Jan/19
2006
It's so stupid that it really doesn't deserve a post, but then again if the AP reported on it I guess it's worth mention. For starters I have this personal message for the dumb-ass bitch in Massachusetts who is suing Nickelodeon and Kelloggs (YES I MEAN YOU SHERRI CARLSON): If you're so fucking stupid how did you manage to reproduce in the first place? You must have the biggest rack to offset your obviously small brain. Her beef is that TV and the food industry are responsible for her kids diets. Not her has a "parent". It seems that when her kids watch TV they want the foods that are advertised. When she takes the kids with her shopping they want it in the store. Somehow the ability to explain to her kids that junk food isn't the best for you, or just the outright concept of saying "NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT" escapes her. What a woman. Can you imagine the scene at her home? The kids must run around with knives and chug cleaning fluid all day. Ok so she doesn't have the ability to control the TV, somehow. The kids watch these shows and want the snacks and cereals. But when she goes to the store what happens? The kids run down the isles pulling off every box that has Spongebob on it? And then she takes them to the register? And she pays for them? Wtf. What she's really saying is that she's the fucking victim of the commercials - and that through her kids - she's being forced to buy them things they want. Personally I want to be her kid. I want a new computer NOW mom, NOW NOW NOW. And I'd get it. Or else. Sherri, fucking get a grip - you and your other plaintiffs are so out of touch with your responsibilities as a parent I'm surprised your kids are even still alive. The idea that you want to sue the channel you kids watch cartoons on and the sponsors that make those cartoons is so freekin ridiculous it's not even funny. I've got a suggestion for you, block the cartoon channels - let your kids watch sex and violence instead. Then maybe you'll really have something to worry about when they want something....
Jan/19
2006
There are few things that upset me more than fallacious arguments and flawed reasoning. I can’t count the number of times I’ve listened to someone go off on some subject or another with some of the worst logic I’ve ever heard. Sometimes they’re doing it just to shame opponents into giving up the debate. Sometimes they don’t know they’re doing it because they don’t understand the subject matter. Sometimes, they just don’t understand why some of the things are flawed reasoning. Take for example, some of the following: If this just saves or helps one child, we’ve done the right thing - Sounds good. Tough to argue against because it means you want the child hurt. The problem is, it doesn’t mean anything. That’s not really a line of reasoning. It’s an appeal to play on your sympathy and prevent any opposition. Of course, horrible injustice can be done in the name of saving children, but they never seem to think about that. That’s just un-American - My teeth grind just thinking about this one. Has ever there been something more myopic? If so, I’m honestly at a loss to think of it. As if there was some rulebook by which all Americans live. This is in the national interest - Because that way it’s not selfish, it’s for the greater good. If it was in MY interest, my FAMILY’S interest, or my GROUP’S interest, it would be selfish. But when they make statements like this, be it national, state or community, it’s supposed to be ok then. And if you disagree, you’re hurting your neighbors. Those are just a handful of examples of course. I could probably go on for years. The simple fact is that people use things like this to frame debates and silence opposition. But they don’t support their position, and they don’t confront criticism. When people can’t frame their argument properly, it just sends me into attack mode. Even if I agree with the basic principle, I slip into devil’s advocate mode. And we somehow let them get away with it. I don’t understand that apathy in so many people. Maybe they’ve just never heard a good debate.
Jan/17
2006
''We conclude the (law's) prescription requirement does not authorize the attorney general to bar dispensing controlled substances for assisted suicide in the face of a state medical regime permitting such conduct. The government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the states to the federal government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality. The text and structure of the (law) show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role in maintaining it.'
In essence, the 6 - 3 ruling said that the attorney general does NOT have the authority to punish doctors in states that have declared assisted suicide legal. Again, it's taken years and money to prove what's been proven before: that the current administrations is more interested in meddling in the lives of citizens according to their beliefs rather than respecting the rights of the voters.
Jan/13
2006

Too Old to Die?

