RNC to Moderate Republicans: GTFO

I heard on the radio the other day that the RNC voted on the Republican Party's abortion platform, and I have to say I was more than a little disappointed.

The official platform of the party is pro-life without exception.  So ladies, if you're raped and your rapist impregnates you, don't look to the Republican Party for any sympathy.  Under their bullshit, you would have to bring your rape baby into the world and raise it yourself, or put it up for adoption and hope that the kid actually finds a family.

This is truly disheartening because I know for a fact that there are tons of Republicans out there who believe in the big three exceptions to abortion, and there are Republicans out there who are *gasp* pro-choice.  The Party wants you to fall in line with their extreme--yes I said extreme--view or get the fuck out.

Of course, they didn't use the words "get the fuck out," but adopting a platform like that pretty much amounts to saying that.  I heard a Republican at the convention being interviewed, and he expressed how awful this is because there's a large bloc of Republicans who are disenfranchised completely by this.  Apparently, they're called moderate Republicans.  They are generally liberal on social issues, but conservative on fiscal issues.



Sure he looks like a nice guy, but the most
effective bullshitters are the ones that convince
you that they're not bullshitters.



That sounds a lot like Libertarian lite to me, but I think that's just fine.  I have no evidence to back this up, but my guess is that the Moderate Republicans are representative of the majority of the Republican Party.  "But Jack, those delegates represent the people, so they are representative of the majority in the party."  I don't think so for a few reasons.



There's been a lot of jury-rigging with the rules at the RNC.  Essentially, a rule passed that would allow candidates to "purge" or veto delegates who change their minds at the convention.  Sure, that might sound like a good idea to make them "honor bound," to their pledge, but this results in something way off base from that.

If the candidate doesn't like the way you're voting, then the candidate can just take away your delegate status and appoint a new delegate.

Ted at Country Thinker is right: the Republican Party is irredeemable.  There's no going back from here.  The Party defrauded the Maine primary, and now they are making sure that several voices in the party are stifled.  And for what?  Unity?

If you're a moderate Republican, you need to do what the party is telling you to do and GET THE FUCK OUT.  NOW.  The party no longer represents mainstream Republicans, and it no longer bears any qualities that could be considered akin to representative government.

What you have to realize is that no one president will ever actually destroy the country.  They might make things worse, but America will endure.  The question is not whether you wish America to endure--because it will--but what you want that America to look like in the future.

I can think of another guy who stifled
opinion and pushed for ideological
purity.

The parties still exist because of two things.  Thing one is that they've convinced a good number of their rank and file that there are no ideological contradictions despite the fact that their arguments can't even hold up against basic logic.  So when you tell someone that it's a complete contradiction to say that people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit, but if they're gay they should not be allowed to have a legally recognized marriage like everyone else, they just scoff at you and start talking about "morals" and "values."

Thing two is that enough rank and file who have the intellectual guts to admit that their party is completely inconsistent and blatantly, unappologetically contradictory have been convinced that the country is doomed if Obama gets a second term.  I don't blame them, because things don't seem like they will improve under Obama.  Sadly, things won't improve under Mitt Romney either, but you've been led to believe that at least he won't make things worse.

Fear and blindness.  Fear of the alternative, and blindness to contradiction.  Those things are what keeps the Republican Party together these days, and if you can't buy into either of those, well then you just have no business being in the Republican Party.

Join me and others like Ted and Rational Nation USA in abandoning the party.

Best Idea of the Week: Bill Nye the Science Guy

On creationism . . .

My Christian readers may hate me for promulgating such a thing, but I'm okay with that.

Idea from Freethinke: Bob is a Racist

Props to Freethinke for finding this link.  I was able to find it on youtube so I could post the video here.  Visit Freethinke's blog.  He get's some good discussion going on various topics.

My favorite line:

"Wait a minute, how can someone become racist in four years?"

"That's a clown question bro!"

From Jersey McJones: Rights Come from Society

Sorry to call you out Jersey, but it has to be done.

