Hobby Lobby and its new Dominatrix hobby.....

So between allergies and smashing up my hand (merry Christmas to me) I havnt been able to write as many of these as I want. Hopefully that ends now. So I guess we will kick off my big return ( :p ) with something that SHOULD be a blast from the past, but sadly isnt.

Anyone ever heard of the "Hobby Lobby"? My guess is knowing at least several of my friends read this and all of my friends are nerds and/or geeks (like me) I assume many of you do. If you dont, the name is pretty self explanatory.

Well anyways it turns out the Hobby Lobby has a message for the United States Supreme Court.....go fuck yourself.

Let me explain: Last year the Obama administration passed something called "a contraception mandate" Basically what it says is that the health insurance you get though your job has to cover female contraception.

And not to shockingly many religious people who own companies are complaining that its totally unfair that the government gives you the OPTION of swallowing something (like say a Pill) instead of deep-throating the owners personal religious belief (which has to be the WORST Penis allusion ever, but hey work with me here). And this group of religious owners includes the Hobby Lobby.

So they sued to stop the government from allowing YOU to have affordable contraception, because it violates their religious beliefs. See apparently the 11th commandment states "Thou shalt place in thy mouth only what thy employer wants there". As a side note, I've heard thats the usual rule about quick promotions as well....

Now look heres the thing,  I think most people can figure out my personal stand on this based on the jokes made thus far. But I also respect that Hobby Lobby has the right to sue to try to change the law. So thats not my problem.

But they lost. So they appealed to the Supreme Court. And to be honest, the Supreme Court moves quickly....just like a tortoise. So they asked for an injunction while waiting for the appeal.

An injunction for those who dont speak lawyer, basically means a court action that blocks the law from applying until the legality of the law can be decided. In short, with an injunction the Hobby Lobby wouldnt have to give you a health insurance plan that covers contraception unless/until the SCOTUS (supreme court of the united states) ruled against them later when they heard the appeal.

Now look, I admit something sounds "fishy" about injunctions "the law doesnt apply, unless we say it does later" but I can think of many examples where for non self serving reasons I am in favor of them, so I dont actually have a problem with the request.

BUT (and this I promise is the problem) the SCOTUS DID NOT grant the injunction  So what was the Hobby Lobby's  reply? "Yea well, fuck you, we still wont cover contraception, fuck off"

Now this bothers me on two levels. One is the basic argument in this case specifically. Which basically seems to be "You cant touch my freedom of religion, by forcing me to do something that I believe would make it harder for me to practice my beliefs, but I can totally do it to you" since thats basically what they are saying to their employees

The other level in this. Had Hobby Lobby gotten their injunction they would have quite happily have told the government "yea see I DONT have to give contraception (or anything really, to make this situation neutral) because the SCOTUS said so, so suck on that bitch"

And they rightly would have been furious if the government (or anyone else) said "we see your SCOTUS decision...so what? do it our way". I mean think of it like this, what do you think Hobby Lobby's reaction would be if they win the eventual SCOTUS case and the government says "thats nice. we dont care, we are still saying you have to buy contraception"?

Personally I think you would see wall to wall coverage on all television networks of the "poor" hobby lobby spokesmen, speaking out against this unprecedented violation of the rule of law.......you know, the same rule of law the Hobby Lobby is currently shitting all over.    

And their is another thing here as well, In deference to the need to explain the situation I "short-handed" the Hobby Lobby's objection as being against paying for contraception, but its actually a bit more complex then that. See they dont object to paying for ALL Contraception, just certain kinds, specifically Plan B.

See they claim that Plan B is an abortion. Its not, but hey who needs facts.

Now look, I'm sure their are some insane religious zealots out there who will make some technical BS argument about how Plan B's stopping ovulation and preventing fertilization is an abortion. But the problem for those people is that is also the exact same description of the birth control pills (which Hobby Lobbby claims they will pay for happily). really the main difference is do you take it preemptively or in a larger emergency dose.

But hey size matters (at least thats what my ex told me....and I assume the that's the Hobby Lobby's point as well). And apparently it matters enough that ALL THING including the rule of law, science and facts all come second to size.

I will say this though, I do reluctantly have the give the Hobby Lobby a tad bit of credit, they have said they will not fight the punishment that will come from refusing to obey the court ruling on the injunction  which looks like it will be about 1.3 million dollars a DAY in fines.

Now look I could be wrong, but I think renting a submissive is a much cheaper way to tell someone what to swallow (or not swallow) and when, but I could be wrong......and to be fair being a Dominatrix is a Hobby, so at least the Lobby is living up to its name.

The years most misleading headline.

Honestly I dont like things that proclaim something the "----" of the year, since they will likely be one-upped with something else later, but 5 days left in the year I think I can say it safely in this case that wont be happening.

Which brings us to our most misleading headline of the year: the handful of headlines floating around talking about how "President Obama cuts vacation short  returns to Washington to work on Fiscal cliff deal"

And see heres the thing, those headline are doubly misleading. First I dont really think you can say Obama was "on vacation". While its true he talks his family to Hawaii every year for the Holidays, I should point out that this year, he left the same day as the senate, who like him also ALL went to Hawaii this year. But not for a vacation. All of them, including Obama, VP Biden and a ton of former senators, were in Hawaii for the funeral and memorial of Senator Dan Inouye, the Hawaiian senator who died the other week. Obama even delivered one of the eulogies. And now of course Obama is set to return to DC tomorrow along with the Senate.

Now look I admit I am sure Obama spent Christmas Day in Hawaii with his family, just as I'm sure Mitch McConnell spend it with his family in Kentucky, or Harry Reid with his in Nevada, both having flow out of Hawaii Tuesday night, like every other Senate member, before they all return to DC tonight or tomorrow.  But really the question is, is one and a 1/2 days with your family (and a handful of hours other days when not all the massive amounts of memorial services) really a vacation in the first place?

I say no. I say thats more like "Obama gets a few hours free to see family on Christmas", its not a vacation.

And that brings us to the other misleading part of the headline: the idea that Obama is coming back to Washington to work on the Fiscal Cliff Deal. Because again he's not. I mean after all who would he work with?

Obama cant pass a Fiscal Cliff deal by fiat, and Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution says "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

So to put that in plan English, all tax bills (which the Fiscal Cliff agreement is) MUST by law start in the House.

And as you may have noticed I have mentioned the senate a bunch of times, but I havnt mentioned the House yet.....thats because we dont know where they are.

See after their Plan B bill exploded in their face, the House adjured (or tried to) until....well actually we dont know until when.

At some point today the House is supposed to hold a conference call of leadership, to decide when or even IF the house is going to return to consider legislation.

Now I should point out that in theory the House is in fact in session. See the Constitution also makes it illegal for one house to adjourn without the consent of the other, and the Senate never actually passed the House Adjournment (as they were already in Hawaii, with House approval, for Sen Inoyue's funeral).

So legally the House has never Adjourned, in stead they are holding called a pro forma session, which is basically one poor bastard shows up, gavels in the House (starting the session), and Gavels it out and then goes home (until the next day). Monday's House session for example lasted from 12:00:32 PM until 12:03:36 P.M....a whole 3 minutes and 4 seconds (most of which went into the opening prayer and the pledge of Allegiance. And presumably they will do the same thing today.

And tomorrow as well. See the one thing the House HAS decided on is that no matter what they decide on the conference call today, they WILL NOT be returning to work tomorrow.

And given the usual House pattern of not working friday's or weekends, I doubt they will be back before Monday....which since the year ends Tuesday, basically means they arnt gonna be able to do a damn thing.

Which also means there is no reason for Obama to cut his non vacation short, since there is no possible way he can get a Fiscal Cliff deal. So clearly he cant be working on one.....he's got no one to work with.

