via Renegade Evolution
IF SOMEONE SAYS “IS THIS OKAY” YOU SAY?
Yes! We Have No Bananas - Spike Jones
WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
Everything You Know is Wrong - Weird Al Yankovic
WHAT DO YOU LIKE IN A GUY/GIRL?
Rescue - Eve6
WHAT IS YOUR LIFE’S PURPOSE?
Bathtub Gin - Phish
WHAT IS YOUR MOTTO?
Tonight I'm Gonna Rock You Tonight - Spinal Tap
WHAT DO YOUR FRIENDS THINK OF YOU?
Fool in the Rain - Led Zeppelin
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT VERY OFTEN?
Sick Again - Led Zeppelin
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR BEST FRIEND?
Crawling - Linkin Park
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
Scarlet Begonias - Grateful Dead
WHAT IS YOUR LIFE STORY?
Loser - Beck
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BE WHEN YOU GROW UP?
Godzilla - Blue Oyster Cult
WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU SEE THE PERSON YOU LIKE?
Volare - Dean Martin
WHAT DO YOUR PARENTS THINK OF YOU?
The House That Jack Built - Metallica
WHAT WILL YOU DANCE TO AT YOUR WEDDING?
Jamming - Bob Marley
WHAT WILL THEY PLAY AT YOUR FUNERAL?
Creeping Death - Metallica
WHAT IS YOUR HOBBY/INTEREST?
Peace of Mind - Boston
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR FRIENDS?
Freewill - Rush
WHAT’S THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN?
Man in the Box - Alice in Chains
HOW WILL YOU DIE?
Nitemare Hippy Girl - Beck
WHAT IS THE ONE THING YOU REGRET?
Only Solitaire - Jethro Tull
WHAT MAKES YOU LAUGH?
Cash on Delivery - Spinal Tap
WHAT MAKES YOU CRY?
You're My Home - Billy Joel
WILL YOU EVER GET MARRIED?
Run to the Hills - Iron Maiden
WHAT SCARES YOU THE MOST?
Rocks - Primal Scream
IF YOU COULD GO BACK IN TIME, WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE?
Us and Them - Pink Floyd
WHAT HURTS RIGHT NOW?
Big Balls - AC/DC
WHAT WILL YOU POST THIS AS?
Sad But True - Metallica
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Election results - try to keep some perspective
I posted this to a forum discussion and thought it was worth reposting here:
I'm not an Obama supporter (I voted for Bob Barr) but there's no need for hysteria. This country's had lousy presidents before and survived. I would include the current occupant of the oval office in the lousy category even though I voted for him in 2000; at this point no one I know, including many die-hard Republicans think he did a good job. OTOH, the hysterical rants from the left about him being a Nazi, etc. seem silly to anyone not caught up in the hype.
Similarly, that one who won the election tonight is not a Communist. A Socialist maybe, but any socialist agenda he tries to implement will cause a backlash. Then there will be a major Republican sweep of Congress in 2010. And we can once again rejoice in having divided government. That is the best option we'll have until the two-party duopoly is broken.
I'm not an Obama supporter (I voted for Bob Barr) but there's no need for hysteria. This country's had lousy presidents before and survived. I would include the current occupant of the oval office in the lousy category even though I voted for him in 2000; at this point no one I know, including many die-hard Republicans think he did a good job. OTOH, the hysterical rants from the left about him being a Nazi, etc. seem silly to anyone not caught up in the hype.
Similarly, that one who won the election tonight is not a Communist. A Socialist maybe, but any socialist agenda he tries to implement will cause a backlash. Then there will be a major Republican sweep of Congress in 2010. And we can once again rejoice in having divided government. That is the best option we'll have until the two-party duopoly is broken.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Election ... zzzzzzzz
OK, since this blog is mainly about politics I guess I should make a commentary about this election before it's over. I said before that I was leaning toward writing in Ron Paul, but that was before he gave his endorsement to a member of the Christian Taliban. I also briefly gave very slight consideration McCain after he picked Palin as his VP, on rumors that she leaned libertarian, but I have since come to see her as just another cookie cutter Republican, and one who answers questions with even less substance than a Washington insider (something I didn't think possible before).
