Jeez, can we please get rid of this guy?

Scalia on torture morality: 'I don't think it's so clear at all'

 By Eric Bradner, CNN updated 4:53 PM EST, Fri December 12, 20


Yes. It is. It's really one of those super-easy ones. You know how a lot of things aren't really black and white? But this one totally is. It's like debating about the morality of child-molesting, or serial-killing.

"I think it is very facile for people to say 'Oh, torture is terrible,'" he said.

Um, I know you mean that sarcastically, but it really is facile. As in easy. Because condemning torture really doesn't take a lot of philosophical pondering. It's like asking what color is an orange? It's obvious.

"I think it is very facile for people to say 'Oh, torture is terrible,'" he said. "You posit the situation where a person that you know for sure knows the location of a nuclear bomb that has been planted in Los Angeles and will kill millions of people.

"You think it's an easy question? You think it's clear that you cannot use extreme measures to get that information out of that person?"

Okay, fine. If you ever find yourself trapped in an episode of 24, then sure. If you actually find yourself in this situation in which no one has ever been or ever will be, then sure go ahead. But since all the torture that was committed in our names, the torture about which we are talking, occurred in the real non-television world, I hardly think your nightmare scenario is all that relevant. It's just a thing people make up when they can't think of any other way to justify committing crimes against humanity.

Scalia also discussed the death penalty, saying he thinks it's "too bad" that a campaign in Switzerland to re-institute capital punishment has been thwarted by the the country's membership in the Council of Europe, which has made the issue a requirement for all participating countries.

Of course. Of course he wants to kill people. Hey, maybe we could execute prisoners after torturing confessions out of them! Just like Jesus would want. Pro Life!

"What are human rights is not written up in the sky, and if it were written up in the sky, it would not be up to judges, lawyers, just because they've gone to law school, to know what human rights ought to be and therefore are," Scalia said.

Okay, no it's not "written in the sky," but we have all come to an agreement on what they are. There is a "Universal Declaration of Human Rights." We are a signatory to it. There's no debate on this.

"And therefore each society's perception of what it believes human rights should be ought to be up to that society"

No, that's Civil Rights. Every country has different civil rights. Some places have freedom of speech, others don't.  In some countries, the accused is entitled to a lawyer, not in others. these are civil rights. Human rights are universal. That's why they are called human rights, not national rights, or local rights, because they apply to all humans.
You really think it's OK for a country like North Korea or Saudi Arabia to decide what human rights means in their countries? I know, they already do, but do we really want to say we're okay with it? Do you really look at, say someone being tortured to death for criticizing the dear leader and say "hey, that's just what they have decided that human rights are for that country?" That's wrong no matter what country you're in. Maybe we can't do anything about it, but we sure as hell don't give it our implicit stamp of approval by pretending that human rights vary from one culture to another.

And he brushed off questions about whether Supreme Court decisions opening the door for outside groups to spend unlimited sums of money on elections have hurt the country, saying that "the amount of money that is spent on all elections -- state, local and federal -- in the United States, is less than what women spend on cosmetics for a year, OK?"

 Screwing up the curve.

Wow! I could see if you really, actually believed that you were bound by the First Amendment to allow unlimited spending, I could see where you might defend your sickening decision by saying something like "it's unfortunate that this decision has led to an increase in corruption, but until we amend the Constitution, I have no choice. . ." but you're seriously going with the defense of "hey, it's not that much money?" Really? Because, first of all, that's bullshit.
No matter how much women may or may not spend on makeup, the Sheldon Adelsons and Foster Friezes of the world being able to pour unlimited millions into campaigns is absolutely a recipe for corruption. And it's not the point. The point should be that that's what the Constitution mandates. The point is not "well, the results aren't really that bad."  Because you are required to abide by the Constitution, whether the results are positive, negative, or neutral.

 He said the alternative is having Congress impose limits on "who can speak and how much who can speak."

No. Anyone can speak. I'm speaking right now. Speaking doesn't cost money. The fact that I don't have the money to purchase air time and address a national audience  is not an infringement on my freedom of speech. Limiting how much money one person can donate to a candidate puts no limit on speech. Just limits in how large a soapbaox one might be able to purchase.

