Ranting Kid

That Was...Quick....

2009-10-09T14:09:00.000-07:00

So Obama has been in office for about ten months now. His accomplishments in the Nobel Peace Prize winning area include, from what I can tell, making a speech in Cairo and being non - aggressive with Iran (Although his dealings with said country haven't yet accomplished anything solid, I must point out).

Here's a list of the other people considered, and passed over, for the Nobel Peace Prize:

Sima Samar, women's rights activist in Afghanistan: "With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women's Affairs."

Ingrid Betancourt: French-Colombian ex-hostage held for six years.

"Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence."

Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: "These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon."

"Hu Jia, a human rights activist and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government, who was sentenced last year to a three-and-a-half-year prison term for 'inciting subversion of state power.'"

"Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China's communist system. He now lives in the United States."

Does anyone else find that damn odd?

Another Reason to Promote Clean Drinking Water

2009-07-14T18:09:00.000-07:00

I've heard it theorized by some that estrogens slipping into our water supply are partially responsible for the burgeoning amount of liberals/liberal male politicians we've been seeing in the government in the last few years. Although I can't say I've gotten that part about liberal men from completely reliable sources, (cough*ravingrightwingparent*cough) I can say that the part about the estrogens in the water is, in fact, true.

While I can somewhat agree with the idea that some liberal-ification has been going on, I've noticed a more disturbing symptom of the same phenomenon recently right here in Iowa. At least three times this week, I have seen boys - approximately 11-to-14 years of age, out in public - reading books from the Twilight series.

WTF? I know it's none of my business, but I thought that was the kind of thing males did when they were sure no one would ever find out about it.

For those of you unfamiliar with this Twilight thing I'm talking about, suffice it to say that they are very, very girly novels. Here are a few quotes from this livejournal review that I think sum up my feelings about the tone of the books pretty nicely:

*- Some of the descriptions of Edward are so corny it's painful. Example: "He grinned his crooked smile at me, stopping my breath and my heart. I couldn't imagine how any angel could be more glorious. There was nothing about him that could be improved upon."

*What kind of pansy-ass vampire sparkles in the sun anyway?

British Airline Says Yes to Sexism

2009-05-03T13:27:00.000-07:00

Holy crap. (Bangs head on wall).

Christian stewardess on British airline ordered to wear head-to-toe Muslim attire and walk behind male coworkers.

What is in the water over there?

Gay Reparations

2009-04-19T11:23:00.000-07:00

Yet another request for reparations.

At least this request for reparations makes slightly more sense than requests by modern Americans for slavery, seeing as how homosexuals alive today have actually experienced the grievance the author of the article wants payment for, even if it is something far less severe than slavery. But hey, if the government starts shelling out reparations for gays, someone should start lobbying for reparations for the descendants of Irish-American immigrants. Or German American immigrants. I could cash in on either on of those. Or reparations for all women! Even more cash for me. My forebears had their feelings REALLY REALLY hurt - I completely deserve at least a few grand.

More importantly, though, it seems somewhat disgusting to try and use hardships suffered by gays as a means of money-grubbing. The author of the article even admits is would probably be impossible to calculate the amount of wages lost due to job discrimination against homosexuals- so why not demand something more important, like equal rights in all public spheres, etc.? The author also states that a monthly check will never be ample compensation for the most severe discrimination suffered by some gays; still, ALL gays should get some money anyways. Oy. I also do not follow the my-neighbor-just-called-me-a-fag-therefore- Uncle-Sam-owes-me-money-for-some- reason logic at all.

Another "What is Wrong With Europe?" Post

2009-04-18T08:14:00.000-07:00

Another disgusting example of the whole defending-oneself-is-evil attitude, in this instance applied to a murder case. Of course, this whole thing occurred in Britain.

Family of father stabbed to death by three thugs is denied compensation... because he tried to fight back. And this is in a country that, according to the article, awarded a half million pounds to some typist who injured her thumb.

Make sure to check the comments...at least there are a few hearteningly sensible opinions to be found in there.

"Hate" Speech

2009-04-05T16:23:00.000-07:00

I came across a post earlier at this blog, which consisted partially of the age old young-people-these-days rant. Unfortunately, I completely agreed with the author's opinion of my generation's aversion to anything resembling conflict/disagreement/feelings besides those of wuv and chumminess. The author states at one point:

'Young people have never read, or even heard of, Mencken, for instance -- and would find the idea of looking for a "new" one utterly incomprehensible. Mencken was clearly a "hater." Menken (sic) was "mean." And "mean people suck."'

I have had it with wuv and fwiendship. I have had it with "Aw, you're just a hater" and "You need to stop hatin' on (insert offensive thing here)". People my age seem to use these phrases whenever someone states a freaking opinion of any sort. No, we do not need to stop 'hating'. People call others haters in an attempt to insult them, but I've never under stood why being deemed a hater was a bad thing. If things get any worse, I'll start considering it a compliment.

Society needs its chutzpah back - we do not need any more conflict-avoiding, debate-averse, appeasement-promoting, all-fighting-is-bad attitudes infecting the minds of our youth (debate is arguably the basis of democracy, people). Especially since our schools seems to be their damndest to spread these pernicious attitudes. Or at least in my personal elementary/middle school experience. And it's not as if I'm at all neurotic or paranoid when it comes to schools...

They Passed It?

2009-03-28T15:38:00.000-07:00

I knew the Anti-Defamation-of-Religion/ Flagrantly-Orwellian-Bill thing with stuff was on the table at the UN, but I guess my naive self was still expecting the thing to get voted down. But they actually passed the damn thing.

