Michael Jackson was *acquitted* by a jury of his peers of child molestation. He settled out of court with a previous accuser (whether the accusation was valid or merely a rather successful attempt to use the threat of bad publicity and the legal system to extract large sums will likely never be known).
That Mr. Jackson...was a man of unusual quirks...seems a relatively good bet. That he molested anyone, anywhere - I'm not quite so persuaded. That he had issues with drugs, pain management, and a deeply challenging youth abetted by an only slightly less challenging adulthood - seems a pretty good bet.
If we are sincere about "innocent until proven guilty", an acquittal means an end, and barring certain knowledge on the part of the accuser, should mean the end to speculative accusations on the matter. And the man is dead now, beyond mortal punishment or criticism - and should he have erred in that particularly hideous fashion, he is facing far sterner judgment than humanity might offer up - and is certainly beyond the risk of any recidivism.
What we can say with some certainty is that Mr. Jackson was a man of incredible talent, with a broader vocal range than the vast majority. A talented choreographer and composer. And a huge influence on the music of the last 40 years.
Just perhaps, now that he is gone, for the sake of his children, his friends, and his family...the sheer number of cheap shots (and I'll admit my own guilt in taking a cheap shot or two, passing on a joke or so just too evil not to share)...seems a bit excessive. Let him rest, and let us all move on.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
BUSY! and HELP!!!
I sell electric vehicles. I believe in them - not just as a practical city/town vehicle (in most iterations), but as a political and philosophical action, one car at a time, to reduce dependence not merely on foreign oil, but on foreign oil originating in nations largely hostile to the United States.
Exporting cash to nations where large percentages of said cash end up in the hands of terrorists, dictators, socialist tyrants, and generally hostile sorts strikes me as generally ill-advised, and reason enough to act to stanch the oil-based cash-flow.
Biofuels, to the the absolute non-surprise of anyone with even the most basic grounding economics, compete for field-space with that silly luxury "food" - driving up prices for said luxury, while offering a relatively low resource>energy ratio. In short, bio-fuel is a dandy con job best suited as a mechanism for doling out pork to the favored few, despite the ill effects on individuals and an already fragile economy.
Anthropomorphic Global warming? The science is far from settled and the viciousness with which those who question the "received wisdom" on the topic tends to indicate an atmosphere of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) being utilized as a bludgeon to intimidate and abuse those who would question this theory. That, combined with the sheer political convenience of such an unusually handy sled ("DO THIS OR YOU'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIIEEEE!") to load failed "social justice" and "equality in misery" programs of the past...leave me deeply skeptical of the whole notion as having anything to do with science.
When something looks like the wet dream of one party or another (in this case Democrats) to ramrod otherwise unacceptable programs through, particularly when the science is based more on shouting by "true believers" than research by actual scientists...it's probably a vehicle of the suspect party, rather than science.
Which brings us to the Clunker bill and the $3500/4500 credit available to folks who turn in their older or less efficient vehicles and buy new and more efficient vehicles. I think it's a good notion to reduce fuel consumption, but the whole carbon thing is generally a load in my book. But a sharp allegorical stick in the eye of Chavez and his spiritual cohorts? Not entirely a bad thing, and the money could be spent in worse fashion.
But here's the wretchedly self-serving beg - can you purchase an *all-electric* car (not hybrid, not even a little bit) with the credit? The public resources offer *NO* guidance, and I don't want folks showing up at the dealership where I work, signing papers, thinking all was well - and then getting hit with a $4,500.00 surprise!
Thus...please write or call or email (yes, it's one of those damned contact forms) WA Sen. Maria Cantwell, sitting on the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, and ask her to clarify that why *YES* electric vehicles qualify for the Clunker Credit.
Senator Maria Cantwell
511 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3441
202-228-0514 - FAX
202-224-8273 - TDD
E-Mail
Thank you!
Exporting cash to nations where large percentages of said cash end up in the hands of terrorists, dictators, socialist tyrants, and generally hostile sorts strikes me as generally ill-advised, and reason enough to act to stanch the oil-based cash-flow.
Biofuels, to the the absolute non-surprise of anyone with even the most basic grounding economics, compete for field-space with that silly luxury "food" - driving up prices for said luxury, while offering a relatively low resource>energy ratio. In short, bio-fuel is a dandy con job best suited as a mechanism for doling out pork to the favored few, despite the ill effects on individuals and an already fragile economy.
Anthropomorphic Global warming? The science is far from settled and the viciousness with which those who question the "received wisdom" on the topic tends to indicate an atmosphere of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) being utilized as a bludgeon to intimidate and abuse those who would question this theory. That, combined with the sheer political convenience of such an unusually handy sled ("DO THIS OR YOU'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIIEEEE!") to load failed "social justice" and "equality in misery" programs of the past...leave me deeply skeptical of the whole notion as having anything to do with science.
When something looks like the wet dream of one party or another (in this case Democrats) to ramrod otherwise unacceptable programs through, particularly when the science is based more on shouting by "true believers" than research by actual scientists...it's probably a vehicle of the suspect party, rather than science.
Which brings us to the Clunker bill and the $3500/4500 credit available to folks who turn in their older or less efficient vehicles and buy new and more efficient vehicles. I think it's a good notion to reduce fuel consumption, but the whole carbon thing is generally a load in my book. But a sharp allegorical stick in the eye of Chavez and his spiritual cohorts? Not entirely a bad thing, and the money could be spent in worse fashion.
But here's the wretchedly self-serving beg - can you purchase an *all-electric* car (not hybrid, not even a little bit) with the credit? The public resources offer *NO* guidance, and I don't want folks showing up at the dealership where I work, signing papers, thinking all was well - and then getting hit with a $4,500.00 surprise!
Thus...please write or call or email (yes, it's one of those damned contact forms) WA Sen. Maria Cantwell, sitting on the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, and ask her to clarify that why *YES* electric vehicles qualify for the Clunker Credit.
Senator Maria Cantwell
511 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3441
202-228-0514 - FAX
202-224-8273 - TDD
Thank you!
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Nickels Follies - 06/14/09 Update
- Greg Nickels: Giving toughness a bad name.
- Turns SDOT into a back-biting mess with only 8 years of his quality leadership skills.
- Apparently a bit of well-known civic lore I missed out on till now - Greg Nickels, college drop-out.