I swear to gob, the real news becomes more and more like satire the longer we crawl this earth. A seventy five year old inmate on death row is now saying that he's "too old to die". The lawyers say that to take a man who is bound to a wheel-chair, nearly deaf and blind, and strap him down for some lethal injection, amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. How obvious does this need to be? I guess we'll have to spell it out for the nth time. 1) He wasn't in this state of health when he committed his crimes. 2) His victims really didn't have an option when it came to his decision to take their lives. 3) If he's on his way out, let's just give him a hand. One of the many things I lack compassion for are the dregs who play the part of the victim even though they themselves couldn't empathize with anyone but their own asses.
Jan/12
2006

Alt-Friend Signing Off

I would venture that probably everyone has experienced it at one time or other in their life. "It" being the Alt-Friend status. What's an Alt-Friend? It's the person you turn to when all your primary friends are busy or unavailable. It's the fallback friend. It's the last person on your list to call when you just HAVE to tell someone. You can be an Alt-friend for lots of reasons. Sometimes you're an Alt because you're on the hazy edge (or firmly outside) the social circle. Sometimes you're an Alt because your social overlap is very limited (same science class, after-work sports). Sometimes it's because you're not directly related at all - the friend of a friend situation. Usually those aren't such a big deal. We know they're only friends for that short time you interact with them, and when they choose to initiate something with someone else... it's no big deal. Generally Alt-friendships are temporary, not something that spans decades. They're not people you've known since childhood, into and out of wild youth. If you do see them decades later it's at a reunion, or bumping into them in your old neighborhood. You look each other over, go "Hey I know that person", chat about a few people you might or might not remember and move on. But what happens when you find out someone you thought was a "true friend" turns out to be using you as an Alt? I've got a former buddy like that. Over the past 2 decades we've been pretty close. We generally get in touch pretty regularly, and hook up several times a year. Most of the time it was even, I would call and arrange to visit - then they would. 50/50, host and guest. However, back when we were younger there had been times when a new friend would knock me off their radar. I would call, they wouldn't call back. I would offer to visit, and get no response. Eventually I would shrug and move along and after a year or so *poof* they would suddenly re-materialize and demand my time, want to catch up and it would be back to the way things were. I would guess this happened about 3 times in 20 years, not bad over all... until of course it happened again. Now I value my friends. When people call, or make an overture I take it seriously. If I have a conflict between multiple events I feel honor bound to let both sides know that I screwed up and do what is right to make it up to the person I have to blow off. I try to remember birthdays. I'll take the time to listen to gripes and woes. I treat people as I'd like to be treated. So it becomes irksome when my former buddy suddenly treats me like an Alt because some shiny new person has suddenly come along. Now again, I know from history, that this will only last a year or so because this friend will drive an unprepared person insane. They are very demanding. They have lots of quirks that need to be catered to. They have strong opinions that can't be questioned. Eventually this buddy -will- be back. But you know? This time? I'm not going to pick it back up. Twenty years is a long time, and just because I've been willing to be being sidelined in the past doesn't mean that I should blandly accept it.... unless I want to be putting up with it for the rest of my life. It will be an interesting event when they finally do call me back. Chances are they'll be all upset because this new person is now a demon for rejecting their attention or getting into a conflict with them. They'll want to talk and get together. Show me what's happened in their life since the last time we hung out, want to be consoled and reassured. Well you know I do that for my friends.... but it's not in my job description as an Alt.
Jan/11
2006

Don't piss me off!

Link: http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news

Those little words seem harmless. They are uttered thousands of times day. And they are probably posted onto forums, blogs, IRC and instant messages even more often. But, hey, some people will annoy others. It’s a fact of life. It’s not like they’re breaking the law. Oops. Turns out, that all changed recently. You see, on Jan 5th, Bush signed a new law. It’s a relatively normal law. It’s the “Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005”. The problem is a small section entitled “Preventing Cyber-stalking.” Check this out:
Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Nice, eh? The word annoy is too imprecise. It’s not practical. I mean, on this site alone we’ve annoyed readers. I annoy people on Prounreal all the time (because I’m right and they suck). People read my blog, and I’m sure they’re annoyed from time to time. Hell, Steeler and Bengal fans aren’t really chummy this week. And I’m willing to bet that almost none of the conversations on their bulletin boards involved people signing their real name. Now, I’m sure that’s not what our lawmakers intended. Far from it, I’m sure. But that is what they wrote. And in a court of law, the law is exactly what is written down. The idea behind this well intentioned strike against the freedom of speech is supposed to be a nice way to help prevent someone from stalking a woman over the internet. Or more accurately, punish them more. It’s already illegal to stalk someone internet or not. This is just an extra crime to tack onto the list. The problem is that they suck at phrasing. This isn’t a well placed law. It’s a huge net cast over more or less everything in an attempt to catch a few select criminals. Vague broad wording in laws are almost always cause bad laws. This one is no exception.
Jan/08
2006