So of the douches and turds still left in the presidential election, it looks as if the least unappealing is Bob Barr. A phony libertarian to be sure, one the Libertarian Party helped defeat in his last senate race because of his excessive Drug War zealotry, he is nonetheless saying all the right things in this race as the LP candidate. Does he believe what he says? Probably not and that would be a problem if he actually had a chance of winning and of governing on an agenda very different from that which he campaigned on. But it is obvious that White House will go to one of the candidates of the two wings of the Ever-Expanding Big Government party, and the best freedom-loving voters can do this year (on the presidential level at least) is send a message. A vote for Barr, of all the candidates running, would send the best message. There are no doubt many good write-in possibilities but none of these is likely to get a large enough block of votes to get any attention. Barr, on the other hand could get a percentage that would tip the balance in some closely contested states. Even where it is not close, like my own home state of Pennsylvania, 2 or 3% of the vote could be enough to give the major parties something to think about, in 2012 especially if the race is tight then. Whether this would move the major parties to do more than give lip service to reducing spending or restoring civil liberties is uncertain, but it is the best chance we have of moving them in that direction. And it is the best chance we have of possibly in the distant future electing a real libertarian president (LP or otherwise).
So of the douches and turds still left in the presidential election, it looks as if the least unappealing is Bob Barr. A phony libertarian to be sure, one the Libertarian Party helped defeat in his last senate race because of his excessive Drug War zealotry, he is nonetheless saying all the right things in this race as the LP candidate. Does he believe what he says? Probably not and that would be a problem if he actually had a chance of winning and of governing on an agenda very different from that which he campaigned on. But it is obvious that White House will go to one of the candidates of the two wings of the Ever-Expanding Big Government party, and the best freedom-loving voters can do this year (on the presidential level at least) is send a message. A vote for Barr, of all the candidates running, would send the best message. There are no doubt many good write-in possibilities but none of these is likely to get a large enough block of votes to get any attention. Barr, on the other hand could get a percentage that would tip the balance in some closely contested states. Even where it is not close, like my own home state of Pennsylvania, 2 or 3% of the vote could be enough to give the major parties something to think about, in 2012 especially if the race is tight then. Whether this would move the major parties to do more than give lip service to reducing spending or restoring civil liberties is uncertain, but it is the best chance we have of moving them in that direction. And it is the best chance we have of possibly in the distant future electing a real libertarian president (LP or otherwise).
Monday, September 15, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Never trust a Communist!
Well, it appears I was wrong when in my first post I described Renee from "Womanist Musings" as polite and civil. I was naive in my assessment. While I didn't know that she was a Communist at first, I should have seen the signs (such as her constant whining about "privilege"). Once she started referring to Marx, I should have known that any chance of a reasonable discussion was impossible, as it would be with a Nazi, or any other follower of totalitarian ideology. But I persisted hoping that if I couldn't reach her, maybe I could persuade one of her other readers of the wrongheadedness of her arguments. It's possible that I did and possible that I did not, though, I should have been prepared for what happened - being banned for life without warning, and then being trashed on her blog without any recourse to defend myself.
Now I will admit to crossing a line by bringing up her family. I was reacting to her mistreatment of a self-described stay at home dad seeking her approval. He was reaching out to her and she basically slapped him in the face, saying he because he is a privileged male, there is nothing he could do to earn the right to be treated kindly. Now, I suppose I shouldn't have cared, if this guy was trying to get compassion from such mean-spirited fountain of hate as Renee, I guess he should have known what to expect. Still, I did feel sorry for him and I did wonder if she treated her boyfriend and her sons this way. I also thought that she was being rather high and mighty condemning parents who spank their children, when she is so constantly filled with rage that it is hard to believe that some of that doesn't come out in her own parenting.
So, I made my comments which admittedly did contain some hyperbole. I guess I could have left well enough alone, my concern for the males in her life won't cause her to treat them any better than she does. Still, if she wanted no discussion of her family in her blog, she could have made that clear. It's not as if I attacked her family, just the way that I inferred that she treated them. I could understand a warning and maybe a temporary ban but then for someone following in the footsteps of Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong-Il, I guess I should be grateful that I was allowed to speak my peace as long I was.
