America is a Land of the Free

Before I even begin, let me fully quote my favorite part of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, in New York, there's a bunch of stupid ignorant crap going on about a mosque being built within the vicinity of Ground Zero. The ignorant bigots claim that it'll be opened on 9-11-11, to mock Americans, but that rumor has never been substantiated at all.

And now they've gone further. A conservative group has called to ban all mosques in the US. And there have been numerous protests lately over other planned mosques in the US.

This frightens me because another guy in another nation tried banning a religion, some sixty years ago.



His name was Hitler.

Last I checked, America promised freedom of religion, freedom to believe whatever you desire. Muslims have every right to practice their religion, as much as any other religion. The vast majority of the Muslims do not profess the radical beliefs that the 19 hi-jackers from Al-Quaeda did on 9-11. Most are disgusted by the acts of the Taliban, Al-Quaeda and other extremists and many came here for American freedoms.

Now that they've come, we're going to betray them with bigotry? We're going to ignore our most sacred Amendment, the one protecting our most valued freedoms because we're scared? We're going to turn to ignorance and hate because we're frightened of some bogey man from the middle east? Is the (F)Right Wing out of their ever-loving minds? We built this nation on the idea of freedom and we don't need to go tearing that down because we've become so ignorant as to be afraid of some Muslims. 90% of the Muslims here in the US are ordinary people.

Sure, we have our fair share of radicals. We got the guy who failed to blow up a car bomb in times square and the major who gunned down several servicemen in Fort Hood, and so on, but they represent a radical extremist view point that most muslims do not share.

Some people argue that all Muslims are extremist because the Koran tells them to murder people who aren't Muslim. By this logic, Judeo-Christains are also murderers. The Old Testement is filled with Hebrews killing non-Hebrews in the name of God.

Why don't we start living up to our own standards and behaving as if we believed in the strength of our own Constitution? A mosque 2 blocks from 9-11 (actually, Islamic culture center) is not anything to throw a fit about. We should welcome it really, and show the world we really do believe in freedom of religion.

And we definitely do not want to be this:



Oh and if Sarah Palin wishes to profess to be a lover of the Constitution, she needs to embrace the construction of this Islamic center, not condemn it.

Then again, if she ever says anything with an iota of intelligence, I'll eat my hat.

J Kuhl Signing Off

Where were the Anti-Fascist Tea Parties

When Bush was in office?

When Bush:

Invaded a sovereign nation on false pretenses?
Allowed wiretapping of innocent citizens?
Put detainees in Gitmo with no Due Process?
Allowed for waterboarding, or worse, of suspects?
Put cronies in places of power?

Bush increased the executive branch's power way beyond constitutional limits.

And where were these activists then?

What. The. Fuck?

A tax raise of 3.3% for the upper class. Most of the tea party goers aren't even going to see a tax hike.

The other issue they have is the spending. Not spending is the worst thing a government can do right now. Not spending freezes the economy further. As to the bail outs, it's fascist for Obama to demand that the leaders of bailed out corporations be responsible for the money the taxpayers give them?

I love how this is about government spending and it was Bush who overspent, didn't even budget for Iraq, and turned our surplus into a massive deficit! Where were these activists back then? Where were the activists when Paulson pushed TARP? Where the FUCK were they?

Has the right completely lost it?

Oh and the huffing from Hannity and his pundit friends is tiresome. These tea parties are "patriotic" but liberals who protested Bush are "anti-american?"

Go blow it out your ass Hannity.

J Kuhl Signing Off

(sorry about the swears, but this is just so f**king stupid)

Chairman Obama to Open Gulags in US

Recently, a nutjob US Rep from Minnesota, Michele Bachmann, stated her fears that Barack Obama was going to open 're-education' camps.

I believe that there is a very strong chance that we will see that young people will be put into mandatory service. And the real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums.-Bachmann The Minnesota Independant


I find this funny. John Stewart, comedian commentator from Comedy Central brought up an interesting point on his April 07 2009 show, that while the Republicans are claiming Obama's a fascist, they sat back and supported George W Bush for wiretapping, torture, invasion of Iraq, indefinite detaining, Gitmo, the No-Fly list, the strengthening of the TSA, and so on. And people who spoke out against Bush were often labeled as traitors, unamerican, unpatriotic. The Dixie Chicks in 2003, for example, were boycotted en masse for saying they were ashamed to be from Texas, just a few days after the invasion of Iraq. It's odd how the Republicans can support the expansion of executive branch powers under Bush, but turn around when Obama allegedly does the same. I agree entirely with Stewart on this point.