Evidently, the bill is not only Orwellian, but also prejudiced -

"India, which normally votes along with the council’s majority of developing nations, abstained in protest at the fact that Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection"

Of course.

I urge all sensible people who read this to start 'defaming' as vigorously as possible. For example: those who don't understand the concept of freedom of speech and wish to impose respect for their religion on others should stay the hell out of free societies. Those who are at present doing exactly that in the name of Islam are doing a Bad Thing. Yes, I am equating theocratic Islam with Badness, hopefully thereby defaming it.

34% Believe Nanny State is Necessary

2009-03-07T12:59:00.000-08:00

Strapped for time - read this and be ticked off by it.

Smart Children Are Too Stupid To Read

2009-03-01T10:42:00.000-08:00

Nanny state...or schools? Hmm...

Since I'm writing this post instead of completing some homework that involves coloring things in, I'll go for schoolcentric rant today, I think.

I can't believe they're having me color things, damn it. Due mostly to parental influence, pretty much every course I've taken in high school has been Honors This or Advanced That or Ap Something or Other - this would lead on to believe that these courses would be more difficult than the regular courses, no? For the most part this is true, except when it comes to Honors English classes. In a continuation of a pernicious thought system I first encountered in elementary school, the Honors English class has, as of late, been treating me and my 'gifted' peers like babies.

Pernicious Rumor Believed by the School Board #1: 'Smart' kids enjoy being 'creative'. Sure, we enjoy being creative, in our own way, doing things we actually enjoy, but the school systems seems to think 'creativity' is tantamount to acting like a four year old. Instead of doing any writing, we color things; instead of contemplating Shakespeare, we are ordered to make up rap songs in groups about Romeo and Juliet and sing them in front of people. (During this particular episode, I jotted down some lines, shoved them at my groupmates, ordered them to sing if they were spineless enough to comply with the assignment, and wrote on the whiteboard while they were doing so that I was 'abstaining on educational principle').

Pernicious Rumor #2: People learn if they are put in classes where we are forced to do so-called 'creative' things. Public humiliation via rap songs does not teach me anything about classical literature.

Pernicious Rumor #3: Classical literature, especially Shakespeare, is far too complex for our poor minds to comprehend. Everything that we actually do read in Honors English is accompanied by long, tedious, completely unnecessary 'translation' spoon-fed to us by the instructor (I of course do not understand Elizabethan slang, but I can figure out that the phrase "In fair Verona, where we lay our scene," means the play takes place in Verona, dammit). This, I might add, comes a few years after a classic episode in middle school wherein the English teacher helped us dumb down the Gettysburg Address into a few short lines, containing words no longer than six or so letters, because the we couldn't possibly be expected to understand the original.

I wonder if the kids in English classes for non-'gifteds' actually, you know, study English.

What the Hell Happened to Europe?/Wilders Case

2009-02-26T14:47:00.000-08:00

Why am I not surprised?

The country that barred Geert Wilders welcomes those with ties to Hezbollah.

A quote from the linked to article states: “Exclusion decisions are based on hard evidence not hearsay, and are targeted at those who seek to stir up tension and provoke others to violence regardless of their origins and beliefs.”

Uh-huh...so why was Wilders denied entry? How is producing a video that consists of video tapes of imams making speeches provoking others to violence?

Another excerpt, concerning the Geert-banning Home Secretary Jacqui Smith: "...she stopped right wing Dutch MP Geert Wilders from coming into the UK to protect ‘community harmony’."

Since when is an undefined level of 'harmony' more important that freedom of speech?

Impossible to Please

2009-02-12T15:45:00.000-08:00

Damn it, us racist whiteys just can't do anything right. Looks like having Black History Month, as well as discounting corn bread, is now racist. I wonder if it's more or less racist than NOT having Black History Month?

The author of the first article does touch on some points I might agree with, but still I have no real problem with having a Black History month. However, the author coughed up a few infuriating quotes I simply cannot let go unchallenged. They concern -of course- that damned school system of mine:

"What little we know about our nation’s past has been transmitted by Hollywood, so schoolchildren know that the Pilgrims invented Thanksgiving, all Indians wore feathers and George Washington Carver invented the peanut".

"... giving us our own month of “Black History” makes matters worse. For one thing, it lets the academy off the hook, allowing textbook writers and history teachers to continue their superficial history lessons that gloss over Reconstruction and Jim Crow, ignore the 19th century’s black entrepreneurs and pretend that GI Joe was always white."

Good Lord woman, have you ever actually set foot inside an American school? Or have I just been living a bizarrely unusual school life? For years and years I have been indoctrinated with unremitting facts about slavery and Jim Crow and how the pilgrims screwed over that poor heroic Squanto. My present history class can't stop gushing about what a genius G.W. Carver was. 80% of my education concerning Vietnam concerned how corrupt rich whites left the fighting to downtrodden blacks. And, even more oddly, this same school system won't stop telling me that all throughout my years in school I have been indoctrinated with racist and overly patriotic propaganda, when the truth is that I can count yearly on having a somewhat moonbat-ish history teacher bemoaning the plight of everybody Whitey has ever wronged. Glossing over Reconstruction? I SPENT THE LAST TWO MONTHS ON THAT DAMN TOPIC!