Scalia said he doesn't agree with the notion that outspending the other side is the key to winning elections. He said if people really believe "the masses are so ignorant that they are swayed by television ads," then "let's have a king. Right? Let's have a king."

What?!?!? How do you make that leap? People are easily swayed by advertising, so we might as well have a monarchy? How do you get from "people are ignorant" to "let's have a king?"





Gawd, I hate this scumbag. The evil just oozes off him!

Surviving Christmas Music

At some point between now and Boxing day, some people with whom you are required to spend time may engage in the practice known as "singing Christmas songs." Naturally, you being a cynical, jaded bastard, will not enjoy this activity. But you may be under a certain amount of pressure to "join in," lest you be labeled a "Scrooge" or "grinch" or some other such nonsense. So here's a couple of tips to make the singing of these songs more bearable.

1. Replace the word "Christmas" with "Swiss Miss." Then they become songs about your love of cocoa which is infinitely less saccharine than the love of an over-commercialized corporatized holiday.

Try it out.

"I'll be home for Swiss Miss"



Damn right I will!


 "I'm dreaming of a white Swiss Miss"


Swiss Miss doesn't make a white chocolate version,
 but you can dream.

"I'll have a Blue Swiss Miss without you"
Still better than no Swiss Miss at all!

2. Replace the name "Santa Claus" to something more fun. Like "Panda Paws."

 

"Here come panda claws, here come panda claws, right down panda claws lane."

"I saw Mommy kissing panda paws."


Could you blame her? They're so adorable!


Or try other combinations of words.





Candy bras are comin' to town!

3. Remember that there are good Christmas songs:

You do realize that if people start being "reasonable" you're out of a job, right?

The amount of projection is staggering!





Yes, people believe in absurd things. Like the absurd idea that "sure the climate is changing, but so what? We can deal with it!" Sure, heat might be less of a danger than freezing, but when it becomes impossible to grow enough crops to feed the population, when floods and droughts become the norm,  when Miami is under water, when tropical diseases become common in North America, where are your smug, dismissive little reassurances going to be then, you arrogant little prick?

Also, what's more absurd, believing that 98% of relevant scientists are correct about the scope and consequences of climate change, or believing that they have all, these highly intelligent, well-educated men and women, been conned by, whom, Al Gore? Leonardo DiCaprio?

And maybe you might not want to mock people for believing in things for which there are no proof, like ghosts, when I'm guessing about 99% of your audience believes unconditionally in a God whom they've never seen or heard.

Hell, your audience believes with all their hearts that the President wants to give everyone free slut pills and abortions and also institute Sharia Law!

They firmly believe that the President is a weak-kneed apologizer and also an iron-fisted dictator!

They believe that the rich can only be motivated by giving them more money and the poor can only be motivated by taking money away.

They believe that America is the strongest most dominant military force the world has ever seen and is also on the verge of being completely destroyed by angry goat-herders who will somehow get their hands on nuclear weapons.

They believe that famous actors should stay out of politics and keep their political opinions to themselves and damn, Ronald Reagan was a great president.

And speaking of Reagan, they believe that the man who turned us into the world's largest debtor nation was a paragon of "fiscal responsibility." 

And at least one of the guys on your panel apparently believes that "Land of the Lost" was a documentary!

So good luck with getting people to be "reasonable."

Oh, dear Gawd!

Please, please, pleeeeeease let this be a bad Photoshop!

Controversy over new skinny pill -- Is it too strong for store shelves?...

Garcinia Cambogia Plus

Because otherwise, yes this pill should not be on store shelves. It should be on the Island of Dr Moreau .



No human torso looks like that!

News that sounds like the Onion but isn't

Fuckin' Texas, man!

State Reps. Dwayne Bohac and Richard Raymond Hold Press Conference to Raise Awareness for Texas’ Merry Christmas Law

Posted: December, 8, 2014

Really? A "Merry Christmas" Law?

What the hell is a "Merry Christmas" Law?

 AUSTIN, TX – Today, State Representatives Dwayne Bohac (R-Houston) and Richard Raymond (D-Laredo) hosted a press conference at the Texas Capitol to raise awareness for the State’s Merry Christmas Law (HB 308), passed in 2013, that allows parents, teachers, students and school administrators to celebrate the traditional winter holidays of Christmas and Hanukkah in public schools without fear of censorship, litigation or persecution.

