Rou

So, our friendly neighborhood legislators in New York have penned a new law. They introduced it, and passed it in both the state house and senate in less than a day. They have to work out a few differences between the two and then it'll go to be signed into law. Should be done before the recess at the end of the month.

The law makes it a class E felony to sell indecent, or violent games to minors. Also, it will make it illegal to sell game consoles that don't have parental controls built in (basically, new consoles only).

Amazing. Truly. And like many other lawmakers before them, they know it's unconstitutional. They admit that portions of it closely mirror prior laws that were struck down. They know precedent is against them. And they're aware that not only have those laws been struck down, the but the states that passed them have been put on the hook for the ESA's legal fees used fighting the law. Plus the cost that state will spend defending the damn thing. Hell, I bet the ESA lawyers already are on the clock racking up time on this.

The sponsor of one side even had the balls to say "We have nothing to lose by trying." So, since it's nothing, I vote the ESA receive funds directly from that guys personal bank account. I mean, since it's nothing, it shouldn't matter.

I mean, does New York have nothing better to spend money on? I vote every person that votes for the bill be impeached. Reckless disregard for the constitution. Mismanagement of state legal concerns and financial security.

Fucking idiots.

I just took a business trip to Connecticut. 600 miles round trip, give or take.

During this trip, I felt various things. Peaceful serenity of the open road. The thrill of speeding down the highway. And the blood boiling rage of hatred toward my fellow man.

I know I've bitched before. So have others. Let me reiterate because it fucking deserves it.

First, simple highway rules. Slow traffic right, fast traffic left. If you're moving at the same speed or less than the traffic to your right, you're in the wrong lane. Even if you're "speeding" if there is traffic backing up behind you that wants to go faster, you're in the wrong lane. Very simple rule. Easy to follow. Why FUCKING IDIOTS don't get it... I have no fucking idea. It affects traffic for miles when there is no way to get past the jackass blocking the left lane.

Second, Mr Truck Driver. You belong as far to the right as possible. You can move over one lane to pass a slow driver, no problem. But you should never ever ever be in the left lane of a four lane highway. You're worse than the slow fucker because you're both slow and fucking huge.

Third, design. This is not the fault of the drivers. But there is a roadway engineer out there that needs to be shot at the earliest possible chance. As a state, you can't put up signs demanding all cars left/all trucks right for miles of highway, and then suddenly switch it when you get to a bridge. I know you want the trucks on the top deck. But there had to be a better way to get them up there than putting the upper deck ramp on the left and the lower ramp on the right. It means we all get to shuffle suddenly. In NYC traffic, that's pretty fucking stupid. I'm sure most of the locals and truck drivers already knew about it, but I know for damn sure it wasn't obvious to the out of area drivers.

Finally, Mr Tailgater. I can't go any faster. You know I can't. You know I can't because there is a FUCKING TRACTOR TRAILER in front of me. You can easily see him over my tiny ass car. I can't pass him for the same fucking reason you can't pass him. There is ANOTHER FUCKING TRACTOR TRAILER next to him. So, kindly, back the fuck off. When I can't see your bumper, headlights, or your hood, you're too fucking close.

AARRRRHHHGGGG

Dr. Kevorkian will be released soon. That's right, Dr. Death is getting parole. HE said he's not going to aid in the suicide of any more patients, but will continue to speak out on the issue. His impending release has brought the issue of assisted suicide back into the light a little. Maybe not mainstream, but there is casual discussion about the topic.

I don't really understand the debate. Or at least, I don't understand one side of it. If someone wants to off themselves, what does it have to do with me? So long as they do it in a manner that doesn't risk anyone else's health or property, sayonara.

The key part there is that it not affect others. Jumping off a building stops traffic, and damages people/things that get hit by the falling body. Taking a lethal dose of a drug, not so much. But the culture of life folks think we should enforce societal norms on people that don't believe in them. Some group of people things that suicide is wrong, and if it's a big enough group, it gets to force that opinion on the minority. Democracy in action.

Of course, it's not just suicide. It's any number of things. Seat belts gets me. I understand forcing Gm to put them in, but I don't get why cops should enforce their use. IT messes with natural selection. The argument is that if someone is hurt or killed, the damages are high for the other driver. Simple fix: claims for injuries are not granted when the injured party isn't wearing seat belts. Same effect, but no nanny state BS. Choose to be safe, or choose not to. Let evolution weed out those dumb enough to forgo it's usage.

Or smoking. They're trying real hard to ban smoking. I get it in public buildings. Second hand smoke affects others. But, smoking outside doesn't. Setting up designated smoking areas doesn't. But they're pushing to expand smoking bans everywhere. There is an area of California that tried to ban smoking on the highway. Yes, even in your own car. Trying to protect you from yourself. Because heaven fucking forbid a person make their own choices in life.

