Friday, August 29, 2014

Normally, I would Laugh

Usually when a gun nut gets himself shot while engaging in gunnuttery, I find it amusing. Even laughable. But this is a bit different.

Child firing Uzi at Ariz. shooting range accidentally kills instructor, police say

By Steve Almasy, AnneClaire Stapleton and Ray Sanchez, CNN
Ordinarily, a guy who teaches gun nuts how to fire military-grade assault weapons being shot by the very military-grade assault weapon he is teaching some nut to fire would give me an attack of schadenfreude.  But this little girl is going to have to live with this the rest of her life. 

She is going to carry this weight of having killed a man for the rest of her days because her idiot parents thought that their irrational obsession with weaponry was more important than the health and safety of their child. This poor kid is going to have nightmares the rest of her life because her mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging parents placed more value on their love affair with deadly weapons than on the well-being of their little girl. Absolutely despicable.

Honestly, it's amazing this doesn't happen more often, given our nation's dysfunctional relationship with firearms.

Although, that's not to say that it doesn't happen.

6 year old Florida boy shoots grandfather with assault rifle 

2 year old Pennsylvania toddler kills 11 year old sister

6 year old Indiana boy shoots 13 year old sibling with M-4 belonging to his father

6 year old Florida girl injured in attempt to shoot her mother


And it goes on and on and on because we don't dare risk hurting the feelings of people like this 

who believe that their "right" to dress up and play Army man in public trumps the right of the rest of us not to have to live with the knowledge that any one of us can be shot dead at any moment for any or no reason because FREEDOMMMM!!!!

Thursday, August 28, 2014

World's Weirdest Film Critic

Stomp And Stammer is a great music magazine.


 Really, a really good music magazine.

But they also do movie reviews.

And they have the world's weirdest movie critic, David T. Lindsay, who sees every movie ever made as an example of his weird political views.

For instance, here is the opening line of his review of teen movie The Giver:

The Giver [PG-13]: The dazed stupor of the hysterical do-gooders who foster racism while calling for censorship disguised as fair play find the fruits of their labor realized in director Phillip Noyce’s adaptation of Lois Lowry’s 1993 children’s classic, The Giver.

Um. . . what???

Owing a huge debt to both Ayn Rand’s Anthem and Huxley’s Brave New World, there have been other dystopian films such as Equilibrium and Harrison Bergeron that show a not-too-distant future where emotion has been eradicated in the attempt to guarantee there being no losers, that no one achieves popularity more so than anyone else so that everyone measures up to a sameness – no better off than anyone else.

It doesn’t sound like the not-too-distant future. It sounds like last week. Especially when you take into account that for complete obedience, one of the first distractions eliminated is music! Shades of Georgia Public Broadcasting!

Um. . . yeah. . . Georgia Public Broadcasting doesn't play a whole lot of music, but there are tons of other stations that do. No one's eliminating music. Your magazine has a weekly radio show on WMLB that is all about music.

I remember years ago when an American in Manila was caught in the act of vandalizing cars. Convicted, he was sentenced to bamboo caning, which caused an American outcry that this was barbaric! Nope – true barbarism was his failure to respect private property! There are no human rights without property rights.

Okay, that fucking came out of nowhere. What the fuck does this have to do with the movie? Hell if I know! (Also, it was Singapore, not the Philippines)
Well, I'm sure he'll get back to critiquing the movie in the next paragraph.

Again, for those with the “progressive” brain aneurysm: there are no human rights without property rights!
What does it benefit an individual to be designated as the beneficiary of “human rights” if his property can be seized by Imminent Domain? Or his bank account confiscated and redistributed? If his home is burned to the ground? His business looted – robbed for cigars or gold? If allowed unchallenged, what’s to keep the looter satisfied with mere property? What if he returns to demand your life? The issue in the real world is that some are permitted, out of a sense of injustice or envy, to sacrifice others.
So you can imagine what the world's weirdest film critic would have to say about Dinesh D'Souza's latest lie-turd:

America: Imagine the World Without Her [PG-13]: Payback is a bitch for the lunatic fringe who blame America for a conquest ethic that has existed since the dawn of man in this documentary from the man who exposed 2016: Obama's America. The American left, or their latest identification as "progressives"(Ooh-la-la!), would blame George W. Bush for the crucifixion, the Black Plague, Katrina and the Challenger explosion if it weren't for guys like Dinesh D’Souza to call their bluff.

If the most "payback" they can muster is a shitty movie that no one but them is going to see, I think we'll be just fine.

Also, it's interesting how you lump Katrina in there with all those things that Bush couldn't possibly be blamed for. I mean, obviously Hurricane Katrina wasn't caused by Dubya, but it's more than fair to blame him for his administration's piss-poor response to the tragedy.

  As the shining beacon of ALL liberty, whose constitution has been used as the basis for ALL freedom-seeking people everywhere on this planet, the United States has nonetheless spawned ravenous deniers like Saul Alinsky and Howard Zinn who have perpetuated the myth that the nation was built on slave labor on stolen Indian and Mexican land.