It seems that Republicans are desperate to scare people away from supporting Obama, only they've become crazy. Fascism? Totalitarianism? Obama's the fascist? Funny how a quick google search finds The 14 Points of Fascism, a left wing website about George Bush. But fascism was 'patriotism and love for the US' under Republican rule.

I read an article the other day, blaming Obama for polarizing the US. I call bullsh*t to this. It is not Obama, but crap like Bachmann accusing Obama of fascism, that is causing the polarization. The obstructionist, saboteur acts of today's Republican party is the cause of the polarization. Look at what they do. Everything Obama does, he does wrong in there eyes. They'll never admit when he does something right, they'll twist everything he does as being wrong for the country. And they spread their vitriol against the President amongst those who'll listen, fans of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'reilly and people who buy Ann Coulter's books. As I've said earlier, most of their criticisms have been either fearmongering, like this fascism thing they've got going, and nitpicking non-issues. This is the cause of the polarization. The partisanship of the Republican party is doing far more to divide the nation than anything Obama's done.

As I said before, Obama isn't perfect, it is fine to disagree with him, hell I don't agree with him on a few subjects. But to accuse him of Sovietesque fascism? Do you people want to be re-elected? The party of right wing crazies continues to amaze me. Critique his policies, state your opinion on how well/terrible you think he's doing. But please, enough fearmongering. Enough spreading obstructionist bullshit. Each time you do something crazy like this, you polarize the nation further, and further drive more moderate republicans into independent parties.

We are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. -President Obama

J Kuhl Signing Off

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

Censoring Farenheit 451 is Silly and Ironic

I think it may be obvious now that I'm anti-censorship in every way. It is far too important to allow a free flow of ideas and information to be censoring books because they might be offensive, corruptive, contain bad ideas, promote witchcraft or whatever the reason.

In every case however, the problem with the book is not that the library allows the book on the shelf. The problem is the irresponsible parent who doesn't know how to teach a kid to be responsible. The responsibility of the library is to give access to any idea, any story. The library is NOT responsible for the welfare and education of those reading these ideas and stories, that responsibility lies in the hands of the parents.

A library must be allowed to provide access to every book that will fit on their shelf space in order that this democratic republic, the US of A, can succeed because our citizens are literate and acceptive of ideas, even ideas that are unorthodox or contrary to popular belief. Without the unfettered flow of ideas, this nation will stagnate and eventually become a dysfunctional nation full of zombies muttering mantras from approved books, a fascist state of newspeak and thoughtcrime.

It is funny that 1984 itself was challenged for being 'pro-communist' when the book painted socialism in a pretty ugly light. And it is downright hilarious that anyone wanted to censor Farenheit 451.

There are a myriad reasons why people censor books and none of them are valid. There are no valid reasons to censor anything. None. Not a one. This is the gift and the curse of the right to free speech. You have to take the good with the bad.

The popular rationals are as follows: the book violates my religious beliefs, the book promotes immoral behavior, the book contains nudity/profanity/obscenities, the book promotes dangerous political ideas, or the book might just be controversial.

The book violates my religious beliefs. If you watch the video of Barack Obama I posted a few days ago, you'll notice that he said something important about religion. "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than specific, values," Obama said. He went on to explain that if I argue that abortion is wrong, I can't simply point to the teachings of my own church, that I have to explain why it violates a principle that is true for people of all faiths and to those that do not believe.

Harry Potter and the Wizard of Oz were challenged for witchcraft. And why is witchcraft wrong? Because somewhere in Deuteronomy, God said it was wrong. They don't have a universal principle to back themselves up with, they simply have their own religious belief and it may or may not be valid to other people of other religions. Thus banning a book because of a religion-specific reason infringes on the rights of people who do not follow that religion.

The religious right do not want to argue. They want to be right. And because they are obviously unsure of their own beliefs, they'd rather see dissenting voices censored than actually argue with them. They must be unsure of their beliefs, because if they had any real convictions, they would not be afraid to hear opposing voices!

