Embattled NFL quarterback Michael Vick, facing federal charges related to his alleged participation in dogfighting, has been hit with a "$63,000,000,000 billion dollar" lawsuit...
read more digg story
*******************************************************
So, Michael. Not only did you participate in dogfighting, but apparently, you stole this guy's pit bull mixes. Because you know, an NFL quarterback couldn't possibly afford to buy his own pit mixes, since there are like twenty at every animal shelter across the country.
And you couldn't just stop there.
No, you had to sell them to buy missiles from Iran. Since you could sell two mixed breed dogs and afford to buy a number of missiles. And since every quarterback this season is buying up as many missiles as they can get their hands on.
Next, you swore allegiance to Al Quaeda? You're a busy guy.
So... he stole two pit mixes, that were actually worth 63,000,000,000 billion dollars, from an inmate, sold them on eBay of all places, and used the huge sums of money you'd get from selling pit bull mixes to buy missiles from Iran, and then pledged allegiance to Al Quaeda, all between football practices. And the rightful owner of these dogs wants the money delivered by UPS and USPS, since he apparently thinks they're the same people, to the front gates of the prison where he is incarcerated.... for FRAUD!!! No way! Fraud? I would never have thought! I mean, aside from the fraud bit, that all makes perfect sense.
The only thing that makes it better is taking a look at the lawsuit itself. It's handwritten, for obvious reasons. Here it is!
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Monday, June 18, 2007
Democracy: Friend or Foe?
You can't go through a world history class without hearing that the ancient Greeks came up with the idea for democracy. An interesting fact that a lot of these classes leave out is that the Greeks said that democracy was a BAD system of government. See, the Greeks came up with three "good" systems of government. They ranked them, from good to bad, as follows:
- Monarchy - The ultimate form of government. The country would be unified under one leader, who would strive to work for the good of the people. The idea was that this one person was groomed their entire lives to be the best leader possible. They would be well-educated and they would be trained to be a good ruler.
- Aristocracy - The next-best thing. The elite class, which in this case was the educated, virtuous class, would rule the country by way of council. In the council, majority ruled.
- Polity - The educated people in the community vote on candidates based on their individual character and virtue. This was considered the least desirable of the three.
The Greeks also realized that all three of these systems of government had the potential to become corrupt.
- Monarchy <-----> Tyranny
- Aristocracy <----> Oligarchy
- Polity <----------> Democracy
When they became corrupt, they would also switch places in the ranking of good to bad, so the monarchy, the best of governments, would, when corrupted, become the worst of governments.
- Monarchy
- Aristocracy
- Polity
-------------- - Democracy
- Oligarchy
- Tyranny
Some people might argue that democracy and polity are synonymous, or that an aristocracy and oligarchy are one and the same. This isn't so.
- Democracy - There is one big difference between polity and democracy: partisanship. All of a sudden, you're not looking at candidates based on their individual merits. You look at them in terms of political party affiliation.
- Oligarchy - Oligarchy and aristocracy are both centered in the idea of an elite class being in power. The difference is in who this elite class is. In a Greek aristocracy, the elite class were the well-educated and the virtuous (ideally). In an oligarchy, the people who hold power do so by way of wealth, powerful friends, or birthright.
- Tyranny - The worst possible government. In a tyrannical government, the country has a single ruler who governs not for the good of the people, but for the good of himself.
Unfortunately, in modern day you see mostly governments 4, 5, and 6. In a way, you can see all three of them prevalent in modern-day America. It is undeniable that the United States is a democracy. Everyone votes, and there is definitely a lot of partisanship in our government. You fit into two categories: red or blue. Sure, you can vote on a third party candidate, but let's be realistic. If you do that, you've wasted a vote on a candidate who will never win. So you may very well have people who are much better candidates for office than the Democratic and Republican candidates, but who will never win the Presidency and help our country because it is impossible to battle these political powerhouses. In addition, many candidates get in not because they are especially liked by the people, but just because that party has such a massive amount of members. One of my friends, for example, was very displeased with how Bush served his first term as President. In 2004, HE VOTED FOR HIM AGAIN. Why? Because he's a Republican. Easy as that.
You might say that you'll give me that our government is definitely a democracy, but you don't see how it's simultaneously a democracy, an oligarchy, and a tyranny. Okay. An oligarchy is a society in which a small elite group governs the masses; specifically, the small group of the wealthy. Let's be honest. Elections in the United States are not won by votes. They're won by corporations. If you have money, politicians are your friend. Or they want to be, anyway. If you don't have money, they don't give a rat's ass about you. The corporations' lobbyists can push nearly any bill through Congress, with enough money. The corporations also fund Presidential campaigns. Wonder why Bush is in Iraq? A good chunk of his funding comes from oil companies. Wonder why he's lax about environmental issues? Corporations, specifically oil refineries, are big contributors to the Republican party. Partisanship leads to an oligarchy because when the party gets money from a certain contributor, they cater to that contributor. You're not going to bite the hand that feeds you. Thus, the people running Congress are not the politicians, but the corporations who put them there; the elite class of America, our CEOs.
The tyrannical state argument is actually probably the easiest to prove. When you have people who are elected by the masses based on partisanship, the parties look to the wealthy, the corporations, for funding. When they are elected into office, thanks to the corporations and the wealthy, they take care of the people who made this investment, in order to make sure that their sponsors, if you will, don't cut the funding off. Congratulations, you now have the leader of your government governing in such a way that he's making sure HE'S taken care of, rather than his people. It's kind of a chain reaction, really, and America is the poster child for this chain of events.
In my opinion, the ancient thinkers and philosophers of Classical Greece that we so admire would have been very disappointed in government today.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Nuking Iran: The Republican Agenda?
At the Republican debate last night, almost all the candidates said that they would not rule out a nuclear attack on Iran Only Rep. Ron Paul of Texas said he opposed a nuclear strike on moral grounds and because he believed Iran "has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security."
read more digg story
***********************************************************
This is the problem with Republicans. They never learn, and they are unable to change their views in the slightest. These people have learned absolutely nothing from Iraq. The entire point of studying things like history is to say, "Okay, we tried that, and it failed horribly and just made matters worse. Let's not do that again." They say that the true definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I always knew the Republican party was insane.
Plus, how do they think we'd let them do this? There was a lot of controversy over taking military action in Iraq, and that was using conventional weapons. Think about how the American people would feel about a nuclear strike against a country that hasn't even attacked us!
Speaking of, why do we suddenly have an urge to attack a country, with nuclear weapons, no less, that hasn't attacked us or done us any harm? Isn't this going too far? Wasn't attacking Iraq for no reason going too far? Where is this going to stop? When we've wiped out every living soul in the Middle East? Will we start on Asia next? Maybe after that, we'll have time to make it to Europe. This is idiocy! The crazy thing is that these politicians are saying that they would support an unprovoked nuclear attack, thinking people would buy it. Thinking that people would be eager to start up on another war right after the Iraq disaster.
I swear to god, if a Republican gets elected, I'm moving to Canada.
read more digg story
***********************************************************
This is the problem with Republicans. They never learn, and they are unable to change their views in the slightest. These people have learned absolutely nothing from Iraq. The entire point of studying things like history is to say, "Okay, we tried that, and it failed horribly and just made matters worse. Let's not do that again." They say that the true definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I always knew the Republican party was insane.
Plus, how do they think we'd let them do this? There was a lot of controversy over taking military action in Iraq, and that was using conventional weapons. Think about how the American people would feel about a nuclear strike against a country that hasn't even attacked us!
Speaking of, why do we suddenly have an urge to attack a country, with nuclear weapons, no less, that hasn't attacked us or done us any harm? Isn't this going too far? Wasn't attacking Iraq for no reason going too far? Where is this going to stop? When we've wiped out every living soul in the Middle East? Will we start on Asia next? Maybe after that, we'll have time to make it to Europe. This is idiocy! The crazy thing is that these politicians are saying that they would support an unprovoked nuclear attack, thinking people would buy it. Thinking that people would be eager to start up on another war right after the Iraq disaster.
