There is a neo-con website called Free Republic where extremist right wingers hang out to discuss issues.
Of course these people, named 'Freepers,' are right wing to the point of irrationality, which is beside the case.
A few weeks ago, I went to Free Republic and created an account and posted an opposing viewpoint in one of their discussion boards. I was civil. I did not attack or flame anyone. And a few hours later, my posting priviliges were revoked.
Now I have to ask, why is Free Republic terrified of a debate? If they were sure of the issues upon which they stand, wouldn't they be able to defeat any argument they encounter? Stifling an argument, to me, means that their positions and their arguments are weak.
Further more, I find it ironic that a group that wants to create a conservative Republican America, deny free speech, when free speech is a basic tenant of human rights, protected in the US Constitution.
Then again, these are the idiots who believe that Obama is a Muslim and that George W Bush was the greatest president since Washington.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Firefox vs Opera vs Internet ExplorerFailure
Firefox has been my prefered browser of choice since the dawn of . . . well, I can't remember when I first got into firefox, before college I think. Anyways, I liked FF because the browser was fast, secure, and userfriendly. And tabbed browsing knocked the socks off of Explorer so bad that Explorer had to copy it a few months later. Even then, Firefox was already well ahead of Explorer
First of all, Explorer is slow. Not as in connection-slow, but browser slow. It seems to lag and catch while loading webpages or when switching tabs or opening a new window or whatever. Firefox was faster and smoother. Explorer made that annoying clicking sound every time you clicked on a link. Firefox was silent. Explorer interrupted what you were doing once a webpage opened or when you opened a new tab. Firefox silently loaded what you wanted and didn't bother you until you came around to opening it.
Another thing that pisses me off about IE is every single box that pops up. I typed in "Abraham Lincoln" once in Google using IE, which gave me a pop up asking me if I wanted to send this information over an insecure channel. Tell me, how exactly is "Abraham Lincoln" a security threat? Now if I was typing my credit card number (2787-5478-3782-7488 for those who are curious, security code 738), I'd understand. And IE does this a ton of times.
Of course, suddenly FF decided to be a jerk on my computer. It won't open any more. And by not open I mean, literally wait 2+ hours to open and then freeze when it finally does, so I was stuck using the craptastic peice of fail made by the morons at Microsoft (good company? HA! Glad they also had to screw up Microsoft Office up with the brand new layout you idiots. Now I can't even figure out simple formating basics. Don't fix what ain't broke, morons) Anyways, since FF won't open, I was using this failure browser until i got so sick of it, I downloaded Opera.
Been using it for ten minutes but so far, its power is on par with Firefox. It opens new tabs swiftly and silently, without making clicking noises or interrupting what I'm doing. It doesn't lag or take time. It's a clone of the good ol' days of Firefox (about two days ago). Opening a new window even takes only a split second, thats a few whole seconds faster than IE.
After using Opera for a bit more, I found that I enjoy the speed dial feature. However, it has a pop up every time it wants to save a password. I liked Firefox's handling of this better with the little, non-invasive bar. Also, Firefox saves password information into certain websites and I like that (really not to worried about someone hacking into my cracked.com account). Saved me typing. Still, I like Opera as an alternative. Much better than IE
But Firefox in the end has a cooler logo.
IE: 3/10 //Functional, used when all other browsers fail
Opera: 8/10 //working pretty good so far
Firefox: 9/10 //still a tad better though.
"The internet: where the men are men, the women are men, and the children are FBI agents" - Anonymous, but common advice
J Kuhl Signing Off
First of all, Explorer is slow. Not as in connection-slow, but browser slow. It seems to lag and catch while loading webpages or when switching tabs or opening a new window or whatever. Firefox was faster and smoother. Explorer made that annoying clicking sound every time you clicked on a link. Firefox was silent. Explorer interrupted what you were doing once a webpage opened or when you opened a new tab. Firefox silently loaded what you wanted and didn't bother you until you came around to opening it.
Another thing that pisses me off about IE is every single box that pops up. I typed in "Abraham Lincoln" once in Google using IE, which gave me a pop up asking me if I wanted to send this information over an insecure channel. Tell me, how exactly is "Abraham Lincoln" a security threat? Now if I was typing my credit card number (2787-5478-3782-7488 for those who are curious, security code 738), I'd understand. And IE does this a ton of times.
