January 23, 2004
I tried reading the transcript very slowly, but I got motion sick. I just can't understand the words that were coming out of his mouth. Is he speaking English? Can someone on my staff please verify at least that much? Bueller?
If you can prove he's speaking English, then I'm sure I can figure out what he's saying.
It's like wHn pPl UsE cRaZy CapiTAliZaTiOn AnD IrRGlr SpElLnG.
I just can't read it.
My eyes see the colors and the shapes, but my brain just can't translate it into language. Finding intelligence in the unintelligible isn't a skill necessary of a President, though. So, don't let that affect your vote.
I just wanted to let you know in case the BBC or someone starts saying I'm Dyslexic or something and that will stop me from launching nuclear missiles and so I can't be president. I will prove it right now that I can launch missiles if you give me the chance.
I will even volunteer to launch them at Al Sharpton if everyone's game.
Trey Givens for President!
January 21, 2004
1) Going to space is superawesometotallyradical. I think that we should go to space as often as possible. I would go to space right now if I could afford it. Our trips to space represent an awesome testament to human ingenuity and accomplishment. I am in awe at some people's genius.
2) NASA should be private or not at all. The government has no business taking money from me to fund trips to space. My money is for my own personal trips to space.
Thank you and good night.
I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as the union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.OK. Let me see if I can follow his logic.
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.
1) Some fictional entity has both defined marriage AND decreed that individuals are dignified.
2) In order to show respect for individuals, we must forbid some individuals from participating in an institution decreed sacred by said fictional entity.
3) Those who would oppose the edict from the most holy and extra-natural entity aforementioned, are being arbitrary.
4) Arbitrary, we all know, means putting reason before generally accepted faith.
I actually find it difficult to trace the hoops through which GW must have lept in order to come to his conclusion. It's clear, however, that GW believes that our government is subsumed by the Christian faith and that at its essence, our nation is not a republic but a theocracy. Further, ours, according to GW, is also a nation that respects the "will of the people" over the rights of the individual.
I wonder if anyone has made similar remarks about slavery and women's sufferage. hmmm...
Personally, even without the historical context, I find those remarks utterly and completely terrifying.
January 20, 2004
SOUTH EUCLID, Ohio (AP) -- Rebecca Jemison, who emerged as the true winner of last month's $162 million lottery drawing, is suddenly even richer. This Cleveland suburb is suddenly much poorer.Good for her! Now if only the Federal government would "forget" to steal part of my paycheck.
South Euclid city officials were stunned to learn that they can't collect $1.4 million in income taxes from the winning Mega Millions ticket since the city charter wasn't updated to include lottery winnings as taxable income.
Update: Go check out the brief comment made by Commonsense & Wonder. Good Eye, John Hudcock!
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- A husband and wife have been charged with murdering a 6-year-old girl whose back was broken in what police said may have been an exorcism gone wrong.The parents should be executed.
The couple was arrested Monday after being spotted on the street naked in the freezing cold along with two other children.
Police said the dead girl, whose body was discovered in a motel room, had been strangled and stabbed, and her back was broken. An autopsy was planned.
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A federal judge let marine biologists keep testing a sonar system for detecting deep-sea whales, despite environmentalists' fears that the noise will harm animals.Oh, so it's ok for Marine Biologists to have cool sonar but it's not OK for the Navy? How jacked up is that?
U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti said Friday the National Marine Fisheries Service had properly issued a permit last month for the Pacific Ocean testing during the annual winter migration of gray whales.
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- For many American office workers, the day begins with deleting spam. These days, a lot of electronic junk mail hits below the belt by seeking to profit from many men's deepest fear -- that their penises are too small.Apparently, when CNN isn't busy fellating the DNC they're finding new ways to state the obvious. (I won't apologize for the pun this time.)
From the vague "Expand your horizons" to the blunt "Want to increase your penis size?," the hard sell of penis-enlargement products plays on men's insecurity, experts say.
Without the extra protection, the release of identities "could have a real chilling effect and prevent victims from coming forward," Democratic state Sen. Peter Groff said.Although I understand that rape is an extremely traumatic crime to the victim, I don't really understand the legal reasoning behind protecting a victim who would suffer injustice rather than stand up for his or her rights. It also seems to me that especially in the case of celebrities, defamation of character is also extremely costly. Why not protect them, too? Oh, it seems like I remember something from history about a "speedy and public trial."