Now I will admit to crossing a line by bringing up her family. I was reacting to her mistreatment of a self-described stay at home dad seeking her approval. He was reaching out to her and she basically slapped him in the face, saying he because he is a privileged male, there is nothing he could do to earn the right to be treated kindly. Now, I suppose I shouldn't have cared, if this guy was trying to get compassion from such mean-spirited fountain of hate as Renee, I guess he should have known what to expect. Still, I did feel sorry for him and I did wonder if she treated her boyfriend and her sons this way. I also thought that she was being rather high and mighty condemning parents who spank their children, when she is so constantly filled with rage that it is hard to believe that some of that doesn't come out in her own parenting.
So, I made my comments which admittedly did contain some hyperbole. I guess I could have left well enough alone, my concern for the males in her life won't cause her to treat them any better than she does. Still, if she wanted no discussion of her family in her blog, she could have made that clear. It's not as if I attacked her family, just the way that I inferred that she treated them. I could understand a warning and maybe a temporary ban but then for someone following in the footsteps of Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong-Il, I guess I should be grateful that I was allowed to speak my peace as long I was.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Sign me up for DAMM!
The story of the college presidents supporting lowering the drinking age is old news by now, but when the news first came out I was too angry at some of the arguments around it to write about it calmly and rationally. Anyway, the news has been dominated by the snoozer Democrat convention. Yes, there's the war between Russia and Georgia but I haven't read or heard anything that makes a compelling case for me taking either side. And there's Hurricane Gustav, but there's not much I can write about that, except to say that I hope this time people have learned to take action on their own rather than wait for the government to come to the rescue. Of course. there's John McCain's VP pick, Sarah Palin, who I hear is somewhat libertarian leaning. So now instead of being 100% convinced to write in Ron Paul, I'm only 95% convinced with a 5% possibility that I might vote for McCain. Interesting but not significant.
So, back to the topic at hand. We all know that prohibition doesn't stop the activity it's meant to stop, whether it's substance use, a particular sexual practice, or another form of recreation, such as gambling. In the case of alcohol we acknowledged this as a society 76 years ago. So it would seem that the college presidents were just accepting reality by suggesting that a policy that is a proven failure with population at large could ever succeed when it was aimed at a group of people who are legally treated as adults in every other way.
Of course, prohibition has only been a failure in the sense that it fails to eliminate the targeted activity, causes needless suffering, increases crime, and generally costs more lives than it saves. Prohibitions of all kinds have been successful in increasing the power of the state and turning more people into second-class citizens for the self-righteous to scapegoat and look down upon. That is what MADD and similar organizations (such as the Partnership for a Drug Free America) are really all about. At the grassroots level there may be some dupes, with critical thinking deficiencies, who believe that they are really helping "THE CHILDREN™," but the leaders of these organizations know that their real mission is to get on the Big Government gravy train while patting themselves on the back about how superior they are to all of those dirty drunks and druggies.
After all, why would the prohibitionists ignore the fact that most of the rest of the world has drinking ages of 18 or lower (the major exceptions being the barbaric Islamofascist countries that ban alcohol altogether). While drunk driving fatality rates compared to the U.S. are higher in some of the countries with lower drinking ages, they are lower in many of the others. (Note also that South Korea with the highest level of drunk driving fatality rates has a drinking age of 19, lower than in the U.S. but higher than average). Obviously, being allowed to drink before age 21 does not automatically turn every young adult into a booze guzzling motorized murderer. But what about the studies that show drunk driving deaths are down among 18-20 year-olds since the federal government used the federal highway funds to blackmail the states that did not already have a 21 drinking age to enact one? (And by the way shame on the states for being so dependent on federal funding that they could allow themselves to be bullied this way). Well, I don't know the exact year that the last of the states (or the District of Columbia) knuckled under to the federal browbeaters but I know it was sometime in the late 80s or early 90s. Drunk driving among 18-20 year-olds probably came down since then AS IT DID FOR THE POPULATION IN GENERAL! It could be harsher penalties and better enforcement of drunk driving laws (Generally I support these, though random checkpoints are harassment and should be replaced by monitoring drivers showing signs of recklessness; also 0.08 is unnecessarily low as a BAC level cutoff, significant impairment does not result until BAC reaches 0.15. Still, it is true that before the 1980s police, prosecutors, and judges were often too lenient with drunk drivers). Besides the laws there is a much greater awareness of the dangers of drunk driving and much more social disapproval of DUI than there used to be.
