Thursday, April 28

Now take a seat, junior, and listen to someone who gave their youth in service to their country. Mrs. Crabapple, the pledge, please.,0,4057307.story

Are these people serious? So instead of being thrilled that they have a teacher who is actually a successful published writer, (and is by all accounts a good teacher) they are mad because she writes trashy steamy romance novels? Afraid of what her students will be thinking about in class? It's a highschool class. They are thinking about sex. They were thinking about it before, and they will think about it after, they will think about it regardless of what anybody says or does. And the teacher has been teaching for at least 25 years, so nobody in the classroom is going to be fantasizing about her. I just don't understand people.

Tuesday, April 26

Arr, I'm in a lotta trouble now. Hey, I'll give ya a hundred bucks if you'll take the blame.

It doesn't so much bother me that these EPA people are shutting down oil production, as long as Obama would be willing to stand up and say, i don't think we should be producing gasoline in the US. He should stand up and say, i encourage blocking this oil production, and i encourage preventing all future oil production in the gulf of mexico because oil production is bad for the environment, and gasoline causes global warming. It is good that gasoline costs $5 a gallon because it will encourage americans to buy more efficient cars and use less gas. After all the europeans are paying considerably more than $5 a gallon. Those things are all true statements about Obama. But he refuses to admit it because he knows that very few americans agree with those statements. So instead he comes out and claims that oil prices are high because of speculators. Who are an easy boogey man because so few people actually understand speculation. So they can sit back and think, yeah, those rich fat cats driving up the price of oil. What drives up the price of oil is a limit in the supply. Libya isn't producing oil because Obama encouraged revolt there. Other arab countries need to keep the prices high to get money to pay off their people to prevent revolt. So they are not going to increase the oil supply. You know who could increase the oil supply? America. And that would drive down oil prices. These wells won't start producing immediately which is why they should have been green lighted a while ago, instead of Obama blocking all deep sea drilling despite court orders that he not do so. And if the price is high because of speculation denying drilling permits will only increase the speculation that there will be shortages in the future driving the price further up, while granting the permits wouldn't increase immediate oil supply, but would discourage speculating about high future prices.

Lisa i don't want to alarm you, but there may be a boogey man, or boogey men in the house.

Sunday, April 24

The trick is to say you're prejudiced against all races.

I wrote when this guy was first fired that it was nice that new jersey had so much money they didn't mind throwing it away by firing this guy for burning pages from a koran. The firing was clearly illegal and only and idiot or a politically correct extremist (idiot) would have fired him. And as it turns out, it was illegal. Now new jersey is out $50,000 (25 to the guy and 25 to the aclu for court costs) plus back pay for the guy and whatever their own court costs were. Add it all up and it's probably around $100,000. Not that it's that much money, but what should tax payers have to pay for this. Some government officials committed a crime by firing this guy and violating his constitutional rights. Is that person going to be disciplined in anyway? Will that person lose a dollar out of his own pocket? Is that person even going to have a note in his file that he cost the tax payers $100,000 with his reckless and clearly illegal firing of an employee? Almost certainly not. And another example of what's wrong with government. I'm not even saying the person responsible needs to lose his job, everybody makes mistakes. I think this would be a fireable offense, but just any mark in the file would be enough, so that if it happened again then he would be fired. Maybe that's happened. Maybe someone lost their job over this firing (I highly doubt it.) but in a private company where you can't just take an extra 100k from the tax payers they wouldn't be so cavalier about throwing money away.

Saturday, April 23

You know, one day honset citizens are going to stand up to you crooked cops. They are!? Oh no! Ha-have they set a date?