Rape shield laws in many states already protect the identities of alleged victims. Virtually all U.S. news organizations, including The Associated Press, have policies against releasing the names.
Groff's measure would allow prosecutors to decide whether to list accusers' names in legal proceedings under a pseudonym, such as Jane Doe.
More important to Sean, he finds himself fielding a large number of job offers and maneuvering through a Hollywood Oscar campaign that he hadn't expected.Cute though he is, Sean Astin seems to have missed the memo that defines the word "award." On the other hand, I think we all know how the Academy has missed that memo now and then as well. I mean, Michael Moore. Really? And that's your final answer?
"I'm uncomfortable with that idea," he told Reuters. "I don't want to be seen as shilling for awards."
"I want the work to stand on its own," he added. "(But) I'm not going to pretend I don't care about this environment because it's something that's meaningful to me."
January 19, 2004
On the other hand, we still have plenty of folks stupid enough to go in for that sort of thing. Astrology, what?
Ehn. You win some you lose some, right?
January 18, 2004
Thanks, Commonsense and Wonder!
I was listening to the Royal Marshall show the other night and he said some state representative or another has proposed a law that would fine parents $25 a day for their child’s unexcused absences. I couldn’t find a link to any articles of this proposal to show you, but that’s ok, because I want to talk about something else related to this.
I want to talk about the proper role of government. Now, I know, and most of my readers know, that the proper role of the government is to simply protect the rights of individuals from violations of force. Ayn Rand puts things so well:
Basically, there is really only one proper function: the protection of individual rights. Since rights can be violated only by physical force, and by certain derivatives of physical force, the proper function of government is to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force: from those who are criminals. Force, in a free society, may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. This is the proper task of government: to serve as a policeman who protects men from the use of force.But I’m curious, what do Democrats thing the proper role of government is? I’ll bet it has something to do with provide for the welfare of the citizenry. See the problem there? The role of the government is not to provide wealth and welfare to its citizens. The citizens of a proper government must pursue their own happiness.
From her interview with Playboy
And what might most Republicans say? I’ll bet it would include some reference to maintaining the moral integrity of the nation. That’s wrong, too. That there is a moral system of governance, laissez-faire Capitalism, should not be confused with governing morality.
In either case, some discussion about rights may come up. Well, what do people think a right is? The concept of ‘right’ refers to a specific, necessary condition that must be met in order for a person to live as a person. However, I will wager that most people you ask cannot offer a sound definition of the word ‘right’ and today we have a lot of confusion over the matter where some people use the word to refer to an entitlement or something they really want very badly.
There is really only one fundamental right and that is your right to your own life, but it is from that right that all others arrive. Your rights to your person, freedom of speech, property, and self-defense all flow from the very basic idea that as a human being, in order to survive even live as a human being, you must be allowed to live.
It is a contradiction to claim that one person’s rights require the violation of another’s rights and yet we see this all over the place.
The slow and steady socialization of healthcare has occurred thanks to the acceptance of the notion that a person has a right to healthcare. No matter the immediacy of your situation, you do not have any claim upon the efforts of another person, not even doctors, yet it is extremely common to hear a claim to the opposite and the end result is that doctors are treated as slaves.
They’re not the only ones. Our current government and society seems to accept lots of specious ideas when it comes to rights and the role of government. How about taxation? That you work, own, live, eat, or die is not exclusively your right as the government stakes a claim on your action.
Back to my introduction: One thing to which people do not have a right is that of education. But we have public schools.
Not only do we have public schools, it is illegal for you to raise a child in this country and not provide them with an education. If your child is in attendance at a public school, it is illegal for that child to miss school without sufficient excuse.
Clearly this is a difficult set of laws for our government to enforce. Illiteracy is a big problem in some areas still today. Ask Mississippi and I’m not joking.
But to stave off the problem, some in Georgia, including Royal Marshall, would fine parents whose children do not attend school.
