The California Supreme Court decided recently that the will of the voters does not matter. What matters is bending the constitution to fit the needs of a highly vocal minority.

“The remedy is a constitutional amendment,” said Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund, which is pushing for the stay. In 2000, Proposition 22 passed with 61 percent of the voted, strengthening the state’s 1978 one-man, one-woman marriage law. The ruling struck down both statutes.

Awesome.  Why not repeal gravity while you are at it?  It’s not as if these asswipes will have to face a recall election for their tyranny.  Interesting how Proposition 22 was perfectly fine for 8 years.  Not to mention that the 1978 law was perfectly good for 3 decades.

It is becoming more and more clear that the advocates of “gay marriage” are perfectly willing to got to the courts to force their ideas on us.  The old standard of raising awareness through the media and the court of public opinion is not good enough.  Better that unelected, unaccountable judges should “interpret” the constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean.  In this case, that everyone is entitled to be “happy”.  Since when is happiness a basic human right?

Does anyone hear that?  It’s the sound of Thomas Jefferson’s coffin spinning.

I wonder if this means if polygamists, bigamists and people who wish to marry their siblings will get their day in court.  I doubt it.  Don’t they have a “right” to be happy too?

You just can’t make these things up. Every single time there is a natural disaster, from Hurricane Katrina to the recent cyclone, these nutballs are quick to blame them on global warming.  What’s next?  Global warming causes impotence?

Stupid.

Since communism has worked so well in workers’ paradises like North Korea, Cuba, USSR (wait, never mind) the good people of Nepal have decided to go with it. Not just communism, but full-blown Maoism.  Kind of like skipping HIV to go with full-blown AIDS.  It must have seemed like a good idea at the time.

Good thing that these “new” commies are promising that they will not become a one-party state.  They say that they want “pluralism”.  Funny thing, since the entire basis of communism is a one-party system.  There is no such thing as a pluralistic communist party.  That is like saying that nazis would be interested in sharing power.

And let’s not forget that China abandoned Maoism as a spectacular failure.  It only took tens of millions of dead Chinese to teach them that little lesson.  A little lesson that Nepal may never learn on account of the fact that they don’t have that many people in their country.

Strange that people can believe the same old lies that wealth redistribution and collectivism.  If anyone has any doubts about how evil and destructive communism is, enjoy the night photo of North Korea:

The Army decided to restrict the use of certain websites, YouTube and MySpace being prominently mentioned. While I might somewhat agree with the notion that the Army needs to restrict bandwidth use, censoring soldiers is always the wrong answer.  The so-called “positive spin” is never, ever seen in the news.  Ever.  The Army is trying to mitigate this by posting official videos and photos to these sites.

Especially since most of the public is so incredibly ignorant about the day to day our military has in Iraq.  They get more information from Hollywood than they do from the people who live it.

Great, while these videos are obvious hackish attempts at propaganda from retarded children, at least they are as exciting to watch as paint drying.  How about we let the soldiers put their unedited views up for the public to see?  Should the Pentagon be afraid of what the troops think and do?  Because the “wrong message” might get out?

That probably sounds better in the original German anyway.

The Supreme Court voted today to allow Illinois to require photo ID in order to vote. Seems like common sense to me. After all, everyone is required to show a form of photo ID in order to buy booze, cigarettes, drive, file their taxes, get a passport (TWO for that), buy, own or carry a gun, join the military, etc. Among many, many other things. Seems sensible to me that you should be required to show a photo ID in order to do the most important thing of all: cash in on your franchise as an American citizen.

Yet we have people who are convinced that requiring a photo ID in order to select our representatives, who make the laws, would be disenfranchised by this. Their reasoning is that some potential voters would be too poor to be able to afford the burden of a state-issued ID. Are there really that many people who are so poor that they cannot afford to get an ID card? So many that it would influence any election one way or the other? I have a hard time believing that.

To put it into perspective, the Illinois requirement for a state-issued photo ID is found here. The fee is $20 for a first-time five year ID card in Illinois. For those under 18 it is $10. For disabled or over 65 citizens it is totally free. Anyone who couldn’t come up with these documents is truly a sad sack. Or just the sort of voter the DNC has been looking for, apparently. Since they oppose any form of poll ID whatsoever.