More stories of police brutality here. Not surprising. Police all over the country have reacted extremely poorly to being filmed. Filming police is completely legal and yet not only have police arrested people for this "crime" some district attorneys have tried to make the arrests stick. The problem police have is that they have always had all the power. What they say goes. Police are allowed to film you to verify their story, and if it turns out they beat up some innocent guy, well that tape just goes missing. So having other people tape them means for the first time they will be held accountable for their wrong doing, which is terrifying. Even the police union will have trouble protecting these guys once video is put up on the internet, although it does raise the question, why the hell is this cop still on duty. He attacks an innocent civilian breaks his nose among other injuries. The cop brings him in and arrests him for assaulting a police officer. So the cops word is enough to put the guy in prison, but now when the tape comes up proving the officer in fact attacked the man with no provocation, and then lied about it in order to put an innocent man in prison, not only has the cop not been arrested, not only has he not been fired, he hasn't even been taken off of active duty. This police officer ought to be immediately taken off duty, and should be charged with assault along with filing a false police report, false imprisonement, and any other crimes applicable. His attidute toward the end "Oh yeah, buddy. Hey, when you don't do what I ask you to do, then you're in a world of hurt. Then you're in a world of hurt. Aren't ya? Huh?" is exactly what is wrong with police officers. They live in their own little kingdom where they are kings and everyone else must obey them. And unfortunately with the power the police union even actually crooked cops are rarely disciplined, much less cops who just get out of line. There was a cop in CT not that long ago who got into a car accident while drunk and high on meth. He's on paid injury leave right now. What? Get hurt while committing multiple crimes and putting the public at risk and you get paid for it. That the way the cops have their union set up. Hopefully the spotlight on these cops will break some of this behavior, but i think in fact the public will forget too quickly for anyone to actually have to face discipline.

So you think you know better than this family, eh? Well as long as you're in my house you'll do what I do and believe what I believe! So butter your b$1-%C3%82%E2%80%98peace-bond%C3%82%E2%80%99

The supreme court has held that people have the right to protest outside the funerals of soldiers, so in what possible theory could it be wrong to protest outside outside a mosque. It seems to me that this is blatant racism. The police officers/judges/etc. are essentially saying that most members of society are adults, and as such they are required to act like adults. So if you son dies in iraq and you have a funeral and some idiots are outside protesting, you are required to ignore them. But because muslims are not adults, but rather emotional children they cannot be held responsible for get upset if someone protests outside their mosque. So there it is required of the rest of society to change the way we act. We must take extra responcibility as adults not to upset the muslims who are children. Why aren't muslims upset by this infantalization? This is essentially an open insult of all muslim people that they cannot react peaceably to a protest.

Beyond that idiocy, the more general idea of this law seems inherently illegal. Essentially as i understand it. If you are doing something that is completely legal, but it causes someone else to react in a violent way and commit crimes like rioting/assault/etc. then you are held responsible for their illegality. The article says this law has never been challenged, but i believe it is clearly illegal and certainly immoral. If someone commits a crime, then they are guilty of that crime. Not some other person who has done nothing illegal. If you were already committing a crime and that led directly to someone else committing crimes then maybe i could see some sort of chain linking you to someone else's crime. But to prosecute a completely innocent man, who has committed no crime because it seems possible that someone else might commit a crime as a result of the first man not committing a crime is just silly.

Friday, April 22

One for you, one for me. One for you, one for me.

Here's a novel idea. So first ethanol is not economically sustainable and is used only because government forces it. Second it does not help the environment, or increase energy supplies because it takes more energy to create then you get out of it (even al gore has admitted it is bad for the environment and he only supported it to appease iowa's corn mongers.) And it is terribly corrosive, eating apart people's lawn mowers and chainsaws. So here's an idea how about instead of having government regulations forcing the use of this product, and government subsidies promoting the use of this product, instead we you know, don't. If anyone saw the ayn rand movie/read the book/thinks the government's idiocy in ayn rand is really just a gross exaggeration this is more living proof. A product that is terrible for everybody except for corn growers in Iowa, but because everyone wants to curry favor with the first state that holds a primary we can't get rid of it. This government interference/cronyism at it's absolute worst. Taking money from one person and giving it to another at lease you leave society roughly the same as it was. This is actively and intentionally make the rest of society (and society as a whole) worse off to help a very small segment of it.

Hutz: Don't worry, Homer, I've got a foolproof strategy to get you out
of here -- surprise witnesses, each more surprising than the
last. I tell you, the judge won't know what hit him.
[camera pulls back to reveal Hutz is in the cell next to Homer]
Cop: [bangs bars with nightstick] Pipe down in there, Hutz.

Homer has his day in court.

Judge: Your license is hereby revoked, and I'd like you to attend
traffic school and two months of Alc-Anon meetings.
Homer: Your honor, I'd like that stricken from the record.
Judge: No.

Thursday, April 21

Sure, I might offend a few of the bluenoses with my cocky stride and musky odors - oh, I'll never be the darling of the so-called "City Fathers" who

cluck their tongues, stroke their beards, and talk about "What's to be done with this Homer Simpson?