While I think this is certainly a novel notion, I disagree on the grounds that such a law is based on the assumption that the government should have anything to do with education. It should not. So, why would I support a law that extends the government’s role in an area in which it already does not belong?
Pragmatists in the audience may say, “Well, Trey, we do have public schools and so long as we do have them, we might as well make good use of them.” I wonder if those people support the use of Nazi medical research. I mean, those Jews are already dead, right?
I watched each of them. Wisely, most of them focus not on the war with Iraq, although it doesn't go unmentioned.
I've made no secret of the fact that I have beef with Ol' GW, but the libs are certainly the easier target.
The biggest problem with both sides of the aisle on any subject, policy, action, situation, or context is their complete and utter lack of rational principle. Though I find those anti-Bush ads to be pretty noxious, I have to reflect on them and admit that Bush is a raving looney on lots and lots of issues.
If I may compare the Democratic Party to Ellsworth Toohey, I'm forced to continue the analogy and name the Republican party Peter Keating.
January 16, 2004
Y'all have probably already heard of this and I really don't feel like going into a rant about it so, I'd rather ask more important question: Why Do Republicans Suffer from Fits of Liberalism?
I mean, we've got the whole medicare thing that happened a little bit ago and then there was the whole illegal alien bluster that was going on and now there's this social engineering proposal.
It seems to me that Ol' Bushy lacks perspective on lots of issues. Could it be that he's making decisions because he wants to be re-elected more than he wants to make the right decisions? Could it be that he lacks the knowledge and intellectual development to run the government according to the principles that developed its constituion? Perhaps GW is once again using his office to promote his Christian values.
This is a good illustration or set of illustrations why I have such a difficulty supporting the Republican party. They're absolutely sickening sometimes with their lack of rationality.
On dreary days like these, I get really tired to politics because the VAST majority of the people in office haven't the first clue about what the government is supposed to be doing. Too many are in it for the power or the "prestige."
Update: While scooting around the web I also came across this post over at The Binary Circumstance on this very topic. Chip writes:
If any part of the program is paid for with tax dollars, it is not voluntary to those who are being forced to fund it against their will. This is taxpayer-funded social engineering to the max. It is the direct result of Bush's inability [or lack of desire] to stand up to Christian fundamentalists and their efforts to impose their religion on everybody else.
SPOKANE, Wash. -- Three men who went streaking through a Denny's restaurant were chilled and chagrined when they spotted a thief drive off in their getaway car, their clothes inside.Most unfortunate.
Naked in the 20-degree weather, the three young men huddled behind cars in a parking lot until police arrived.
"I don't think they were hiding. I think they were just concealing themselves," police spokesman Dick Cottam said.
The three entered the restaurant before daybreak Wednesday, wearing only shoes and hats. They left their car running so they could make a quick escape.
But the streakers watched through the windows as a man who had been eating inside the restaurant drove off in their car.
No charges were brought against the streakers.
"I think it was just three kids who decided to fool around," Cottam said. He added: "We always tell people to not leave their car running."
And yet another reason not to go streaking.
January 15, 2004
I have been around cows before and I can assure you that a cranky cow is no fun 'tall. But a hippity-hoppity cow puppy is much hilarity indeed!
So, I think there should be a farm for excitable cow puppies with swings and slides and stuff. That would be so much fun!
January 14, 2004
Plans for the redesigned World Trade Center memorial went public Wednesday when the architect unveiled his changes to "Reflecting Absence."I am one of those people who has stood in vehement opposition to this terrific waste of space since the very first mewlings about building a memorial started in the wake of 9/11.
The new plans include more greenery and park plazas around the reflecting pools that will go at the base of where the twin towers once stood and an underground museum.
The museum display will feature artifacts from the September 11 attacks where 2,752 people died at Ground Zero in New York. A crushed firetruck and twisted steel beams from the destroyed towers will be among the items.
I was one of those people saying that we should build the biggest building ever concieved in the spot of the World Trade Center instead.
Doesn't anyone realize what this war with terrorism is about? It's a war over ideas. America stands as the blazing white-hot center of human civilization. New York City is the crown adorning the head of Liberty and the World Trade Center was the brightest, most brilliant jewel.
