Monday, June 1, 2009

Guess what Dr. Tiller and his murderer have in common?

They've both been known to kill people.

A blogger at Jezebel says refering to abortion (even late-term abortion) as murder somehow encourages murder of abortion providers: "Calling abortion the murder of unborn children or referring to people who perform abortions or who are politically pro-choice as infanticide-perpetrators is a time-worn tactic of the movement to make abortion illegal in this country. It was a deliberate choice on the part of the anti-abortion movement, stemming from a growing public relations problem with referring to women that way [as murderers]... It's a deliberate use of language to demonize a group of people that, for some, will inevitably translate to the demonization and dehumanization of individuals like George Tiller."

Sooooo, I guess that's what happens when people make moral judgments (like saying, "this act is bad.") - it just feeds the crazies, huh? So we should use euphemisms like "terminating" as opposed to "killing" or even "ending the life of" - because if people see abortion for what it is, they might get really pissed and, if they happen to be crazy already, go kill abortion providers.

Um, WRONG.

Some people are just crazy and will find ways to justify doing crazy sh*t, like killing murderers whom the law protects (You don't like current abortion laws? Work to change the laws, or work to change hearts/minds. Don't kill people, sheesh). But just because someone:

A) realizes that late-term abortions performed only because the child is an inconvenience (not for the life/health of the mother) are f'ing sick; and

B) HAPPENS TO BE A NUTJOB (which is UNRELATED TO CIRCUMSTANCE A, TYVM); and, as a result of the combination of A+B,

C) that person shoots an abortion provider,

that doesn't mean the rest of us should censor ourselves or stop making decisions as to what is right and what is wrong.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

It's official - there are some black people who I just really don't get

Surprised? Of course not. There are a lot of people in this world who I don't understand. But today I'd like to focus on a few specific people. Who are black.

I work in a store. Yesterday, I overheard an older black man tell a couple middleaged black women that Bush saw Iraq as a black country, and that's why he invaded it. If he hadn't seen it as a black country, he would not have. They agreed.

To that ridiculous statement, I can only offer a gigantic WTF???!!!!111

I think most people would agree that seeing all humans as either black or white is stupid. But I don't think Bush does. I do think that old man does. And that is scary.

Iraqis are like tan. Or brownish. Or something that's not black. Sheesh, man, it's NOT ALL ABOUT YOU, Mr. Suburban store shopper whose friend was waited on by a nice little suburban white girl.

I bet if that man made small talk with me for five minutes he'd assume I'm a liberal, because I'd be respectful (you know, like a normal person would be), and conservatives are all racists who look at non-white people as people to be subjugated. Nevermind the black conservatives. They're race traitors. They should be out with these Black Panther guys, intimidating voters during an election for president and NOT GETTING IN ANY TROUBLE AT ALL.

But it's okay. They're black. You gotta root for the underdog, right?

It's kind of like that South Park episode where the townspeople decide to shop at the small local pharmacy instead of shopping at the evil "Wall-Mart," which they burn to the ground. The small local pharmacy is so successful that the owner is able to expand, and ultimately create a superstore with low-priced items, which the townspeople then burn to the ground.

The episode ends after Randy says, "Let's not make that mistake again!"

In other words, the top dog isn't always the top dog. The consumers/voters can choose to elevate whomever they wish - and giving super preferential treatment to someone/store will ultimately enable it to be the biggest dog on the block, who can then do whatever the fuck it wants.

Or, you know, we could like, be fair and treat everyone the same under the law.

Or not.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Waterboarding is torture, just like going to the dentist.

Both are scary and possibly psychologically scarring. (And getting poked by dentist tools HURTS! If they ever try to give me a root canal, I'm gonna need to be drugged, like srsly drugged up.) But does that mean that waterboarding those three terrorist jerkwads was inexcusable?

Here's an interesting article about that Mancow dude getting waterboarded.

And here's one of the comments someone posted:

"2009 May 27
Suburban Scarecrow permalink

Waterboarding is distasteful. Then again, war is distasteful, and the things you must do in order to win a war are distasteful. I wouldn’t want to be waterboarded and am not about to volunteer to have it done just to prove a point. I also wouldn’t want to be held in prison, interrogated, or strip searched. But I’d rather have any of these things done to me, waterboarding included, than to be shot in the head. Yet somehow, in war, it’s okay to shoot the enemy, but not to terrify him? I don’t understand this logic. No-one has convinced me that waterboarding harms the victim in any way except psychologically."


*sings the dentist song from Little Shop*

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Correction. I'm an idiot.

Since 1917, people born in Puerto Rico are considered US citizens. But I'm not deleting my previous post because I think it's cute and my point about the PC police taking away perfectly good words is still valid.

So, is PR a country? It's a protectorate or something, but it IS its own country (sort of), right? Ugh, see NOW I don't know if one can immigrate from a protectorate of the US to the US. And now I have to research this because if I don't figure it out it will drive me crazy.

Graaah!

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Why don't newspaper people know English?

There was not an error in this article about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's pick for the Supreme court. But the NY Times corrected a non-error anyway:

"Correction: May 16, 2009
An article on Friday about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a possible candidate for nomination to the Supreme Court, referred incorrectly to her parents. As people who moved to New York from Puerto Rico, they were United States citizens. They were not 'immigrants.'"

