Wednesday, July 30, 2008
FYI: Hispanic isn't a race, it's an ethnicity.
As most of you know I rarely rant on my blog, but earlier today someone tried to argue with me that the Hispanic identifier is about race, nothing else. This person is clearly wrong and should have gotten a kick in the balls but since I was at work I couldn't do that. Plus the person in question has a PhD so they can be stupid and get away with it.
Anyhow, it's possible to be Hispanic and 100% Caucasian. The Hispanic identifier only means that you come from a Spanish-speaking culture and has nothing to do with race. As the link in the title shows the U.S. government specifically defines "Hispanic", basically, as "native Spanish-speaking, regardless of race". There are a lot of Caucasians in Latin American and Spain who are native Spanish speakers, so the U.S. Government and it's census term was specifically designed to include them. It is NOT a racial term, period. It often gets USED that way, because a large portion of the Hispanic population is Mexican, Central American, etc. But people who use it that way are using it incorrectly.
Anyhow, it's possible to be Hispanic and 100% Caucasian. The Hispanic identifier only means that you come from a Spanish-speaking culture and has nothing to do with race. As the link in the title shows the U.S. government specifically defines "Hispanic", basically, as "native Spanish-speaking, regardless of race". There are a lot of Caucasians in Latin American and Spain who are native Spanish speakers, so the U.S. Government and it's census term was specifically designed to include them. It is NOT a racial term, period. It often gets USED that way, because a large portion of the Hispanic population is Mexican, Central American, etc. But people who use it that way are using it incorrectly.
EU at its worse: Does this make sense to you?
European Union rules are forcing bus riders to switch buses numerous times during trips that often aren't very long. The rules say that drivers can drive no more than 31 miles. Once they reach that limit, they must pull over and wait for a replacement. Drivers can drive more than 31 miles only if they are then given two straight days off.
Government at its best
Agents from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms knocked in the front door of Philomaine Silvain's South Florida home at around 11:30 one night. They broke the windows by firing tear gas canisters through them. Only after they frightened everyone inside did the officers realize they were at the wrong address. The house they were supposed to raid was a block away.
Oklahoma Sheriff Gone Wild
Custer County, Oklahoma, Sheriff Michael Burgess resigned after he was charged with 35 felony counts, including 14 counts of rape. Burgess was accused of, among other things, forcing women in a drug court program to have sex with him, groping a female deputy, and running wet T-shirt contests in the county jail.
Muslim Customs Entering into English Society
Staff at a public swimming pool in London, England, twice turned David Toube and his son away on Sundays, telling them the pool was open only to Muslims on those days. The Hackney Council, which runs the pool, says staff members made a mistake. But The Daily Mail reports that the Muslim-only swimming Sunday swimming sessions were advertised on the council's Web site.
Got to love the Olympic Games!
Chinese police arrested Huang Qi after he posted an article on his website about the shoddy construction of government schools and the role it may have played in the deaths of thousands of children in the Sichuan earthquake. He is being held on charges of illegal possession of state secrets. The Washington Post reports that Huang is among dozens of activists and lawyers the government has detained, arrested or otherwise harassed in preparation for the Olympic Games.
D.C. Education and Idiot Democrats
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) intends to terminate Washington, D.C.'s federal school voucher program, even though those vouchers are paid through a separate fund that takes no money at all from D.C.'s public schools (which already spend $10,000 more per pupil per year than the city's private schools). Del. Holmes Norton says the program undermines the public schools. Given that the program takes no money from the city's already bloated public schools, isn't it only "undermining" the public schools if D.C. parents choose not to send their kids to them? And if that's the case, isn't that an indication that they aren't happy with the schools' performance?
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Thoughts on the Sexual Revolution and Frigid Woman
Whatever became of the Frigid Woman? Along with the infantile paralytic and the thalidomide baby, that female eunuch once haunted the American landscape; a walking, joyless rebuke to our unhealthy, uncaring, medically and morally primitive society.
Unlike those other two, it's not clear the Frigid Woman, defined by her inability to attain orgasm, ever really existed, or if so in what numbers, or even from what she was suffering. It could have been hysteria, penis envy, or some form of psychosomatic vaginosis; or maybe it was just the accumulated guilt and uptightness brought on by tens of thousands of years of the whole hung-up, Apollonian, unfreaky, blue-nosed, Judeo-Christian, puritanical establishment.