What it does mean though is that he can play up the optics of being in Washington (because somehow in the internet age Americans are still stupid enough to think geographic location matters)  and claiming he's working on Cliff deal.....or at least willing to, something the GOP wont look like they are doing.

Which means really he's hoping the optics will give him a better deal after we go off the cliff. And that is all he's doing (and the senate is doing) no matter how somber and serious the completely inccorect headlines are.

We are going off the cliff, and all this is at the moment is a totally transparent political ploy, that the media, mainstream and otherwise has bought into hook line as sinker as they always do with transparent political games.

In otherwords its the media trying to create a story so they have something to do until news actually starts happening again after January 1st (like every year).   

I'm too sexy for a job.

So I think I've figured out why I'm having so much trouble landing a regular job.

It's not that there is a recession on, and that the recession hit men harder.
It's not that I'm a history major, and if you look up worthless degree in the dictionary, theres a picture of my degree.
It's not even that as a full time college student, I didnt want to work a full time job AND have an internship, because I believed in something called sleep (And I know, my mistake right?)

No, it turns out that I just cant find a job because I'm too damn sexy for a job.

No seriously it turns out thats a totally valid reason not to hire or to fire someone.

At least thats's what the supreme court said in Iowa. No seriously, in a 7-0 decision the court ruled that you CAN fire an employee for feeling of "irresistible attraction" by their supervisor.


See in this particular case, this sex pot, who I assume looked like ------>,


had been working for her boss for about 10 years, but in the recent few her boss had starting telling her off about her clothing, saying that "if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing" and telling her about her lack of a sex life  "that's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."

And then of course her bosses wife found out about it. And well you can guess how this went. Turned out it wasn't her bosses fault she was so damn sexy, but they needed to remove the temptation. So they did the logical thing and conferred with a pastor, who agreed that in order to save their marriage the hottie had to go. So they fired her.

And here's the thing that's totally freaking legal according to the all male Iowa supreme court, you see "Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender" so said the Chief Justice.

And mean after all, the bosses employees were all women, no men. As was the new hire who replaced the sex pot. So again to quote the Chief Justice ""The motives behind Dr. Knight terminating Mrs. Nelson were quite clear: He did so to preserve his marriage."

And see that's cool. obviously the fact that you want to fuck me should totally be a reasonable reason for not hiring me. (which I guess means I should be flattered about all those job interviews that end in me not getting hired.....although then again most of my interviewers were male and I'm straight. But hey at least someone can see my sexiness)

Oh and btw, this is NOT a one off occurrence.

In New Jersery, a woman was fired by her Orthodox Jewish employers for being too busty or at least looking too busty in her outfit of a "form-fitting sequined black dress and black leather, sequin-studded boots" or at least that's what she was wearing when she was told "You are just too hot for this office." and fired.

Now here's the [even more] insane part: While it true that the Orthodox have some rather odd (read Ass-backwards) ideas about how women should dress, these particular Orthodox owned store called "Native Intimates" and by Intimates they mean lingerie. Now see here's the thing, in the ass backwards dress code of the Orthodox, "thongs with hearts placed in the female genital area and boy shorts for women that say 'hot' in the buttocks area." clearly arnt Kosher (so to speak), even though thats what they are selling. Which means even if you buy their bullshit about religious expression/beliefs ect, (and I dont), they clearly arnt following them in this case. So they cant even hide behind that this time.

And now finally a woman was fired by Citibank after being told "as a result of the shape of her figure, such clothes were purportedly 'too distracting' for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear."

Prior to being fired she'd been given a list of clothes she couldnt wear "turtlenecks, pencil skirts, and fitted suits. And three-inch heels."

And lets be honest. I mean who would wear a fitted suit in a business environment? there has never been a successful woman in a suit. Those are totally worn only for sex appeal.

Two trollops who clearly will never be successful women

But look honestly, like I said before, I'm kinda glad about these stories. See now I know my unemployment isn't due to the fact that the economy sucks, so even a guy with a genius level IQ and a college degree cant get hired. Cause see that's depressing as fuck. Instead I have finally learned the truth: I'm too sexy for a job too sexy for a job, so sexy it hurts.

If I was just a bit uglier I'd have a job. So I'm just a bad accident away from full time employment WOOOO! 

But there is a downside here as well. You see I also need to issue an apology to a few of my female friends. See heres the thing, I've find several of you extremely attractive, and I'm sure, since subtly is not my strong suit, that I've been caught checking you out on several occasions, and youve just been too polite to call me out on it. Heck my guess is some of you have been flattered. 

But since most of you are employed, clearly I was wrong. Your not really that hot, or you'd have been fired. And I'm sure now in hindsight my ogling may have accidentally given you false confidence about how attractive you are, instead of using a real gauge  like how quickly you get fired.

Anyways  I just wanted to say the mistake is all mine, clearly I just dont have good taste in hot women, and I apologize for the confusion.  From now on I will wait until after you have been fired, and therefore confirmed as hot before checking you out. And I realize given my troubles in getting work I am clearly god's gift to women and by far the sexiest beast you have ever seen. Which makes my false positives all the more embarrassing. Again I'm sorry.

The alternate reality of the NRA president.....

Look at this point I dont think I need to defend myself to NRA member's, by and large they tend to be very sane and actually very pro gun regulation (compared to the rest of us), because they know better then most of us the damage guns can do.

But see here's the thing, the NRA members are paying there dues to a madman who may or may not have suffered a full break with reality. On Friday NRA president Wayne LaPierre gave a speech about what he thinks is causing gun violence and proves that he doesnt live in the same reality as the rest of us.

Here are some of the "highlights"

"Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.

And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.

How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security."

Armed Guards in a bank? I gotta be honest, I've NEVER seen one. I've banked or been in banks in North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, DC, Pennsylvania, and New York City, and I've never seen an armed guard anywhere in any bank. Hell I live in a place that earlier this year had had more murders then we had had days in the year, so I'm sure if armed guards were needed I'd see them.

Now did we used to have them? sure I would assume so from what people tell me, and to be fair I'm sure a few banks still have them. But the fact of the matter is the vast Majority of banks dont have them, cause they dont need them, thanks to a shit ton of security cameras and time locks on the vaults so they cant be opened no matter what.

Same's true for a sporting event, while I'm sure its happened on occasion depending on the events, I've never seen an armed guard there either, and I've been to a fair amount of sporting events (DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC)

And when's the last time you heard about a mass murder at a bank or a sporting event? As far as I know its never happened.

So analogy fail here for Mr. LaPierre, who apparently doesnt get out much......or hallucinates guns.

"So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster, and you've got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization."

To be fair I believe Mr. Lapierre is right on the first half of his paragraph, based on the last few years we have complete records for violent crime is starting to swing up again, and has for the last 3 complete years or so (so thats about 2006-2009....we only have rough numbers for 2010 and 2011 that I could find anyways, and they also show that).

Now thats where is gets kinda interesting/the part Mr. LaPierre would prefer you not know about. 19 years ago was 1994. The year the assault weapons ban went into place.Which apparently led to a decrease in violent crime, according to Mr. LaPierre, which has only increased in recent years (after the Ban was allowed to lapse.....)

So yea in a speech talking about why we dont need more gun restrictions the NRA president just made an argument [indirectly] for the assault weapons ban.....OOPS

Also as to the second sentence in that paragraph I have no idea what the heck thats about. I think (i could be wrong) it might be claiming hurricanes can be controlled.....or maybe that gun violence is an act of nature. I really do just assume its a sign of a psychotic break with reality.

"And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found it?

Then there's the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."

Actually to be fair, Mr. LaPierre is totally right here. I've been to Canada, France, England, Austria, Germany, and the Czech Republic in my life time, and I can attest they dont have video games over there. In fact the leading form of entertainment is other countries still beating a hoop with a stick.....except for Canada where its hockey. But yea I mean that's why their homicide rates are so low, they have never seen or played video games, and they have no idea what "Mortal Kombat" is.