People, slavery was evil, so was Jim Crow, and the civil rights movement is something this country can be damn proud of. Blacks have, historically, overcome massive obstacles fighting for equality. I recognize that fully - even if the media and the schools seem to want me to believe that I don't recognize this. Even if I've learned about nothing else in history class for the last near-decade.

However, on a side note, the ignorance of some of my classmates on topics of equal importance does frighten me on occasion. My present history teacher recently offended me greatly by saying that myself and my classmates were to young to remember either 9/11 (Not even eight years ago!) or the Abu Ghraib scandal. For the record, I can remember exactly what I did, saw, and even said the morning of 9/11, and I blurted out right there in class that "YES, we remember Abu Ghraib". However, I quickly realized that everyone sitting nearby was looking about confusedly, with one or two whispering, "Abu Gray-ub? What's that?"

Sad. Very sad.

An F in Psychic Ability Class

2009-01-23T14:42:00.000-08:00

I've ranted before on the topic of the failings of my school system, but I also noted in the linked-to post with some optimism that the local high school I attend seemed many times more sensible than the middle school I suffered through (I think my entire anti-paternalistic attitude about government was brought about by that ugly uber-modern paternalistic place). I was waiting for my high school administration to do something to tick me off - it did not last year- so I guess it was to be expected that THIS year they start with the wackiness.

Most people get a trumped-up religious exemption to avoid health class, but I decided I would just be a...man? a woman?... and get the semester-long class over with.

Some points have stood out from the literature given to me in said class. Apparently, meat and dairy are evil, the only negative side effect of sluttiness is the risk of STIs, all alcohol consumption is bad, and believing that you have psychic ability is healthy. Seriously. We were recently given a questionnaire to evaluate our 'spiritual health', one consisting of questions such as, "Do you often feel an overwhelming oneness with the world, as if all aspects of nature were part of a single organism?", "Do you believe you have a sixth sense that allows you to predict events?" and "Do you believe you have experienced extra-sensory perception (ESP)?" The more questions you answered with 'yes', the greater your spiritual health (They were not all quite as bizarre as the ones I listed). I am happy to say that my score was very, very low and that the evaluation of the quiz deemed me as 'resistant to spiritual growth' or something like that.

At least I was surprised by the method of ticking-offing the school used against me this time. I went into health class expecting to be lectured about condoms and about my being a fat, unhealthy American that eats to much junk food - turns out I'm an underweight, spiritually dead American that eats to much fruit (?). Variety is the spice of life, no?

"Post" Racial America Reaches New Heights of Ditzy Racism

2009-01-23T14:21:00.000-08:00

Oh good God. Michelle Obama may get a formal appeal filed against her office by the Black Artists Association for wearing clothes designed by Asian and Cuban designers (Because Asians and Cubans are not black, of course). As this article illustrates, America is in no way becoming a 'post-racial' society but an overwhelmingly race-conscious one. As stated in the comments, why should anyone choose their clothes based on the race of the designer? If we were truly past racism, people, we wouldn't even think of race when it came to choosing gowns for the Inaugurational balls - or people for jobs, students for colleges, etc. Bah, I say. Bah!

Geert Wilders

2009-01-22T15:24:00.000-08:00

Geert Wilders case? You should have heard about it - and probably have - but in case you haven't,read about it here and then come back and humor me while I rant.

I've just about had it trying to use logic against Europe/Canada. They've tossed essential freedoms out the window and they seem to be damn proud of it. Here we have yet another case of a white defendant being prosecuted for voicing an opinion by Nazis who go about accusing others of being Nazis simply because they notice faults in minorities. It no longer matters of those faults are there or not. Not that it should anyways, but this blatant suppression of speech, true or not, adds yet another dimension of skin-crawlingness the attitudes of these people. As stated in the linked-to article:

"Geert Wilders could be going to jail for making admittedly harsh criticisms of Islam that actually echo statements made by Muslims," To jail. JAIL!

So in place of spelling my arguments in favor of freedom yet again I will simply ask: Europe, what the hell happened to you? Britain- have you forgotten that the basis of the entire free Western system was founded by yourself? And now you have frikking Sharia courts operating within your borders? Netherlands- you drove Ayaan Hirsi Ali out? What the hell is wrong with you? Sorry to be crude, but I have also been wanting to ask all the Euro-Canadian fascists/dhimmis/etc. this for a long time - where have your balls got to? I know you had them at one point.

Inauguration Footnote: Bye to Bush

2009-01-20T18:34:00.000-08:00

Another irking factoid that Inauguration Day has reminded me of must be ranted about. While I stated in the previous post how irritated I was at the media for falling all over Obama, I must also state my irritation at the right-wing attitude towards Bush here at the end of his presidency. Here's one example. It seems that that some right-wingers are so cheesed at the thought of an Obama presidency that they've grabbed onto the nearest Republican entity, in this case the departing Bush, and started wailing about how wonderful it is.

I consider myself conservative, and I'm more or less glad to see Bush go. I'm not really glad to see Obama become president either, but I'm not going to suddenly start acting like Bush was a great leader either. He's still That President who took us into another Vietnam-style war in Iraq, which has not been handled well, even if it has not been handled particularly horribly (in my opinion) either. He still ticked me off with the Patriot Act, he still refused to do anything to attempt to fix the immigration problem, he still said a lot of really stupid things during the 2004 electoral debates, and he's still a bad public speaker. And perhaps most importantly, he's still NOT A CONSERVATIVE. I don't give a damn if his party is the Republican one- I've said before that one of the reasons I dislike Obama is that he seemes to want to bring about 'change' by expanding/helping to enable Bush's big-government policies.

