Friday, March 30, 2007
Why I Love DC
Reason #320: You can't go to the Mall without seeing some sort of protest. People will protest anything. And I mean anything.
My favorite part of that is the "Circumcision Decreases Sensation" sign. "What do we want?" "INCREASED SEXUAL SENSATION!" "When do we want it?" "RIGHT NOW!"
My favorite part of that is the "Circumcision Decreases Sensation" sign. "What do we want?" "INCREASED SEXUAL SENSATION!" "When do we want it?" "RIGHT NOW!"
Thursday, March 29, 2007
A Quick Thought on the ERA
The text of the relevant part of the Equal Rights Amendment, currently batting its way around Congress:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
And here is the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So what does the ERA guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment hasn't already covered?
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
And here is the end of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So what does the ERA guarantee that the Fourteenth Amendment hasn't already covered?
Rerun Rant
...even so, it needs to get out.
Yesterday my eyes were ridiculously itchy and red and I was sneezing like someone was tickling the inside of my nose with a feather. It had a lot to do with the thin green layer that coats everything around here this time of year. So I needed allergy medication. Bad. I like Claritin. It works well, lasts a long time, and is rather trustworthy.
So I go to the K-Mart down the street and head for the pharmacy section. They have no Claritin out on the shelves - just little cards that you take to the pharmacy. So I did as directed. I gave the card to the pharmacist, who whips out this scary-looking clipboard and heads for his computer. He asks for ID.
Now I'm still young enough where I occasionally get carded for alcohol, but I know there's no age limit on allergy meds. So the following exchange occurs:
Me: (sniffle)(rubbing eyes) You aren't going to do a damn background check on me, are you?
Pharmacy guy: It's federal law, sir.
Me: (sniffle) Fuck it. (sneeze) (walks off, rubbing eyes)
Now I don't know about you, but it pisses me off when I get treated like a goddamn criminal when I buy medicine. Yes, fuckfaces, I have allergies! Does that make me eligible for surveillance? Can my indiscriminate Claritin purchases land me on the no-fly list if I'm not careful?
Seriously, does the government need to track every box of allergy medicine that leaves the shelves? Can you assholes not assume that I'm cooking up a fresh batch of drugs every time I need my eyes to stop itching? Looking for meth addicts? Good job, you narrowed your list of suspects to everyone in Wake County with allergies and/or a cold. I'm sure that'll be an easy stack of data to sort. Is it that hard to tell the difference between someone running a meth lab and someone with hay fever? Here's an idea: instead of making the lives of those of us with allergies miserable, you could actually do a little police work and go after real, honest-to-God meth labs. Or better yet, you could end this half-baked, absurd, psychotic, tyrranical, hysterical waste of my time and money called the "drug war" and get back to actually fighting the real crime that makes our streets unsafe! Using police resources to stop murders and robberies - what a concept!
(gasp)
And if I were the makers of Claritin, I'd be pissed off as fuck. You know why? Because when I went back to the allergy aisle, there was a box of Benadryl anti-allergy medicine sitting there beneath where the Claritin would be if the government hadn't shot itself from a cannon over the shark. Now who wouldn't buy the Benadryl rather than spend five minutes to have your personal information end up on some data list in God-knows-what government building being scrutinized like you just bought a semiautomatic rifle from Osama bin fucking Laden? How is this fair competition? Did the big pharma company that makes Benadryl pay off the federal government to cook up some half-assed legislation so they could screw over their big pharma competition? "Just say it's part of the drug war," they'd say. "These idiots will buy anything if you put 'drug war' in front of it." Yeah, I know it's a crazy conspiracy theory, but it's no less crazy than having a stupid, ridiculous, insane, outlandish law like this on the books that makes us jump through metric assloads of hoops and undergo police surveillance when all we want IS FOR OUR GODDAMN EYES TO STOP ITCHING!!!!!
(gasp)
Oh, and here's a fucking brilliant one. It's illegal to buy more than 7.5 grams of Claritin in a month through the mail, and nine grams a month in person. Each box has 3.6 grams in it. Here's the thing about allergy medication: during March and April, you need two boxes a month. Okay, that's 7.2 grams. But what if there is someone else in the house who has allergies? You know, like maybe - and I know this is crazy, just bear with me here - someone has a kid who also has allergies? And that kid needs a box too? No, of course not!
