Saturday, December 27, 2008

The Right Idea

Yes! Someone finally has the right idea.

Article summary: Some schools are now teaching students to fight back when an armed invader breaks into the school. I'm hoping that this is a sign that the lessons from Columbine and Virginia Tech are finally getting though: When you have an entire school pitted against one or few armed individuals, the odds are in the favor of the school. While some students may be hurt or killed in taking down the armed attackers, massacres will -and have, repeatedly- result if people simply comply with the wishes of crazed gunmen. No one can shoot onto a classroom full of targets at once, especially if those targets are in the act of attacking.

Of course, some people are objecting:

“You’re telling kids to do what a tactical officer is trained to do, and they have a lot of guns and ballistic shields ... If my school was teaching that, I’d be upset, frankly.”

"If kids are killed, people are going to wonder who’s to blame ... How much common sense will a student have in a time of panic?"

So what is the alternative? As stated in the atricle; “At Columbine, teachers told students to get down and get on the floors, and gunmen went around and shot people on the floors,”...“Getting under desks and praying for rescue from professionals is not a recipe for success”...

I also hope that this is a sign of a backlash against the whole trend of wimpish appeasement that the American school system seems to have been following of late. Throughout my elementary and middle school years I was taught to appease violent bullies verbally and never lift a finger in self defense during a physical attack, because defending yourself was evil; I was taught that all bullies are bullies because they themselves are maltreated and therefore deserve to get away with anything. Until I actually researched the topic, I fully believed the Columbine apologists who popularized the (completely false) tale that the two gunmen went on a killing spree because they were bullied and excluded by their peers.

So on that cheery note, have a happy New Year.

Thursday, December 25, 2008

Obligatory Xmas Post

I guess I wouldn't be a proper wingnut if I didn't take a minute to say something in the defense of Christmas this holiday season. Although I can't really be a full blown wingnut because of my non-Christian-ness, I can still take advantage of my athieism to say that SENSIBLE ATHEISTS ARE NOT OFFENDED BY CHRISTMAS, dammit. I for one love the holiday, religious trappings and all (Christians worship Jesus, I worship evergreens. Nobody touches my Christmas tree). I would also like to take several minutes to address some rant-worthy issues that came up in one article on the anti-Christmas movement I read on Xmas eve:

From the comments:
“Christmas is a secular holiday and the Christian right needs to understand that...”

Christ's mass, secular? Christ as in the founder of Christianity (a religion)? Perfectly secular.

Next, a liberal takes aim at 'Christian wackos' -“Up until about 1985 a Christian couldn't marry another person unless both had a baptism certificate!”

That's... just not true.

From the article:
“...Brimelow’s writers dared to name the true anti-Christian Grinch: Jews. The winner of Brimelow’s 2001 War on Christmas competition, a “paleoconservative” writer named Tom Piatak, insisted that those behind the assault on Christmas “evidently prefer” Hanukkah, which he called the “Jewish Kwanzaa,”....”

For the record, I've never heard of Jew who was offended by Christmas. The only people I've seen actively participating in the “War on Christmas” have been Anglo liberals of Christian background. I'm sure there are examples of non-Christians participating in the effort to snuff out public Christmas celebrating, but I've yet to find them. Secondly, the 'assault on Christmas' certainly does not prefer Hanukkah - it just prefers anything that isn't based on Whitey's usual Christian beliefs. Plus, Hanukkah is in no way a Jewish Kwanzaa... the celebration is authentic and ancient, where as Kwanzaa is a 1950's invention that claims to be African despite the fact it was invented by an American dude.

Okay then...ranting time over, peppermint bark time is now.

And of course, Merry Christmas.

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Idiot's Rights Movement?

I'm sure you've all heard of the recent killing of a Wal-Mart employee on Black Friday- trampled to death by violent and moronic shoppers at they stampeded into the store at 5 a.m.- and if you haven't, where the hell have you been? Go Google it.

The crowd also knocked over an injured a pregnant woman severely enough that she had to be taken to the hospital (I've heard that the rumor that she miscarried the baby was false.)Not only this, but when a medical team arrived to attempt to revive the dead employee, people took no notice of the body on the floor and continued to try to shove their way past, or make the living employees sell things to them.

