Someone didn't get spanked enough as a child...
The ELF, a terrorist organization with a pyromaniacal bent, has taken responsibility for a firebombing attack against a forest service laboratory that was researching ways to maintain a healthy ecosystem on the Allegheny plateau.
Because, you know, growing trees is like, bad man, and against nature's way.
I have to agree with JR when he said "I'm trying to understand these folks point of view, but I just can't seem to fit my head up my ass."
Monday, September 09, 2002
Liberal Nimby Hypocrisy
Best of the Web also links to this letter to the editor in the Washington Post where some liberal tried to explain - without sounding like a total hypocrite - why she was sending her daughter to private school.
The choice quote, of course, is this: For a card-carrying liberal, I was surprisingly unapologetic about our decision. Why should I sacrifice our daughter's future to an abstract principle? I wasn't up to battling the school system about class size, curriculum and extracurricular activities. And by the time any changes could be made, our daughter would have already missed out on a vibrant education.
She continues on to whine about how she feels uncomfortable about her decision, since she can't talk about her daughter's exclusive private schooling with her neighbors, because she feels they'd resent her since they can't afford it. No where in the letter does she mention if, as a result of her inner battle, she has come out in favor of public schooling alternatives such as vouchers. My bet is that Opinion Journal gets it right though, when they say: Here in a nutshell is the definition of an American liberal: one who is willing to sacrifice the future of other people's children to an abstract principle.
Best of the Web also links to this letter to the editor in the Washington Post where some liberal tried to explain - without sounding like a total hypocrite - why she was sending her daughter to private school.
The choice quote, of course, is this: For a card-carrying liberal, I was surprisingly unapologetic about our decision. Why should I sacrifice our daughter's future to an abstract principle? I wasn't up to battling the school system about class size, curriculum and extracurricular activities. And by the time any changes could be made, our daughter would have already missed out on a vibrant education.
She continues on to whine about how she feels uncomfortable about her decision, since she can't talk about her daughter's exclusive private schooling with her neighbors, because she feels they'd resent her since they can't afford it. No where in the letter does she mention if, as a result of her inner battle, she has come out in favor of public schooling alternatives such as vouchers. My bet is that Opinion Journal gets it right though, when they say: Here in a nutshell is the definition of an American liberal: one who is willing to sacrifice the future of other people's children to an abstract principle.
Yeah, That'll Show Her
Both LGF and Best Of The Web have taken the time to comment on this man, who beheaded his seven year old daughter, because he thought she had been raped by her uncle. Yeah, that'll learn her never to do that again.
To turn the story from evil to blackest comedy, the autopsy determined she hadn't been raped in the first place.
Things like this are why we need regime change in islamic ruled countries like Iraq and Iran, and why I get so damned mad when lefty loonies spout nonsense about us being the bad guys. Try telling that little girl that islam is a religion of peace.
Both LGF and Best Of The Web have taken the time to comment on this man, who beheaded his seven year old daughter, because he thought she had been raped by her uncle. Yeah, that'll learn her never to do that again.
To turn the story from evil to blackest comedy, the autopsy determined she hadn't been raped in the first place.
Things like this are why we need regime change in islamic ruled countries like Iraq and Iran, and why I get so damned mad when lefty loonies spout nonsense about us being the bad guys. Try telling that little girl that islam is a religion of peace.
Wednesday, September 04, 2002
Further Proof that the Only Good Marxist was Groucho
Noel Ignatiev, a marxist professor from Harvard, is arguing for the abolishment of the white race. Cute. However, he, like just about every other self-hating loony on the market seems to have forgotten that there is no such thing as a white race. There are Homo Sapiens, the only race of humans on the planet. Its not like we have homo euroweenius, homo priviledged whitius and homo oppressed darkius... we all fit under the same umbrella, and the only people who are interested in making distinctions between the groups based on the color of our skin are closeted bigots who insist on pointing out our surface differences at every opportunity. They 'feel' for the poor and oppressed, using a basic underlying assumption that just because someone is black, they're automatically unable to compete in the real world, or succeed without special help. If only everyone else in the priviledged 'white' world (never mind that there are plenty of poor white folks out there too) could simply understand blacks' basic inferiority, and adjust to it, instead of holding equal expectations for them, then racisim would end.