Do this experiment: Find an article on Free Republic.com and post a response arguing one of their points. Then come back the next day and try to post something again. You will get this message each time you try after your first post: "Your posting privileges have been revoked." It happened to me. I was civil, but I dissented. They do not want to argue, they want to be right.

Take for example, Earth Sciences or On the Origin of Species, two books challenged and/or banned in schools because they teach evolution, which is contrary to the fundamentalist belief of Creationism. The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies was also challenged because it allegedly condones homosexuality and we all know that in Leviticus, God says that two men sleeping with each other is an abomination.

Here is the thing though, by censoring books on evolution, you won't kill the argument of evolution. By censoring homosexuality, you won't kill the argument of homosexuality. Instead, you make yourself look weaker. You make yourself appear to be afraid of your own convictions. Censoring won't help. If you truly believe in creationism, then tell us why evolution is wrong. If you truly believe that homosexuality is a sin, tell us why, using universal principles as Obama explained, why it is wrong.

And even if you can find a universal principle to declare why certain books are bad and should be banned, then tough. Even still, you don't have the right to censor the books.

" If your library is not 'unsafe', it probably isn't doing its job." - John Berry, Iii, Library Journal, October 1999

It is the library's job to present information whether it is offensive or not. It is your job as a parent to teach your children to discern what is offense and what is not.

The book promotes immoral behavior. Shel Silverstein was challenged for promoting mischief within his poems. James and the Giant Peach was challenged for promoting "drug use" and "disobedience."

Which goes too far. These books are written to be silly. Even when I was a kid, I was wise enough to understand that these books were silly. Shel Silverstein's poems are humorous.

A lot of books portray immoral behavior and were challenged for it. The Catcher in the Rye for example. But once again, it isn't the library's role to teach children behavior, it is the role of the parents. Banning a book because some parent doesn't know how to teach morals to a child, infringes on the rights of those who understand morality and wish to read the book for other reasons.

And honestly, James and the Giant Peach? How the hell is a story about a boy who travels around in a flying peach immoral? Some people read too far into things. A children's story being challenged for ideas that a child wouldn't even recognize. When I read that book I was about 10. I didn't see anything about "drug use" or "disobedience." I saw a story about a kid who was mistreated by his guardians and then ran away in an adventure. Shel Silverstein's poems didn't teach me to break dishes to avoid drying them, they were just for laughs. And when I read the Catcher in the Rye, I didn't want to emulate the main character for freak sake.

The book contains nudity/profanity/obscenities. Here is another issue. Farenheit 451 was censored for this reason. Students at one school received a copy of the book with all the swears blacked out. Ironic. Profanity is a part of life and a part of language. I'm not saying kids should run around schools dropping the f-bomb, but language happens and they need to be taught to be responsible with it. Profanity isn't an excuse to ban a book. If a book comes with profanity in it, there is usually a reason. And if not, than it is an opportunity to teach kids to be responsible with words.

Mark Twain's books, Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, are both challenged because they use the word "nigger." Gone with the Wind was also challenged for using the word "nigger." This is completely ridiculous because the challengers are not looking at the book's context. They took place in the 1800s where the word "nigger" was not considered offensive but was a part of everyday speech. It would be pretentious and wrong to not use that word in stories which take place in that age because it is how people were back then. There is no reason to expect a story that takes place in the 19th century to be politically correct to 21st century standards. The meanings of words change over time.

Context is often lost on people. Blazing Saddles, Mel Brook's movie satirizing racism was declared 'racist' by the same people who think that Stephen Colbert is a real Republican pundit. To Kill a Mockingbird was banned by three black parents because the book was racist! Duh! The book was ABOUT racism.

If a book has racism in it, such as To Kill a Mockingbird, or I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, don't ban it! Use it to teach why intolerance is wrong! That was the point of those books.

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings was challenged for explicit description of Angelou's rape. I didn't like it myself. But it should not be banned. Sometimes you need something disgusting to shock people into realizing why certain behaviors are bad. Sometimes it is used as a tool to show people just how wrong things were. Blanket banning books over obscene imagery does not allow people to see how bad somethings really are.