I swear to god, if a Republican gets elected, I'm moving to Canada.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Vegan Parents Starve Baby to Death on Soy Milk/Apple Juice Diet
Amazing. And sad."Vegan parents guilty in infant murder 6-week-old died of starvation after being fed diet of soy milk, apple juice"
read more digg story
***************************************************
I usually don't do this, but one issue I had with this story on Digg was the assinine comments made on it. Some of the real sore thumbs follow:
"Poor parents, they must be traumatized....I'm surprised they never mentioned the fact they were vegans to their doctor, a nutritionist could have easily helped them support their baby on a vegan diet." -dacrazydude
"'I know they're vegans, but was there something wrong with feeding the kid the milk from her breasts?'
That would be an animal product. " -chompy
"No offense to all the veggie eaters but I hate to break the news to you we are no herbivores, we're omnivores. Could they be any dumber really? Women don't have breast milk for no reason you know, proof right there we are to eat dairy and products of animals. " -richiestang78
"Proof positive that humans are not meant to be vegans. If you decide to be a vegan that's all well and good, but let your kids make decisions for themselves, and in the mean time feed them a healthy, normal diet that an omnivorous species like us is supposed to have." -dgh1973
And so on and so forth.
***************************************************************
The parents did not do this because they're vegan. They did this because they're extremely stupid and cruel. First off, she could have breastfed the baby or fed him a soy-based formula, both of which are vegan options that are perfectly healthy for a baby. Also, if she had fed the baby a large enough amount of the soy milk, he would have survived, he just wouldn't have been very healthy. So not only were they feeding the wrong food, they were feeding him a much smaller amount than any baby could have survived on.
That's not even the biggest mistake they made. I could understand not knowing any better and doing that for a couple of days, but when your baby is losing weight instead of gaining, there's a problem. When you have a six-week-old infant that weighs less than four pounds, there is no way in hell that you don't know that something's wrong. The reason they deserve every minute of their lives in prison is for ignoring their son's well-being and not even bothering to take him to a doctor until he was already dead. In my opinion, they used the vegan thing as a crutch, hoping it would get them off. I know many vegan mothers who have raised vegan children who are perfectly healthy. Hell, if you can't breastfeed, they sell vegan formula at Wal-Mart. Come on.
The thing that really gets me about the whole mess is that these people are going to reflect on the vegan community even though they're the exception, not the rule. There have already been cases where vegan children who are perfectly healthy have been taken by CPS because of their parents' dietary choices. (These children were all eventually returned to their parents.) Then you have people like the commenters above who get the completely wrong idea about things.
read more digg story
***************************************************
I usually don't do this, but one issue I had with this story on Digg was the assinine comments made on it. Some of the real sore thumbs follow:
"Poor parents, they must be traumatized....I'm surprised they never mentioned the fact they were vegans to their doctor, a nutritionist could have easily helped them support their baby on a vegan diet." -dacrazydude
"'I know they're vegans, but was there something wrong with feeding the kid the milk from her breasts?'
That would be an animal product. " -chompy
"No offense to all the veggie eaters but I hate to break the news to you we are no herbivores, we're omnivores. Could they be any dumber really? Women don't have breast milk for no reason you know, proof right there we are to eat dairy and products of animals. " -richiestang78
"Proof positive that humans are not meant to be vegans. If you decide to be a vegan that's all well and good, but let your kids make decisions for themselves, and in the mean time feed them a healthy, normal diet that an omnivorous species like us is supposed to have." -dgh1973
And so on and so forth.
***************************************************************
The parents did not do this because they're vegan. They did this because they're extremely stupid and cruel. First off, she could have breastfed the baby or fed him a soy-based formula, both of which are vegan options that are perfectly healthy for a baby. Also, if she had fed the baby a large enough amount of the soy milk, he would have survived, he just wouldn't have been very healthy. So not only were they feeding the wrong food, they were feeding him a much smaller amount than any baby could have survived on.
That's not even the biggest mistake they made. I could understand not knowing any better and doing that for a couple of days, but when your baby is losing weight instead of gaining, there's a problem. When you have a six-week-old infant that weighs less than four pounds, there is no way in hell that you don't know that something's wrong. The reason they deserve every minute of their lives in prison is for ignoring their son's well-being and not even bothering to take him to a doctor until he was already dead. In my opinion, they used the vegan thing as a crutch, hoping it would get them off. I know many vegan mothers who have raised vegan children who are perfectly healthy. Hell, if you can't breastfeed, they sell vegan formula at Wal-Mart. Come on.
The thing that really gets me about the whole mess is that these people are going to reflect on the vegan community even though they're the exception, not the rule. There have already been cases where vegan children who are perfectly healthy have been taken by CPS because of their parents' dietary choices. (These children were all eventually returned to their parents.) Then you have people like the commenters above who get the completely wrong idea about things.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
The REAL Cost of the War
One of the greatest political issues of the day is the war in Iraq. There are many arguments surrounding the war, such as whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, whether Hussein had anything to do with the attacks on the World Trade Center, and various other issues that the Bush administration pulled out of their collective ass. Perhaps one issue we should be looking at more closely is the cost of this war. Many people dismiss these costs as something unimportant, but the fact remains that the cost of this war is a really big problem.
As of 11:57 AM on May 8, 2007, the cost of the war reached a staggering $423,929,450,000, according to costofwar.com. Estimates for the possible total cost of the war by its end range from a rather conservative $500 billion to well over two trillion dollars. many people dismiss the issue of money without giving it much thought, but what we need to do is ask ourselves, "What else could be be doing with this money?" Once you start throwing some numbers together, it becomes obvious that we could do much better things with 424 billion dollars than kill people.
We could provide government housing for 3,817,099 families, according to CostOfWar.com, or medically insure 253,850,000 children. While Bush has been pushing for increased funding for his war in Iraq, he has also been working to cut government-sponsored medical plans. Education is an area we all know is woefully underfunded. This amount of money could employ 7,346,799 teachers for one year or provide 20,551,257 students with a four-year-scholarship to a public university. How many starving children could we feed and clothe with this money? How many African AIDS victims could receive treatment? How many of our senior citizens could live comfortably?
The sad thing is that the tremendous amount of money that is spent on the war doesn't even begin to cover the real cost of the war in Iraq. What is the real cost? To date, 3,378 United States soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq, 80 of them women, according to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. 24, 314 soldiers have been wounded, as well. That is a huge loss to our country. What about the cost of the war to the rest of the world? The war has claimed the lives of 148 soldiers from the United Kingdom, 33 Italians, 20 Poles, 18 soldiers from Ukraine, 13 Bulgarians, 11 Spaniards, as well as soldiers from Australia, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, and Thailand. A total of 223 soldiers from other countries have died in Iraq fighting Bush's war. Then we get to civilian deaths. Many jounalists and other workers who have gone to Iraq have died, and the number of Iraqi civilian deaths is perhaps one of the most sobering statistics of all. 38,198 Iraqis have died that we know of. This number includes men, women, and a startling number of children. Over 41,799 people have died as a result of this unnecessary, senseless war. The big question we have to ask ourselves is: Is it worth it? Is anything worth this?
As of 11:57 AM on May 8, 2007, the cost of the war reached a staggering $423,929,450,000, according to costofwar.com. Estimates for the possible total cost of the war by its end range from a rather conservative $500 billion to well over two trillion dollars. many people dismiss the issue of money without giving it much thought, but what we need to do is ask ourselves, "What else could be be doing with this money?" Once you start throwing some numbers together, it becomes obvious that we could do much better things with 424 billion dollars than kill people.
We could provide government housing for 3,817,099 families, according to CostOfWar.com, or medically insure 253,850,000 children. While Bush has been pushing for increased funding for his war in Iraq, he has also been working to cut government-sponsored medical plans. Education is an area we all know is woefully underfunded. This amount of money could employ 7,346,799 teachers for one year or provide 20,551,257 students with a four-year-scholarship to a public university. How many starving children could we feed and clothe with this money? How many African AIDS victims could receive treatment? How many of our senior citizens could live comfortably?