In short, I suppose, every politician out there sucks and nothing will ever go right until I'M elected president and everyone does exactly what I want them to. Happy Inauguration day, y'all.

Inauguration Day

2009-01-20T08:41:00.000-08:00

Okay then, people, Obama is completely and officially the acting president of the U.S. as of today. The way the media has been spinning it, this is the only important thing to have happened in the world for the last two weeks. Oh, there may have been some tussling in Gaza and maybe a little teensy resurgence of the human strain of bird flu, but nothing worth covering, not when we could be dribbling endlessly about the Lincoln theme and the pointless attending pop stars and what Michelle Obama is going to wear.

Watching Obamamania spiral out of control in the last month or two, I've seen people trying to name streets and towns after Obama (Not only while the man is still alive, or while he's still done nothing as President, but while he was not even President at the time), hawk creepy commemorative plates, and more recently take a vow to be a 'servant' to Obama. Nice democratic sentiment, dipwads.

On a less creepy note, I found a funny article at The Black Informant that sums things up pretty well. Hey, we're already most of the way toward the Obama-infused school system the comedian imagines - my high school boasts kids nick-named 'Barack' and 'Obama', plus legions more who walk around in Obama T-Shirts sporting Yes We Can bags.

Scary Three-Letter Word

2009-01-01T08:02:00.000-08:00

Great. Here we go again with silly atheists making a big stink for no logical reason.

The Pledge of Allegiance has, in the past, come under attack for containing the words "under God" - and now with Obama's inauguration fast approaching, a group of atheists is trying to get the phrase "so help me God" removed from the Oath of Office. One of them (Dan Barker) is quoted in the article as saying that the phrase:

"...makes those of us good Americans who don't believe in God second-class citizens. It's unfair."

I don't get it. How exactly does it turn non-believers into second-class citizens? Does it impose a religion on anybody? No, it's just a piece of text read out at a traditional ceremony. Does it somehow take religious freedom/freedom to be non-religious away from atheists? Again, it does not. It also does not mean the separation between Church and State has been broken - America still has no national church or religion, it just has a piece of traditional text.

Plus, you wouldn't edit the Iliad or some such piece of literature to bring it in line with, for instance, modern grammar, or PC prudishness, would you? While it may not be a famous epic poem, the Oath of Office (and the Pledge of Allegiance, for that matter) strikes me as the same sort of thing; you wouldn't want to change the way it was written historically, because it would no longer be THE Oath of Office. Especially since, you know, it doesn't actually oppress anybody.

The Right Idea

2008-12-27T06:48:00.000-08:00

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.

Obligatory Xmas Post

2008-12-25T09:09:00.000-08:00

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.

Idiot's Rights Movement?

2008-11-30T07:21:00.000-08:00

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.

DIE, Paternalism, DIE!

2008-11-13T15:49:00.000-08:00

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.

Money Grubbing

2008-11-09T14:05:00.000-08:00

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...

2008-11-09T12:45:00.000-08:00

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?

Patriotism, The Republican Defeat, and Lots of Gesticulating

2008-11-07T12:48:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-07T08:29:00.000-08:00

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.

Halloween Ravings

2008-10-30T18:15:00.000-07:00

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.

Thoughtcrime in Canada

2008-10-07T16:58:00.000-07:00

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?

We're Screwed '08: Sarah Palin

2008-10-02T17:48:00.000-07:00

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.

We're Screwed '08: Abortion

2008-09-27T11:15:00.000-07:00

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?

Racial Double Standards

2008-07-31T09:28:00.000-07:00

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.

Candidate Bashing

2008-07-28T18:57:00.000-07:00

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.

Would You Like Burned Hijab With That?

2008-07-27T13:33:00.000-07:00

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.

Not Very Ranty On This Post, Am I?

2008-07-21T19:09:00.000-07:00

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".

Diversity Down-Throat Cramming

2008-07-15T07:07:00.000-07:00

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.

Global Dumbening

2008-07-14T14:15:00.000-07:00

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?

Canadians, Swastikas, and Disgusting People on All Sides

2008-07-09T10:53:00.000-07:00

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?

Sean Bell and the NYCP

2008-05-10T11:14:00.000-07:00

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!

2008-05-05T18:48:00.001-07:00

This is a test.

Fat Nazi's Fatheaded Bill and Its Fatheaded Opponents

2008-02-09T17:11:00.000-08:00

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?

2008-02-06T07:25:00.000-08:00

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!

2008-01-15T13:48:00.000-08:00

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

2008-01-14T10:28:00.000-08:00

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

2007-12-24T07:33:00.000-08:00

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

2007-12-17T18:54:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-27T14:03:00.000-08:00

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

2007-11-25T15:36:00.000-08:00

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.

The Censored Compass

2007-11-23T07:11:00.000-08:00

I read Philip Pullman's book, The Golden Compass, along with the other books in the series it belongs to, many years ago. I often wondered when these worthy stories would be put to the silver screen, and, now, here we finally go.

After seeing a trailer for this film, I thought, "Why, people, why must we always blondify our main characters?" Mrs. Coulter, the sadistic mother of the main character of The GC, is often and explicitly described as dark-haired in the book, but of course, her character is being portrayed by freaking platinum Nicole Kidman! Now while you may be wondering why I am flipping out over so minor a detail, I must say that this is not an isolated incidence. It seems that several characters, at least that I have seen, that are supposed to be dark and beautiful originally are being put into the movies blonde and bland. It's just...irritating, ya know?

