October 12, 2010

So now what?

Via Ace we see that a judge has ruled Don't Ask Don't Tell unconstitutional.

Ignoring the breathtaking judicial overreach and how this could also harden opposition as we only seem to get democracy when Teh Peepul make the right choices...

That means they go back to the system before that, right? The one where, if they find out you're gay, they kick you out.
If so, the only difference appears that now they can ask so if you lie and they find out, you're in trouble for being gay and lying.

Where am I wrong?
Did this judge wave a wand and change the policies of the US military so it's, ipso facto and presto chango, okay to be gay in the military?

Posted by: Veeshir at 05:44 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

October 05, 2010

A bit of a contrary position

As I'm sure all three of our readers have heard, Jim DeMint repeated his statements that openly gay people and sexually active unwed women should be banned from teaching.  There has been the expected, and not unfounded, reaction to this, with GOProud in particular stating that this is not a conservative position.

My reaction to all of this is basically "and"?  Look, I think DeMint's position is idiotic.  Sexuality should be irrelevant to teaching.  By the way, that includes saying that there should be more openly gay teachers as role models to kids.  In my perfect world, teachers are lovely asexual beings who have no discernible private life.  Yes, yes, that won't happen but I can dream.   

The reason that I'm not terribly offended is because this is a position with which I am familiar.  I was raised in the Evangelical Christian world and statements like DeMint's are the norm.  It's difficult for me to get all worked up about something that is part of the air I breathed.  Perhaps I should be more queer power and girl power about it but I simply can't.  Part of the reason why is because it is an intellectually consistent position.  If you believe that a teacher should not be representing a positive view of sexual activity outside of the bounds of marriage, then opposing both gay teachers and sexually active unmarried women makes sense.  You'll note, however, there is nothing stated about unmarried sexually active men.  I do not know if that's due to the difficulties of an obvious cue (ie pregnancy) or due to the fact that the vast majority of teachers are female.  At least credit DeMint for not going after only the gays.

As an aside, this position is part of what drives many in the Evangelical world to marry at what is now considered a young age.  I attended a religious college where the spring semester was known as engagement season.  Why?  Because it was incredibly difficult to find a job as a pastor, youth pastor, music minister, Christian school teacher or the like if you weren't married.  Actually, it was a bit harder on the men than the women, there's an interesting strain of viewing unattached single women as quasi-nuns in the Evangelical world.  Thus, there was a great deal of societal pressure to get engaged before graduation.  What's even more interesting is the shock and denial with which I was greeted when I pointed this out to various people.  It's a huge blind spot in parts of that world.  But I digress. 

The one part about that that I do find intriguing is how both sides are claiming that the other is not conservative.  This whole kerfuffle is coming on the heels of the Homocon/Ann Coulter mess wherein the accusation was made that it is impossible to be both queer and conservative.  A variant of that argument is now being made in reverse.  There are some, like GOProud, whose position is that DeMint's comments are not conservative as such a policy would require increased governmental interference in schools and private lives.  That is also an intellectually consistent position given a definition of conservatism that is based around limited government.  If one is using a definition of conservatism that is centered on social positions, then DeMint's position is actually the conservative choice.

The various Purity arguments that have been raging over the last month or so all come down to arguments over definition.  There seems to be this drive to make there be One True Definition of Conservative and all others be gone.  I do not subscribe to that theory.  I believe there is room for a spectrum of conservative thought.  I do appreciate knowing what definition someone is using before engaging his/her arguments as that saves a great deal of time down the line.  But I'm not willing to shove people out of the conservative movement simply because they think that I don't belong there.  If I demand that people accept that I can be both queer and conservative, then I must extend the same tolerance to their belief that I am, well, going to Hell.  Note also that I'm using tolerance in the actual meaning of the term, see re: the end of Lemmiwinks in South Park for the best explanation of this.  My position boils down to this - so long as the greater objectives of attempting to return to a limited government are agreed upon, then we'll fight about the rest later. 

So, yes, I'm not going to go to eleven on DeMint for this.  I can see why others will but, for me, there's nothing either shocking or interesting in what he had to say. 

