Scattershot

Last week the South Dakota senate passed a bill to outlaw abortion in the state. To quote the article:
"The momentum for a change in the national policy on abortion is going to come in the not-too-distant future," said Rep. Roger W. Hunt, a Republican who sponsored the bill. To his delight, abortion opponents succeeded in defeating all amendments designed to mitigate the ban, including exceptions in the case of rape or incest or the health of the woman. Hunt said that such "special circumstances" would have diluted the bill and its impact on the national scene.

So... this man thinks a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term even if she's pregnant because she was raped by her father? Asshole. No further comment... the idiocy speaks for itself.

I went skiing the weekend before last. There were no fatalities. I hadn't been skiing for about 8 or 10 years and was never all that good at it. Some coworkers talked me into going along though, and I dragged them to Bell's brewpub afterward. Both were fun. I highly recommend Bell's beer, and while I fortunately didn't spot any scorned women, their Abbey Dubbel style brew called "Hell Hath No Fury" was very good.

Last Saturday evening was a birthday celebration for both of my parents and my brother. They're all February birthdays. There was the traditional German chocolate cake and entirely too much food in general. When I got home I felt like beaching myself somewhere. Good times.

I just noticed that Hugo Weaving is starring in the up coming film "V for Vendetta". Weaving, of course, is best known as Agent Smith from the Matrix movies and Elrond from the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Will I be able to watch his new film without thinking, "Mr. Anderson..."? Probably not.

Iran is still determined to get nukes. Not that that's a surprise to anyone. Lots of nations want nukes. It's their only hope if they ever tick us off. That doesn't make it right, but let's face it, our military is so much more powerful than the rest of the world's that the only real deterrent any other nation would have if they get us pissed at them is WMDs. So their ambitions are not surprising, but on the other hand, the leaders in Iran are also batshit crazy.

I was going to post some other random stuff, but I decided I don't care right now.

Another nominee

Now for my latest nominee for "Biggest Douche in the Universe". He's known as John of God, a faith healer from Brazil who cons people into spending between hundreds and thousands of dollars for his phoney treatment. Last year Prime Time Live on ABC did a ridiculous show about him, and he and that show are thoroughly debunked by the Amazing Randi here. John of God joins the original winner from South Park, TV psychic John Edward, and health infomercial host, author, and full time swindler Kevin Trudeau as nominees for this prestigious award.

"John of God" will stick forceps up your nose, pretend to scrape your eyeball, make random incisions on your body, or do "invisible surgery" with spirits in exchange for big wads of cash. Once again desperate, gullible people are separated from their money.

Danish editor explains the cartoons

The Danish newspaper editor who commissioned the controversial Muhammed cartoons explains their publication here. It's well written and he explains it far better than I could summarize, so just read it.

Muncie Gras?

Some pastor went on Foxnews and complained about Muncie, Indiana's miniature Mardi Gras celebration. I guess he's worried about the debauchery and whatnot. Of course I'd never heard of this party and thanks to this dumbass complaining about it, I thought it sounded kind of fun and looked it up. The party is expected to attract about 10,000 people to downtown Muncie on February 25th. Obviously that makes it many times smaller than Mardi Gras and unlike that wide open, week long, all night party in New Orleans, this party is for one night from 7 pm to 2 am. Four blocks of downtown are gated for the night and you have to buy a ticket to get in. People drink a lot and go to concerts. That's pretty much it. That's what this guy is going on a national news network to protest against.

Fox News must have been having trouble booking someone with enough righteous indignation today, and this pastor must have way too much time on his hands.

Update: The recipient of Dick Cheney's soon to be patented "Birdshot Facial" is doing okay and was released from the hospital today. I'm happy for him. Death would have really taken away from the comedy.

Hunting Season

There was big news on Sunday, so of course I didn't bother writing about it. Vice President Dick Cheney shot his friend, a 78 year old man, in the face. The victim, lawyer Harry Whittington, apparently bore a striking resemblance to slow, chubby, farm raised birds recently released into the bushes so that the Vice President and his friends could shoot them.

Anyway, we've all heard the story by now and it almost goes without say that it was great news for America. As we started another soul sucking week slaving away in cubicles to enrich the stock options of overpaid executives, our day was brightened by a story of our Vice President putting bird shot into a man's face. It doesn't get any better than that, people. Our spirits soared. Everything seemed a little brighter, a little more colorful. We could already sense the jokes writing themselves. We got many a laugh from this comical event. A very lucky Dick Cheney got to shoot a lawyer. Yes America, we were all winners yesterday. Except the man who got shot in the face.