Not that all young people will act responsibly, even if they do know the dangers. One of the points the college administrators brought up is the issue of binge drinking; binge drinkers don't show a lot of concern for their own health and safety, nevermind that of others. But as the school officials point out, binge drinking largely takes place in a prohibitionist atmosphere, where alcohol is a forbidden fruit and contempt for rules that deserve contempt often leads to contempt for societal norms and standards that should be respected. There is no doubt that binge drinking and other unsafe drinking practices could be reduced if 18-20 year-old drinking was allowed to come out of the underground and into the light of day. For those still worried about DUI, how about requiring breathalyzer devices that prevent a drunk driver from starting the car on all vehicles driven by an under 21 driver (it goes against my grain to suggest a new law, but I can accept one if it means the repeal of a much worse existing law).
But even if lowering the drinking age (possibly combined with other policies) lowered the total number of alcohol-related deaths (including the drunk driving deaths) to zero I doubt that that would matter to MADD and its allies. As I have said elsewhere, like the debates about medical marijuana, or opiates to relieve the terminally ill and chronic pain sufferers, any amount of horrible suffering is worthwhile if it prevents just one person from experiencing government disapproved pleasure. The anti-pleasure lobbyists will always have an excuse to continue their holier-than-thou quest for constant nanny state expansion. Which is why, though they are a fictional group, and I would never seriously encourage drunk driving, I am tempted to say "Sign me up for Drunks Against Mad Mothers!"
So, back to the topic at hand. We all know that prohibition doesn't stop the activity it's meant to stop, whether it's substance use, a particular sexual practice, or another form of recreation, such as gambling. In the case of alcohol we acknowledged this as a society 76 years ago. So it would seem that the college presidents were just accepting reality by suggesting that a policy that is a proven failure with population at large could ever succeed when it was aimed at a group of people who are legally treated as adults in every other way.
Of course, prohibition has only been a failure in the sense that it fails to eliminate the targeted activity, causes needless suffering, increases crime, and generally costs more lives than it saves. Prohibitions of all kinds have been successful in increasing the power of the state and turning more people into second-class citizens for the self-righteous to scapegoat and look down upon. That is what MADD and similar organizations (such as the Partnership for a Drug Free America) are really all about. At the grassroots level there may be some dupes, with critical thinking deficiencies, who believe that they are really helping "THE CHILDREN™," but the leaders of these organizations know that their real mission is to get on the Big Government gravy train while patting themselves on the back about how superior they are to all of those dirty drunks and druggies.
After all, why would the prohibitionists ignore the fact that most of the rest of the world has drinking ages of 18 or lower (the major exceptions being the barbaric Islamofascist countries that ban alcohol altogether). While drunk driving fatality rates compared to the U.S. are higher in some of the countries with lower drinking ages, they are lower in many of the others. (Note also that South Korea with the highest level of drunk driving fatality rates has a drinking age of 19, lower than in the U.S. but higher than average). Obviously, being allowed to drink before age 21 does not automatically turn every young adult into a booze guzzling motorized murderer. But what about the studies that show drunk driving deaths are down among 18-20 year-olds since the federal government used the federal highway funds to blackmail the states that did not already have a 21 drinking age to enact one? (And by the way shame on the states for being so dependent on federal funding that they could allow themselves to be bullied this way). Well, I don't know the exact year that the last of the states (or the District of Columbia) knuckled under to the federal browbeaters but I know it was sometime in the late 80s or early 90s. Drunk driving among 18-20 year-olds probably came down since then AS IT DID FOR THE POPULATION IN GENERAL! It could be harsher penalties and better enforcement of drunk driving laws (Generally I support these, though random checkpoints are harassment and should be replaced by monitoring drivers showing signs of recklessness; also 0.08 is unnecessarily low as a BAC level cutoff, significant impairment does not result until BAC reaches 0.15. Still, it is true that before the 1980s police, prosecutors, and judges were often too lenient with drunk drivers). Besides the laws there is a much greater awareness of the dangers of drunk driving and much more social disapproval of DUI than there used to be.
