Today's contents:
Those asswipes at PETA at at it again
PETA tries to buy a town
Where's the outrage?
Don't they have something better to do with their time?
Butterfly World
Moral equivalence at its finest
Dick Gephardt is a socialist
Those asswipes at PETA at at it again. The nit-wits at PETA are learning from Jesse Jackson. They're using the same tactics that Jackson uses on big businesses to extort money. Their target currently is Iams, which they accuse of using dogs and cats for testing their foods, and then sending them to other settings for other uses (testing) where they MIGHT live in conditions which are not acceptable to PETA. Now, they're not accusing Iams of mistreating the pets directly. They are accusing Iams of selling the dogs and cats to people who PETA says are PROBABLY not putting them in an environment which PETA approves of, even if they meet all legal criteria. There is no proof that Iams or PETA has evidence of any mistreatment, but they are calling for a boycott of Iams and sending lots of letters to Iams' and Proctor & Gamble's management. Now, as a pet owner, I am concerned for the conditions that my pets live in. I treat my pets better than most other pets (ask anyone who's seen my pets in person), and I hate people who intentionally mistreat pets, and I call for harsh penalties for those who commit heinous acts upon pets with malice aforethought. But Iams hasn't been shown to be mistreating animals, and PETA is just trying to smear them and their name. They didn't pick on them because they are cruel to the animals - they picked on them because P&G is a major corporation, and they want money (in the form of contributions, sponsorships, etc.) to help them attack other companies who aren'y doing anything wrong. Iams should be suing PETA for harassment and an interference with free trade. PETA hasn't done anything reputable in years. While there is already an organization for the humane treatment of animals (it's called the Humane Society), PETA has to go the extra step and practice eco-radical terrorism. They have rendered themselves irrelevant. They have illegally used the likeness of a Holocaust survivor in their horrible "Holocaust on Your Plate" advertising campaign, and used email filters to send out form letter replies to people's criticisms and ignore their opinions.
PETA tries to buy a town. Not content to extort Proctor & Gamble, those buttheads at PETA are trying to get an entire town to change its name. That's right. They want the city of Hamburg, NY to change its name to "Veggieburg", in exchange for a mere $15,000 in veggie burgers for the schools. The leaders of Hamburg have said that there is no chance that they will change their name, and they host an annual festival to the time-honored tradition of broiling round patties of ground beef into tasty like burgers. That's why I think PETA should stand for "People Eating Tasty Animals". They have a page called "Cooking with PETA", but alas it has no recipes that involve their membership. I also notice that they didn't ask Buffalo, NY to change their name, even though that city is named for chicken wings. I guess they only look for suspect targets that they think they can manipulate - Buffalo has large labor union membership (read: "Goons") that can "influence" (read: fire-bomb) PETA offices.
Where's the outrage? If PETA wants to whine about something, how about a dog that was shot, beaten, and frozen? The idiot cop who shot the pet to "put it out of its misery" should go back to the range for weapons training, or use a real gun instead of one with the little flag that pops out. This is the type of story that upsets me, but PETA is strangely silent on the case. That's because there's no money in it for them.
Don't they have something better to do with their time? The lawmakers in Georgia are worried about whether a new flag bill will get passed. Let's get this over with by replacing it with a neutral flag and MOVE ON. There's people dying every year on the roads because we don't require teens to learn how to drive before we turn them loose on the highways, we don't punish them when they kill people, we have laws that protect alcohol distributors and prevent you from buying beer/wine/liquor directly from a supplier, and they are wasting time worried about the flag? Didn't they have a person there with 2 neurons in close contact that could've spotted that the flag's dimensions were off? Who came up with those stupid dimensions to begin with? This is just wasting our time, and ultimately, our money. Who do you think will pay them to come back for a special session? And why do they only work 40 days at a time? Don't we pay them an annual salary? Do you get to work only 40 or 80 days a year? I can understand why the black community doesn't want the state flag to have the confederate battle emblem on it - it was a symbol of hatred, racial bigotry, racism, and the flag was created purely to oppose segregation. I don't want that flag to hang over the state - it makes the state's residents look like a bunch of stupid-ass hicks who burn crosses. And since they are a small minority of the aggregate stupid-ass hicks that make up the state's geography, we shouldn't put it on the flag. The flag should have red, white, and blue coloration, no confederate battle emblem, it should conform to the same dimensions as every other flag, and it shouldn't be offensive to anyone. I don't like the "In God We Trust" wording on the flag, as it is a back-door by the religious zealots to get religion into state affairs. And since most of those religious zealots try to keep their affairs quiet, why put advertising for God on the flag? Does he need some rednecks to do his advertising for him? Would he even want their endoresement?
