atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#1529: Ooh, boo hoo hoo hoo.

Islam is "insulted" again. The reason this time? A muslim woman allegedly killed a baby. The police arrested her and had the unmitigated gall to follow standard procedure--which every arrested person is subject to--and take a mugshot of her with her head and shoulders clearly visible, so that she could be easily identified.

Her husband says, "It is against our religion; we do not do this in our culture."

TOO FREAKING BAD, ASSHAT. IN AMERICAN CULTURE WE DON'T KILL BABIES.

Your wife is accused of murder--infanticide, actually, which is particularly heinous among civilized people--and because of this, the police will process her the way they process any other person who is arrested for murder.

If you want us to handle this matter the way your "culture" handles it, fine--we'll just take her out back and stone her to death without a trial. Would that make you feel better?

I didn't think so.

* * *

No, Meghan McCain, we do not need a "gayer" GOP. You are wrong.

Gay marriage fails every time the vote is put to the people. The American public doesn't want gay marriage. That's why the legislature in Iowa refuses to let Iowans vote on the gay marriage issue: they know it will fail if the people have any say in the matter. Gay marriage has failed consistently in California, which is arguably the most liberal state in the union; it sure as hell isn't going to happen in Iowa without the Democrats making some kind of totalitarianst decree.

What we need is for the GOP to stop listening to country club (moderate to liberal) Republicans such as yourself. The GOP wins elections whenever it runs on its core values, and loses elections whenever it runs on those of the country club Republicans.

There are plenty of people--self included!--who think that gays should be allowed civil unions which are legally identical to marriage; this would give them all the rights and priveleges without diminishing the institution of marriage. But "marriage" is a specific concept which is set in the context of bearing and raising children, and two people of the same sex are incapable of that kind of relationship.

Yes, gays can adopt, and yes, lesbians can get sperm from a donor, and Heather can have two mommies. But it's not the same thing as a man and a woman raising a child together, and no amount of pseudo-intellectual parsing will change that. There is a reason why nearly all human cultures center on marriage as being one man and one woman in a permanent and exclusive relationship; it's because time and experience have shown this kind of situation produces offspring which are the most fit for life in civilization.

We tinker with that sort of experience at our own peril.

* * *

Big surprise: Al Franken has been declared the winner of the senatorial election in Minnesota. Coleman still has some legal options, so the Democrats have not quite yet succeeded in stealing the election, but it's not going to be very easy for Coleman to win now.

Coleman led by 700 votes after the automatic recount. Since then, Democrats have managed to find 1012 votes...somewhere.

I applaud Mr. Coleman for his tenacity. I don't think it'll end up mattering, though. Even if Coleman demonstrates vote fraud and gets a fair recount where both parties get to monitor the vote counting, the Democrats in Congress won't seat him.

*sigh* The US is turning into a third-world country, and I can lay it all at the feet of the Democrat party. Asshats.

* * *

If you can't stop it, legalize it? So we have this little problem with the law: if a 14-year-old girl takes a nude photo of herself and sends it to her 15-year-old boyfriend, she's guilty of generating child porn and he's guilty of possessing it. Right now, we prosecute the hell out of the two misguided teens. We arrest them, search their electronica for more evil nudz0rz, and make a big deal out of it.

This Vermont law proposes to make this legal. In other words, it's perfectly okay for children to make kiddypr00n, as long as it is consensual and only consumed by children.

...

Does anyone else see what is wrong with this?

The entire legal theory of having an age of majority is that kids are incapable of making wise decisions, particularly about things that feel good. This is why we don't let them smoke before age 18, why we don't let anyone drink before 21, and why the "age of consent" is set at 18: given a choice, a kid will go for the fun and not even think about the consequences. (In fact many people at age 18--and, sadly, a lot older--will act the same way. But I'm talking about theory.) There are a number of reasons why our law and culture has determined that there must be an age at which certain behaviors are discouraged.

What will happen when some adult is sent the pr0n by mistake? The law proposes that it will still be illegal for an adult to receive such images; if our hypothetical 14-year-old accidentally sends the image to her father instead of her boyfriend--it seems to me--he'll be guilty of "possession of", putting him at risk of prison and scandal and ruination.

I can just imagine the defense lawyer after questioning the guy's daughter: "So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, here we have an interesting situation. His daughter says that she had not intended to send the image to her father, but to her boyfriend, who was a minor at the time of the incident. If she had not made that mistake, we would not be here today. Yet the police chose not to arrest the girl, who was at least as much at fault for this situation as her father--if not more!--but to arrest her father, who was effectively an innocent bystander."

End result: just receiving images ceases to be a crime. See where this goes?

* * *

Will someone please explain to me why the hell we need to count illegal aliens anyway? They're not supposed to be in the country in the first place; why the hell should the census count them? And why should representation and federal spending be dependent on their presence or lack thereof?

Oh, wait, I know! It's because if we count the illegals, it will help Democrats.

* * *

The FTC may begin to monitor bloggers. Mainly this has to do with bloggers who review products and services, if I read the article correctly.

Damn, I sure would hate to have to worry about these guidelines! If, for example, some computer companies were to send me free product in exchange for reviews of the stuff; or if LEGO were to send me some kits to get my opinion of them; or if, I don't know, Nintendo were to send me a DSi and some game carts for it in hopes of garnering my approval--I would just have such a hard time!

*sigh* And while I'm wishing, could I have a pony?

* * *

I agree: get government out of the art business. Government funding of the arts is what has led to the post-modernist crapola we see all over the place, art which either makes no sense or which attempts to shock people, usually by desecrating Christian icons (eg Ofili, Mapplethorpe, et al).

Shut it down.

* * *

Spokane is blowing up squirrels!

Okay, technically they're using a fuel-air explosive to kill the critters in their dens. But damn it, that's just not as funny as saying "Ma, they're blowin' up the squirrels!"

It's a shame. I like squirrels. They're cute and fuzzy and funny critters. But, yeah, they can be pests, so I understand. I don't have to like it, though.

* * *

Apparently the 3.1 patch for WoW has gone live. Guess I get to play tonight, then....
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    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.
  • 2 comments