Posted by: alexthechick at 10:23 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 789 words, total size 5 kb.

September 28, 2010

Fun with net neutrality

Was asked to comment on net neutrality, so I'll go ahead and do that, I promise this won't turn into a twenty part series on the LOST treaty, but I'll offer some thoughts. 

I tend to be leery of net neutrality simply because I'm real squeamish when it comes to allowing government to dictate what private industry can and can't do in conducting their business.  The last thing I want is the government overseeing the intarwebz, especially the idjit brigade that runs the FCC.  Now, I don't have any issue with ISPs imposing net neutrality on themselves as internal company policy, I think that's commendable, and I'd be supportive of ISPs and services that did that.  Google and Verizon have sort of been laying out a compromise of sorts to try and address net neutrality...I think this is a good and healthy thing, if it's something they do internally as part of a trade agreement type deal, not as some screwball Congress/corporate lawmaking venture that turns into a giant bureaucratic clusterfuck that leaves us poorer and less free.

Beyond that, I'm just not seeing signs of ISPs squashing content they don't like on much of a regular basis, if anything, the content on the intarwebs continues to grow rapidly.  I also think that as soon as an ISP got too power-hungry or Nannyified, they'd see huge losses in customers, it'd be like a cable provider going, 'uh, hey, yeah, we're gonna take away 2/3rds of your channels because these are channels we don't like...cool?'  Not cool, you'd go find another cable provider or look at alternatives.  People are used to doing whatever the fuck they want on the intarwebs, and God help the poor bastard that says NO.  People were never used to having whatever they wanted available when they wanted with TV and radio, the regulations were largely there from the beginning.  It just won't go well for them to get heavy-handed with controlling content, there'd be an instant, vicious backlash.  FAIL gets one of two things on the intarwebs, copious amounts of hate or brutal mockery...ask AOL.

I really do like Reason TV's segment on net neutrality, I think it's worth a watch,



Ultimately, I go by this...is it easier to break a corporation's control, or the government's?

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 10:51 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.

September 16, 2010

I am pretty much sick of Pat Buchanan

Folks on this blog and elsewhere disagreed pretty strongly about the Delaware Senate primary. Good folks. People who are my [pretend internet] friends. But there's a line. And Pat Buchanan has taken a giant crap on that line.

First, he (fairly) criticized Mike Castle's record while managing to turn a blind eye to any deficiencies of O'Donnell's that might have fueled the "hysteria and nastiness" from Rove, et al. (How terribly incomplete and unoriginal.)

Buchanan then launched into his own hysterical, nasty, and paranoid drivel about the Neocons lying us into Iraq. Behold, the inane tripe of Patrick J. Buchanan:

O’Donnell’s conservative convictions and Castle’s social liberalism mean nothing to them.
They are about power and all that goes with it.

And that raises a question too long put off.

What is the Republican establishment going to do, what are the neoconservatives going to do, if returned to power?

Are not these the same people who assisted George W. Bush in stampeding the nation into an unnecessary war that got 4,400 Americans killed to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons he did not have?

Are these not the same people who misled or deceived us about Iraq’s role in 9/11?

[***snip***]

Are not the National Review and Weekly Standard scribblers and their neocon comrades of the mainstream media not now drumming up another war for Americans to fight, against Iran?

Really, Pat? You're going to carry water for Ye Olde Media and George Soros, with this bullshit about lying us into war? Do you really think so little of Dubya and crew that they would send our men and women into certain death for no apparent reason?  Do you really think so little of Colin Powell, who to this day maintains that the evidence against Iraq, however tragically flawed, was compelling and not fabricated?

And that's really the problem with the whole "neocon" analysis. There's no real motivation for the Iraq war aside from weapons and terrorism ties.  And no, nobody said anything about 9/11 and Iraq.  (There were, however, well-documented ties to Al Qaeda -- just not 9/11 specifically, as countless news interviewers forced just about every administration official to say on the record.)

But since we're casting aspersions here, I suppose I should point out that when certain people say "neocon", they mean "Jew".  Those dirty Jews and their Jew wars. Just can't trust 'em.