Oh, fer the love of. . . well, you know.

Oh, yes. The persecution. Yes, it must be terrible. It must be so difficult to be a Christian in TEXAS! 

You know, what with all the, um. . . are there Muslims there? Probably. I know there's at least one Jewish guy.

“Our school officials and teachers have enough on their plate without having to worry about frivolous lawsuits for merely acknowledging Christmas (a Federal holiday since 1870) or Hanukkah in our public schools,” said Rep. Bohac.

When has a teacher ever been sued for acknowledging Christmas or Hanukkah?  Has that ever happened? Is this really something you needed a law for?

“We are here today to remind everyone that this law offers protection for and guidance to school officials and teachers by codifying Supreme Court precedent, thus providing ‘bright lines’.  This bill is ultimately about bringing ‘fun, joy and magic’ back into our schools during the Holiday Season.”

Oh my God, you said "Holiday!!!!" You called it the "Holiday Season!!!"  How dare you, you heathen? Jeezus, no wonder we need a Merry Christmas law!

House Bill 308, the "Merry Christmas Law," authorizes a school district to educate students about the history of traditional winter celebrations and allows students and staff to offer traditional greetings regarding these celebrations, including "Merry Christmas," "Happy Hanukkah," and "happy holidays."

All of which are already allowed and not in any danger of being not allowed, so what's the point of this law?

   The law affords students, parents and educators the right and opportunity to celebrate on school property with displays associated with those holidays, including Menorahs, Christmas trees and Nativity scenes. 

 

Now it makes sense. You just want to be able to put religious symbols in public schools. Because you love the Constitution soooo much! I mean, you do know this won't actually pass Constitutional muster, right? I mean, putting a Nativity scene in a public school is clearly using a government facility to promote a particular religion. There's really no way around that.

It does, however,  prohibit such a display from including a message that encourages adherence to a particular religious belief.

 

Ohhh, you  found a loophole!

You can put up a Nativity scene, a display honoring the most treasured story in the Christian canon, a display featuring the Christ himself, but as long as you don't put a "pro-Christianity" message on it, you're in the clear!

 

 “This bill originated when I picked up my first grade son from school last year and asked him how his day went. He told me that his class had decorated their holiday tree with holiday ornaments. When I asked what a holiday tree was, he told me it was the same as a Christmas tree. After inquiring with school officials as to why the term ‘Holiday Tree’ was being used, it became apparent that the school was fearful of litigation.” ~ Texas State Representative Dwayne Bohac

Um. . . aren't you going to at least pretend that the kid was somehow traumatized by this? "Cuz it sounds like the kid was fine with calling it a "holiday tree." Seems like he probably had fun putting ornaments on the tree. The only one with a problem was you. I mean, this is your story, why are you the asshole in your own story? Why cast yourself as the blue-nosed busybody who, after hearing about the fun day his kid had, contacts the school board to complain about their terminology? Everyone hates people like that, people who have a pathological need to find some tiny thing at which they can feign offense in every situation. Why in your own story are you the guy who spoils everyone else's fun?

You didn't like the word "holiday" so you decided you needed a fucking law?

You should check out the "Merry Christmas Bill" website. http://www.merrychristmasbill.com/ for stomach-turning heart-warming dreck like this:

“Daddy, why do we have a Christmas tree at home and a Holiday tree at school?”

Awww, look at that adorably cloying little moppet. How could a father possibly come up with an answer to such a heartbreaking question? Except for, maybe. . .oh, I don't know, maybe "because, sweetie, not everyone celebrates Christmas. Some people celebrate other holidays and it's not nice to make them feel left out." It took me like five entire seconds to come up with that and I'm not even a father, so I have no experience addressing these difficult issues with a child.

But the best part is the "Tales of Christmas Past" where readers of the site send in their harrowing stories of being told "Happy Holidays" or whatever with all the classic teabagger spelling and punctuation you'd expect to see from Texans who think Christians are being persecuted.

“YES, KEEP Christmas in our schools! I still remember being an angel in my first grade Christmas Pageant... which was a PUBLIC school. KEEP America, American—with the values of our Founding Fathers in tact.”

Deany M.
Houston, Texas

Yes, let's keep them "in tact."

Oyyyyyy. . .