atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#1091: He should change his name.

Some doofus ran spellcheck on a yearbook and apparently clicked "yes to all" or something. But one Max Zupanovic had his monicker improved: now he is MAX SUPERNOVA! Is that made of awesome, or what?

* * *

The stupid, it burns. What do you do if you're in a car with power locks, the doors are locked, and the battery dies? WHAT DO YOU DO??????!?!???!?!?!?

Quick! Call 911 on your cell phone! Get help! Thank God for cell phones! You could die without modern communications technology!

...and the emergency personnel will walk you through the complex procedure required to unlock your doors from the inside.

Er, move the manual lock slider.

Now, seriously: if I was Dictator, this woman would be barred from ever driving again, because she is too goddamned stupid to be allowed the privelege of operating a motor vehicle.

* * *

This Something Positive strip today is a textbook example of how to tell a brief narrative story with both words and pictures. In the penultimate panel, you can tell that both Davan and Peejee have had the exact same thought, and it's hilarious.

I do enjoy S*P.

* * *

A University of Oregon law professor applies a dubious legal theory to promote environmentalism.
Drawing on her background in both natural resources and property law, Wood has developed a theory that claims the atmosphere is an asset that belongs to all but is held in trust by the government. The government has a legal obligation to protect that trust from harm, she argues.
In other words, under this theory, the government could be (and, she argues, should be) forced to regulate the shit out of carbon dioxide emissions in the name of preventing global warming.

In a story I wrote, there is a scene where a young man, who has found a starship in orbit around his world, is taken to court by the government, which seeks to seize ownership of the ship in question. The following exchange ensues between a lawyer and a magistrate:
“The State’s concern is twofold: first, that the starship ought to be considered government property, since it orbits the entire planet."
“Do you propose that the government also owns the atmosphere?”
“Of course not, sir.”
“The atmosphere circles the entire planet. By the somewhat shoddy legal thinking you have applied, it therefore should be considered the property of the government.”
The point made by the magistrate is that the location of a previously undiscovered asset outside of traditional territorial boundaries does not automatically relegate ownership of that asset to the government; in all cases the finder of the asset is the owner.

In the case of a planetary atmosphere, there can be no ownership. The instant you start deciding who has the "rights" to the atmosphere is the instant when people must begin paying taxes for the "privelege" of breathing. You want the world of Orwell's 1984? That'll pretty much make it happen, right there.

"Mr. Notlob? We're here from the Department of Natural Resources. We see that you haven't paid your air tax lately, and you owe $3,000. Will you pay with cash, check, or credit card?"
"I can't pay it. I don't have any money!"
"Well, that's a shame, Mr. Notlob. All right, then."
"No, wait! Wait, I'll--"
BLAM. (drip drip)


"'At first it sounds radical, and I acknowledge that. But what’s really radical is trying to survive in a world of runaway heating,' Wood said."

God, it's so asinine I can't even begin to refute it without risking apoplexy. I've dealt, time and again, with the assertions in that statement. The comments on the article will serve, anyway.

* * *

On the strength of one phone call from this woman, Texas state Department of Child and Family Services personnel raided the FLDS compound and confiscated over 400 children.

The call? Fraudulent. The charges? Exaggerated. The government response? Verging on totalitarian.

...and for all of this, it's been found that the government overstepped its bounds and has been ordered to return the children that were confiscated: "Nearly two months later, two Texas appellate courts have said authorities did not have adequate evidence of abuse and the sect's children are headed home."

I use the word "confiscated" advisedly. In a situation like this, when children are taken from their parents in a blazing example of government thuggery, the phrase "taken into protective custody" just doesn't apply. And much of the media coverage of this event has had the "these are religious lunatics whose children should be taken from them!" slant to it.

To say that the entire situation is a miscarriage of justice is understatement; it used to be that you couldn't have something like this happen to you without due process, but in this day and age "due process" only applies to the police. It does not apply to the alphabet soup government agencies, particularly the various flavors of child protective services.

* * *

No surprises here; the following LOL did not get put on the voting page:

I also did a series:

I did have a bit of fun, except for that last one, which is a deadly serious opinion. Suck it, libs.

My favorite is the first John McCain one. And the GWB "NOM NOM" one. Heh.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.