Interesting opinion piece, mostly because it highlights why network television is dying. The major networks are so worried about offending anybody anywhere at anytime that they just recycle the same stale jokes over and over again. That is why none of the good TV is on networks anymore. When HBO became big with Soprano's and other similar shows, people wondered why they were able to make such a good show, and why the networks couldn't. It was claimed HBO had advantages like money or the ability to use curse words that the networks didn't have. But now all the best shows are on cable. And that's not my opinion, that's the emmys voter's opinions. The emmys now all go to cable networks shows like breaking bad, and mad men. These are both shows that they wouldn't allow on networks because they are too controversial. Breaking bad having to do with meth creation, and madmen for the constant smoking/drinking/degrading of women, etc. Even though they are all appropriate for the time period networks would be afraid to air them. Ask anybody between the ages of 20-30 and they are likely to tell you they like south park, and it's always sunny, both cable shows (i also like archer which is on cable) all three of those shows are very offensive to all manner of people and as such relegated to cable, but as such also much better and funnier than any commedy on the networks. His quote what could be more offensive than an offensive free show was just dead on. These shows on the networks are so politically correct they make me want to vomit. I started watching the league which is an fx show. It's actually pretty stupid, and i can't really recommend it, but i watch it just because it is so over the top offensive (although not in the clever/funny way that south park can be) that it's interesting compared to the homogenized drek on the networks.

Wednesday, April 20

I think it was called... "The bus that couldn't slow down."

Well this should be fun for conspiracy nuts.

The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're
entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The
answer is: No.

Tuesday, April 19

In high school I was voted most likely to *be* a mental patient, hillbilly, or chimpanzee!

Can someone explain to me why it is that when some goof burns a koran it's described basically as a crime against humanity. It's portrayed essentially as justifying the murder of 20 people, or how ever many died in the following riots. It wasn't the muslim's fault for rioting, it was the american pastor's fault for his vicious racist attacks by burning a koran. But some doof puts a crucifix in a jar of urine or blood, and that's art. That's art and it's put up in museums with pride.

Monday, April 18

Would you look at those morons... I paid my taxes over a year ago!

This story kind of buries the lead, but manages to get to it at the end. I can sympathize with the thought of retailers who say how can we compete with amazon, etc. They don't even have to pay sales taxes, of course people will buy their products. But that skips over the crucial question of what is the point of taxes. To the politicians taxes are just a way to raise money to increase their own power. The more money at their disposal the more power they have. Well obviously from that point of view anyplace that they fail to collect money from is a failure. But if we stop to think logically for a second, the purpose of taxes is to pay to run society, to pay police officers to make sure there are no robereries at a store's location, to pay to pave the roads so customers can come to your store, to pay for fireman, and snow plowers in the winter, etc. An online business doesn't require any of those things. They don't get anything at all from the states that they don't operate in. And as such why should they pay for anything the state does. They have a home state in which they require police protection and the various benefits the state governments provide, and so they should pay taxes for that, but in other states there simply is no reasonable explanation for why they should pay taxes, except somebody doesn't think it's fair. Well life isn't fair, and anyone who tries to tell you differently is selling something. Of course ultimately states have it in their own power, if they don't like the results of the sales tax, switch to an income tax. That sets all business equal.

Sunday, April 17

The internet? Is that thing still around?

Why are people allowed to make these claims. This is just so crazy. Ipads are bad because they put people out of work because what's the point of going to borders if you can just download stuff to your ipad. Who thinks that way? Communists i guess. Statists who believe that any employment is good. First off he's complaining about that fact that we won't be printing books on paper. I thought that was a good thing. I thought that was saving trees, and the environment. I guess some democrats don't care about the trees. But beyond that, the idea that progress creates unemployment is best suited to a menonite town meeting. By that logic Henry fords assembly line was a bad idea because it took fewer people to do the same work which would lead to people losing their jobs. Tractors that made food easy to grow and very cheap are bad because now we don't have to employ thousands or millions of people working the fields with plows. Computers are bad because they have made everything so much easier that you don't need nearly as many people to do the same work. How about we go back to having female switchboard operators to connect all telephone calls too. That would create more jobs. Increased efficiency is automatically good for the economy. Some people will be displaced, and it will be bad for those people, but the good that is done for everyone else outweighs that loss. I'd like to say i'm socked and surprised that someone could be so stupid, but unfortunately i'm not. This is so bad it's like the stupid ideas ayn rand forces her idiot government officials to have. Ideas that are commically bad, and seem like an extreme parody that wouldn't exist in the real world, but then read the news, and there it is.