Um. . . okay. . . let's go ahead and stipulate that the US Constitution is pretty great. How does that negate the existence of slavery? And no matter how neato a country we built on this land, that doesn't change the fact that we stole it from the people who were already living here.

D’Souza responds by pointing out that Christopher Columbus NEVER stepped foot on American soil since his landing was in 1492 and America was established in 1776!

How the fuck is that a response? That's like saying "Joe's not a wife-beater. They weren't married yet when he beat Susan up."

I really don't get what the point of that is even supposed to be. Columbus may have done some horrible things, but he did them before the Western Hemisphere was called "America?" So therefore, the US is immune from criticism over atrocities like slavery? You know, come to think of it, that does pretty much sound like D'Souza logic.

Furthermore, every piece of land claimed by Europeans was previously stolen by Indian tribes from lesser tribes, and since Mexico NEVER owned California or New Mexico but inherited from the Spaniards when they ran them out of Mexico, they can't claim any territorial rights to the United States! 

Did various Native American tribes steal land from other tribes? I don't know. Maybe. Let's say they did. I guess that totally justifies the Trail of Tears!
And, yes, there was no Nation of Mexico before Spain was ejected from the Americas, but how is that relevant? The same peoples who were living in Texas, California, etc before the Mexican Revolution were still there after. If they went from being called Aztecs to being citizens of Nueva Espana to being called Mexicans, that really doesn't justify running them off their land at gunpoint.

And now. . .
The most insane and offensive line of the piece:

And, since individual rights are the product of America's Declaration of Independence, there can be no claim to “rights” of any sort by the tribal Indians! 

So, up until 1776, throughout all of human history until 1776 no persons had any rights anywhere in the world. There was no such thing as human rights until Thomas Jefferson wrote the finest piece of public relations ever published. The Declaration of Independence which, by the way, is not a legally binding document, but an open letter to the crown heads of Europe convincing them not to intervene on the side of Britain, states clearly that it is enumerating rights which already exist, not creating new ones.

Also, why would these rights apply to white folks but not Indians? At the very least, the Indians' human rights should have been respected post-1776 (by your logic).

You shall have rights when I say you shall have rights!

The left NEVER admit they are wrong about anything, so occasionally D’Sousa has to rub their noses in the facts. It is not enough to expose their sedition without tying the leaders of the Democrat Party to the twisted fabricated guilt that’s been taught in public schools from textbooks designed to blame America.

Sedition? Pointing out things that America has done wrong is sedition?


P.S. If you are not fortunate enough to live in the Atlanta area, you probably don't know about WMLB, the greatest radio station in the world. (Yes, I have sampled every radio station in the world)

Check 'em out here: you can listen to live-streaming audio.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Computer Troubles

Hopefully back soon.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Take a tip from Micheal Palin

Someone interviewed Dinesh D'Souza recently. Dinesh D'Souza, who besides being a wingnut liar has just been convicted of violating campaign finance law. Do you have any idea how hard it is to violate campaign finance law anymore? It's like running afoul of Bird Law.

You have to really want to set out to commit a crime to violate whatever scraps of campaign finance law still exists in this country.

At any rate, some idiot interviewed Dinesh D'Souza and he crapped out this gem:

The common thread between ISIS and what’s going in Ferguson is you have these people who basically believe that to correct a perceived injustice, it’s perfectly okay to inflict all types of new injustices,” D’Souza said. “Behead guys who had nothing to do with it. Go and loot shops from business owners who were not part of the original problem whatsoever. And all of this is then licensed by the left and licensed to some degree by the media.”

Okay, so going forward, here is how journalists should handle someone like D'Souza:

When a ridiculous person says something ridiculous, just say:
 "You're a very silly man and I'm not going to interview you."

When you come in to work and find that your producer has booked Donald Trump and he starts telling you about his private investigators in Hawaii, just hold up your hand, look him right in the eye and say
"You're a very silly man and I'm not going to interview you."

Think of the trouble that could have been avoided if, when Michele Bachmann first appeared on the scene and started babbling about investigating congress members with un-American ideas, the interviewer had simply said.

"You're a very silly woman and I'm not going to interview you."

When Lindsey Graham comes in to your studio with a list of reasons that we really really need to go to war with yet another country, just say

"You're a very silly man and I'm not going to interview you."

When Louie Gohmert or Steve King open their mouths to say anything,

"You're a very silly man and I'm not going to interview you."

You'll save us all a lot of frustration.

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Thug Cop Proves Cops Aren't Thugs

So, if you're a cop, and you think maybe cops are getting a bad rap due to all the unarmed black guys they keep somehow killing and their generally thuggish behavior in Ferguson, what sort of an op-ed might you write?
Well, assuming you're not a moron, you probably wouldn't come out with something like this column in the Washington Post:

I’m a cop. If you don’t want to get hurt, don’t challenge me.

What the fuck? Are you sure this isn't the Onion?

Nope, WaPo!


So who the fuck is this scumbag?