Not that all young people will act responsibly, even if they do know the dangers. One of the points the college administrators brought up is the issue of binge drinking; binge drinkers don't show a lot of concern for their own health and safety, nevermind that of others. But as the school officials point out, binge drinking largely takes place in a prohibitionist atmosphere, where alcohol is a forbidden fruit and contempt for rules that deserve contempt often leads to contempt for societal norms and standards that should be respected. There is no doubt that binge drinking and other unsafe drinking practices could be reduced if 18-20 year-old drinking was allowed to come out of the underground and into the light of day. For those still worried about DUI, how about requiring breathalyzer devices that prevent a drunk driver from starting the car on all vehicles driven by an under 21 driver (it goes against my grain to suggest a new law, but I can accept one if it means the repeal of a much worse existing law).
But even if lowering the drinking age (possibly combined with other policies) lowered the total number of alcohol-related deaths (including the drunk driving deaths) to zero I doubt that that would matter to MADD and its allies. As I have said elsewhere, like the debates about medical marijuana, or opiates to relieve the terminally ill and chronic pain sufferers, any amount of horrible suffering is worthwhile if it prevents just one person from experiencing government disapproved pleasure. The anti-pleasure lobbyists will always have an excuse to continue their holier-than-thou quest for constant nanny state expansion. Which is why, though they are a fictional group, and I would never seriously encourage drunk driving, I am tempted to say "Sign me up for Drunks Against Mad Mothers!"
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Retards! Retards! Retards!
I wanted to weigh in about the retarded controversy regarding the use of the word "retard" in the movie Tropic Thunder, but it appears my (not-so-tropic) thunder has been stolen by Becky from Just a Girl in short shorts. That is to say she's said basically everything I would have probably more eloquently. Except that I can add my perspective as a person with mental disabilities (and "mental disabilities" - or for the matter "mental handicaps" - is a much better term than that verbal equivalent of a polished turd, "intellectual disabilities.)
To recap the nature of my mental disabilities read my post on Michael Weiner (aka "Michael Savage). And note the glaring difference between the comedic use of the word "retard" in Tropic Thunder and Weiner's deliberate disinformation rant.
Now, in my teenage years I was hurt by the word "retard" directed at me, as well as words like "spaz" and "sped". The words "geek" and "nerd" were also hurtful even though they implied a level of intellectual achievement , which I surely did not even begin to approach until at least the second half of my sophomore year in college. In the current information age, of course, "geek" and "nerd" can be titles of honor; while I would rate my computer skills as above average, they are well below those of a true geek or nerd, and once again I find I only qualify for such honorifics in regards to the negative connotations they have for my social skills. But in any case, you can be sure that I will not protest or boycott any movie that uses the words "nerd", "geek", "spaz", or "sped", so why should I care about "retard", unless its used against an actual retarded person (and even then it might not be so bad used in a somewhat sympathetic context - as with Gary the Retard or Wendy the Retard.)
I don't think that this movie is intended to be hurtful to people with mental or physical disabilities. But if it is. disabled people can decide for ourselves whether or not to be offended. We don't need politically correct, do-gooder, motherfucking cuntrag-douchebags telling us that we should be offended, so we can help further their agendas. I've had enough of those people in my life already.
To recap the nature of my mental disabilities read my post on Michael Weiner (aka "Michael Savage). And note the glaring difference between the comedic use of the word "retard" in Tropic Thunder and Weiner's deliberate disinformation rant.
Now, in my teenage years I was hurt by the word "retard" directed at me, as well as words like "spaz" and "sped". The words "geek" and "nerd" were also hurtful even though they implied a level of intellectual achievement , which I surely did not even begin to approach until at least the second half of my sophomore year in college. In the current information age, of course, "geek" and "nerd" can be titles of honor; while I would rate my computer skills as above average, they are well below those of a true geek or nerd, and once again I find I only qualify for such honorifics in regards to the negative connotations they have for my social skills. But in any case, you can be sure that I will not protest or boycott any movie that uses the words "nerd", "geek", "spaz", or "sped", so why should I care about "retard", unless its used against an actual retarded person (and even then it might not be so bad used in a somewhat sympathetic context - as with Gary the Retard or Wendy the Retard.)
I don't think that this movie is intended to be hurtful to people with mental or physical disabilities. But if it is. disabled people can decide for ourselves whether or not to be offended. We don't need politically correct, do-gooder, motherfucking cuntrag-douchebags telling us that we should be offended, so we can help further their agendas. I've had enough of those people in my life already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