And according to a local police spokesman,Wal-Mart could have, and should have, prevented this.

Huh? It's Wal-Mart's fault that these stampeders can't control themselves and act like adults, nay, like civilized humans? It's Wal-Mart's fault that it isn't physically possible to cram a store with enough armed guards to control 2,000 ethically challenged dolts? It's Wal-Mart's fault that something is seriously wrong with what looks like a sizable number of New York shoppers? Thanks for clearing that up, officer. I'm going to go try to rob a bank now, and if I manage to get away with any money, I'm going to sue that very bank for neglecting the public's safety.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

DIE, Paternalism, DIE!

Holy freaking God. Here's a full article on childhood artery trouble, if you wanna see it, but the only part of the article that really caught my eye was the final sentence,“The time has come to seriously deal with the issue of childhood obesity and physical inactivity on a governmental and parental level.”

GOVERNMENTAL LEVEL? Since when has the idea that the government should have anything to do people's personal lives become acceptable?

And things get even worse from there. A corporation in Alabama is now essentially fining any employees that are overweight- is this a joke?

It's a very basic concept of freedom, people- the powers that be should only have enough power to defend the country and jail the criminals, and beyond that, the people being governed shouldn't give an inch. The government is not here to monitor our health, or tell us how to eat- we have the right to be fat. Saddest of all, only one commentator on the latter article linked to above saw anything wrong with the plan for the simple fact that it violates individual rights. How creepy is that? It seems that all the fight and common sense has drained out of all the people involved in the writing of said article. Durg.

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Money Grubbing

Want to aid the fight for freedom of speech? Ezra Levant and a host of other bloggers need monetary aid to help their defence against the latest charges brought against them by the Canadian Human Rights Commissions. I normally wouldn't post pleas for money like this, but the thing is I feel like I should be doing something to aggravate the HRCs in one way or another- ya know, put my money where my mouth is. Unfortunately, most people my age don't have ready access to credit cards in order to donate online, or the funds to back them up, for that matter. And while I seriously doubt that any great number of people will actually ever read this post, at least I'll FEEL like I'm doing something by putting it up.

Click here to read all about the case(s)- and to donate! The fascist bullies CAN be defeated enough freedom-loving people get angry enough!

At Least It's Causing a Backlash...

Even crazier-than-usual laws are being enforced by Al-Qaeda in Iraq as of the summer of this year.

Let me try and get this straight...

In the minds of these murderous fanatics, female goats must be clothed, vegetables are sexually attractive, and all things must be as they were during the time of the Prophet? And if goats go naked and the world advances, those goats must die and all modern things must be bombed? Has it occurred to these whack jobs that their own oft-used bombs and guns did not exist in the time of the Prophet? How do they get around the fact that THEY did not exist back then either?

Friday, November 7, 2008

Patriotism, The Republican Defeat, and Lots of Gesticulating

Watch this! Watch!

I'm not saying agree with everything this guy says in this video (mainly because I know next to nothing about the people he's talking about, and because I'm getting sick of overweening religiousness being associated with conservatives), but he does make some very good points- about America, about anti-Americanism, and why on Earth the alleged CONSERVATIVE party came up with John McCain (or George Bush, while we're on the subject) as a presidential nominee.

Also, he's pretty damn entertaining as a speaker.

Obligatory Post-Election Post

Well, America, you- at least more than half of you- voted for him, and come January we're stuck with him. I've got a bad feeling about this. I hope you prove me wrong, Obama.

No matter how good or bad of a President Obama will turn out to be, it's hard not to feel the smallest bit warm and fuzzy inside reading about those who have lived through Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement and now the election of the first (partially) black President. I can still appreciate the historic value of this election - I get the strong feeling that 70 years from now, my grand children will ask what I can remember about this momentous event my young self witnessed, and I'll launch into a long, incoherent tirade about liberals and political correctness, ending with the hypothetical grandkids rolling their eyes and saying something about it being time for granny's nap.