Mr. Ignatiev publishes a journal called "Race Traitor". He's incorrect in his title. It should be "Race Baiter" instead.
Noel Ignatiev, a marxist professor from Harvard, is arguing for the abolishment of the white race. Cute. However, he, like just about every other self-hating loony on the market seems to have forgotten that there is no such thing as a white race. There are Homo Sapiens, the only race of humans on the planet. Its not like we have homo euroweenius, homo priviledged whitius and homo oppressed darkius... we all fit under the same umbrella, and the only people who are interested in making distinctions between the groups based on the color of our skin are closeted bigots who insist on pointing out our surface differences at every opportunity. They 'feel' for the poor and oppressed, using a basic underlying assumption that just because someone is black, they're automatically unable to compete in the real world, or succeed without special help. If only everyone else in the priviledged 'white' world (never mind that there are plenty of poor white folks out there too) could simply understand blacks' basic inferiority, and adjust to it, instead of holding equal expectations for them, then racisim would end.
Mr. Ignatiev publishes a journal called "Race Traitor". He's incorrect in his title. It should be "Race Baiter" instead.
Thursday, August 29, 2002
A Ray Of Light In the Office Of National Drug Control Policy
New guidelines issued by the Office of National Drug Control Policy for schools are strongly recommending against suspending or expelling student caught using drugs. (from the Washington Post)
Issued Thursday by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the guide says the aim of drug testing "is not to trap and punish students who use drugs. It is, in fact, counterproductive simply to punish them without trying to alter their behavior."
John P. Walters, who directs the office, said such testing should be done to get help for students, not to punish them.
"The goal is to say we believe we can do a better job of making kids healthy," he said.
It strongly cautions against suspending or expelling students without treating them, noting that expulsion can create "drug-using dropouts," an even bigger problem.
Considering this goes against the policies of a large number of 'zero-tolerance' school districts across the nation, this is a refreshingly clearheaded look at drug use coming from the federal government. Three cheers for the Bush administration!
New guidelines issued by the Office of National Drug Control Policy for schools are strongly recommending against suspending or expelling student caught using drugs. (from the Washington Post)
Issued Thursday by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the guide says the aim of drug testing "is not to trap and punish students who use drugs. It is, in fact, counterproductive simply to punish them without trying to alter their behavior."
John P. Walters, who directs the office, said such testing should be done to get help for students, not to punish them.
"The goal is to say we believe we can do a better job of making kids healthy," he said.
It strongly cautions against suspending or expelling students without treating them, noting that expulsion can create "drug-using dropouts," an even bigger problem.
Considering this goes against the policies of a large number of 'zero-tolerance' school districts across the nation, this is a refreshingly clearheaded look at drug use coming from the federal government. Three cheers for the Bush administration!
Wednesday, August 28, 2002
Eugene Breaks It Down
In another in a long line of beautifully written posts, Eugene breaks down the anti-Iraq-war argument to its root form. It has the ring of truth to me.
In another in a long line of beautifully written posts, Eugene breaks down the anti-Iraq-war argument to its root form. It has the ring of truth to me.
I Like Lileks
Everyone seems to be linking to James Lileks' latest screed. And with good reason. All of Lileks' screeds are worth reading, but this one deserves extra attention. In particular, my favorite passage reads:
"Wealth also appears to reduce our capacity to act. Our reliance upon technology supplants our reliance upon ourselves and other people."
"You have to say this for the chap: once he gets the old Fatuity Extruder up and running, it produces a bumper crop. Yes, my reliance on my car supplants my need for a coolie to run me to work. My reliance upon my computer supplants my need to amble down to the foolscap store for paper, ink and quail feathers, during which I would have many Meaningful Interactions with my fellow man. My reliance on modern medicine means that I do not have to summon the entire village to form an anti-hex circle around my cardboard box to keep the devils out. My reliance upon the grocery store, with its angry chuffing refrigeration units and Gaia-soiling trucks idling at the loading dock means I do not have to rely on the bonny prince to permit me to farm my meager plot and keep enough to feed my scrawny shite-footed children. My reliance on electrical power means I do not have to trundle to the bog and gather peat."