Why is it that certain people take this man seriously when his bio blurbs read like this?:
Patrick Buchanan is the author, most recently, of Churchill, Hitler, and ‘The Unnecessary War,’ now available in paperback.

Oh yeah. Pat thought WWII was unnecessary. I think that says quite a bit right there.  (Perhaps the neocons traveled back in time somehow...)

So, Pat - tell me if I'm getting this right -- the Jew neocons are upset that Chrstine O'Donnell won because it might interrupt their Jew plans to bomb Iran's totally peaceful nuclear program?  Is that it?

Posted by: JoeCollins at 10:30 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.

September 13, 2010

Of course the DE primary is a huge clusterfuck!

I'll start off by saying normally I'd have a preferred candidate, but I don't really have one, if I had to pick, I'd probably say O'Donnell for no other reason than to dislodge an incumbent, shake shit up for the sake of shaking shit up and to kick the GOP leadership in the balls again. 

Look, this is exactly what happens when there is no functional party leadership, and there is no functional party leadership, oh, there are people holding positions, making statements and shifting money around, but they aren't leaders.  Leaders lead, and you can't lead if the people you're attempting to lead have zero faith and trust in you. 

There's a strong case to be made that Castle should be the guy, especially given that, as our friend and moronblogger-in-arms tmi3rd noted a few weeks ago on Twitter, Delaware is so blue it looks like a Smurf splatter flick, the question I guess becomes, is he in that acceptable range of RINOism, or has he reached that Linc Chafee/Scozzafava You know what, not worth it stage of RINOism?  Beyond that, there's no doubt that O'Donnell is a bit flaky and off. 

The problem is that the GOP leadership led the charge for Castle, because only the GOP leadership could get excited about a squish like him.  Anything that the GOP leadership willingly supports is going to automatically be suspect amongst the grassroots and Tea Partiers, even if the blind pigs of the GOP leadership did in fact find a truffle.  Those amongst us in the blogosphere and commentariat who are grinding their teeth over this Castle/O'Donnell thing need to chill the fuck out.  We're getting angry at the wrong people.

In a way I'm reacting to the slapfight going on between the Powerline guys, Mark Levin, Patterico and Dan Riehl.  One quote from Paul Mirengoff seems to really be the center of the shitstorm,

"It's disconcerting to realize that many of our activists aren't even as astute as the likes of Markos Moulitsas."


First off, Mirengoff deserves every ounce of abuse he's getting for an ignorant incendiary line like that.  But in a way, he's right, especially with regards to Tea Partiers.  Yeah, he's not wrong entirely, a lot of these Tea Partiers are political novices.  And yeah, mistakes are going to be made as a result of that.  Kos and his merry band of Marxists are fairly politically experienced and savvy (in their own demented, evil way), and the handy thing for liberals is that they're collectivists, so new people are simply drones, drones don't have to think, they just have to do what they're told, if they're more to the human hive, they'll present themselves as such in due time.  Individualists don't operate that way, so there's always going to be growing pains associated with bringing new people in for conservatives and libertarians. 

Instead of grinding his teeth and bitching about it, Mirengoff ought to be thrilled.  A lot of these people didn't eat, sleep and breathe politics like the rest of us have for years, sometimes decades for us, and some never will.  I'd rather have the extra people on board and work on polish and savvy than drive them off by sneering at them like the GOP leadership in DC and comparing them to human refuse like Kos.  We wouldn't be doing what we're doing nationally without them here, and conservatives who are supporting Castle and grinding their teeth over O'Donnell's strong showing and tea party/grassroots support need to keep that in mind. 

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 01:21 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 598 words, total size 4 kb.

August 20, 2010

You Want Hate? I'll Give You Hate

I am fucking sick and fucking tired of being told that wanting a better life for my family is somehow racist. I am fucking sick and fucking tired of being told that not wanting to be taunted for the most vile attack on our country in my lifetime is somehow "bigoted'. I am really fucking sick and fucking tired of being told that "hate" is what motivates me.