Who knew the meth whores who blow gangbangers for the next score were a significant voting bloc? I didn’t know that. And I learned something new today.

A prisoner is suing in federal court because-get this-he has lost too much weight while in prison. Apparently the 3,000 calorie a day diet is not enough for Inmate Fatass. Not only that, but he wants more hot meals.

Wah wah wah, cry me a river here. Shouldn’t stab and beat people to death if you want to continue to be a disgusting fatbody.

“About an hour after each meal my stomach starts to hurt and growl. I feel hungry again.”

He then goes on to complain about the lack of physical exercise, adding: “The only reason we lost weight in here is because we are literally being starved to death.”

Wow. Mahatma Ghandi, eat your heart out.

Wesley Snipes gets three years for income tax evasion? How in the hell? Was he not satisfied with making millions of dollars, instead wanting to make millions and millions of dollars? I do not understand this at all.

Almost as stoopid is the mediots covering this as a “small business” concern. How big does a concern have to be to be considered a regular business anyway? When I think of a small business I think of the Pakistani owning the corner 7-11. Not someone making $38 million in one year.

Whatever the case, Wesley Snipes is the Stoopid Asshole of the Day.

I think that Obama is out of the loop and clueless about what the so-called Middle America wants. He wants to make himself a round peg to fit into a square hole. He sees his inability to make himself appeal to the “silent majority” as a problem with the voters. In reality, his problem is in the messenger not in the message. Not to mention the company he chooses.

The reason that he is not resonating with those “bitter” people is not because they are turning to guns and god instead of his socialist stoopidopia vision. It is because he does not connect with them where they live. He is already very familiar with G-d damned racists, terrorists and elitists.

His wife is also a great ‘Merican, not proud of her country until her hubbie gets nominated for the presidency. Must be hard to take all the best that America has to offer and call it garbage. Must be the ivy league education. Or the six figure salary.

Fact is, Obama is a radical. You can judge a person by the company he keeps, and his familiars are very indicative of the Man from Hopeville.

None of his recent foot-in-mouth comments come as a particular surprise, however. Given that he went to the most exclusive schools, from kindergarten right through college, and has a background of privilege it should come as no shock that these embarrassing revelations are coming out. He has been in the ivory towers of elite educational institutions, and seen the ghettos. What he has no connection with is the 90% of America that does not live in these two extremes.

What he does understand is the Marxist “divide and conquer” playbook. He does understand, from 20 years of patronizing Jeremiah Wright, how to pander to people. He understands how to bilk billionaires for campaign funds in San Fransisco because he speaks to their beliefs. He has an ivy-league education that apparently taught him to hate 90% of the people in his own country.

He cannot understand the many Americans that treasure their 2nd Amendment rights (as yours truly does) to use firearms to hunt or for home protection. I seriously doubt if he has ever even fired a weapon in his life. He does not understand the empowerment of a firearm and sees them as something evil. Something that he is protected from by a round-the-clock security detail. Must be nice, but most of us in the real world cannot afford trained professionals to protect us the same way. Profile of a classic gun-grabber.

He cannot understand what it is like to pay a mortgage because he has his cronies buy land and houses for him in extremely shady “gray area” land deals. Land deals that are reminiscent of Whitewater. Not technically illegal, but extremely questionable nonetheless. Particularly when the person buying a lot for you so you can build a house on the cheap is under investigation for fraud.

Some questions I would ask Obama:

• Do you support terrorism against America, as Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright clearly do?
• Do you believe that we really are “AmeriKKKa”?
• Do you really think that America is a terrorist state?
• Do you really think that we deserved the attacks of 9-11?
• Do you really think that there was nothing to be proud of in this country until you entered the scene?
• Do you really think that black people can’t be racist?
• What is your platform besides soothing bromides about change?
• Is it really OK for a freshly elected junior senator to take over half a mil for a lot, then buy a narrow strip for 100K from someone under investigation for fraud and bribery?

Change? Sure, change is good. But let’s pay attention to the kind of change we are getting.

“Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws–always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of the trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: “Please pass this so that I won’t be able to do something I know I should stop.” Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them “for their own good”–not because speaker claimed to be harmed by it.”
– The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein, Narrator (Manuel)

A new spring, a new violent video game, a new debate looms on whether or not we will need more legislation for said games. It seems to me that we need less moderation of content in all digital formats. We need to let parents and kids decide together what is right and appropriate. Moderating free speech “just a little bit” is akin to being “just a little bit pregnant”.

Something that those in the seats of power could do that would be a boon to those of us who are concerned about what is being consumed by children is to simplify the ratings system. Right now we have three ratings systems, one for games, one for movies and one for television shows. Here is the ratings regimes for each format:

Video games (from the ESRB board)…

	EARLY CHILDHOOD Titles rated EC (Early Childhood) have content that may be suitable for ages 3 and older. Contains no material that parents would find inappropriate.
	EVERYONE Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.
	EVERYONE 10+ Titles rated E10+ (Everyone 10 and older) have content that may be suitable for ages 10 and older. Titles in this category may contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.
	TEEN Titles rated T (Teen) have content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language.
	MATURE Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
	ADULTS ONLY Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.
	RATING PENDING Titles listed as RP (Rating Pending) have been submitted to the ESRB and are awaiting final rating. (This symbol appears only in advertising prior to a game’s release.)

Movies…

A G-rated motion picture contains nothing in theme, language, nudity, sex, violence or other matters that, in the view of the Rating Board, would offend parents whose younger children view the motion picture. The G rating is not a “certificate of approval,” nor does it signify a “children’s” motion picture. Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated motion pictures. Depictions of violence are minimal. No nudity, sex scenes or drug use are present in the motion picture.

A PG-rated motion picture should be investigated by parents before they let their younger children attend. The PG rating indicates, in the view of the Rating Board, that parents may consider some material unsuitable for their children, and parents should make that decision.The more mature themes in some PG-rated motion pictures may call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity and some depictions of violence or brief nudity. But these elements are not deemed so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated motion picture.

A PG-13 rating is a sterner warning by the Rating Board to parents to determine whether their children under age 13 should view the motion picture, as some material might not be suited for them. A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous.

An R-rated motion picture, in the view of the Rating Board, contains some adult material. An R-rated motion picture may include adult themes, adult activity, hard language, intense or persistent violence, sexually-oriented nudity, drug abuse or other elements, so that parents are counseled to take this rating very seriously. Children under 17 are not allowed to attend R-rated motion pictures unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian. Parents are strongly urged to find out more about R-rated motion pictures in determining their suitability for their children. Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.

An NC-17 rated motion picture is one that, in the view of the Rating Board, most parents would consider patently too adult for their children 17 and under. No children will be admitted. NC-17 does not mean “obscene” or “pornographic” in the common or legal meaning of those words, and should not be construed as a negative judgment in any sense. The rating simply signals that the content is appropriate only for an adult audience. An NC-17 rating can be based on violence, sex, aberrational behavior, drug abuse or any other element that most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.

Aaaand TV…

All Children
This program is designed to be appropriate for all children. Whether animated or live-action, the themes and elements in this program are specifically designed for a very young audience, including children from ages 2 – 6. This program is not expected to frighten younger children.

Directed to Older Children
This program is designed for children age 7 and above.It may be more appropriate for children who have acquired the developmental skills needed to distinguish between make-believe and reality. Themes and elements in this program may include mild fantasy violence or comedic violence, or may frighten children under the age of 7. Therefore, parents may wish to consider the suitability of this program for their very young children.

Directed to Older Children – Fantasy Violence
For those programs where fantasy violence may be more intense or more combative than other programs in this category, such programs will be designated TV-Y7-FV.

General Audience
Most parents would find this program suitable for all ages. Although this rating does not signify a program designed specifically for children, most parents may let younger children watch this program unattended. It contains little or no violence, no strong language and little or no sexual dialogue or situations.

Parental Guidance Suggested
This program contains material that parents may find unsuitable for younger children. Many parents may want to watch it with their younger children. The theme itself may call for parental guidance and/or the program contains one or more of the following: moderate violence (V), some sexual situations (S), infrequent coarse language (L), or some suggestive dialogue (D).

