Rou

Florida has an idea. They're going to make a new license plate. And on this plate, they'll put a stain glass window, a cross, and the words "I believe"

Fair enough. I mean, I suspect it will face legal challenges, but I can understand it. I mean, we've got specialty plates for all sorts of groups, why exclude religious ones? Whatever.

Except...

Damn if the sponsor of the bill doesn't piss me, just as I'm tuning it out.

Rep. Edward Bullard says he wouldn't approve plates for other beliefs. See, now that right there pisses me off. Seriously. You expect this to survive a legal challenge while denying other faiths their ability for equal access?

Fuck off dillweed.

Of all acronyms on the internet, I think this one pisses me off the most: Too Long; Didn't Read.

It's generally followed by a plea for the author to give a shorter version. Drives me up a wall. If you can't be arsed to read the damn thing, why the fuck should I give two shits that you didn't read it. And the gall to demand that I condense my thoughts down into a cliff notes version for the ADD impaired? Fuck off. I picked my words carefully to best express myself. You have two choices: Read it, or ignore it. There isn't an option C where I explain things to you like a 3rd grader.

I'd keep going but there is a chance you wouldn't be able to stay focused long enough to read my closing remark:

Fuck off.

God I love Illinois sometimes. Monique Davis, IL state legislator decided to take an interesting position during a committee hearing last week. You see, she told someone that their religious beliefs were dangerous. In fact, the belief was so bad, that it would be dangerous for children to even be aware of them. These beliefs destroyed everything the state was build on, and hindered the progression of the state. She continued with a long tirade about how this was the land of Lincoln, and people here believe in God. Then, she told him to get out of his seat and get out of the hearing.

Man. They must be BAD. Damn.

What was he saying? Oh, he was saying that he was an atheist, and believed that the topic of the hearing, a bill to give public funds to rebuild a church that burnt down, was unconstitutional, and violated the separation of church and state.

Now, I'm amazed really. Couple of points.

One, How fucking dare this bitch get up there and say that. How does this ignorant piece of shit honest stand up there and act as representative? Right there, as an agent of the government, she's doing her best to supress his first amendment rights. Not just once, but TWICE. He has the right to whatever fucking religious beliefs he wants. He also has the right to seek a redress of his grievances. I know, that damn pesky first amendment can be a real bitch.

Second, Can you imagine, even for a nanosecond, her saying the same thing to a Jew? Or Muslim? I'm willing to bet the answer is no. Because bigoted assholes like her don't have the nerve to say shit like that to them. She knows she would be removed from office the next day. But atheists? Nah. No one gives a fuck. Didn't even really make the news anywhere.

Third, how the fuck is an atheist view dangerous to children? I'm sorry, how do you get that? It's no more dangerous for your Christian child to be exposed to atheism than it is for my atheist child to be exposed to Muslim or Christian ideas. No, your claims that ideas are dangerous. That your way must be the only way. That no other viewpoints can be tolerated or discussed. Sound a lot more like Pol Pot, Stalin, and Muslim extremists. Honestly, look around at the company you keep.

Finally, you tried to throw him out? Fuck you bitch. You have no right to be a representative of anyone. Fucking die in a fire. Slow roast style.

When I grew up there was two type of peanut butter: Creamy and chunky. You can still get creamy. You can also get all sorts of natural, and organic types. What you can't get (or at least, I can't) is chunky peanut butter. They have extra chunky, super chunky, and Supercalifragilistic-chunky. But not just plain chunky.

Honestly, how do we know something is SUPER chunky if there is no chunky to compare it to? How do we know the claims of mega-chunky-ness are valid if there is no frame of reference. I mean, sure, compared to creamy, all chunky peanut butter fares well on a chunk-o-meter. But that doesn't mean squat to me as a consumer.

I'm not sure really when it went away. In all honesty, I know that "regular" chunky was just replaced with the super mega names to make people think there was more chunks in there. What gets me is that they got rid of the baseline ideal in favor of the marketing stratagem. And worse, people bought into it.

Hey guys. I know you might not have noticed. I mean, the four of you obviously bumped into each other in the hall and started chatting about work. A legitimate everyday occurrence.

However, for 10 minutes all 4 of you have been standing there chatting about this client or that client, not one of you noticed that all four of you are clustered around the women's bathroom. One of you is leaning on the doorjam.

Maybe it doesn't matter to you. But it looks kinda odd. If I was a woman, I might be somewhat uncomfortable with 4 tech nuts with poor hygiene hanging around the bathroom. Bit skeevy, ya know?

Phyllis Schlafly doesn't like the first amendment. More precisely, she doesn't respect it. She wants to redefine it so that she can silence those things she doesn't understand or agree with. It's a common position, sadly enough. So many people think that free speech means they get to say what they want, and no body else should be granted those same rights.

Her target: video games.

Extremely violent video games have become the dangerous obsession of a significant portion of our youth, and several towns and states have passed ordinances intended to prevent minors from buying or viewing them. But judicial supremacists are striking down these laws by claiming this extremely graphic violence deserves the same First Amendment protection as Shakespeare

My eye is immediately drawn to certain things. First, Shakespeare was very graphic if you actually read what he said. Second, yes, they are both protected by the First. And third, 'supremacist' is a strange word choice. I'm not sure if it means what she thinks it means.

She continues and attempts to redefine speech to fit her needs:

Legitimate free speech expresses violence in a rational context, rather than displaying it graphically to evoke an immediate emotional reaction. It is not a First Amendment right to cause panic on an airplane by shouting that someone has a bomb; nor is it legitimate free speech to evoke violent reactions in children through graphic video game

Yes, shouting "Bomb" Or "Fire" isn't free speech. However, she fails to demonstrate how video games equate to this. Without that, it's nothing more than a straw man. Set it up and knock it down as many times as you like, the two are not obviously linked, so it doesn't work. There has NEVER been a single properly formated study that demonstrated a causal link between video games and violent behavior. Never. Not once. Correlation, some. But that's not the same thing.

Further, I find "displaying it graphically to evoke an immediate emotional reaction" to be a highly disturbing concept if it were ever applied legally. Saving Private Ryan, the Matrix, and Saw would all be legislated under it. Hell, damn near every movie strives to evoke emotion. Games do the same thing for the same reason, unless you're discussing Tetris or Bejeweled.

Seriously, when was the last action movie that expressed the violent content in a rational manner? Why would we hold movies up to a different standard? Sometimes I wonder if dumb shits like Phyllis Schlafly realize that a 5 year old is legally allowed to purchase a R rated movie. There are corporate policies against it, not legislative ones. Why should games be different?

So, Phyllis Schlafly, please, next time you want to discuss things rationally, I suggest you sit down and think really hard about what the freedom of speech really means. Speech doesn't just mean Hello Kitty and Danielle Steele and Shakespeare. It's not just Pride and Prejudice, the GodFather, and Citizen Kane. Not just the statue of David and the Mona Lisa. Not just flag waving and PTA petitions. It's also racism, anger, hate, sex, and violence. Grand Theft Auto 3, flag burning, and Debbie Does Dallas. The KKK, the Nation of Islam, and Westboro Baptist Church. You can not have one side of the coin without the other.

I'm sorry if you don't want your precious little snowflake to be exposed to it. As a parent, that is your prerogative and responsibility. You have ample methods at your disposal to restrict their access. If you choose not to avail yourself, that is entirely your fault. Before you strike out and act as if the world is full of 'supremacists' who don't agree with you, I suggest you take a deep breath and realize that you're not always right, and even if you were, the world is better because people are allowed to disagree with you.

Free speech is what it is. You're not allowed to redefine it just to fit your narrow minded agenda.