Sean Bell and the NYCP

So, what, NOW I can suddenly post? Evidently, my account is accessible again, although blogger has been claiming for months now that my passwords are invalid and my e-mail doesn't exist.
Well, I exist now, I guess, right in time for a rant about the latest "resurgence of American racism"- a case from 2006, in fact, though I haven't heard anything about it until recently - the shooting of New Yorker Sean Bell, who was killed the night before his wedding.
Since Bell was black, or, as the more politically correct sources will tell you, "African American", (I hate that phrase. I don't go around having people refer to me as "European American", do I? Why not get more specific? Why not "Mostly-Irish-with-traces-of-German-and-Scottish-American?") many have stated that the shooting was, of course, the result of racism.

Ok, first of all, I do think the police, in this case, were too violent. Bell was out celebrating his bachelor party when one of his friends was heard threatening to shoot one of the women in the club they were attending. Fearing violence, the police came by the club as Bell and his friends were leaving via car, ordering Bell to stop his vehicle and put up his hands. The intoxicated Bell, however, accelerated and drove his car into another vehicle. What did the police do? They opened fire, not stopping until an even 50 bullets had been sent through Bell alone, naturally.
I know Bell had a past criminal record, but he did not deserve to die for being drunk and stupid. On the other hand, answering those who claim that Bell wouldn't have died if he were not black, two of the three police officers who gunned him down were black themselves.
But, hey, this is America, so race MUST have had something to do with it, right? Yes, I think the police should try arresting drunk drivers instead of killing them, but it still makes me sick to think that people will try to pull non-existant racial tension into any situation to make it more sensational.

test!

This is a test.

Fat Nazi's Fatheaded Bill and Its Fatheaded Opponents

Pedaling away on an elliptical at the local gym, a.k.a. 'fitness center', flipping through channels on the little TV stuck to the top of the machine, I came across a report on one really angrifying bill Mississippi representative John Read stuck out there. Apparently, he was trying to pass a bill which would ban fat people from restaurants/ban restaurants from serving fat people.

WHOA, major CREEPY controlling paternal government alert. Read states that he didn't mean for the bill to actually become a law (sure you didn't, buddy) but merely put the bill forward to bring more attention to Mississippi's large population of morbidly obese people. Even more angrifying still, the news anchor interviewed an opponent of the bill, a woman with a truly bizarre pair of glasses who I think the anchor introduced as the author of "Fatso". I assume that's a book, and I assume that means something to somebody out there, although I didn't recognize the title.

So, of course, she was against the bill, like any reasonable person would be, etc, etc....but wait, WHAT exactly is she spewing out as reasons why the bill is morally wrong?

"This is a hateful act against fat people," Author With Bizarre Glasses states, "fuelled by Read's personal prejudice" (Well, that's the gist of what she said, I didn't memorize her speech) She continues, stating that, "It's wrong to think we should all look the same....we should teach people to celebrate weight diversity"

Um, no. We shouldn't. I really don't think people should be celebrated for throwing all self control aside and gorging until they weigh 400 lbs and require constant medical attention to be kept alive, nor do I think we should celebrate those on the other end of the 'weight diversity' spectrum, those attempting to starve themselves down to 50 lbs that require constant medical attention to be kept alive. And my God, Author With Bizarre Glasses, way to miss the entire point. Perhaps we should oppose this bill because the government has absolutely no business controlling people's lives like this? Because this authoritarian bill walks right over some basic concepts of personal freedom? Because this is America, and here we can get fat if we damn well please, and the many of us that are already fat have the right to stay fat and eat wherever they damn well please? And, Mr. Read, when you say you are only pushing the bill for the sake of people's health, I can't help but remember that someone once told me that there is a famous quotation out there stating that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Mr. Read has also given me the vague desire to wear a fat suit while standing outside a restaurant, shoving fries defiantly into my mouth. More like the desire to pay someone else to do that. You get the point. I would also be pleased in someone could go out and find me an actual conservative in our system, one who opposes intrusive government, unlike most politicians you run across nowadays. Arg.