Over at Western Hero, Silverfiddle wrote an article about natural rights theory.  When I responded to it, I did so with Jersey in mind because I distinctly remember him arguing against the notion of natural rights theory.  From Jersey's own fingers:

"Rights" are simply things a society deems we can get away with.

According to Jersey, rights are determined by society.  Jersey does not buy into natural rights theory--the notion that human beings all have inherent rights by virtue of being sapient beings.  I subscribe to the notion that one does not even need to believe in God to believe in natural rights theory.  If tomorrow we discovered that God does not exist, I would still maintain that humans have natural rights.

I will explain that later, but for now lets stick with Jersey's line of logic and follow it to its conclusions.  If rights are determined by society, then that would throw out the entire notion of spiritedness--or as the Greeks called it "thumos."  Thumos is that anger, that indignation we feel when we know we have been wronged in some way.

With Jersey's line of thinking, that anger we feel when we are wronged is completely unjustified.  So, since German society decided it was a good idea to round up the Jews and murder them, that's totally fine because rights are determined by society.  The Jews didn't deserve to live--none of them had the right to live in peace because German society said the didn't.

But we all know that's complete bullshit.  If tomorrow, American society decided that women no longer have the right to choose whether or not to keep a pregnancy, I guaran-goddamn-tee that nearly all women would be in an uproar.  Hell, I would be in an uproar, because all women inherently have the right to choose what to do with their bodies.

The Founding Fathers used very careful words in their writings.  They used words such as "abriged," and "infringe," when talking about rights.  They never, ever said that rights can be taken away: because they can't.  Rights are inherent to the human species.  We are sapient.  We are capable of reason, making claims on this world, and we have aspirations.

We are not cattle to be farmed, and we are meant to live free.  How many humans enjoy being slaves?  How many humans like to be told to "shut up" by their government?  Even Jersey feels indignant when he thinks that the Republicans are trying to abridge his rights.

Yes, the government can prevent you from exercising your rights, but it cannot take them away.  Just because your government says that you are not allowed to practice whatever religion you want doesn't mean your right to freedom of religion is gone.  You still have that right, and any human who is not willing to be another man's slave would fight to uphold his ability to exercise it.

This is how we are able to say that the Nazis were wrong, that Stalin was a tyrant, and that the Iranian government is oppressive.  Because all humans, by virtue of their nature, have rights that they ought to exercise freely.

Jersey, by expressing that the Republicans would be wrong to ban abortion, you admit to believing in natural rights.  They simply cannot do that, and if they did ban abortion they would be in the wrong and you would say that they are violating the rights of women.  But by your logic, if the Republicans are in charge then they are the ones who determine women's rights.  So you could not be legitimately angry at them, because they are the bestower of rights.

But you would be angry.  I would be angry.  Most people would be angry, because humans have rights regardless of what the government may say.  Think of rights as freedoms that every human being deserves.  You don't need the government to tell you that you deserve to live free.  You know it in your heart.  Human beings deserve to live free.

Don't we?

Dumbass Idea of the Week: Fail DEA Servers

Picture this.  Dr. Armand Angulo illicitly distributes prescription drugs to thousands of people over a good number of years.  The DEA catches him and indicts him.  The case is a sure thing because there's a mound of evidence to prove his guilt.  The problem?

There's so much evidence that the DEA servers can't handle it.  Apparently, the evidence mounted against this guy took up almost "5% of the DEA's entire global network," and it was such a burden on their outdated shit that they had no choice but to . . . wait for it . . .

drop the charges against him.

That's right.  The charges were dropped because they simply couldn't handle all the evidence any longer.  If that wasn't enough, the case was dropped "with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled in court."  Apparently he's wanted for a lot of other shit, but that's okay, because he fled the U.S..

Way to go DEA and the American legal system.  It's because of you that outstanding citizens like him can roam free and give out prescription drugs.

The DEA is also responsible for such wonders as Operation Fast and Furious, but we won't go into that here.

Rules of the Madhouse Part Three: Final Thoughts

In case anyone missed it, here are the links to part one and two:

"Rules of the Madhouse Part One: For Democrats"

"Rules of the Madhouse Part Two: For Republicans"

A good eye should have noticed that the rules for both parties were very similar.  True confession: I actually copy/pasted part one into part two.  I had to change some rules completely.  For example, instead of "all Republicans are Racist" I changed that to "all Democrats are Socialists."  I also added something about American values into the Republican rules.