Your kid's got hay fever too? So does the wife? Talk to the DEA, bitch! That third box makes you a big, bad meth dealer! You'll get your door busted down and an assault rifle shoved up your ass by Raleigh's finest! We can't have scumbags like you trying to keep your eyes from itching!
The bill was sponsored by Sens. Jim Talent (R-MO, no longer in the Senate) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). So I say we all gather up as much pollen as we can and send it (labeled, of course, so no dumbasses mistake it for anthrax) to Feinstein's office. Maybe after a few weeks of red-eyed, runny-nosed, ear-aching misery, she'll see what her little piece-of-crap law does to the rest of us.
Rant over. Phew.
Yesterday my eyes were ridiculously itchy and red and I was sneezing like someone was tickling the inside of my nose with a feather. It had a lot to do with the thin green layer that coats everything around here this time of year. So I needed allergy medication. Bad. I like Claritin. It works well, lasts a long time, and is rather trustworthy.
So I go to the K-Mart down the street and head for the pharmacy section. They have no Claritin out on the shelves - just little cards that you take to the pharmacy. So I did as directed. I gave the card to the pharmacist, who whips out this scary-looking clipboard and heads for his computer. He asks for ID.
Now I'm still young enough where I occasionally get carded for alcohol, but I know there's no age limit on allergy meds. So the following exchange occurs:
Me: (sniffle)(rubbing eyes) You aren't going to do a damn background check on me, are you?
Pharmacy guy: It's federal law, sir.
Me: (sniffle) Fuck it. (sneeze) (walks off, rubbing eyes)
Now I don't know about you, but it pisses me off when I get treated like a goddamn criminal when I buy medicine. Yes, fuckfaces, I have allergies! Does that make me eligible for surveillance? Can my indiscriminate Claritin purchases land me on the no-fly list if I'm not careful?
Seriously, does the government need to track every box of allergy medicine that leaves the shelves? Can you assholes not assume that I'm cooking up a fresh batch of drugs every time I need my eyes to stop itching? Looking for meth addicts? Good job, you narrowed your list of suspects to everyone in Wake County with allergies and/or a cold. I'm sure that'll be an easy stack of data to sort. Is it that hard to tell the difference between someone running a meth lab and someone with hay fever? Here's an idea: instead of making the lives of those of us with allergies miserable, you could actually do a little police work and go after real, honest-to-God meth labs. Or better yet, you could end this half-baked, absurd, psychotic, tyrranical, hysterical waste of my time and money called the "drug war" and get back to actually fighting the real crime that makes our streets unsafe! Using police resources to stop murders and robberies - what a concept!
(gasp)
And if I were the makers of Claritin, I'd be pissed off as fuck. You know why? Because when I went back to the allergy aisle, there was a box of Benadryl anti-allergy medicine sitting there beneath where the Claritin would be if the government hadn't shot itself from a cannon over the shark. Now who wouldn't buy the Benadryl rather than spend five minutes to have your personal information end up on some data list in God-knows-what government building being scrutinized like you just bought a semiautomatic rifle from Osama bin fucking Laden? How is this fair competition? Did the big pharma company that makes Benadryl pay off the federal government to cook up some half-assed legislation so they could screw over their big pharma competition? "Just say it's part of the drug war," they'd say. "These idiots will buy anything if you put 'drug war' in front of it." Yeah, I know it's a crazy conspiracy theory, but it's no less crazy than having a stupid, ridiculous, insane, outlandish law like this on the books that makes us jump through metric assloads of hoops and undergo police surveillance when all we want IS FOR OUR GODDAMN EYES TO STOP ITCHING!!!!!
(gasp)
Oh, and here's a fucking brilliant one. It's illegal to buy more than 7.5 grams of Claritin in a month through the mail, and nine grams a month in person. Each box has 3.6 grams in it. Here's the thing about allergy medication: during March and April, you need two boxes a month. Okay, that's 7.2 grams. But what if there is someone else in the house who has allergies? You know, like maybe - and I know this is crazy, just bear with me here - someone has a kid who also has allergies? And that kid needs a box too? No, of course not!
Your kid's got hay fever too? So does the wife? Talk to the DEA, bitch! That third box makes you a big, bad meth dealer! You'll get your door busted down and an assault rifle shoved up your ass by Raleigh's finest! We can't have scumbags like you trying to keep your eyes from itching!