Same concept as weed. You can't have pot. Why? Because. It's... umm... bad for you and stuff. Why not go drink a fifth of Jack Daniels instead? See how stupid that sounds? But hey, it must make sense to someone because we sure do lock up a lot of pot smoking people. More limits on the choices people have. All about controlling the population. Even though legalization would bring in untold millions of dollars in tax revenue and remove hundreds of millions of dollars spent in corrections and enforcement.

Nanny states hide behind platitudes. "For your own good" or "think of the {fill in the blank}." Sometimes it's just "improving our society". It's all the same. They want to make YOUR choices with THEIR rule book. That way, they're never forced to confront the fact that not everyone thinks the same way they do. And sometimes, they might even be wrong.

Michael Vick is the quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons. If you pay attention to sports, you know he recently got into some trouble. At a home in his name (I think he said his brother lived there), they found some dogs. Apparently they were being used for dog fights, or some such. There is a lot of controversy concerning it, because Michael says they're not his, and he doesn't live there, he just owns it, but the police say that they think he knew about it.

Whatever, that's the basic part of the story. Famous person may have done wrong and now they're looking into the issue.

Early this week, suddenly, the focus shifted entirely. Suddenly, Clinton Portis was the football player in question. He's a running back for the Washington Redskins. During a recent interview, he was asked about the Vick dog situation.

His reply went sorta like this: He doesn't see what the big deal is. If Vick fights dogs, so be it. Dog fighting isn't good, but there are a lot worse issues in the world, so he's amazed at how much focus the media is putting on this just because of the possibility of a scandal involving a famous player. He suggested that there were probably dozens of other dog fighting rings out there, but they don't get press coverage because they don't involve Vick.

It's a bad PR statement. I admit it. But, it was an off the cuff remark at a press conference for a totally unrelated subject. It's not like he had time to organize his thoughts or vet it through his agent. He just said what he thought.

So naturally... Vick isn't the story anymore. It's all about Portis. Which just drives me up a fucking wall. They've spent almost as much, if not MORE, time talking about Portis's comments than they have about the fucking target of the investigation, Vick. It drives me up a wall, it really does.

Seriously... let's focus on the issue people. The PR gaff isn't the issue. The broken law is the fucking issue. That's not juicy enough for the vultures out there though. They want to see if they can get more famous people involved. Sell more headlines.

Sickening really. People like to shrug it off by saying media is just trying to run their business and sell papers. That's true. But there is also a responsibility to the public to talk about the actual news. Not the concocted hub-bub around celebrities when they're asked about issues that don't directly relate to them.

It may be a business, but their model sucks.

My boss quit. She started in January or February. Now she's gone.

No real notice or anything.

She packed her stuff up Tuesday night. Left her badge. Went home.

Called out sick on Wednesday. And sometime after work, called and told her boss she quit. Had another job lined up or something.

Notice? You'll notice she's not coming back. Certainly nothing civilized like two weeks.

The thing that gets me is that it was premeditated. She packed her shit up two days ago, let it sit for a day while she was 'sick', then bailed. Now a temp manager is stuck pulling her weight in addition to his normal work. That sucks for him. The only other thing that sucks about her going is that she won't get to see her employee review. From comments around the water cooler, it ranges from poor to very poor. She deserved to get hammered for it.

Normally, that'd would piss me off so much that I'd be screaming and raging at her. But this is not that time.

I'm glad she's gone. She's a bad boss. I was hoping she'd be laid off soon. Barring that, flat out terminated. She did nothing useful. She was a waste of space and money. No people skills. No intelligence. Just some pseudo business-speak mixed with heavy doses of bullshit.

And now she's gone. YAY!

Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch! Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.

She won't be missed.

I don't normally watch the show. I admit that.

When I heard they were going to have a debate segment focusing on the belief in God, I was intrigued. The people debating... left me with a little bit of a sour taste in my mouth. They chose Kirk Cameron (oh yeah, banana boy!!) and Ray Comfort to represent the religious point of view. Now, for the most part, those two are junior varsity at best. Probably the practice squad. In no way would I consider them serious voices for the religious movement. They initiated the debate by claiming they would prove God's existence without requiring the use of faith, and they would also prove that evolution is a fairy tale. Bold words

Of course, that was until I heard who their opponents would be. The Rational Response Squad (from the Blasphemy Challenge fame) was chosen to represent the atheist / scientific viewpoint. These two are web idols that are every bit as much of a sideshow as Cameron and Comfort. However, they had a much easier position. They didn't have to prove that God doesn't exist, just that Cameron and Comfort failed to prove it.