And again, it is up to the parents, not the library, to teach students about obscenities and it is the parent's responsibility to supervise the child. If you do not like what your child is reading, then remove the book from their hands yourself. Teach them about obscenity and try to remember the context of the book.

The book promotes dangerous political ideas. 1984 was challenged for promoting communism. Really now. Because I know after I read the book, I wanted to be come a commie and be oppressed by Big Brother!

Freedom to follow a particular political idea is a part of this nation. Fear that someone may be a communist is a return to McCarthyism and a step closer to fascism. They have the right to be communists. They have the right to advocate a communist agenda. It is better that we can read about communism and why it is good and why it is bad, than to just censor it outright.

The book might just be controversial. And this is just cowardly. The book challenged was Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. The man who removed it said "if there's a possibility that something might be controversial, then why not eliminate it?"

The answer, is because that is a foolhardy coward's way out. The purpose of a library is to present information so we can make informed decisions as a democracy. Even if "that something" is controversial. It will remain controversial if censored. Rather, allow people to read it and see for themselves.

In a nation plagued by frivolous lawsuits, more and more idiotic rules are being set up for people to defend themselves. It really is atrocious that when the slightest thing goes wrong or when someone becomes "offended," someone else is sued. It is ridiculous. Appeasing these morons with censorship is not the answer.

The Constitution of the United States of America does not protect you from being offended. Get tougher skin. And rather than banning books from libraries, teach your children.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Banning books, censoring media and oppressing dissent in a public forum is unconstitutional and wrong and can lead to only fascism, newspeak and thoughtcrime.

1984 needs to be a required book in all high schools.

Source: The Forbidden Library


"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." - Charles Bradlaugh

J Kuhl Signing Off

V for Vendetta

This is not a review of the movie, that would be two and a half years too late. It was enjoyable yes, but this is not why I wish to discuss it.

Rather, I'm interested in its message.

(May contain spoilers)

V for Vendetta was a story which took place within about 20 - 30 years in the future. It occurs in England, which has become a fascist police state, lead by one Adam Sutler (John Hurt), much like Airstrip 1 in Orwell's 1984.

In the name of security, Chancellor Sutler becomes a dictator in charge of England. His whims are laws and the citizens of England are oppressed. The USA has somehow (civil war and plague are implied) has been removed as a world power and England had just recovered from some sort of apocalyptic event involving a viral outbreak which allowed Sutler to take power.

Through all of this a strange man in a Guy Fawkes mask makes a few bold terrorist acts for the sake of freedom. He goes only by the name of V (Hugo Weaving).

The movie is rather important for several reasons.

Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot. - V

In this speech, which V declares on TV, V speaks to the Londoners who willingly gave up civil liberties for security. It is a remarkable speech, one which people need to remember, as America faces crises now and in the future. We American citizens need to remain vigilant and watchful of our government and ensure that freedoms are never forsaken for security, even in a time of crisis.

After 9-11, the Bush Administration was quick to put out the Patriot Act. They were quick to detain suspects without charges, without appointing lawyers, for an indefinite amount of time. They were quick to wiretap us and listen in on our phone lines.

This was done for the sake of security and this is not acceptable. We should not be so cowardly as to give up freedoms for security, for this is the path to tyranny.

Our story begins, as these stories often do, with a young up-and-coming politician [Sutler]. He's a deeply religious man and a member of the conservative party. He is completely single-minded convictions and has no regard for the political process. Eventually, his party launches a special project in the name of 'national security'. At first, it is believed to be a search for biological weapons and it is pursued regardless of its cost. However, the true goal of the project is power, complete and total hegemonic domination. The project, however, ends violently... but the efforts of those involved are not in vain, for a new ability to wage war is born from the blood of one of their victims. Imagine a virus - the most terrifying virus you can, and then imagine that you and you alone have the cure. But if your ultimate goal is power, how best to use such a weapon? It is at this point in our story that along comes a spider. He is a man seemingly without a conscience; for whom the ends always justify the means and it is he who suggests that their target should not be an enemy of the country but rather the country itself. Three targets are chosen to maximize the effect of the attack: a school, a tube station, and a water-treatment plant. Several hundred die within the first few weeks. Until at last the true goal comes into view. Before the St. Mary's crisis, no one would have predicted the outcome of the elections. No one. But after the election, lo and behold, a miracle. Some believed that it was the work of God himself, but it was a pharmaceutical company controlled by certain party members made them all obscenely rich. But the true genius of the plan was the fear. A year later, several extremists are tried, found guilty, and executed while a memorial is built, erected to canonize their victims. Fear became the ultimate tool of this government. And through it our politician was ultimately appointed to the newly created position of High Chancellor. The rest, as they say, is history. -William Rookwood