Follow the link, read the whole thing, and when you're done with this one, read the others too. They're all worth the time.
Everyone seems to be linking to James Lileks' latest screed. And with good reason. All of Lileks' screeds are worth reading, but this one deserves extra attention. In particular, my favorite passage reads:
"Wealth also appears to reduce our capacity to act. Our reliance upon technology supplants our reliance upon ourselves and other people."
"You have to say this for the chap: once he gets the old Fatuity Extruder up and running, it produces a bumper crop. Yes, my reliance on my car supplants my need for a coolie to run me to work. My reliance upon my computer supplants my need to amble down to the foolscap store for paper, ink and quail feathers, during which I would have many Meaningful Interactions with my fellow man. My reliance on modern medicine means that I do not have to summon the entire village to form an anti-hex circle around my cardboard box to keep the devils out. My reliance upon the grocery store, with its angry chuffing refrigeration units and Gaia-soiling trucks idling at the loading dock means I do not have to rely on the bonny prince to permit me to farm my meager plot and keep enough to feed my scrawny shite-footed children. My reliance on electrical power means I do not have to trundle to the bog and gather peat."
Follow the link, read the whole thing, and when you're done with this one, read the others too. They're all worth the time.
Tuesday, August 27, 2002
K K K Brownies in the Wal Mart
Or should I call them whities? In any case, some sneaky little elf-like folks in their pointy little white hoodies have been hiding their supremacist literature in Wal Mart products. Those mischevious little white supremacist brownies!
Or should I call them whities? In any case, some sneaky little elf-like folks in their pointy little white hoodies have been hiding their supremacist literature in Wal Mart products. Those mischevious little white supremacist brownies!
Ain't Nobody's Business But Your Own
I've never been one to change my opinion just because everyone else thinks differently, nor have I been one to keep an opinion soley because 'everyone else thinks so'. It is, however, nice when people agree with me. This piece by Walter Williams, titled "Whose Business Is It?" does exactly that. I particularly liked this McNugget of truth:
Should the fact that if I become injured by not wearing a seatbelt or sick from eating and smoking too much, and become a burden on taxpayers, determine whether I'm free to not wear a seatbelt or puff cigarettes and gorge myself? Is there a problem with freedom? I say no, it's a problem of socialism. There is absolutely no moral case for government's taking another American's earnings, through taxes, to care for me for any reason whatsoever. Doing so is simply a slightly less offensive form of slavery. Keep in mind that the essence of slavery is the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes or benefit of another.
Yep, that's right. Only in a socialist society does this sort of problem arise. The Supreme Court has long held that it is perfectly okay for Congress to regulate that which it funds. Well if Congress (through their ridiculous taxes) decides to fund our health, guess what? They get to regulate our life. And it sounds like there are people out there who want Congress to do exactly that.
I've never been one to change my opinion just because everyone else thinks differently, nor have I been one to keep an opinion soley because 'everyone else thinks so'. It is, however, nice when people agree with me. This piece by Walter Williams, titled "Whose Business Is It?" does exactly that. I particularly liked this McNugget of truth:
Should the fact that if I become injured by not wearing a seatbelt or sick from eating and smoking too much, and become a burden on taxpayers, determine whether I'm free to not wear a seatbelt or puff cigarettes and gorge myself? Is there a problem with freedom? I say no, it's a problem of socialism. There is absolutely no moral case for government's taking another American's earnings, through taxes, to care for me for any reason whatsoever. Doing so is simply a slightly less offensive form of slavery. Keep in mind that the essence of slavery is the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes or benefit of another.
Yep, that's right. Only in a socialist society does this sort of problem arise. The Supreme Court has long held that it is perfectly okay for Congress to regulate that which it funds. Well if Congress (through their ridiculous taxes) decides to fund our health, guess what? They get to regulate our life. And it sounds like there are people out there who want Congress to do exactly that.
Monday, August 26, 2002
This is why I said it was a bad idea...