Attacking Free Speech

The 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference wants the UN to include language against blasphemy in the tenets of a new human rights organization. This proposal is of course a result of the ridiculous Danish cartoon controversy. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana supports it.

All I can say is fark 'em, and fark the UN if they pass any such thing in response to this BS controversy. Hell, the idea that images of Mohammad are blasphemous is a relatively recent idea and only applies to some Islamic sects. Some people just want something to get pissy about and riot over. Even if it is considered blasphemous to some people, their reactions are moronic. "Ooo... let's go torch an embassy because we don't like cartoons!" Moreover, cartoons that were originally published last September did not cause these riots. Radical Muslim leaders and their followers caused the riots. They are the only ones to blame for the violence. Period. No matter how offended they are by some stupid cartoons, it in no way justifies their violence and death threats.

Anyway, back to this idiotic OIC proposal... who would decide which religions count? In other words, which religions get to declare things that are blasphemous that everyone else has to be careful not to publish? I suppose Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism are shoo ins. They're big. By the numbers we should include Judaism too, even though it seems the radicals rioting over these cartoons have no problem with insulting Jews. What other religions count? Wicca? Janeism? Scientology? Pastafarianism? The religion I'm about to start revolving around me? I declare that publishing images of me or saying anything negative about me is blasphemous.

If the UN passes anything that limits free speech in response to this bogus controversy, seriously, fark 'em. Don't give in to radical nutjobs who have riots and want to kill people when they're offended.

Administration misused intelligence?

Here's another claim, now from a senior CIA analyst, that the Bush administration misused intelligence to justify the already made decision to go to war with Iraq. I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! Look, I think it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein is not in power. However, I also think that it's totally unacceptable that our administration led us into war under false pretenses. Basically they took intelligent reports that were very inconclusive and used them to make definitive claims about Hussein's WMD programs and ties to Al Qaeda. Moreover, after removing Saddam, which again was a good thing in and of itself, the aftermath has been botched badly.

I can't believe that through most of 2004 I was undecided about whether to vote for Bush or Kerry. Granted it seemed like a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich. Now though, we have three more years of a President who has:

- Led us into war under false pretenses

- Given us massive budget deficits by increasing spending by a vast amount while at the same time sharply cutting taxes

- Been Commander in Chief as the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq is botched

- Authorized the wiretapping of US citizens without obtaining warrants

- Pushed for a social security privatization plan by talking up how the SS system will run out of money in 2040 something. The latter part is true unless something changes, but the privatization plan has absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact converting to the proposed plan will cost the government around a trillion dollars and make SS run out of money sooner. We can have a debate about privatizing part of social security contributions, but it has nothing to do with making the system more solvent.

- Given much of the tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. One example: heard about the planned elimination of the estate tax? It will cost the government tens of billions a year in tax revenue and only benefit the wealthiest 2% of the population as they are the only ones who actually have to pay it right now. That's a fact.

There are many other problems I have with the man's policies including his reprehensible opposition to stem cell research, his absurd funding of only sex education programs that teach Abstinence Only to students, and his ridiculous support of teaching Intelligent Design in science classrooms.

It's mind boggling to me that about 40% of Americans still support this administration. It seems like no matter what the President does, these people will claim it's good. It's amazing how many people will vote for a President and a party that they think agrees with their moral views, no matter how much the country is flushed down the toilet as a result.

Personally, I'm almost to the point where I'd accept some farker's planned voting strategy for the next election. He's calling it the Glass Parking Lot plan. He wants to vote against ALL incumbents. I won't quite do that because some challengers might somehow be worse. Keep in mind, I use to be quite conservative. Then for many years I was moderate and if anything still somewhat right leaning. I'm still fairly moderate, but I'm sick of this shit.

Tap This

I'm baffled by people defending the wiretapping of US citizens without a warrant. Last night it was some people I know very well, like, and respect as intelligent individuals, so I know it's not just a bunch of crazies.

My main question about the wiretaps Bush authorized has still not been answered though and I posed it again last night. A secret court exists that can quickly review warrant requests for the wiretaps. In fact they can retroactively issue the warrant. Under existing law, the NSA can wiretap someone, then still have 72 hours to request approval from the secret court. Given that fact, why did Bush authorize wiretaps without a warrant? I have seen nothing from defenders of this practice to explain it. If anyone actually reads this entry and knows why, tell me. The people I spoke to last night offered no explanation when I asked. They just said that they don't think getting a warrant or not really matters. The important part is to catch the terrorists.