The Candidates: What? What Is Happening Here?

So, apparently, we've got four main persons now in the presidential running; Obama, Clinton, McCain and Romney. Though the adults may not realize it, those of us unable to vote still do a lot of hypothetical caucusing and hypothetical voting and hypothetical deciding over candidates, or at least we used to. Although politics rarely comes up in conversations in high school, I've found that if I ever do approach the subject somebody is bound to get all worked up about it. Enter a 6th period study hall from last semester, wherein myself and about four other people are sitting in front of half finished homework, admiring someone's tiny gold case of bad-smelling French lip balm, when some how Senator Obama came into our musings on the smelly waxy stuff:

Ranting Kid: Ugh. None of the candidates are good. Except for kinda maybe Paul. Except for the weird gold standard thing.

Other Girl: Nuh-uh! Obama's good!

RK: What about him is good?

OG: He's cool!

RK: ...Why?

OG: Cause he is!

RK : ...No, he's not.

OG (now very irate): YES, he is!

Not a very intelligent conversation, but it basically sums up my thoughts about Obama - What the heck is this guy planning and why do people like him? I've been able to glean he wants change, and has a large base of young supporters, but...but...what the heck is this guy planning? This video seems to represent most of Obama's campaign, and that is a bit disturbing. Okay, you want change. Look, mister, we all would like change. But what changes are you pushing for? HOW are you planning to bring these changes about? Why should I think you will be better at fixing these problems than anyone else running? How? Why? What? What is happening here?

Also, that video bugs me because most of the people in it are celebrities (I think...the only two people I recognized in there were Obama himself and will.i.am, and even then only because of his association with the now disbanded Black Eyed Peas) and frankly I can't see how the fact that Famous Person is voting for you will give your actual policies, which one already has to wade through a bunch of meaningless speeches to get to, any stronger/better.

As for the other candidates, there doesn't seem to be to much choice among them...it's almost as if every which way you vote, you end up with a liberal focused on health care, climate change, and Iraq. The first issue is one worth looking at, and there's nothing wrong with reducing pollution, even though I doubt is will affect the climate, and damn are things screwy in the Mid East, but WHERE ARE MY CONSERVATIVES AND WHAT ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE? What about abortion, gay marriage, immigration, (yes, I know Clinton has said a few choice words about this topic) stem cells, all the topics that the present candidates seem to be putting by the wayside? Whenever these topics are brought up, the candidates spit out a generic liberal policy and move on, at least in my limited experience. Mother person, who is a bit more cynical than I, is convinced that all the candidates are working for a world in which a rich upper class with no attachment/loyalty to the United States rules over millions of oppressed (illegal) Mexican slaves, while the middle class dies out and the country withers away. Kinda. There's a bit of exaggeration in there somewhere.

As for myself? Huh. Can...can I get a new candidate over here, please?

Levant and Freedom of Speech/That Was Cool!

For those of you that have not heard about the whole Ezra Levant scandal, a Canadian Human Rights Commission or whatever those things are called has brought him up for publishing cartoons in a magazine that he worked for that were deemed Islamaphobic, and also prompted a complaint from one of the magazine's Muslim readers. The Commission is trying to get Levant to apologize/pay a fine or something along those lines. This case completely walks all over Levant's right to free speech as a Canadian citizen, and has, as it should, sparked outrage. I thought Levant's response to to this charge was well-put, well-informed, and had some dude that was cool! factor to it. You can see his opening statement here. The link goes to Youtube, and contains links to other videos of Levant's 'interrogation', as he puts it. Some nice, logical speeches on the topic of radical Islam in there. One of my favorite lines from one of them: "She's a thug, you're a thug, your whole company is a thug..." The 'she' in there refers to another HRC creepy person, I believe, and the 'you're' refers to his 'interrogator'. And he's right, too...the whole dang company is made up of thugs, thugs that want to take away some basic freedoms for the sake of 'multicultural' butt-kissing.