Shortly after the Sept 11th attacks, when folks were debating compensation (and the level of compensation) for victims and relatives of victims of the attacks, I argued against it. I can't prove that, since I wasn't blogging back then, but one of the main points I made was:
We never did this for anyone else, why should we do it now? And if we do it now, does this mean that from now on, any victims of a major disaster have hit the jackpot? Do we really want to claim fiscal responsibility for someone else's terrorist attack? Doing so will only lead to like requests being made in the future, and it will only make past victims mad.
Well I was right. Nyah nyah nyah.
I'm sure any victim of the Murrah building bombing is just as worthy of financial compensation as any of the victims of the September 11th attacks. I just don't think that either really deserve government compensation, any more than someone who gets cancer, or gets in a car accident, or gets mugged. The government doesn't owe you a happy life, free from pain or terror. The government owes it to us to stomp our enemies, and keep them from doing this again.
Shortly after the Sept 11th attacks, when folks were debating compensation (and the level of compensation) for victims and relatives of victims of the attacks, I argued against it. I can't prove that, since I wasn't blogging back then, but one of the main points I made was:
We never did this for anyone else, why should we do it now? And if we do it now, does this mean that from now on, any victims of a major disaster have hit the jackpot? Do we really want to claim fiscal responsibility for someone else's terrorist attack? Doing so will only lead to like requests being made in the future, and it will only make past victims mad.
Well I was right. Nyah nyah nyah.
I'm sure any victim of the Murrah building bombing is just as worthy of financial compensation as any of the victims of the September 11th attacks. I just don't think that either really deserve government compensation, any more than someone who gets cancer, or gets in a car accident, or gets mugged. The government doesn't owe you a happy life, free from pain or terror. The government owes it to us to stomp our enemies, and keep them from doing this again.
Sloppy Reporting: More Dangerous To Your Health Than Soda
The Nanny's are at it again in the land of the loonies. Los Angeles is currently contemplating banning the sale of soft drinks at middle and high schools, in addition to the ban they already passed on the sale of soft drinks in elementary schools, which will take effect in 2004.
This is old news, in the sense that people have been demonizing soft drinks for a while now, and the movement to ban the sale of soda to children has been gaining steam. See the Center for Consumer Freedom's section on Soda: Hop On Pop.
So why bother posting on it? Because sloppy reporters only further this sort of Nanny mindset, by not bothering to report the facts, and not bothering to back up their more outlandish claims by producing any facts. Read the CCF's comments on the Soda wars, and then read the below paragraph from this article in the Washington Post:
"Childhood obesity is causing increasing concern among health professionals, and soft drinks share the blame. Fourteen percent of children ages 6 through 19 are classified as obese or overweight, almost three times as many as in the 1960s."
This statement is made without qualification, without pointing to any studies that back it up, and without prefacing it as any sort of opinion. In other words, this reporter Erica Werner, from the AP, is stating fantasy as fact. I could be kind and suggest that she's just too intellectually lazy to bother researching the CSPI press releases she uncritically regurgitates, but lazy reporting sucks, and so I don't think she deserves kindness.
The Nanny's are at it again in the land of the loonies. Los Angeles is currently contemplating banning the sale of soft drinks at middle and high schools, in addition to the ban they already passed on the sale of soft drinks in elementary schools, which will take effect in 2004.
This is old news, in the sense that people have been demonizing soft drinks for a while now, and the movement to ban the sale of soda to children has been gaining steam. See the Center for Consumer Freedom's section on Soda: Hop On Pop.
So why bother posting on it? Because sloppy reporters only further this sort of Nanny mindset, by not bothering to report the facts, and not bothering to back up their more outlandish claims by producing any facts. Read the CCF's comments on the Soda wars, and then read the below paragraph from this article in the Washington Post:
"Childhood obesity is causing increasing concern among health professionals, and soft drinks share the blame. Fourteen percent of children ages 6 through 19 are classified as obese or overweight, almost three times as many as in the 1960s."
This statement is made without qualification, without pointing to any studies that back it up, and without prefacing it as any sort of opinion. In other words, this reporter Erica Werner, from the AP, is stating fantasy as fact. I could be kind and suggest that she's just too intellectually lazy to bother researching the CSPI press releases she uncritically regurgitates, but lazy reporting sucks, and so I don't think she deserves kindness.