But far more rant-worthy are the reactions of the producers of the film and some religious groups to the religious themes in the novels (see link). These stories depict the Christian religion as headed by a powerful, controlling, cruel and fanatical group. They also show the denizens of Heaven to be corrupt beings, weaker than humans, that eventually go to war with mankind, while portraying the cast-downs of Hell as a righteous group attempting to overthrow the head angel in Heaven. Still, these are all just stories, pure and simple. When I read these novels, I never felt that they attacked actual Christianity in any way, but that is beside the point. Even if they did, authors, film makers, and the rest of us in the country have the right to say whatever we damn well please. Glossing over these aspects of the plot, as the producers of this movie intend to do, is totally unnecessary and possibly detrimental to the story. As for those out there saying that this movie is promoting 'atheism for kids', or the dislike of God; these books never say that God doesn't exist...although they do portray him as an innocent and powerless entity... or display any 'hatred' for God, but once again, even if they did, sometimes fiction is just fiction, and censorship is still censorship. I know that the author himself has made open statements about how he himself is atheist, and that God will die in his stories, but the books themselves, as I said before, did not project any feeling of hatred toward actual modern day Christianity.

I will add, though, that I doubt these movies will do the books they are based on any justice. I think the stories have too many subtle subplots and concepts. And while the producers may pull it off, I am wondering how they are going to get across the vital concept of daemons in the film. I know most of you probably have no idea what I'm talking about, but, hey, if you leave a comment on this, I'm happy to give you a long-winded explanation.

Happy Thanksgiving, Y'all

2007-11-22T12:52:00.000-08:00

Not a rant! Hope everybody out there has a fun and foodful holiday. Well, at least everyone out there I like. With lots of potatoes. And pumpkin pie. I love punkin pie. With tasty gravy. And a big golden turkey!

And for those of you that live in the colder climes, I hope you are sharing my irrational, childish glee at the first snowfall of the season. The Ranting Kid shall spend the day glued to a window, staring at the frozen H2O coming down, hoarding bits of mashed up Yukon Golds and slices of cold pumpkin paste, and getting ordered to polish the good silver by her mother.

Joy and calories to all!

RK

Bright and Shiny!

2007-11-18T13:10:00.000-08:00

As stated in la profile, I am probably one of the few teenage females out there that likes our poor under-appreciated friends, the snakes. While I am sure few will agree with my personal opinion that snakes are cute, you have got to admit that some of them can be frikkin' gorgeous in the pigment department. Couldn't resist slapping up a few snake pictures. Well, links to snake pictures. Check out these brightly colored corn snakes, here, here, and here.

Euro-Bashing Time!

2007-11-18T12:24:00.000-08:00

I hope this does not bode ill for America. The country responsible for spawning the U.S., as you may know, banned hand guns a while back, and started prosecuting those who try to defend themselves against armed robbery. (For those of you that have not heard of the Tony Martin case, it deals with a farmer who, after having his house burglarized several times, fired upon the next batch of robbers that turned up, and was sentenced to five years in jail for manslaughter).

And, of course, after the British populous was disarmed and criminal activities became therefore easier to perpetrate and harder to stop, gun-crime rates went up. (Note that while Brits are unarmed and Americans are free to buy guns, gun crime rates in Britain are higher than they are in the U.S.) Some people fail to understand that even when guns are outlawed, the criminal class has no qualms about procuring arms for themselves by illegal means, while your average citizen is left defenseless. The Martin story is rather frightening, especially because it is set in Britain of all places. Since when is it morally wrong for someone whose home has been violated, his possessions stolen, and his life put in danger, to try to defend himself and his house? Some have argued this point with me, saying that a burglar should not be shot if he is merely trying to rob you. I responded with a, "Hell yes, you should be able to shoot robbers," because when someone trying to burglarize you, they probably do not have your best interests at heart. This person will either scamper off or attempt to hurt/kill you when you attempt to save your possessions.

Sigh. Why always with the liberal/general nuttiness policies these days? We need some basic morality over there in Britain. Some common sense. At least the American government hasn't started viewing violent crime in this manner. Yet. Sigh. Or argh. I'm not sure which exasperated noise is appropriate here.

Of Drugs, Bullying, and Things That Flatter Your Waistline

2007-11-11T13:24:00.000-08:00

The curriculum for my classes during my final year of middle school was very, very strange. For many, many, MANY years the students in this district can expect to be hammerred with constant and obnoxious information about drugs; in middle school the drug propaganda machine went into overdrive. While I know it is important to be educated about such nasty things, it is NOT necessary to be given the exact same speech about cigarettes and beer several times a month, year after year after year. It is also not necessary to teach that cigarettes and alcohol are pure evil (my homeroom teacher once threatened to give a student sessions with a counselor for saying the word 'drunk'), while avoiding teaching the kiddies about such truly dangerous things as, say, crack, heroin, or meth, a drug which is actually a problem in our area. During this drugs-and-alcohol class we had to attend every other day in the 8th grade, we were also lectured by 'bullying' experts, which we probably the most angrifying of all.

For those of you adults that may have heard of these bullying programs and their aims to to eradicate harassment in schools; every program I have ever encountered was, quite frankly, a very, very large load of offensive stuff. Every speaker that came in to lecture us on the topic had absolutely no idea what they were talking about.