Of course, suddenly FF decided to be a jerk on my computer. It won't open any more. And by not open I mean, literally wait 2+ hours to open and then freeze when it finally does, so I was stuck using the craptastic peice of fail made by the morons at Microsoft (good company? HA! Glad they also had to screw up Microsoft Office up with the brand new layout you idiots. Now I can't even figure out simple formating basics. Don't fix what ain't broke, morons) Anyways, since FF won't open, I was using this failure browser until i got so sick of it, I downloaded Opera.
Been using it for ten minutes but so far, its power is on par with Firefox. It opens new tabs swiftly and silently, without making clicking noises or interrupting what I'm doing. It doesn't lag or take time. It's a clone of the good ol' days of Firefox (about two days ago). Opening a new window even takes only a split second, thats a few whole seconds faster than IE.
After using Opera for a bit more, I found that I enjoy the speed dial feature. However, it has a pop up every time it wants to save a password. I liked Firefox's handling of this better with the little, non-invasive bar. Also, Firefox saves password information into certain websites and I like that (really not to worried about someone hacking into my cracked.com account). Saved me typing. Still, I like Opera as an alternative. Much better than IE
But Firefox in the end has a cooler logo.
IE: 3/10 //Functional, used when all other browsers fail
Opera: 8/10 //working pretty good so far
Firefox: 9/10 //still a tad better though.
"The internet: where the men are men, the women are men, and the children are FBI agents" - Anonymous, but common advice
J Kuhl Signing Off
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis
This was a fascinating video on the theory of Abiogenesis, which is the theory of the origin of life, not to be confused with evolution, which is the theory of how living things change by natural selection.
It shows how simple lipid vesicles were able to trap simple polymers that could self-replicate, reproduce and even eat other lipid vesicles, long before they were even living things. It shows that it was all chemistry.
Perhaps there was a god with a guiding hand to make sure all of this stuff happens right, but he definitely did not create the universe the way the Bible literally states.
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Albert Einstein
J Kuhl Signing Off
Friday, March 27, 2009
Oh God He Uses A Teleprompter
Is this what the Republicans are becoming? The sniveling party? Lately there has been criticism of President Obama because he uses a teleprompter.
I really, really don't get this.
Why are they upset with the president for using a tool that helps him give clear and concise speeches? The hell? I truly am astounded by this one.
Lets look at their posterboy, the guy they stuck us with the last eight years:
"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009
"And they have no disregard for human life." --George W. Bush, on the brutality of Afghan fighters, Washington, D.C., July 15, 2008
"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008
"I thank the diplomatic corps, who is here as well." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 12, 2008
Bushisms
Bush did a real good job without a prompter did he?
Need I go on? So while the useless Republican party continues to snivel, perhaps they should look at their own party and ask themselves, is this criticism even legitimate?
Give me a break people. You've criticize Obama for taking of his suit jacket, for confusing a french window for a door (although that was funny), for taking an hour or two off to watch a basketball game and drink a beer, for using a teleprompter and for mispronouncing Orion.
Are you going to grow up and learn to criticize his polices ever? You know, focus on IMPORTANT THINGS like the economy or foreign relations with N. Korea, Iran and Afghanistan? Or help us reunite with the nations Bush alienated? No? You're going to just sit down and nitpick the president?
Then I see the death of the entire Republican party.
You have concerns over his plans to bail out the economy, and I can understand that. This is good, this is healthy. But nitpicking seems to be your current focus.
This will kill you.
Please, you can support the president and disagree with him. But right now, all I see is mostly whining.
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." -George W. Bush, July 27, 2001
J Kuhl Signing Off
I really, really don't get this.
Why are they upset with the president for using a tool that helps him give clear and concise speeches? The hell? I truly am astounded by this one.
Lets look at their posterboy, the guy they stuck us with the last eight years:
"I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009
"And they have no disregard for human life." --George W. Bush, on the brutality of Afghan fighters, Washington, D.C., July 15, 2008
"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., May 12, 2008
"I thank the diplomatic corps, who is here as well." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 12, 2008
Bushisms
Bush did a real good job without a prompter did he?
Need I go on? So while the useless Republican party continues to snivel, perhaps they should look at their own party and ask themselves, is this criticism even legitimate?
Give me a break people. You've criticize Obama for taking of his suit jacket, for confusing a french window for a door (although that was funny), for taking an hour or two off to watch a basketball game and drink a beer, for using a teleprompter and for mispronouncing Orion.