Link: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WARM_BEER?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

… and back away slowly. That’s right, you little rectal warts. Leave the fucking beer alone. That means you Sen. Alter. You see, over in Missouri, this piece of excrement has decided that the best way to curb drinking and driving is simple. Make a law that prevents the sale of cold beer. He decided that all beer sold should be over 60 degrees. That way, you can’t drink it right away. And he’s serious. The little ass spelunker believes that bullshit so much that he’s submitted the bill. Will this reduce DUIs? Fuck no. I can’t even imagine a situation where this could do any real good. How many DUIs are caused because a guy drank a cold beer he picked up at the liquor store? Gut Check Survey says… it can’t be fucking many. I mean, how many people go from sober to drunk on the ride back from the store? I just don’t see that as a large segment of the DUI arena. And the people it would cover… will probably just drink warm beer. This won’t reduce drinking and driving. It will just piss me off when I can’t grab a cold 12-pack 30 minutes before my buddies drop by. But hey, he’s a state senator. I’m sure he studied and researched the idea carefully before he decided to put the bill up for consideration, right? I mean, it’s not like he just asked some random ten year old kid for an idea and took it. Wait, what? What was that? Oh………..He did? Uh-huh….. You know, that actually explains a lot. You read that right. He asked fifth graders for ideas for new laws. Sen. Butt-munch here looked at the top three answers, and picked one. Wrote it up into legalese and tossed it into the state senate. Un- Fucking- Believable. By the way, dillhole here is supposed to be a conservative. I don’t much care about political affiliation, but what the fuck ever happened to the idea of small government anyway? Does that just not fucking exist anymore? Jesus Fuck Christ. People… work with me here. At least pretend you’re not making up laws just to pass the time. In case all of the above wasn’t clear, let me close with this final though. Get your god damn dirty government hands off my cold beer.
Jan/07
2006
Rise is perhaps the wrong word. It's not a new thing. It's just on a larger scale now. All of the old game shows and variety shows were sponsored. Before and after commercial breaks, they'd mention the sponsor. They'd work into sponsor products where ever possible. Nothing new really. Over the course of my life, I've come to accept that. It's ok. But the past decade has seen new levels of sponsorship deals as the tentacles of corporations reach farther and farther trying to bury themselves into our consciousness. For example, think back to all the movies you’ve ever seen. How many Macs have you seen out in the movie universe? To judge by movies, most people use Macs. Because Apple puts a lot of money out there to get sponsorship deals with movie producers. The other thing that gets me is sports advertisements. Now, I’m not talking about green-screening ad behind the batters during a baseball game. I’m talking about the sponsorship of the Rose Bowl. Or should I say, the ADT Rose Bowl, and the winners will receive this trophy of their victory (don’t mind the ugly ass ADT insignia that we’ve etched onto it) When I first got into football, certain stadiums had names that commanded respect. Mile High Stadium. RFK. Candlestick Park. What do we have now? Invesco Field. 3Com park. Fed-Ex Field. McAfee Coliseum. RCA Dome. Lincoln Financial Field. All over the country, in every sport, honored venues sell their naming rights for vast sums of money. Recently, I think I heard the worst example. This year, due to the horrific damage done, Mardi Gras will have a sponsors to help offset the cost to the city. Not just one, but several. For 2 million a pop, four or five companies will get to plaster their name all over the famous city. In doing so, not only do they get the good press of “aiding the city”, and the massive revenue generated during the enormous celebration; they get to set a precedent. If there is anything we have learned from sponsorship deal in the past it’s this: once a new area of sponsorship is opened, it is almost never revoked. So, most likely, Mardi Gras will be branded yearly with new corporate identities. I understand the reasoning to an extent. They want to raise name recognition to help sales. Movies, sports stadiums, and apparently even world famous parties are all just means toward that end. But I can’t help but think that Mile High Stadium inspires the soul more than Investco Field. That our lives are better off without Smirnoff Ice’s Mardi Gras Extravaganza. That maybe, in the pursuit of profit, we have given up a little too much ground.
Jan/05
2006