Firstly, these people's idea of 'bullying' was the student's idea of normal human interaction, a.k.a. having one's own friends and speaking to people that one knew at least a slight bit. They didn't seem to realize that most people do not enjoy being forced to socialize with people that do not know them; they didn't seem to understand that most children have a certain group of other young humans they tend to hang about with. The fact that people will mutually have no interest in one another because they have never met seemed to confuse said lecturers. If the children had particular friends, this must mean they were inhuman and cruel to the other students that did not socialize with them, and obviously had no regard for the feelings of others--social engineering must be put into place at once. We had two or three "Bring Down The Walls" days forced upon us a year at my middle school. During this silly thing, one was ordered to sit amongst people that one did not know during lunch. (Of course, none or very few of the students complied).

Secondly, these 'bullying' bureaucrats did not punish actual bullying when it occurred. By actual bullying, I mean, for example, someone coming up to you and beating you up for your lunch money, ambushing you when you arrived at school in the mornings, or something along those lines. ACTUAL bullying. When ever such things occurred, their advice to us was to sit there while being beaten up and wait quietly for a teacher to come and assist, or to politely ask your assailant to stop hammering upon you. Under no circumstances should you, say, defend yourself, or anything like that. I did come across a few situations like this during my time in the lower grades. The person being attacked (an innocent party) generally did something to fight back, and pretty much always got punished more severely than their assailant. Why? Sure, the other person started it an all, and you were only defending yourself, but what did we teach you? Ask nicely, wait for the teacher. YOU should have known better.

AND, to top this all off, we had another class, one you have probably heard of, "Family and Consumer Sciences"(FCS) foisted upon us. This class did teach some useful skills, like sewing, basic kitchen skills, etc, but also had some of the most ridiculous units I have ever seen in a curriculum. My class spent about two weeks researching what kind of clothes we should wear. What body type we had. What clothes looked good on us. W.T.F?!?!

While I must add that my high school doesn't seem so dang ridiculous, I must ask the older population out there: Did middle school affairs used to be this bad?

It Made Us Sound All Good And Stuff

2007-11-10T10:44:00.000-08:00

After deciding to come back to the topic of anti-Americanism, I decided to dredge up this li'l anecdote to show the hell-in-a-handbasket-ness of the situation. This particular story took place about a month ago in the midst of a history lesson at my high school.

When one is enrolled in an honors class, one is not hammered by the constant teaching of the American Revolution, the American Civil War, and JIM CROW JIM CROW JIM CROW and MORE JIM CROW year after year, but is taught some of the history of the rest of the world. While tracking Japan's progress to the modern day, we were asked to write up some summaries in a small group of certain parts of Japan's experience in the second World War. One kid in my group seemed a bit baffled after reading about Japan's reconstruction.

"It makes it sound like Japan did evil things," he stated simply.

"They did all the things listed in there," I replied, referring to the textbook.

"Yeah but...but it makes the Americans sound all good and stuff,"

"Well... do you think the book's lying, or something?" I answered.

"I bet it's not telling the whole story,"

"What more did you expect?" I said.

"Well, we... we must have done something wrong," The kid didn't even know about the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, it seemed.

But of course, America must have done something wrong, just as my classmate stated, because America is the most evil country in the world, of course, and would never do anything all good and stuff. Even if there is there is no reason for us to believe America has done something wrong, either because of our ignorance or because there truly is no reason, we must always remain watchful for any misstep of this horrible superpower. Don't the democratic, peace-loving countries of the Middle East call the U.S., "the Great Satan"? And they are of course morally superior. Even if we went in and helped rebuild a country we defeated after peace was declared after WW II, a war which we entered because of a massacre of our people by said defeated country, all wrong doing by the enemy must be over looked because they were fighting America, and America must be bashed at all costs.

As an American myself, I would still say I would rather live here than in any other place on the world, first and foremost because it is free and democratic. I would chose this place over all other Western democratic countries as well because A) while PC corruption may be rampant here, it is far worse in other places, and B) because here, I'm still allowed my gun. Not that I own one.

Some anti-Americanism is just plain irrational, as I found when I took in this video of Avi Lewis interviewing Ayaan Hirsi Ali*. Interesting how the person who was defending America was the one who actually lived there, and the America-basher may never have set foot there in his life, for all I know. He also said some things that I found just a bit nutty. "A place where evangelical Christianity has ascended to the highest ranks of power"? Sure, buddy. I find it hard to believe that all the attempts to erase any reference to Christian religion and Christian holidays in America are the work of our hidden theocratic government.

Of course, America has done plenty it should not be proud of; I am in no way saying that all criticism of the U.S. is unfounded. I have no problem with America-bashing if said bashing is logical. But, I also hate the attitude that America is the only country in the world that commits wrong-doings. As I said to my classmate later on in our argument over post-war Japan: Everybody is a jerk. Practically every country or group of people on the planet has done something awful to another country or group of people. America in no way spearheaded this trend; the human race did.

*A bit off topic, but I must say that I really admire Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Not only is she incredibly brave, she's also good and logical, as you saw from the video clip. She also deals with the illogical very calmly and patiently, something which I am not the best at doing.

Random Polygamy Post, With a Side of Gay Rights

2007-11-06T14:11:00.000-08:00

After deciding to rant on the subject of (unfounded, irrational) anti-Americanism, I started poking around the Economist's (a British newspaper) blog, "Democracy in America', looking for some angrifying tidbit or other, but actually stumbling across a post that made me angrier at Americans than at any anti-Americans. These poll results didn't exactly thrill me on whole. The statics concerning homosexuality and polygamy stuck out especially. And the evolution/creationism stuff...maybe a later rant? (Note to British Blogger; that sort of stuff doesn't just 'stop the European types in their tracks', it gets some Americans pretty damn riled up as well).