Then suddenly, suspiciously close to the time the sexual revolution peaked, the Frigid Woman vanished. Along with nymphomania and the virgin/whore complex, her disease no longer existed, another relic from the ungroovy dark ages. Was she cured by the no-strings, gettin' down, good-vibrating, out-front love fest of the late sixties and early seventies? Or did she cure herself through a reaction to that love fest, by fighting off the open-shirted horndog males unleashed by the sexual revolution?My explanation is that the sexual revolution contained both new vistas of freedom and the seeds of its own undoing. For all that loosening up ultimately contained just more male insistence, a sense that the real problem with society was that women just weren't putting out enough! The journey to sexual liberation was sold as a step forward for women, but it was also a clever way to eliminate the option of saying no. And while "frigidity" was a phenomenon that had been discussed for decades, it reached crash velocity just when the promise of balling your way through to the other side seemed believable. It turned out women weren't having a problem achieving orgasm at all: They just couldn't do it with you.
What's left of that heady experience, particularly for those of us born too late to get in on the action the first time around? You could say the journey has been completed in the Housewives and the City entertainment genre of frank and sexually free women. You can find the evidence all over the bestseller lists—novels full of breathless detail about Manolo shoes, Pilates-toned figures, fiery redheads, cussing bitches with hearts of gold, lovely Korean-American gal pals, arrogant but sexy assholes, and giggly revelations over white wine.
It's hard not to think there's something missing in this age of freedom. The original sexual revolution may have ended in plenty of bad humping with stinky hippies and gold-chained Lotharios, but there was romance in the search for a new consciousness, and in the naive idea that you could get there by fucking. Is the idea totally dead? How could such a beautiful notion not live on? Maybe what these modern, catty, gossipy chicks really need is a man who can take them to the next level, make them feel the way a woman's meant to feel. Your place or mine?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The Supreme Court and the polity
In a celebrated 1958 lecture delivered at Harvard University, federal appeals court judge and noted legal scholar Learned Hand famously likened the United States Supreme Court to a "bevy of Platonic Guardians," an untouchable elite whose growing influence threatened to undermine the separation of powers and compromise the very idea of democratic rule. "When I go to the polls," Hand observed, "I have a satisfaction in the sense that we are all engaged in a common venture." Were the Supreme Court to have the final say on every political question, "I should miss the stimulus of living in a society where I have, at least theoretically, some part in the direction of public affairs."
Fast-forward half a century to the recent conclusion of the Court's 2007-2008 term, and you'll find Hand's complaint is still alive and well on both sides of the aisle. For instance, former Republican Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) responded to Boumediene v. Bush, which recognized habeas corpus rights for prisoners held as enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, by arguing that the Court "has declared itself the final authority on making war, incarcerating enemy combatants, and, indeed, on the American people's right to self-government." In short, "this is not judicial activism. It is judicial tyranny."
Though he employed a necessarily lighter touch, Chief Justice John Roberts took much the same line, criticizing the Boumediene majority in his dissent for needlessly and arrogantly substituting its "unelected, politically unaccountable" views for those of "the people's representatives." According to Roberts, "one cannot help but think...that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants."
On the other side of the ideological divide, Justice John Paul Stevens was busy chastising the Court's conservatives for entering the "political thicket" of gun control in District of Columbia v. Heller, where the majority struck down Washington, D.C.'s sweeping handgun ban and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, a decision that Stevens found deeply troubling. "No one has suggested that the political process is not working exactly as it should," he wrote, employing language long associated with the case against judicial activism. "It is, however, clear to me, that adherence to a policy of judicial restraint would be far wiser than the bold decision announced today."
As it happens, Roberts and Stevens each have a valid point. In both the habeas corpus and Second Amendment decisions, the Supreme Court did nullify popularly enacted legislation, overruling the expressly stated preferences of lawful representatives and other public officials. And it's a good thing that the Court did. With the Bush administration asserting the "inherent" authority to wage war and detain certain prisoners indefinitely without trial, and with Congress apparently more than willing to cede these and other war powers to the executive branch, it was the Court's basic constitutional duty to act as a check against such abuse.
By the same token, with Washington, D.C.'s notoriously inept local government perfectly willing to leave law-abiding residents unarmed and thus unable to defend their own homes, the job of restoring the Second Amendment's lost liberties necessarily fell to the judiciary. In both cases, the Court simply undertook what James Madison had in mind when he described the judicial branch as "an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive." Judges, in other words, are supposed to strike down unconstitutional laws and to discipline overreaching officials. That's true whether such laws are popular with a majority of people or not. And dangerous laws only get worse when they're embraced by the population.
If anything, the courts today should be striking down far more laws than they do. Indeed, if there is one common thread to the Supreme Court's history, it's the fact that its worst decisions have centered on deference to government action, not on hostility to the will of the majority. For instance, there was Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), where the Court upheld Louisiana's Jim Crow railroad regulations; Korematsu v. United States (1944), where the Court upheld Franklin Roosevelt's wartime internment of Japanese Americans; and Kelo v. City of New London (2005), where the majority upheld that Connecticut municipality's abuse of its eminent domain powers. A little judicial activism in such cases would have gone a long way towards protecting individual liberty.