Instead of hiding, I'll admit to something. Yesterday was my daughter's first day of Kindergarten. And as I stood in line with her to enter school, I saw the tiny little thing that I used to be able to hold on my lap walk into the future. I saw the most precious and valuable gift ever given to me set forth on a journey that will lead to (hopefully) a lifetime of happiness and enjoyment. And I saw the future walk into a classroom with a backpack bigger than her, and I thought about her future. And I was and am worried.

Yes, I am worried. What kind of future will she have? And I became angry. I became angry at those who wish to ruin her future. And I began to let the hate grow. Yes, the hate for those who wish to make her life more difficult than what I had. Not hate for an ethnic or other group, but hate for an idea, since people can change their views. And the idea I hate is liberalism. I confess, I hate. I hate those who want to advance an agenda that ruins the today, the tomorrow, and the tomorrow's tomorrow. And to them, I wish them the following:

more...

Posted by: eddiebear at 09:37 AM | Comments (91) | Add Comment
Post contains 549 words, total size 3 kb.

August 19, 2010

My Take On The Sudden Love For Dubya By The Left

This pile of crap from the Washington Post would not have interested me (I mean, every fuvking liberal blog and invisible dicksucker on the air has been saying the same for the last few days, as if it were coordinated), save this awesome bit of stupidity:

And if the Muslims who want to build a community center are no more responsible for, or supportive of, the attacks of Sept. 11 than any other Americans, how can their plans be "insensitive" {maybe because they have guys like this fronting them.-ed} The hurt feelings must reflect misunderstanding or prejudice on the part of the objectors, and the right response to misunderstanding and prejudice is education, not appeasement.

My emphasis.

Here is my response to that:

more...

Posted by: eddiebear at 02:18 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 295 words, total size 2 kb.

August 17, 2010

Not bothered by Christie's reaction to the Ground Zero Mosque shitstorm

He's basically ducking the issue, and I have no problem with it.  Now, note, I'd like to see him acknowledge that building a mosque at Ground Zero is obnoxious. Particularly given that you know there are a lot of people from northern Jersey that died on 9/11, and the families might not be thrilled about this mosque going up. 

All said, he's still a Republican governor in the Soviet of New Jersey.  Christie's chosen the budget as the hill to make his stand on, and is scoring some wins where no one would have guessed he could score some wins, this mosque thing is a distraction for him that he doesn't need.  Christie knows that there's not a damned thing he can say or do that is going to change what happens with the mosque, so why not leave it to others to hash out? 

I'd do whatever I could not to get sucked into the giant shitstorm that this controversy is becoming were I him.  Smart move on Christie's part.  You keep doing your thing Governor, just try not to say anything that's gonna get you sucked into the shitstorm.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 12:06 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

August 14, 2010

For One Of The Few Times In My Life...

I am completely at a loss for words.

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn209/doubleplusundeadnu/10-02.jpg

Posted by: eddiebear at 11:34 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

August 12, 2010

America, Fuck Yeah!

A little optimism in otherwise dour times.

(h/t: Ernest Thing)

Posted by: Moron Pundit at 01:06 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

August 08, 2010

Ezra Klein: What anti-business environment?

Seriously?

How about totally boning the automaker bond holders to save the UAW?  Or the abortion that is the Chevy Volt? Or Obamacare, the first symptoms of which are the cumulative multi-billion dollar corporate write-downs?  Or FinReg, which will have repercussions for credit availability for small business startups?  Or the "U.S. Manufacturing Enhancement Act of 2010" (née "Miscellaneous Tariff Bill")  Those are just a few things that come to mind.

Ezra Klein is so off track he's beyond just being wrong.  This is a "Baghdad Bob" level of denial.

Posted by: JoeCollins at 07:06 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

July 30, 2010

Dear Oliver Stone

Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn209/doubleplusundeadnu/ostone2.jpg

Fuck you with the combined fuckrage of the souls of the millions Hitler killed by Hitler for even trying to defend a fucking beast such as that. Fuck you for defending a man who killed millions for no good reason other than how they lived their lives. Fuck you for being such an arrogant goatsegrabbing fuckwart. And fuck you for making a long list of shitty, preachy movies that I even had to waste time and energy to ignore.