The World Trade Center held such a profound meaning in this context because it was not a monument erected to worship some dead person. It was not a ruin to which pilgrims would flock every year to pay homage to mysticism. The World Trade Center was a center of world trade.
On the side of the good, the free, the brave; America is Capitalism. Capitalism is the only rational and moral political system for human beings. Freedom begats prosperity and our clear and dominating power as creators of wealth demonstrats this principle. It is to the very degree with which America has adopted Capitalism as its political system that we have succeeded. We are more capitalistic than anyone and we are more prosperous than everyone.
The World Trade Center was the epitome of that profoundly American ideal. Thus, it was the closest thing that could ever be to a really American monument.
No park with glistening pools and rustling leaves and names carved into stone will ever bear the weight, power, and symbolism that the World Trade Center once had.
That's why it was a target for the terrorists. They hate Capitalism. They hate America. They hate us. Why? Because we're right. We're good. And we have claimed all of the benefits which are rightfully ours.
By making a silly park out of what was once the halmark of our greatness, we are symbolically abdicating that greatness. In fact, the creator of this vapid and nauseating display admits the goal of his creation openly.
The water would cascade on attack victims' names engraved in an apparent random manner on stone walls surrounding the pools to convey the "haphazard brutality of the deaths," Arad said in a personal statement that accompanied his being named a finalist six weeks ago.It is a monument to death. It isn't about life. It's not about success. It's not about victory or triumph. It's about grief and sadness. It's explicitly created as a downer.
Arad said he would strive to "create a place where we may all grieve and find meaning" to the terrorist attack that toppled the Trade Center.We aren't going to find meaning in this monument for the terrorist attacks. We're going to give meaning to those terrorist attacks.
I am not here to say that we should not grieve the tragedy and loss of 9/11. Nothing I say here or have ever said can be rationally contrued to mean that I would minimize the horror. Everything I say, I announce as a statement of conquest over terrorists and in protection of all that is truly great about America.
You can't stop us.
This new park aptly called "Reflecting Absence" say, "Yes you can." Now we'll have a park sitting smack-dab in the place were bazillions of dollars in business used to be conducted every day. It stands as a stone and water interruption in America. Now 9/11 wil be frozen in space for posterity. That park anchors New York to its loss. That silly monument is the tragedy of 9/11 in perpetuity.
Our soldiers are fighting to prove that those terrorists are wrong. I go to work every day knowing that my life is concrete evidence that those terrorists will fail.
And now there will be a multi-acre statement in the middle of Manhattan defying not the terrorists but me. This monument is a symbolic white flag being waved behind the backs of our soldiers.
Those of you who did this make me absolutely sick. Pray to your ghosts and goblins that I never find a way to undo the evil you have done with my own hands.
January 13, 2004
I want to talk about this: Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Court says gay dad must hide lifestyle
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A gay father can't flaunt a homosexual lifestyle when his son is around, a state appeals court has ruled.There isn't a clue as to why the court or anyone saw it reasonable to place such a restriction upon the father, so I can only assume that it has something to do with his "flaunting," which we all know is part and parcel of the crime of perpetuating stereotypes and oppressing minorities. (Read: Hate Crime)
It's just sad that gay people can't even trust other gays to not do those things. But it's not their fault. I mean, this is all about internalized-oppression. The father really didn't know he was doing anything wrong.
But that's no excuse in the eyes of the law. Book 'm, Dano!
Next in the news:
- Mother Jailed for Talking About Upcoming Black History Month When She Herself is Black
- Man Sued for Owning a Laundro-mat While Simultaneously Being Korean
- Court Ruling Overturned: Indians Allowed to Work in Gas Stations Again
- Black Father Loses Custody Battle for Eating Fried Chicken
- Lesbian Group Sued for Damages by Carpet Preservation Society
- Pan-Asian League Files Class-Action Suit Against Penis Enlargement Spammers and Calculator Salesmen
- Native American Group Resents the Implication and Sues Everyone
- Paris Hilton Sued By Nordic League of Cultural Sartorial Integrity
- KKK Father Wins Custody Suit from Mother, Jew
- DWU* Charges Filed Against African-American Mime
- DWM** Charges Filed Against the Partridge Family
- Boi From Troy Jailed for Excess Conservativism in Gym
Oh yes. I went there, girlfriend.