Which brings us back to the present. One of the most important things to take away from the Court's most recent term, evident in decisions ranging from Boumediene and Heller to Davis v. Federal Communications Commission, where the majority struck down parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act for restricting political speech, is that the vigorous use of judicial review isn't just legitimate, it's necessary to help safeguard our rights.
Fast-forward half a century to the recent conclusion of the Court's 2007-2008 term, and you'll find Hand's complaint is still alive and well on both sides of the aisle. For instance, former Republican Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) responded to Boumediene v. Bush, which recognized habeas corpus rights for prisoners held as enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, by arguing that the Court "has declared itself the final authority on making war, incarcerating enemy combatants, and, indeed, on the American people's right to self-government." In short, "this is not judicial activism. It is judicial tyranny."
Though he employed a necessarily lighter touch, Chief Justice John Roberts took much the same line, criticizing the Boumediene majority in his dissent for needlessly and arrogantly substituting its "unelected, politically unaccountable" views for those of "the people's representatives." According to Roberts, "one cannot help but think...that this decision is not really about the detainees at all, but about control of federal policy regarding enemy combatants."
On the other side of the ideological divide, Justice John Paul Stevens was busy chastising the Court's conservatives for entering the "political thicket" of gun control in District of Columbia v. Heller, where the majority struck down Washington, D.C.'s sweeping handgun ban and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, a decision that Stevens found deeply troubling. "No one has suggested that the political process is not working exactly as it should," he wrote, employing language long associated with the case against judicial activism. "It is, however, clear to me, that adherence to a policy of judicial restraint would be far wiser than the bold decision announced today."
As it happens, Roberts and Stevens each have a valid point. In both the habeas corpus and Second Amendment decisions, the Supreme Court did nullify popularly enacted legislation, overruling the expressly stated preferences of lawful representatives and other public officials. And it's a good thing that the Court did. With the Bush administration asserting the "inherent" authority to wage war and detain certain prisoners indefinitely without trial, and with Congress apparently more than willing to cede these and other war powers to the executive branch, it was the Court's basic constitutional duty to act as a check against such abuse.
By the same token, with Washington, D.C.'s notoriously inept local government perfectly willing to leave law-abiding residents unarmed and thus unable to defend their own homes, the job of restoring the Second Amendment's lost liberties necessarily fell to the judiciary. In both cases, the Court simply undertook what James Madison had in mind when he described the judicial branch as "an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive." Judges, in other words, are supposed to strike down unconstitutional laws and to discipline overreaching officials. That's true whether such laws are popular with a majority of people or not. And dangerous laws only get worse when they're embraced by the population.
If anything, the courts today should be striking down far more laws than they do. Indeed, if there is one common thread to the Supreme Court's history, it's the fact that its worst decisions have centered on deference to government action, not on hostility to the will of the majority. For instance, there was Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), where the Court upheld Louisiana's Jim Crow railroad regulations; Korematsu v. United States (1944), where the Court upheld Franklin Roosevelt's wartime internment of Japanese Americans; and Kelo v. City of New London (2005), where the majority upheld that Connecticut municipality's abuse of its eminent domain powers. A little judicial activism in such cases would have gone a long way towards protecting individual liberty.
Which brings us back to the present. One of the most important things to take away from the Court's most recent term, evident in decisions ranging from Boumediene and Heller to Davis v. Federal Communications Commission, where the majority struck down parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act for restricting political speech, is that the vigorous use of judicial review isn't just legitimate, it's necessary to help safeguard our rights.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Deep Thoughts
I read an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association one time that said girls with implants are 30 percent more likely to be promiscuous. Except replace the word "read" with the words "saw a picture", and the word "Journal of the American Medical Association" with the word "Juggs." In hindsight it was less of an article about a study, and more of some pictures of this chick with huge awesome tits and me just assuming she was a whore. I can't remember where I was going with this so just look at the picture.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Some Random Thoughts on Global Warming
Even if everyone acknowledges that global warming is man made, the proposed solutions won't make a material difference. They are the equivalent of throwing virgins into a volcano. Of course, some people like to see the virgins burn
Take it from the high priest himself, Al Gore. He says unless we cut carbon emissions worldwide by 90%, we are going to reach the "tipping point" and disaster is coming....Well, face facts. There is no way the world is cutting 90%, 50% or anything approaching what the alarmists all claim is necessary to prevent all the horrible consequences.
So if you believe Al Gore (and why wouldn't you?) then you must conclude that our money is much better spent on addressing the inevitable consequences of global warming, like relocating people from the coasts, developing reserviors and dams for newly drought stricken regions, cultivating newly fertile regions of the world, etc.