With neither side well represented, my expectations were fairly low going into the debate. After finding video of the debate, I watched it. It was better than expected. Both sides made a number of fairly standard arguments on the issue. Comfort's opening salvo was an attempt to prove a creator with the argument from design (a painter needs a painting so the universe needs a creator). The RRS shot that down easily with the standard if all things need a creator, who created God. If God doesn't need one, why does the universe.

From there the debate wandered back and forth. The attempts to attack evolution were weak and infantile, but the defense wasn't much better. The Q&A session from the audience was... painful. The crowd was hyped and made even worse points than the participants. At the end of the day, the debate went mostly in favor of the atheists. I admit some bias there, but I also feel the only reason they won the debate is because their requirements were lower. Kirk and Comfort promised to prove God and disprove evolution. They failed on both counts. The RRS was able to poke holes in most of the arguments put forth without messing up too badly.

All and all, a good debate. Not great. But as good as you can expect given the low caliber of the participants. Obviously too long for a half hour TV program though, so we head off to editing. And this is where Nightline takes out the garden hose and starts working on getting the golf ball. Honestly, the editing was atrocious. They spent over a quarter of the time talking about the panel. Far more than needed, particularly focusing on Kirk Cameron, and his ex-celebrity status. They they started the hatchet job.

Even being as even handed as possible, the aired program rarely showed anything resembling a debate. One side would present part of a position, then the editors cut to a partial rebuttal from the opposing side. They never let either side really finish statements or thoughts. Further, they edited a lot of the discussion out to show the worst of each side's points. In my personal opinion, they went so far as to edit out a large number of the atheists responses, most importantly the part that framed their position: The religious side had not scientifically proven God's existence. The cut version makes the entire debate come out as a draw. I don't think anyone watching the full version would get that impression.

It's disgusting. I don't know if it's editorial bias or simply an attempt to seem balanced for a national audience. Either way, it's dishonest. The debate did not end the way Nightline displayed. They left so much on the cutting room floor that is changed the result.

I suppose it's more reason for me to go right back to watching the Daily Show and the Colbert Report during Nightline's time slot.

Short and sweet.

A light year is a measure of DISTANCE. Not time. Specifically the distance light travels over a a year. Google says 9,460,730,472,580 kilometers. A real long fucking way. But... still 365 days.

Parsec. It's a distance. Not knowing what the hell Han is talking about in the Star Wars movie, I don't know if he's using it correctly or not, but I know those fanboys out there fuck this one up often enough.

A league is also distance, not a depth. Stupid movie titles aside. Seeing as 20K leagues is about 111,000km, I think it's be pretty rough to be down that far. Since you know, you'd come out the other side of the planet.

For depth, you probably want fathoms (6 feet). Of course, 20K fathoms is 36 km and the Marianas trench is 11 km, so it's still wrong. But hey, at least it's in the right ballpark.

Our most despised lawyer (not for long!!!) is up to his foul tricks again. But even for him, I think this one is special

He's targeting Wendy's. Yes, the hamburger chain.

For lesser mortals, you might wonder what this has to do with his never-ending quest to save his girlfri... I mean, slander the video game industry. But as we've noted before, Jack is not common by any means, nor does his brain function. I mean, I'm sure it controls breathing and drooling and all, but not so much on the cognitive side of things. Kinda like a walking Terri Schiavo

Anyway, you'll love this. He's attacking the hamburger chain for...

Wait for it...

Promoting murder simulators.

Waa? Let me walk you through the drooling mental lapse.

Wendy's is promoting Wii toys in their Kids Meals. The Manhunter sequel will be released for the Wii later this year. Manhunter 2 is obviously a murder simulator. Therefore, bash Wendy's.

He hasn't sued them yet. I assume he will eventually. Right not, he's still in the 'little bitch' stage of letter writing and complaining about it every chance he gets. Any chance for a little more dog shit to dribble out of his mouth I guess.

Can't wait until his disbarment is finalized.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It's like a new buzzword. The next paradigm or synergy. If you don't like something or it offends you, it must obviously be terrorism! What else could it be?

Take my favorite religious ideology, Catholicism. The Vatican's official newspaper said that recent comments by Andrea Rivera, were terroristic. That the words themselves comprised a terror attack on the church. That they stoked "blind and irrational rage against someone who always speaks in the name of love, love for life and love for man." I assume they're talking about Emperor Palpatine... I mean.. Pope Benedict.

Quick sidetrack... seriously... look at him. He looks like the Emperor. Side by side. Go look. I'll wait.