The sad thing is that the tremendous amount of money that is spent on the war doesn't even begin to cover the real cost of the war in Iraq. What is the real cost? To date, 3,378 United States soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq, 80 of them women, according to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count. 24, 314 soldiers have been wounded, as well. That is a huge loss to our country. What about the cost of the war to the rest of the world? The war has claimed the lives of 148 soldiers from the United Kingdom, 33 Italians, 20 Poles, 18 soldiers from Ukraine, 13 Bulgarians, 11 Spaniards, as well as soldiers from Australia, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, and Thailand. A total of 223 soldiers from other countries have died in Iraq fighting Bush's war. Then we get to civilian deaths. Many jounalists and other workers who have gone to Iraq have died, and the number of Iraqi civilian deaths is perhaps one of the most sobering statistics of all. 38,198 Iraqis have died that we know of. This number includes men, women, and a startling number of children. Over 41,799 people have died as a result of this unnecessary, senseless war. The big question we have to ask ourselves is: Is it worth it? Is anything worth this?
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
The Romeo and Juliet Effect: Why Christians Keep Having Sex Before Marriage
In William Shakespeare's play, "Romeo and Juliet," the titular star cross'd lovers fatefully decide to pursue their love, despite the chaos and war unfolding around them. Their decision ends up being a fatal one. I suppose the ironic question that some people might want to ask the protagonists is: Out of all the wo/men in the world...
read more digg story
*************************************************
I don't see why people think that abstinence programs or religion do any good when it comes to keeping their kids from having sex. They're surprised that 88 percent of those kids break their vows of chastity? It's a red flag for them to sign the oath anyway. You know who you can always find to sell you drugs? Someone with a DARE sticker on the back of their car. "Dare to keep kids off drugs!" = dealer. In any case, the entire environment is just bad to begin with. First off, you keep telling kids sex is bad, sex is bad, sex is bad. That's all you tell them. You don't tell them how to use a condom. You don't tell them that they can get pills or shots to avoid pregnancy. You don't tell them about how to be safe or how often to be tested, because you're assuming that they'll listen to you and that they'll stay virgins forever anyway.
News flash: people don't care if you tell them sex is bad. They don't care if you tell them it's immoral, it's a sin, it's dangerous, whatever. They're going to do it. We're programmed to do it. You telling a person not to have sex isn't going to make them decide to be chaste. However, if you tell them the dangers of unprotected sex and then teach them how to protect themselves, they may listen to you.
The other problem with a lot of parents who go this route is that then you have kids who are so afraid that you'll be angry that they're not willing to talk to you about it when they DO start having sex. They're afraid to ask about buying condoms. They're afraid to ask to be put on birth control. And so then you end up with high schoolers catching STDs or getting pregnant, where, if they were able to have a healthy discussion about sex with their parents who cared more about their child's safety than about their chastity, they might not catch these diseases or become pregnant. The entire idea of putting so much pressure on kids not to have sex just hurts us in the long run. You have people who aren't informed and who are afraid to talk to their families about getting medical care but who are still doing to do whatever they're going to do.
Why do people have such a problem with sex in the first place, anyway? I mean, it's perfectly natural, it's necessary for the survival of the species, and we're programmed to do it. The things about women that men find attractive? Large breasts, hourglass figure? Those women are more fertile, which is why men are programmed to find them more attractive. Women find big, strong men to be more attractive most of the time. Why? Natural selection of a sort. The ones with the best genes are the ones who procreate. All of this is programmed in our brains to begin with. Why go and fight it? It doesn't make any sense. And since when is feeling good sinful? Who are you hurting by having sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend? What's more, a lot fewer people would get hurt through sex if we were intelligent about it and informed, but we still have people pushing abstinence-only education in schools, doing the exact opposite.
read more digg story
*************************************************
I don't see why people think that abstinence programs or religion do any good when it comes to keeping their kids from having sex. They're surprised that 88 percent of those kids break their vows of chastity? It's a red flag for them to sign the oath anyway. You know who you can always find to sell you drugs? Someone with a DARE sticker on the back of their car. "Dare to keep kids off drugs!" = dealer. In any case, the entire environment is just bad to begin with. First off, you keep telling kids sex is bad, sex is bad, sex is bad. That's all you tell them. You don't tell them how to use a condom. You don't tell them that they can get pills or shots to avoid pregnancy. You don't tell them about how to be safe or how often to be tested, because you're assuming that they'll listen to you and that they'll stay virgins forever anyway.
News flash: people don't care if you tell them sex is bad. They don't care if you tell them it's immoral, it's a sin, it's dangerous, whatever. They're going to do it. We're programmed to do it. You telling a person not to have sex isn't going to make them decide to be chaste. However, if you tell them the dangers of unprotected sex and then teach them how to protect themselves, they may listen to you.
The other problem with a lot of parents who go this route is that then you have kids who are so afraid that you'll be angry that they're not willing to talk to you about it when they DO start having sex. They're afraid to ask about buying condoms. They're afraid to ask to be put on birth control. And so then you end up with high schoolers catching STDs or getting pregnant, where, if they were able to have a healthy discussion about sex with their parents who cared more about their child's safety than about their chastity, they might not catch these diseases or become pregnant. The entire idea of putting so much pressure on kids not to have sex just hurts us in the long run. You have people who aren't informed and who are afraid to talk to their families about getting medical care but who are still doing to do whatever they're going to do.
Why do people have such a problem with sex in the first place, anyway? I mean, it's perfectly natural, it's necessary for the survival of the species, and we're programmed to do it. The things about women that men find attractive? Large breasts, hourglass figure? Those women are more fertile, which is why men are programmed to find them more attractive. Women find big, strong men to be more attractive most of the time. Why? Natural selection of a sort. The ones with the best genes are the ones who procreate. All of this is programmed in our brains to begin with. Why go and fight it? It doesn't make any sense. And since when is feeling good sinful? Who are you hurting by having sex with your boyfriend or girlfriend? What's more, a lot fewer people would get hurt through sex if we were intelligent about it and informed, but we still have people pushing abstinence-only education in schools, doing the exact opposite.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Of MILF and Men : The Sexy Mom Phenomenon
...All of which leaves us a little conflicted about the movement. We, like many modern women, are trapped between two fears: that having kids will make us unsexy, and that trying to stay sexy will make us ridiculous. Our inner feminist tells us that MILFdom is not a solution but rather a self-destructive form of female-chauvinist piggery, to borrow Ariel Levy’s term: Are today’s mothers really so afraid of seeming past their prime that they accept objectification as a compliment?
read more | digg story
**********************************************************
I guess I'm a little of two minds on the subject. I think it's great that women today are considered attractive and sexy at older ages, and even with kids. (Of course, I'd also hate to think that my romantic life would be a complete thing of the past as of this September, so I might be a bit biased.) It's empowering, for lack of a better word, and it's good for the women themselves in the sense that there IS life after baby. However, at some point this attraction went from considering these women still sexy and desirable to making them into sex objects. You can see this in the movie that's considered to be the turning point in the MILF phenomenon - American Pie - when the MILF of the movie, Stifler's mom, is never even given a name. She is simply "Stifler's mom", and is otherwise referred to as "MILF". I'm aware that it's funny and maybe I'm being a little uptight over it, but it also is kind of a problem, isn't it? This woman is such an object that she doesn't even have a name.
The problem with our society is that we always take things to an extreme. First, we have the attractive single mother. Partially this is caused by an increase in single mothers, and perhaps the fact that many women have children at a young age is a factor as well. It also helps that many women are using health and beauty products, exercises, and even surgeries to look younger than they actually are. It also has to do, I think, with single mothers being more accepted by society. We no longer look at them as criminals, but as capable, independent women, and as such, they don't have to hide like lepers anymore and can even *gasp* date. In addition, capable, independent women are hot. There's just something about a self-sufficient woman that's sexy. But at some point we get so caught up in the idea that moms can be hot too, and we take it to an extreme, turning it into sexual objectification, the polar opposite of the problem that single mothers USED to have, but just as bad of a problem. Some people even consider these women to be sluttier than a young, single, childless woman who really isn't any less sexually active. One male friend of mine states, "Well, you know she puts out," and then guffaws at his own crude wit (I guess because nobody else found that incredibly amusing). Women who walk around wearing MILF T-shirts (yes, that means you, Ms. Spears) don't help matters, either.