- In a sad failure we only report now on, the idiocy of Nickels "Car Free Days" obstructing access to neighborhoods and businesses in the name of "green" that started in the summer of '08. Reprised this summer, Nickels hare-brained suggestion deprived already challenged businesses of needed summer revenue in '08, resulted in residents having their cars towed from their own neighborhoods, and screwed up traffic flow for miles in all directions.
- Recently discovered, Nickels suggestion to school children in 2007 that if people don't use those swirly mercury-laced fluorescent light bulbs, that Santa and the Reindeer may drown.
- Nickels has managed to alienate even liberal bloggers, an amazing feat for an allegedly liberal (some claim simply megalomanic, a relatively fine distinction).
- Nickels successfully forces a gun ban provision into all contracts to use city facilities, leaving the contract-holder to enforce said ban against attendees and volunteers, and in turn, the Seattle Police will then act as the contractors agent in enforcing the Mayors ban - in an attempt to sidestep pre-emption.
- As a result of Nickels skill at throwing major public hissy-fits, he manages to bully the Governor into blessing the obscenely expensive Seattle Version Big Dig as a monument to his arrogance and to the lengths he will go to profit his friends at the expense of taxpayers.
- Snow. After nearly two weeks of 18+ inches of snow on a non-snow city operating on a plan of "gee, if vehicles with chains or 4x4 can maneuver the compacted snow'n'ice of what used to be considered roads, it's all good" with salt declared "environmentally bad" and plow blades with rubber edges (lest the roads be wounded), even as side streets remain unplowed and various business districts are effectively considered expendable. Local Transit (Metro) routes were cut by more than half, interestingly enough, post event Metro heads complain the Mayors office refused to take their calls. Mayor Nickels gives city response a "B" grade. Excellent article on the aftermath by Seattle P-I's Joel Connelly.
- Increasingly globular Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels tells us he's not trying to make life inconvenient for Seattleites...a hint that it just comes naturally to him. A partial list of his more spectacularly foolish moments includes:
- In June 2008, in blatant defiance of state law, Nickels proposed to ban the lawful carry and possession of firearms in all city buildings, parks, and facilities - claiming that the Pre-emption Clause barring this very thing only applied to statutes and ordinances passed by political bodies subordinate to the Washington State Legislature, claiming acts by adminstrative fiat (Mayoral temper tantrum) were somehow outside the statute.
- In November of 2008, Nickels (in the face of a formal legal opinion from WA Attorney General Rob McKenna stating in painful detail that mayoral temper tantrums were not exempt from state law) claimed he would go ahead with his shiny new gun ban, as he needed "clarification" of the AG opinion.
- In the midst of "challenging financial times" Nickels is ram-rodding through the City Council a plan to ban foam containers at restaurants and grocery stores, and impose a 20-cent fee for each disposable paper and plastic bag used in the checkout line at all grocery, convenience and drugstores - with plastic containers/implements/etc banned in July of 2010. In a display of solidarity with less well-off residents that use grocery bags as garbage can liners rather than paying for "extra special" designated baggage, Nickels in an interview said "If you use grocery bags to line your trash can, Nickels says, "that's great, 20-cents."
- After various questionable efforts, Nickels managed to lose Seattle its' pro basketball franchise - the Sonics - for a return of not quite zilch. Good going there, Nickels. Bet those fans will love you come the next elections. And was lucky to escape, IMHO, without perjury charges.
- In 2006, the Seattle Weekly reported Nickels diversion of funds earmarked for the Film & Music Office (the kids supposed to be luring big money film productions to town for fun & profit) to support his passion for smooth jazz.
- At the same time, in 2006, the Seattle Times reports Nickels pushed an adult entertainment ordinance so noxious that even do-gooding sorts voted to repeal it in a local referendum.
- Nickels kept a police chief that can't even keep track of his own gun, one Gil Kerlikowske, who doubles as Nickels puppet-in-chief for gun control in Olympia each legislative session, even after a vote of no confidence in said "chief" from the Seattle Police Guild.
- Nickels has achieved what few Seattle mayors have - designation by local media as a megalomaniac.
- Nickels cronies in the Parks Department, in a triumph of symbolism over sanity decided to take down a long time Seattle tradition, in a sop thrown to "global warming" - beach fires at Alki Beach and Golden Gardens city parks while a factory burns tires for fuel a short distance away. At least until public outcry forced a Parks Department climb down...
- And then there's that loony notion, "car-free" days on local roads - trapping local residents or barring them from their homes if they have the temerity to make an appointment or try to come home during the "forbidden hours".
- Under Nickels, a group of bicycle riding hooligans once a month magically ride above the law, engaging in random property damage and - most recently - assault.
- Nickels, frustrated that the rest of the state won't buy into his delusions, suggested on 4/18 that the Seattle/TriCounty (King/Pierce/Snohomish County) area secede from the rest of the state.
King County exec race centers on budget skills
In today's Seattle Times, the article King County exec race centers on budget skills comments on how the County Executive races is less (at least thus far) about expensive "Big Dreams" than about alleged managerial skills, with candidates actually speaking about "cuts" vs. "cuts AND increased taxes".
In an area rapidly becoming famed for the babysitting thoroughness of the local nanny state, the mention of actual reduction of services and such revolutionary concepts of not granting county workers automatic annual pay raises and asking said employees to actually pay for a fraction of their insurance - is nothing short of amazing, and clearly a positive sign.
Now, if only we can get JPG of Expert Witness to consider applying for Seattle Police Chief (a good bet to roll back years of political correctness, management driven by internal political infighting, poor interagency relationships, petty empire building, and a fair amount of political idiocy rammed down said departments throats) given the departure of the deeply unmissed Kerlikowske, one might actually become hopeful for the region - particularly if we ditch Mayor Nickels this fall.
JPG and a clueful Mayor might even dig Seattle out of the last 16 years of idiocy and mis-management.
In an area rapidly becoming famed for the babysitting thoroughness of the local nanny state, the mention of actual reduction of services and such revolutionary concepts of not granting county workers automatic annual pay raises and asking said employees to actually pay for a fraction of their insurance - is nothing short of amazing, and clearly a positive sign.
Now, if only we can get JPG of Expert Witness to consider applying for Seattle Police Chief (a good bet to roll back years of political correctness, management driven by internal political infighting, poor interagency relationships, petty empire building, and a fair amount of political idiocy rammed down said departments throats) given the departure of the deeply unmissed Kerlikowske, one might actually become hopeful for the region - particularly if we ditch Mayor Nickels this fall.