Listen, people, when we stop seeing the disadvantages of things like polygamy, we prove some of the old 'world's going to hell in a handbasket' fogies right. No one out there wants that, I hope. People argue that polygamy is morally all right if it only involves consenting adults; they argue that if gay people are getting their marriage rights, the polygamists should get theirs. Even with the basic moral issues of one guy married to multiple females put aside, polygamy really isn't even on the same plane as gay marriage. When polygamist societies arise, marriages involving under-age girls and unwilling parties pretty much always begin taking place. In polygamist societies, women will gravitate to, or be forcibly married to, the men with wealth and power, since a married man with money would no longer be a taken man. This leaves the poorer classes of males partnerless. When the poor young men of a society have nothing to do/no one to take care of/no mate to keep an eye on them, it usually results in higher violent crime rates for the community they belong to. If the secret polygamist societies in Utah are anything to go by, it could even result in the younger males being driven out by the older, more powerful men looking to keep all the women to themselves.

No doubt pro-polygamy parties will say that in their own vision of the ideal society, such forced marriages and other problems involving wealth and power could be dealt with by law...as with regular old marriages, it is illegal to force some one (especially an underaged someone) to marry you, or run their fiance out of town. Even so, doesn't polygamy seem to be a sexist system to anyone else out there? The word 'polygamy' implies one man married to many women; not one woman married to multiple men. The polygamist principle sees the female as something to be acquired, or bought, and even accumulated, regardless of the female's wishes (at least in traditional polygamist systems). And, while I know people are free to marry as they chose, as they should, women could still gravitate towards the upper class and therefore cause trouble in the lower and middle classes, if said society were polygamist.

As for the results of the poll concerning homosexuality: The people polled may genuinely think that being gay is morally wrong for their own secular reasons. But, in the Ranting Kid's experience, she has found that many people will point to the fact that the Bible denounces homosexuality as their main argument against it. The Ranting Kid is also so very damn sick and tired of people covering their ears and sticking their heads in the religious sand when confronted with a secular matter of people's rights. As for those polled that think being gay should be considered a crime, I simply can't think of anything good to say to those sorts. As far as I can tell, most scientific evidence shows us that homosexuality is probably caused (for the most part) by hormone goof-ups in the mother's womb while the baby is gestating.

Definitely criminal behavior, that hormone messing-upping. But who should be punished for it, mother or baby? It must be somebody's fault, but whose?

1984; the 2007 Version

2007-11-01T04:38:00.000-07:00

Holy *#&%#@.
I can't believe this is happening in the U.S. of A. Although I have read the program explained in the article is no longer mandatory, the thought of this leaking out of the 60's from behind the Iron Curtain and into a modern democratic country still makes the Ranting Kid feel ever so slightly angry with rage. You normal people get that sometimes, right?

But seriously, who let this program get off the ground instead of being laughed off the drawing board?

WHAT?!

2007-10-30T05:07:00.000-07:00

I never really did like the policies of presidential hopeful Barack Obama, but now he has completely lost my hypothetical vote. Click here to see Obama's statements on the Jena 6 case. My response to this?

"What? How DARE he insult Rosa Parks like that!"

The Good, The Bad, and the Preggers

2007-10-29T13:37:00.000-07:00

When my rents first dragged me out into the rural wilds of the Midwest, they did so partially because Iowa is famous for its good schools, and is generally considered to be one of the safer places in the country. For the first few years I was stuck here, Iowa did indeed uphold its stereotype; quiet, religious, and uneventful, if perhaps a bit sleazier than my Oregon hometown. It seems, though, that in the last few months our town has decided suddenly to drop the nice-clean-rural image.

During the summer two murders took place, and a few car robberies on our street this fall, but the bulk of the trouble seems to be coming from my high school. Since the beginning of this school year, several fights between students have taken place (during one of which a teacher was trampled), one student was arrested for attacking a teacher outright, and another was busted for selling meth within the school. The strange thing is that apparently none of the boys in my school are participating in any of this lawlessness; fist fights and drug dealing are handled by the ladies in this town, it seems. On top of all this, the number of teen pregnancies in town have suddenly spiked. There are at least two girls in my school that have already had children, and (I think) three or four girls that are presently pregnant. That may sound like a small number to some, but for this old fashioned place, the number is almost shocking. Plus, only a year ago, it seemed that no one our age was pregnant, and that for such a thing to happen was extremely rare. I witnessed the end of one of the recent scuffles, while the two scufflers were being dragged away. One was screaming at the other girl, "Whore! If you weren't pregnant I'd kick you in the stomach!" Ironically, the insult-thrower was, in fact, pregnant herself.

A friend of mine blames the influx of new kids from Chicago for the recent uprisings and baby-havings. Why this exodus from a city so much more....modern than our small, corn-choked town? Some blame the influx of illegal aliens and the gangs they bring with them into the big cities, claiming that said gangs start driving out the decent folk and the native gangsters, thus dumping new city kids of looser morals on this hickish little place. Instead of researching the truth value of this particular statement, I've decided this post on moral decay will be the lead-in to another, much longer-winded post on immigration, specifically illegal immigration from Mexico. To make this long, uncoming post short: The Ranting Kid is for controlled immigration. And not because of racial issues, ya hear, but because of LOGICAL reasoning. LOGIC, DAMN IT!