* Driving While Un-Colored
** Driving While Multi-colored
I always say, "If you can't find something to complain about, you're doing it wrong." This goes in hand with "if you aren't having fun, you're doing it wrong."
So, anyway, I have found a new phenomenon afflicting the highways of Georgia that I really hate. I really hate when people come to a stop or almost a complete stop when they see a policeman. But I think I know why this problem has suddenly come to light.
You see, some months ago, the wise and insightful lawmakers of Georgia passed a law that says something to the effect of
If thou seest a member of our esteemed order of police on the side of the hi-way, bi-way, thoroughfare, or passage with lights ablaze though shalt proceed in one of two ways:Of course, I am opposed to superfluous laws. This law was passed to reduce the number of policemen struck while performing the most important service of writing tickets. Personally, I thought that the other law, though not as elegantly worded as the new law, was plenty.
1) If possible, thou shalt change lanes so that thee and thine might pass safely beyond our esteemed member of the order of police or
2) if ye are unable to move to a lane away, thou shalt slow thine vehicle to a maximum speed of 45 mph regardless of traffic or conditions.
If you hit someone, including coppers, with your car we just might bust a cap in your ass.I also happen to think that passing laws to prevent crimes is a stupid, stupid idea. I really thought that experts in the practice of jurisprudence had established that as not only ineffective but also misguided. This is certainly not the proper role of the government.
So, today on my way to class, I encountered a traffic snarl that came as a result of a policeman sitting on the side of the road with his Radar Gun of JusticeTM and lights flashing. Because of this very obvious attempt to meet some quota, some of my fellow drivers reacted by suddenly switching lanes without prior invitation or announcement. (Rude!) The rest of those on the road with me reacted by slowing to a speed only slightly slower than a speeding snail doing the green apple quick-step.
Aside from the obvious threat to safety, this sort of trap should be contested as objectionable on the grounds that it clearly demonstrates the absurd expansion of the law to situations beyond the purpose and expectation of the law.
More simply, the law was written explicitly to ensure the safety of policemen who are out of their cars writing tickets. A policeman sitting on the side of the road with his lights pointing a radar gun is not even close to the sort of situation to which the law was intended to apply.
And the role of government is to protect the rights of citizens. Do, someone, please tell me which rights of which citizens are being violated when a policeman is parked on the side of the road with his lights on in order to entrap driver who are otherwise proceeding normally on their business under optimal driving conditions.
I guess I should thank my state lawmakers because due to their profound stupidity and lack of respect for the citizens of this state, I now have something new to complain about: People who stop or recklessly switch lanes any time they see a policeman.
Gee, thanks, y’all. What might I have done for a post this afternoon with out this law?
January 12, 2004
I'm not sure why this is such a surprise. I was personally at war with Iraq before 9/11 myself. Any person who has even a few right ideas in their head would agree so, it is no surprise that GW Bush was with me on this. The advantage I clearly have over any President of the United States is that I didn't have to make a public statement of the fact. Of course, I would have said so had anyone bothered to ask. On the other hand, seeing as how I am but one person without a team of ninjas or special ops guys at my disposal, my plan was of the "long term" variety. I assure you, though, Saddam's ass was going to burn.
But GW got to him first. I don't really begrudge him the success, though. There is more than one way to skin a cat and I don't mind so long as the cat is skinned. Figuratively, of course.
Another reason I think it's surprising that O'Niell's remarks have caused such an uproar is that the war in Iraq was and continues to be only tangentially related to 9/11. I thought GW Bush made that pretty clear.
I don't mean to kick, stab, punch, claw, backup and drive back over the dead horse, but history reveals to us that once upon a time not so long ago, Iraq was an eslaved nation driven by a dictator and madman to invade its neighbor, Kuwait. And if you're not familiar with justice on the international scale, you should know that such actions warrant a solid butt-kicking by anyone who cares to come to the defense of the victim nation. So, Iraq invaded Kuwait and we came to the rescue. We agreed to stop the pounding and leave Saddam in power if Iraq met certain conditions.
