About Values

CNN: Dole: Republicans steadfast on values

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Extolling what she called the core values of the Republican Party, Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina told conventioneers Tuesday night that the party has stood firm in its defense of marriage and the protection of unborn children.

[...]

But Tuesday, Dole unabashedly championed her party's conservative stance against same-sex marriage and in favor of the rights of the unborn.

"Marriage between a man and a woman isn't something Republicans invented, but it is something Republicans will defend," she said.

A value is something that one seeks to gain or maintain. In the case of same-sex marriage, what is it that Republicans value? What do they seek to gain or maintain?

They don't seek the priveledge of heterosexuals to marry because they already can. If we can infer from Senator Dole's statements, marriage exclusive to heterosexuals is 'something.' What something?

As far as anyone can tell from the blathering herd of mystics and altruists we lob together as 'conservatives' the something that the Grand Old Party is trying to preserve is either Christian values or tradition or maybe a mix of the two.

When it comes to preserving Christian values in America the GOP really does pick and choose. Technically speaking, polygamy is a Christian value. Technically speaking, keeping women plain, quiet, and pregnant is a Christian value. Technically speaking, abstaining from masturbation is a Christian value. Although I am not intimate enough with any conservatives to speak to their stances on these items, I would hazard to guess that these did not make it into the GOP platform this year.

11: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13: For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15: Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

1 Timothy, Chapter 2, verses 11 through 15

Um. Senator Dole? Woman. Please sit down. I think a man needs to start talking.

So, CLEARLY, it's just some Christian values that the 'conservatives' among us wish to preserve.

I suppose that some will argue that marriage, unlike women being quiet, plain and pregnant--

You're wondering about the plain thing aren't you?

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

1 Timothy 2:9

and

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

1 Corinthians 11:15

And of course

1: Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2: While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.

3: Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

1 Peter, chapter 3, verses 1 through 3

-- anyway, I was saying. Some might argue that marriage is the fundamental building block of society to Christianity. Not to beat y'all with the Bible, because I don't like it any more than you do, but...

7: For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8: I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

9: But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

1 Corinthians, Chapter 7, verses 7 through 9

Clearly, Paul didn't agree that marriage was necessary for the proper function of the church or society. He felt that marriage was only necessary to keep people from fornicating.

Fornication, as best as we can deterimine, simply means sex out of wedlock. Marriage, in the KJV Bible, does only refer to man and woman, although the historical record of marriage throughout Christianity has supported same-sex unions as well.

My point is just that the Bible doesn't assert that marriage is required for individuals or society. So-called conservatives are really just preserving arbitrarily chosen Christian values and arbitrarily chosen traditions.

What is particularly frustrating about this isn't so much their fondness of tradition but that they would put tradition above other values, such as Life, Liberty, and Property.

Idiots.

Oral Fixation

TheLouisvilleChannelNews.com: Sex For Cigarettes: Local Inmate Confirms Trade

LOUISVILLE -- An inmate at the Jefferson County Jail confirmed that she gave a sheriff's deputy oral sex in a holding cell in exchange for two cigarettes.

I really wish that this woman came forward because she wants a state-sponsored smoking cessation program and not because she claims she was a victim. I think that'd be really, really funny.

From the looks of her, I think the deputy got ripped off.

Link found on Hot Sauce

Missing All the Fun

I want to live in New York so badly! I made up my mind a couple of weeks ago that my primary goal is to move to New York in the next 18 months. I have no doubt that will happen, but in the meantime I'm still missing lots of fun.

Case in point: Protestors at the Republican National Convention.

CNN is talking about tens of thousands of protestors and you just KNOW they're saying all kinds of crazy things.

I was looking through their gallery of protestor photos and there's one of a guy dressed like a bomb. See?

But look at the sign he's carrying. I don't know what the whole thing says but I am sure that his point is that the government should spend money on food, jobs, schools, housing, and healthcare instead of weapons for the military.

The purpose of the government is to protect the rights of individuals; it is not to provide people with their livelihood and look out for their personal well being apart from the protection of their rights. I realize that the lefty moonbats don't get that, but it doesn't make it less true or them less moonbatty.

I don't really care much about the Republican National Convention. I didn't really care much about the Democratic National Convention. But one of the features of this presidential election season is the fervor of the left against George Bush. Most Leftists I've spoken to aren't so much FOR John Kerry as they are just against Dubby. That is strange to me.

But what adds to the mystery of our situation is that the violent, frothy-mouthed, vitrolic screeching of the Left is matched only by the mocking, condescending attitude of lots of Righties.

Don't get me wrong, the Left is certainly laughable and their political ideals are worth nothing more than condescension, though I prefer open disdain. It's just that this kind of scale of protest was not seen at the DNC.

Why?

Probably because few can muster the energy to rail against the Democrats seriously for a long period of time. I mean, Michael Moore? Are you kidding me? No rational person takes that man seriously. But look at the rest of the list:

Hillary Marx-Clinton?
George Soros?
John "Reporting for Doodie" Kerry?
John "Breck Girl" Edwards?
Ted Kennedy?

Seriously? I mean, SERIOUSLY? These are the people they have?

I read an interview with John Kerry in GQ today in which John Kerry looked like that kid in school who would do ANYTHING to get people to like him.

Someone: Snake-eyes is my favorite GI Joe.

John Kerry: Oh! He's my favorite, too!

Someone else: I think Crazylegs is the best.

John Kerry: Oh! He's my favorite, too!

Except in the interview Kerry seemed like he was on speed.