Perhaps the solution for a woman who doesn't really know if she should embrace the MILF stereotype (it's saying something good about her - that she's still attractive - right?) is: don't. Be attractive. Be sexy. But don't think of yourself in that way and don't allow yourself to fall into that stereotype, emulating Stifler's mom. And if a man ever, EVER refers to you as a MILF, read him the riot act and for the love of god, don't sleep with him.
read more | digg story
**********************************************************
I guess I'm a little of two minds on the subject. I think it's great that women today are considered attractive and sexy at older ages, and even with kids. (Of course, I'd also hate to think that my romantic life would be a complete thing of the past as of this September, so I might be a bit biased.) It's empowering, for lack of a better word, and it's good for the women themselves in the sense that there IS life after baby. However, at some point this attraction went from considering these women still sexy and desirable to making them into sex objects. You can see this in the movie that's considered to be the turning point in the MILF phenomenon - American Pie - when the MILF of the movie, Stifler's mom, is never even given a name. She is simply "Stifler's mom", and is otherwise referred to as "MILF". I'm aware that it's funny and maybe I'm being a little uptight over it, but it also is kind of a problem, isn't it? This woman is such an object that she doesn't even have a name.
The problem with our society is that we always take things to an extreme. First, we have the attractive single mother. Partially this is caused by an increase in single mothers, and perhaps the fact that many women have children at a young age is a factor as well. It also helps that many women are using health and beauty products, exercises, and even surgeries to look younger than they actually are. It also has to do, I think, with single mothers being more accepted by society. We no longer look at them as criminals, but as capable, independent women, and as such, they don't have to hide like lepers anymore and can even *gasp* date. In addition, capable, independent women are hot. There's just something about a self-sufficient woman that's sexy. But at some point we get so caught up in the idea that moms can be hot too, and we take it to an extreme, turning it into sexual objectification, the polar opposite of the problem that single mothers USED to have, but just as bad of a problem. Some people even consider these women to be sluttier than a young, single, childless woman who really isn't any less sexually active. One male friend of mine states, "Well, you know she puts out," and then guffaws at his own crude wit (I guess because nobody else found that incredibly amusing). Women who walk around wearing MILF T-shirts (yes, that means you, Ms. Spears) don't help matters, either.
Perhaps the solution for a woman who doesn't really know if she should embrace the MILF stereotype (it's saying something good about her - that she's still attractive - right?) is: don't. Be attractive. Be sexy. But don't think of yourself in that way and don't allow yourself to fall into that stereotype, emulating Stifler's mom. And if a man ever, EVER refers to you as a MILF, read him the riot act and for the love of god, don't sleep with him.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Man Sues Library After His Sons Find Book On Lesbian Lovemaking
A man is seeking $20,000 after his sons found a book on lesbian sex at a public library. The library has since removed the book from circulation. In an e-mail, the father said that God was speaking to his heart and helped him find the words that removed it. He said the teenagers found it while looking for material on military academies.
read more | digg story
*************************************************************
... the fuck?!
This is outrageous. First of all, the library has books that appeal to diverse crowd. They're a public library. I can understand if he'd been upset finding this at a Christian bookstore, but he's in a public library. They have an entire section on sex. Besides, in the Dewey Decimal System, the Sex section is in the 600s and the Military section is in the 300s. Yeah, his teenage sons just accidentally wound up looking at books on lesbian sex in the middle of the sex section. I'm sure they MEANT to be over in the Military section, at the other end of the nonfiction section. Right. This guy better hope his kids don't get a hold of the internet. They might just "accidentally" run across a porn site while "trying to do research for school." Give me a break. Your kids were looking for graphic descriptions of sex. If you have some sort of problem with that, reprimand your children, don't sue the library. And don't give us that "they were traumatized" bullshit. I think we all know just why they had many sleepless nights over this.
I know that you want to pretend your kids are all innocent and everything, but a sixteen-year-old isn't going to pick up a book on lesbian sex, in the middle of the sex section of the library, thinking that it's about West Point. Come on. They looked at the book intentionally and just happened to get caught. If you have a problem with what they look at in the library, go with them to make sure they steer clear of that section. And besides, the public library doesn't just have to have books that are okay with Christians. They're a public library, and they have a very diverse crowd that walks through those doors. They try to have books that appeal to everyone because that's what they're there for.
As for the money thing, don't think that just because you're mad at the library for carrying a certain book, you can force them to buy you a new car. Your kids were not scarred for life, and I can guarantee you that they look at pictures of the exact same thing on the computers at school. They chose to look at the material, nobody made them. He keeps saying how God wanted him to do this... what, is he going to donate the $20,000 to the church? Doubt it. Greedy jackass.
read more | digg story
*************************************************************
... the fuck?!
This is outrageous. First of all, the library has books that appeal to diverse crowd. They're a public library. I can understand if he'd been upset finding this at a Christian bookstore, but he's in a public library. They have an entire section on sex. Besides, in the Dewey Decimal System, the Sex section is in the 600s and the Military section is in the 300s. Yeah, his teenage sons just accidentally wound up looking at books on lesbian sex in the middle of the sex section. I'm sure they MEANT to be over in the Military section, at the other end of the nonfiction section. Right. This guy better hope his kids don't get a hold of the internet. They might just "accidentally" run across a porn site while "trying to do research for school." Give me a break. Your kids were looking for graphic descriptions of sex. If you have some sort of problem with that, reprimand your children, don't sue the library. And don't give us that "they were traumatized" bullshit. I think we all know just why they had many sleepless nights over this.
I know that you want to pretend your kids are all innocent and everything, but a sixteen-year-old isn't going to pick up a book on lesbian sex, in the middle of the sex section of the library, thinking that it's about West Point. Come on. They looked at the book intentionally and just happened to get caught. If you have a problem with what they look at in the library, go with them to make sure they steer clear of that section. And besides, the public library doesn't just have to have books that are okay with Christians. They're a public library, and they have a very diverse crowd that walks through those doors. They try to have books that appeal to everyone because that's what they're there for.
As for the money thing, don't think that just because you're mad at the library for carrying a certain book, you can force them to buy you a new car. Your kids were not scarred for life, and I can guarantee you that they look at pictures of the exact same thing on the computers at school. They chose to look at the material, nobody made them. He keeps saying how God wanted him to do this... what, is he going to donate the $20,000 to the church? Doubt it. Greedy jackass.
Ever Make an Earth Day Resolution?
We've all made resolutions for the new year, but how about trying to make a resolution for Earth Day this year? Try to make some changes in your daily life to help out the planet. Plus, many Earth Day resolutions you could make are good for you, too, like buying organic, local produce, cutting back on meat, and using an alternate form of transportation, such as your bicycle or feet.
1. Buy organic produce from a farmer's market. Find a farmer's market near you here. Benefits for the planet? Organic produce isn't sprayed with pesticides and other chemicals which are bad for the environment, and they weren't hauled in a truck a thousand miles to the grocery store, wasting fossil fuels and polluting the environment. Benefits for you? Organic produce is healthier for you, and the prices aren't what you might think. Besides, you can be proud of yourself for supporting independents instead of huge corporations like Wal-Mart.
2. Recycle your electronics. Recycling isn't just paper, aluminum cans, and glass. You can recycle unwanted electronics - that phone charger you happened to find in the back of your closet to a phone you got rid of eight months ago, empty cartriges for your printer, or videotapes if you've made the switch to DVDs. You can also recycle batteries, old computer monitors you're not using, or telephones (maybe the battery in that portable phone is shot or a couple of buttons are screwed up, but the rest of it is fine and can be recycled).
3. Don't buy disposable. Going on a camping trip? Consider buying plastic plates that can be washed and reused rather than buying paper or worse, styrofoam. The plastic utensils that people buy for trips such as this can also be rewashed and packed away for the next camping trip as well. Package leftovers or work/school lunches in tupperware that can be washed and reused rather than in baggies that are thrown away.
4. Buy in bulk. Not only will you save money, but you will cut down on packaging that is thrown out. Buy the box of cereal that's much larger so you're only throwing away one plastic bag instead of two for the same amount of cereal. Instead of buying the individual bags of chips for a dollar, buy a large bag and seal it with a chip clip until it's gone. Don't buy things that come in a large package but are individually wrapped.
5. Paper, not plastic. This is an easy and free change to make. At the grocery store, ask that your groceries be bagged in paper. Better yet, bring cloth shopping bags of your own that can be reused hundreds of times. They're inexpensive and cut down on your plastic and paper consumption.
6. Many people buy individual bottles of water. A more economical AND environmentally friendly way to drink clean water is to A. buy a water filter or B. buy gallons of water, rather than individual bottles. Both of these methods cut down on packaging and save money. If you want individual bottles for the convenience, reuse them. After you drink the water that came in them, refill them. A better way to do this is just to buy a water bottle to take to work or wherever that is more durable and can be washed more easily.