But overall, part two was fairly easy to write because I just had to change some of the wording.  Rule ten is nearly identical for both parties.  The only difference is that the party names are switched.

The point I was trying to make is plain to see: the rules were extremely similar because both parties are guilty of pulling the same bullshit.  What strikes me as endlessly funny is that neither side realizes that they do these things.  They only see what makes them feel better, makes them feel comfortable that their world-view is correct.

The message is the same:  vote for my party or we're all doomed.  When a Democrat looks at a Republican (and vice versa), they are staring into a mirror image of themselves.  Backwards in comparison, different, but ultimately they're the same thing.  The hilarity ends, however, when you try to show them the similarities.  You point out to them that they are completely full of shit, you catch them in half-truths, in theory and conjecture, you show them just how biased they are--but they still don't get it.

They don't believe you.  They are so blinded by their own sentiments and feelings that they cannot even fathom looking at the other side.  What's worse is that their overlords, the men and women that they put into office, know that they're blinded and they play on it.  American politics is little more than a psych ward, and your leaders are using your own madness against you.

Yes: you all are mad, crazy.  You're crazy because you engage in bullshit tactics, but fail to see that you're doing the same shit as your opposition.  You're crazy because you gave up on the lucid view a long time ago, and you've started to actually believe the lie. 

I heard something interesting on the radio yesterday.  Mitt Romney was talking about how supply side economics has worked, and history shows it.  He mentioned the Roaring Twenties, Reaganomics, and the Clinton Administration specifically.  You know what I found funny about those eras?  They almost always ended in recession or depression.

What happened after the Roaring Twenties?  The Great Depression.  Reagan faced a recession during his presidency.  And right at the tail end of Clinton's run at it, the dotcoms fell through and the recession began.  George W. Bush and Obama didn't create the recession, they simply made it worse.

The unifying thread between these periods in history is not "supply side economics."  America ultimately failed because the wealth and growth in these periods were built on lies.  Stock market speculation in the twenties, the credit and housing bubble in the nineties.  Each time you are all sold a lie, and each time you buy it.  What makes it madness is that you all know it's a lie, yet you believe it anyway.

Hope and change are meaningless concepts when the people who need hope and change most rely on those who fear them most.  Neither party wants change.  If they did, it would have happened and we'd be fine.  Those who advocate for real change--men like Ron Paul--they get branded as fringe wackoes.

And you believe it.

So I mock the system because it's no longer a system.  It's just a fucking looney bin, and you are all the inmates.  So long as you're promised a bigger piece of the pie, you're happy to live the lie.  You will do whatever you can to maintain the illusion because reality is far to painful to face.

So Democrats and Republicans rejoice! for you are finally in agreement!  You both prefer the lies to the truth, and you'll use the exact same tactics to avoid facing that fact.  So enjoy yourselves.  I'll just sit back and laugh as I watch you all clamboring to be at the top of the trash heap.

Political Realities: Rules of the Madhouse Part Two

Brace for shock Republicans.  It's your turn today.

"Rules of the Madhouse Part Two:  For Republicans"

Political Realities: Rules of the Madhouse Part One

I wrote an article today for Political Realities, and it is sort of an extension of the one I wrote a few days ago titled "Rules for Being Inolved in American Politics."

Head over to Political Realities, a wonderful slice of internet run by Larry Jackson, and check out my latest article!!!

"Rules of the Madhouse Part One: For Democrats"

Why Am I So Angry?

Everyone with a brain should be as pissed as he is.

The other day I was watching Looney Toons with my kids, and one featured Bugs being drafted.  My 7 year old son asked me, "dad, what does it mean to be drafted?"  I answered him honestly, because as much as I hate it, I firmly believe that I can't shield my children from the truth.

"Well son, when you live in a country of free men, those men have a duty to their country.  In times of war, sometimes those men living in that country are called upon--drafted--to fight in war.  So every man in America has to sign up for the draft when he turns 18, just in case his country needs him to defend it."