Parents Strongly Cautioned
This program contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age. Parents are strongly urged to exercise greater care in monitoring this program and are cautioned against letting children under the age of 14 watch unattended. This program contains one or more of the following: intense violence (V), intense sexual situations (S), strong coarse language (L), or intensely suggestive dialogue (D).

Mature Audience Only
This program is specifically designed to be viewed by adults and therefore may be unsuitable for children under 17. This program contains one or more of the following: graphic violence (V), explicit sexual activity (S), or crude indecent language (L).

Got all that? Wouldn’t it make much more sense to have ONE simplified ratings regime for all these formats. Say the movie ratings one since it is clearly the oldest and best understood one? As it stands right now, we have three sets of standards for three different formats. Therefore we can easily have a movie based off a video game that has a spinoff TV show based on the same subject material. This material can get three different ratings for essentially the same content. Let’s take Blade, for example.

The Blade 2 video game has an “M for mature” rating based on the Electronic Standards Ratings Board. So, only those 17 and up may purchase the game. Blade 2 the movie has an “R” rating, which means that only those 17 or above, unless accompanied by an “adult” may watch the movie in the theater. And Blade the series has a rating of TV-14. For the same stuff, basically. Wouldn’t it make much more sense to have one regulatory body give one set of ratings that is standardized so everyone can “get it” much easier?

This is assuming that there needs to be any government regulation at all. Short of actual pornography, there is little need for government to be telling me what is and is not appropriate for children. An advisory board, sure. Give me an idea what is going on. But spare me the nanny-statism, mmm-kay?

]]> http://countblogula.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/why-do-we-need-laws-regulating-content/feed/ 2 countblogula http://countblogula.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/why-we-went-to-war-with-iraq/ http://countblogula.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/why-we-went-to-war-with-iraq/#comments Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:19:56 +0000 Count Blogula http://countblogula.wordpress.com/?p=9 ]]>

It seems that a whole lot of people have forgotten why we went to war with Iraq in 2003. For the unwashed out there, there was a long chain of events that led to our decision to go to war. Here is the original war declaration from October 10th, 2002. I won’t bother pasting the whole thing here, but will distill it down to its fundamentals.

• Iraq’s failure to abide by UN ceasefire protocols from 1991.
• Iraq’s failure to open its borders to WMD inspectors in accordance with repeated UN resolutions.
• Iraq’s failure to abide with the no-fly zone for over a decade.
• Iraq’s support of terrorist groups and terrorists within its borders.
• Iraq’s past history of the use of WMDs on Iranians, its own minorities and its desire to acquire more of these weapons.
• Following the House Resolution 4655 supporting regime change in Iraq.
• Iraq’s history of violence against Kuwait, Bahrain, Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

All of these reasons are simply ignored by those who oppose the war. They want to distill it into simple catchphrases for easy access on the evening news or protest signs. “No blood for oil” or “Bush lied, people died” are some of the most common ones used.

If we really went to war simply for the oil in that country, all we would need to do was secure the oilfields then a 20 mile perimeter on each side of the oil pipeline to the port of Basra. Does anyone out there really think that the US military is incapable of accomplishing this mission? And if we really wanted to “steal” the oil from Iraq, how come oil prices have risen so much in the intervening years? Instead we concentrated on regime change and building up the infrastructure when we could have “stolen” the oil with a lot less effort.

Let’s not forget that Iraq has a history of attempted invasion of other nations around it. They invaded Iran, which started off the Iran-Iraq war, and also invaded Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in 1990. They were a dangerous regime that needed to be dealt with as soon as possible to prevent them from doing more damage to the region.

All of this lead me to believe, as I still do, that Iraq needed to be invaded before their poison infected the rest of the world. The attacks of September 11th changed the world forever. It made it clear that containment was not an option and any nation that supported terror needed to face punishment. The clear proof that this co-called “Bush Doctrine” has been successful is that we have not been attacked since we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would rather we fight them over there than over here. US soldiers shoot back. Civilians on airplanes do not.

Photo from Zombietime.