These conditions changed lots of times over the years. President Clinton bombed Iraq for a little bit for violating the terms of the agreement and then stopped again. And the terms changed some more and the UN continued to make a great case for the invention of Viagra.
And then GW Bush came along and Saddam Hussein, the aforementioned dictator and madman, was still acting up. So, is it any surprise that GW Bush was planning on doing something about it? I mean, really?
9/11 was certainly a call to action. No doubt it was a handy motivator for moving up the timeline of the War with Iraq, but it isn't really a surprise to me that it was in the works prior to that tragic date.
Perhaps the headline should read, "Bush Detractors Continue to Underestimate the Responsibility of the Presidency." Kind of makes you wonder why anyone would really vote for any of the Democrats if they continue to show that they have no idea what is required of the President of the United States of America.
That and other things about the man are terribly unfortunate.
MIAMI, Florida (AP) -- A man who lived on a golf course for 40 years was told to leave because some golfers complained that he scared them.I don't like homeless people. Most homeless people are crazy, alcoholics, or drug addicts.
Other golfers, however, said Kenny Bethel is harmless and should be allowed to stay at Palmetto Golf Course.
Bethel, 55, first showed up at the golf course after he ran away from home in 1963. He collected and resold stray golf balls, used the club's showers and toilets at night and slept in a sheltered area on the course that housed the showers.
"This course became my job and, later, my home," he said.
For the last nine years, he had been joined by his wife Francis, 43. They have since relocated to a space under a nearby bridge.
I don't know what this guy's malfunction is, but he needs to know that he's not allowed to just plop down on people's property and take up life. He was only allowed to be there for 40 years because the owners didn't care. Now that they do care, he has no choice but to move along.
The protestations are spurious and silly. But the one that really got me was this:
"He's a nice guy," agreed golfer Mario Deif. "You have to admire someone who has debunked modern life and lives off the land."This guy doesn't live off the land, you moron. He lives off of other people's property by salvaging golf balls that the true owners don't care to reclaim. And that doesn't "debunk" modern life. If anything, the fact that he used to sleep in a public shower shelter and now lives under a bridge affirms the luxury and benefit of modern life.
Bethel is a vagrant, a bum, a squatter, a low-life, an unsavory character. I don't care what you say, he's a nut. And there isn't any reasonable explanation at all as to why that should be admired.
To those people who always think that the not-modern life is so grand I say, "Go live it." If you think it's just so wonderful, get out of my way and go give up your worldly possessions and live a life free of all our modern inconveniences that weigh upon your spirit. No one will stop you. But if you take up on my golf course, I will have you thrown out.
In a fit of sense, our own Occupational Safety and Health Administration has generally refrained from trying to protect symphony orchestra members from the noise of the bass trombones, trumpets and tympanies in their midst. Not so in the European Union[...]Oh, do read on. No real surprises though. It's Europe afterall.
January 08, 2004
The woman who claimed she lost the winning ticket for the $162 million Mega Millions jackpot admitted Thursday that she lied about winning and apologized for filing a lawsuit.There are so many levels to her deception.
"I'm a good person, I'm a good mom, I have good children," she said.
Not only did she never own a lottery ticket, she is not a good person.
You can judge a person by their actions and she is clearly rotten to the very core.
Cable TV made a West Bend man addicted to TV, caused his wife to be overweight and his kids to be lazy, he says.Can someone 'splain me how staying on the internet for a lifetime is going to help any of them become less fat and lazy?
And he’s threatening to sue the cable company.
Timothy Dumouchel of West Bend wants $5,000 or three computers, and a lifetime supply of free Internet service from Charter Communications to settle what he says will be a small claims suit.
Dumouchel blames Charter for his TV addiction, his wife’s 50-pound weight gain and his children’s being “lazy channel surfers,” according to a Fond du Lac police report.
I have it on good authority that the internet is not aerobic exercise.
“I believe that the reason I smoke and drink every day and my wife is overweight is because we watched TV every day for the last four years,” Dumouchel stated in a written complaint against the company, included in a Fond du Lac police report.The only think I have the energy to say in response to this stupidity is "nah uh."