Anyway, back on topic. Well, those must have been some really bad words. I've said lots of really nasty, mean and spiteful things in my time, but no word of mine has EVER been an act of terrorism. I mean, seriously, really bad. I mean, to take language into a form of terrorism? That's a seriously badass speech.

Or... comedy. That's an alternative I suppose. You see, Rivera is a comic. Apparently an outspoken one. And during a presentation during a concert in Italy, he made a few jokes at the Church's expense because he doesn't agree with some of it's positions. Things like this:

The Pope says he doesn't believe in evolution. I agree, in fact the Church has never evolved.

I find that funny. Even if I didn't, I think it's a long way from terrorism. Have we seriously diluted that word down to the point that a opposing viewpoint should be labeled like that? Really? I mean, damn. I don't know what Italy's law on the issue is, but I don't see how the bar could be THAT low. At some point, as a society, we have to allow those that disagree with us to speak out against us. We have to accept that not everyone agree with us and they have the right to express themselves. That's part of what makes a society free.

I know Italy isn't the most free country in the world, but it's a long way from the back of the pack too. This is a basic right to speak. Not fucking terrorism.

Honestly, the entire business just helps the Palpatine connection.

Life is hard enough for students in schools today. You have violence, drugs, and sex. You have paranoid overreactions by to violence, drugs and sex.

For example, take Gig Harbor High School. They had a surveillance system installed in the school. Laudable move, and it gives them a nice tool. What is unacceptable is how the Dean of Students, Keith Nelson, decided to use it.

You see, he saw something he didn't like. Two student kissing in between classes. I know, it's harsh to imagine high school students having the AUDACITY of kissing each other, but it happened. So, naturally, he responded. Not by warning the students to knock it off. Nope. Sure, that's what he would have done in most cases. In this case, he ran to the video recorder and grabbed the tape, then showed it to the parents of both students.

What made this case special? Oh, they were both girls. Lesbianism in our schools!!! IMPOSSIBLE.

One student was removed from school by her parents.

Of course, that's not the only twist. The allegation goes on to say that the reason for Keith's reaction was religious. Apparently, he attends the same Mormon church as the parents. And we all know that lesbianism is not high on the list of Mormon values, right? The school and Dean both deny that claim, but hey, take it for what it's worth.

All of that said, I have to give some kudos here to the school. They did make some changes. They made it clear that the video system is not to be used for this type of policing, or to be shown to parents. They also removed the Dean. Sadly, they just re-assigned him to be an assistant superintendent or something. I would have fired him, but hey, I'm not known for being forgiving either. More kudos go out to the student body, many of whom walked out of school to protest. Very mature way to accept and support fellow students' lifestyles. Sadly, more mature than a shit for brains like Nelson. Of course, he sets the bar pretty low.

Mr Bush veto'd the war spending bill that Congress sent him. No one was surprised. He said he would and he did.

He also veto'd the stem cell research bill. No one was surprised. He said he would and he did.

I find it interesting that both issues are widely supported by the people. Regardless of your opinion on either issue, I can't say that I'm comforted by that fact.

Putting that aside, I'm going to take the time to give out a little 'fuck you'. Not to Bush though. This one's going out to the democrats for dancing to Bush's tune. You see, they've already indicated that they are working on a bill without the timetables, just as Bush requested. It may have a few goals, but nothing attached to troop withdrawal. Bush said the veto'd bill was nothing but a political stunt, and they're proving him right. He demanded they give him what he wanted and they're going to do it.

I don't know. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm a stubborn bastard. Maybe I'm better poker player. But I'd be damned if I'd let him call me here. The Dems have got the better hand. Popular opinion is on their side. The president ASKED for emergency funding. He came to Congress with his hand out. Congress controls the pocketbook. It's a check on power. It's their fucking RIGHT to exercise it.

If they think the President is wrong... if they think the approach is wrong... if they think it's in the best interests of the country... stand the fuck up and say so. You don't have to pass his fucking funding bill. In fact, if you believe any of that is true, you're fucking required by your oath of office NOT to pass his funding his way.

I don't know if Bush's position is right or wrong. For the purposes of this, it doesn't matter. The problem is the subjugation of the legislative branch to the executive. When the pubs were in control, I accepted it, because it was agreement with the leader of their party. Not that the dems have it, I find it unacceptable and weak willed that they would consider behaving the same way. If you disagree, fucking DO it. It's part of your oath. To represent your constituents and viewpoints to the best of your ability. Guess what? This isn't it. This is bending over and hoping you can ride the dissatisfaction until 2008. Fucking bullshit.

Stand up for yourself. No fucking wonder the pubs have raped you for so long.