Maybe the NSA should offer autocorrect with their spyware …
Still, there was anger over the verdict. “We are outraged and heartbroken over today’s verdict,” said Benjamin Todd Jealous, president of the N.A.A.C.P. “We stand with Trayvon’s family and we are called to act. We will pursue civil rights charges with the Department of Justice, we will continue to fight for the removal of Stand Your Ground laws in every state, and we will not rest until racial profiling in all its forms is outlawed.”
I don’t really see the reasoning. Well, I do, but I don’t see the on the face of it reasoning. I get why the NAACP would have an issue with racial profiling (it’s kinda their bread and butter) but Stand Your Ground laws? I don’t really see how conflating the two works, logically I mean. Unless… the NAACP imagine that black Americans are more likely to come off worse than other Americans because they are more likely to be robbing people or something, but they can’t be saying that, can they?
The only other thing I can think of is that the NAACP are blindly joining in with the others using this case to further gun control and victim disarmament measures, without considering the negative consequences for their own constituency.
Just saw this on the Facebook. By and large the comments are NOT supportive. Maybe there is some hope for this country after all.
Look at the trouble it’s causing. The gay “community” ( I always put ” community” in scare quotes nowadays ) want to call their partnerships marriages, and of course some people are all for it, and some are against it, but what they are all calling for without exception is for the all powerful state to change it’s mind about what a marriage is.
Well I’m sorry, but that’s bollocks.
A marriage is a contract between consenting adults. It is a promise to share lives and wealth until death, said in front of witnesses and associated paperwork signed and witnessed. The state has no business in dictating the terms of such a contract, dictating where it may be agreed to or dictating who may sign it. Full stop. (A libertarian may here interject that the State may have some role in enforcing contracts but I’m an anarchist, so they can bugger off).
This whole debate amounts to one side saying “please sir, please sir, those people want to say they’re married but I don’t WANT them to” and the other side saying “Oh, but SIR, you simply MUST agree that we can call it marriage too or it’s just so UNFAIR!” Grow the fuck up. You love each other so why do you care what sir thinks? Or the other crowd? Get the state OUT of marriage altogether and the whole debate simply fades away. Sign a contract, find somewhere to hire out to celebrate it (and somewhere else for a proper party afterwards ) and have done with it.
And don’t get me started on religious freedom. What about Muslims and Mormons and anyone else who fancies a bit of polygamy? I hear a lot about one man and one woman, two men or two women but what if you fancy two wives or three husbands? Or a wife, two bisexuals and a tranny? If they all agree then why shouldn’t they be able to enter into contract? And call it marriage or whatever else they want?
And “advertising standards” can kiss my arse as well. It’s a contradiction in terms anyway. Next time you see “x% of y women agreed” do the maths, see if it comes out to a real number of women. That’s just more corporatism, right there.
Reason: Why We’re Losing http://goo.gl/mag/tm6ki
They’re right, alas.
I’ve often characterised people as ‘anti -bees ,’ in that bees are individually quite useless but as a collective are amazing, but people are wonderful as individuals but as collectives (or mobs ) are stupid.
The trouble is, as humans are a pack animal they have a propensity to collectivise, and, as a pack animal they also have a large beta contingent which is always compelled to defer to “the boss. ” In a democracy, you can see how this works. It is a perpetual duking -it -out between two or three bosses but the idea of 60,000,000 bosses never arises. And I fear it never will.
You may have noticed I started referring to humans in the third person there, that was deliberate. I don’t really play well with authority, I’m not a joiner or a beta male but I’m not an alpha male either. I usually end up in de facto leadership roles, deferred to by others, but I’m not comfortable with it. I just want to be left alone.
I’m a “don’t tread on me ” anarchist. Not a ‘big anarchist movement ‘ one. So I don’t really fit the primate social model. I don’t actually count myself as “human” anymore. Humans like order, they like hierarchies, they like to know who’s in charge and that they deserve to be in charge because they are “doing something.” They like this because they are a pack animal, like the wolf.
Are YOU human?
I saw on the news this evening that Birmingham City Council have had their proposed cuts declared Unlawful in the High Court.
Good. (Waits for hushed gasps to settle)
Yes, I said it, this is good news. Bear with me here.
Remember that the
Poll Tax Council Tax is capped by central government and cannot be increased (beyond 3.5% anyway, still too high IMO). Now that the judiciary have decided that councils cutting "front line services" like "providing care packages for about 4,000 adults whose needs are assessed as being substantial," especially in a judgement that is going to have "implications for local councils across the country" a lot of councils are going to suddenly find themselves in very dire financial straits. These are the agents that actually apply most of the freedom-busting ideas that float out of Brussels, via Westminster. The Smoking Inspectors, Recycling Coordinators and Five-A-Day-Cessation-Social advisors and the rest of it is all enforced by the local councils. Imposing "Cold Calling" zones and "No Drinking" zones and harrassing law-abiding people in the street. While centralisation is no good thing, that does not mean that local government is the friend of liberty.
The delicious bit is that the ever-expanding nanny state’s own centrepiece legislation, the Equality Act, is the basis for this ruling. Fantastic! Irony is even better than goldy or silvery, sometimes. So some people who could probably do with a bit of cash (possibly even the pensioners who actually paid already for the services the council wanted to cut that I saw on Five news) are going to benefit, and the local councils may actually have to cut some of the more excessively intrusive things they do instead of cutting where it shows and saving the bean-
flickers counters. What’s not to like?
Is it possible the beast will eventually tie itself up in so much red tape that we can all be free?
In today’s news, teaching union takes ignorance of new government plans to establish so-called “free schools” and place a modicum of competition in the school system as “parents don’t want these schools.”
In other news, the VAT increase is set to help bring down the spending deficit, but is it good for the economy? No plans to actually reduce government spending though, which would help a lot more.