“But the reason I am suing Charter is they did not let me make a decision as to what was best for myself and my family and (they have been) keeping cable (coming) into my home for four years after I asked them to turn it off.”
“Even though we consider our services to be a very powerful entertainment product, I don’t think it’s reached a medical level yet where it could be proved to be addictive,” Miller said.I'm glad they aren't taking it seriously, but those words at the end are a warning sign. The fact that it is so common for people to file such claims is a sign that they believe they can, and surely they can, win the case.
“In our society, any kind of legal action shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone,” he added. [Emphasis added]
This is a clear indicator that our judicial system is supporting the gradual move away from individual authority and recognizence when it comes to matters of an individual's own life and property.
January 06, 2004
Maybe it has something to do with it being a crime against nature? I don't know.
Thanks, Nanaimo Lady!
January 05, 2004
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - (KRT) - The cargo ship Jade, carrying 70 tons of mahogany harvested from the Brazilian rain forest, lowered a 50-foot ladder over its side about three miles off Miami Beach on the afternoon of April 12, 2002. A harbor pilot climbed on board to steer the 965-foot ship into the Port of Miami.Next, I'd like to draw your attention also to these definitions of terrorism.
Two uninvited visitors followed.
Scott Anderson, 28, and Hillary Hosta, 29, expert "climbers" hired by the environmental group Greenpeace, leaped from a pair of Zodiac inflatable boats and clambered up the ladder, toting a banner with the message: "President Bush, Stop Illegal Logging."
So began a routine protest resulting in a prosecution that, legal experts say, threatens to chill free speech and profoundly change the rules of peaceful protest. [emphasis added]
The ship's radio crackled, "This is Greenpeace. We are conducting a peaceful demonstration alongside your ship. We are protesting cargo from Brazil. We also have personnel on your ship."
Hosta and Anderson were stopped before they could unfurl the banner. By nightfall, six Greenpeace activists were under arrest. Anderson and Hosta, along with four others, spent the weekend at the Federal Detention Center in Miami.
They pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor, an obscure charge of "sailor-mongering," and paid fines ranging from $100 to $500.
(1) The term "international terrorism" means activities that -Now, Greenpeace claims that they do not advocate violence, but their supporters do. hmmm... drawing a distinction, I see, between the organization and its membership. Fine.
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
(5) the term "domestic terrorism" means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States
Their mistake was that here, Greenpeace actually paid for this very illegal protest. Call it peaceful all you want, but I'll wager this isn't the first time they've funded criminal activities.
And keep in mind this is very illegal. You're allowed to say what you want and protest all you want on your own property. You are certainly NOT allowed to clamber upon someone else's boat, house, car, building, whatever, to speak your mind. If you are not welcome on private property, we call that trespassing and it is a criminal activity.
The charges levied against the protestors in this case are that of “ship-mongering.” Those who protest the charges argue that the crime is antiquated, (only because people don’t do it so often anymore) but ignore the fact that it IS a crime and for good reason. They further call themselves defenders of free speech, but I ask you, what good is free speech without property rights? None ‘tall.
And by their own admission, these sorts of “protests” and criminal activities aren’t new. In fact, Scott Paul, one of the arrested said this was nearly just "another day at the office for Greenpeace."
So, now let's see if Greenpeace and their supporters count as terrorists:
1) Do they commit violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are also criminal?
Indeed. Interfering with a ship-going vessel is not very safe. Other protests have included activities such as vandalism and general mischief.
There is one key premise here that most would miss: An assault upon a man’s property is an assault upon the fruits of his labor and the action of his mind. By paying no respect to what an individual owns, they pay no respect to an individual.
If rights are the conditions necessary such that a person can survive as a person, then personal rights are the foundation upon which all other rights are established including the freedom of speech. If you do not have rights to your person, how can you own what you produce? And how can you speak your mind if you do not own your mind? This is why Life, Liberty, and Property are so critical to Amendment V of the US Constitution and our entire system of law.
To suppose that the freedom of speech supercedes your right to your person and your right to your property is to put the cart before the horse, which will ultimate destroy both the cart and the horse.
Without our rights, we would be slaves to tyrants and bullies like Greenpeace. Such an assault is, very literally, an assault upon our lives and livelihood.
