Fuckin Texas, Man

Texas bans shooting immigrants from helicopters


This would seem to be the sort of thing that one would not have to bother banning because who would just open fire on people from a helicopter?

 

A hot-air balloon, sure. But a helicopter?

 

 

But, because this is Texas, of course some people have got shot from a helicopter. In fact, a couple of guys got shot dead from a helicopter
back in Oct, 2012.

A Texas state trooper who fired on a pickup truck from a helicopter during a deadly chase through the desert was trying to disable the vehicle and suspected it was being used to smuggle drugs, authorities said Friday.

The disclosure came a day after the incident left two illegal immigrants from Guatemala dead on an isolated gravel road near the town of La Joya, just north of the Mexico border.

 I suppose this is probably why they felt like they needed to ban this practice.

While announcing the new policy, Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw insisted that the ban on aerial shootings had nothing to do with the October 2012 death of two Guatemalan immigrants, who were gunned down by troopers in helicopter while they were hiding in the back of a speeding pickup truck near La Joya.

Oh, right. It's Texas!
If they said that this new policy was a response to these two deaths, that would be a little too close to admitting that they were wrong. And admitting you're wrong is the first step on the slippery slope to apologizing. And in Te4xas, they live by the rule set forth by John Wayne's character in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon,"

 

Never apologize! It's a sign of weakness!

 



“I’m convinced that now, from a helicopter platform, that we shouldn’t shoot unless being shot at, or unless someone is being shot at,” McCraw told the state House Committee on Appropriations.

Wait, what? Up 'til now, you didn't even have to be getting shot at to shoot someone from a helicopter? No one needed to be getting shot at? You could just shoot someone from a helicopter if, what, they looked suspicious? (Guatemalan)
Apparently! Because they are finding no fault whatsoever with last October's shooting.

“Last Friday, after a review of the policy and looking at all of the different things, and this is not a reflection of what happened there, I’m a firm believer they did exactly what they thought they needed to do.”

If you think that what you need to do when someone is speeding and might possibly have some sort of contraband in the back of the truck is to open fire, maybe your thought process is a bit flawed. Maybe you shouldn't be in a position of responsibility with the ability to make life-and-death decisions.
Granted, I'm no expert on law-enforcement techniques, but someone did ask a guy who is:

An expert on police chases said the decision to fire on the truck was "a reckless act" that served "no legitimate law enforcement purpose."
In 25 years following police pursuits, I hadn't seen a situation where an officer shot a speeding vehicle from a helicopter," said Geoffrey Alpert, professor of criminology at the University of South Carolina.

 

I know, but I'm lazy.

 

Such action would be reasonable only if "you know for sure the person driving the car deserves to die and that there are no other occupants."
In general, he said, law enforcement agencies allow the use of deadly force only when the car is being used as a weapon, not "just on a hunch," Alpert added



Well, that sort of wimpy soft-on-crime attitude might play in hippie South Carolina, but this is Texas, man! Fuckin' Texas!

Insane Laws Interspersed With Adorable Kittens

It's possible that some state Republicans are seeing the writing on the wall, realizing that they are fast becoming a permanent minority party and there's only so long you can keep Gerrymandering your way out of irrelevance. So, while they still have power, they're pulling out all the stops and putting the pedal to the metal towards Crazytown while they still have the chance. Here are a few of their more insane recent proposals, interspersed with adorable kittens to keep your heads from exploding.

 

You're welcome, humans!

First up, Montana crazy person Gary Marbut has proposed a "Sheriffs First" bill that would, in defiance of the Constitution, years of legal precedent and common sense, give local Sheriffs supremacy over Federal Law enforcement officers. Not only would FBI, ATF or Federal Marshalls have to get permission from the local yokel sheriff before arresting anyone, if they failed to do so the ensuing arrest would be considered kidnapping and the Federal agent could be arrested and charged.

Hey, who do you trust more?

Montana Bill Would Let Sheriffs Arrest FBI Agents for Arresting People

If Montana voters approve Gary Marbut's referendum in November 2014, any FBI agent who tries to arrest a Montanan for a federal crime could be arrested—and charged with kidnapping.

Marbut's "Sheriffs First" bill, which cleared a Montana state Senate committee last week, makes it a crime for a federal agent to take any law-enforcement steps without first getting permission from the county sheriff.