Assbuddies

On the current stroke suffered by Sharon. Apparently there are birds of a feather on different continents...
''God considers this land to be his,'' Robertson said on his TV program ''The 700 Club.'' ''You read the Bible and he says `This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, `No, this is mine.''' ... Sharon ''was dividing God's land and I would say woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the EU (European Union), the United Nations, or the United States of America,'' Robertson said.
Iran's president said Thursday he hoped for the death of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the latest anti-Israeli comment by a leader who has already provoked international criticism for suggesting that Israel be ''wiped off the map.''
How you guys ever made it as far as you did should be a fucking clue to the rest of us.
Jan/05
2006
Ok it's not exactly a "ding dong the witch is dead" scenario here - yes Sharon is gravely ill, but the idea that Palestinian children are handing out candy is just fucking ludicrous. If someone you desperately hate is sick, injured or dying the proper behavior is to sit quietly and just gloat. Dancing, throwing parties, handing out candy just demonstrates that you're as sick a fucker as the person you despise so badly. It's hard to say that this is a function of religion, or even culture - I think it's more a function of retarded adults showing kids how not to behave. The whole "dancing in the streets" when the WTC got hit is the same thing. Pathetic. Stupid. Repulsive. How can you expect other nations to treat you like a mature entity if you behave like the most delinquent child? Weather it's genetics or culture it doesn't matter. Keep your fucking opinions quiet and to yourself and maybe you'll get the respect you think you deserve.
Jan/04
2006
A simple question really. But one that men frequently lie about when they answer that question. I met a man, who claimed to be 5' 8". I am 5' 8", did he think I would not notice that he came up to my chin? And I was not wearing heals. I don't really care how tall a guy is. I have never not dated or broke up with a guy cause he was shorter than me. It just amuses me that many guys feel the need to lie about this little detail. So, how tall are you, really?
Jan/03
2006

Teeth

Like I said, I am trying to "date" through the internet. I have met a couple of guys. Well, the guy I met today was nice enough. Been talking to him for a bit. But I discovered something today that tiny pictures and the phone did not show - He has horrible teeth. We are not talking just crooked and ill spaced - although they were that, too - I am not going to fault someone for not being well enough off for braces. I am talking gross and unclean. Toothbrushes and toothpaste are cheap and easy to come by - every grocery store and drug store have a wide selection. You can even find them in convenience stores and gas stations. Crap - if you forget them when you travel, most hotels will give you them. Next step is to take a minute or two at least once a day to use them. When we are parting, I can tell he wants a kiss on the lips. He got one the cheek. I was taking no chances that he was going to slip his tongue in my mouth. I would have had horror thoughts about the teeth and the general poor dental hygiene. Gives me the willies just thinking about it. Yuck!
Dec/31
2005