Posted by: eddiebear at 11:59 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

May 17, 2010

Quick thoughts on the SCOTUS rulings

No, I haven't read the opinions yet so this is subject to change but these are my gut reactions:

1.  Life sentences without parole for minors convicted of non-murder crimes:  Yes, it's a state issue but cruel and unusual is an individual civil right that would give the Court subject matter jurisdiction.  What I'm more concerned about is what will happen if states revise their laws to say that the age of majority will be considered the age of 10 for cases of forcible rape with a weapon.  In that case a "minor" isn't being sentenced.  This may be considered in the opinion, but I haven't seen that question being raised in the comments I've seen about the opinion. 

On a broader scale, I am torn about this.  There are some crimes that are so heinous that death or life imprisonment are the only appropriate punishments.  For example, raping a 2 year old should get you drawn and quartered.  There is no logical or moral reason to say an 18 yo can go away forever for that but a 17 yo can't.  This brings up the issue of finding the death penalty for other than murder to be cruel and unusual.  I do think that violent sexual assault of a small child should result in death.  There are few things sicker than that.  I am also aware of the history behind how rape charges leading to the death penalty were used in the past.  So I don't know where I stand on that issue.  But this ruling strikes me as very worrisome.

2.  Post-sentence detention of sexual predators.  I'm against it.  I know the recidivism rate.  My stance on the heinousness of those crimes is well known.  But this?  Not only is it an unenumerated power, it's also very troubling on a practical level.  There's an old saying that bad facts make bad law.  This is a prime example.  Child sex predators are extraordinarily likely to abuse again.  I believe the rate is something approaching 100%.  When they are released, they are going to do it again.  I understand the impulse to keep them locked up, I really really do.  But this precedent will not be limited to its facts.  The potential for expansion is obvious and frightening.

The better response is to freaking execute those guilty of such crimes.  There you go, problem solved.  I'm sorry, but such crimes remove the criminal from the realm of civilization.  Those who do such things are rabid animals and should be put down as such.  Note that I'm talking about true predators, not a 19 year old who was sleeping with his 17 year old girlfriend. 

This also points out the bizarre nature of these rulings.  You can't sentence a kid to life without parole but you can keep him in jail after his sentence is complete if it involved a sex crime.  These decisions are impossible to square outside the specific facts of child sexual predation.  These decisions are also impossible to square with the prisoner rights decisions.

I reserve the right to revise and extend if/when I read the decisions, but that's my quick take.

Posted by: alexthechick at 12:30 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 3 kb.

May 13, 2010

Hmmmm

I'm not sure what I think about this. Hawaii signs what's being called the "anti-birther" law.

Once again, headlines are misleading.  It's not a law disallowing lawsuits or saying that "Dude, stfu, Obama's a natural born citizen" or the like.  It's a limited exception to Hawaii's freedom of information act that permits state agencies to decline repeated requests from the same person for the same information. It's openly acknowledged to have been passed because Hawaii's DOH is getting multiple requests from the same people on a monthly basis for the same information (ie the birth certificate).  This is to make those people go away. 

Here's why I'm torn.  I'm a big open records person.  If the government does it, it's my business.  The guys at Watts Up With That have done yeoman's work in fighting to get the data underlying climate change studies.  Climategate itself contains very juicy information about attempts to avoid FOIA requests.  Overall, FOIA is a fantastic thing.

Let's not kid ourselves, though, there are those who abuse it.  On a local level, there's a guy who is notorious for demanding all kinds of budget information and who refuses to accept what he's been given.  Now, with all the corruption around here, it's reasonable to assume some of the information is less than credible.  But I'm talking about the kook who thinks that the city is stashing cash in abandoned buildings.  (Though anymore that's not that far fetched)  This isn't a gadfly trying to make the city own up.  This is the aliens are telling me this level of nuts.  Under many open records laws, Nutty McNutbar's requests must be given the same response as my request for a copy of the permits for the building that a client is thinking about buying.