JPG and a clueful Mayor might even dig Seattle out of the last 16 years of idiocy and mis-management.
Sincere Communists
At this late date it startles me when apparently intelligent, supposedly moral, individuals continue to publicly identify themselves as - of all things - communists. Couldn't they choose something less offensive, like identifying as Klan members or pederasts?
After all, when Communists take hold of the reigns of power with rare exception they equal or exceed the worst excesses of most any other form of government you care to examine.
The sort of folks attracted to public leadership tend to range from the elitist (believing, rightly or wrongly, that if the "right folks" were in charge, thing would be ever so much more splendid - and that they are, of course, the "right folks") to the criminal. And often the criminal is cheaper and less harmful, and not terribly rarely, more honest about his/her agenda.
People are flawed, and allowing them near the levers of power doesn't magically make them less flawed. Checks and balances were invented to balance this regrettable fact out, as best as possible. Even more regrettable, letting folks with the stated goal of achieving whole new levels of intrusiveness and authoriteh near the levers of power is never, ever, a good notion - they are precisely who a nation interested in freedom needs to keep far, far, away from higher office than dog-catcher.
Grr.
After all, when Communists take hold of the reigns of power with rare exception they equal or exceed the worst excesses of most any other form of government you care to examine.
The sort of folks attracted to public leadership tend to range from the elitist (believing, rightly or wrongly, that if the "right folks" were in charge, thing would be ever so much more splendid - and that they are, of course, the "right folks") to the criminal. And often the criminal is cheaper and less harmful, and not terribly rarely, more honest about his/her agenda.
People are flawed, and allowing them near the levers of power doesn't magically make them less flawed. Checks and balances were invented to balance this regrettable fact out, as best as possible. Even more regrettable, letting folks with the stated goal of achieving whole new levels of intrusiveness and authoriteh near the levers of power is never, ever, a good notion - they are precisely who a nation interested in freedom needs to keep far, far, away from higher office than dog-catcher.
Grr.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
On Knives
June 13, 2009
19 CFR Part 177
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office of International Trade, Regulations and Rulings
Attention: Intellectual Property and Restricted Merchandise Branch
Mint Annex, 799 Ninth St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20229
Dear Sir or Madam:
It is my understanding that you intend to modify 19 CFR Part 177 in direct contravention of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, in defiance of the expressed will of Congress, and despite several judicial rulings (all of which take precedence over regulatory authority) that the knives you propose to ban by fiat are in fact not switchblades.
Such regulation is not merely a bad notion, laden with fuzzy thinking at best and open defiance of congressional and judicial authority at worst, but an EXPENSIVE bad idea leading inevitably to a vast amount of litigation (in which the Administration will not prevail).
Assisted-opening folding knives whether by crank, semi-spring assisted mechanism or inertial opening all prove routinely useful as utilitarian tools facilitating independence not merely for average persons, but particularly and specifically for persons with hand or arm disability – or in the case of birth defects or trauma, the simple absence of a hand or limb. Barring them from import (and since many jurisdictions use the Customs definition as the operating definition of switchblades under said jurisdictions ordinances and statutes) possession deprives such individuals of a tool personally and professionally useful on a daily basis for many – in contravention of said American With Disabilities Act.
Further, Congress (whose proper realm any such bar to import falls under) has repeatedly declined to define such knives contraband. It is at best somewhat presumptive for an administrative agency to deign to legislate where Congress has chosen not to tread – and certainly constitutionally questionable.
Finally, courts in such diverse legal climes as California, Texas, Illinois and Michigan have all found the knives you propose to bar as “switchblades” to, in fact, NOT BE SWITCHBLADES. This should be a hint, to even a minimally competent attorney, that regulations to the contrary are an expensive invitation to litigation by the masses – litigation which, like an avalanche, will crush any potential defense.
Moving beyond the legal and constitutional reasoning why this proposed regulatory misadventure is such a very bad idea, we examine economic impact beyond the cost of litigation and damages paid out to injured parties.
Lest it have escaped the Agency’s notice, the kindest possible definition of the U.S. economy at this date is “delicate”. A more accurate description would be “in a deep and worsening depression”.
Consciously setting out to damage an already weak economy by attacking a 5.9 billion dollar industry with 3,881 direct U.S. employees and 19,405 U.S. employees in ancillary operations cannot rationally be considered a positive contribution to the national economy. Keeping those folks employed in their customary occupations, is a good thing.
In a time of unprecedented spending matched only by unusually diminished revenues, such regulation also fails to pass any rational test of economic impact on government revenue – by reducing the production of income to, in turn, be taxed.
Going further, this re-definition has a serious and negative impact on the States and local jurisdictions that depend entirely or in part on sales tax revenue for their economic sustenance. Private individuals who purchase such knives for such tasks as box-opening, portable pry bars, and general utility tools will – by virtue of such ban – not be spending on such items, and as a result, not be generating tax revenue…and are unlikely to, in these times, spend said sums elsewhere.
Additionally, such knives are very popular purchases with fishers and hunters – groups that, combined, spent nearly 65 billion in the last year and that in these economic times, under no circumstances should be discouraged from any of their spending for the foreseeable future. Aside from simple respect of such individuals as responsible adults, that 65 billion in spending is a revenue stream necessary for the survival of many state and local governments.
Exploring practicality, with knives such as your proposed ban would forbid comprising 80% of knife sales nationwide, 90% of law enforcement and emergency services carrying such knives already, a similar percentage (90%) of Active and Reserve military carrying and owning at least two such knives, and the above barely touching on said knives prevalence and utility in American society – not only does enforcement become inherently selective and discriminatory, unusually subject to use as a tool of vendetta against those held in disdain by one irritated government employee or another, but becomes sufficiently ludicrous as to make a laughingstock of the Agency, making said agency the target of such scathing contempt and general defiance as the “revenooer’s” of the Prohibition Era – likely not an agency goal.
I urge the agency to return to its’ role as an enforcement body, and abandon attempts to act as a legislative body. If definitions require change, Congress is capable of making such determinations and changes – and Customs & Border Protection certainly has sufficient to occupy it without usurping said bodies constitutional role.