7. Done with the tub of butter or the huge tub of yogurt (you know, since you're buying in bulk now)? Turn them into tupperware instead of throwing them away. Not only do you get free tupperware out of the deal, but you also can cut down on how much garbage you're producing.
8. Use rechargeable batteries. This not only cuts down on the batteries you throw away, which are terrible for the environment, but it also cuts down on how much you spend on batteries in the long run.
9. Dispose of environmentally hazardous wastes properly. Find out how to do this in your area at Earth 911.
10. Recycle your motor oil. Oil is a very valuable resource, and motor oil that's disposed of improperly is horrible for the environment. Learn more about recycling motor oil here.
11. Join a carpool. Chances are, you commute to work every day or maybe you drive to school every day. Organize a carpool to work or school, which will save gas (and allow you to take the HOV lane). It's also more enjoyable than riding an hour into work alone every day. You can organize carpools on icarpool.com or any other carpool/vanpool website. Just do a Google search.
12. Take public transportation. Not only do you save on gas by riding a bus from a Park and Ride to work, but you're helping the environment out by helping to cut air pollution. Just ride your car to the Park and Ride, and then ride the bus to work.
13. Compost. Just about any biodegradable waste can be composted and used as fertilizer in flower beds and gardens. And if you don't want a huge unsightly pile in the corner of your yard, you can designate a large plastic garbage can as a compost bin. For more information on composting, click here. Take a good look at the list of composting materials they provide. You'd be amazed at the things you can recycle this way, from eggshells to dryer lint to used coffee filters. Try seeing how much you can cut down on the garbage you're putting out each week.
14. Cut back on fast food. Not only is fast food bad for your arteries, but they buy from factory farms and use loads of chemicals in everything. Plus, you end up with a lot of packaging to throw in the garbage. And you might think to yourself that it's just paper packaging, and therefore not a big deal, but the paper and cardboard that fast food is packaged in is treated with chemicals so that the grease in the food won't soak through it. If you want to eat out, go to a restaurant. The price difference isn't that much. If you buy a large burger meal at Jack-In-The-Box, you could easily be looking at around six bucks. A burger with fries at Chili's is less than a dollar more. Not only is it enough food that you'll have leftovers for later, but it's better quality and more filling anyway. Besides, many restaurants will have lunch specials or daily specials that even beat fast food prices, and healthier options than a burger and fries anyway.
15. Shop and donate at second-hand stores; recycle your clothes. Exasperated because your five-year-old rips and stains everything you buy him or your ten-year-old grows out of new clothes in just a few months? Why pay full price, then? Kid's clothes are the best deals at thrift stores because many times they've just been outgrown before they get a lot of wear and tear. Hopefully all of you already donate clothing you don't want anymore; why don't you actually try shopping at Goodwill or the Salvation Army? You can save money, and besides, there are some really good deals at thrift stores. Take advantage of someone who's gotten too big or small for their clothes and take used stuff that's still in good condition.
1. Buy organic produce from a farmer's market. Find a farmer's market near you here. Benefits for the planet? Organic produce isn't sprayed with pesticides and other chemicals which are bad for the environment, and they weren't hauled in a truck a thousand miles to the grocery store, wasting fossil fuels and polluting the environment. Benefits for you? Organic produce is healthier for you, and the prices aren't what you might think. Besides, you can be proud of yourself for supporting independents instead of huge corporations like Wal-Mart.
2. Recycle your electronics. Recycling isn't just paper, aluminum cans, and glass. You can recycle unwanted electronics - that phone charger you happened to find in the back of your closet to a phone you got rid of eight months ago, empty cartriges for your printer, or videotapes if you've made the switch to DVDs. You can also recycle batteries, old computer monitors you're not using, or telephones (maybe the battery in that portable phone is shot or a couple of buttons are screwed up, but the rest of it is fine and can be recycled).
3. Don't buy disposable. Going on a camping trip? Consider buying plastic plates that can be washed and reused rather than buying paper or worse, styrofoam. The plastic utensils that people buy for trips such as this can also be rewashed and packed away for the next camping trip as well. Package leftovers or work/school lunches in tupperware that can be washed and reused rather than in baggies that are thrown away.
4. Buy in bulk. Not only will you save money, but you will cut down on packaging that is thrown out. Buy the box of cereal that's much larger so you're only throwing away one plastic bag instead of two for the same amount of cereal. Instead of buying the individual bags of chips for a dollar, buy a large bag and seal it with a chip clip until it's gone. Don't buy things that come in a large package but are individually wrapped.
5. Paper, not plastic. This is an easy and free change to make. At the grocery store, ask that your groceries be bagged in paper. Better yet, bring cloth shopping bags of your own that can be reused hundreds of times. They're inexpensive and cut down on your plastic and paper consumption.
6. Many people buy individual bottles of water. A more economical AND environmentally friendly way to drink clean water is to A. buy a water filter or B. buy gallons of water, rather than individual bottles. Both of these methods cut down on packaging and save money. If you want individual bottles for the convenience, reuse them. After you drink the water that came in them, refill them. A better way to do this is just to buy a water bottle to take to work or wherever that is more durable and can be washed more easily.
7. Done with the tub of butter or the huge tub of yogurt (you know, since you're buying in bulk now)? Turn them into tupperware instead of throwing them away. Not only do you get free tupperware out of the deal, but you also can cut down on how much garbage you're producing.
8. Use rechargeable batteries. This not only cuts down on the batteries you throw away, which are terrible for the environment, but it also cuts down on how much you spend on batteries in the long run.
9. Dispose of environmentally hazardous wastes properly. Find out how to do this in your area at Earth 911.
10. Recycle your motor oil. Oil is a very valuable resource, and motor oil that's disposed of improperly is horrible for the environment. Learn more about recycling motor oil here.
11. Join a carpool. Chances are, you commute to work every day or maybe you drive to school every day. Organize a carpool to work or school, which will save gas (and allow you to take the HOV lane). It's also more enjoyable than riding an hour into work alone every day. You can organize carpools on icarpool.com or any other carpool/vanpool website. Just do a Google search.
12. Take public transportation. Not only do you save on gas by riding a bus from a Park and Ride to work, but you're helping the environment out by helping to cut air pollution. Just ride your car to the Park and Ride, and then ride the bus to work.
13. Compost. Just about any biodegradable waste can be composted and used as fertilizer in flower beds and gardens. And if you don't want a huge unsightly pile in the corner of your yard, you can designate a large plastic garbage can as a compost bin. For more information on composting, click here. Take a good look at the list of composting materials they provide. You'd be amazed at the things you can recycle this way, from eggshells to dryer lint to used coffee filters. Try seeing how much you can cut down on the garbage you're putting out each week.
14. Cut back on fast food. Not only is fast food bad for your arteries, but they buy from factory farms and use loads of chemicals in everything. Plus, you end up with a lot of packaging to throw in the garbage. And you might think to yourself that it's just paper packaging, and therefore not a big deal, but the paper and cardboard that fast food is packaged in is treated with chemicals so that the grease in the food won't soak through it. If you want to eat out, go to a restaurant. The price difference isn't that much. If you buy a large burger meal at Jack-In-The-Box, you could easily be looking at around six bucks. A burger with fries at Chili's is less than a dollar more. Not only is it enough food that you'll have leftovers for later, but it's better quality and more filling anyway. Besides, many restaurants will have lunch specials or daily specials that even beat fast food prices, and healthier options than a burger and fries anyway.
15. Shop and donate at second-hand stores; recycle your clothes. Exasperated because your five-year-old rips and stains everything you buy him or your ten-year-old grows out of new clothes in just a few months? Why pay full price, then? Kid's clothes are the best deals at thrift stores because many times they've just been outgrown before they get a lot of wear and tear. Hopefully all of you already donate clothing you don't want anymore; why don't you actually try shopping at Goodwill or the Salvation Army? You can save money, and besides, there are some really good deals at thrift stores. Take advantage of someone who's gotten too big or small for their clothes and take used stuff that's still in good condition.