I do support some method of reaching a final determination as to a request and then prohibiting the same person from making the same request.  I think there should be a very high bar for this with the obligation on the governmental unit to prove that the information has been provided and that the information is complete.  I also would want severe sanctions if that turns out to be false later.  Not to mention that I think this should not be agency based but should be appealable to the court with the presumption that the person gets the information unless shown otherwise.  But Joe Blow shouldn't be allowed to gum up the works by spamming requests with no basis.

Note that my support for my own position isn't that strong.  I know from my own dealings that those fulfilling the requests are not precisely diligent.  I've had the lovely experience of being told that copies of the documents that I'm holding do not exist.  I know that will be abused by the governmental agencies to make people shut up.  But pretending it's not a problem isn't a rational response either.  There's a middle ground between everyone can ask for everything as many times as they want and shut up, the agency argues, when claiming all information has been disclosed.

Posted by: alexthechick at 11:58 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 516 words, total size 3 kb.

May 09, 2010

I Must Protect My Most Precious Gift

Five years and two months ago, my beautiful and patient (for putting up with me) wife became a mother, and thus earned the right to receive praise and gifting on Mother's Day in her own right. Beyond the beauty and brains my wife possesses, she also did something greater by bringing my daughter into the world: she gave me the greatest gift of all, the ability and responsibility to shape the world with the little blonde pack of dynamite I see sleeping on a cloud of teddy bears and stuffed whatevers in her room as I type this. She gave the me the greatest responsibility/power arrangement going, the responsibility to make sure that my daughter does indeed live Forever Young, as the song that (I shit you not) popped into my head the first time I was able to hold her.

While raising a child as a parent is tough enough, the outside influences brought about by dickfisting halfwit politicians and the damage they can unleash with their legislative juice jiggling can be disastrous to her future. As such, no politician who threatens her future should ever be allowed to hold power or office ever again, even if it is a Republican. That is why I have no problem seeing Bob Bennett go down in flames in Utah. That asshole voted to do things that will limit my daughter's future, and tell my wife that the gift she granted to me does not matter, so long as Senator Jocksucker J Jackfuck gets reelected and an airport named after him. That asshole and his supporters and allies to infringe upon the liberty and freedom my daughter received as her birthright for being an American. And he needed to lose his seat for that.

And to the RINOs, Bennettistas, Leftists, and assorted other gashgreeters who want to fuck with my family, let me tell you something:
more...

Posted by: eddiebear at 11:42 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 885 words, total size 5 kb.

May 07, 2010

Thoughts on the Palin/Fiorina endorsement

She's taking a fair bit of abuse for the decision to endorse Carly Fiorina over Chuck DeVore.  From what I've seen of DeVore, I like him, he's a good conservative.  I'm not a big fan of Fiorina, my gut tells me she'll be a west coast version of Snowe and Collins...and of course there's the chance she'll go full retard like Schwarzenegger.  That said, this is the Soviet of California we're talking about.  That state is on the verge of becoming what Greece currently is and doesn't seem to care. 

I've noted on here that I'm not purely against supporting RINOy candidates, to a point (Lincoln Chafee and Arnold being prime examples of RINOs being more trouble than what they're worth).  I'm fine with RINOy candidates in Commie havens.  I'm thrilled Scott Brown won in Massachusetts, and yet I fully expect him to be a fairly RINOy Senator during his tenure.  Of course, where there are pockets of conservatism in leftist states, we should try and promote good conservative House candidates. 

What I really have a problem with is RINOs where there is no need for RINOs.  Why the fuck is Lindsey Graham still a Senator?  My God, he's in South Carolina, you're telling me there's no eeeeeeevil right wing Republicans to challenge and defeat McCain's yappy little lap poodle?  None?  I don't believe it, not for a second.  McCain needs to go too now that I mention it.  And there are a lot of these guys who are so fucking clueless and out of touch that they just need replaced, Cornyn and Hatch come to mind. 