Sincerely,
Gay_Cynic
Sources: http://www.tactical-life.com/online/news/us-customs%E2%80%99-attempts-to-hinder-knife-industry-with-import-regulations-knife-classifications/
19 CFR Part 177
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Office of International Trade, Regulations and Rulings
Attention: Intellectual Property and Restricted Merchandise Branch
Mint Annex, 799 Ninth St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20229
Dear Sir or Madam:
It is my understanding that you intend to modify 19 CFR Part 177 in direct contravention of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, in defiance of the expressed will of Congress, and despite several judicial rulings (all of which take precedence over regulatory authority) that the knives you propose to ban by fiat are in fact not switchblades.
Such regulation is not merely a bad notion, laden with fuzzy thinking at best and open defiance of congressional and judicial authority at worst, but an EXPENSIVE bad idea leading inevitably to a vast amount of litigation (in which the Administration will not prevail).
Assisted-opening folding knives whether by crank, semi-spring assisted mechanism or inertial opening all prove routinely useful as utilitarian tools facilitating independence not merely for average persons, but particularly and specifically for persons with hand or arm disability – or in the case of birth defects or trauma, the simple absence of a hand or limb. Barring them from import (and since many jurisdictions use the Customs definition as the operating definition of switchblades under said jurisdictions ordinances and statutes) possession deprives such individuals of a tool personally and professionally useful on a daily basis for many – in contravention of said American With Disabilities Act.
Further, Congress (whose proper realm any such bar to import falls under) has repeatedly declined to define such knives contraband. It is at best somewhat presumptive for an administrative agency to deign to legislate where Congress has chosen not to tread – and certainly constitutionally questionable.
Finally, courts in such diverse legal climes as California, Texas, Illinois and Michigan have all found the knives you propose to bar as “switchblades” to, in fact, NOT BE SWITCHBLADES. This should be a hint, to even a minimally competent attorney, that regulations to the contrary are an expensive invitation to litigation by the masses – litigation which, like an avalanche, will crush any potential defense.
Moving beyond the legal and constitutional reasoning why this proposed regulatory misadventure is such a very bad idea, we examine economic impact beyond the cost of litigation and damages paid out to injured parties.
Lest it have escaped the Agency’s notice, the kindest possible definition of the U.S. economy at this date is “delicate”. A more accurate description would be “in a deep and worsening depression”.
Consciously setting out to damage an already weak economy by attacking a 5.9 billion dollar industry with 3,881 direct U.S. employees and 19,405 U.S. employees in ancillary operations cannot rationally be considered a positive contribution to the national economy. Keeping those folks employed in their customary occupations, is a good thing.
In a time of unprecedented spending matched only by unusually diminished revenues, such regulation also fails to pass any rational test of economic impact on government revenue – by reducing the production of income to, in turn, be taxed.
Going further, this re-definition has a serious and negative impact on the States and local jurisdictions that depend entirely or in part on sales tax revenue for their economic sustenance. Private individuals who purchase such knives for such tasks as box-opening, portable pry bars, and general utility tools will – by virtue of such ban – not be spending on such items, and as a result, not be generating tax revenue…and are unlikely to, in these times, spend said sums elsewhere.
Additionally, such knives are very popular purchases with fishers and hunters – groups that, combined, spent nearly 65 billion in the last year and that in these economic times, under no circumstances should be discouraged from any of their spending for the foreseeable future. Aside from simple respect of such individuals as responsible adults, that 65 billion in spending is a revenue stream necessary for the survival of many state and local governments.
Exploring practicality, with knives such as your proposed ban would forbid comprising 80% of knife sales nationwide, 90% of law enforcement and emergency services carrying such knives already, a similar percentage (90%) of Active and Reserve military carrying and owning at least two such knives, and the above barely touching on said knives prevalence and utility in American society – not only does enforcement become inherently selective and discriminatory, unusually subject to use as a tool of vendetta against those held in disdain by one irritated government employee or another, but becomes sufficiently ludicrous as to make a laughingstock of the Agency, making said agency the target of such scathing contempt and general defiance as the “revenooer’s” of the Prohibition Era – likely not an agency goal.
I urge the agency to return to its’ role as an enforcement body, and abandon attempts to act as a legislative body. If definitions require change, Congress is capable of making such determinations and changes – and Customs & Border Protection certainly has sufficient to occupy it without usurping said bodies constitutional role.
Sincerely,
Gay_Cynic
Sources: http://www.tactical-life.com/online/news/us-customs%E2%80%99-attempts-to-hinder-knife-industry-with-import-regulations-knife-classifications/
Friday, June 12, 2009
Big Adventures
In the last week, I've found myself joining a bunch of organizations that - while I've continued to work with, support, and say nice things about - I've allowed my memberships to lapse over the years, primarily due to economics.
I'm now an active member of Washington Arms Collectors, the National Rifle Association, and finally, a newly minted life member with the Second Amendment Foundation - all in one week.
Why? And why those membership levels?
Well...WAC, since I'm proposing to show Electric Cars there (even if I can't afford gun-shopping just presently, dammit) it's just POLITE to be an active member when you show up as a table vendor - especially when they are being INCREDIBLY NICE and giving you lotsa tables at a discount. Failure in this would be rude.
The Second Amendment Foundation because they hew closer to my values and preferred political approaches than most 2A advocacy groups - they don't mess around, they pick their battles (and do it well), and they aren't hesitant to meander into a courtroom and deliver a litigious smackdown as needed - and are gracious when other, to remain nameless, groups attempt to steal their thunder. And I *know* the folks over on the other side of the lake, and they're a good bunch.
Finally, the NRA. Lots of folks seem to have issues with them, and I agree that the organization is not adapting with entire grace to the modern age and that it has made some notable mis-steps - however, it's the only 900lb gorilla in the room we've got, and however...clumsy...it might occasionally be, it's OUR 900lb gorilla, and vastly better than being entirely without. I'm looking to work with and support them on a number of fronts in the future, and with that in mind, even if I can't kick loose for a $1000 life membership just presently - I can at least cough up for the 5 year special as insurance against the administrations worst excesses.
It's kind of odd, picking up this many memberships in one fell swoop (and I'm sure there are other worthy orgs out there) but I suspect I'll muddle through. If you haven't joined at least one of the above (SAF or NRA) I'd suggest you consider...as they focus our voices in legislative chambers and courtrooms across the land to vastly greater effect than any of us might have as individuals.
GC
I'm now an active member of Washington Arms Collectors, the National Rifle Association, and finally, a newly minted life member with the Second Amendment Foundation - all in one week.