They also dont have internet so they cant download american games from online. Instead they still communicate via smoke signals and carrier pigeons....except for Englands wizard population, they use owls.

So clearly it is the unique availability of video games in America that is the problem.  

"In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.

A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18."

Yea I dont know where those numbers came from in that last sentence either. Normally I would assume they came from Mr. LaPierre's ass.....but then i dont know where he would store his head.

I also assume that Mr. LaPierre is referring to acts of violence and death in video games. I could be wrong though cause you dont usually call a video game death "Murder".........well at least not if your able to distinguish between real murders, like say 20 children in CT, and the blinking out of various electronic pixles meant to show the fictional death of a fictional person......but maybe that's just me.

Or maybe we just found out way more about the reality Wayne LaPierre is living in, and that he really cant tell the difference......which is terrifying since he's leading a gun lobby.

Oh but wait we are about to reach one of my favorite parts. And by favorite parts I mean the absolute proof Mr. LaPierre no longer exists in reality.

"And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.

The media call semi-automatic firearms "machine guns" — they claim these civilian semi-automatic firearms are used by the military, and they tell us that the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle calibers ... when all of these claims are factually untrue . They don't know what they're talking about."  

By the way, I should point out that .223 were the caliber fired by the Sandy Hook shooter last week. Just FYI.

So yea there you have it, according to Mr. LaPierre the shooting is the media's fault, as is the hysteria behind it. Because rather then take away our video games, so we can beat hoops with sticks like they do in Europe, the media lies about how dangerous bullets are. 

I mean lets face it, .223's only killed 20 kids, that's not dangerous thats normal. A really dangerous bullet would have killed a kid, penetrated the wall behind the kid, and shot the kids in the next room too.

One child per bullet is simply the bullet working as advertised and therefore totally not dangerous, right? I mean whats the worst that could happen? other then 20 dead kids........

"Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban — or one more law imposed on peaceful, lawful people — will protect us where 20,000 others have failed."

I know right, people like Wayne LaPierre who point out how crime was lower when the assault weapons ban was in place are trying to distract and mislead you from the real issue. I mean we all know gun ban's dont work....that's why crime was lower when we had a ban, just like LaPierre said......

"The only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away ... or a minuteaway?"

See here's the problem with that theory......
here's the list of shooters I could find taken down during the rampage by unarmed civilians:
The Long Island Railway shooter, Jared Lee Loughner* (Congresswomen giffords assination attempt), The Richland High School Shooter, The Frontier Middle School shooter, Michael Carneal (heath high school shooter), The Thurston High School Shooter, The Rocori High School shooter, The Campbell County High School shooter, The Weston High School shooter, University of Alabama shooter and the Chardon High School shooter.

Now for the list of shooters taken down by armed force from someone other then the police:


Thats the whole list. It's never happend. Not once. In fact at the Gabby Giffords shooting, someone in the crowd did have a gun, and even drew it.....and then by his own admission almost shot and killed the man who managed to get the real shooters gun away from him. So yea he almost shot the wrong person.

But you see in Wayne LaPierre's reality there are actually events on that second list......never mind that you cant see them....they are real to him damn it.

And then there is more from the strange universe of Wayne LaPierre.

"Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow morning: "More guns," you'll claim,"are the NRA's answer to everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the word "gun" automatically become a bad word?

A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the president isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you."

Again thats a favorite mass delusion of the NRA's. ASSUMING someone is going to break into your house in the first place, the most recent crime statistics say that there is a 75% chance you wont be home. of the 25% chance you will, there is only a 7% chance the robber will turn violent, and of that 7% only a 40% chance he has a weapon, and only a 12% chance of it being a gun.

Basically assuming your one of the 3 million people (out of a population of 314 Million) who will have their house broken into, you have about a .006% chance of the guy carrying a gun.

Now on top of all of that, 75% of robberies happen during the day, further reducing the changes of a 3am break in. (to .0015%)

In fact the much better odds suggest the robber is totally unarmed and as soon as they realize your home they will run like hell. (because he meant to break in when you werent home and made a mistake)

So in short Mr. LaPierre's situation sounds scary.....but it basically never happens.

"So why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our president or our country or our police, but bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools?

They're our kids. They're our responsibility. And it's not just our duty to protect them — it's our right to protect them.
You know, five years ago, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy. But what if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, he had been confronted by qualified, armed security?"

To be fair we all know the armed police officer at columbine prevented that shooting, right? I mean there was never a shooting at columbine high school right? see how well armed cops work.....(and yes by the way, there was an armed police officer at columbine named Neil Gardner)

"With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget, we can't afford to put a police officer in every school? Even if they did that, politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us the right, the ability, or the moral imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm."

Exactly, I mean why are we giving foreign aid to by sticks to hit hoops with, instead of trying the stratigy that worked to prevent the Columbine shooting?

"Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now . We can immediately make America's schools safer — relying on the brave men and women of America's police force."

Hold up, Reserve Military? The NRA president just called for putting Active Duty [reserve] Military in our schools? Do I really need any more proof this guy has suffered a full break from reality?

Like seriously does anyone want more evidence?

"The budget of our local police departments are strained and resources are limited, but their dedication and courage are second to none and they can be deployed right now.

I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school — and to do it

now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January.
Before Congress reconvenes, before we engage in any lengthy debate over legislation, regulation or anything else, as soon as our kids return to school after the holiday break, we need to haveevery single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work — and by that I mean armed security ."

Just by the way, that would cost about 6 BILLION dollars assuming one new cop, at usual pay for the local department, per school. (which again didnt work in columbine)

So yea that's 6 BILLION in NEW spending the house republicans would have to OK, in the middle of the Fiscal Cliff negotiations to reduce spending on something that we (and by we I mean those who dont live in LaPierreland) know doesnt work....instead of trying to find something that might.

And now one final point from LaPierre

"The NRA is going to bring all of its knowledge, dedication and resources to develop a model National School Shield Emergency Response Program for every school that wants it. From armed security to building design and access control to information technology to student and teacher training, this multi-faceted program will be developed by the very best experts in their fields."

Wait a second "student training"? Training to do WHAT, exactly....shoot a weapon? I mean I dont really see anything else he could be suggesting for the student. I mean "RUN" is pretty self explanatory and the only other option would be for the students to confront the shooter.

So just remember in January, when your kid's go back to kindergarten to make sure they dont forget their lunchboxes or their AK-47's.......but on the upside we will finally be teaching something more bad ass then Home Economics.

"For the sake of the safety of every child in America, I call on every parent, every teacher, every school administrator and every law enforcement officer in this country to join us in the National School Shield Program and protect our children with the only line of positive defense that's tested and proven to work."

And by tested to work, we mean that shit has never ever ever ever once worked. Again Columbine had a Cop at the school.... Virginia Tech has a whole damn police force...and again unless I totally misunderstood the news there were massacres at both schools.

But I guess in LaPierreland lack of evidence counts as evidence. After all I'm pretty sure its always ass-backwards day in LaPierreland.

Also one last point from me. I admit I cropped the speech a bit (full transcript here ) but I hit every one of his points. And apparently Wayne LaPierre only thinks kids can be killed in school. Not in Movie Theaters (one of the victims of the batman shooting was 6) or parking lots (another victim at the gabby giffords shooting was 9). So we dont need to address those at all. Or mall shootings. Or Military Base shootings (Ft. Hood).

Cause you know that could never happen, and we never need to protect our kids there, since those places are never marked as "gun free zones" no one would ever try to shoot a kid or anyone else in any of those places.  And really how else do you stop the next major crisis from happening if we cant pretend they only happen in places that serve our ass backwards argument.