Are you going to grow up and learn to criticize his polices ever? You know, focus on IMPORTANT THINGS like the economy or foreign relations with N. Korea, Iran and Afghanistan? Or help us reunite with the nations Bush alienated? No? You're going to just sit down and nitpick the president?
Then I see the death of the entire Republican party.
You have concerns over his plans to bail out the economy, and I can understand that. This is good, this is healthy. But nitpicking seems to be your current focus.
This will kill you.
Please, you can support the president and disagree with him. But right now, all I see is mostly whining.
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it." -George W. Bush, July 27, 2001
J Kuhl Signing Off
Thursday, March 26, 2009
In Defense of Atheism
Before I begin, let me clarify, I am not an atheist. However, I have seen people demonizing atheists, claiming that they are immoral sinners sent from Satan for not believing in God. Even George Bush the First (but not the Worst) said he didn't consider atheists to be citizens of the United States (RIP establishment clause).No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. G H W Bush
And yet, I can't help thinking . . . pedophile priests, islamic terrorists, the Crusades for freak sake. How are religious people morally better simply because they believe in a god? Humans are humans are humans. I'm not trying to say religious people are immoral, nor am I suggesting that religion is not a source morality. What I am saying, is it is not the only source of morality.
I've met several atheists. None of them were immoral people. They were decent human beings who were moral because they knew it was the right thing to do. Even more so, they weren't driven to be moral by the fear of Hell, but simply by knowing the difference between right and wrong. God can teach morality but please, don't claim that he's the only source of it.
Morality is defined by society and further refined by experience. I know what is wrong because I was taught it was wrong. And when I committed a wrong act, I found out first hand why it was wrong.
And one last point. A rhetorical question. Why are fanatical Christians so judgmental of other people? Especially atheists.
The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Monday, March 23, 2009
And Finally, On the "Conspiracy" of Science
Alright, one more post about Evolution and then I promise I won't speak of the subject again for a few weeks.
Creationists argue constantly that evolution is a theory that atheists use to try to disprove god, that secular humanists have some sort of anti religion agenda.
They don't.
The reason why evolution is a godless theory is simple. It isn't because biologists hate god, it is because god is not a scientifically provable thing. That is it. Unless god can be proved to exist, science must work without considering god. After all, god is supernatural and science is only natural. God is beyond the scope of science.
So evolution does not attack religion. It simply doesn't approach or use religion in its development.
There is no anti-religion agenda. No conspiracy.
Give it a rest.
Creationism is not a science.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Creationists argue constantly that evolution is a theory that atheists use to try to disprove god, that secular humanists have some sort of anti religion agenda.
They don't.
The reason why evolution is a godless theory is simple. It isn't because biologists hate god, it is because god is not a scientifically provable thing. That is it. Unless god can be proved to exist, science must work without considering god. After all, god is supernatural and science is only natural. God is beyond the scope of science.
So evolution does not attack religion. It simply doesn't approach or use religion in its development.
There is no anti-religion agenda. No conspiracy.
Give it a rest.
Creationism is not a science.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Sunday, March 22, 2009
A Philosophical Plea on Evolution
I have argued over the scientific merits of Evolution, and I have argued how Creationism is not a scientific theory.
Now I want to bring up a philosophical point.
Young Earth Creationists (YEC) try to explain the gaping holes in their theory by claiming that god made dinosaur fossils. That god created light from stars in-transit. They make these claims because there is so much evidence that the world is far older than 6,000 years old (modern estimate is 4.5 billion for Earth, 13 billion for the Universe.) For example, every extra galactic star is over 6000 light years away, but they are visible in the night sky. Background cooling and expansion of the universe allows us to calculate back to the point of singularity, well over 6000 years.
So the YEC's claim god made the world to look old, for whatever reason. To test our faith or something. And I got to ask, why would a kind and loving god, the one described by Jesus, try to trick us into believing the world is older than 6000 years old? Not only is that a deceitful move by a god who's nothing more than a jerk, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. There is no purpose, no motive. Why would a god do such a thing? Why would he pretend that his universe is old? It makes no sense.
And don't just say "God works in mysterious ways." That's just a cop-out. There is no rational reason why any creator would fool his subjects in this matter, especially the one described by Jesus. Do we have an irrational god? Do we have a god who likes to fool with us and deceive us? Why should I worship a deceitful god who's lying to me?