And speaking of feeling warm and fuzzy and of momentous events, our first snow of the year is falling here in Iowa today. Well, the first sporadic damp flurries. I don't care. It's water. It's frozen. It's falling. Ranting Kid is happy.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Halloween Ravings

Last year I ranted on the subject of my own town's fun-crushing, illogical, anti-Halloween "Beggar's Night" tradition. It now saddens me to say that trick-or-treating not only still begins in broad daylight, ends at a 7:30 curfew, and rarely takes place on the actual Halloween Night, but that the local malls are now offering SUPER-SAFE-SANITIZED-JOYLESS-WELL-SUPERVISED "well-lit indoor" trick or treating. (Indoor? Well lit? On Halloween? That's just perverse.)

And in Canada, they're taking things even further! Apparently it is politically incorrect to even mention the word "Halloween" in some areas - and it just gets nuttier from there.

So this October 31st, I encourage all you revelers in less Puritanical towns than mine to have fun outdoors at least till the ungodly hour of 7:31, collect vast amounts of unhealthy goodies which may "conflict with some family's dietary habits", and, above all, have a happy HALLOWEEN, dammit.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Thoughtcrime in Canada

Why won't those damn Human Rights Commissions in Canada just keel over and die? It's a sad commentary on Western society to note that they were ever created in the first place, but it seems they have crossed a new threshold of fascism recently.

Click here to read a full article detailing recent examples of Christian-silencing by the HRCs - but before you do, let me rant on one case that stood out in particular.

One Pastor Stephen Boissoin has had a case brought against himself for taking a traditional Christian stand on the controversial issue of homosexuality. I REALLY dislike the entire anti-gay standpoint, but I still respect Boissoin's right to express his opinion, even if it offends me. However;

The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal ordered the pastor to pay $7,000 in various fines, publicly apologize to homosexual activists for having offended them, cease all private and public communication concerning Biblical teaching on homosexuality, and refrain from any criticism of the government process to which he was subjected. Should Boissoin fail to abide by this ruling, he could face time in jail.

Holy Hell, people. Cease all public and private communication? Refrain from criticism of the government? Jail time? Seems as though the HRCs aren't even trying to hide it anymore...they are tyrants, pure and simple. How many freedoms that were once considered sacred in the West did they trample over in those few sentences?

Thursday, October 2, 2008

We're Screwed '08: Sarah Palin

I really don't know enough about Sarah Palin to have any strong opinion about her. But after watching this video clip of an interview with her, all I was able to think was, "My GOD... the woman's a buzzword-spouting thoughtless MORON"

Palin, you are the freaking governor of Alaska. There must be SOME brain-like material in your head capable of thinking of a coherent way to dodge questions which you have no good answer too.

Saturday, September 27, 2008

We're Screwed '08: Abortion

Sigh. Election. Economy. Debates. Important stuff happening. Haven't posted since July. I should have plenty of material to rant on, no? Well, fine. I will. I'm usually to lazy to post after slogging through a few hours of homework, every day for six days a week, and after listening to the parental units railing about scumbag Obama and slimeball McCain and fatcats on Wall Street, but a recent pro-Obama flyer got me just angry enough to crank out a post. The flyer itself contained some call-to-arms along the lines of, "Vote for Obama- McCain wants to take away a woman's right to choose!"

I do NOT understand people who try to make abortion a feminist issue. In my opinion, abortion has nothing to do with women's rights. The decision to abort a child is not equivalent to making a decision about one's own body, as many pro-choicers will tell you; the kid which you have decided to off only happens to be stuck inside your abdomen for nine months out of its soon-to-be-ended life, poor thing. Having the government outlaw late-term abortions is not a symptom of a sexist society; seems to me to be more of a symptom of a society with a conscience, try to keep itself from totally sliding down the slippery slope.

As you might have guessed by now, the Ranting Kid is, at least 98% of the time, pro-life. Please don't call me a religious whack job, first and foremost because I am one of the most stark-ravingly atheist people I know, and secondly because the religious dingbats do occasionally make the right point for the wrong reasons. So in conclusion, Mr. Uber-Liberal Hope And Change And Yes We Can has lost yet another my hypothetical votes, leaving me all the more enraged that the only other option in the election is Mr.Beady-Eyed Pandering Liberal #2, a.k.a. McCain.

But you know what's really scary? The Ranting Kid has just realized she will be able to ACTUALLY vote come the next election. Damn! How do you adults choose between options like these?