So I'm not too bothered by Palin's decision, I think for her own political well-being, she'd have been better off keeping her head down and staying out of the CA GOP primary, but I don't find her move unreasonable.  We should be looking for opportunities to expand the GOP when possible, even RINOs can be useful, and having a few more, especially in the Senate, can work well, as long as they understand what it is they're doing in there.  I'd ideally like a solid majority of wingnutty wingnuts, but that isn't easy to make happen.  But if we have a core of conservatives and enough RINOs to go around, we can do more that needs done because the RINOs can dilute the political damage done to themselves when they vote in a way that pisses off their left leaning constituencies.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 12:05 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

May 03, 2010

Flogging the Interstate Commerce clause

This guy makes an interesting argument about the utter absurdity of the Interstate Commerce clause interpretation --> Choking your chicken could potentially fall under Federal purview:

Masturbators often use unguents and lubricants to enhance the experience. Unguents and lubricants are items of commerce, and therefore (by current Court precedent) items of interstate commerce. Masturbation increases the demand for items of commerce, and therefore “materially affects” interstate commerce. The fact that not all masturbators use unguents and/or lubricants is irrelevant — the fact that some do affects commerce.

Furthermore, the whole point of masturbation is to reach sexual climax. Sexual climax is a state in which bodily functions including metabolism are accelerated, and accelerated metabolism increases output of carbon dioxide. It is already firmly established that carbon dioxide is an item of interstate commerce.

Under the popular interpretation, literally anything can fall under the Interstate Commerce clause.

Posted by: JoeCollins at 08:11 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

April 21, 2010

Revenge of the 20%

There's a business maxim that 80% of the work is done by 20% of the people.  Like all other such principles, there are all kinds of exceptions, but I'm sure that we can all agree that, no matter what you do, there are those who do most of the work and those who don't.  Or, as I say, anyone who supports socialism has never done a group project. 

I was pondering this over the last month or so as I watched my office prepare for several major events that were going to happen simultaneously.  It was true, 20% of the office was working long hours and keeling over from stress.  The other 80%?  Bitched about being asked to help carry boxes to a truck. 

When evaluating the Tea Party movement and the discontent in American politics, I believe that what we are seeing can best be described as the Revenge Of The Twenty Percent.  Those who achieve are finally pushing back at being forced to pay for those who don't even try.  Those who achieve are finally pushing back at being considered horrible and selfish for wanting to keep the money that they worked so hard to earn.  Those who achieve are finally pushing back at the notion that it's only right that the 20% are supposed to do 80% of the work.  Those who achieve are finally pushing back at the notion that the 80% are not capable of doing more than 20% of the work. 

To return this to the workplace analogy, consider your office/workplace/whatever.  You are in the 20% who work.  You'll keep your mouth shut about the 80% to a certain point.  But after that point, then you'll pitch a fit.  Why?  Because the 80% are trying to make you do 100% of the work, not 80%. 

That's what I see happening in America at the moment.  While the percentages don't hold, the concept is the same.  Those who feel entitled are demanding that they be taken care of completely.  Those who work are digging in their heels and saying no, no I will not do that.  Not only that, those who work have had it with being told they are cruel and evil for asking that others work also.  On a personal level, there's nothing that makes me angrier at work then when I get yelled at because I didn't do someone else's job.  Do not tell me that it's my responsibility because I know that a co-worker wouldn't do it.  It's not my job.  It's his/her's.  Go yell at the person who actually messed up, don't yell at me because I didn't hold his/her hand to make sure it got done. 

I also firmly believe the cultural analysis is wrong.  This is not about race.  This is Revenge of the Nerds, 2010 style.  When I look at the Tea Party protests, what I see are the ones who did all the work in the group projects only to sit back and watch the entire group get an A standing up and saying "No.  No, you do not get credit for my work ever again."  That's the source of the anger.  The achievers worked and struggled and saved and tried to take care of themselves.  Now they are being asked to give all that up to the kids in the back of class passing around a bottle and a joint.  This is about the a/v geeks standing up to the jocks.  This is about the bookworms refusing to do the prom queens' homework.  This is about the ones who went to the library on Saturday morning instead of doing a walk of shame saying no, no I will not let you use my paper.