The bill was sponsored by Sens. Jim Talent (R-MO, no longer in the Senate) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). So I say we all gather up as much pollen as we can and send it (labeled, of course, so no dumbasses mistake it for anthrax) to Feinstein's office. Maybe after a few weeks of red-eyed, runny-nosed, ear-aching misery, she'll see what her little piece-of-crap law does to the rest of us.
Rant over. Phew.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Embarrassing Our Troops
Here's a disturbing article about an Army recruiter who basically went e-apeshit on a potential recruit when she found out he was gay. She says she was provoked. Funny, I thought the Army taught things like discipline.
Some of the e-mails would be downright hilarious if they weren't horribly embarrassing to an Army that has had problems with official anti-gay discrimination...
Some of the e-mails would be downright hilarious if they weren't horribly embarrassing to an Army that has had problems with official anti-gay discrimination...
Friday, March 23, 2007
Steroid Lunacy
So the latest round of steroid accusations are out, and Angels center fielder Gary Matthews Jr. leads the list. Whatever - he's still more of a defensive asset anyway so the 'roids don't matter much with him.
But there's something in this set of finger-pointing by Jason Grimsley - which includes Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, and Miguel Tejada - that sits funny with me. Read the second paragraph:
"Baltimore teammates Brian Roberts, Jay Gibbons and Tejada also were implicated in the sworn statement, the Times said. [emphasis mine]"
Brian Roberts? Really? The rest I can believe, especially Gibbons - he suspiciously got really good really quickly. But Roberts? Has Grimsley taken a look at Roberts recently? He's ridiculously skinny. The only cream he's been rubbing on his skin is suntan lotion. In fact, I've often used Roberts as my proof that not all baseball players are on 'roids, because damn. Maybe Grimsley was confused - he is a pitcher, after all, and it is kinda hard to see Roberts when he turns sideways in the batter's box. Roberts has hit 40 home runs in his entire six-year career. You don't bat .286 and slug .410 (Roberts' numbers from '06) on steroids, folks.
I'm not saying that Roberts is morally clean. I'm just saying that if Roberts was trying to take steroids, he was incredibly inept at it. I guess if Roberts was taking something, baseball will have to ask itself this: if you fail at cheating, is it still cheating?
But there's something in this set of finger-pointing by Jason Grimsley - which includes Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, and Miguel Tejada - that sits funny with me. Read the second paragraph:
"Baltimore teammates Brian Roberts, Jay Gibbons and Tejada also were implicated in the sworn statement, the Times said. [emphasis mine]"
Brian Roberts? Really? The rest I can believe, especially Gibbons - he suspiciously got really good really quickly. But Roberts? Has Grimsley taken a look at Roberts recently? He's ridiculously skinny. The only cream he's been rubbing on his skin is suntan lotion. In fact, I've often used Roberts as my proof that not all baseball players are on 'roids, because damn. Maybe Grimsley was confused - he is a pitcher, after all, and it is kinda hard to see Roberts when he turns sideways in the batter's box. Roberts has hit 40 home runs in his entire six-year career. You don't bat .286 and slug .410 (Roberts' numbers from '06) on steroids, folks.
I'm not saying that Roberts is morally clean. I'm just saying that if Roberts was trying to take steroids, he was incredibly inept at it. I guess if Roberts was taking something, baseball will have to ask itself this: if you fail at cheating, is it still cheating?
Sunday, March 18, 2007
P.C. This
A thought on political correctness:
People talk about being politically correct and politically incorrect. Many people, especially conservatives, feel that it is incorrect to be politically correct and correct to be politically incorrect. But this would make being politically incorrect politically correct, and being politically correct would become politically incorrect. Furthermore, what is politically correct, and thus incorrect, is often defined by those who are politically incorrect. Furthermore, those who are politically correct often strive to make politically correct look politically incorrect by calling that which is politically incorrect "politically correct" and thus incorrect. At some point, that which is correct becomes politically correct and thus politically incorrect, and eventually becomes incorrect, and thus politically incorrect, and - at last - correct again. And what's more, what is politically correct can be either correct or incorrect and what is politically incorrect can be either incorrect or correct.
So fuck it. I'm saying what I want, politically correct or not.
People talk about being politically correct and politically incorrect. Many people, especially conservatives, feel that it is incorrect to be politically correct and correct to be politically incorrect. But this would make being politically incorrect politically correct, and being politically correct would become politically incorrect. Furthermore, what is politically correct, and thus incorrect, is often defined by those who are politically incorrect. Furthermore, those who are politically correct often strive to make politically correct look politically incorrect by calling that which is politically incorrect "politically correct" and thus incorrect. At some point, that which is correct becomes politically correct and thus politically incorrect, and eventually becomes incorrect, and thus politically incorrect, and - at last - correct again. And what's more, what is politically correct can be either correct or incorrect and what is politically incorrect can be either incorrect or correct.