While whoever wrote in to complain about Levant had every right to do so, it is seems to me that all the scandals concerning these cartoons poking fun at Islam (this case, the scandalous Danish cartoons published a while back) attract attention from those who do not like freedom of speech. I would encourage Muslims to go out and protest these cartoons by, say, pointing out that they were very exaggerated, misrepresenting, (I've never seen them, and I'm not saying that they were) or something like that, but the main argument I've heard against the publication of the cartoons was, basically, that the protesters didn't like them. Once again, while you have every right to speak out and protest, in a country where the press has the freedom to print what it likes, you can't simply demand that they shut up because you don't want to hear what they're saying. If people are publishing things that offend you, go and point out why they are offensive. Use some logic. But if you like censorship so much, perhaps you'd like to live somewhere besides a free and democratic country, instead of trying to make a free country conform to your ideals.

Inherent Ignorance

Yeah, I know this thing is a couple months old, but I recently ran across this video of Chris Cuomo interviewing Barack Obama, wherein he asks Obama which of the following he thought were greater threats to his campaign; the Clinton campaign machine, or America's "inherent racism". Obama responded that he didn't think race was any large factor, which made me somewhat happy. But still, I'd like to see where this Cuomo person was coming from, any, you know, facts which proved that all the evil whities in the U.S. were bigots. While, as Obama states in the interview, there will always be some leftovers from a nastier age that have it in for minorities, but I'd hardly call a country which has laws in place to end racial discrimination in every aspect of life the government has the right to stick its nose in inherently racist. What with freedom of speech and thought an all, we cannot silence the few who are racist, but my experience in the U.S. has shown me that most people in this country are not, in fact, the terrible bigots some would like us to be, and I've lived here for all but three years of my life.

Granted, I haven't spent any great deal of time in the most race-tension prone areas of the U.S. Even so, if there is such a thing as 'inherent racism' in the U.S. right now, I can't really tell who the majority of it is directed at for the moment, whites or minorities. That's what is really starting to bother me about thing like affirmative action. A recent...kinda recent...wandering discussion in my history class, which went from apartheid to, well, possible inherent racism in America, gives one example. Which the teacher is lecturing, the class, as it usually does, starts arguing with him. Once we got to the merits of affirmative action itself, I started to say something about not being able to assume that discrimination has helped any given white person, teacher person jumps in with an "Aha! Says the white girl from Iowa!"

Arg. Firstly, yes, I am a white female, but I am NOT from Iowa, dammit, and secondly, three weeks or more after the fact, let me FINISH my dang point. Here again, we cannot assume that 'inherent racism' has come into play, especially in a place which takes so many precautions to make sure no one non-white gets anything that could possibly be seen as discrimination based on race. We cannot assume that, sometime in the recent past, a white person has unfairly gotten ahead, due to their race, while a black/hispanic/Indian/etc has been held back due to their race, therefore making any white college applicant owe their place to any non white applicant, regardless of actual qualifications (or actually history of race issues). Secondly, what with all the stress about not discriminating based on race, is sure seems to me no one should be considered less qualified because of their race, even if they are white. If we really, actually, want to make sure the people reviewing college applications aren't giving anyone some leeway because of skin color, why don't we try, perhaps, only looking at things like grades or scholarships and other such academic odds and ends.

To finish, yes, there are other factors concerning affirmative action and the like that could be argued out, and please comment if there's something major I missed, but with the basics put down and all, the fingers grow weary of typing.

Campaign Flavors

This post has decided not to be a rant, and just a frivolous update on something. I was quoted at Alien Corn recently for my opinions on the names of the candidates-a snippet here-

Regarding my disdain for the Huckabee moniker, the Ranting Offspring says that for her, Tancredo is the guy with the greatest name-ickiness factor. "It sounds like some kind of horrible food", she says. We debate what kind of food a Tancredo would be. I think something like Beef Liver Tancredo. She says something more like Refried Tancredo. I suppose Huckabees could be some kind of candy, probably little stale-tasting gummy things that get caught in your teeth.

