Yesterday Amendment One was passed by the voters of North Carolina. Essentially that means that same-sex marriages are scheduled to be officially banned by the state constitution. Because of that a lot of venom has been spewed at my state calling us inbred hicks, bigots, Bible beaters, etc. Once again being the grim spectre of truth that I am I’m going to tell you how it really is.
First off let me preface this by saying that I wholeheartedly support gay marriage and I’ll tell you why. It’s no secret that I’m an adoptee. I feel very strong about adoption. I would rather see a child adopted by a loving gay couple than end up in either a sketchy foster home or worse, as remains in a medical waste bag.
Now getting back to North Carolina. When the voters of California passed Prop 8 some years ago nobody called them inbred hicks.
Let me tell you some things about our ‘inbred’ state. The city of Charlotte is only 2nd to New York when it comes to financial business. Raleigh is only 2nd to Silicon Valley when it comes to the tech field. We have two of the best higher learning institutions in the country in Duke and UNC. We have an NHL team that has won the Stanley Cup. Not to mention that City of Asheville is probably the 2nd most gay friendly city in the country. And like I always say I saw more instance of bias crime living in New Jersey than I ever have in North Carolina.
What really got the amendment passed was not necessarily hate but logistics and apathy. Think about it for a minute. Do you what else was being voted on yesterday? It was the North Carolina Republican primary. So right there you know that the majority of voters are going to be from a party that have a history of not supporting same-sex rights.
There are a little more than 9 million people in North Carolina. From what I understand only 2 million people voted in yesterday. That’s only 22% of the populace and most of them were Republicans. Trying to get people to pry themselves away from their work and home lives in order to vote in a primary in this day and age would be a miracle. If the amendment was going to be voted on in November it would have had a much different outcome.
You know what they say about forgetting the past right? In California Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional. So will Amendment One.
27-year-old Meredith Lowell of Cleveland Heights, Ohio has been charged with allegedly trying to solicit a hitman on Facebook. Not for anyone in particular but any random person that happens to be wearing fur.
Investigators say that Howell set up a Facebook page under the assumed name of Anne Lowery to solicit someone to kill a random stranger that was wearing fur because Lowell is an animal rights ‘activist’. I believe this makes her an animal rights terrorist but I digress.
Allegedly she wanted the random stranger killed so she could then distribute fliers about the ‘evils’ of wearing fur and eating meat at the scene of the murder. She is said to have asked the hitman to kill someone 14 or older but a 12-year-old would do in a pinch.
Since you’re reading this here you can guess that the hitman that contacted her was an FBI agent.
Lowell allegedly claimed she wanted to be arrested at the site of the impending murder in part so she could get out of her parents house where her family eats meat and wear leather, fur and wool. That’s right kids, 27 and living at home. No word on if she occupied the basement.
What I want to know is why do the more stupid among us seem to think that there is a cadre of hitmen that roll Facebook looking for gigs?
Let us also not forget there is no such thing as anonymity on the internet. As soon as you post something illegal like this on any website law enforcement will be able to find you.
As usual when the hysterical masses are outraged about something it usually turns out that they only have half the story. Now the other half is finally coming out about the pepper spraying incident at UC Davis.
The UC Davis police arrested some Occupy protesters for not dispersing when asked. Again you have the right to peaceably assemble just not on property that’s owned by someone else, in this case the state of California. A throng of protesters then surround police refusing to allow the police to leave. In essence that is holding the police hostage. The protesters were repeatedly asked to move and when they did not they were pepper sprayed.
For those of you who did watch the video you may say *annoying hippy voice here* “But Trench at the 12 minute mark of the video the police had their guns drawn and we’re going to shoot the peaceful protesters.” To you I say get some knowledge. Any 13-year-old could tell you that those guns were paintball guns. Police use them to fire pepper spray projectiles which at the worst can cause a welt.
If you really think about it the police showed tremendous restraint here. One wrong move by the protesters and this could have easily turned into a bloodbath.
So the bottom line is they were not peaceful protesters as some would have you think. They were hostage takers and those hostages were the very police whose duty it is to protect us. They also have a duty to protect themselves.
I’m sure this will most fall on deaf ears, or blind eyes as the case may be, due to partisan hackery and people with ‘fuck the police’ mindsets. That’s your loss for not wanting to admit the truth.
Thanks to Rob Taylor for sharing the video with me.
Recently the state of Missouri has enacted a set of laws to prevent teachers from entering into appropriate relationships with their students. One of those laws is that teachers could not privately communicate with students through Facebook or other social networking sites. Of course this has teachers outraged. Even the ACLU is getting involved.