Tuesday, April 12

If we're late for school, we'll miss our free Federal breakfast. Big deal, it's just saltines and fig paste. Ew, saltines?,0,4567867.story

Why is this legal. What is the school a movie theater now. No outside food or drink. That's fine if you are operating a business, or even a public area like a museum. But a school is a place where you legally require people to be. You legally require someone to show up to an area, stay there for 8 hours and not allow them to eat anything except for the food that you sell to them. What is wrong with people. What is wrong with administrators who think this could be a good idea. What is wrong with parents who allow it. And what is seriously terribly wrong with the parents who claim this is good because otherwise there is no check on the kids nutrition. YOU ARE THE CHECK. YOU FREAKING IDIOT. YOU ARE THE KIDS PARENT IT IS YOUR JOB TO MAKE SURE HE EATS HEALTHY IF THAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU, NOT THE SCHOOL'S JOB. Jebus. And why is it okay to trample the kids rights. If a kid has his own money that he earned doing chores, or helping a neighbor move, or selling drugs, what business is it of the federal government how they spend that money. Governments always love to trample on kids because they aren't allowed to vote, and as long as they are taught by incompetent unionized teachers, they'll never grow up to realize that they were opressed by the government. Would the government make it illegal for their employees to bring junk food to work, why not, we can't trust them to eat healthy. From now on no more donuts for cops, just celery sticks and carrots. They are not allowed to bring any food into the precinct. No of course not. Nobody would ever think to impose such an opressive rule. By they have no problem doing it to the kids. If a child's parents asks the school to confiscate junk food from him, and the teachers are able to keep track i don't have a problem with that, but this blanket policy should be illegal.

Sunday, April 3

Naw, that's OK. I'm pretty sure I can struggle my way out. First I'll just reach in and pull my legs out, now I'll pull my arms out with my face.

This is very bad news for Obama. If this really becomes a protracted ordeal going on into the election of 2012, it could easily sink his re-election, especially if there is some especially ugly incident in Libya to keep it fresh in people's minds. This has basically been a disaster for Obama from the start. First the uprising starts and Obama decides to do... nothing. A clever ploy, and one he's been reaching for more and more. Why decide something today when i can just wait and see what everyone else says about it and then agree with them. Like after the shooting in arizona when he waited a week to give his speech on civility. So he waits a while, actually mocks Hillary for wanting to intervene, but eventually pressure builds up with people upset at him for doing nothing. The french and other europeans want to get something done and it seems like a political wind is blowing towards getting Gaddafi out of power so Obama makes his move and jumps on the bandwagon only to find the wagon is empty. He is roundly criticized in the US for getting involved in another war (although he prefers kinetic engagement) and for not consulting congress about his war plans. meanwhile the leaders in europe all ditched on paying the check because none of them wants to be seen as responsible for the war, and the muslim nations that encouraged involvement have denounced and there Obama is left holding the bag. So Obama has make a sharp pivot and declare this is not a war, that we are not going to try to have regime change and that american soldiers will not be on the ground in libya. Thus creating some sort of differentiation from the Iraq war. Except then when does the mission end? Never? The mission was what exactly, to keep Gaddafi from killing his people, but not to take him out of power. Obama was hoping the rebels would do that for him, but it turns out they aren't strong enough. I know lets sell them some weapons they can use against Gaddafi and thus defeat him without direct US involvement, oh no wait it turns out that mean of the rebel fighters are al-qaeda members or at least for with them, so handing over powerful weapons is maybe a bad idea. That would be the worst of all worlds when it turns out the weapons we gave the libyan rebels are later used in afganistan to kill americans. So now what, we can't just leave without get rid of Gaddafi. Whatever Obama claims, if you come at the king, you best not miss. So now they are proposing a holding pattern where nato resources are expended to make sure nobody controls libya and this is supposed to be better for the civillians how? A protracted civil war. It is just all a giant mess. The right thing to do is obviously just send in the marines kill gaddafi or at least drive him out and let the rebels do what they will with the country, but Obama has dug himself in and can't do that, so he'll just have to sit on his hands and hope things work out. (or have the CIA clandestinely assassinate him like the british suggested.