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Racial Double Standards

Back when the Jena 6 story was still news, it was next to impossible not to hear anything about it. The fact that several black teenagers were so much as jailed for attacking a white classmate after a few racially tense months had people protesting in the streets, demanding that the attackers be released. The media was having a field day talking about the so-called racist-against-blacks government of Jena itself.

It seems that quite a few otherracially motivated incidents occurred earlier this summer, but with one key fact changed: in all these more recent attacks, whites were undeniably victimized instead of blacks. The comment section of the linked-to article contains many other stories of racial violence, some even more disturbing than the original story. One that stuck out in particular was a story of a white woman attacked and robbed by a group of youths in Oregon, youths who were reportedly shouting racial epithets. When interviewed, the woman who had been mugged was too scared to even release her name to the public, fearing retaliation from the mob of all-black teens who attacked her.

And yet I have heard no media outcry over these or any of the listed incidents; I have not seen any of these stories being broadcasted on any TV news show; I doubt one person has taken to the streets demanding justice for the victims of these attacks, some of which have been out-and-out brutal. Sounds like blatant double-standarding to me.

However, I cannot support all of the points made in the comment section that is linked to above- while some people are merely pointing out the racial inequality, others state that these attacks are simply the result of blacks acting like blacks. I know from first hand experience that this is just not true - I have met plenty of blacks who are not racist and would not commit crimes like the ones listed, and making generalizations about an entire race because of the ghetto culture of certain parts of this country is wrong. However, I can understand why those who live in the more dangerous and racially divided areas of the U.S are starting to think in this way. As one commenter stated, he is put down nearly everyday for being white in the area that he lives in, and has stopped going to certain public places altogether to avoid the racists. Especially when living in a politically correct climate where you are unlikely to get anyone to help you for fear of being called a racist themselves, one can see why some whites are getting fed up, angry and even desperate.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Candidate Bashing

It's struck me recently that I've done very little in the way of ranting on the race for the American presidency. Probably because I haven't yet taken a side...both McCain and Obama have the tendency to disgust me a bit on occasion. McCain does this even more than Obama, simply because despite the fact that he is running as the Republican candidate, he seems to me to be more liberal that anything. (Where are my conservatives? I WANT MY CONSERVATIVES).

I also find the ad campaigns being waged by both sides a bit disgusting. A pro-Obama flyer was recently dropped of at our door. The reasons that it listed as reasons that I should vote for Obama included:

*The fact that he was raised by a single parent and worked his way through college. (So what? What are his policies? How would that make him a better president?)
*His personal values include self-reliance, accountability and treating others the way you want to be treated. (Again, why do I care? Unless you pull that 'self-reliance' thing around in some way to make it look like he's going to fix the welfare system, I don't give a damn about his personality, I want to know about his POLICIES.)

I've also seen a lot of McCain supporters talking about McCain's military experience, mostly the fact that he was a POW. Again, that does not mean he's going to make a better president than Mr.Changehopechangeandhopeandchange. Even more trivial still, they also harp ofnthe fact that Obama smoked pot when he was younger. That's not a good thing, of course, but, yet again, I. Do. Not. Care. In yet another example of how it seems this election will be decided by completely irrelevant non-information, I saw an entire news article today devoted to the fact that McCain has recently had a spot removed from his face. Sigh.

The fact that I want small government and closed borders means I'm pretty much guaranteed to be unhappy with the outcome of this election,(pandering liberal #1 or pandering liberal #2?) but the fact remains that if we want a good president, we need to vote for him/her for reasons other than their race/gender/amount of babies kissed/whether or not they have a happy marriage/whether or not they have freaking spots on their faces.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Would You Like Burned Hijab With That?

I really hope these women don't win this case. It appears that two Muslim women are suing a McDonalds in Detroit for refusing to employ them - full story here. The McDonalds in question, of course, has a required uniform which employees need to wear, but these two applicants were demanding to be allowed to wear headscarves and long sleeves while on the job. The fast food joint obviously couldn't comply with health and safety standards and let that type of clothing be worn in the kitchens, so they told the two ladies that they could work there only if they wore clothes that met safety standards. The two women have filed a suit for ten million freaking dollars, claiming that the management of the McDonalds was discriminating against them because of their religion.