Of course those in the 20% are angry because now the proposition is that 20% will do 100% of the work while being screamed at and called vile names.  Of course there is going to be push back.  Of course there will be anger.  Why would anyone expect otherwise?


Posted by: alexthechick at 12:42 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 672 words, total size 4 kb.

April 20, 2010

In Which Moron Pundit Declares War On The Left's Person Grading System

First, place the following human traits in order from "Most likely to help you form an opinion about someone" to least.

  • Color of skin.
  • Choice of where to stick genitals in free time.
  • Intolerant/Prejudiced/Racist Personality
  • Generically Mean Personality
  • Intelligence
  • Country of Origin
  • Honor
  • Courage
  • Honesty
  • Generosity
  • Attractiveness
  • Weight
  • Eye Color
  • Clothing
  • Talent/Skill/Knowledge
I could add a bunch more but you get the idea.  Now, after that, put those same things in order of what traits would be most likely to influence your decision to hire or not hire someone for a job. 

Did all of you rank intelligence above color of skin?  Yes?  Good.

Alright, now the final part:  Rank the above in the order you think these actually effect hiring processes in the real world. 

Did we all put talent/skill/intelligence/etc near or at the top?  Good.

Now, we all know that there are innumerable laws restricting a person's ability to hire based on skin color and even providing advantages to people of certain "victim" groups.  I agree that we shouldn't be judging who we hire based on the color of their skin but instead on qualities that are actually important but I'd argue that that is what happens in 99.5% of all cases.  After all, what business can afford to hire less qualified people just because they don't like black people? 

So why is it we've spent so much effort in America focusing on the differences among us that cause the LEAST amount of unfairness?  Of the qualities on this list that one cannot control from birth, it would seem obvious that base intelligence would account for far more instances of "unfairness" than what color a person is or where they're from.  Doesn't that seem clear? 

So why isn't there a huge stupid people's lobby arguing for Stupid People's Rights?  And since there isn't, it sure seems stupid to focus on less important things like if they have sex with men or women or horses or whatever.

Why do we judge a person that hates only one group of people to be worse than someone that is just an asshole to everyone he meets? 

Why are we so fucking preoccupied with the most trivial of our qualities while ignoring their negligent impact on reality relative to other traits?

It all has to stop.  Its time to realize that something about each of us is despised by someone else in the world and that person may be sitting across an interview desk from you some day.  Its time to get over your chosen excuse and realize that everybody has challenges.  Everybody has a quality that works against their success.  The secret of the successful is that they find a way to excel anyway. 

They aren't special.  You can too.

Posted by: Moron Pundit at 10:48 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 458 words, total size 3 kb.

April 14, 2010

Why She Quit

St. Andrew of the Massaged Prostate has this to say on the matter:

12 million since July. In today's conservative world, being a well-oiled media celebrity gets so much more respect than knowing how to govern a state.

First, a couple of nitpicky writing issues.  What he should have said was that being a well-oiled media celebrity gets you so much more MONEY than GOVERNING a state.  12 million dollars isn't respect and Palin's job wasn't to "know how to govern a state."

But that is neither here nor there.  I get what his pot-addled brain MEANT and even there he is totally wrong.  Sarah Palin looked at the likelihood that staying governor would bankrupt her family in addition to subjecting them to the loudly shouted delusions of psychotics and decided that she should instead pursue a media career that would make her family rich and protect her from at least some of the vitriol and undeserved hate she received on a daily basis.

As a family man, I can't even imagine making a different decision.  This, of course, is why we can't find but a few decent people to seek and attain higher office since it simply isn't worth it.  If it was just me I couldn't find a price for my ideals but if you include my daughter and wife in the matter, I bet I could find you a price pretty quickly.  Its just part of being an adult. 

There are a million reasons AS could never understand that.

Posted by: Moron Pundit at 09:35 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 255 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 1 of 7 >>
72kb generated in CPU 0.03, elapsed 0.0447 seconds.
59 queries taking 0.0163 seconds, 166 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.