Friday, April 20, 2007
10 Reasons Bush Must Be Impeached
from 10 Things You Never Knew
"So George W. Bush doesn't have much time left on his term, and most of the below points aren't really impeachable offenses. But at the very least, here's 10 reasons why Bush will go down as the worst president in U.S. history..."
Read More | Digg It
*******************************************************
1. It is actually considered a crime for the President to lie to Congress, although it's rarely enforced. I do think, however, that it is more than justified in this case to act on that and use it as a reason for impeachment. And yes, tens of thousands. Many tens of thousands.
2. To be fair, most of the blame for the Katrina disaster can be spread around. The city's evacuation was started much too late to be successful, and the city was just unprepared in general. They should have been bussing people out of the city days before they started. Also, if the levies in the city had been kept up and well-maintained, a lot of the damage could have been prevented. Bush's team was a tiny bit responsible, but that was a failing of the system as a whole, from the President on down to the New Orleans mayor and his team.
3. This is deplorable in the person who is responsible for governing us, but unfortunately, it's not grounds for impeachment. However, we need to learn from this and be sure to elect people who are competent and informed from this point onward, because although it's not an impeachable offense, it IS a definite problem.
4. Bush's team has been a huge disappointment, but again, this isn't actually a crime on his part, so he can't be impeached for it. But yes, Bush and his team continued to lie about Iraq through their teeth from day one. First of all, the idea that the Iraqis would just welcome the Americans with open arms and offer no resistance whatsoever is ludicrous. Believe it or not, not everyone in the world wants to be an American. Not all of them want to be governed in the same way we are. Not all them of them want to live our way of life. And can you blame them, with the picture of America that is presented by Bush? It was also a huge failing on their part not to heed any of the advice or warnings of true experts.
5. Further proof that Bush is an idiot, but no grounds for impeachment. This list seems to be mainly complaints about Bush rather than reasons for impeachment, although they are valid complaints.
6. It is debatable as to whether this is a valid offense for impeachment. When this went so far as to intrude upon habeus corpus, I think that it might be reasonable to consider this grounds for impeachment. What I can't believe is that even with all the criticism of the Patriot Act and all the the furthering of the NSA's abilities to spy on American citizens after that, the Bush administration CONTINUES to push for more and more power.
7. Again, while deplorable, this unfortunately isn't grounds for impeachment. It's very true, though, and very unfortunate. Of course, when you elect a president who makes money off oil, and who is a Republican to boot, what else can you expect?
8. Not grounds for impeachment, but this offense IS a huge problem for America. And Bush refuses to pull out of Iraq, making the economy worse by the day.
9. Dear God. It's so horrible he does that, but again, not an impeachable offense.
10. While this again isn't an impeachable offense, it is very unfortunate. I mean, we complain that the world doesn't like us (we make that complaint a lot about France, but I don't think many other countries are any more fond of us than France is), but then we have this President who not only paints a very bad picture of Americans, but he also continuously thumbs his nose at the rest of the world. Furthermore, many countries around the Middle East are terrified right now that they'll be next. What do you expect?
Okay, so on the list we actually have two possible reasons for impeachment. We could add that he has completely ignored various treaties that the U.S. has signed. We could also add that he WENT AGAINST THE UNITED NATIONS when they told him NOT to go to war. The reason he kept giving for going to war? That Iraq was disobeying the United Nations! Now, THAT has to make your blood boil. How about the continuous lying to Congress and the American people about several issues? Or permitting torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?
Perhaps a better name for this list would have been 10 Reasons Bush Should Never Have Been Elected, as many of these offenses date back to before his second term, and a few back even before his first term as President. If people looked at the history of Presidential candidates a bit more closely, mistakes like this one wouldn't make their way into the White House. If Bush was a horrible governor, why would he suddenly perform better in a higher office? You promote people who do well, not the ones who totally suck at their job.
"So George W. Bush doesn't have much time left on his term, and most of the below points aren't really impeachable offenses. But at the very least, here's 10 reasons why Bush will go down as the worst president in U.S. history..."
Read More | Digg It
*******************************************************
1. It is actually considered a crime for the President to lie to Congress, although it's rarely enforced. I do think, however, that it is more than justified in this case to act on that and use it as a reason for impeachment. And yes, tens of thousands. Many tens of thousands.
2. To be fair, most of the blame for the Katrina disaster can be spread around. The city's evacuation was started much too late to be successful, and the city was just unprepared in general. They should have been bussing people out of the city days before they started. Also, if the levies in the city had been kept up and well-maintained, a lot of the damage could have been prevented. Bush's team was a tiny bit responsible, but that was a failing of the system as a whole, from the President on down to the New Orleans mayor and his team.
3. This is deplorable in the person who is responsible for governing us, but unfortunately, it's not grounds for impeachment. However, we need to learn from this and be sure to elect people who are competent and informed from this point onward, because although it's not an impeachable offense, it IS a definite problem.
4. Bush's team has been a huge disappointment, but again, this isn't actually a crime on his part, so he can't be impeached for it. But yes, Bush and his team continued to lie about Iraq through their teeth from day one. First of all, the idea that the Iraqis would just welcome the Americans with open arms and offer no resistance whatsoever is ludicrous. Believe it or not, not everyone in the world wants to be an American. Not all of them want to be governed in the same way we are. Not all them of them want to live our way of life. And can you blame them, with the picture of America that is presented by Bush? It was also a huge failing on their part not to heed any of the advice or warnings of true experts.
5. Further proof that Bush is an idiot, but no grounds for impeachment. This list seems to be mainly complaints about Bush rather than reasons for impeachment, although they are valid complaints.
6. It is debatable as to whether this is a valid offense for impeachment. When this went so far as to intrude upon habeus corpus, I think that it might be reasonable to consider this grounds for impeachment. What I can't believe is that even with all the criticism of the Patriot Act and all the the furthering of the NSA's abilities to spy on American citizens after that, the Bush administration CONTINUES to push for more and more power.
7. Again, while deplorable, this unfortunately isn't grounds for impeachment. It's very true, though, and very unfortunate. Of course, when you elect a president who makes money off oil, and who is a Republican to boot, what else can you expect?
8. Not grounds for impeachment, but this offense IS a huge problem for America. And Bush refuses to pull out of Iraq, making the economy worse by the day.
9. Dear God. It's so horrible he does that, but again, not an impeachable offense.
10. While this again isn't an impeachable offense, it is very unfortunate. I mean, we complain that the world doesn't like us (we make that complaint a lot about France, but I don't think many other countries are any more fond of us than France is), but then we have this President who not only paints a very bad picture of Americans, but he also continuously thumbs his nose at the rest of the world. Furthermore, many countries around the Middle East are terrified right now that they'll be next. What do you expect?
Okay, so on the list we actually have two possible reasons for impeachment. We could add that he has completely ignored various treaties that the U.S. has signed. We could also add that he WENT AGAINST THE UNITED NATIONS when they told him NOT to go to war. The reason he kept giving for going to war? That Iraq was disobeying the United Nations! Now, THAT has to make your blood boil. How about the continuous lying to Congress and the American people about several issues? Or permitting torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?
Perhaps a better name for this list would have been 10 Reasons Bush Should Never Have Been Elected, as many of these offenses date back to before his second term, and a few back even before his first term as President. If people looked at the history of Presidential candidates a bit more closely, mistakes like this one wouldn't make their way into the White House. If Bush was a horrible governor, why would he suddenly perform better in a higher office? You promote people who do well, not the ones who totally suck at their job.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Westboro Baptist to Picket Funerals of Virginia Tech Shooting Victims
from godhatesamerica.com, WBC's homepage
"Why did this happen, you ask? It's simple. Your military chose to shoot at the servants of God today, and all they got for their effort was terror. Then, the LORD your God sent a crazed madman to shoot at your children."
Read More | Digg Story
*******************************************************
These people are completely sick. When I first heard about them, on Louis Theroux's BBC special, I was absolutely apalled and enraged at what they were doing, and my opinion of them has just gone downhill from there every time I've heard about them. I mean, they're entitled to their religious beliefs just like everyone else. I understand that, and I don't begrudge them their right to religious freedom, even though I disagree with their hateful message. I don't agree with them, but everyone in America has the right to free speech and the freedom to think for themselves.