OMG.

YES THEY WERE.

When they MOVED from Puerto Rico to New York they IMMIGRATED. And became citizens, which is awesome!

What is less awesome is that people got offended by the CORRECT use of the term "immigrant," bitched to the editors, and got their way. This means some no-brain no-spine editor gave in to the kvetching of idiots, instead of simply pointing them in the direction of their nearest dictionary.

You know what? As someone with a degree in English (read: someone who is hyper-anal about words and really really annoying about such things) I am offended.

And you know what I'm gonna do about it? In ten years, when the term "immigrant" has been deemed "offensive" [You don't think it'll happen? Remember "oriental"? Yeah, we can't say that one now. Don't believe me? Go see "Avenue Q."], I'm gonna say it. ALL THE TIME. Well, in appropriate contexts, of course. And probably get my ass kicked by PC police. No, they wouldn't kick my ass, they're too nice and feel-goody for that. They'd have to hire someone to do it, like the anarcho-socialist ninjas (You know, the ones wearing masks made from black T-shirts. You gotta watch out for those T-shirt-mask wearning anarcho-socialist ninjas, especially after dark)

LOL, of course I'm kidding. The anarcho-socialist ninjas can't beat me up. Do you know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXIST. Because ANARCHO-SOCIALISM DOESN'T EXIST because it CAN'T because it DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. Silly anarcho-socialists! They just THINK they exist. LOLZ!

*Adds the NY Times and the anarcho-socialists to her list of people/groups who need dictionaries.*

Friday, May 15, 2009

Star Trek Gave Me Unrealistic Expectations About Men

Did Disney give me unrealistic expectations about men? Naaah, of course that stuff's not real life. But Star Trek is the FUTURE! Can you blame me, who grew up watching TNG, DS9, and some original series here and there, for thinking men would be as appealing and badass yet thoughtful as the men of Star Trek? For thinking men would want to want to bond with women over poker of the non-strip variety (TNG episode, you know who you are)? For being surprised that men don't tend to debate the definition of sentience while getting coffee? For expecting men not only to have balls and the ability to kill just about anyone, but the restraint not to do it? (Unless it's absolutely necessary. Because sometimes you need to punch a Jersey shore rat - I mean, a Cardassian - in the face.)

I saw this guy on the train last week. He got up so I could sit down. And proceeded to the end of the car to beat up some dude for who knows why. What a lame-ass. (He had a hot GF, too. WTF?) The fight was promptly broken up by this man with support from his GF/wife (couldn't really see what was going on, but she had her man's back). The rescuer-guy pulled the victim away and kept him from continuing the fight (he felt he had to teach the guy who started it a lesson). Somehow they talked the instigator down, and the superhero guy spoke calmly to the victim, while restraining him, about how it wasn't worth it, and just to let it go, and that he wouldn't let the other guy hurt him.

Meanwhile, I was like, DAMMIT, I knew I should have learned kung fu.

On the way out of the station, I saw the super-couple, and told the guy he reminded me of Samuel L. Jackson. Because he so did. He grinned and said, "I'm sick of these mother fucking fights on this mother fucking train!" And that was that. He wasn't all super proud of himself. It was like they did this stuff all the time, like, "Pssh, yeah, it happens. What do you say we steam some asparagus tomorrow with dinner?"

See, THAT's the kind of guy I want IRL. Those rare times I find a guy worthy of admiration occur only when the guy reminds me of A) a superhero, like Spidey, or B) someone affiliated with Star Fleet. I do not want Bob Bobberson, whose greatest strength is his stock portfolio and who seeks a women who'll let him install a pole in the living room. I want Picard, who may be a socialist Frenchie but who can beat Q at his little games; I want Spock, who exercises discipline and doesn't go around trying to jump up women's skirts; I want Worf... who would probably accidentally kill me if we hooked up (Klingon mating rituals, WTF), but who is generally an appealing mix of refined man and beast. Hell, I even kind of want Dr. Bashir - a mystery novel nerd who finally lives up to his vision of himself as brave and badass, while getting the F over his ego trip (So you were top of your class, Jules. No one cares.); most importantly, nerd boy is well groomed, doesn't live with his mom, and looks hot carrying old fashioned automatic weapons.

Oh man, but so does Data! And does ANYONE rock a fedora better than Data? Um, well, Picard. But Data has a kitty cat!

Now, yeah, there's Kirk, with his ego like FWOOOM, and Riker, who's... Riker (*cough*whore*cough*), and Quark, who's a Ferengi. But there are so many other appealing options! O'Brien and Sisko are great dads and loving husbands. You can't get anything by the brilliant shapeshifting Odo (who is so freakin' cute when he falls in love with Kira, OMGOMG!). Geordi and Scotty are especially adept at thinking on their feet, although everyone on the show is some kind of genius.

Maybe that's it. Not only do that have brains but they USE THEM.

Mmm, brains! Brains are hot!

Almost as hot as ridgy foreheads. ^__^

Thanks, Star Trek, for guaranteeing my eternal singledom

Okay, let's make a choice: that douche I met in a club last week who said, "We should have sex sometime," or SPOCK.