Rou

Mary Wolski was PA's very first female firefighter. Mary Wolski was fired. Mary considers this a grave injustice and a violation of her rights.

This leads me to ask, why did she get fired? Silly thing. They say she poses a threat to herself and others. Why do they think that? Oh, it might be because she burned her fathers house down in a suicide attempt. Two things: One, I'd fire any firefighter who turns into an arsonist. Two, I'm not really comfortable with a suicidal firefighter being sent in to rescue me, or to support the rest of the crew.

Maybe it's just me. Maybe there are some facts out there that don't show up on google. But there ain't no way I let her back to work. Suicide is a big issue for any employer. It's even more so when the employee is responsbile for the lives of citizens, her co-workers, and herself.

Combine that with the fact she attempted to kill herself using arson as her tool? Nah, fuck you. You're fired. I don't care if you male, female, or hermaphrodite. You're fired. Shut the fuck up.

Hillary has been pushing for the primary elections in Florida and Michigan to count. She says it's important that their voice is heard, and that those people get to have their say matter.

That's an interesting position for her. It opens her up to a number of not so obvious points. If any of the pundits took their heads out of their ass long enough to realize it, it would be a clear death kneel for her candidacy.

First, she's focusing on making sure they count because it's the democratic thing to do. We don't want to disenfranchise them. However, the rest of her campaign is focused on making sure the rest of the countries votes do NOT count. Obama has the popular vote, the delegate count, and the state count. The majority of the country has spoken, and they didn't choose Hillary.

Second, she didn't get on this high horse until after Super Tuesday. If she had made these points early on, that would be ok. But she didn't. She decided that she needed a LOT of help to even make it close, and this would go her way. She's clearly making the point that she's willing to support anything if it gets her elected.

Third, she doesn't want a re-vote. She's begrudgingly willing to consider it, but she really wants the current vote to stand. She's been fighting for that because she wins big that way. She's let it leak out that she may be open to other options, but the vote standing is her clear preference. Again, understandable because it helps her win, but it's two faced because it's equally obvious that she wouldn't do the same if the vote was against her.

It all adds up to the same thing. She's lost, and unwilling to admit it. She's willing to stoop to any level to change the results of the primaries. Even if I supported her, I would draw the line here. I don't want a candidate that is willing to use those tactics.

John Adams lives and breathes. Maybe it's just a man using a pseudonym, but I think Adams would smile to think that his name would be attached to this work.

In Whitewater, Wisconsin, a man pens a blog under the name John Adams. His main goal seem to be to point out the failures of the local government in general. Basically, his site is just like this one, but more focused and localized.

Naturally, the authorities in his area don't like to be criticized. The chief of police, James Coan, decided he didn't like the site. He and others on his staff, spent time at work, using police and country resources to try to identify the man behind the pseudonym. They ran license plates, and they conducted surveillance, all in an attempt to violate his rights. They even went so far as to get a judge to issue a subpoena demanding his identity.

As you might recall from my recent post, anonymous posting online is a protected right, guaranteed by the constitution, and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. Any attempt by a government body to identify a person posting online without probably cause of a crime is a violation of that person's first amendment rights. Pure and simple.

So, our friendly neighborhood incompetent cop has already made my shit list. I have this silly thing about cops... you know... obeying the law. And police chiefs even more so. So The next part makes me love him all the more.

He thought he figured out who John Adams was. So, Mr Legally Challenged police chief dropped by for a "talk". He brought a police lieutenant with him. Nice, friendly cat right? I mean, there is nothing intimidating about two armed cops knocking on your door and demanding a discussion about your posts online. I believe the Supreme Court describes that as a "chilling" effect on free speech. It's made worse by the fact that they were wrong. They were "questioning" the wrong guy. He was not "John Adams".

But they did eventually find the right guy. Had the same setup. Chief and a cop come to the door and demand to talk about the website. Some intimidation occurs, and the conversation ends. The Chief claims that he didn't try to stop Adams from publishing. He just wanted Adams to "provide him with answers to his questions and concerns." Never mind he could have just emailed the website to get those answers.

The only reason I can see for face to face over email is intimidation.

Quite frankly, Coan seems to be the kind of cop that give cops a bad name. He's abusing his power in an attempt to silence a critic. I'm extremely glad he doesn't have any power where I live. For those poor readers that do suffer under his tyranny, I can only say I feel bad for you.

Mr Coan, I sincerely hope you're fired. The sooner the better. And I hope Mr Adams and his community get someone more qualified, and professional to run their police department.

There is a Kentucky legislator, Tim Couch, who has a very bad idea. Because he's a legislator, he gets to make his bad ideas into bad bills.

He feels that there is a serious problem out there. Online bullying.

And he's got a solution. Of course he does. He wants to ban anonymous posting. Every post online would require it to have a real name, real address and real email associated with it. The real name would be displayed with the post. The web site owner would be liable for ensuring that his site was in compliance ($500 first offense, $1000 each additional).

Beyond the idiotic enforcement problems, this is still an moronicly stupid law. Right now, u235 would owe $500 for themself, and $1000 for each of the other contributors to this blog. Then, on top of that, another $1000 for each visitor reply.

Very quickly, you're well over 10 grand in fines from this site alone because some numbnut lawmaker doesn't like online bullying. This level of stupidity is on the order of Ted Steven's comments about tubes. Frankly, people that far out of touch with the reality of the internet shouldn't ever be in a position to make bills that regulate it. Even if those bills have a snowball's chance in hell of passing properly.

Beyond that, we really don't want MORE information about people being easy to trace online. To be honest, the government should be making more of an effort to educate people about how to protect their privacy online. Identity fraud is a big enough problem without making it easier for the thieves.