However, the funeral thing just goes too far. It's horrible enough that they demonstrate at the funerals of soldiers who've died in Iraq. I mean, imagine that you're a mother trying to bury her 18-year-old child. Hard enough. Then imagine that while you're trying to do that, you have these hateful people with their vulgar messages trying to demonstrate at the funeral. That's horrible. I mean, what right do they have to intrude upon that woman's grief? She didn't do anything wrong, and really, her child didn't either. I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but it's not the soldiers' fault, it's the fault of the politicians who sent the soldiers over there in the first place. Why don't they go demonstrate outside the White House like every other group of demonstrators? No, they have to go make these families' lives just that much more of a living hell. It's sickening.
It seems even worse to me for them to be doing this at the funerals of the victims of the recent Virginia Tech shooting. It's not that it's more sad that these students and faculty members died, but I would think that it would have to be just as difficult, if not more so, for their families. When your child is sent off to war in Iraq, their death is a possibility, and you are well aware of that fact. You know that there's the chance that they'll be coming home in a body bag. These families had no warning. They had no idea that this could ever happen to their child, who was only off at college, minding their own business. I can't believe they would think to use these funerals, intruding upon these families' time of mourning, just to get attention from the media to push their agenda.
"Why did this happen, you ask? It's simple. Your military chose to shoot at the servants of God today, and all they got for their effort was terror. Then, the LORD your God sent a crazed madman to shoot at your children."
Read More | Digg Story
*******************************************************
These people are completely sick. When I first heard about them, on Louis Theroux's BBC special, I was absolutely apalled and enraged at what they were doing, and my opinion of them has just gone downhill from there every time I've heard about them. I mean, they're entitled to their religious beliefs just like everyone else. I understand that, and I don't begrudge them their right to religious freedom, even though I disagree with their hateful message. I don't agree with them, but everyone in America has the right to free speech and the freedom to think for themselves.
However, the funeral thing just goes too far. It's horrible enough that they demonstrate at the funerals of soldiers who've died in Iraq. I mean, imagine that you're a mother trying to bury her 18-year-old child. Hard enough. Then imagine that while you're trying to do that, you have these hateful people with their vulgar messages trying to demonstrate at the funeral. That's horrible. I mean, what right do they have to intrude upon that woman's grief? She didn't do anything wrong, and really, her child didn't either. I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but it's not the soldiers' fault, it's the fault of the politicians who sent the soldiers over there in the first place. Why don't they go demonstrate outside the White House like every other group of demonstrators? No, they have to go make these families' lives just that much more of a living hell. It's sickening.
It seems even worse to me for them to be doing this at the funerals of the victims of the recent Virginia Tech shooting. It's not that it's more sad that these students and faculty members died, but I would think that it would have to be just as difficult, if not more so, for their families. When your child is sent off to war in Iraq, their death is a possibility, and you are well aware of that fact. You know that there's the chance that they'll be coming home in a body bag. These families had no warning. They had no idea that this could ever happen to their child, who was only off at college, minding their own business. I can't believe they would think to use these funerals, intruding upon these families' time of mourning, just to get attention from the media to push their agenda.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Girl, 14, Nabbed In Student Bus Beating
From The New York Post
"A 14-year-old girl was busted yesterday in the beating of a high-school student by a pack of kids who taunted her for being "Chinese" as she rode a city bus to her Brooklyn home, police sources said."
Read More | Digg Story
*******************************************************
This is horrible. I can't believe that a girl got jumped on the school bus for being
Filipino. And it's all well and good that they're finding the students who jumped her, but what I want to know is: What are they doing about the bus driver? The adult who was there didn't lift a finger to stop the students from beating this girl up because of her race, and then when the girl left the bus, had the nerve to tell her to go to a priest. As if she'd done something wrong by being born into her ethnicity. My god. That woman's the one they need to be pressing charges on, more than the other students, anyway. It's so sad that even in 2007, there are still hate crimes being committed.
"A 14-year-old girl was busted yesterday in the beating of a high-school student by a pack of kids who taunted her for being "Chinese" as she rode a city bus to her Brooklyn home, police sources said."
Read More | Digg Story
*******************************************************
This is horrible. I can't believe that a girl got jumped on the school bus for being
Filipino. And it's all well and good that they're finding the students who jumped her, but what I want to know is: What are they doing about the bus driver? The adult who was there didn't lift a finger to stop the students from beating this girl up because of her race, and then when the girl left the bus, had the nerve to tell her to go to a priest. As if she'd done something wrong by being born into her ethnicity. My god. That woman's the one they need to be pressing charges on, more than the other students, anyway. It's so sad that even in 2007, there are still hate crimes being committed.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Get The Kiddie-Cuffs, or Police State Pedagogy
From The Pro Libertate Blog
“Do you think this is the first 6-year-old we've arrested?”
This comment by Avon Park, Florida Police Chief Frank Mercurio to New York Times columnist Bob Herbert easily qualifies as the pull-quote of the day, perhaps of the month. Chief Mercurio was justifying the arrest -- complete with handcuffing, fingerprinting, and a mug-shot – of Desre'e Watson, who was eventually charged with a felony (as well as a few misdemeanors) after disturbing her kindergarten class.
Read More | Digg It
*******************************************************
Hm. So they arrested a six-year-old and charged her with a felony for "yelling, screaming - just being uncontrollable. Defiant." No six-year-old is safe. Do you know why? BECAUSE THEY ALL DO THAT! My god! You're going to charge a kindergartener with a felony for yelling in class? Yes, she should not be throwing temper tantrums in class. So send her to the principal's office. Send a note home or give Mommy a phone call. You alert the parents when a six-year-old is acting up, not the police.
Then we move onto the case of Chelsea Fraser. Okay. You know what you do when you catch a thirteen-year-old girl writing on her desk? You give her detention and make her clean all the desks during that detention. That's all you have to do. There's no need to call the police, there's no need to press charges over two letters written on a freaking desk. She wasn't writing obscenities. She wasn't drawing crude pictures of genitals. She wasn't stashing a gun in the desk. She wrote "OK". Oh my god, call the cops. We have two letters written on a desk. And just for the record, handcuffing a child to a pole for three hours does not constitute an acceptable substitute for detention.
And finally we get to Gerard Mungo, Jr., which is, in my opinion, the worst of the three. The little boy is on his dirt bike, on the sidewalk, but the motor is turned off. That means he's not breaking the law, which states that you can't OPERATE a dirt bike on the sidewalk. That is not justification for a police officer to arrest him at all, much less grab him by the throat and lift him off the ground, choking him. A seven-year-old little boy! My god! And then you leave him handcuffed to a bench. For two hours. Great. These cops are just doing wonders for this first-grader's emotional health, aren't they? Jackasses. And then it gets worse. What the police did then in the Mungo drama is just horrible and sickening, but the point I wanted to address here was the one with the children, and the rest of that story involves that boy's mother (as if she wasn't in bad enough shape as it was, with the treatment her little boy received). I do encourage you guys to read it, though.
Since when is this all right? Why is it all of a sudden acceptable for the police to grab a seven-year-old little boy by the throat and lift him up off the ground, choking him? I don't care what he did. And wouldn't it count as child abuse to fasten a child to a pole and then leave her there for three hours? And what kind of a country do we live in when teachers are calling the police offices as a way to discipline their students? It's one thing when you have children who are threatening your and the other students' safety, but if that's not an issue, then don't have a child from your class arrested. Good god. And... is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that all three of these children are minorities? I wonder a white child has ever been arrested for the same things? I doubt it. I really hate that this stuff has happened, and I hate even more the fact that it wasn't front-page, national news. This should have been alarming. People should have been enraged. People should have called for the officers to resign. People should care about this sort of thing.
“Do you think this is the first 6-year-old we've arrested?”
This comment by Avon Park, Florida Police Chief Frank Mercurio to New York Times columnist Bob Herbert easily qualifies as the pull-quote of the day, perhaps of the month. Chief Mercurio was justifying the arrest -- complete with handcuffing, fingerprinting, and a mug-shot – of Desre'e Watson, who was eventually charged with a felony (as well as a few misdemeanors) after disturbing her kindergarten class.
Read More | Digg It
*******************************************************
Hm. So they arrested a six-year-old and charged her with a felony for "yelling, screaming - just being uncontrollable. Defiant." No six-year-old is safe. Do you know why? BECAUSE THEY ALL DO THAT! My god! You're going to charge a kindergartener with a felony for yelling in class? Yes, she should not be throwing temper tantrums in class. So send her to the principal's office. Send a note home or give Mommy a phone call. You alert the parents when a six-year-old is acting up, not the police.