A main point in V for Vendetta was the use of fear. Another quote in particular is when Adam Sutler snarls on TV, "I want *everyone* to *remember*, why they *need* us!" Fear mongering brought Sutler into power. Fear and the promise of order out of chaos. Sutler created fear when he engineered a biological attack on England and then, after gaining power, released the cure, and shifted the blame to radical extremists. This is also seen in 1984, as Big Brother and the Party bomb London themselves to make the locals believe they are still at war.

Fear. As Americans, we need to be wary of fear mongering politicians. The eight years since 9-11, we have been taught to be afraid that yet another terror attack may occur. Security tightened at airports, the Patriot Act was declared, two wars in the Middle East began. We were told that the government was protecting us and bringing us security, while these things occurred. Now obviously, we did not become a fascist state. But the threat does exist. We must watch our government and ensure that while they protect us, they do not go too far and strip civil liberties.

America right now is under two threats, one from terror, another from economic collapse. I doubt that Obama will declare himself "High Chancellor" anytime soon, but we citizens should remain on guard, for as long as this nation exists, to ensure that we do not become victims of fear mongering and that we never sacrifice freedom for security.

(SPOILER) Near the end of the movie, before Parliament blows up, the soldiers guarding are overrun by thousands of Londoners wearing Guy Fawkes masks. This is a symbol to show that we have strength as a people, a strength to act. The citizens, united, can be a powerful voice and we should never forget this. Should this nation somehow fall to totalitarianism, it is up to us, the citizens to fight it.


Did you like that? USA... Ulcered Sphincter of Ass-erica, I mean what else can you say? Here was a country that had everything, absolutely everything. And now, 20 years later, is what? The world's biggest leper colony. Why? Godlessness. Let me say that again... Godlessness. It wasn't the war they started. It wasn't the plague they created. It was Judgement. No one escapes their past. No one escapes Judgement. You think he's not up there? You think he's not watching over this country? How else can you explain it? He tested us, but we came through. We did what we had to do. Islington. Enfield. I was there, I saw it all. Immigrants, Muslims, homosexuals, terrorists. Disease-ridden degenerates. They had to go. Strength through unity. Unity through faith. I'm a God-fearing Englishman and I'm goddamn proud of it! -Lewis Prothero

As I already said, something had happened to America. Prothero (Roger Allam), a prominent Party man who spews propaganda, blames the downfall of the US on godlessness. Using God, he justified the "cleansing" of England which occured, in which undesirables were removed. Prothero was the Joseph Goebbels of the Party, spewing propaganda and hate for the enemy, whoever it was.

And here we have a perfect example of why the media must be unbiased and independent of government. It is too powerful of a tool for a government to control. Goebbels once said, ""If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it," which is all the more possible when the government can control and censor media.

We need to seek more unbiased sources of media and guard against all forms of censorship, even if censorship comes in a pretty package, example, for the sake of the children. Censorship, bias, propaganda, we cannot have this. What we need is an unbiased information source, giving us pertinent news, not propaganda and hate.

Last, the girl in the movie, Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman) undergoes a transformation when she is captured by the secret police, in which she learns to have no fear. This brings me to the final point, if, god forbid, the worst does happen, we need to have strength to fight it or we will lose everything.

In the end, what we take from the movie is a whole host of messages. 1. Do not give in to fear. For absolutely no reason shall freedom be given up. 2. Do not fall for incessant fear mongering. No, you won't die in a terror attack (extremely low probability anyways) so there is no need to give up freedom for security. 3. We the people are strength, not the government. 4. Be wary of propaganda and biased media. 5. If the time does ever come, have the strength to fight it, even when it means death.

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. - V

J Kuhl Signing Off

Terminal Security Administration

The TSA may as well be one of these guys. Security my ass, the TSA is more Gestapo than security. They don't make us safer, they just get in the way of law-abiding citizens.