Teachers say that this punishes all teachers for the sins of the criminal ones. You’ll have to forgive me for possibly being old-fashioned but I wouldn’t want a teacher contacting one of my children outside of school wherein the contact circumvents the parent.
If kids have a question about their school work where they need to contact their teacher outside of school it should be done through a school monitored website and not something like Facebook where a parent may not have any control.
I admire Ron Paul. He is a man of character and it’s sad to see that the Tea Party movement, which he basically started, has been hijacked by a bunch of idiots.
What breaks the deal for me with Ron Paul is his stances on legalizing drugs and especially legalizing prostitution.
Legalizing drugs would cause an immense strain on our already taxed healthcare system and legalizing prostitution would in no way solve any of the other crimes, such as human trafficking, associated with it.
You remember Steven Weber don’t you? He played the screw up brother on the TV show “Wings” and was in the horrible made for TV remake of “The Shining”. Basically on the relevance scale he ranks somewhere between Gallagher and Emilio Esteves.
Since the Huffington Post will allow any ‘celebrity’ to rant there Weber takes the media to task for descending on disgraced US Rep. Anthony Weiner like a pack of rabid badgers. In his admonishing of the media Weber uses a falsehood to try to get his point across…
The fact that Weiner was one of the left’s most effective warrior’s against the legitimately vile purveyors of rightwing horseshit is now seemingly forever lost in the bloodlust that defines our cultural landscape; the prevailing analyses have more in common with base schoolyard taunts that bred a Dylan Klebold than with straight journalism.
I find two things wrong with Mr. Weber’s admonishment is that not only does he falsely assume that bullying caused Columbine but I have to ask where Mr. Weber’s criticism of the media was when right-wing politicians like Mark Sanford and Larry Craig were being raked across the media coals? I wouldn’t doubt that Mr. Weber was relishing in that but now that it’s one of his guys he thinks the media needs to lay off.
Please critique the media Mr. Weber as they often deserve it but at least be non-partisan about it and please do better research on Columbine before making the same mistakes that the media you’re criticizing makes.
I remember about 8 years ago where another Middle Eastern dictator was ordering his troops to rape his own citizens but barely anyone in the international community was willing to do anything about him.
Recently Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he would like to have children under 13 use his site. That’s not feasible right now because of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) which says that websites can’t collect information on users younger than 13.
The internet being what it is mostly everyone is cynical of Mr. Zuckerberg’s motives. They think he’s part of some evil privacy invasion plot, exaggerated slightly. Mr. Zuckerberg says he wants the children on his site for educational purposes…
“Education is clearly the biggest thing that will drive how the economy improves over the long term,” Zuckerberg said. “We spend a lot of time talking about this.”
Mr. Zuckerberg said this basically as an off hand comment during an interview and not as some kind of proclamation. He’s been a big proponent of education since he’s made his fortune so I think he’s being genuine. I also think he’s being naive. Mr. Zuckerberg is still in his 20s albeit his late 20s. While educating children is indeed a lofty goal unfortunately this is not a perfect world and some people do use Facebook for nefarious purposes against children. Add that to uneducated or inattentive parents and you have a recipe for disaster by having young children on Facebook.
I don’t think his idea is totally without merit though. Maybe if there was a separate Facebook that could be moderated by school faculties might not be a bad idea. However even then you’d have to worry about less than reputable educators.
Bottom line is Mr. Zuckerberg’s heart is in the right place but unfortunately we are far off from the time where this could be a reality.
There was a minor kerfuffle recently when the news came out that in the comics Superman was going to renounce his US citizenship. This outraged some as Supes is supposed to stand for truth, justice and the American way. I’ll have to admit even I had a modicum of outrage over this. That was until I actually read Action Comics #900 and saw what the real deal is. Now if you haven’t read it yet I will be posting spoilers so you’ve been given the ‘Spoilers Ahoy’ warming.
Anyway since this was Action Comics #900 there were several stories in this issue, it was basically an anthology. The story in which this takes place wasn’t even the main story of the issue. The story was basically a one-off story that may or may not actually be canon meaning it may be forgotten by the time issue #901 comes out.
So in the story Superman flies to Iran because an Egypt like revolution is taking place there and he places himself between the military and the protesters. He doesn’t do anything, he just kind of floats there for 24 hours then flies off. Of course the fictional US government has a problem with this as it may have caused an international incident. In the panel that I posted Superman says he’s tired of everything that he does being seen as an American action and that he’s basically more a citizen and protector of the world at large.
One could argue, and I will, that Superman renouncing his US citizenship could be the most patriotic thing he’s ever done. By renouncing his citizenship he’s protecting the US by deflecting blame from the US government.
Besides if you let your politics get in the way of your entertainment then I feel sorry for you.