Discriminating? Really? First of all, working in a McDonalds kitchen would involve being near deep fryers, stoves, and other such hot things, making it not only unsafe but unlawful for kitchen employees to wear long sleeves/loose clothing, which would greatly increase the risk of fire. Second of all, as stated in the full article, health codes prohibit the wearing of long sleeves/dragging clothing while preparing food, lest fabric fibers/germs on the fabric end up getting into the food itself. Lastly, it doesn't matter what religion you belong to- if you pose a threat to public health, you shouldn't be preparing the public's food. I wouldn't call that thought 'discrimating', I would call it, maybe, common sense, you money-grubbing dolts?

Honestly, $10M? As a commenter on the original article pointed out, these two ladies would have to work at this particular McDonalds for 381 years to make that kind of money, so I really don't know why they think they have a reason to demand so much cash.

Monday, July 21, 2008

Not Very Ranty On This Post, Am I?

Any one for depressing poll results?* The link goes to an article about an ongoing survey/study thing on honor killings being done by a team from someplace called Dicle University in Turkey. I'll let you read the thing yourselves, but the results are, as stated, depressing for anyone hoping mankind will one day drag itself out of the tribal, primordial, uncivilized craziness which seems to come so naturally to us.

*Dunno why, but the link only shows up if you move your cursor over the words "depressing poll results".

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Diversity Down-Throat Cramming

I don't keep up with these local things usually, but even I have managed to learn that the Iowa State Fair will be happening somewhere in the state of Iowa at some point during the near future. Normally I wouldn't have had any interest in an article about said fair, which seems to be a big showcasing of all the rural aspects I don't particularly like about this state with some corn dogs thrown in, but I just had to rant on this when I came across it.

In summary, the article talks about the fact that there are too many white people at the State Fair. Iowa itself is about 97% white, so people are predicting that the attendants at the fair will be about 97% white. Therefore, we must bring in more black people.

Would anyone ever dare to suggest that an event that would have mostly black supporters needed more white people? No way in hell, not unless you were dying to be labeled a bigot. All this multi-culti stuff about bringing diversity into the fair boils down to one thing for me; the white race is an inferior one, needing to be improved by minorities.

If people in an area are mostly Asian, that's FINE. If people in an area are mostly black, there's nothing wrong with that. The same rule applies to any other race. Because the people that settled this area of the country where mostly German/Norwegian, their descendants here are therefore white. And there's nothing wrong with that either. Are minorities being forbidden to attend the Fair? No. Is the Iowa State Fair racist? No. Nothing wrong has been done here, people.

Plus, bringing in performers who are black Americans will not increase the cultural diversity of the Fair, because their culture is basically the exact same damn thing as any white American's. Even if it weren't, how is the celebration on Iowan culture, which has its roots in Europe, a bad thing? The celebration of African, Asian, Hispanic is considered a good thing, as it should be, but all Things European are not evil, people, no matter what the liberals want you to think.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Global Dumbening

It seems like half the books I end up reading these days come from a friend who delights in foisting off her library on me. A while back she gave me the first three books in the Maximum Ride series, a generic young adult action-adventure affair. Not really anything I'd recommend, but I went ahead and read the fourth book after this friend of mine shoved it on top of the latest pile of books she's assigned to me. The first three books in the series seemed to stick to an original story line, but this fourth book completely went of the environmental propaganda deep end.

The storyline in the fourth installment of the series completely abandons the Down- with- the- large- corporations- playing- God- with- genetic- experiments- angle and instead adopts a highly irritating We're- all- going- to- die- (because- the- U.S.- didn't- sign- the- Kyoto-Treaty)- unless- genetically- enhanced- fourteen- year- olds- save- the- world- from- global-warming! thing.

Even more irritating is the fact that a strong hurricane, which was rather crudely stuck into the story to show the effects of global warming, is used not only to prove global warming is happening, but also that all hurricanes of our era are the fault of said warming, plain and simple. This is should irk anyone who's informed about the topic of global climate change, but it is especially irking to someone who spent three very boring months researching hurricanes and global warming for science class, spent several weeks bugging local professions for info on this topic, and who had to give a very boring, very LONG presentation about ocean temperature and hurricanes- a.k.a. ME.