To be exact, the name 'Tancredo' conjures up a really bad, sleazy-American-diner attempt at Mexican food involving refried beans and nacho cheese out of a can, at least for me.The name 'Huckabee' brings to mind some overly sickly-sweet BBQ sauce for some reason. 'Giuliani' does remind me of some sort of food involving noodles and garlic, but nothing really unappetizing. So far, no other political surnames have caused me to think of nasty food stuffs, but as soon as one does, I'll let either you or the people at Alien Corn know.

You Can't Make Me Wear a Blue Corset

Update on the strange school front after an extended Thanksgiving/early December break thing.

Recently, we were ordered to group up and organize a 'symposium' style speech, on any topic we wanted. I had the option of joining one of two groups...choose one at random...only to learn that the group I hadn't joined was doing a symposium on rare sports, while the group I attached myself to was interested in...Disney princesses. Damn, I think, offering to do something with, if the thing must be Disney, the Lion Kings. But no, my bubbly chair person wants me to do Snow White, and what's more, why don't we all dress up like our characters! Does anyone have an eight-year-old's Snow White costume that might fit runty li'l non-Norwegian Ranting Kid? (Seriously, at 5'3", I'm probably the shortest kid in this symposium group by about 3 inches at minimum) Chairperson is even getting the one male in our group to dress up as Mulan. While I have shot down the whole Disney-costume idea, I still am really, really wondering why a bunch of kids my age would be interested in this topic.

To be a bit passive-aggressive, I decided to bulk up the majority of my speech with the gory details of the original Snow White legend. While researching the original cannibalistic queen, original gory huntsman, and the original pedophile Prince Charming, and while half-listening to my rejected group's discussions on the sport of wife-carrying, I also wondered, "Do these chicks still watch these movies? I mean if they do, then fine, but why are they this into them? Why is there a male in this group? They CANNOT get me into a Snow White costume, I swear. Why are we doing this in school of all places? Not that I endorse challenges in schools but...but...durg. Does no one else find this strange, or at least really undignified? Hey, Google says that the evil Queen ate what she thought were Snow White's lungs with salt! Good fact!"

I'll get back to ranting on, you know, important things soon. Eventually. Really.

All Hail the Snow Demons

Oooooh boy. This had better be true. Click here to read the weather predictions of yet another blogger, author of Fresh Bilge. For those of you that have no interest in/love for snow, don't bother, but for those of you who are, please note these direct quotes if you don't feel like link-surfing:

"A substantial storm will also pass over the Midwest in the next week", and, "Heavy snow is certain for the interior." Some of that had better get dropped over Iowa.

With the snow will come sledding, purtyness, the inevitable whining of my snow-hating friends, and an intensifying of the already premature holiday spirit beginning to permeate the air. (I mean, come on people, it's November. You're ruining the weeks-away holiday. Stop with the Christmas cheer! Stop!) Also with this will come heightened goofiness by the politically correct, a "winter" break that just happens to be centered around Christmas, and people complaining that the holiday decorations on their neighbor's lawn are oppressing their religious freedom. Here's in angry anticipation of many self-hating people of Christian background bewailing the obvious attempts to convert people to Christianity, and stamp out their other traditions, hidden in those cheesy little lit-up plastic pine trees and the public celebration of a Christian holiday.

In the mean time, let it snow, weather demons, let it snow.

Eminent Domain

A few months ago, a silly eminent domain claim by the city was shot down here in our town. To make a long story short, the city would have bulldozed multiple homes and relocated several unwilling families for a project that would have provided little or no benefits to the city, namely, enlarging a road that wasn't even busy. Of course, the citizens got angry, people protested, and eventually the families were allowed to stay put. The system was working, at least for once.

But, it isn't working so well in other places. This link pretty much covers a recent and ridiculous case of land-grabbing in Colorado. This time, though, the grabbing was not by the government, or for any purpose, but just by some guy with some power who wanted his neighbor's property.

The legal landowners better damn well win that case. This America, people; this stuff is supposed to be prevented by law.

Also of some amusingish interest-- check out the, "Ignorant flippin' out over coin" story on the left side of the page linked to above. Real imaginary.