And one last final point to my friends who are NRA members (and I do have several, although I have no idea if they are reading my blogs) YOU GUYS ARE PAYING THIS MAN'S SALARY.

This is what your dues money is going towards. Over a Million Dollars a year to this guy's salary in order to spew this kind of insane ass backwards bullshit.

But hey I guess if you want active duty military and kindergardener's with guns in all your schools, and believe that its a good idea to defend the ammunition choices of mass murder's then it's money well spent. 

"Diamonds are Forever, and so are the Four Horsemen"

So in honor of the end of days, happening tonight, and the fact that we are all gonna die tonight when the Mayan calendar ends, we have an Apocalypse pop quiz, and it's actually pretty easy, as its only one question: (I dont want to waste too much of the little time we have left on a hard and pointless quiz :P )

Which of these are the Four Horsemen?

A)

B)

C) 

D)

E)

Actually its a trick question, the correct answer is all of them. "A" is one version of the wrestling faction called the Four Horsemen (and also the group responsible for the title of this rant). "B" are the Four Horsemen of Notre Dame, AKA the backfield of their undefeated 1924 football team. "C" is one of the incarnations of the Marvel Comics Horsemen. "D"  is a variation of the drinks that make up the "Four Horsemen" shot. And "E" is an artist's interpretation of the namesakes of all of the above, the biblical Four Horsemen. And I should note the Horsemen name pops up in a lot more places then just those 5. 

So who the heck are these guys anyways? I mean with a name like the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" you gotta be a bad ass motherfucker right? Not really no. In fact we dont really know anything about these guys and they are basically just coasting on the cool group name. There's nothing really to these guys. 

Let's start on the left, the dude on the white horse with the bow. We can't even agree on his name let alone anything else. Like the others the color of his horse and his weapon come from the Book of Revelations. But as to who he is? no idea. All thats said about him is "I watched as the Lamb opened the first of the seven seals. Then I heard one of the four living creatures say in a voice like thunder, "Come and see!" I looked, and there before me was a white horse! Its rider held a bow, and he was given a crown, and he rode out as a conqueror bent on conquest."

So lots of people named him Conquest. 

Now I know what your thinking, there is no "Conquest" in the modern Four Horsemen and your right, there isnt. But their is a "War", so that must be "Conquest"....except not, War is someone else, we'll get to him next.

So what happened to Conquest?. Well these days the Horsemen are usually named, War, Death, Famine and Pestilence. And we know War is someone else, and Death should be obvious in that picture. And as it turns out Famine is the 3rd horseman in that picture.......So Conquest became Pestilence. How did that happen exactly? It has to do with a color issue of another horsemen, so I'll explain later. 

But see Conquest/Pestilence may also have a 3rd identity. Jesus Christ. Yea that's right Pestilence is Jesus.

Now how did that one happen? well white is usually the color of righteousness and the Book of Mark suggests the coming of the Gospel may lead the coming of the Apocalypse. And Jesus himself is mentioned as riding a White Horse in Revelations. 

So there you go, our first Horsemen is Conquest/Pestilence/Jesus. Next to him is the man on a red horse. "When the Lamb opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, "Come and see!" Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other. To him was given a large sword."

This is (usually) the aforementioned "War". Now what exactly is different in being the incarnation of "War" as opposed to "Conquest"? I'll tell ya what, when they have an definitive answer for that, I'll update my blog. The generally accepted rule seems to be offensive war to take something would be "Conquests" domain and civil or defensive war are under "War", but thats not a hard rule.

Now of course the attempts to make the distinction are responsible both part of the Conquest/Pestilence/Jesus' identity crisis and War's own identity Crisis. See some people believe that he's not War, he's a Representation of the persecuted Christians. Personally though I hope thats not the case, not for religious reasons, but because  "persecuted Christians" is a mouthful compared to the one word names of the others. Just saying he breaks to short cool name rule.

Next we got the Horseman on the Black Horse next to War....that Famine and he's about the only horseman who's got his head screwed on straight. See Famine is kinda dull. There's no real confusion about him, no other name or anything like that. The Bible says this "When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, "Come and see!" I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, "A quart of wheat for a day's wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!"" and that's still the description of Famine to this day. BORING. NEXT!

Finally we reach Death, Death you'd think would be the boring one we could all agree on, like Famine was, but not so much actually. See here's the description for Death "When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, "Come and see!" I looked and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine, and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth."

Note Death is the only one expressly named, instead of being named after a feeling he invoked or a word that would summarize his description. So again he should be the boring one. But he's not, he's the troublemaker. I mean you've got the fact he's usually shown holding a scythe, even though thats not in the biblical description, because we basically want him to be the Grim Reaper. But thats not where he's causing trouble.

Instead it's one word that makes Death a major troublemaker "pale". See in the original greek, the word for Pale could also mean Green or greenish yellow what have you. And somehow down the road BOTH interpretations wound up standing. And since green/yellow tends to look more like a color for Death (given that black in taken), Death tended to wind up on a green horse.

But at the same time you've still got the part of the quote when the rider of the Pale Horse was given  "power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine, and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth."

Now who would that be? well you remember Conquest, over on the White Horse? well when your choices are White/Red/Black/Green, white tends to look fairly pale. So he becomes the Pale Rider. But what do you call him?  Well plague IS a pestilence....and BOOM there you go, Conquest becomes Pestilence.

And honestly thats about all we know (and don't know/agree on) about the Four Horsemen. And that doesnt even get into the fact we cant agree on what the Apocalypse is either.

So there you have it, 4 harbingers of the end times....maybe......who are totally coasting on how cool their name sounds and have been for about 2000 years. Cause I mean really how else do you explain all these tributes to this loosely and undefined and even incorrect interpretations of minor players being the name sake for so much?

So remember next time someone makes an allusion to the Horsemen/Four Horsemen/Horsemen of Apocalypse, it sounds super bad ass....but it doesn't mean anything.

And just because its a Horseman Theme today, another Horseman inspired thing to close this out:

 

Republican's love/hate relationship with Plan B

So it turns out their is an oxymoron with Republican's and Plan B.

Not that plan B.....

And I dont mean the oxymoron of the Republican's spending the last two years trying to take away a woman's right to Plan B and other contraceptives, only to hold an emergency session of the House to try pass Plan B into law.....this Plan B being their escape route off of the fiscal cliff.

And I dont mean the oxymoron that your supposed to take Plan B AFTER you've been screwed and Republican's are taking it to avoid getting screwed.

No I'm talking about what is actually in the Republican Plan B. See it turns out if you know anything about Republican philosophy you know that their basic economic idea for all situations is cut taxes and cut spending. And they refuse to pass any bill that doesnt either cut taxes and/or offset spending elsewhere in the budget.

So no tax increases and no bills that dont reduce the deficit. Thats the republican golden rule.

And that brings us back to Plan B. What does it do? Well thats simple it raises taxes on those who make more then 1 million dollars. Thats it. Thats the whole bill, it doesnt cut a damn thing.

So yes there you have it, the Republican oxymoron on Plan B, the Republican party is about to cast a bill that IS a tax INCREASE and PREVENTS spending cuts. All in the name of lower taxes and less spending.

Yea...I'll give you a minute to try to process that.

Now why exactly are they doing this? why are they about ready to pass a bill that is the actual antithesis of everything Republicans have stood for for 30 years?

See Plan B was simple. If republicans did nothing and we went off the cliff everyone's taxes would go up. And Republican's would be blamed for it. Now the thing is Republican's generally take to getting blamed for tax increases like a vampire to sunlight (and I dont mean the gay ass twilight kind).