My son immediately flipped out.  "What?!  I don't want to go to war and die!"

"Calm down, not everyone that goes to war dies, and besides the draft will likely never happen again," I explained, trying to calm him down.

"Well, I just won't sign up.  Why would they force people to do that?  Why do we even fight in wars?  Why do people have to kill each other?"

Me and Jack Jr.: unfortunately I'm wearing red.

What hurt most about this conversation was that I knew I didn't have any answers to those questions that would make him feel any better.  The answers shouldn't make anyone feel better.  "Son, we fight in wars because there are some men that would make other men their slaves.  And most of us would rather die fighting than be slaves.  Sometimes if you want to be free, or if you want to protect the freedom of other people, you're going to have to fight for it.  Unfortunately, some people die in that fight."

Of course that didn't assuage him.  He couldn't understand why someone would even put themselves in the position to face death.  So we had to talk about courage: that virtue of Aristotle that seeks to defy our human instinct of self-preservation.  I told him that courage means we do what we know is right even if we're afraid to do it.  To set an example to my son, I told him that I would rather die than be someone's slave, and if my country called upon me to defend our freedom, I would go willingly.

Indignant, frightened, and utterly shattered my son said to me angrily, "the world is a horrible place!"

I could actually hear my heart break in two.  I know every parent has to face that moment when their children realize that the world really does suck, but you're never really prepared for it, especially when they take it so badly.

He was right.  The world is a horrible place, and I brought my kids into it.  The world is horrible because we humans haven't figured out how to stop being raging assholes to each other.  Amazingly, we haven't determined that it's wrong to slaughter each other over ideas, resources, and power.  And I say "amazingly," because it's amazing that after so much suffering and sorrow we've wrought, we still continue to add to it.

One day, I won't be able to shelter my kids from the horrors of the world any longer, and they'll have to see for themselves just how terrible it is.  That makes me angry beyond belief, and my anger only intensifies when I think about how many people out there sit and squabble over how they want to fuck over old people on medicare: do we call it a block grant or a budget cut?

No.  Instead of talking about how we can usher culture and humanity into the next stage of evolution, we sit and piss at each other about who is more baised: Fox News or CNN.  We get all angry that Obama had the "audacity," to give DVDs as a gift to the queen (or whoever the fuck he gave them to).  We shit allover Bush for his decisions following 9/11 as if he had a fucking choice.

Our public education system is a complete joke, yet somehow we find a way to place so much importance on Kristin Stewart cheating on Robert Pattinson.  Well, people are being slaughtered in Syria and we just sit by watching the world burn--but holy shitballs at least the cast of Jersey Shore gets paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to be fuck offs.

Why am I so angry?  Because we humans--you, my loyal readers--deserve more, and we've been collectively tricked into thinking that this is the best we can ever hope for.

Actually, the better question is why aren't you so angry?



Sometimes, it feels like there's only one way to bring about real change.
George, John, Thomas and company would all agree.



Dumbass Idea of the Week: Naval Whoopsie Daisy

The USS Porter has accidentally collided with an oil tanker in the Straight of Hormuz.  Don't worry: everyone is okay, and the Porter is headed to Jebel Ali.  Those lucky bastards will be about 20 minutes from Dubai for a good long time, so don't think those sailors are at all in the shitter.

Why is this the dumbass idea of the week?  Well, because it was probably the idiots in the pilot house that fucked it up, probably the officer of the deck.  I mean, how the hell do you not miss an oil tanker?!

I'm allowed to be harsh, btw.  I served on a cruiser for 3 years, so I can safely say that it was probably a case of dudes being dumbasses.  Or . . . perhaps they knew they'd be holed up in Jebel Ali or Bahrain for a while?  Of course I'm kidding, but it would be kind of funny if that were the case.

When I was in the Persian Gulf, the USS Donald Cook called all-stop when they were full steam ahead.  You know what that did?  It bent one of the propeller shafts.  In that same deployment, the Donald Cook's CO was relieved of command for boinking a female QM2 (an E-5 quartermaster to you landlubbers).  The SAME fucking ship also accidentally sent some top secret keying material to a Spanish ship and shut down the TS/SCI comms for the entire 5th fleet for a week.