Butterfly world, a great place to "wing it". On the lighter side, this is a fun place to visit. I've been there, and it was quite a sight. The butterflies are beautiful, the hummingbird room was intense, and it was a great place to de-stress in the middle of the concrete jungle that is South Florida. I can't wait to go back there. I want to take Mrs. Spoogeworld and Baby Spooge next time.
Moral equivalence at its finest. Senator Santorum (is "santorum" the latin word for "douche-bag"?) has said that if they strike down the anti-sodomy law in Texas that is under review in the Supreme Court, that it will open the door for incest, polygamy, and other things. While the media is using moral equivalence unfairly to vilify him, they should be focusing on the stupidity of his statement from the standpoint that allowing two consenting unrelated adults to engage in sexual conduct of their own choosing isn't the same thing as incest of polygamy. Sexual behavior isn't the same thing as polygamy, which goes well beyond the sexual aspects of relationships in declaring many people as "married", and incest is outlawed because of the potential genetic harm to offspring, not because of the form of sexual contact. So, they are all very different issues, and if two unrelated adults want to engage in consentual sexual acts, that shouldn't be illegal. If they aren't harming pets, or setting the building on fire, then no one in their right mind should have any complaints about what they are doing. Is it the same as marriage? No, it's just sex. There is no declaration of a committed relationship by sexual contact. I'm sorry, but they are separate issues, and they should be evaluated legally as such. If you don't believe me, monogomous partners of different sexes can engage in sodomy too, so the law can be applied to traditional couples as well. Since the basis for the law isn't based upon any medical basis, and is instead based upon religious views, it is not a proper law. It was an old law from a different time, and it needs to go. It was from an age when it used to be illegal in some areas to walk outside at night without a lantern. The Supreme Court should find that the law needs to be struck down. If you don't agree, show me where in the Constitution is forbids sodomy.
Dick Gephardt is a socialist, and he's going to cost many people their jobs if elected. This dim-wit (who's running for President) is proposing a law which would force every employer, at the point of a gun, to provide health insurance for every worker and pay for it. Now, aside from the stupidity of all-encompassing laws, there are some important things Dick is overlooking. First, not everyone should be entitled to health insurance. There is no Constitutional basis for it, so there's no legal standing to create this law. In fact, it violates the right of a businessman to run his business freely. Second, what about people who work for a company who aren't legal residents or citizens? Does an employer have an obligation to provide health insurance for someone who isn't a citizen? What if they own a branch in another country? Do they have to buy insurance in other countries? Thirdly, how is Dick going to fund the SIXTY PERCENT of the cost that he claims the Federal government will pay? That's a lot of clams to pay out. Since the Federal government does not possess its own money, that can only mean one thing - raising taxes on the people who do earn money, the taxpayers. That's right, you and I would have to pay for it. Whether or not we want it, or need it. Lastly, this plan is guaranteed to cost jobs for people. How, do you say? Think about it from the businessman's perspective. He only has so much money to run his (or her) business. If you raise his costs of employing people, he will respond by lowering the number of employees. So, this wonderful plan will cost tens of thousands of existing jobs, and countless new jobs. Just the prospect of the potential of the law being passed will cause people to stop hiring, in anticipation that they might have the added cost. Not every idea is a good one, but this idea sucks worse than "New Coke". It is a guaranteed loser, one which is easily predicted as causing an economic downturn to our economy. It is, however, in keeping with the Democratic principle that seeks to keep people from being held accountable for their own actions. Today, if you don't have insurance, it's your own damn fault. If the Democrats have their way, it will be someone else's fault. Anything to keep people from being accountable. One of the major tenets of this Country's founding principles was that of an individual's rights and responsibilities. But if you can take away an individual's responsibilities, what's to stop you from taking their rights? Think about the implications of the legislation. Lawmakers are famous for claiming "unintended consequences" after their laws falter, but so many of them were warned about the far-reaching implications, and it is the lawmaker's responsibility to research that - that is their JOB. They are there to make the law, and part of that process is to anticipate and evaluate the effects of their actions. Today, they are sloppy in their efforts to rush legislation to passage, in an effort to look like they are responding to current issues. Laws aren't supposed to be plentiful - they are supposed to be used only when necessary to restrict behaviors that society as a whole cannot sustain. The framers of the Constitution would never have made laws to mandate airbags in cars - they would've let consumers decide which cars to buy (the smart ones would've bought the ones with airbags). The reason that new Amendments to the Constitution are so difficult and time-consuming is by design. A law hastily crafted is likely not to be good legislation. Lawmakers should take the time to think about the far-reaching implications of each law prior to voting on it. It's not about how many laws a lawmaker can pass - it's about the quality of the ones which do.
Previous day's rant
If you have ideas, comments, or criticisms, please let me know.