Jackbooted Thugs revisited...
Okay, yeah, I know it was the BATF that got called a bunch of jack-booted thugs, and they rightfully deserved it. The FBI should have it tattooed on their foreheads though, as this piece in TalkLeft about the wrongful conviction of Salvati makes clear.
We no longer can trust our government or law enforcement agencies to protect us. We can no longer depend on the presumption of innocence. Nor does actual innocence protect you from the ravages of the law.
Joseph Salvati, Steven Hatfill, Wen Ho Lee, Richard Jewell, David Koresh, Randy Weaver, and every other person who has been targeted by our justice (with a small J) department for the wrong reasons, especially to protect beaureaucratic posteriers, my heart goes out to you.
If everyone gets what they deserve in Hell, Hoover and the rest of the FBI will be spending all eternity trying to tread water in a 12 foot deep sea of shit. With sharks in it. And swarms of mosquitoes and big black flies. And its hot. Good luck boys.
Okay, yeah, I know it was the BATF that got called a bunch of jack-booted thugs, and they rightfully deserved it. The FBI should have it tattooed on their foreheads though, as this piece in TalkLeft about the wrongful conviction of Salvati makes clear.
We no longer can trust our government or law enforcement agencies to protect us. We can no longer depend on the presumption of innocence. Nor does actual innocence protect you from the ravages of the law.
Joseph Salvati, Steven Hatfill, Wen Ho Lee, Richard Jewell, David Koresh, Randy Weaver, and every other person who has been targeted by our justice (with a small J) department for the wrong reasons, especially to protect beaureaucratic posteriers, my heart goes out to you.
If everyone gets what they deserve in Hell, Hoover and the rest of the FBI will be spending all eternity trying to tread water in a 12 foot deep sea of shit. With sharks in it. And swarms of mosquitoes and big black flies. And its hot. Good luck boys.
Saturday, August 24, 2002
Swift Poetic Justice
Charles Johnson was kind enough to post this lovely piece by Claire Berlinski. It's worth reading by anyone...fans of Swift or not.
Charles Johnson was kind enough to post this lovely piece by Claire Berlinski. It's worth reading by anyone...fans of Swift or not.
Tuesday, August 20, 2002
You mean I can't trust the government?
Instapundit links to an excellent article in TechCentralStation that makes the rather obvious point that, while obesity levels may be rising, a lot of the blame can be laid at the feet of the government and their food pyramid. They have, after all, been telling us to eat lots of starchy high-carb foods for years... despite evidence that that's an excellent way to make you fat.
Instapundit links to an excellent article in TechCentralStation that makes the rather obvious point that, while obesity levels may be rising, a lot of the blame can be laid at the feet of the government and their food pyramid. They have, after all, been telling us to eat lots of starchy high-carb foods for years... despite evidence that that's an excellent way to make you fat.
Garbagemen in defense of Good Taste
California will never cease to amaze me. My sister used to try to talk me into moving out there with her, (thankfully she's switched coasts, and now wants me to move to Florida) but I always declined. There must be something in the water. Or maybe living on a huge fault line does something to your psyche. But when garbage men have to explain to the state that putting a sticker saying "don't throw your baby away" is in poor taste, you know the state has truly lost its sanity.
Letting women know that there is a way for them to surrender their unwanted children with no legal consequences may be a decent and noble goal; hopefully it will reduce the number of infanticides. However, there are much better ways to get the word out than to paste such tacky stickers all over the city's dumpsters. If we're going to do that, maybe as a public service announcement we could also force all girls under the age of 18 to wear signs saying "please don't knock me up and leave me to face the consequences on my own, or rape me, or otherwise abuse me." We'd be getting closer to the source of the problem, after all.
California will never cease to amaze me. My sister used to try to talk me into moving out there with her, (thankfully she's switched coasts, and now wants me to move to Florida) but I always declined. There must be something in the water. Or maybe living on a huge fault line does something to your psyche. But when garbage men have to explain to the state that putting a sticker saying "don't throw your baby away" is in poor taste, you know the state has truly lost its sanity.