Creationism is not science and I will repeat this ad-nauseum until creationists are ejected from school boards across the nation.
Oh and, here's a decent website defending evolution: National Center for Science Education
"Dear Jesus, protect me from your followers"
J Kuhl Signing Off
Now I want to bring up a philosophical point.
Young Earth Creationists (YEC) try to explain the gaping holes in their theory by claiming that god made dinosaur fossils. That god created light from stars in-transit. They make these claims because there is so much evidence that the world is far older than 6,000 years old (modern estimate is 4.5 billion for Earth, 13 billion for the Universe.) For example, every extra galactic star is over 6000 light years away, but they are visible in the night sky. Background cooling and expansion of the universe allows us to calculate back to the point of singularity, well over 6000 years.
So the YEC's claim god made the world to look old, for whatever reason. To test our faith or something. And I got to ask, why would a kind and loving god, the one described by Jesus, try to trick us into believing the world is older than 6000 years old? Not only is that a deceitful move by a god who's nothing more than a jerk, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. There is no purpose, no motive. Why would a god do such a thing? Why would he pretend that his universe is old? It makes no sense.
And don't just say "God works in mysterious ways." That's just a cop-out. There is no rational reason why any creator would fool his subjects in this matter, especially the one described by Jesus. Do we have an irrational god? Do we have a god who likes to fool with us and deceive us? Why should I worship a deceitful god who's lying to me?
Creationism is not science and I will repeat this ad-nauseum until creationists are ejected from school boards across the nation.
Oh and, here's a decent website defending evolution: National Center for Science Education
"Dear Jesus, protect me from your followers"
J Kuhl Signing Off
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Taken - Trailer 2 [30 January 2009] HQ
This will quite possibly be the best movie of 2009. Liam Neeson was so damn spectacular, he could replace Daniel Craig for Bond. The action was thrilling. The movie was intense, suspenseful and fun to watch.
And it wasn't just an action movie. Neeson I think portrayed best what any father with ass-kicking skills would do if his daughter was taken. The relationship between he and his daughter was well done.
"You don't remember me? We spoke on the phone two days ago. I told you I would find you."
J Kuhl, Signing Out
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
GOP Rep Submits Bill Requiring Birth Cert. for Presidency
House Representitive Bill Posey (R-FL) is considering a bill to require that presidential candidates present their birth certificates.
Bill Posey's Bill (Talking Point Memo)
I understand his intent, getting rid of this stupid distraction, but this shouldn't even be an issue. I'm not directing flames and brimstone at Posey, but at the nutjobs who are making an issue of this.
But I do need to say this:
"Opponents of President Bush used the 2000 election results and the court decisions to question the legitimacy of President Bush to serve as President," Posey said in a statement. "Opponents of President Obama are raising the birth certificate issue as a means of questioning his eligibility to serve as president. Neither of these situations are healthy for our Republic."
In 2000, we had a legitimate issue with the ballots in Florida. We had a true electoral dispute. This current dispute about BHO's birthplace is not a legitimate issue. He was born in Honolulu in 1961, after HI became a US state in 1959. The Certificate of Live Birth shows he was born in Honolulu. There is no controversy, just crazed conspiracy nuts who keep this stupidity going.
And I guarantee that if Barack Obama was white, or his middle name was something European, like 'Joe' or 'Robert,' none if this idiocy would happen.
And what of Senator McCain? He was NOT born in the US, but on a US military base in Panama. There were only a few cries to see proof of his citizenship. In fact, Obama and Hillary Clinton both cosponsored (AOL) a bill before the campaigns began, which allowed McCain to run for President.
This whole 'Obama's a Kenyan!' bullshit is not only pathetic, but it is racist, and ignorant. It is racist because I am sure this would not come up if he was white with an anglo-saxon name. And it is ignorant because it refuses to look at evidence.
The McCain controversy died the moment the McCain Citizenship Bill was passed. The moment the certification of live birth for Obama was produced what did all the nutjobs scream in unison?
"FORGERY!"
Republicans? Please, drop the frenetic act of trying to sabotage the president at every turn and trying to appease the nutjobs in your party. You're killing yourselves each time you endorse something like this.