In other words they would do anything in their power to avoid that. But the problem was, Obama knew that as well as the GOP did. And Obama and the Dem's made no real secret about the fact that if we went off the Fiscal cliff they would beat the GOP over the heads with the tax increases and make them look like the bad guys. And since the post election polling suggests thats how most American's will blame the GOP if we go over the cliff and an even larger amount dont like way the GOP been negotiating, it was a fairly effective bludgeon and big problem for republicans in "post going over the cliff" talks should those happen.

So the idea with plan B was to remove the Obama attack line against the GOP, and do something that in all honesty they were going to be forced to do anyways, raise taxes.

And of course the Democrats want taxes over 250,000 to go up, and the GOP offered only those over a million. If the Dem's the GOP "wins" by keeping taxes lower on a lot more people, and if the Dem's reject it (as expected) the tax increases are now the Dem's fault.  Not to mention it would make the Dem's look like the intransigence ones who cant take yes for an answer (to use an Obama line about Republicans)

And on top of that the only thing left to discuss are spending cuts, which while its true most people oppose the cuts the GOP is proposing, tend to be much too complicated for most people to follow, and given the recent cave by Obama on Social Security, may actually be strong ground for the GOP.

It's actually a fairly smart move by Speaker Boehner, do less of something your going to be forced to do anyways (raise taxes) in order to have a stronger hand later when debating the spending cuts.

There was one small problem however. The bill couldnt pass the Republican controlled House as written. Republicans would have voted it down. (and not that it mattered, Republicans in the Senate objected as well)

Turns out selling out for principles for a better hand later is a hard deal to sell and Boehner cant do it. In fact pretty much every right wing advocacy organization in the country is threatening to lower the various republican's rating with said advocacy groups if they supported it.

So so far, Plan B apparently isnt working as advertised.

Now I actually should point out originally that paragraph above was intended to be my last line, and set in future tense instead of present. But as I was writing this House Leader Eric Cantor basically made it known, they tweaked it just a bit, so that now it can pass the house. (see this is what happens when I try to be current some jackass changes the story half way though what I'm writing.... :P )

What they added in order to attempt to get the bill to pass the House, was a section that basically exempts the Defense department from any and all cuts caused by the sequester (the automatic spending cut that would trigger the fiscal cliff) or any further fiscal cliff negotiations. They also added language to cut spending for food stamps and Obamacare and rolls back wall street reform.

Which is a big problem for the Republican's and mean's Plan B has blown up in their faces (see this is why you have to drink water when you swallow pills....otherwise this shit happens).

Again remember what the goal of Plan B was, to totally reverse the optics and make the Democrats look unreasonable by giving them a good chunk of what they wanted with nothing in return.

And that's no longer what the bill does. it's now a straight up proposal for fixing the fiscal cliff with the added bonus of cutting wallstreet reform (which has no bearing either way on the deficit) and allowing for more bailouts....because hey why the fuck not?

And of course as a "total fix" Obama can now reject it for any number of reasons he so chooses (food stamp cuts hurt the poor, we need wallstreet reform, ect ect) and not look like the bad guy responsible for tax increases, and go back to hammering on the fact that most people want taxes on those paying more the 250,000 to go up, and the only reason they're own taxes are going up is because republicans wont bow to what is (agree or not) the majority opinion.

So as a strategy Plan B has already failed to do what the bill was supposed to do (get the GOP out of the "tax increase blame trap") no matter how the house votes.

And heres the thing, the potential damage doesnt stop there, See 6 months ago in May the house made their first attempt to avoid the sequester/fiscal cliff, and they passed a bill called the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act, which is basically identical to the new Plan B. And the SRRA did pass, 218-199.

But see heres the problem. 218 is EXACTLY the number of votes you have to have to pass a bill. Which means about 16 republican's defected on that vote and opposed it. And in a special election the Dem's picked up a seat, so they have one more seat that the GOP used to have, and its not from one of the defectors. So if those same 16 republicans oppose the bill now, that they opposed 6 month ago, it may still lose. (thanks to the new democrat whos voting against)

And if loses the republican proposal to solve the fiscal cliff just got taken out by republicans, which gives Obama all the leverage in the world to hammer them and force them to take a much more Obama friendly deal, since even their own party wont accept theirs, so Obama's becomes the only real plan on the table.

So John Boehner better freaking hope Eric Cantor is telling the truth about having 218 votes, this would not even be the 10th time this congress the republican's have only discovered during the voting they dont have the votes they expected.

There is also an added aspect of what I will call "bad luck".

See the original reason the Plan B vote was going to be held today is because the House only works 4 days a week (or 3, they take every other Monday off). So this is the last day before Christmas for the House, and the idea was to get people to head into Christmas knowing their taxes wouldnt go up (or blaming the democrats if they did). It was to provide that fiscal certainty republicans are so found of mentioning.

But Monday night Senator Dan Inouye of Hawaii, the most senior member of the senate, passed away. As a result the Senate adjourned early so that they could attend his memorial and funeral services. They wont be back until the 27th. AKA after Christmas.

Which means no matter what, Plan B cant not even get to president Obama to sign before Christmas, no matter if passes the House or not, and even if was the original version of the bill, it still couldnt make it there in time.

So not only has the objective of Plan B blown up in the face of the GOP, where they now are taking the blame from a host of right wing donors and organizations for considering voting for a Tax increase which did not (originally) have spending cuts, they have nothing to show for it. And the timing of the bill blew up in their faces as well the bill wont pass in time to make a damn bit of difference for Christmas.

And all that assumes the bill passes at all.

I guess I understand why the Republican's want to take away a Woman's right to Plan B....they assume you also cant figure out how to make it work correctly.......


UPDATE. (9pm)

KABOOM! Well it appears Plan B blew up even more spectacularly then I expected.

Apprently, and my mistake here, the additional stuff that was added to Plan B, was done so it's own bill. And that bill passed with 215 votes (turned out enough people abstained to lower the threshold, which is unusual)

So the Republican's just voted for a bill that cuts food stamps, and take away the child tax credit and a few other lower and middle class tax deductions.

But as to Plan B itself? the original bill......yea they withdrew the bill.

So yea, if your middle class, congratulations. The GOP just voted to take away some of your tax credits, effectively raising your taxes. Then they neglected to pass the part of the bill to stop (in their own words) the "largest tax increase in history" from being added on top of that already higher rate. So yea your taxes just went up TWICE in one night. And if your poor, your taxes went up AND the GOP just passed a bill to take away your food stamps.

The only upside is it will never pass the senate....but still that's what the House just basically voted for.

All this because they cant do what the majority of Americans want, and vote to keep the bush tax cuts for the lower 98%.....they have to have it ALL or nothing.

So yea GO GOP you just voted to raise taxes on the middle class twice.........

When it comes to the Sandy Hook Shooting I got 99 problem and the bitches are all of them

So since blaming the gays and the atheists for the sandy hook shootings didnt work, the Right Wing has a whole new idea:

Blame the women.

No thats right, despite the fact that the Sandy Hook shooter was a man, its all the fault of women. Here let me quote the national review.

"Like most people, I’ve been thinking and thinking about the Sandy Hook massacre. I’ve even pored over a map of the school and its killing sites — and studied a timeline of the incident, which appears to have unfolded over about 20 minutes. I have three observations:

There was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred. In this school of 450 students, a sizeable number of whom were undoubtedly 11- and 12-year-old boys (it was a K–6 school), all the personnel — the teachers, the principal, the assistant principal, the school psychologist, the “reading specialist” — were female. There didn’t even seem to be a male janitor to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza’s knees."

Look to be fair bucket heaving is a time honored and very technical male activity. What I'm saying is this, you gotta hit the gym for years before you lift and throw a bucket. Its not like one of those chairs or desks, any jackass could have thrown that, you need real power for bucket throwing.


"Women and small children are sitting ducks for mass-murderers. The principal, Dawn Hochsprung, seemed to have performed bravely. According to reports, she activated the school’s public-address system and also lunged at Lanza, before he shot her to death. Some of the teachers managed to save all or some of their charges by rushing them into closets or bathrooms."