Letting women know that there is a way for them to surrender their unwanted children with no legal consequences may be a decent and noble goal; hopefully it will reduce the number of infanticides. However, there are much better ways to get the word out than to paste such tacky stickers all over the city's dumpsters. If we're going to do that, maybe as a public service announcement we could also force all girls under the age of 18 to wear signs saying "please don't knock me up and leave me to face the consequences on my own, or rape me, or otherwise abuse me." We'd be getting closer to the source of the problem, after all.
Monday, August 19, 2002
Win some, you lose some...
The students at UNC Chapel Hill who objected to being assigned a study of islam have lost their suit. The summer reading class will be allowed to stand.
Well, you win some, you lose some... and I'd be more upset, but the above article states something that previously wasn't pointed out in any of the news accounts I've seen before: this isn't actually a graded assignment. You can ignore it completely if you wish, it won't hurt you. Therefore, even if the college is saying its required, since it doesn't hurt you to ignore it, and there's already an alternative assignment for you, I no longer care. Students' religious freedom seems to be adequately protected in this instance.
I just hope there are a couple of folks in those study discussions who will actually speak straight, and start a good debate.
The students at UNC Chapel Hill who objected to being assigned a study of islam have lost their suit. The summer reading class will be allowed to stand.
Well, you win some, you lose some... and I'd be more upset, but the above article states something that previously wasn't pointed out in any of the news accounts I've seen before: this isn't actually a graded assignment. You can ignore it completely if you wish, it won't hurt you. Therefore, even if the college is saying its required, since it doesn't hurt you to ignore it, and there's already an alternative assignment for you, I no longer care. Students' religious freedom seems to be adequately protected in this instance.
I just hope there are a couple of folks in those study discussions who will actually speak straight, and start a good debate.
Crazy women with knives...
I pulled this article titled Apology For Death of Schizophrenic off of the Washington Post this morning, and it just really ticks me off. A certified lunatic is allowed by her family to wander the streets, unmedicated. She steals a shopping cart, and the police are called in, because she's threatening the grocery store employees with an eight inch knife. The police attempt non-lethal force, so the crazy bitch moves to throw the knife at one of the cops. So they shoot her. Gee wiz, sorry she's dead, but its your own damn fault.
If someone is crazy, and wielding a knife, they're more dangerous than someone who is sane, and wielding a knife. You can't reason too well with a nutjob, after all. If you know one of your relatives in your care is crazy, and refuses to take medication, then watch her, goddamn it. Allowing a dangerous crazy woman to roam the streets unsupervised is gross negligence on your part, and shows a distinct lack of concern for both the safety of said crazy woman, and innocent bystanders.
So this family has filed a 25 million dollar lawsuit against the police department for this woman's death, even though the shooting was ruled justified, and the officers will not face any charges. I say the police department should counter-sue for gross negligence, elder-abuse, abuse of the insane, and keeping a public safety hazard. I have zero sympathy with this womans family whatsoever, having had to deal with a paranoid psychotic in my own. You take care of your own.
I pulled this article titled Apology For Death of Schizophrenic off of the Washington Post this morning, and it just really ticks me off. A certified lunatic is allowed by her family to wander the streets, unmedicated. She steals a shopping cart, and the police are called in, because she's threatening the grocery store employees with an eight inch knife. The police attempt non-lethal force, so the crazy bitch moves to throw the knife at one of the cops. So they shoot her. Gee wiz, sorry she's dead, but its your own damn fault.
If someone is crazy, and wielding a knife, they're more dangerous than someone who is sane, and wielding a knife. You can't reason too well with a nutjob, after all. If you know one of your relatives in your care is crazy, and refuses to take medication, then watch her, goddamn it. Allowing a dangerous crazy woman to roam the streets unsupervised is gross negligence on your part, and shows a distinct lack of concern for both the safety of said crazy woman, and innocent bystanders.
So this family has filed a 25 million dollar lawsuit against the police department for this woman's death, even though the shooting was ruled justified, and the officers will not face any charges. I say the police department should counter-sue for gross negligence, elder-abuse, abuse of the insane, and keeping a public safety hazard. I have zero sympathy with this womans family whatsoever, having had to deal with a paranoid psychotic in my own. You take care of your own.