Oh, one last thing:
Birth Announcemences in HI, 1961
If this is a conspiracy, Mama Obama planned ahead.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." — Albert Einstein
J Kuhl Signing Off
Bill Posey's Bill (Talking Point Memo)
I understand his intent, getting rid of this stupid distraction, but this shouldn't even be an issue. I'm not directing flames and brimstone at Posey, but at the nutjobs who are making an issue of this.
But I do need to say this:
"Opponents of President Bush used the 2000 election results and the court decisions to question the legitimacy of President Bush to serve as President," Posey said in a statement. "Opponents of President Obama are raising the birth certificate issue as a means of questioning his eligibility to serve as president. Neither of these situations are healthy for our Republic."
In 2000, we had a legitimate issue with the ballots in Florida. We had a true electoral dispute. This current dispute about BHO's birthplace is not a legitimate issue. He was born in Honolulu in 1961, after HI became a US state in 1959. The Certificate of Live Birth shows he was born in Honolulu. There is no controversy, just crazed conspiracy nuts who keep this stupidity going.
And I guarantee that if Barack Obama was white, or his middle name was something European, like 'Joe' or 'Robert,' none if this idiocy would happen.
And what of Senator McCain? He was NOT born in the US, but on a US military base in Panama. There were only a few cries to see proof of his citizenship. In fact, Obama and Hillary Clinton both cosponsored (AOL) a bill before the campaigns began, which allowed McCain to run for President.
This whole 'Obama's a Kenyan!' bullshit is not only pathetic, but it is racist, and ignorant. It is racist because I am sure this would not come up if he was white with an anglo-saxon name. And it is ignorant because it refuses to look at evidence.
The McCain controversy died the moment the McCain Citizenship Bill was passed. The moment the certification of live birth for Obama was produced what did all the nutjobs scream in unison?
"FORGERY!"
Republicans? Please, drop the frenetic act of trying to sabotage the president at every turn and trying to appease the nutjobs in your party. You're killing yourselves each time you endorse something like this.
Oh, one last thing:
Birth Announcemences in HI, 1961
If this is a conspiracy, Mama Obama planned ahead.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." — Albert Einstein
J Kuhl Signing Off
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Lay of Limbaugh
As a guy with liberal leanings, I have this message:
Democrats, lay off Limbaugh. Leave the corpulent entertainer alone and lets move on. You see, Rush wants attention, the more he gets, the more he can rant, the more ratings he gets, the more money he makes, thus he stays in business.
Criticizing the man is fine, especially when he suddenly becomes the Republican mouthpiece when even Chairman Steele refuses to stand to him, but a billboard? Come on folks, we don't need to keep poking the beast. Criticize him, make your point, and then move on.
Limbaugh simply wants attention. If you want him to slink back under the bridge where he and Coulter and the like hide, simply ignore him.
And Republicans, seriously, stop listening to the nutjobs.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Democrats, lay off Limbaugh. Leave the corpulent entertainer alone and lets move on. You see, Rush wants attention, the more he gets, the more he can rant, the more ratings he gets, the more money he makes, thus he stays in business.
Criticizing the man is fine, especially when he suddenly becomes the Republican mouthpiece when even Chairman Steele refuses to stand to him, but a billboard? Come on folks, we don't need to keep poking the beast. Criticize him, make your point, and then move on.
Limbaugh simply wants attention. If you want him to slink back under the bridge where he and Coulter and the like hide, simply ignore him.
And Republicans, seriously, stop listening to the nutjobs.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Monday, March 09, 2009
Too Fat for the Runway???
A few weeks ago, fashion designer Wolfgang Joop spoke of Supermodel Heidi Klum, saying she was too fat for the runway.
Watch this video of the supermodel here: Heidi Klum Guitar Hero
Here in a provocative Guitar Hero ad, she strips down to bra and panties (it's still PG-13) and you can see she has a healthy and slender figure. If she's too fat for the runway, I don't know what to say.
What worries me about this however is that the idea of being "rail thin" or even anorexic is okay because it's fashionable or beautiful. However, such a lifestyle is neither fashionable nor beautiful, but unhealthy, even deadly, and men like Joop only work to encourage such behaviors.
I just wonder how "skinny" and "rail thin" became synonymous with "sexy." This image infects our culture and leads to impressionable teenagers going at ridiculous lengths to achieve an unhealthy figure.
Rather than attempting the super-thin look, models and people like Joop should be encouraging a healthy body type.