There are several things I'd like to point out to the author of this overly dumbed-down, intelligence-insulting piece of propaganda about hurricanes and global warming. I'm anything but an expert on this topic, but while researching I did pick up a few facts about this topic.
A) Hurricanes need an ocean's temp to be about 89 degrees before they can form. Therefore, I would agree with the conclusion that a warmer climate would increase hurricane frequency.
B) Hurricane frequency and intensity are two very different things. There is a good deal of controversy over things that cause hurricanes to become stronger, but several experts have stated that overall temperature most likely doesn't increase hurricane strength. Katrina could have turned out to be a small Cat.1 affair even if it formed at very high temperatures, and if New Orleans had better luck. On the other hand, other research shows that higher temperatures do increase hurricane strength. Neither side has been proved correct yet.
C) In my amateur opinion, ocean temperature is a very small factor when it comes to the dozens of factors that create hurricanes. The wind shear factor is a very important, if not more important, factor. For those of you who don't know, more wind shear = no hurricane...usually. Less wind shear= hurricane...maybe, in the right circumstances. It's VERY complicated.
D) The amount of hurricanes we're experiencing now is not surprising when you look at natural oscillation patterns. The 80's and 90's experienced a sharp drop in hurricane activity, a dip we are now coming out of. Also, long before all this global warming hysteria reared its ugly head, we were experiencing hurricane seasons even more violent than recent ones in the 1920's and 1960's. Roughly. Someone check the exact dates for me. Plus, hurricane data for even a few decades ago is very iffy, and once you go back in time farther than this century, accurate hurricane data is nonexistent.
E) As for the whole global warming side of things, WHY DOES NO ONE NOTICE PARTS OF THE WORLD ARE COOLING DOWN? Like the Pacific? The South? Like parts of North America? Even here in Iowa, our winters are getting warmer, yes, but our summers are getting cooler. In conclusion - the climate has gone screwy, and no one can really say why. We're all grabbing at straws here.

Lastly, while it is all well and good to raise awareness about pollution and conservation, I sat down with Maximum Ride's fourth book expecting some explosions, some flying, and some teen angst that would take me about 45 minutes to read cover to cover. I was not looking for even more of the Mother Nature BS that I get the media throwing at me every day. What ever happened to the plot of the series?

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Canadians, Swastikas, and Disgusting People on All Sides

Canada is really starting to bug me. And this time it's not even a Human rights Commission that's doing the bugging.
This link takes you to a summary of the story of a Canadian mother who sent her 7 year old daughter to school with a swastika drawn on her arm. The child's teacher promptly scrubbed the thing off, only to have the girl return the next day with the swastika redrawn in marker.

In the end, the mother lost custody of her two children to the government, and has yet to go to court to try to win them back.
Okay, disgusting people on all sides here. Firstly, we have a woman who believes displaying a swastika is equivalent to being proud of your European heritage (Yes, that's how she's defending herself) and then we have a government taking away people's children because their parents have political beliefs that the state does not agree with. Soviet-esque, no? The Manitoba Child and Family services stated that the main reason the children were removed was that the state feared that living with racist parents could damage the "emotional well-being" of the two kids. Ha!

Since when in a free Western country was it considered acceptable or moral to have the government barging into people's lives because of their opinions and beliefs? What's next? No matter how deplorable a person's beliefs might be, the government is not here to raise our children or run our lives, and in a free country we are free to hold any belief we choose to.

As for the mother of the swastika-girl, I think she is a worst at racist and at best just plain ignorant. I'm starting to think she's more ignorant than anything, because she stated that she was only displaying white pride and using the swastika to represent the family's Scottish background. Alright, first of all;
*The swastika originated in ancient times somewhere around the Indian subcontinent, you dolt;
*The swastika was never associated with Scotland; might I suggest you try something like a Scottish flag next time you start feeling 'proud of your heritage'?
* The swastika has nothing do with white 'pride'- In the modern day, it is a symbol of Aryan supremacy associated with the demeaning and brutal slaughtering of millions of people deemed to be of an inferior ethnicity. What the hell were you thinking?
* Did you honestly think your daughter's school WOULDN'T mind a child walking around with a swastika on her arm?

Saturday, May 10, 2008

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.

Monday, May 5, 2008


This is a test.

Saturday, February 9, 2008

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.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

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, 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'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?

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

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.

Monday, January 14, 2008

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.