The Oklahoma House of Reps passed a bill. The State senate has not yet passed it. I hope they never do. The gist of this bill is that if a student expresses an answer that is correct in line with his or her religious beliefs, the answer should be considered correct, even if it is not in line with modern scientific theory.

The idea is that a student can bring discussion of religious ideas up in science class and not be penalized for it. They say it's protect a students freedom of religion and expression. Iffy, but understandable.I disagree, but that's me. However, this bill is so poorly written that it goes further.

A school district shall treat a student’s voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint, if any, on an otherwise permissible subject in the same manner the district treats a student’s voluntary expression of a secular or other viewpoint on an otherwise permissible subject and may not discriminate against the student based on a religious viewpoint expressed by the student on an otherwise permissible subject.

That is worded in such a way that test and homework answers can fall under this bill. That means if a student anwsers "How old is the Earth?" with 6000 years old, the teacher is required to accept the answer as correct.

This bill is EXACTLY what I bitch about so much about not allowing religious ideas to be discussed in science class. Science is about details and correctness. We KNOW the earth is over 4 billion years old. If a student claims it's 6000 years, that answer can and must be considered WRONG. Sorry, them's the breaks.

Moreover, it invalids ANY answer as wrong. You can belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and use pasta-farian answers. As long as you "believe" the answer is correct as a result of a religious belief, it must be accepted. Seriously, have you ever met a teenager who couldn't spit out some bullshit belief that supports his wrong answer? Me either.

School is about correct and incorrect. It's about instilling ideas and methodologies to assist the growth of children into adults. This bill throws all of that away in the pursuit of religious ideology. It's everything that's wrong with allowing religion and public education to mix rolled into one bill.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.” - Philip K. Dick

If you're not an NFL fan, you may not know or care. But Brett Farve recently announced his retirement. After 15 years with the Packers, and 17 in the NFL, he finally decided to hang it up. He holds most of the major records for quarterbacks, a Super Bowl ring, and an almost certain place in the NFL Hall of Fame. He's considered one of the best quarterbacks to play the game.

So, he held a press conference. Talked to the media, delivered a prepared speech with thank-you's and good-byes. During which, he broke down a little and cried some.

As a man and a fan, I don't have a problem with that. I don't understand why anyone would.

But, considering this is the internet, obviously people have been blasting Farve ever since as a "cry-baby" and a "wuss". That his reputation is tarnished by it. I was a bit more surprised that ESPN Radio led the chorus during their coverage of the story. I mean, those are supposed to be legitimate reporters.

Let's be honest here. Brett Favre lasted 17 years at a pro level in one of the most physically punishing sports in the world. He got hit by very large and strong men. He led his team to victory time and time again. He stood tall and respectful throughout his entire career. And you dipshits think that showing emotion and sadness at leaving that behind somehow makes him less of a man? That somehow his farewell detracts from 17 years of performance?

Honestly, some people need take a minute and put things into perspective. If I was leaving my job after 15 years, I'd be near to tears too. And I can't even imagine how much more intense that feeling would be if you had millions of fans, teammates, coaches and friends who supported you for years and years. And now it's all coming to an end.

Put yourself in his position. If you could hold back the tears, you're a far colder man than me. And frankly, Brett Farve is a better and tougher man than those that are taking pot shots at him now that he's leaving.

They must die. They must die a lot. In evil nasty and very medieval ways.

They called me a 4:35 AM. When I receive calls before the buttfuck of dawn, it had better be fucking good. I accept work related calls for my on-call duties. Fine. I accept family emergencies, but they had better be good. That's about it for the 4am call list.

Automated calls asking me to refinance my mortgage? What the mother-scrumping fuck. You've seriously got to shitting me. That is wholly unacceptable. In fact, that is so far outside the realm of acceptable calls at 4am, I'm not sure where to start.

The caller ID? 867-5309. Somehow, I don't think Jenny was calling me. If it was her, I hope the bitch dies and takes Tommy Tutone with her.

I don't know what rat-dicked cum-stain thought that calling people at 4am was a good idea, but I would really like some time alone with them in a room. Just me, a baseball bat, and enough time to demonstrate how I feel about his marketing concept.

Holy tap dancing Buddha. I don't know what he ate. I don't know what the fuck is wrong with his internal organs.

What I do know is that the mens room has become a testing facility for biological weaponry. Seriously, send UN inspectors. It's like there is a green haze in there. If I had a canary, it would have died.

I can hold it, thanks.

Gotta love these meetings. I mean, they're just a great concept. The staff is abused and exploited most of the year. We're understaffed, underfunded, overworked and short of resources. But we have a quarterly meeting that makes it all better.

A recognition meeting. I mean, sure, we all know what we look like, of course, but this is a chance for management to get a glimpse of us before returning to the ivory towers. Naturally, such a meeting can not interfere with normal operations, so it's held after normal work hours. We're naturally required to attend.

We're not a huge division of the company. Call it 40 staff and 10 managers. Yes, you read the proportion correctly. So, after bringing our division up out the red, reducing operational errors by 95%, expanding our services, and opening up new revenue streams, you'd think they'd be happy with us.

They are. Kinda. Mostly, they seem to have called the meeting to jerk off in front of us. The entire proceeding was one manager giving certificates to each other, followed by a reading of the significant accomplishments that they're taking credit for. Hell, one of them was so touched by the award, she broke down and cried tears of joy. Of the 40 witnesses... er... staff, 2 got awards. But all 10 managers did. It's really quite incredible.

Have I ever mentioned how much I hate corporate culture?