Calling a slender woman "fat" is not only uncalled for, but in this business, dangerous.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Watch this video of the supermodel here: Heidi Klum Guitar Hero
Here in a provocative Guitar Hero ad, she strips down to bra and panties (it's still PG-13) and you can see she has a healthy and slender figure. If she's too fat for the runway, I don't know what to say.
What worries me about this however is that the idea of being "rail thin" or even anorexic is okay because it's fashionable or beautiful. However, such a lifestyle is neither fashionable nor beautiful, but unhealthy, even deadly, and men like Joop only work to encourage such behaviors.
I just wonder how "skinny" and "rail thin" became synonymous with "sexy." This image infects our culture and leads to impressionable teenagers going at ridiculous lengths to achieve an unhealthy figure.
Rather than attempting the super-thin look, models and people like Joop should be encouraging a healthy body type.
Calling a slender woman "fat" is not only uncalled for, but in this business, dangerous.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Drivers
If there is one thing I never understood about the enemy other drivers it is why some of them refuse to do the speed limit. I'm coming home from Nashua, everything is fine from Nashua to Manchester. Traffic is great from Manchester to Portsmouth. 95 couldn't be better from Portsmouth to Portland to Auburn. Hit Auburn: Bam! 40 miles an hour in a 55 mph zone from Auburn to Livermore.
And this happens more often then not on the Auburn road. A string of 20 cars, the d-bag in the front going . . . so . . . slowly . . . and . . . won't . . . pull . . . over . . . so those of us who want to get home in a decent amount of time, can get home.
I never understand why people can't at least do the speed limit, or if they notice the 20 angry drivers behind him, pull over, let us pass by and then keep going. Or something.
I really want to add some helicopter wings to my Cavalier and just fly over these people.
In other news, I can't take Terry Goodkind seriously anymore. Goodkind is the author of series of fantasy novels (all of them over 900 pages long, each). I was in Barnes and Noble looking for The Call of Cthulu and Other Weird Stories when I saw a Terry Goodkind book and picked it up, wondering if I should give the book a second chance. Then I noticed that the main character was named Richard.
Richard is the name of an undead warlock in a webcomic called "Looking For Group," which spoofs most fantasy genre games while having a good story and being pretty hilarious. Richard is a sadistic nut who likes to kill things. But he's more than that. He states at one point that he has a destiny, that "for the first time in hundreds of years" he has a goal.
Richard is the funniest character in the comic and because of that, I could not take Terry Goodkind seriously ever again.
Looking for Group
"This court -" -Demon prosecutor.
"- Of lesser demons has amused me for a short time. It no longer does. Besides, you're not asking the right question." -Richard
"Which is what exactly?"
"Why would a warlock wear jewelry?" -Richard Page 156
J Kuhl Signing Off
And this happens more often then not on the Auburn road. A string of 20 cars, the d-bag in the front going . . . so . . . slowly . . . and . . . won't . . . pull . . . over . . . so those of us who want to get home in a decent amount of time, can get home.
I never understand why people can't at least do the speed limit, or if they notice the 20 angry drivers behind him, pull over, let us pass by and then keep going. Or something.
I really want to add some helicopter wings to my Cavalier and just fly over these people.
In other news, I can't take Terry Goodkind seriously anymore. Goodkind is the author of series of fantasy novels (all of them over 900 pages long, each). I was in Barnes and Noble looking for The Call of Cthulu and Other Weird Stories when I saw a Terry Goodkind book and picked it up, wondering if I should give the book a second chance. Then I noticed that the main character was named Richard.Richard is the name of an undead warlock in a webcomic called "Looking For Group," which spoofs most fantasy genre games while having a good story and being pretty hilarious. Richard is a sadistic nut who likes to kill things. But he's more than that. He states at one point that he has a destiny, that "for the first time in hundreds of years" he has a goal.
Richard is the funniest character in the comic and because of that, I could not take Terry Goodkind seriously ever again.
Looking for Group
"This court -" -Demon prosecutor.
"- Of lesser demons has amused me for a short time. It no longer does. Besides, you're not asking the right question." -Richard
"Which is what exactly?"
"Why would a warlock wear jewelry?" -Richard Page 156
J Kuhl Signing Off
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Monkey Cartoon, Gay Rights and Chairman Steele
No correlation between the cartoon and gay rights of course, the title is simply to indicate that I'm going to say something about the two issues.
First, the cartoon.