Dammit, I'd rather be hijacked than deal with TSA anymore.

Just recently, the great TSA searched a disabled, wheel-chair bound woman. Seriously, is an 85 year old woman going to be any sort of a threat? What is going on with this country? Why is everyone so afraid of terrorism that they'll give up their freedoms for security? Its disgusting.

And why is the TSA a bunch of incompetent fools that don't do anything except get in the way? I don't feel safer. I'm in as much danger now as I was on 9-11-01. Even with all the security measures up, the terrorists will still find a way in. They ban guns? The terrorist brings a knife. They ban knives? The terrorist brings a CD and breaks it in half and uses the shard. They ban CD's? The terrorist whittles a toothbrush into a knife and smuggles it on board. They ban toothbrushes? The terrorist uses a ballpoint pen. They ban pens? The terrorist uses a pencil. They ban pencils? The terrorist finds something else to use as a weapon. Until we are naked and handcuffed to the seats, we won't be perfectly secure.

So what do we do? We get rid of the full body searches. We lessen the bans. No weapons or sharp objects obviously, but get rid of the asinine bans on harmless things like water and other liquids. No, they won't succeed in making a bomb in the bathroom. We keep the metal detectors but increase the efficiency so we don't wait three goddamn hours to get through. We add armed air marshalls to every flight. We make cockpit doors bulletproof and locked from the inside and give the pilots and flightmembers guns and self defense training.

Since we can't stop the terrorist from boarding the plane, we should rather plan to stop the terrorist once he's on the plane.

J Kuhl Signing Off

The Mailman

So today, I was sending out a credit card payment and I passed the mailman.



I'm sorry, I meant mail carrier.



I forgot I live in communist China and everything I say must not be "offensive" to anyone.

Wait, if this is China, why does everyone speak English and talk like hicks?

This is the United States of America. Freedom of speech. I have every right to say what I want the way I want, so long as it doesn't contain a threat.

Saying "mailman" is not threatening anyone or infringing on their rights.



Secondly, when I say "mailman," I am not saying it because I have this "hatred" against women and want to see them chained to a kitchen. I am saying "mailman" because I grew up with it meaning "the person who delivers the mail." I don't care if the mailman is a hot young blond woman, I will call her a mailman if I feel like it. It has nothing to do with her gender, its just what her job is titled; Mailman. I have nothing against saying "mail carrier." I'm just not used to such a term and I refuse to change my habits over a little detail that might be offensive to some cranky feminist moron.





Is Burger King ever going to change to Burger Leader?



Steve Colbert had it right on last nights show. The great thing about the United States of America is our right to say anything, even if it is indeed offensive.

Does the term "mailman" offend you? Too bad. First of all, it is a gender NEUTRAL term. Gee, "human" has the word MAN at the end! Should we go around calling ourselves homo sapiens? But then the ignorant homophobes will get upset over the word "homo." Secondly, we have the right to say it.

It is time that the extremist activist groups stopped using censorship to bandaid their problems and actually come up with a real solution. Arguing over how offensive termonology is will not fix your cause, it just covers it up. Rather, find out why your minority group (or what ever) is mistreated and work to fix the problem.

I dunno, campaign for equal wages for women or something.

But don't tell me to not say "mailman."

In other news, minorities again. I agree, every race, sex, ethnicity, etc of humankind should have equal rights and no race should have special rights.

And some of the minorities seem to want special rights.

I can understand how many of them feel repressed by the white majority, but it isn't fair to us for you to take more.

If I get sued for saying "Ni***r," then you should be sued for calling me "Cracker."

I've heard stories where minorities get picked for jobs because they are minorities, not because they are qualified. Now I have nothing against taking a qualified hispanic. But an unqualified hispanic does not deserve a job over a qualified white person. A qualified hispanic against a qualified white person, well that may be an issue. But between the two, it is quality that I would seek, not skintone or ethnicity.

Yes, there are morons who will go for the white person over a minority because they are prejudice but you can't lump every white guy as the bad guy and give the minorities special rights.

They should have equal rights. No more, no less. Ethnicity, sex, religion, race, etc, should not even enter the equation when considering rights.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it" -Unknown

J Kuhl Signing Off