2) Are those acts intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population OR influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion?
They do indeed.
Greenpeace's activities are not on the scale that we typically associate with terrorism and, for the most part, I like to think they aren't trying to hurt people directly, although they do things that endanger lives. They just want to protect the environment AT THE EXPENSE OF LIVE AND WELL-BEING OF HUMANS.
I support free-speech but I do so with full knowledge of what rights are. Greenpeace does not have knowledge of what the freedom of speech means or from which it is derived and they care nothing for property rights.
Greenpeace, like so many other environmentalist organizations, are criminal. We may not call them terrorists, but they should be stopped for the simple fact that their stated purposes, motivations, and methods are a threat to our lives.
This isn’t a matter of free speech. This is a matter of national defense.
BRASSTOWN, N.C. -- For the past 12 years, on New Year's Eve, this Appalachian town has lowered a possum in a Plexiglas cage from the roof of a gas station at the stroke of midnight. It is called the Possum Drop and hundreds of people pack downtown Brasstown to see it.You all know what I think of PETA: they are an absurdity and an affront to decency and rational thought.
But on Wednesday, the day The New York Times published a piece on the Possum Drop, Logan got a call from a man who said he represented the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, headquartered in Norfolk, Va.
Debbie Leahy, director of PETA's captive animals and entertainment issues, said she did not know who made the call but the event was "perverse, reckless and terrifying to the possum."
"There's a number of legal actions we could pursue against that guy," Leahy said.
Logan, 57, said he thought about using a live possum anyway.
"But I can't fight these people," he said. "Not with lawyers and all."
So, with hours to go and the crowd building, Logan put the word out: Find me a possum, a dead one.
I wonder if they realized that now people will be hunting dead possums every year. And we all know how things get dead sometimes.
January 04, 2004
PASADENA, California (CNN) -- The robotic explorer Spirit woke up to its first full day on Mars on Sunday, hours after making a perilous landing, sending postcards to Earth and taking a much deserved snooze.What makes me mad, though, is that this amazing machine's name is "Spirit."
The $400 million NASA craft, the first to land without disaster on the red planet since 1997, probably woke up around 5:30 p.m. ET Sunday.
That was a few hours after Martian dawn, when the sun's rays juiced up its solar panels enough for it to wake itself up, according to the space agency.
What hippie-ass, new-age, crystal-waving, neo-communist, pachooli-wearing witch doctor dubbed it that?
In the best light, we might say that the name means "determination" or "resolve." But why not name it those things if that's what was meant?
Oh, I know, because in its absolute worst light, the word "spirit" refers to an ephemeral, non-existent entity consisting of a consciousness divorced from materiality; a ghost. There are those (religious folk of all brands) who glorify this irrational notion and thus, I am 100% positive that someone somewhere found the double-meaning to be uplifting.
That name is actually an insult to anyone who recognizes the value of this accomplishment. The thought that some dirty mystic had a hand in this is as offensive as thinking that Hitler had anything to do with the creation of Joy.
Also, why is CNN reporting on this from Pasadena? I don't get it.
UPDATE: Ok. I'm now not so mad any more about the name. Court from Miniluv put my mind at ease with a link that explains the origin of the name. It really does mean "determination," "resolve," or, more accurately, "inspiration." Welcome to America, Collis. Sounds like you got it about right.
But if I hear one sermon about this great feat of human ingenuity being something for which we should be grateful to 'god,' I'm warning you!
January 03, 2004
First of all, liquor licenses. Why do people need a license to sell liquor? So the government can get into places it doesn’t belong. Second, the government is withholding permission to act from these entrepreneurs to oblige them to pay taxes.
Next time someone tries to argue that taxes aren’t collected at the implicit point of a gun, I will point to this as a ready example to the contrary.
I am also of the mind that unless some particular action does not violate anyone's rights, I should be allowed to do it. In fact, in many cases I do go right ahead do it. Why? I do not need anyone's, least of all the government’s, permission to act when it comes to my person and my property.
This is the American way. The government operates by my permission, not the other way around.
Apparently, times have changed since the birth of my revolutionary sentiment back in 1776.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.