I don't like Dubby, but I HATE John Kerry. I don't hate him because of his personality, which is very lacking. I hate him for his ideas. I hate him for the things he wants to do to this country. I hate him because him and the people who think like him are, have been, and will continue to be, the greatest, most direct, threat to freedom ever.

But I would wager that there is a large portion of those who just hate George Bush know much about what John Kerry is. They just hate Bush.

It's easy to dismiss this sort of thinking out of hand. It's absurd. It's ridiculous. It makes for such good mocking of protest signs, which is what I'm missing out on by not being in New York right now.

'Misunderestimating' the crazies on the Left, though, will be the thing that defeats Bush in November if he is to lose.

I don't mean that we should stop making fun of them. I just think we should pause occassionally to explain why they're so laughable.

Yeah? Well, Canadians are... well... Canadian

CNN: Canadian MP calls U.S. 'idiots'

OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Canadian Member of Parliament Carolyn Parrish had said she hated "damned Americans" and called them bastards in the run-up to the Iraq war.

She found a new moniker, idiots, on Wednesday in discussing the planned U.S. missile defense system.

"We are not joining the coalition of the idiots. We are joining the coalition of the wise," the Liberal legislator told a small group of demonstrators.

[...]

"They tortured people in Iraq, they (the Iraqis) have no weapons of mass destruction. Could somebody explain to me whether you think they're idiots or geniuses?"

I'm not clear on how having a missile defense system correlates to idiocy exactly. I also did not realize that in life one has the option of being either a genius or an idiot-- not that I'm categorically opposed to hyperbole or invectives.

I feel obliged to correct the lady parliamentarian, though. First, it would be mild to point out as irresponsible her attributing the torture of some Iraqis in Abu Graeb by a few American soldiers whose actions are condemned almost unanimously to all Americans. Second, Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. It may be claimed that massive stockpiles have not been found, but to say that no weapons have been found is factually untrue. That claim also ignores the extreme likelihood that WMDs were hidden or removed from Iraq in the days prior to the war.

But, let me be frank, I'm not really interested in debating either of those issues. I really don't even care that her statements impugn all Americans, really. Of course, the first thought is to assess the veracity of the claim, which is why I had to start with the above. Her remarks are patently false. That means I now feel obliged to consider the source of these remarks.

That's how I found this interesting articleabout Mrs. Parrish. Even though it is fairly out of date, it's very telling.

Some were prepared to dismiss her anti-American insult as an tactless off-the-cuff remark outside the House of Commons recorded by ultra-sensitive boom microphones. But a careful examination of her past reveals a track record of remarks so vile, and conduct so utterly lacking in human civility, that decent-minded voters of Mississauga will surely toss her out of office come the next federal election.

It turns out that Americans aren't the only objects of her hatred. Also on her personal blacklist are East Coast fishermen, French-speaking Quebecers, residents of downtown Toronto, members of her own Liberal Party, and even her boss, Jean Chretien.

[...]

Parrish's cheap shots often have a bullying tone, and stop just short of character assassination. Clashing with Beryl Ford, chair of the Peel Board of Education over the English as a second language program, Parrish threatened to "beat her up."

There's more, but I don't want to rip the entire article off, so go read it.

Then, I found this amusing and insightful post on another blog:

“I just think it’s wrong on every front you can imagine. It would inspire some countries to design missiles that can get through it, so you are just going to accelerate that whole arms race. Our job as peacemakers in the world is to decelerate that.� — Carolyn Parrish, Aug 18, 2004, Toronto Star

Yo, Carolyn, I hate to tell you this, but there are already entire countries plotting our (the West’s) destruction, and they’ll continue to do so regardless of whether the U.S. builds it’s missile shield or not.

Madam Parrish, I may share with you a tendency toward strong opinions and a disregard for common courtesy when ired, but given the binary circumstance false dichotomy you've outlined for us, I'm afraid I have to shed all modesty and call myself a genius. You needn't lose hope, however, your idiocy has a cure: think.

I do so hope to never hear of this woman again.

Kerry-isms

Someone start a list or a book somewhere. This should be big.

New York Times: Kerry Renews Call for Rumsfeld to Resign

Kerry says:

"The truth, which is what elections are all about, is that the tax burden of the middle class has gone up while the tax burden of the middle class has gone down."

This has got to be a personal best for Kerry. He managed to change positions in mid-sentence.

Found via Poor and Stupid AKA Donald Luskin

John Kerry Admits He Was Never In Vietnam

I just caught this on CNN.com:

"I watch a lot of the cable news shows, so I understand that you were never in Vietnam," asked Stewart, host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show."

"That's what I understand, too, but I'm trying to find out what happened," Kerry

So, he ADMITS that he lied! Ha HA! And this:

"Are you the No. 1 most liberal senator in the Senate?" he asked, joking about claims that Kerry is "more liberal than Karl Marx, apparently."

"No," Kerry answered.

Which is a bit of a trick question, because everyone knows that Karl Marx was replaced by his philosophical progeny for Senator of New York, although Kerry is still more liberal than her.

"Are you or have you ever flip-flopped?" Stewart asked.

"I've flip-flopped, flap-flipped," Kerry said

Again, he admits his duplicity. But then he hurls this ad hominem at the interviewer:

Stewart also sought answers to another hard-hitting question: "Is it true that every time I use ketchup, your wife gets a nickel?" The candidate's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, derived her wealth from her late husband, an heir to the Heinz food fortune.

"Would that it were," Kerry said.

That's low, dude. Low. But this this mysterious conclusion:

"You'd be amazed at the number of people who want to introduce themselves to you in the men's room," he said. "It's the most bizarre part of this entire thing."

I was not able to reach George Michael for comment.