As you are probably well aware, the cartoon on the left, sparked an enormous controversy several years ago after being published in Europe. Since Muslims believe that any depiction of Mohammed was blasphemous, they protested. The more fundamentalist of them went crazy and started a wave of violent protesting, which I find rather ironic, as that violence was what the cartoon was about. But the West rallied and claimed that they had a right to publish this cartoon as we value this little thing called Freedom of Speech.
A few weeks ago, the New York Post posted a cartoon of two police officers shooting a chimp, saying, "They'll have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill." Someone found this to be racist and started to protest against it. The cartoon however was suppose to be mocking the Congress, who the cartoonist saw as being "a team of trained monkeys." (TimesOnline). It wasn't meant to be racist at all, it was merely misinterpreted as being racist. The chimpanzee in question was actually a chimp who was shot by police after mauling its owner, also in recent news.
My question is this. If we supported publishing offensive material a few years ago, that offended the muslims blatantly, then why is there so much anger over a cartoon that was not intended to offend, but caused it by mistake? I'm not advocating hate speech, I just see a double standard. Why was it considered Free Speech when it was directed at the Muslims, but considered Hate Speech when directed at blacks? Especially in this case, where the Mohammed cartoon was definately tactless (although it made a good point) and this cartoon was misinterpreted. Either they both are hate speech, or they both have protection under the right to free speech.
Is it because we Americans as a majority are afraid of the scary Muslims but ashamed of our racist past? We're afraid of being judgmental towards black people because of our past, but not afraid of being judgmental towards muslims because the radicals in their groups advocate death to the US. This is a double standard. Blacks, muslims, jews, chinese, etc, etc, should all be regarded under the same level of tact and sensitivity as anyone else. Either we allow ourselves to produce offensive, yet poignant, cartoons, or we restrain ourselves with tact and sensitivity. We can't be showing more to one group and less to another.
****************
In other news, several republican state congressmen in states such as Utah and Colorado have made statements stating that gays are the biggest threat to the US and that homosexuality is worse than murder (ABC and Think Progress respectively). Meanwhile, Tennessee is working on a bill allowing only married couples to adopt children (UPI.) Unsurprisingly, gays can't get married, making this a subtle "anti-gay" law, and unsurprisingly led by Republicans.
I know the Bible says, in Leviticus, gays are an abomination. But the problem is, this is the Bible. Not everyone follows it. Not everyone believes in it and since this is a nation with no official religion, the Bible is not a legal authority. You can't legislate on the basis that it's in the Bible. And under the same logic, you can't legislate on the basis that some god said it was wrong.
So the question remains, on who's authority is homosexuality wrong? I for one don't see it. If two loving, same sex adults want to get some in the privacy of their own homes, who am I to judge them? Who am I to tell them to stop? It doesn't affect me, it doesn't hurt me. They're happy and I'm unaffected. As to not letting them adopt, that's asinine. Marriage is not some magical state that makes a couple suddenly become stable and loving. There are many marriages that fall apart and many single couples that are stable and loving, but unmarried for whatever reasons (perhaps because they're gay?).
If you can't find a reason why something is wrong, a reason that does NOT include religion, you can't legislate it.
**************
In other new again, (I have a third topic), a message to Michael Steele:
GROW A BACKBONE.
GOP Chairman Steele commented a few days ago that radio host Limbaugh was not the leader and the voice of the Republican Party. He said that the pundit often got ugly and was simply an entertainer. I was happy for a moment, thinking that the GOP might actually be disowning the nutjobs that make their party look like idiots (Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity).
Then he rescinded his comment.
Then he apologized to Rush (Politico).
Apparently the loudmouth Limbaugh is the voice and the leadership of the GOP. Which is sad. He's a rightwing nutjob who compared the presidency to the Superbowl, in an asinine analogy where he defended his stance hoping that Obama fails. Rush believes the whole thing is a game and that what is important is that his side "wins" no matter the cost.
But I guess Chairman Steele isn't the leader of the GOP. Limbaugh is.
This is for you Steele:
And the Republicans wonder why they're becoming irrelevant . . .
"I accept the verdict, but I deny the sentence. I have a destiny." -Richard, Chief Warlock of the Brothers of Darkness, Lord of the Thirteen Hells, Master of the Bones, Emperor of the Black, Lord of the Undead . . . and the mayor of a little town up the coast. (Looking for Group)
J Kuhl Signing Off
First, the cartoon.
