Sign me up for DAMM, Part II

Predictably, this story is giving neo-prohibitionists and their self-righteous allies a chance to wring their hands about "underage drinking." Of course, what is left unsaid is that 17 year-olds rarely die from binge-drinking related accidents in countries where the legal drinking age is 18 or younger, and drinking of those below the legal age is acceptable when supervised by an adult. It is also unstated that hardly, if ever, does anyone, anywhere fall out of a 25th story window while high on marijuana.

New Petition: Do NOT stop offshore drilling

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/do-not-stop-offshore-drilling

I'm down with Brown

Of course I mean Charlie Brown, he's one of my heroes. Cleveland Brown (not to be confused with The Cleveland Browns) is pretty cool too. Leroy Brown had a seemingly glamorous thug lifestyle though he did kind of turn out to be a loser when confronting the "jealous man."

But what about Scott Brown? Well, I thought this comment I posted about him to Feminist Critics was worth re-posting here:

I didn’t notice this thread before today. I know this discussion is mostly irrelevant now, but I will say I’m glad Brown won. From what I know about him he doesn’t seem like an ultra-right wing fanatic who would restrict personal freedom on either religious or nationalistic grounds, at least not any more so than the Democrats do. I am not in love with the Republicans but he does bring some balance to the current overwhelming leftist Democrat domination of Washington. In recent times some our best years have been under divided governments (Reagan with the Democrat congress throughout his term from 1981 to 1989 and Clinton with the Republican congress from 1994 to 2001). When the two parties clash they somewhat keep each other’s runaway spending and attacks on civil liberties in check. Not ideal, but the best we can hope for until there is a viable third party.

And if Coakley is anywhere near the man-hater she is portrayed to be here, then even if I was a socialist I would still be glad that Brown won. He won’t have much effect on policy until and unless more Republicans are elected this November, while Coakley might well have gotten her misandric agenda passed into federal law almost immediately.

Edit: I originally included this line in my first paragraph of lame, but for me irresistible, jokes about the name Brown: "And then there was FEMA director Michael Brown, who sure did do a heck of a (shitty) job!" Thinking it over that wasn't fair since FEMA would, does and always did, suck no matter who heads it. Also, Hurricane Katrina was only a federal matter because of gross incompetence of the state government of Louisiana and the local government of New Orleans. Mississippi was hit hard by the hurricane too but did not have nearly the same level of humanitarian disaster.

Together for Eternity

I've stated before I'm not very religious, but I believe there is at least a possibility of an afterlife. And if there is a just God, I am sure that two very good friends have been recently reunited. Mary Daly who died on Sunday should now be with her good friend and inspired follower, Andrea Dworkin. I can just imagine all of the great intellectual conversations taking place.

Edit (1/18/2010): For anyone who does not get the significance of this picture see here.

Two Important Upcoming Pennsylvania Bills

While I wish I was in New Hampshire, there are two positive pieces of legislation coming up in my current (and so far lifelong) home of Pennsylvania. I would urge all of my fellow Pennsylvanians to support them:


Via NRA-ILA - House Bill 40 - “Castle Doctrine”  Self-Defense Bill:

HB40, sponsored by State Representative Scott Perry (R-92), would permit law-abiding citizens to use force, including deadly force, against an attacker in their homes and any places outside of their home where they have a legal right to be. Read More.

Via The False Rape Society  - Finally, a chance to reduce false rape claims:

We frequently talk here about how the crime of making a false report of rape is treated so cavalierly. Finally, as shown by the article below, some state legislators are looking to do something about it. Read more.

Winners and Losers

Now more than ever, I wish I would have written a post last year congratulating Major League Baseball's Philadelphia  Phillies for winning the World Series. I kind of wish I would have written one congratulating them when they won the National League Pennant this year, though at least this way I can't be accused of jinxing them. Anyway, while it was disappointing to see them lose this year's  Series, it was a joy to see them go two years in a row. They are still winners in my book and should hold their heads high. I will certainly miss being near them when I move to New Hampshire.


As for the "Losers" referred to in the title of this post, no, I don't mean the New York Yankees fans, as obnoxious as many of them are. This is their moment and I don't begrudge them their celebrations. Well, not too much, anyway. No, the losers I'm talking about are more along the lines of the usual suspects.

First, there are the piece of shit Bensalem cops who arrested Susan Finkelstein for allegedly trying to trade sex for World Series tickets. How did these brave modern day Sherlock Holmeses discover this dangerous criminal? From an ad she posted on Craigslist. Aside from the ridiculousness of anti-prostitution laws in general, there are dozens of ads on Craigslist that are more explicitly offering prostitution than this:

DESPERATE BLONDE NEEDS WS TIX (Philadelphia) Diehard Phillies fan--gorgeous tall buxom blonde-- in desperate need of two World Series Tickets. Price negotiable--- I'm the creative type! Maybe we can help each other!