Why? And why those membership levels?
Well...WAC, since I'm proposing to show Electric Cars there (even if I can't afford gun-shopping just presently, dammit) it's just POLITE to be an active member when you show up as a table vendor - especially when they are being INCREDIBLY NICE and giving you lotsa tables at a discount. Failure in this would be rude.
The Second Amendment Foundation because they hew closer to my values and preferred political approaches than most 2A advocacy groups - they don't mess around, they pick their battles (and do it well), and they aren't hesitant to meander into a courtroom and deliver a litigious smackdown as needed - and are gracious when other, to remain nameless, groups attempt to steal their thunder. And I *know* the folks over on the other side of the lake, and they're a good bunch.
Finally, the NRA. Lots of folks seem to have issues with them, and I agree that the organization is not adapting with entire grace to the modern age and that it has made some notable mis-steps - however, it's the only 900lb gorilla in the room we've got, and however...clumsy...it might occasionally be, it's OUR 900lb gorilla, and vastly better than being entirely without. I'm looking to work with and support them on a number of fronts in the future, and with that in mind, even if I can't kick loose for a $1000 life membership just presently - I can at least cough up for the 5 year special as insurance against the administrations worst excesses.
It's kind of odd, picking up this many memberships in one fell swoop (and I'm sure there are other worthy orgs out there) but I suspect I'll muddle through. If you haven't joined at least one of the above (SAF or NRA) I'd suggest you consider...as they focus our voices in legislative chambers and courtrooms across the land to vastly greater effect than any of us might have as individuals.
GC
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
SIR! MORONS ON THE RIGHT! MORONS ON THE LEFT! MORONS DIRECTLY AHEAD AND BEHIND.....
This morning the Seattle Times published an article on one response to Referendum 71, currently at the petition signature gathering phase. Referendum 71 would repeal Washington's new "Domestic Partnership = Everything except the WORD marriage within the boundaries of the State of Washington" law, passed by the 2009 legislature and recently signed by the governor.
The response, by group WhoSigned.org , is to propose
In comments to the Times Article, the overwhelming (and vastly ignorant) reponse is to characterize this as some kind of horrifying new sort of invitation to intimidation and harassment.
And then Michelle Malkin chimed in, suggesting in essence that in the face of either defeat or opposition, the LGBT community should just bend over and take it, using pumice for lube. "What, what? They have the temerity to express dismay through protest, economic means, and public derision towards their opponents?"
Which saddens me, as Michelle seems a talented writer and analyst the vast majority of the time on almost any other isue - just on the "how dare they not bow their heads and simply give up?" thing, with vast regularity, she routinely seems (t0 me) struck temporarily mad. Fortunately, once jarred off that topic, she seems to return to the land of the rational.
Given that the signatures have always, on every single Initiative and Referendum have always been public to begin with (public documents the second they are submitted to the Secretary of State), it's kind of hard to characterize this as particularly innovative. Only ease of acces changes. My response was as below....
The petition signatures are publicly accessible and for good reason - if you aren't prepared to publicly stand behind your signature on a petition, then you really shouldn't be signing it!
The fact those signatures are public and may deter fence-sitters from signing is one of our few defenses from the "herd mentality" and/or pretty-sounding random idiocy.
If you can't take the heat, don't sign. Grow a set. And if folks cross the line into criminal conduct, then - call your friendly local sheriff or police department, or in case of immediate threat to your life or physical integrity, take what action may be necessary to avert such threat.
Wimps.
The response, by group WhoSigned.org , is to propose
In comments to the Times Article, the overwhelming (and vastly ignorant) reponse is to characterize this as some kind of horrifying new sort of invitation to intimidation and harassment.
And then Michelle Malkin chimed in, suggesting in essence that in the face of either defeat or opposition, the LGBT community should just bend over and take it, using pumice for lube. "What, what? They have the temerity to express dismay through protest, economic means, and public derision towards their opponents?"
Which saddens me, as Michelle seems a talented writer and analyst the vast majority of the time on almost any other isue - just on the "how dare they not bow their heads and simply give up?" thing, with vast regularity, she routinely seems (t0 me) struck temporarily mad. Fortunately, once jarred off that topic, she seems to return to the land of the rational.
Given that the signatures have always, on every single Initiative and Referendum have always been public to begin with (public documents the second they are submitted to the Secretary of State), it's kind of hard to characterize this as particularly innovative. Only ease of acces changes. My response was as below....
The petition signatures are publicly accessible and for good reason - if you aren't prepared to publicly stand behind your signature on a petition, then you really shouldn't be signing it!
The fact those signatures are public and may deter fence-sitters from signing is one of our few defenses from the "herd mentality" and/or pretty-sounding random idiocy.
If you can't take the heat, don't sign. Grow a set. And if folks cross the line into criminal conduct, then - call your friendly local sheriff or police department, or in case of immediate threat to your life or physical integrity, take what action may be necessary to avert such threat.
Wimps.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Defamation
In recent news, a blogger found herself jailed (and under threat of being jailed again) for failure to promptly surrender her computer in an ongoing defamation case. Apparently, such legal bullying is becoming more common as lawyers discover that the laws written to regulate traditional press - just aren't a good fit (though a very profitable bad fit, if you play your cards right, apparently) for the blogging world.
In this instance, what appears to be yet another repugnant player (there appears to be no shortage) in the Anna Nicole Smith quagmire was publicly criticized by the blogger du jour - and proceeded to sue said blogger and as far as I can tell, everyone else in sight. Sort of a variant on the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) concept, to my eye, the player appears to be using litigation as the legal equivalent of a baseball bat to massage the crania of those who would utter disliked phrases.
Somehow, though, I think that holding individuals expressing their personal opinions and perceptions (barring actual malice) liable to the same standard of liability that a traditional media organization (at least VERY LOOSELY) adheres to, is less than entirely just or practical.
True, having a blogger running about the 'net declaring one is having illicit orgies with goats and gerbils is - annoying. But well before the full threat and majesty of the law is brought to bear, we need to consider such threats chilling effect on the First Amendment and beyond that, if any actual malice was involved in the given case.
This isn't the most profound or detailed post...more of a "gee, perhaps we should all think about this - particularly as we yet again near a polling place"...