This might sound like the sort of whack-a-doo idea that would have no chance of passing, but. . .

The proposal already passed both houses of the Legislature once, in 2011, but was vetoed by then-Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat.

In Missouri, nutbag legislator Mike Leara has proposed a law which would make proposing a law against the law. Sounds complicated, but it isn't. In fact, the entire bill is only one sentence:

578.460. Any member of the general assembly who proposes a piece of legislation that further restricts the right of an individual to bear arms, as set forth under the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States, shall be guilty of a class D felony.

So if any member of the Missouri legislature were to propose, say, limiting magazine size or keeping assault weapons out of the hands of criminals, that legislator would himself become a criminal, but would probably still be able to own a small arsenal, because FREEDOMMMMMMMM!!!!!

I'm not sure what the legal theory is behind this, what interpretation of what law makes this lunatic think this law would stand up to the slightest legal scrutiny, but I think it's probably based on the legal precedent of Because I Want To v. Fuck You.




Not to be outdone, ironically named South Carolina State Senator Lee Bright has proposed a bill that would have high schools teach classes about guns.

I'm pretty sure this is not him, but Google image search seems to think she is.

 



Bright says he got the idea after hearing from older constituents who “remembered the days” when students could join a rifle team or learn about shooting during a school day. “We’ve got football, we’ve got basketball, and we’ve got baseball,” says Bright. “I think if they had a hunting team, it would be a great idea.

If there's any substantive difference between a basketball and a loaded rifle, I have yet to see it!












And then, of course, there's Kansas.

Kansas, where they want to pass a law requiring teachers to lie to their students.

Bill asks teachers to question climate change in class

HB2306 calls climate change 'scientific controversy'

House Bill 2306, introduced last week, says science classes must “provide information to students of scientific evidence which both supports and counters a scientific theory or hypothesis.”

Like gravity, or the Earth being round.

The bill says instruction about “scientific controversies” should be objective and include “both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis.” The only controversy identified in the bill is “climate science.”

Because only 97% of scientist agree about global warming. That's hardly a consensus! Obviously both sides should get their viewpoints aired. Both the scientists funded by Exxon-Mobil and those funded by the Koch Brothers!





Well, that's enough for one night. I'm sure there are many more CRAAAAAAAZY laws being proposed by Republicans throughout this great land. There are damn sure more adorable kittens!

A perfectly reasonable fear.

Erik Rush Suspects Obama Will Classify Christians as 'Mentally Ill and Ship Them Off to an Asylum'

In the area of mental illness, given the administration’s totalitarian bent, this could mean an era of atrocities galore. . .
In the case of those who pose the most dire threat to Obama’s designs – Christians – these will certainly be targeted. After all, who more demonstrably epitomizes mental instability in the eyes of the Marxist atheist than those who commune with and rely upon that which is unseen?


Ironically, anyone who actually believes this should be classified as mentally ill and shipped off to an asylum.

The Tea Party Apologizes

(Via TPM)

Tea Party Group Apologizes To Karl Rove

Tea Party Patriots said that a fundraising email sent out Tuesday showing a manipulated photo of GOP operative Karl Rove wearing an S.S. uniform was a mistake that the organization "did not know about or approve." 

"We apologize to Mr. Rove. While we may have strong disagreements with Mr. Rove on the future of conservatism, we want to be clear this imagery is absolutely unacceptable and are working to ensure this type of mistake doesn’t happen again," read the statement.

Oh, of course. Of course that sort of thing can't be tolerated. You can't go around comparing people to Nazis.



Even though you have serious disagreements with Karl Rove, Nazi comparisons are really beyond the pale.



Obviously the Tea Party can't allow itself to be associated with people who make these sort of outrageous comparisons.




It really goes without saying that Nazi references are unacceptable. A classy organization like the Tea Party is obviously above that sort of thing.




Apology accepted!




And so on. . .




etc. . .

World's Most Horrible Teacher Still Employed as Teacher, Still Horrible.

'Gays don't have a purpose' says special-ed teacher

Speaking in favor of an anti-gay prom in Indiana, a special education teacher adds fuel to the fire with homophobic comments

16 February 2013 | By Jean Paul Zapata

 

She actually made those comments on Feb.  12th and as far as I can tell, she has yet to face any disciplinary action.