As you are probably well aware, the cartoon on the left, sparked an enormous controversy several years ago after being published in Europe. Since Muslims believe that any depiction of Mohammed was blasphemous, they protested. The more fundamentalist of them went crazy and started a wave of violent protesting, which I find rather ironic, as that violence was what the cartoon was about. But the West rallied and claimed that they had a right to publish this cartoon as we value this little thing called Freedom of Speech.
A few weeks ago, the New York Post posted a cartoon of two police officers shooting a chimp, saying, "They'll have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill." Someone found this to be racist and started to protest against it. The cartoon however was suppose to be mocking the Congress, who the cartoonist saw as being "a team of trained monkeys." (TimesOnline). It wasn't meant to be racist at all, it was merely misinterpreted as being racist. The chimpanzee in question was actually a chimp who was shot by police after mauling its owner, also in recent news.My question is this. If we supported publishing offensive material a few years ago, that offended the muslims blatantly, then why is there so much anger over a cartoon that was not intended to offend, but caused it by mistake? I'm not advocating hate speech, I just see a double standard. Why was it considered Free Speech when it was directed at the Muslims, but considered Hate Speech when directed at blacks? Especially in this case, where the Mohammed cartoon was definately tactless (although it made a good point) and this cartoon was misinterpreted. Either they both are hate speech, or they both have protection under the right to free speech.
Is it because we Americans as a majority are afraid of the scary Muslims but ashamed of our racist past? We're afraid of being judgmental towards black people because of our past, but not afraid of being judgmental towards muslims because the radicals in their groups advocate death to the US. This is a double standard. Blacks, muslims, jews, chinese, etc, etc, should all be regarded under the same level of tact and sensitivity as anyone else. Either we allow ourselves to produce offensive, yet poignant, cartoons, or we restrain ourselves with tact and sensitivity. We can't be showing more to one group and less to another.
****************
In other news, several republican state congressmen in states such as Utah and Colorado have made statements stating that gays are the biggest threat to the US and that homosexuality is worse than murder (ABC and Think Progress respectively). Meanwhile, Tennessee is working on a bill allowing only married couples to adopt children (UPI.) Unsurprisingly, gays can't get married, making this a subtle "anti-gay" law, and unsurprisingly led by Republicans.
I know the Bible says, in Leviticus, gays are an abomination. But the problem is, this is the Bible. Not everyone follows it. Not everyone believes in it and since this is a nation with no official religion, the Bible is not a legal authority. You can't legislate on the basis that it's in the Bible. And under the same logic, you can't legislate on the basis that some god said it was wrong.
So the question remains, on who's authority is homosexuality wrong? I for one don't see it. If two loving, same sex adults want to get some in the privacy of their own homes, who am I to judge them? Who am I to tell them to stop? It doesn't affect me, it doesn't hurt me. They're happy and I'm unaffected. As to not letting them adopt, that's asinine. Marriage is not some magical state that makes a couple suddenly become stable and loving. There are many marriages that fall apart and many single couples that are stable and loving, but unmarried for whatever reasons (perhaps because they're gay?).
If you can't find a reason why something is wrong, a reason that does NOT include religion, you can't legislate it.
**************
In other new again, (I have a third topic), a message to Michael Steele:
GROW A BACKBONE.
GOP Chairman Steele commented a few days ago that radio host Limbaugh was not the leader and the voice of the Republican Party. He said that the pundit often got ugly and was simply an entertainer. I was happy for a moment, thinking that the GOP might actually be disowning the nutjobs that make their party look like idiots (Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity).Then he rescinded his comment.
Then he apologized to Rush (Politico).
Apparently the loudmouth Limbaugh is the voice and the leadership of the GOP. Which is sad. He's a rightwing nutjob who compared the presidency to the Superbowl, in an asinine analogy where he defended his stance hoping that Obama fails. Rush believes the whole thing is a game and that what is important is that his side "wins" no matter the cost.
But I guess Chairman Steele isn't the leader of the GOP. Limbaugh is.
This is for you Steele:
And the Republicans wonder why they're becoming irrelevant . . .
"I accept the verdict, but I deny the sentence. I have a destiny." -Richard, Chief Warlock of the Brothers of Darkness, Lord of the Thirteen Hells, Master of the Bones, Emperor of the Black, Lord of the Undead . . . and the mayor of a little town up the coast. (Looking for Group)
J Kuhl Signing Off
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
