Miscellaneous: September 2016 Archives
I really have no idea why Trump calling a woman "Miss Piggy" is a some sort of significant problem. Did anyone not know that this is how he treats people, until now? Come on.
And worse, how is talking about the weight of a Miss America contestant a problem ... even for someone that we don't already think isn't a jerk? The whole point of these pageants is to gaze upon an idealized form of a woman, which means a certain shape, and her shape had grown outside of that idealized form.
If you have a problem with these pageants -- and I would be perfectly happy if they all went away tomorrow -- then say you have a problem with these pageants. But people are basically acting like there's a problem with Trump being honest, and it's just bizarre.
It's kinda like if vegans complained that I used BBQ sauce on my steak. It might be indicative of the problem, but it's not the actual problem. If there's nothing wrong with eating steak, how could there be something wrong with putting BBQ sauce on it? Maybe talk about eating steak being a problem, not what sauce I put on it.
And worse, how is talking about the weight of a Miss America contestant a problem ... even for someone that we don't already think isn't a jerk? The whole point of these pageants is to gaze upon an idealized form of a woman, which means a certain shape, and her shape had grown outside of that idealized form.
If you have a problem with these pageants -- and I would be perfectly happy if they all went away tomorrow -- then say you have a problem with these pageants. But people are basically acting like there's a problem with Trump being honest, and it's just bizarre.
It's kinda like if vegans complained that I used BBQ sauce on my steak. It might be indicative of the problem, but it's not the actual problem. If there's nothing wrong with eating steak, how could there be something wrong with putting BBQ sauce on it? Maybe talk about eating steak being a problem, not what sauce I put on it.
Wow, Hillary admitted tonight that it was Bush who got us out of Iraq, not Obama, and that Obama tried to keep us in Iraq, but failed.
This is entirely true, but exceptional because Obama likes to take credit for leaving Iraq, even though it was Bush's agreement, and Obama tried to keep us there longer.
Similarly, folks are saying that Hillary could not have been fighting ISIS for long, because it was only created three years ago. This, too, undercuts a major Obama narrative, that ISIS is, essentially, Al Qaeda.
You see, Obama launched attacks into Libya to go after ISIS, which is flatly illegal under U.S. statutes unless there's one of a few criteria are met, such as that they attacked the U.S., or there was a specific congressional authorization. Obama says the authorization to attack ISIS in Libya was under the 2001 AUMF, passed in the wake of 9/11, which authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."
In the eyes of Obama, ISIS attacked us on 9/11, which means ISIS is Al Qaeda, which means ISIS has been around since 1988. While ISIS has not been around all of Clinton's adult life on Obama's view, it's a majority of it.
(Interestingly, Tim Kaine himself has, for years, expressed that the Obama administration has been skirting the law on this; while not outright stating that his party's leader is breaking the law, he has expressed concern about it as far back as 2011.)
This is entirely true, but exceptional because Obama likes to take credit for leaving Iraq, even though it was Bush's agreement, and Obama tried to keep us there longer.
Similarly, folks are saying that Hillary could not have been fighting ISIS for long, because it was only created three years ago. This, too, undercuts a major Obama narrative, that ISIS is, essentially, Al Qaeda.
You see, Obama launched attacks into Libya to go after ISIS, which is flatly illegal under U.S. statutes unless there's one of a few criteria are met, such as that they attacked the U.S., or there was a specific congressional authorization. Obama says the authorization to attack ISIS in Libya was under the 2001 AUMF, passed in the wake of 9/11, which authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons [the President] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."
In the eyes of Obama, ISIS attacked us on 9/11, which means ISIS is Al Qaeda, which means ISIS has been around since 1988. While ISIS has not been around all of Clinton's adult life on Obama's view, it's a majority of it.
(Interestingly, Tim Kaine himself has, for years, expressed that the Obama administration has been skirting the law on this; while not outright stating that his party's leader is breaking the law, he has expressed concern about it as far back as 2011.)
I am so glad that both of the candidates agree -- and tonight reiterated -- that American citizens should not have due process.
This is one of those issues where the groups that know the most about the issue -- everyone from the ACLU to the NRA -- agrees this is unconstitutional. But it sounds good, right? If you can't fly in airplane, you can't buy a gun! Who could disagree with this? It even rhymes: "no fly, no buy."