So fuck it. I'm saying what I want, politically correct or not.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Whetting the Appetite
Yes, kids, I know you've been waiting two weeks or more for a substantial blog post, but I don't have that much to say, so you'll have to subsist on quick-hitters for a bit before I get back to meaty blogging:
- I watched Jon Stewart instead: Aside from the VCU-Duke game and maybe the Xavier-BYU game, there were no good games in the NCAA tournament's first day. OK, Vandy's 77-44 shellacking of George Washington was fun to watch, but it didn't make for compelling television for those of you not sporting black and gold. From the looks of things, Day 2 isn't going to be that much better - UVA's up on Albany by, like, 20 right now.
- Is it really an upset if everyone called it: There were also no upsets yesterday. That sucks. And no, I don't count VCU-Duke as an upset since pretty much everyone outside of Durham saw it coming. And 9/8 doesn't count either. Same goes for Winthrop beating Notre Dame today, if that happens. I'm suddenly rooting for Niagara - only a 16/1 upset could make up for this.
- Least surprising scandal ever: Really, is anyone the slightest bit surprised that this administration fired a bunch of U.S. attorneys and replaced them with cronies, and that these firings may have been related to the attorneys' desire to do a somewhat even-handed job? Or that hiring and firing U.S. attorneys doesn't have to involve Congress anymore thanks to the Patriot Act? Despicable as firing people for not persecuting - ahem, prosecuting - Democrats is, it's not illegal. Why? Because no one read the Patriot Act before it was passed. This is what happens when you rush legislation without making the time to debate and tweak.
- Next, he'll confess to killing Kennedy: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has confessed to planning pretty much every terrorist attack or terror plot known to man. He was behind 9/11, the goofy shoe bombing... apparently he even killed Daniel Pearl. More than 30 terror plots in all. Does anyone else find this a little less than plausible, like he's taking the fall for people we still haven't caught yet? Or that maybe he's just a little bit of a truth-stretcher? We forget that it's tough to recruit people to become terrorists without lying to them a little bit. I'd be a little bit wary before I took all these confessions at face value. Hell, other people have already been convicted for Pearl (Omar Saeed, I think).
- UNLV/GT might not suck. Later.
- I watched Jon Stewart instead: Aside from the VCU-Duke game and maybe the Xavier-BYU game, there were no good games in the NCAA tournament's first day. OK, Vandy's 77-44 shellacking of George Washington was fun to watch, but it didn't make for compelling television for those of you not sporting black and gold. From the looks of things, Day 2 isn't going to be that much better - UVA's up on Albany by, like, 20 right now.
- Is it really an upset if everyone called it: There were also no upsets yesterday. That sucks. And no, I don't count VCU-Duke as an upset since pretty much everyone outside of Durham saw it coming. And 9/8 doesn't count either. Same goes for Winthrop beating Notre Dame today, if that happens. I'm suddenly rooting for Niagara - only a 16/1 upset could make up for this.
- Least surprising scandal ever: Really, is anyone the slightest bit surprised that this administration fired a bunch of U.S. attorneys and replaced them with cronies, and that these firings may have been related to the attorneys' desire to do a somewhat even-handed job? Or that hiring and firing U.S. attorneys doesn't have to involve Congress anymore thanks to the Patriot Act? Despicable as firing people for not persecuting - ahem, prosecuting - Democrats is, it's not illegal. Why? Because no one read the Patriot Act before it was passed. This is what happens when you rush legislation without making the time to debate and tweak.
- Next, he'll confess to killing Kennedy: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has confessed to planning pretty much every terrorist attack or terror plot known to man. He was behind 9/11, the goofy shoe bombing... apparently he even killed Daniel Pearl. More than 30 terror plots in all. Does anyone else find this a little less than plausible, like he's taking the fall for people we still haven't caught yet? Or that maybe he's just a little bit of a truth-stretcher? We forget that it's tough to recruit people to become terrorists without lying to them a little bit. I'd be a little bit wary before I took all these confessions at face value. Hell, other people have already been convicted for Pearl (Omar Saeed, I think).
- UNLV/GT might not suck. Later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)