Perverts

I recently joined a dating website - Cupid.com. I like the way it is set up and it really does filter people who live near me versus people clear across the state. However, it has a darker side . . . some of my fellow posters are complete jackasses. Guys, take notes - this is not how to pick-up chicks. Or atleast reasonably normal chicks. The following are true. And guys, they are not turn-ons. If fact, they are lucky it was across cyberspace, cause I would have been likely to give them a sound slap. 1) Don't ask a woman's bra size about your third sentence of our chat. Look at the fucking picture - those obviously are not 'skeeter bites. There is enough there, no need to ask more. 2) Don't ask to come over to meet me (for the first time) at 11 pm, then take and attitude when I say I'm getting ready to go to sleep. Then when I agree to meet the next day, basically stand me up (we were supposed to make arrangements to meet at a particular time on the chat channel). Then a couple days later say "Hi" - Go fuck yourself. 3) Don't say on our first chat, that you want me to watch you "stroke". I doubt you are discussing golf or your kitty cat, and I have zero interest in watching you stroke a body part. Go jerk yourself off, ALONE, you degenerate. I'm sure this group of winners will provide hours of entertainment.
Dec/28
2005
You're always supposed to be thankful. Even when you hate the gift, you smile, nod and thank the person telling them that you love it. Even when it looks like reindeer dung. I get my fair share of crappy gifts. Hell, one of my aunts has made crappy gifts into an art form. I'm not going to rant about those gifts though. I'm going to rant about a different type of gift. I'll call them double edged gifts. Gifts that seem like a gift for you, but have some extra feature that ends up making it less of a present and more of a burden. Couple examples here. First up, is the gift card I got from one relative. Gift cards are good. Gift cards to malls that are over 100 miles from my home... are bad. There are better options than mall cards, particularly for family that lives far away. Visa has a gift card that works anywhere. Best Buy, Target, Circuit City, JCPenny, Borders, and hundreds of other major chain stores work well too. But a 2 hour drive to spend a $25 gift card... not so much. Next up, the cell phone. Now, I didn't get this one, but a co-worker did. He doesn't have a cell. Doesn't want one. Doesn't like them. His mother got him a cell. And paid the first 2 months. But signed him up for a 2 year contract. Joy of joys. Now he has a phone he doesn't want, but he has to pay for it for the next 2 years! I didn’t even know you could do that to someone. How about World of Warcraft for a guy that had a serious evercrack addiction? Like, a $1000 a month ebay evercrack habit. Took him a long time to finally break away and get over his MMORPG addiction. Does anyone think WOW is the answer? I dunno. It's the spirit of giving and all, but come on people. A little thought in your gift giving will go a long way.
Dec/23
2005
''While abortion involves essentially the same medical choice as other surgery, it involves in addition a moral choice, because the woman contemplating a first trimester abortion is given absolute and unreviewable authority over the future of the fetus,'' Alito wrote. ''Should not then the woman be given relevant and objective information bearing on this choice? Roe took from the state lawmakers the authority to make this choice and gave it to the pregnant woman. Does it not follow that the woman contemplating abortion have at her disposal at least some of the same sort of information that we would want lawmakers to consider?''
The key sentence there - "Took from state lawmakers". Took. Taken. Stolen. So to infer, Alito is of the opinion that a woman is not the person who should judge the future of her self and her responsibilities. It's a decision for lawmakers. Lawmakers who, obviously, aren't the ones who will give birth. Lawmakers who, apparently won't be responsible for raising a child for the next 20 years. It's astonishing that Alito has achieved so much with an attitude that women are less than capable to make a decision that will impact their lives. It's clear that he thinks of women as less than sufficiently intelligent, probably undeserving of the right to vote or own property. And he wants to take the place of Judge O'Connor.....
Dec/23
2005

'Tis The Season

These stories are local to me, but I have to wonder how much of this stort of stuff goes on across the country. While the Fundies are worried about big business taking the Christ out of Christmas (nevermind that they co-opted a combination of pagan holidays to begin with - imagine the converts screaming "Hey - you're taking Yule-father out of Yule!"), the common drug dealer is taking advantage of the holiday.
Police Find Pot Wrapped As Christmas Presents LAWRENCE, Ind. -- Authorities in Lawrence unwrapped an elaborate drug trafficking scheme Thursday. Police intercepted 75 pounds of marijuana they said was being transported from Texas to a hotel in Lawrence. The drugs were found wrapped in coffee grounds to cover the smell and disguised as Christmas presents. http://www.theindychannel.com/news/5623208/detail.html
And then there's this gem...
Three Charged After Child Tests Positive For Meth LEBANON, Ind. -- Three people were charged Thursday following an investigation into a methamphetamine lab. Police said they found an active meth lab in a home in the 600 block of East South Street Tuesday. Officials said the lab was hidden behind some Christmas presents in the basement of the home. A 4-year-old child inside the home tested positive for methamphetamine. That child and two others, ages 2 and 6, were taken from the home and later released to a family member. http://www.theindychannel.com/news/5613561/detail.html
Nice. Happy holidays.
Dec/22
2005

Pot. Kettle. Fuck it.

Saddam please just shut the fuck up. Because no one cares if you were roughed up by your captors. I don't at least.