The problem is that there is a constitutional right to buy a gun, and you cannot take away someone's constitutional right by secretly deciding that they simply shouldn't have that right anymore, which is how the No Fly list works.
It's funny how easily we can lose our rights sometimes.
Now, the ACLU is pretty awful on gun rights generally. Their stated position is that gun rights get lesser protection from government interference than other rights because guns can kill. It is, simply, an unprincipled position.
But that's how clear this issue is: even the gun-hating ACLU, who has no problem with not protecting gun rights when it goes against their subjective sensibilities, says You Can't Do That.
Both Clinton and Trump, like Obama, want to do that, because -- frankly -- they do not respect civil rights or the rule of law. They don't. This is a pattern with all of them, and is the biggest reason why I wouldn't vote for any of them.
No respect for rule of law, no vote. It's not as catchy, but it makes a lot more sense.
This is one of those issues where the groups that know the most about the issue -- everyone from the ACLU to the NRA -- agrees this is unconstitutional. But it sounds good, right? If you can't fly in airplane, you can't buy a gun! Who could disagree with this? It even rhymes: "no fly, no buy."
The problem is that there is a constitutional right to buy a gun, and you cannot take away someone's constitutional right by secretly deciding that they simply shouldn't have that right anymore, which is how the No Fly list works.
It's funny how easily we can lose our rights sometimes.
Now, the ACLU is pretty awful on gun rights generally. Their stated position is that gun rights get lesser protection from government interference than other rights because guns can kill. It is, simply, an unprincipled position.
But that's how clear this issue is: even the gun-hating ACLU, who has no problem with not protecting gun rights when it goes against their subjective sensibilities, says You Can't Do That.
Both Clinton and Trump, like Obama, want to do that, because -- frankly -- they do not respect civil rights or the rule of law. They don't. This is a pattern with all of them, and is the biggest reason why I wouldn't vote for any of them.
No respect for rule of law, no vote. It's not as catchy, but it makes a lot more sense.
Right to Work, in principle, is a bad thing: it means that government tells companies they are not allowed to choose who they want to hire. If a company wants to hire only union members, they should be allowed to do so.
The problem is, however, that government is also leaning on the other side of the equation, giving special powers to unions, such as forcing employers to deal with unions in many cases.
So yes, fine, let's get rid of Right to Work ... as long as we also get rid of the National Labor Relations Board and other means governments use to protect and push union interests.
I am all for freedom, so I am against Right to Work in principle; but I am also for fairness, and Right to Work is a response to the inherently skewed balance of power that government creates in favor of unions.
The problem is, however, that government is also leaning on the other side of the equation, giving special powers to unions, such as forcing employers to deal with unions in many cases.
So yes, fine, let's get rid of Right to Work ... as long as we also get rid of the National Labor Relations Board and other means governments use to protect and push union interests.
I am all for freedom, so I am against Right to Work in principle; but I am also for fairness, and Right to Work is a response to the inherently skewed balance of power that government creates in favor of unions.
So if you change your child's diaper, you're a child molester. If you don't, you're a child abuser. If you get someone else to do it, you're an accessory to child molestation. Probably the same thing if you give the baby up for adoption.
The only legal recourse is to abort the child before it's born, it seems.
The court says, correctly, that a prosecutor is unlikely to charge a parent with this crime. But that's no excuse for allowing it to stand. That ignores the role and practice of law in society. We shouldn't have to hope no rogue prosecutor will throw us in jail just for doing the right things in our daily lives.
In a free country, the government has no authority to throw you in jail without actually showing evidence you did something actually wrong. Increasingly in America, it's the case that the government has the authority to throw you in jail for any of a number of "crimes" you may have committed, that aren't legitimate crimes.
The only legal recourse is to abort the child before it's born, it seems.
The court says, correctly, that a prosecutor is unlikely to charge a parent with this crime. But that's no excuse for allowing it to stand. That ignores the role and practice of law in society. We shouldn't have to hope no rogue prosecutor will throw us in jail just for doing the right things in our daily lives.
In a free country, the government has no authority to throw you in jail without actually showing evidence you did something actually wrong. Increasingly in America, it's the case that the government has the authority to throw you in jail for any of a number of "crimes" you may have committed, that aren't legitimate crimes.
"Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman says the public isn't listening to the message NFL players are trying to send with their actions during the national anthem."
No kidding. That's why my point, from the beginning, is that this was a stupid protest, because this was absolutely inevitable. If I say, "Your mother is ugly, and I am only saying that not because I think she is ugly, but because I think we should focus on the plight of starving people in Africa," do you really think you're gonna focus on the plight of starving people in Africa? Most likely, you'll focus either on the fact that I said your mother is stupid, or how stupid I am to say that in order to raise awareness of the plight of starving people in Africa.
You can argue until you're blue in the face about what you mean when you say something, but if, at the end of the day, people hear something different from what you meant ... you lose. And it is absolutely inevitable that a protest during the national anthem will be "heard" as a disrespect of America.
It's not the public's fault, it's the fault of the people who didn't realize that the message was always going to get lost with this protest.
No kidding. That's why my point, from the beginning, is that this was a stupid protest, because this was absolutely inevitable. If I say, "Your mother is ugly, and I am only saying that not because I think she is ugly, but because I think we should focus on the plight of starving people in Africa," do you really think you're gonna focus on the plight of starving people in Africa? Most likely, you'll focus either on the fact that I said your mother is stupid, or how stupid I am to say that in order to raise awareness of the plight of starving people in Africa.
You can argue until you're blue in the face about what you mean when you say something, but if, at the end of the day, people hear something different from what you meant ... you lose. And it is absolutely inevitable that a protest during the national anthem will be "heard" as a disrespect of America.
It's not the public's fault, it's the fault of the people who didn't realize that the message was always going to get lost with this protest.
If Jesus ran for President ...
What would Trump's nickname be for him?
What would Trump's nickname be for him?
I just realized that the ref in Slap Shot is Colin Kaepernick.
You see, the Hanson Brothers of the Chiefs were, with no justification whatsoever, brutalizing players from the Patriots before the game. And then after the brawl died down, and the players are standing, bloody, at attention for the national anthem, a ref comes up to the Hansons and starts yelling at them.
A Hanson yells out, "I'm listening to the f-ing song!"
It doesn't matter that the Hansons were wrong, and the ref was right. What matters is that even the Hansons should get to stand and listening to the national anthem without someone else trying to get their attention.
Sure, Kaepernick is not getting in anyone's face directly. But when you're drawing attention to yourself -- which is what you are trying to do when you are protesting by kneeling during the anthem -- you're ruining the moment for everyone else, even if they are in the wrong.
We're listening to the song, and would appreciate it if you wouldn't be a distraction, if that's not too much to ask.
You see, the Hanson Brothers of the Chiefs were, with no justification whatsoever, brutalizing players from the Patriots before the game. And then after the brawl died down, and the players are standing, bloody, at attention for the national anthem, a ref comes up to the Hansons and starts yelling at them.
A Hanson yells out, "I'm listening to the f-ing song!"
It doesn't matter that the Hansons were wrong, and the ref was right. What matters is that even the Hansons should get to stand and listening to the national anthem without someone else trying to get their attention.
Sure, Kaepernick is not getting in anyone's face directly. But when you're drawing attention to yourself -- which is what you are trying to do when you are protesting by kneeling during the anthem -- you're ruining the moment for everyone else, even if they are in the wrong.
We're listening to the song, and would appreciate it if you wouldn't be a distraction, if that's not too much to ask.
Dear Internet: please stop saying ITT is not accredited. It's not true. You sound silly by saying it.
If Brissett goes down and Edelman becomes the QB, how awesome would he have to be to permanently replace Brady as the starter?
Trump wants to force companies to give things to their employees. This is wrongheaded in every way.
Andrew Breitbart left a company that then destroyed his good name. John McAfee left a company and then destroyed its good name.
Because it's that time of year ...
Not just Trump supporters are "deplorable": I am definitely Hillary-phobic.
Been reading alternative superhero books. Caught up a bit on Valiant universe, re-read Project Superheroes Chapter One and then read Chapter Two; Kirby Genesis;Last of the Greats (unfortunately unfinished); a few others. Now reading Invincible (first 50ish issues). Then Irredeemable and Incorruptible. Maybe Rising Stars after that.
Trump says some of the Mexicans being sent to the U.S. "have lots of problems" and are drug dealers and rapists. But Clinton says half of Americans who support Trump -- probably 15 million people or more -- are "deplorable."