The Barney Fife KGB wannabes who responded to this ad were obviously more concerned with getting publicity for their little department than doing anything that would actually protect the public. I guess they wanted to make it appear that they are good for something other than writing parking tickets or harassing honest, law-abiding gun owners. Maybe also they were motivated by the idea that sports are supposed to be pure and wholesome and not to be tainted by anything the sanctimonious mavens of morality arbitrarily decide is wrong. Same mentality that allows officials of all of the professional sports leagues and the NCAA to swoon from scandalized outrage at the thought of expanding legalized gambling on their sacred rituals, while never missing a crass opportunity to gouge their fans for extra bucks. Also the same mentality that causes league officials suspend and sternly scold the players catch with marijuana, while these same pompous preachers don't think twice about accepting ads for beer and boner pills  (Not that I have anything against beer or hard-on pills, I enjoy beer quite a bit and am glad that there are pills to help me get an erection should I ever need them - it's just that it is the height of hypocrisy to accept money to promote drugs which do have considerable, if worthwhile, risks while condemning users of what overwhelming evidence shows to be the safest drug humanity has ever known).


And that brings me to the other losers I have in mind, two pieces of garbage from across the pond named Alan Johnson and Neil McKeganey. I usually don't get involved in the internal affaires of other nations (though I have severely criticized Harriet Harman on Antimisandy.com this was because she tried to make a United States governor submit to her will in her desperate crusade to subjugate her fellow British citizens). Anyway, Johnson and McKeganey are two nanny state extremists who are demanding that Professor David Nutt resign his position as chairman of Britain's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) because he was brazen enough to commit the ultimate crime - telling the truth. Specifically, for saying that "alcohol and cigarettes are more harmful than cannabis," a position that no serious researcher would object to, except on ideological grounds. McKeganey, himself, even admitted “In terms of health harm there is no doubt that cigarettes and alcohol are both more harmful than many currently illegal drugs,” he added. “They are associated with many more deaths and with much wider rates of illness," but despite such an acknowledgment of common sense, he was perfectly able to adapt his authority worshiping doublethink to pretend to believe such obvious bullshit as this:

If you are the key person offering advice to the government you cannot then simultaneously, in public, criticize the government for the decisions it takes. David was going so far beyond his remit to raise fundamental questions about the direction of UK drugs policy in relation to cannabis and in relation to seeking to combine alcohol and tobacco with illegal drugs — in the process muddying the distinction between illegal drugs and legal drugs.

No, God forbid someone advising the government should disagree with them. Everyone should know that "advising" the government means confirming the fact that the almighty politicians and bureaucrats are always right. And yes, how dare Nutt  [muddy] the distinction between illegal drugs and legal drugs. He has no right to do that just because this distinction is based on anti-scientific, superstitious arbitrary moralism. Obviously, if drug laws were based on public health instead of manufactured prejudices alcohol would be of greater concern to authorities than cannabis, and tobacco would be of much greater concern than cocaine, heroin, or any other so-called "hard drug."

Don't get me wrong - I don't think any of them should be illegal. Even tobacco which is much deadlier than alcohol, cocaine, and heroin, to say nothing of the safer-than-aspirin drug cannabis, has been responsible for far fewer deaths than meddling authoritarian governments. But putting things into perspective, "muddying the distinction between illegal drugs and legal drugs" is a logical response to the arbitrary bullshit of morally bankrupt government drug policies. Well when my friend e-mailed me this story under the subject line: "Refuse to support Nutt's sacking!‏" and beginning with the line "It looks like Johnson is supporting Nutt's sacking", I said "What a couple of Johnsons Johnson and McKeganey are. They are not fit to lick Nutt's sack." I think that pretty well sums it up.

Just When You Thought the Talk About "Privilege" Couldn't Get Any More Stupid...

Along comes this: http://www.adonismirror.com/09152009_leader_pot_whites_only.htm.

So Richard Leader thinks that taking a courageous stand against an unjust law is an act of "white male privilege":

The stunt has white-male written all over it. I should know: I’m a white male myself. You can see it in his straight-faced claim that he didn’t do it for attention. You can see it in his imagination that a simple school project made him a true actor in the political process.

Well, for one thing, I can say that Ian Barry is a hero and a patriot much like one of my long-time heroes who is of African Descent: Ed Forchion, aka N.J. Weedman.

But, maybe the author of Adonis Mirror, Leader, does have a point. After all, the white people who participated in the Montgomery Bus Boycott knew that they would not face penalties as severe as those whose rights they were demanding be respected. Same with those white folks who marched in various Civil Rights marches throughout the 60's. Or those men who dared to stand up for feminism back when it was about equal rights and not female supremacy, like today (Of course the men, would only face lesser penalties in terms of social sanctions; women then, as now and always, got treated with kid gloves by the legal system). When I, as a disabled teenager was being bullied by non-disabled, or less disabled teenagers, I would have been grateful for a non-disabled teenager to use his or her "able-bodied/able-minded" privilege to stand up for my rights. I did not think that the people who did or would have done these things were arrogant assholes rubbing everyone else's noses in their massive privilege, but then I obviously don't know as much about "oppression-privilege" politics as the all-knowing Leader (pun not intended -see comment).

I seem to remember reading somewhere that one of the obligations of privilege is to fight for the rights of those do not have it and cannot stand up for themselves. I didn't think that standing up for the rights of the less privileged was a bad thing if you did it in a non-patronizing way that showed solidarity with the oppressed. Well, thank Cthulhu that we have people like Richard Leader to tell us how wrong those notions are.

Edit: I decided to edit out the instances where I made fun of Richard Leader's name as this distracts from the seriousness of the issue. Besides, while he is an arrogant know-it-all who thinks he can tell everyone else how to run our lives, Leader did not deserve to be personally attacked. For that I apologize.