Fortunately, I was on the USS San Jacinto.  We had our shit straight.  But this should serve as a reminder that it's not always our best and brightest at the helm.  Actually, the one that's physically at the helm is usually some 19 year old kid just following his orders.  Giving him his orders is some 23 year old kid that graduated college a year before after playing Navy for 4 years in ROTC.  And then we trust him with the navigation of a $4 billion floating death machine.

Here's to you bridge watch of the USS Porter.  Enjoy your month living it up in Dubai.

Rules for Being Involved in American Politics

This is going to be rantish, because I've read a few things recently that really pissed me off.  These rules are more like statements about the state of American politics; statements both about the elected and the electorate.

The other day Jersey called me "jingoistic," because of my lampoon of a campaign poster.  This has taken me down a line of logic that has led me to the conclusion that American politics is completely fucked, and that there is no such thing as "an adult conversation," anymore.  So if we know it's not serious, why take it so seriously?

Without further ado, here are the rules.

10.  Feelings are king (or queen)!
Who gives a shit about things like "ideas" or what Albert Camus refers to as "reconciling everything we believed."  You don't need to make sure that your worldview is logically consistent, because often times logical consistency will lead you to feeling uncomfortable, depressed even.  It's much easier to just believe that your feelings somehow mean something rather than to admit to yourself that your feelings are many times complete bullshit.  So why bother torturing yourself when you can just push aside facts, logic, and reason and feel good about your world-view?

9.  70% of the time, statistics are 65% accurate every time.
That's a play on a line from Anchorman starring Will Ferrel ("60% of the time it works every time).  Here's the thing I've noticed about statistics: there's statistics out for everything, and often times those statistics will directly contradict one another.  But that's okay, because so long as you can find a statistic that somewhat agrees with your feelings (see rule 10), then that means it's 100% true.

8.  Everyone who isn't (insert your political party) obviously hates America.
Barack Obama clearly hates America.  Actually, so does Mitt Romney.  Holy shit: EVERYONE HATES AMERICA.  It's amazing that the United States has survived so long with so many politicians who have dedicated their careers to destroying this country.  If you believe that the rich should be taxed more, then you obviously hate America.  If you believe that Americans have the inalienable right to bear arms, then you obviously hate America.

7.  The guy you vote for always has your best interest at heart.
The reason that all the rich Republicans want fewer restrictions on the market is definitely because they think it will line YOUR pockets with more gold.  They are completely disinterested.  And the Democrats want the welfare state to continue forever, and to spend money on welfare programs that don't help people find gainful employment simply because it's the right thing to do.  They don't count on those welfare lifers to vote for them or anything.  Also, everyone in DC wants everything to change, even the congressmen who have benefitted the most off of everything being screwed up.  Congressmen and women don't care about votes: they just care about "the people" (who vote for them).

6.  Compromise is for spineless assholes.
You can't always get what you want.  And if you're a (insert your rival political party) you actually can NEVER have what you want, because what you want will fuck everything up beyond repair.  What you want is to turn America into a vast totalitarian state in which we're all controlled by Big Brother.  Or, you obviously want all of America to be a big anarchy in which all the rich people feast on the flesh of the poor people's babies.  Oh, you also want to make Islam America's official religion, and you definitely think that America is meant only for white people of European descent.  So it's my way, or the highway.  Asshole!

5.  If a media source presents facts that contradict your beliefs, that media source is clearly biased and therefore not credible.
Well I mean this goes without saying.  We simply can't trust a news report from the Associated Press, because their facts are a clear representation if media bias.  How dare they present facts that support the party I hate!  You know what I'm going to do?  I'm going to go to Crooks and Liars for a fair and ballanced account!  There is only one side to see in all of this: my side.  Any other perspective is just trying to trick me!  How dare the AP talk about the Occupy Oakland violence that was started by the protestors.  Those facts are clearly biased!