See women suck and are basically targets just asking to get shot (and raped...but thats a different article). So now to prove my point let me show you all the various ways in which they didnt just sit around waiting for some strange man to shoot them all passive like. because cognitive dissidence is AWESOME.


"But in general, a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm. Male aggression can be a good thing, as in protecting the weak — but it has been forced out of the culture of elementary schools and the education schools that train their personnel. Think of what Sandy Hook might have been like if a couple of male teachers who had played high-school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys, had converged on Lanza."

Yep I mean everyone knows your standard husky 12 year old looks like this:

(Full disclosure at the time this picture was taken, the guy here, a member of the avengers known as rage was 13, not 12....so I mean he is a year older then the writer intended so that may make a difference....) 

But yea see what happens when we take a traditionally male dominated field like teaching and fill it up with dumb broads?. This is why we need to go back to making teaching "man's work" like it was back in in the year 190.......


"People, even unarmed people, need to fight back against criminals — because usually, no one else will. It took the police 20 minutes to arrive at Sandy Hook. By the time they got there, it was over."

Actually I'll be honest THAT is a good idea (given that pretty much every shooter not killed by the cops was taken down by unarmed civilians), with a caveat I'll get to in a second


"Cops and everybody else encourage civilians not to try to defend themselves when they are criminally assaulted. This is stupid advice. There are things you can do. Run is one of them, because most shooters can’t hit a moving target."

Run, that part is correct (and also the caveat, running is the best idea). As to the rest, well its a good thing guns never work on moving targets......

"The other, if you are in a confined space, is throw things at the killer, or try a tackle. Remember United Flight 93 on 9/11. It was a “flight of heroes” because a bunch of guys on that plane did what they could with what they had. "

See kids if you follow our advises you'll still wind up dead, we just wont make fun of you for being pussies. (no disrespect intended to the people on flight 93, that was a clearly a situation in which there was no way out alive, so they did the right thing....but I'm not sure killing yourself early is the best solution in any situation you can get out of alive)

I mean we could have used the examples of Patricia Maisch, Roger Salzgeber and Bill D. Badger, the three unarmed civilians who disarmed the Tuscon Shooter.  But see the problem there is by most accounts it was Mrs Maisch who actually got the fresh magazine away from the shooter stopping the rampage. And we all know women cant do shit. And hell real men go out in a blaze of glory anyways, these two guys lived so they are wimps.

"Parents of sick children need to be realistic about them. I know at least two sets of fine and devoted parents who have had the misfortune to raise sons who were troubled for genetic reasons beyond anyone’s control. Either of those boys could have been an Adam Lanza. You simply can’t give a non-working, non-school-enrolled 20-year-old man free range of your home, much less your cache of weapons. You have to set boundaries. You have to say, “You can’t live here anymore — you’re an adult, and it’s time for you to be a man. We’ll give you all the support you need, but we won’t be enablers.”

In which case that support happens to be food and a dry place to sleep....in which case fuck off loser. I mean after all blood IS thicking then water, but a 9mm is thicker then blood, so if you have to pick between your family and your son, well you can always have more children, but the government might take your gun away......

So yea to sum up, if it wasnt for bitches not throwing buckets or kids out of their houses, all those kids might still be alive.

(in fairness this is one of 7 pages worth of responses the NR published some of which are reasonable) 

Birthers, proof the zombie Apocalypse has already happened?

Thats right the conspiracy theory that will not die is back again.

Yesterday Barack Obama was officially elected the next President of the United States.

Yes I know, the election was last month right? yep. but your vote doesnt really count. In fact you didnt vote for the president at all. What you did was tell your state who they should send to the electoral college. Your districts votes for Obama on the ballot, they pick the a guy (read minor politician  who has pledged to support Obama and send him to the electoral college. Replace with Romney that if your district went for Romney.

And the college convinced yesterday to elect the person who will be the next president. And of course Obama won as expected. In fact since we always know the electoral vote well ahead of time, its not especially newsworthy most years. Yes we occasionally get a single elector who bucks the rules and votes the way he wants, not the way he was supposed to (notably in the 1820 election, James Monroe failed to get 100% of the electoral votes for that reason).

And then we have this election. And we have the state of Arizona. Now all the delegates in AZ cast their votes for Mitt Romney, as they are supposed to, based on the outcome of the popular vote. And because what you have is a red state casting all its votes for the republican candidate, this should be the most boring thing in the freaking world. And then this happened:

"I'm not satisfied with what I've seen, I think for somebody in the president's position to not have produced a document that looks more legitimate, I have a problem with that,"

Thats head the Arizona state GOP and electoral delegate Tom Morrissey, responding the a routine question during the meeting.

Oh but here's the thing, Mr. Morrissey would like you to know, he's not a birther, at least that's his claim on a local radio show. Because see he thinks Obama was born here. He just doesn't believe thats the real birth certificate. He just doesn't believe that "the document that i've seen as his birth certificate is valid."

And he's not the only one of the Airizona electors who believes this. Two more present and former country chairmen were appointed as well. And they both agree with Mr. Morrissey. On both points.

Don Ariscoli, one of the other two said very much the same thing to another interviewer claiming (quoting the interviewer since they didnt give the direct quote) "He’s not a birther. He just thinks the longform birth certificate released by Obama in 2011 is a fraud and wants to see the real one." He added in a different radio interview his other justification ”The majority of the people had no dream that Bill Clinton did what he did until a young lady had a blue dress and proved he did, “And he had to come out and apologize to the world because he lied to you and me.”

The last man John D. Rhodes isnt saying much. Which isnt shocking given the intellectual heavyweights he's working with.

I mean look we all know the seasonal maxim: "every time a bell rings an angel gets it wings". Well there is another lesser known maxium that apparently is good enough to make a national jackass of yourself out of "everytime a white guy lies about fellatio, we lose the birth certificate of a black guy named O"

Either that, or he never actually lost it and basically made up a fake copy just to fuck with people. Because hey why not?

I guess we should be trilled they at least all agree he was born here. Thats better then what their Secretary of State was claiming before the election, when he tried to get Obama tossed off the state ballot for not being born here.

But then again the leader of it this time around is the HEAD of the GOP in the state. And Arizona wonders why the rest of us think they are crazy.......this is the zombie idea that will never die....just get dumber and dumber and dumber......

10 reasons Stupid is like Hot Tea [Party]....it BURNS!

Turns out there is an endless stream of stupid in the world, no matter how hard I try to stem the flow and call it out. But on the upside I will never run out of material.
So that brings me to the 1000000th edition of really stupid things said by 100% pro gun morons (note: just because your 100% pro gun doesnt make you a moron....but it might be a leading indicator.)

In this particular edition we look at the Tea Party Nation and their 10 point plan to save our country, get back our moral soul and stop any future gun crime.

"1. Homeschool. Take away the power of the radicals in the classrooms. Makes your kids safer, too."

Actually, I suppose to be fair it is really hard to have your kid get shot if they arnt in school with other kids. Point to the tea party.  Getting shot at home on the other hand........but luckily this is totally a locational problem not a gun problem. After all no one gets shot at home, right Jerome Belcher's Girlfriend?

"2.Back Right to Work legislation for the public sector. Teacher’s unions have helped cement much of this in place. As long as we have group think in the classrooms we will never see the end of this."

After all we all know how much money the teachers unions spend on trying to get more people to buy weapons. In fact I heard the American Association of Teachers spent 23 million on the pro gun agenda in the last election. Or maybe that was the NRA......same difference right?