The Jena 6

2007-10-28T13:08:00.000-07:00

Most of you out there have probably heard of the Jena 6 by now. For those of you who haven't, the popular story the media is putting out about the Jena case goes something like this: After a black student in Jena, Louisiana, sat underneath a tree on his school grounds that white kids usually sat under, nooses were found hanging from that very tree the next day (This was in August of 2006) The (white) students responsible were only suspended briefly. Racial tensions flared in the small town, which was described as 'highly segregated' (by some reports I have read). In December of that year, six black students barricaded a school exit as they lay in wait for one Justin Barker, a white student. I have not found any explanation for why, exactly, he was attacked. Barker was knocked unconscious and beaten as he lay on the ground. The upshot of all this was a charge of attempted second degree murder for Barker's assailants. (Please note that this is an abbreviated version of a more complicated story)
This whole thing has now spawned a huge outcry, more than a year after those nooses were hung from that tree in Jena. The fact that the white noose-hangers were given such light punishment, the 'racist' locals, the heavy jail sentences for the black assailants, and the fact that they were tried by an all-white jury, has, for some, shone a spotlight on America's 'horrible race issues'.
Unfortunately, the story ain't really true. This article also sheds some light on the harsh sentencing in the Jena 6 case. (I would advise that you read these articles before condemning me as a racist bleep once you read the following).

Here we go. The pandering, the PC, and the anti-white are at it again. The more I look into this subject, the more it seems that all those people out there condemning the 'racist' authorities in Jena have only heard what the media has been telling them, and the media is really starting to make me sick. 'All-white jury'? Only because the black jury members never showed. The "Whites Only" tree? May not have been a 'white' hang out in any sense whatsoever. Yes, I know I only have two sites listed as evidence, but do some research on this topic yourself, and see what you turn up.
But what truly disturbs me is not the twisted story the reporters of this incident have put out, but what the average person online has to say about this case. A few minutes on Youtube provided many opinions from the ignorant, the scarily ignorant, and the disgustingly racist. Comments ranged from, "It's a black man's right to beat a white man" to "HANG THE N*GGERS!" One commenter even used the Duke rape case as evidence that race issues in the U.S were getting worse and worse.
The fact that Mychal Bell, the most famous of the Jena 6, was tried as an adult for the attempted murder of Barker does bother me, though. Barker was beaten, yes, but was well enough to attend a function the night after the attack took place. There is no evidence that Bell and the other five attackers were trying to kill Barker. The 17- year- old Bell was at one point facing up to 22 years in prison for attempted murder (The charges have since been reduced). Granted, he did have a past record of violent crime, but the original sentence certainly was harsh, and the bail definitely was steep.
It certainly is a mess down in Jena, but as it was with the Duke University case, some people out there seem absolutely delighted when it looks as if a white guy out there has done something racist, or if America itself is shown to be a place that is still oppressing its minorities. This growing anti-white trend often makes the Ranting Kid go red in the face and start raving about how no one can make any logical statements opposing such things as open borders or affirmative action with out being accused of being a racist....but, those are other rants.

"Happy" Halloween: What Is It With This Town?

2007-10-28T12:37:00.000-07:00

Before jumping into the bigger issues I promised to cover in the last post, I first must rant about a subject closer to home. It's getting cold here in the Midwest; leaves are falling, pumpkins are grinning, and the candy is selling as we get ready for Halloween. Kids across the nation are looking forward to scampering about for hours after dark on the 31st of this month...but not in our particular Iowan small town.
Here, we do not celebrate Halloween, but instead uphold a bizarre tradition called "Beggar's Night". Beggar's night is the designated trick-or-treating night here, in a place where trick-or-treating cannot, and will not, take place on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays or Wednesdays, and also has a curfew beginning at 7:30 pm, before it even really gets dark out. I don't know exactly what happens if you get caught trick-or-treating after 7:30, but I've never seen anyone here try to stay out later that 7:20. When I ask the locals why Halloween festivities are so darn restricted, they tell me that trick-or-treating is not allowed on Wednesdays or Sundays because said days are religious, (Wednesday? Really? Why?)* and that, if children dared venture out on a Friday or Saturday, they would immediately be set upon by packs of homicidal college students, even though, during the rest of the week, the college kids seem pretty docile, and the children would be well away from the in the suburbs. As for the curfew? No one can say. You are free to stay out late on Beggar's night, so long as no one is slipping you candy.
This place has an extremely low crime rate, so I can't figure out what exactly is going on here. Killjoys on the city council? Bizarre religious traditions? Fear of witchcraft? If anyone out there has any explanation for Beggar's night and its weird customs, please enlighten me. Because this whole this is actually starting the get me really irritated. WHY? WHY?!?!

*And yes, Iowans, at least in our town, attend church on Wednesdays.

The Spawn Is Posting

2007-10-28T10:49:00.001-07:00

For those of you that have heard of that little blog out there in cyber space, Alien Corn ... well, the seldom-mentioned 'daughter' of the authors has decided to start posting for herself. This opinionated spawn of a Florida cracker and a mid- Atlantic WASP will be ranting on such topics as immigration, what's wrong with today's schools, abortion, religion, racism and sexism, the mess abroad and the mess at home, etc, in an attempt to prove that there are some American teenagers out there with the vocab and the common sense to make a decent argument without resorting to propaganda and the abusing of our precious few swear words, damn it.