If I lived in Phoenix Arizona, and the weatherman tells me that the sun is coming up tomorrow and it's going to make it really hot, do I spend my money on trying to find a way to stop prevent the sun from coming up, or do I spend my money to buy a fan?
Take it from the high priest himself, Al Gore. He says unless we cut carbon emissions worldwide by 90%, we are going to reach the "tipping point" and disaster is coming....Well, face facts. There is no way the world is cutting 90%, 50% or anything approaching what the alarmists all claim is necessary to prevent all the horrible consequences.
So if you believe Al Gore (and why wouldn't you?) then you must conclude that our money is much better spent on addressing the inevitable consequences of global warming, like relocating people from the coasts, developing reserviors and dams for newly drought stricken regions, cultivating newly fertile regions of the world, etc.
If I lived in Phoenix Arizona, and the weatherman tells me that the sun is coming up tomorrow and it's going to make it really hot, do I spend my money on trying to find a way to stop prevent the sun from coming up, or do I spend my money to buy a fan?
Great News!!
I found a local prostitute who charges by the inch.
Obviously, I can’t afford her but I thought it would be a cheap night for you.
Obviously, I can’t afford her but I thought it would be a cheap night for you.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Looks like someone has problems
July 7, 2008
Gentlemen,
I have been riding trains daily for the last two years, and the service on your line seems to be getting worse every day. I am tired of standing in the aisle all the time on a 14-mile trip.
I think the transportation system is worse than that enjoyed by people 2,000 years ago.
Yours truly,
Patrick Finnegan
******************
Dear Mr. Finnegan,
We received your letter with reference to the shortcomings of our service and believe you are somewhat confused in your history.
The only mode of transportation 2,000 years ago was by foot.
Sincerely,
Irish Rail
*******************
Gentlemen,
I am in receipt of your letter, and I think you are the ones who are confused in your history.
If you will refer to the Bible, Book of David, 9th Chapter, you will find that Balaam rode to town on his ass.
That, gentlemen, is something I have not been able to do on your train in the last two years!
Yours truly,
Patrick Finnegan
Ahhh, the beauty of young love!
This is a video of two broken hearted lovers. I don't know what gets to me more...the moment the guy goes into his own apartment and finds his girlfriend tied-up in bed with not one but two girls dressed as construction workers with caution tape around his four poster bed or the fact that Romeo and Juliet reconcile with this classic exchange:
Her: "What do you think?"
Him: "I guess if this is what you are into ... I don't know what I think. It is going to take me a little bit of time."
Her: "How do you tell someone...?"
Him: "Just say it."
Her: "I want you to dress-up like a construction worker and fuck me in the ass."
Her: "What do you think?"
Him: "I guess if this is what you are into ... I don't know what I think. It is going to take me a little bit of time."
Her: "How do you tell someone...?"
Him: "Just say it."
Her: "I want you to dress-up like a construction worker and fuck me in the ass."
True Story
Wife to Hubby: You never take me anywhere expensive anymore.
Husband: Get your coat and get in the car
Wife excitedly says: Where you taking me?
Husband: The fucking gas station.
Husband: Get your coat and get in the car
Wife excitedly says: Where you taking me?
Husband: The fucking gas station.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Crazy Sex Laws
1. Oral sex is illegal in 18 states, including Arizona.
2. In Virginia, it is illegal to have sex with the lights on.
3. It is illegal for husbands in Willowdale, Oregon, to talk dirty during intercourse.
4. Sexual intercourse between unmarried couples is illegal in Georgia.
5. Engaging in any sexual position other than missionary is illegal in Washington, DC.
6. In Connorsville, Wisconsin, it is illegal for a man to shoot off a gun when his female partner is having an orgasm.
7. In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, it is illegal to have sex with a truck driver inside a toll booth.
8. Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal in Florida.
9. It is illegal in Utah to marry your first cousin before the age of 65.
10. Sex with animals is perfectly legal for men in Washington state, as long as the animal weighs less than 40 pounds.
2. In Virginia, it is illegal to have sex with the lights on.
3. It is illegal for husbands in Willowdale, Oregon, to talk dirty during intercourse.
4. Sexual intercourse between unmarried couples is illegal in Georgia.
5. Engaging in any sexual position other than missionary is illegal in Washington, DC.
6. In Connorsville, Wisconsin, it is illegal for a man to shoot off a gun when his female partner is having an orgasm.
7. In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, it is illegal to have sex with a truck driver inside a toll booth.
8. Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal in Florida.
9. It is illegal in Utah to marry your first cousin before the age of 65.
10. Sex with animals is perfectly legal for men in Washington state, as long as the animal weighs less than 40 pounds.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)