In this instance, what appears to be yet another repugnant player (there appears to be no shortage) in the Anna Nicole Smith quagmire was publicly criticized by the blogger du jour - and proceeded to sue said blogger and as far as I can tell, everyone else in sight. Sort of a variant on the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) concept, to my eye, the player appears to be using litigation as the legal equivalent of a baseball bat to massage the crania of those who would utter disliked phrases.
Somehow, though, I think that holding individuals expressing their personal opinions and perceptions (barring actual malice) liable to the same standard of liability that a traditional media organization (at least VERY LOOSELY) adheres to, is less than entirely just or practical.
True, having a blogger running about the 'net declaring one is having illicit orgies with goats and gerbils is - annoying. But well before the full threat and majesty of the law is brought to bear, we need to consider such threats chilling effect on the First Amendment and beyond that, if any actual malice was involved in the given case.
This isn't the most profound or detailed post...more of a "gee, perhaps we should all think about this - particularly as we yet again near a polling place"...
Sunday, May 31, 2009
DOMA & Same Sex Marriage
"Federal law requires states to recognize each others marriage licenses and drivers licenses. Why they don't have to recognize each others concealed weapons licenses is only because the 2nd hasn't been incorporated."
When someone I like and respect makes a statement sufficiently at variance with reality, it's HARDER to respond, because I can't trot out the usual snark in good conscience and I have to play nice.
Federal law, in the form of the questionably constitutional federal "Defense of Marriage Act" passed in 1996 specifically bars the federal government and its' agencies from any recognition of same-sex marriage in any of its' actions or rulings (in the second section). In the first section, it specifically exempts states, tribes, and subordinate jurisdictions from recognizing/honoring/acknowledging any same-sex marriage or relationship if the whim doesn't strike them.
Subsequently, various states have passed sundry forms of state level DOMA - while somewhat outdated (4 yrs) this site reviews the variety of bans out there, some more vicious, some less. Florida's, for instance, is particularly vile - not only barring same-sex marriages from being performed within the state, but barring recognition of such marriages performed in any other state or foreign jurisdiction as well.
Progress is being made (Washington's "everything but the name" statute this year is one example), but thus far neither the state nor the federal DOMA variants have made it to the Supreme Court of the United States where, with luck, the good justices will batter the silly about the head and shoulders with the "full faith and credit" clause (Section 1) of the United States Constitution - which the various DOMA implementations appear to defy rather directly.
But that time hasn't come yet. Currenly, to invalidate a Massachusetts (For example) same sex marriage, all one must do is gather all the valuables (not required, but par for the course when dealing with the overwrought) and move to Florida sans partner (and STAY there) - no federal or state penalty will incur. In the same mode, if a person falls in love abroad with a person of the same sex and marries them in, say, Sweden - La Migra will not recognize the marriage and will not admit the spouse.
Then we look at Prop. 8 and its' subsequent effects. Oy.
When someone I like and respect makes a statement sufficiently at variance with reality, it's HARDER to respond, because I can't trot out the usual snark in good conscience and I have to play nice.
Federal law, in the form of the questionably constitutional federal "Defense of Marriage Act" passed in 1996 specifically bars the federal government and its' agencies from any recognition of same-sex marriage in any of its' actions or rulings (in the second section). In the first section, it specifically exempts states, tribes, and subordinate jurisdictions from recognizing/honoring/acknowledging any same-sex marriage or relationship if the whim doesn't strike them.
Subsequently, various states have passed sundry forms of state level DOMA - while somewhat outdated (4 yrs) this site reviews the variety of bans out there, some more vicious, some less. Florida's, for instance, is particularly vile - not only barring same-sex marriages from being performed within the state, but barring recognition of such marriages performed in any other state or foreign jurisdiction as well.
Progress is being made (Washington's "everything but the name" statute this year is one example), but thus far neither the state nor the federal DOMA variants have made it to the Supreme Court of the United States where, with luck, the good justices will batter the silly about the head and shoulders with the "full faith and credit" clause (Section 1) of the United States Constitution - which the various DOMA implementations appear to defy rather directly.
But that time hasn't come yet. Currenly, to invalidate a Massachusetts (For example) same sex marriage, all one must do is gather all the valuables (not required, but par for the course when dealing with the overwrought) and move to Florida sans partner (and STAY there) - no federal or state penalty will incur. In the same mode, if a person falls in love abroad with a person of the same sex and marries them in, say, Sweden - La Migra will not recognize the marriage and will not admit the spouse.
Then we look at Prop. 8 and its' subsequent effects. Oy.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Proposition 8 and the California Supreme Ct
Let me clarify my position, before we get into the really controversial stuff. I *favor* same sex marriage. Should I find a candidate that agrees that such a plan is mutually worthwhile, I want one my very own self - but that's not (mostly) why I favor it.
For the same reason that the anti-miscegenation laws of the Jim Crow South were wrong (that at base, even before touching on the morality of racism, that the government (federal, state, county or municipal) has no business deciding which consenting adults beyond a reasonable degree of consanguinity get hitched with each other, bans on same sex marriage are wrong.
However, beyond that fundamental argument, such bans are counterproductive when subject to rational analysis. The very nature of the bans is counter to best rational interests of the state - not only do persons in legally defined long term relationships cost less in terms of taxpayer support over the years (married folks stay off medicare longer, two incomes stave off the need for assistance, etc.), they increase available pool of marriages and the revenue (direct and indirect) to the state attached to such marriages.
Beyond even that simple logic, in general wielding the public hammer of constitutional amendments and legal statutes to selectively discriminate against specific demographic with the avowed intent of denying the recognition of their equal worth before the law AND specifically denying them over 1000 rights and protections granted married couples at the federal and international levels (and some various rights at the state level, even with Domestic Partnership - marriage for 2nd class citizens) sets exceptionally bad precedent.
With all that said, the California Supreme Court - however much I may dislike its' policy effects - did good. They did their jobs, which is NOT to set moral or public policy, but rather to rule on points of Constitutional and statutory law.
The CSSC had before it two points:
1) Was Proposition 8 properly an amendment (simple modification) of the California State Constitution, or was it a mislabeled revision (a wholesale change, which requires a state constitutionall convention under California rules?
2) In the event that Proposition 8 was legally valid (moral is, as always, a different argument and not on appeal), what legal status do the 18,000+/- same sex marriages that occcured between the original CSSC decision and the passage of Proposition 8 have?