4.  All Democrats/Republicans, Liberals/Conservatives are the same.
Republicans are all racist, and Democrats are all commies.  Anyone who ever mocks Obama is clearly a jingoistic asshole who hates Obama, liberty, and puppies.  If you're an asshole who actually defends Obama, then you're an Obama appologist who hates Amurrrica, liberty, and morality.  If you support gun rights, you're a gun-nut.  If you are pro-choice, then you're a liberal hippie who hates babies.  You're either with us, or you're against us.

3.  White vs. Black is always racist, Black vs. White is always justified.
A "white" guy shoots a black teenager who allegedly assaulted him: definitely racist.  A group of black guys who capture, torture, rape, and murder a white couple: can't possibly be racist.  A white guy calls a black guy "lazy."  Well he's definitely a member of the KKK.  A black guy who calls a white guy an "oppressor," or tells his black friend to stop "acting white?"  Well that's okay because his ancestors were enslaved by white men 150 years ago.  Also, "gangsta rap," is just counter-culture and completely permissible, while white supremacist music is just plain hateful and violent.

2.  The religion of other people, or lack thereof, is a clear indication of their inferiority.
Well, if you're a Muslim then you obviously want to jihad everyone.  If you're not jihading everyone, then it's only a matter of time before you do.  Because Islam is a religion of pure violence, and eventually all Muslims everywhere are going to rise up and murder their Christian and Jewish oppressors.  Oh, and all of you are completely retarded anyway because you believe in God in the first place.  Only a sheople would believe in something as asinine as God.  Your religion, and religion in general, is the antithesis of everything American.

1.  Say ANYTHING that supports your position, even if you have no idea if it's true.
Facts are for "academians" and professors who sit in their ivory towers.  If you want to really prove your point, then just say whatever you want on national TV.  Obama was born in Kenya?  Sure.  Romney hasn't paid taxes in 10 years?  Why not.  I mean, who gives a shit about veracity knowing that maybe, MAYBE, .0001% of the people who hear those obviously crazy statements will actually hop on the interwebs and do some fact checking.  All that matters is that you rally more people to your side.

If Jack Ran for President . . .

This would be my campaign poster.  Props to obamicon.me.

3. No single text has all the answers.

Back to the new religion.

Here is something I want everyone to consider.  Most people fervently believe that whatever ancient-ass text they hold sacred is the true revelation of what exists beyond physical existence.  Christians have historically placed a high premium on martyrdom--although no one is shamed for choosing not to die for their faith, those who do are generally venerated and hailed as courageous.

I'm sure that there are plenty of Christians reading this article thinking that same thing, that they would die for their faith.  They believe so strongly in the veracity of the bible, that nothing could ever shake their faith.  But why are you so certain that your story is the right story?  How can you be sure that it's the full story?

For every rock-solid-faithed Christian, there is a non-Christian who is just as solid in the faith of their religion, whether it's Muslim, Mormon, Buddhist, or Sikh.  They believe in the unerring veracity of their sacred texts just as strongly as Billy Graham believes in the bible.

So what do most people do at such an impasse?  What do we do when rival groups of humans claim that their book is more true than someone else's?  Most people just reject the other texts as being compeltely false, or tools of the devil, or just "well intentioned but misguided."  Some go so far as to say that rival texts are just plain "made up."

Here's a thought: what if they're all made up?  Isn't it odd that these texts sort of mirror the culture that wrote them?  Certainly, the culture came before the texts.  Hebrew/Jewish culture existed long before even a word of the bible was physically written.  The bible is very different from the Quran, and both texts are reflections of the very different cultures from which they sprang.

So you've got groups of people who all claim that outside groups are all incorrect.  You know what that means?  It means that everyone thinks that everyone else is wrong.  So who the hell is right?  How does that Bufallo Springfield song go? 

"Nobody's right if everybody's wrong."

So the Church of Camwell takes an Aristotelian approach to this quandary.  Rather than just abritrarily picking a text that fits with our sentiments and feelings, we accept all texts as conveying some truth about existence beyond the physical.  As Aristotle said--and I'm paraphrasing here--no single person can have all the answers, but humanity as a whole sees all of truth.