Then we move onto the case of Chelsea Fraser. Okay. You know what you do when you catch a thirteen-year-old girl writing on her desk? You give her detention and make her clean all the desks during that detention. That's all you have to do. There's no need to call the police, there's no need to press charges over two letters written on a freaking desk. She wasn't writing obscenities. She wasn't drawing crude pictures of genitals. She wasn't stashing a gun in the desk. She wrote "OK". Oh my god, call the cops. We have two letters written on a desk. And just for the record, handcuffing a child to a pole for three hours does not constitute an acceptable substitute for detention.
And finally we get to Gerard Mungo, Jr., which is, in my opinion, the worst of the three. The little boy is on his dirt bike, on the sidewalk, but the motor is turned off. That means he's not breaking the law, which states that you can't OPERATE a dirt bike on the sidewalk. That is not justification for a police officer to arrest him at all, much less grab him by the throat and lift him off the ground, choking him. A seven-year-old little boy! My god! And then you leave him handcuffed to a bench. For two hours. Great. These cops are just doing wonders for this first-grader's emotional health, aren't they? Jackasses. And then it gets worse. What the police did then in the Mungo drama is just horrible and sickening, but the point I wanted to address here was the one with the children, and the rest of that story involves that boy's mother (as if she wasn't in bad enough shape as it was, with the treatment her little boy received). I do encourage you guys to read it, though.
Since when is this all right? Why is it all of a sudden acceptable for the police to grab a seven-year-old little boy by the throat and lift him up off the ground, choking him? I don't care what he did. And wouldn't it count as child abuse to fasten a child to a pole and then leave her there for three hours? And what kind of a country do we live in when teachers are calling the police offices as a way to discipline their students? It's one thing when you have children who are threatening your and the other students' safety, but if that's not an issue, then don't have a child from your class arrested. Good god. And... is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that all three of these children are minorities? I wonder a white child has ever been arrested for the same things? I doubt it. I really hate that this stuff has happened, and I hate even more the fact that it wasn't front-page, national news. This should have been alarming. People should have been enraged. People should have called for the officers to resign. People should care about this sort of thing.
Friday, April 13, 2007
"I am Plotting a New Russian Revolution"
From The Guardian
"The Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky has told the Guardian he is plotting the violent overthrow of President Putin from his base in Britain after forging close contacts with members of Russia's ruling elite.
In comments which appear calculated to enrage the Kremlin, and which will further inflame relations between London and Moscow, the multimillionaire claimed he was already bankrolling people close to the president who are conspiring to mount a palace coup."
read more | digg it
*******************************************************
Okay, first off, I don't think it's the most intelligent thing on earth to announce to the world that you're preparing to mount a palace coup. Unless what he's trying to do is to introduce McCarthyism-like paranoia into the Russian government by making a completely false claim about paying off members of the Russian political elite. It also might be worth mentioning Russia's habit of dealing harshly with people who push them. This could be rather hazardous for Berezovsky's health.
I don't know, I agree that Putin is a power-hungry man who has more power than the President should and only cares about himself. However, Berezovsky is also a power-hungry, money-hungry idiot who only cares about himself. I don't really see where one is really any different from the other, except that one of them WAS elected to office through democratic means. Yes, I think the Russian President currently has too much power. But did he get that power through illegal means, or is the Russian public voting to amend the law to legally give him more power than he's supposed to have? Berezovsky complains that there is no democratic way to change the regime. Guess what? The regime is in place using democratic means. And I don't think that a mafioso at the head of the Russian government would be any better. (Not that Putin isn't/wasn't, but removing one and replacing it with another just seems kind of pointless.) In my opinion, whether the political power rests with a single corrupt individual or in the hands of a small handful of corrupt business tycoons, the government is in bad shape.
Of course, Berezovsky's pretty much uniformly hated in Russia, and Putin's approval ratings have stayed in the 70-85% range. I don't think he'd have much luck in converting people to his cause in the first place. As of last month, Putin had an approval rating of 81%. Can you imagine 81% of the country supporting the elected leader? And I doubt we'd ever dream of joining a revolution to remove an elected official by force, even with our current opinion of the Bush regime.
Anyway. I give Berezovsky a week to live. Idiot.
"The Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky has told the Guardian he is plotting the violent overthrow of President Putin from his base in Britain after forging close contacts with members of Russia's ruling elite.
In comments which appear calculated to enrage the Kremlin, and which will further inflame relations between London and Moscow, the multimillionaire claimed he was already bankrolling people close to the president who are conspiring to mount a palace coup."
read more | digg it
*******************************************************
Okay, first off, I don't think it's the most intelligent thing on earth to announce to the world that you're preparing to mount a palace coup. Unless what he's trying to do is to introduce McCarthyism-like paranoia into the Russian government by making a completely false claim about paying off members of the Russian political elite. It also might be worth mentioning Russia's habit of dealing harshly with people who push them. This could be rather hazardous for Berezovsky's health.
I don't know, I agree that Putin is a power-hungry man who has more power than the President should and only cares about himself. However, Berezovsky is also a power-hungry, money-hungry idiot who only cares about himself. I don't really see where one is really any different from the other, except that one of them WAS elected to office through democratic means. Yes, I think the Russian President currently has too much power. But did he get that power through illegal means, or is the Russian public voting to amend the law to legally give him more power than he's supposed to have? Berezovsky complains that there is no democratic way to change the regime. Guess what? The regime is in place using democratic means. And I don't think that a mafioso at the head of the Russian government would be any better. (Not that Putin isn't/wasn't, but removing one and replacing it with another just seems kind of pointless.) In my opinion, whether the political power rests with a single corrupt individual or in the hands of a small handful of corrupt business tycoons, the government is in bad shape.
Of course, Berezovsky's pretty much uniformly hated in Russia, and Putin's approval ratings have stayed in the 70-85% range. I don't think he'd have much luck in converting people to his cause in the first place. As of last month, Putin had an approval rating of 81%. Can you imagine 81% of the country supporting the elected leader? And I doubt we'd ever dream of joining a revolution to remove an elected official by force, even with our current opinion of the Bush regime.
Anyway. I give Berezovsky a week to live. Idiot.
What the @#%! is Brazenness?
bra-zen-ness [brey-zuhn-ness]
noun.
1.
shamelessness or impudence: brazen presumption.
2.
boldness.
3.
brazen out or through, to face boldly or shamelessly: He prefers to brazen it out rather than admit defeat.
Related forms:
bra-zen, adjective
bra-zen-ly, adverb
—Synonyms: insolent, defiant. See bold.
Brazenness is a new blog by tree.hugger.chick, in which I will write my opinions on various topics I find in the news; I have to warn you, most of these will be political, since other articles I'm interested in commenting on will probably be on another blog that I contribute to. I'd like to ask that everyone who reads comments with their thoughts. As long as they agree with me, anyway.
If you like this blog, and even if you don't, I'd like to encourage you to visit another blog that I contribute to, The Opinionated Nation. The Opinionated Nation blog is very similar to this one, with one major difference: there are two writers, The Randomized Guy and myself. Also, it doesn't have the same focus on politics that most of the articles I look at on here will probably have. It's great. It's fabulous. Go visit it.
noun.
1.
shamelessness or impudence: brazen presumption.
2.
boldness.
3.
brazen out or through, to face boldly or shamelessly: He prefers to brazen it out rather than admit defeat.
Related forms:
bra-zen, adjective
bra-zen-ly, adverb
—Synonyms: insolent, defiant. See bold.
Brazenness is a new blog by tree.hugger.chick, in which I will write my opinions on various topics I find in the news; I have to warn you, most of these will be political, since other articles I'm interested in commenting on will probably be on another blog that I contribute to. I'd like to ask that everyone who reads comments with their thoughts. As long as they agree with me, anyway.
If you like this blog, and even if you don't, I'd like to encourage you to visit another blog that I contribute to, The Opinionated Nation. The Opinionated Nation blog is very similar to this one, with one major difference: there are two writers, The Randomized Guy and myself. Also, it doesn't have the same focus on politics that most of the articles I look at on here will probably have. It's great. It's fabulous. Go visit it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