In the case of the first, it was, frankly a weak legal argument by members of the LGBT community that is best characterized as grasping desperately at straws after the barn has burned down. A shot in a million "gotta look busy while we regroup, and what the hell we might win, and it'll gin up the community" kind of appeal.
Anyone with any sort of interest in the law could detect that at thirty yards off or so, in a sad but true kind of way, and it's simply unfair to excoriate the Justices of the CSSC for doing their appointed job. Accurate targeting for protests, boycotts, and other lawful retaliation and protest is on pro-Prop 8 donors and advocates, including the presently-gloating Mormon church and its' membership.
The *SECOND* part of the decision was also hideously predictable. The marriages were lawful at the time they occured, and thus, remain lawful after Proposition 8 passed - in non-legal terms, "no, you don't get a do-over". Retroactive laws are, for good and solid reason, simply forbidden - and that would include any attempt to "un-do" the then-legal marriages.
There is plenty of reason for anger, but directing that anger at the Justices or at the legal system, is inappropriate. Once Proposition 8 passed, the system worked, and worked well, in a bad situation.
The argument of to what degree the terms of State and even Federal Constitutions should be modifiable by popular vote is entirely separate, and one of long standing, and not specific to either same sex marriage or LGBT rights generally.
Frankly, I think that both the legislature and the people should each have an extremely difficult mechanism to change constitutions that involves super-majorities, multi-year cooling off periods, and multiple votes - just to filter out the stupid, the bigoted, and the just plain wrong-headed. Additional precautions to keep either from going astray are negotiable.
Proposition 8 remains a wrong-headed piece of religous bigotry thinly disguised as an amendment to the California Constitution. But now all that remains to Californians is a repealing/modifying amendment, or, heaven forfend, a state constitutional convention.
GC
For the same reason that the anti-miscegenation laws of the Jim Crow South were wrong (that at base, even before touching on the morality of racism, that the government (federal, state, county or municipal) has no business deciding which consenting adults beyond a reasonable degree of consanguinity get hitched with each other, bans on same sex marriage are wrong.
However, beyond that fundamental argument, such bans are counterproductive when subject to rational analysis. The very nature of the bans is counter to best rational interests of the state - not only do persons in legally defined long term relationships cost less in terms of taxpayer support over the years (married folks stay off medicare longer, two incomes stave off the need for assistance, etc.), they increase available pool of marriages and the revenue (direct and indirect) to the state attached to such marriages.
Beyond even that simple logic, in general wielding the public hammer of constitutional amendments and legal statutes to selectively discriminate against specific demographic with the avowed intent of denying the recognition of their equal worth before the law AND specifically denying them over 1000 rights and protections granted married couples at the federal and international levels (and some various rights at the state level, even with Domestic Partnership - marriage for 2nd class citizens) sets exceptionally bad precedent.
With all that said, the California Supreme Court - however much I may dislike its' policy effects - did good. They did their jobs, which is NOT to set moral or public policy, but rather to rule on points of Constitutional and statutory law.
The CSSC had before it two points:
1) Was Proposition 8 properly an amendment (simple modification) of the California State Constitution, or was it a mislabeled revision (a wholesale change, which requires a state constitutionall convention under California rules?
2) In the event that Proposition 8 was legally valid (moral is, as always, a different argument and not on appeal), what legal status do the 18,000+/- same sex marriages that occcured between the original CSSC decision and the passage of Proposition 8 have?
In the case of the first, it was, frankly a weak legal argument by members of the LGBT community that is best characterized as grasping desperately at straws after the barn has burned down. A shot in a million "gotta look busy while we regroup, and what the hell we might win, and it'll gin up the community" kind of appeal.
Anyone with any sort of interest in the law could detect that at thirty yards off or so, in a sad but true kind of way, and it's simply unfair to excoriate the Justices of the CSSC for doing their appointed job. Accurate targeting for protests, boycotts, and other lawful retaliation and protest is on pro-Prop 8 donors and advocates, including the presently-gloating Mormon church and its' membership.
The *SECOND* part of the decision was also hideously predictable. The marriages were lawful at the time they occured, and thus, remain lawful after Proposition 8 passed - in non-legal terms, "no, you don't get a do-over". Retroactive laws are, for good and solid reason, simply forbidden - and that would include any attempt to "un-do" the then-legal marriages.
There is plenty of reason for anger, but directing that anger at the Justices or at the legal system, is inappropriate. Once Proposition 8 passed, the system worked, and worked well, in a bad situation.
The argument of to what degree the terms of State and even Federal Constitutions should be modifiable by popular vote is entirely separate, and one of long standing, and not specific to either same sex marriage or LGBT rights generally.
Frankly, I think that both the legislature and the people should each have an extremely difficult mechanism to change constitutions that involves super-majorities, multi-year cooling off periods, and multiple votes - just to filter out the stupid, the bigoted, and the just plain wrong-headed. Additional precautions to keep either from going astray are negotiable.
Proposition 8 remains a wrong-headed piece of religous bigotry thinly disguised as an amendment to the California Constitution. But now all that remains to Californians is a repealing/modifying amendment, or, heaven forfend, a state constitutional convention.
GC
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Housekeeping
Had a moment, got the blog-links organized by alpha and added a few I'd been meaning to (or thought I had already!). Not a huge deal, but hopefully makes the linky-list easier to use.
On a different topic, the car sales thing is muddling along.
Best Wishes,
GC
On a different topic, the car sales thing is muddling along.
Best Wishes,
GC
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Mark of a Rat-Bastard
I've seen it before - a group of organizers threatening to stomp off over the horizon or force an event to be done "their way", and when nobody panics (and in fact someone steps forward to save the event) they do their level best to bully the community in question into compliance with either threats or actual bad acts to ruin said event - often using "trademark" as the baseball bat of choice to pummel their opponents.
In recent days I've observed, as a non-attendee semi-gun blogger, an unhappy post-script (in addition to the pre-event Registration tantrum) to the 2A Blog Bash. After a typically irreverent and generally positive podcast from ViciousCircle (the domain name SHOULD be a hint for the humor-impaired), a lengthy screed was posted that resulted in MANY comments.
(Oh? Broken link? We in the biz call that a "blatant act of cowardice in the face of disagreement" - you know, when the bulk of comments on your post logically dissent and dissect ones viewpoint, you proceed to act like an ass, and its easier to delete the entire post and comments than own up to ones errors and begin the necessary apologies and groveling).