Indiana!

 

 

'Homosexual students come to me with their problems, and I don't agree with them, but I care about them,' Medley continued. 'It's the same thing with my special needs kids; I think God puts everyone in our lives for a reason.'

Because obviously being gay is a handicap, just like a learning disability. It's a kind of sexual dyslexia!

When asked whether she believes gay and lesbian people have a 'purpose',  [And what kind of an asshole even asks that question?] Medley said: 'No, I honestly don't. Sorry, but I don't ... A gay person isn't going to come up and make some change unless it's to realize that it was a choice and they're choosing'.

I'm not even sure what she's trying to say in that last sentence, but it is apparently something along the lines of "gay people are bad and darn it, they just won't choose to be un-gay!"

Change.org has generated more than 18,750 signatures on a petition calling for Medley's termination. However, Medley has been defended by Northeast School Corporation Superintendent Mark A. Baker  who said she was practicing her First Amendment rights to free speech.
"These comments were expressed during a Sunday community meeting at a local church and at no time was she representing the Northeast School Corporation"


Except that this was apparently a meeting of teachers, parents, and assorted busybodies who were in favor of banning gay & lesbian students from the Sullivan High School Prom. So, clearly she was speaking as someone affiliated with the school.
According to My Wabash Valley.Com:
Several parents, students, and others who believe gays should be banned from the Sullivan High School prom met Sunday at the Sullivan First Christian Church.
"We don't agree with it and it's offensive to us," said Diana Medley.

I don't know where these folks get the idea that anything that bothers them can be banned. You know, there are people who find Christianity offensive, what with its sexism, homophobia, and all-around anti-sex attitude. Should those folks be able to bar Christian teens from school functions?

Their idea is to create their own separate...traditional prom. Students say there are several others from their high school who agree, but are afraid to take a stand.
"If we can get a good prom then we can convince more people to come and follow what they believe," said student Kynon Johnson.
And now they want everyone to know where they stand.
"We want to make the public see that we love the homosexuals, but we don't think it's right nor should it be accepted," said a local student.

And if that's not love, I don't know what is! Who you are is completely wrong and unacceptable, we're going to have a "good prom" and you're not allowed to come. Luv Ya!



Of course, there are those who find this kind of bullying heroic:

"Christians have always been prepared for a fight. Jesus gave us armor for the front, not the back; we're not running anymore," said Bill Phegley with Carlisle Church.

Yeah! You, the vast majority, are no longer going to run from. . . wait. When were you ever running? You think it's courageous for the majority to come together to shun the minority? And you're going to act like it's the gays that have been somehow pushing you around?
And some idiot right-wing talk show host has chimed in with this (via MPS)

Everything is so upside down in our society now and right and wrong have completely switched where what is really wrong is to say you shouldn’t have two boys allowed to go to the high school prom.

 




Yes. Yes it is really wrong to say that. Glad to see you've come to your senses and. . .Oh, wait. You're being sarcastic, aren't you?

 I feel for these Christian kids who are in a prom or kids who are at this high school who say, ‘you know something, do we have to go down this road?’ Whether the homosexual activists like it or not, and I know this isn’t politically correct to say this,
 but not everybody wants to see that. 

 

Well, Jeezus, nobody wants to see this, but what can you do?

And your rights to be who you are and love whom you love are obviously not as important as the fact that some insufferable prig might be bothered by seeing two boys dancing together.





 I know that that’s offensive to the activist crowd, they want us all to see it, they want us all to approve of it, they want us all to call it blessed and okay and rejoice and have parties and throw confetti in the air over this whole thing

Or, they may just want to live their lives without constant harassment and belittlement and condemnation from asswipes like you, but you know,
tomato, tomahto!

But the fact of the matter is it’s a moral issue. You will always have Christians who will disagree with this and why should the rights of the activists trump the rights of Christians?

And there it is, the victim card! You knew it was only a matter of time. Listen radio nut, your Christian rights aren't being violated. No one is telling you that you can't attend the dance. No one is telling you that you can't bring the date of your choosing. Just because someone else's rights get recognized, that's not a diminishment of yours. I know you're used to being treated like the top dog, but rights are not a zero-sum game. Everyone can have rights without you losing yours.

 Also, shut up you horrible person.