Sunil Dutta
August 19
Sunil Dutta, a professor of homeland security at Colorado Tech University, has been an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department for 17 years. The views presented here are his own and do not represent the LAPD or CTU.

Really? The LAPD? The LAPD doesn't share this viewpoint? You sure?

A teenager is fatally shot by a police officer; the police are accused of being bloodthirsty, trigger-happy murderers; riots erupt. This, we are led to believe, is the way of things in America.

Well, yeah. All those things happened in America, so. . . yeah, I would say that this is the way of things in America.

It is also a terrible calumny; cops are not murderers.

Um, really?

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A Utah police officer who killed his wife, their two children, his mother-in-law and then himself received text messages from his wife just hours earlier threatening to leave him and take their kids and confronting him for raping her, new documents show.

Police Officer kills wife, son, himself in Boulder City

(CNN) -- A former policeman is on trial in Kansas, accused of killing his wife and setting their home on fire more than two years ago.

 Well. . . . 

Hardly Everrrr!!!


cops are not murderers. No officer goes out in the field wishing to shoot anyone, armed or unarmed.

Really? No officer? How many police officers are there in the US? I mean, there are about 2,000 in Atlanta and we're not even that big a city. So there must be several hundred thousand in America. And none of those cops are looking to shoot someone? Not one? You know how ridiculous people sound when they say that all cops are corrupt or all cops are thugs? Saying none of them are is just as ridiculous.

Regardless of what happened with Mike Brown, in the overwhelming majority of cases it is not the cops, but the people they stop, who can prevent detentions from turning into tragedies.

Regardless of what happened with Mike Brown? You do know a young man was killed, right? That's not some minor detail to be brushed aside. But regardless of your gross insensitivity, you sound like an abusive husband saying that it's his wife's responsibility to prevent him from getting upset enough to beat her up. In other words, you sound like a scumbag.

Working the street, I can’t even count how many times I withstood curses, screaming tantrums, aggressive and menacing encroachments on my safety zone, and outright challenges to my authority. In the vast majority of such encounters, I was able to peacefully resolve the situation without using force.  

Why would you ever use force? There's no law against tantrums, curses or challenges. You're an American cop, not a member of Saddam's Republican Guard. You're not actually allowed to use force on people who hurt your feelings.

One time, for instance, my partner and I faced a belligerent man who had doused his car with gallons of gas and was about to create a firebomb at a busy mall filled with holiday shoppers. The potential for serious harm to the bystanders would have justified deadly force. Instead, I distracted him with a hook about his family and loved ones, and he disengaged without hurting anyone. Every day cops show similar restraint and resolve incidents that could easily end up in serious injuries or worse.

Yes. There are many many good cops who do good work and are heroes. That doesn't excuse the ones who shoot unarmed kids for jaywalking, or choke a man to death for maybe selling cigarettes, ar kill a man holding a bb gun in Target.  If you arrested Tony Soprano, would you listen to him tell you about all the Italians in New Jersey who weren't mobbed up? Would that make a difference? Because most Italians in New Jersey are not criminals does not mean that we should overlook the crimes of the Soprano family. 
That's him, right? 

Sometimes, though, no amount of persuasion or warnings work on a belligerent person; that’s when cops have to use force, and the results can be tragic. We are still learning what transpired between Officer Darren Wilson and Brown, but in most cases it’s less ambiguous — and officers are rarely at fault. When they use force, they are defending their, or the public’s, safety.

No, we already know what happened. There were witnesses. It couldn't be less ambiguous. And if officers are rarely at fault, that does not excuse the ones who are.

Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. 


Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge.  

Wait. You're saying that if I argue with you, ARGUE, you're gonna shoot me? You're gonna club me with your baton if I call you names? Where are you stationed, Tahir Square?

  I am aware that corrupt and bully cops exist. When it comes to police misconduct, I side with the ACLU: Having worked as an internal affairs investigator, I know that some officers engage in unprofessional and arrogant behavior; sometimes they behave like criminals themselves. 

WHAT??? You just now said that you would behave like a corrupt bully if I argued with you! Threatening to throw me down and pepper-spray me if I call you names is pretty much the epitome of unprofessional and arrogant behavior.

And you don’t have to submit to an illegal stop or search. You can refuse consent to search your car or home if there’s no warrant (though a pat-down is still allowed if there is cause for suspicion). Always ask the officer whether you are under detention or are free to leave. Unless the officer has a legal basis to stop and search you, he or she must let you go.

 Unless that cop is you. Then you will tase me, pepper spray me, beat me and shoot me for daring to question your authority.

But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment.

So, in other words, when your rights are being violated, you just smile and take it, bitch!

  Save your anger for later, and channel it appropriately. Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you. 

If you're white.
And not occupying anything.

 Community members deserve courtesy, respect and professionalism from their officers. Every person stopped by a cop should feel safe instead of feeling that their wellbeing is in jeopardy. Shouldn’t the community members extend the same courtesy to their officers and project that the officer’s safety is not threatened by their actions?

Yeah, all you have to do is just put your hands up in the air, and. . . oh. . .  Right. . . Never mind.