And if y'all don't like I don't get the quotes exactly right, you shouldn't have been such a wuss and struck the post and comment thread - I'd have been happy to quote letter for letter, complete with links.
I initially commented on the blogpost in question with what I felt was a balanced, well-measured, contribution with a few gentle been-there, done-that hints. Then a line was crossed, and I pondered a bit...and this post emerged.
While there were PLENTY of errors, the most egregious, the one that persuaded me to write this post, was the vicious reply to PhlegmFatale's response offering to organize the 2010 Charottle 2A BlogBash (in the face of "Perhaps we just won't do this if folks don't like the exact way we do it" comment by one of the current organizers) displaying a level of selfish pettiness I rarely observe in the 2A Blogosphere (most folks involved are just too civilized) - an organizer replied with a variation on "I own the event name, you can't do it, screw you - I'll kill it before I'll let anyone else organize it".
This, to someone completely outside the dispute (phlegmmy), charitably offering to take over an event an organizer had just stated they were thinking about walking away from because it was *just too much trouble* and *people might not constantly lavish praise and refrain from all criticism*. If you can't take the heat, you have *no business* as an organizer.
A community event, to my view, belongs to the community - and one organizing group or another is permitted to do the event at said communities sufferance. Piss the given community off badly enough (or step aside), and a replacement organizer can and should spring up.
The 2A BlogBash is definitely a Community Event - that any one person or organizer volunteers to put it together (or help at it) is a fine/good/noble thing. But it does not imply any sort of moral ownership, and attempts to use trademark to bully others to prevent them creating/organizing successor or competitive events....reek of personal moral vileness, or one hell of an imitation thereof, in my opinion.
Playing "we own the name/concept" is nothing more and nothing less than the act of a bullying rat-bastard - and playing it with someone innocently stepping forward to pick up the slack right after you've flung your delicate wrist to your forehead and declaimed "It's just all too, too, much. You do not shower me with sufficient rose petals! You do not worship properly! I just can't bear it! Perhaps I should not do the event! See how you feel then, you ingrates!" is, if anything, worse.
I am not amused. I tend to expect better of folks in the 2A community, and have seldom been disappointed - and to some extent, thus the scale of my wrath.
I hope to visit the Charlotte 2010 NRA Convention, and hope there is a competing or successor 2A Blog Gathering with organizers not terminally thin-skinned, prone to precipitous and arbitrary action, and capable of respecting differing views and priorities. Ideally, organizers with a more positive attitude than "If you don't like the way we do it, y'all can just F*$k right off!"
This isn't the first time I've seen this kind of conduct, nor the first community I've observed it in. I note the vileness remains fairly constant.
Grouchily,
GC
In recent days I've observed, as a non-attendee semi-gun blogger, an unhappy post-script (in addition to the pre-event Registration tantrum) to the 2A Blog Bash. After a typically irreverent and generally positive podcast from ViciousCircle (the domain name SHOULD be a hint for the humor-impaired), a lengthy screed was posted that resulted in MANY comments.
(Oh? Broken link? We in the biz call that a "blatant act of cowardice in the face of disagreement" - you know, when the bulk of comments on your post logically dissent and dissect ones viewpoint, you proceed to act like an ass, and its easier to delete the entire post and comments than own up to ones errors and begin the necessary apologies and groveling).
And if y'all don't like I don't get the quotes exactly right, you shouldn't have been such a wuss and struck the post and comment thread - I'd have been happy to quote letter for letter, complete with links.
I initially commented on the blogpost in question with what I felt was a balanced, well-measured, contribution with a few gentle been-there, done-that hints. Then a line was crossed, and I pondered a bit...and this post emerged.
While there were PLENTY of errors, the most egregious, the one that persuaded me to write this post, was the vicious reply to PhlegmFatale's response offering to organize the 2010 Charottle 2A BlogBash (in the face of "Perhaps we just won't do this if folks don't like the exact way we do it" comment by one of the current organizers) displaying a level of selfish pettiness I rarely observe in the 2A Blogosphere (most folks involved are just too civilized) - an organizer replied with a variation on "I own the event name, you can't do it, screw you - I'll kill it before I'll let anyone else organize it".
This, to someone completely outside the dispute (phlegmmy), charitably offering to take over an event an organizer had just stated they were thinking about walking away from because it was *just too much trouble* and *people might not constantly lavish praise and refrain from all criticism*. If you can't take the heat, you have *no business* as an organizer.
A community event, to my view, belongs to the community - and one organizing group or another is permitted to do the event at said communities sufferance. Piss the given community off badly enough (or step aside), and a replacement organizer can and should spring up.
The 2A BlogBash is definitely a Community Event - that any one person or organizer volunteers to put it together (or help at it) is a fine/good/noble thing. But it does not imply any sort of moral ownership, and attempts to use trademark to bully others to prevent them creating/organizing successor or competitive events....reek of personal moral vileness, or one hell of an imitation thereof, in my opinion.
Playing "we own the name/concept" is nothing more and nothing less than the act of a bullying rat-bastard - and playing it with someone innocently stepping forward to pick up the slack right after you've flung your delicate wrist to your forehead and declaimed "It's just all too, too, much. You do not shower me with sufficient rose petals! You do not worship properly! I just can't bear it! Perhaps I should
I am not amused. I tend to expect better of folks in the 2A community, and have seldom been disappointed - and to some extent, thus the scale of my wrath.
I hope to visit the Charlotte 2010 NRA Convention, and hope there is a competing or successor 2A Blog Gathering with organizers not terminally thin-skinned, prone to precipitous and arbitrary action, and capable of respecting differing views and priorities. Ideally, organizers with a more positive attitude than "If you don't like the way we do it, y'all can just F*$k right off!"
This isn't the first time I've seen this kind of conduct, nor the first community I've observed it in. I note the vileness remains fairly constant.
Grouchily,
GC
Friday, May 15, 2009
Amazing Trends
I'm amazed at the winds of popularity surround fellow-blogger snarkybytes with his first dance video (here),
a significant improvement over the efforts of Chris Crocker, and his masterpiece, "Leave Brittany Alone"
Amazingly, this phenomena is also documented HERE! And HERE! And HERE!
a significant improvement over the efforts of Chris Crocker, and his masterpiece, "Leave Brittany Alone"
Amazingly, this phenomena is also documented HERE! And HERE! And HERE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)