"3.Engage in more frank discussion of race and culture. For far too long we have tiptoed around these issues, fearful of being branded a racist. If black thugs kidnap and rape a woman, ask if there is something in the black culture that fostered that. If an evil white kid murders a bunch of children at the school, ask the same question of the white community. What was it that spawned this behavior? What was this kid taught? We have to stop hiding from our respective national sins."

We can start with how black people are "thugs" instead of people and the victims race was mentioned, and how with the white kid (who admittedly they called evil) it wasn't.

"4.Stop reporting on these things so much. One of the biggest drivers in modern popular culture is the thirst for fame. It’s the reason social networking media is so popular; it makes the individual feel as if they are somehow famous or important. It has become the Quest, the modern El Dorado, for our young people today. I suspect many of these killings are at least partly driven by the knowledge that for a time the perpetrator will have great notoriety, people will know their names. Much like Old West outlaws (and I suspect many of these punks see themselves that way) they will be remembered for the evil they have done. And why not? In a Godless, material world there is nothing more important than to be remembered. Who cares if the memory is bitter? At least you are going out with a blaze of glory.

These people should generally remain nameless when they do their deeds, and the intimate details of their lives should be put aside for the most part. Oh, it’s important that we know who they are and what they did and perhaps even why, but there should be an effort to keep them at arm’s length. These sorts of things used to happen in the past, but were largely ignored or downplayed for this very reason. The 24/7 news cycle has made it so that the most heinous acts are now given wall-to-wall coverage, and the evil person who did them becomes notorious. That has to stop."

Actually to be honest, I'm sure to the guys who wrote this is really is the biggest problem. WE KNOW ABOUT IT. If i just didnt know about it I would feel a lot safer.  And the less we know the less we are going to know about how to fix the problem and the less calls for actual sane and appropriate gun restrictions.

Also is it just me or did you not just in the previous freaking point say "we need to talk more about the culture around the shooter" and then just now say "we need to talk less about culture around the shooter?"

I mean damn, do you even read your own articles?

"5.Call evil out. We have to stop being sorry and start being angry. This is not a time for national grief so much as a time for national anger. We should stop tolerating this sort of thing. Indeed, stop tolerating any bad behavior. If you see kids jumping ahead in line, say, call them out. If you see punks bothering their neighbors call them out. Say something to the idiot blaring his car stereo. Say something to the foul-mouthed teens. Tell the brats to pull up their pants; nobody wants to see their filthy underwear and pimply behind. We have to start saying something, stop ignoring it. The first way any society maintains order is through social pressure from individuals. We have insanely given that up."

After all we all know today's line jumpers and cussers are tomorrow's mass murderer's. Which means if any of my old high school classmates are reading this, I look forward to our 20 year high school reunion at Ryker's.

Also btw it should be worth pointing out "Say something to the idiot blaring his car stereo". Someone did that last month. A 45 year old man named Michael Dunn, went to "talk" to a car full of unarmed teenagers about their loud music. One of the teenagers wound up with two bullets in him, and likely would have taken more hits if the other 6 shots hadnt missed. By the way, the kids dead.

But on the upside his friends learned their lessons about loud music right?

6.Work to devolve power back to the parents, the local officials, and the communities. A society that is top-down will inevitably lead to alienation of the sort we have seen here. This young man was twenty years old, and his actions were neither spurious nor random. As an FBI profiler said on television last night, he undoubtedly felt powerless and sought to remedy that. Why does a twenty year old feel powerless? He could leave his mother’s home at any time at his age. He feels powerless because he has lived in an over-bureaucratized society, one run ultimately from a far-away central location. He sees his life as at the mercy of others, and sees himself as having no real input or control. He has been coddled all his life, given free rein to indulge his senses but not to face the responsibilities that freedom necessitates. He was an eternal juvenile, a child who was not allowed to grow up. He lived in a world of the Progressives making, not in reality.

The family is the fundamental building block of civilization, and from it all power originates. The Left has systematically destroyed the family for the purpose of empowering the State, and this has destroyed so many lives. Individuals - especially immature individuals - need to be taught how to live, how to think, how to believe. Man’s animal passions must be placed in check and his rational faculties engaged. His moral compass must be set. Liberalism sought to destroy all the controls by destroying the family and community, centralizing power in meta institutions and granting the individual absolute moral autonomy without giving him the wisdom he needs to exercise it. . It is a recipe for disaster, as we have seen.

Right, see it turns out all society was based on the traditional family of one man and one women (who he may have inherited from his dead brother) and their children, along with their slaves (who may have been his childrens half siblings). And it would be a shame if the modern Gay agenda destroyed that.

After all, we all know guns dont kill people, gays kill people.

Which is of course why the killer at this shooting came from a single parent household and the man in the white house was raised by his biological mother and father. Cause you can only be successful with a traditional family......

Also I mean lets be honest, if the parents were calling the shots and running the country and not the damned government that shooter never ever could have gotten his hands on those guns. I mean its not like he took them from his mothers house or anything...........

"7.Restrict the sex in movies, television, on the internet. There is a reason why young people commit these sorts of crimes, and sex plays no small part. Their passions are eternally inflamed, and they wander the Earth with no outlet for their overstimulated glands. People have understood the close relationship between sex and violence through history; sex was an inducement to military service in ancient times (and modern, too) and it has traditionally been understood that a sexually robust individual will fight harder and more aggressively. We are engaging half this equation, overstimulating our youth while denying them a planned outlet. Even if they were to live promiscuously (a very bad thing for society) they still cannot find adequate outlets for their passions, which have grown to titanic volume. Fighting is the traditional outlet. Societies have always carefully planned ways to release this tension constructively - through physical labor, through hunting, through military service, sometimes even through intellectual pursuits. Now we have nothing, no place for this pent-up frustration to go. The only answer is to follow the other societal coping mechanism, which is to tone down the sexual stimulation, encourage chastity and modesty. Our society has conveniently thrown that away as well. We have to restore it.

Parents, monitor what your children watch, what they look at on the internet. Make sure they dress modestly."

Ok actually yea. I mean honestly I know the first time I saw a vagina my first thought was "MURDER DEATH KILL! MURDER DEATH KILL!". In fact I cant even orgasm until I shoot something. Thats normal right? I hope so, otherwise all those awkward moments where the girl starts freaking out after I pull out my 9mm were totally unneeded........plus I *was* aiming at the pillow.......

8.Control drugs. Do not think that puffing a joint is harmless. Several American states decriminalized Marijuana, and it is actually legal in Washington and Colorado. Is it a coincidence that this shooting just occurred? Probably, but not in the long haul. Drugs and crime and violence go together. Trayvon Martin, the youth shot and killed by a neighborhood watch captain after he was assaulted , was likely high when he was shot - and George Zimmerman has claimed Martin assaulted him, something backed by medical testimony. Martin had trace amounts of marijuana in his system, should be pointed out. Would Martin have done that had he been sober? And medical marijuana is a joke; there are far better substances that can be used. It is nothing but a way to backdoor legalization.
Wow weed in WA state and CO caused a shooting in CN? that is a FUCKING EPIC SMOKE CLOUD DUDE!

And of course we all know drug usage and school shootings go together. Every one remembers the hippies who were high as shit as shot a ton of National Guardsmen at Kent state and killed 4 of them right?

Not to mention how the Netherlands has the highest violent homicide rate in the world

Also last thing of note here, point 4 was "lets not super analyze the gunman" and now we've got "but hey figuring out every little detail of the victim's life thats cool". I assume its because the victim isnt around to be embarassed about his past anymore since he's kinda dead......unlike the shooter (in many cases) and really you wouldnt want to embarrass those guys, they are crazy and might kill someone.....again......

9.Support the creation of local organizations to act as “neighborhood watch” for schools. Had George Zimmerman been at the front door instead of some mechanical card reader those children would still be alive. Perhaps it’s time we start asking for volunteers to protect our children. It will require security checks, but isn’t that worth it? This dovetails with the union problem; the unions will fight this measure tooth-and-nail.