That's idiotic, and it seems far worse to me, because she's saying it about Americans. Trump has been blasted by the media for over a year for his inane comments. Will they come after Clinton with a remotely similar fervor? I'm not holding my breath.
That's idiotic, and it seems far worse to me, because she's saying it about Americans. Trump has been blasted by the media for over a year for his inane comments. Will they come after Clinton with a remotely similar fervor? I'm not holding my breath.
We do not have marriage equality in this country. If we did, these women would not have been arrested.
I have been for actual marriage equality long before gay marriage was legalized in the U.S. And if you are for marriage equality, you should be taking the side of these women ... and at the very least, you should recognize the fact that we do not have marriage equality in the U.S.
I have been for actual marriage equality long before gay marriage was legalized in the U.S. And if you are for marriage equality, you should be taking the side of these women ... and at the very least, you should recognize the fact that we do not have marriage equality in the U.S.
Original Post from ThinkGeek:
Your dreams come true... The Star Trek TNG Bluetooth ComBadge is a reality: http://bit.ly/2cnlCVr #StarTrek50
I am neck deep in JIRA instances. Not drowning yet.
If I had to rank the top four candidates, I'd put Johnson first -- the only one there I could possibly, by my conscience, vote for -- followed by a tie for last with Trump and Clinton. Stein is below that.
I won't vote for any of them, though.
I won't vote for any of them, though.
People who say there's only two choices for President have one thing in common: they prefer Clinton or Trump for President. I don't. I will not for someone unqualified for the job; I will vote for neither Trump, nor Clinton.
Trump probably bought off the Florida Attorney General. But the evidence for that is no greater than that Clinton was bought off on multiple occasions. And it's worse with her, because she was the government official being bought off.
It's similar with Clinton's e-mails versus Trump's tax returns: she has a legal requirement to release her e-mail and calendar and so on, as these are public records. He has no obligation to release his tax returns.
There's no equivalency here: on these matters, she is far worse than he is.
That said, it's fair to look at Trump's history as an indicator for how he'd be as President, and it's part of why I won't vote for either one of them. Neither will be honest, neither will be transparent, both will be corrupt. But let's not pretend that what Clinton's done is not worse than what Trump's done, because she's the one who was a government official repeatedly violating the public trust, and he wasn't.
It's similar with Clinton's e-mails versus Trump's tax returns: she has a legal requirement to release her e-mail and calendar and so on, as these are public records. He has no obligation to release his tax returns.
There's no equivalency here: on these matters, she is far worse than he is.
That said, it's fair to look at Trump's history as an indicator for how he'd be as President, and it's part of why I won't vote for either one of them. Neither will be honest, neither will be transparent, both will be corrupt. But let's not pretend that what Clinton's done is not worse than what Trump's done, because she's the one who was a government official repeatedly violating the public trust, and he wasn't.
If a GOP former Secretary of State / Presidential nominee were caught planting questions in their own hearing, or if the FBI Director were apparently bending over backward to avoid finding wrongdoing by that nominee -- not asking the questions that would support the case, not asking under oath, not recording it or having a transcript, doing it a mere three days before saying no charges would be filed (over a holiday weekend), saying explicitly that the questioning was not a factor in the decision -- not to mention that many of the e-mails in question had been deleted after being subpoenaed (not to mention the contents repeatedly lied about), this would be the top story on every national news broadcast for a week, at least.
And rightfully so.
But if that person is Hillary Clinton, not a Republican? Barely a peep.
And rightfully so.
But if that person is Hillary Clinton, not a Republican? Barely a peep.
HA!
I've read a few government documents in my days. I recognize classification markings within documents: (C) means "Confidential." (S) means "Secret." And so on.
It just came out today that Hillary Clinton testified to the FBI that she did not know what the "(C)" referred to, saying that she thought maybe it was referring to the alphabetical order of the portions of the documents.
Please let's stop saying she isn't a liar, because our only other option is massively incompetent, and no one believes that.
It just came out today that Hillary Clinton testified to the FBI that she did not know what the "(C)" referred to, saying that she thought maybe it was referring to the alphabetical order of the portions of the documents.
Please let's stop saying she isn't a liar, because our only other option is massively incompetent, and no one believes that.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