What?! With all due respect, that's crazy talk. I want to catch the terrorists too, but I'm also concerned about the rights of innocent Americans. Our government has been designed with a system of checks and balances to curb abuse by those in power and protect our freedoms. The Bush administrations unwillingness to use the process that's already in place makes me wonder what they're hiding. Warrants are an important check on the power of law enforcement and in this case the executive branch. For example, let's say someone in power wants information on a political opponent. They have some NSA friends and they order the wiretap. If a warrant is required though, it increases the oversight of such activities and makes it more difficult to use in this and other improper manners. I suppose it's still possible to abuse the system, but it's harder because there's judicial oversight.

Where does it end? If this warrantless wiretapping is acceptable, where do we draw the line? How many US citizens are spied on by our government and for what reasons? How do we ensure that the system is not abused? How can anyone think this practice is okay? People saying the warrants don't matter are putting an awful lot of blind trust in our government. It's trust that our Founders didn't have.

Big Brother is watching.

Superbowl yawn

My interest in the Super Bowl wasn't very high once again this year because I didn't care about either team. Well, I did manage to muster up some desire to see the Steelers get whipped since they beat Indy, even though that was Indy's fault for playing a brilliant season, then having a very subpar game the moment they hit the playoffs. Again. Anyway, the Super Bowl...

It was boring. Plus teams turned in subpar performances. It really looked like the best two teams weren't there. Of course that can easily happen when one game in the playoffs determines whether a team advances or goes home. There was no question that Indy was the best regular season team, but if you have one bad playoff game, you're done. That's the way it's always been. Great teams step up when it counts.

So the best teams weren't there, and it sure seems like the best referees took the week off too. The officiating was atrocious, and unfortunately the bad calls almost always benefited the Steelers. The worst was when Seattle was absolutely robbed by a bullshit offensive pass interference call on what would have been a TD reception. The tiny amount of contact that occurred happens on damn near every pass play run. Granted Seattle helped dig their own grave by horrendous, downright amateurish clock management at the end of both halves.

Idiot quote of the day, again on the Danish cartoon controversy:

"They want to test our feelings," protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra told the BBC.
"They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers," he said.
hmm... I think you just answered that question, Mr. Israra Extremist Whacko. The full article from the BBC is here.

The cartoon controversy gets dumber

Regarding any statements by our government about the Danish cartoon controversy, I would expect the emphasis to be on free speech. I would expect something to the effect that while we respect religious views, freedom of speech and of the press is of utmost importance. Sadly, I would be wrong.

A US State Department spokesman Justin Higgins blasted the Danish cartoons that have offended many Muslims. Here's the statement: "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable. We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices."

What a pathetically weak statement. His priorities are backwards and that's sad to hear from the US government. We are supposedly a bastion of free speech and press. It should have been something more like... "While we respect people's religious beliefs and practices, freedom of the press and expression must take precedence."

In case you haven't seen the cartoons, here's an article linked on Fark today that includes all of them. Interestingly, it also points out that CNN and other US networks have said they are not airing the cartoons out of respect for Islam, but in the past they've had no problem showing material that's offensive to Christians. Nice. Respect for religion, my ass. These networks are politically correct and scared.

Freedom from being offended?

The row continues over some Danish editorial cartoons that Muslims consider blasphemous. Some Muslims are boycotting all things Danish, somehow blaming an entire country for one magazine's content. Others are really going nuts, such as the Lebanese leader who says this never would have happened if Salman Rushdie had been assassinated as called for by a 17 year old Iranian fatwa. Yep, this guy thinks anyone who says something disrespectful about Islam should be slaughtered. Nice guy. Now it's being pointed out that this controversy boils down to Western values of free speech versus Islamic taboos.

My take on it is very simple. Free speech is a universal right. That doesn't mean you can yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, but someone being offended is not grounds to suppress free speech. An article I read a couple days ago about this controversy quoted an Islamic leader as saying that free speech should not include the right to offend people. What? Then it's not free speech, dumbass! There would be no need to have laws and constitutions enshrining the right of free speech if we only mean it when no one is offended. Nevermind the fact that many of these people complaining don't seem to have any problem with offending Jewish people. I think kids would say, "you can dish it out, but you can't take it".

I just hope this mess doesn't cause European nations to pass more laws restricting speech. Free speech is already in danger there thanks to their desire to never offend anyone. One really wonders how a society can advance without the freedom to discuss differing ideas.

edit: Some Farker summed up another point well:
medius
It seems to be lost on the protesters that they're behaving in the manner criticized by the cartoonist. Listen: they're not making fun of Mohammed, they're saying you're acting like assholes. Thanks for living down to expectations.