Cause really, we totally want someone who decided disobey the police, and to brandish a gun in the direction of a totally unarmed teenager then felt to need to shoot him after said teen felt threatened by having a gun in his face watching our kids.

I mean that ^ was a total show of good judgement all around. Although to be fair, I suppose its the kids fault for getting shot, they should all be strapped so they can shoot back.



And also I'm glad to see they are finally linking points together, given the second reference to both Zimmerman and the very pro gun teachers unions........

10.Go back to church. We need God more than ever, need prayer. It’s time the Ten Commandments were taught again. It’s time the Bible was taught. It’s time people learned the examples of the heroes of our Judeo-Christian heritage - heroes like Moses, who gave up his life as an Egyptian noble to become a shepherd and eventually lead his birth mother’s kin out of slavery, or David who spent years hiding from King Saul, and who, at one point, had Saul completely under his power (in the cave of Adullum) but would not smite the Lord’s anointed, or of John the Baptizer, a man who spoke the truth until his head was cut off, or of any of the Apostles who died for their faith. Most of all they should learn of Jesus, who refused to turn from the Truth and allowed himself to be sacrificed in the most painful manner possible for other people’s sins.

Moses: the man guided by a burning bush....that might cause some issues with your eight suggestion......just saying. And correct me if I'm wrong but wasnt Moses kinda responsible for that whole killing the first born thing. I mean I know God did that, but I dont really remember anything in the bible about Moses saying "not cool, bro". (and lets be honest, given he took directions from a burning bush thats exactly how he talked)

David: I remember him, he's the murder who killed Goliath right? then I believe cut his head off AFTER he was dead. Clearly David had just seen a vagina since we know those cause excessive violence. Also I believe if I remember the story correctly, on his death bed he told his son to kill all of his enemies. Just saying dude was kinda the original Godfather......

John the Baptist: I believe in the gospel of Luke it says something about John's alleged mother being Barren (IE cant have children). And yet John shows up. Clearly that was a traditional and fully faithful marriage....

Jesus: Speaking of traditional Marriages, we got this guy. He's go TWO daddies. Joseph, his mothers cuckhold and the guy who knocked his mother up outside of wedlock, usually referred to as God.  

But actually you know what, to be fair both John and Jesus did die in an act of violence.....maybe if they had just come from a traditional marriage and not what appear to be open marriages, they might have lived longer. That and Jesus totally should have avoided the whore Mary Magdalene, I'm just saying.  

How the media helps politicians duck accountability and do nothing

So I saw an article today that kinda hit one of my pet peeves about the media. Now although the topic of the article is gun control, thats not really my point here. I've seen this same issue before, but honestly its hard to dig up old news stories so I figured I'd just use this one. So with that in mind here we go.

The pet peeve of the article in question actually started with the title Gun Control Protesters Outside White House Want Obama To Do Something, But Don’t Say What. And continued in the text of the article where they quote a guy named Andy Pelosi (who as far as I know is no relation to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi) and what he said the protesters wanted:

“What I want is for the president to sit down with leaders in Congress and say, ‘OK, we’re losing 86 people [per day]. These horrific shootings are happening way too often. What are we going to do as policymakers? We don’t want to wait for tomorrow or the next day. Today’s the day."

The article continued "Pressed, Pelosi declined to offer specific reforms, saying it was too early into the Newtown investigation to figure out what legal changes could have prevented the attack."

They also interviewed the protest leader who was quoted as saying that he wanted the congress to make a “bold, courageous outline strategy that can end this scourge of gun violence in this country.”

Which was followed by

"But he told TPM [who published the article] it wasn’t the right time to expand on what that plan should entail.

“Not today,” he said. “We don’t want to get into any specifics about a plan. We just want our president to provide us with leadership. We can talk about specifics at a later date.”

And there in lies my pet peeve. The expectation that these guys are expected to have policy ideas. And the implication in the headline that the fact they dont is newsworthy. The media did the same thing to occupy wallstreet, they claimed the fact that Occupy couldnt tell them EXACTLY what they wanted done was a major issue and hurt the movement, just being against big banks and corporate influence wasnt enough  ect ect ect. 

But that's not how the American system is supposed to work. See a fully crafted policy is one that not only says what your going to do, but how your going to do it. And heres the thing, We, the average American's have no god damn idea how to do that. Nor are we supposed to, that what we are supposed to be paying politicians for. And those are not the only two examples either. Pretty much anything a politician calls a tough issue gets the same treatment. "oh you want abortion fixed? tell me how to do it" "Oh you want elections fixed? tell me how to do it"

Take for example, a local park. And lets pretend that people keep driving through the park and leaving cars there overnight ect, and the citizenship wants that to stop. 

Now what exactly is the easiest way to do that and how would you go about it? Well the first half seems easy, pass a law that says "no vehicles in the park" but here's the real question, how exactly do you go about actually doing that? putting up signs? having police patrol the park on foot? a manned gate? ect ect ect?

Those are all policies. But which one is best? I dont have a god damn clue. I suppose it would depend on how much money the city in question has, how many vehicles enter the park, how many ways are their to enter the park, how many police officers they have, whats the crime rate in the city if police are diverted to this, will local taxes have to go up to pay the salaries of the gate watchers? will another program have to be cut to pay the salaries of the gate watchers? ect. And none of that is information the average person can be expected to know. Which is why I pay someone else to figure it out for me. 

See my roll in this government is to find problems I want fixed. Then its the role of the politicians to figure out the best way to fix them. Then if I dont like how they did it I can vote them out of office and try someone new. 

But somehow now-a-days that system is being more and more corrupted. It's no longer enough to say "I want less cars in my park, do something" I now have to say "I want less cars in my park, and I think you should put up a manned gate to keep them out and not raise local taxes to pay for it, now go write THAT SPECIFIC BILL" and if you cant do that the answer from the media and politicians seems to be "sorry cant help you, its too hard/tough of an issue".

But heres the thing, if I knew how to implement all the things I wanted fixed, I'd run for office myself. After all thats what the job is supposed to be. I dont really see the point in having a glorified secretary to take dictation and turn it into law.  But that seems to be all politicians want to be these days, and the media is more  then willing to help them along.

And by the way its not just the public the politicians are foisting their jobs off on either it's each other. How many times on any given issue have you heard this from the leader of the legislative branch (state or national) when their party and the President/Governor's party are different. "Well we need the President/Governor to put his/her plan on the table" or "we need the President/Governor to give us a proposal" ect? It happens all the time. And again thats not at all how the system is supposed to work. 

Its supposed to work like this. Legislative Branch makes and passes policy (so they pass the "no vehicles in the park" law) the Executive Branch gives the finished policy a thumbs up or down, and implements to policy (so for example they would create a new office to hire the gate watchers for the new gate at the park) and the Judaical branch handles discrepancies in the law and helps to clarify. (is a bicycle a vehicle?)

But once again the system has been corrupted. See now it appears the way legislators would like the system to run is this: The executive branch makes the policy, the legislative branch gets to give it a thumbs up or down, and maybe make a tweak here or there, and then the executive branch gets to decide if they like the changes made to their own policy and then implement the policy. (and Judaical is unchanged)

And again, if I'm going to have the same person basically both writing the bill and getting the final say on the bill (by approving the tweaks) why dont we just streamline that shit by electing an absolute ruler every 4 years (or 6 in some states)? I mean really do we need 535 (and however ever in each state) basically editors on every law? Wouldnt it be easier to once again cut out the middle man? 

And lets be honest, every time the media hears a legislator say "We need to see the executives plan" and reports on it like its a good idea, thats basically the system they are pushing. 1 supreme leader and X number of highly paid editors.

And people wonder why the government wont do shit about anything......