Christians will say "well God says that the bible is his word!"  The problem with that is that the Muslims say the same thing about the Quran.  Just because someone, somewhere, said that "this is the word of God," doesn't make it true.

If I told all of you that my writings were divinely inspired, you would laugh at me just as everyone laughed at Joseph Smith when he made up the Book of Mormon.  So why would you not apply the same scrutinizing eye on your own sacred text?  In short: because you don't want to deal with the discomfort of doubting your most long-held convictions.

Think of it as like looking at a map.  There are several ways to get to your destination, and you can see that.  You see that there are many different routes to get from A to B.  Some of those routes will make more sense to you than others.  Some routes are more dangerous, some more lengthy.  Some routes take you through the mountains on rocky, unfamiliar backroads, others keep you on the highway doing 70 the whole way.

However, the incontrovertable truth is that every path you choose to take will get you to where you want to go.  Once you realize that the path you choose is based purely on your own preferences and biases--some people just don't like driving through the mountains (me)--then you will have made your first step towards a legitimate journey for Truth and self-discovery.  Don't avoid the mountain path just because you're afraid of it: you never know what you may find out about yourself.

But I thought knives weren't as deadly as guns?!

Here's an interesting story, especially since so many gun-regulation nuts told me that "knives don't do as much damage as guns."

A Chinese teen killed 9 people in a knife attack, and injured 4 more.

What was that number?

9.

Sure, that's 3 people shy of how many James Holmes killed with a gun, but do numbers really matter?  And yes, Holmes injured way more people, but still, this kid came close to Holmes' body count with only a knife.  So what do we do now?  Regulate all knives?  This kid could have used a steak knife for all we know.

This should serve as an example to everyone who thinks that guns are the problem.  Guns are not the problem: people going off the deep end are the problem.  So please stop kidding yourselves.

Bloomberg and Baby Formula: Possibly the Dumbass Idea of the Year

For those who haven't heard, Mayor Bloomberg of NYC wants to start making it more difficult for women to formula-feed their babies in an effort to promote breast feeding.

Why?  Well, a logical person would say that there is no real reason why.  The government should not--nay, the government DOES NOT--have the power to tell us what to feed our children.  Bloomberg's argument is that studies show that babies who are breast-fed get better immunities from the breast milk.  That's absolutely true, but honestly it's none of his business.

I'm a father of two, so I think I know a thing or two about breast-feeding versus formula through my ex-wife's experience with it.  With our son, our first born, she breast-fed.  I was in the Navy, making really good money, and she didn't have to work.  So she had all the time in the world to give our son the milk he needed.

Once we weaned him off of breast-feeding and onto the bottle, we sincerely wanted to keep up with breast milk because we knew the health benefits.  But a problem arose when we discovered that we couldn't find a breast pump that worked right to get enough milk for him.  So what did we do?  We bought formula, and for those who haven't had a baby within the last 8 years, formula is fucking expensive.

With our second child, our daughter, she was working so she breast fed for as long as she was on maternity leave, which was about 3 months.  But once she started working, breast feeding was not an option because we already knew that pumps didn't really work for her.  So we formula fed our daughter.  And you know what?  She's doing just fine.  We've never had any significant health problems with her.

True story: I was never breast-fed.  I've never had any significant health problems.  Hell, I've never had anything worse than strep-throat.  I've turned out to be a fairly intelligent and pretty damn healthy human being.

So what the fuck Bloomberg?  You're trying to push your bullshit on everyone as if you even have the power to do so.  If this shit happens, then I would consider it a seizure of powers that a mayor in a democratic society does not have.  It would then be up to the people to wrest that power from him.

No fucking person in government has the power to tell us what to feed our children.  They should not make it difficult for us to feed our children whatever we want.  It's honestly none of their god damned business.  Every single fucking women's rights activist in this nation should be up in arms about this.

Bloomberg is a Democrat, so my guess is he's pro-choice.  If it's not the government's business to go poking it's nose in a woman's uterus, then it's sure as shit not the government's business to go poking its nose in what we feed our babies.

To Bloomberg and all of the asshats who agree with him: Piss the fuck off and mind your own business.  Assholes.