Category: BullShit

Posted on

Not a “Hero”

kimdavis1

Kim Davis is not a hero, no matter what the religious right or ultra conservatives say.

She is a very narrow minded person who is a classic case of a person living in a glass house throwing stones.

She’s a hypocrite and spectacular failure at marriage, not to mention an adulteress and obvious fornicator, both I should point out were punished harshly under biblical law.

When she starts spouting about religion, and God, and all that stuff, all I can think is that she’s damn lucky she’s living in the United States now. Just a hundred years ago she’d have been in a much different circumstances. Even today if she where in the middle east she’d be stoned.

kimdavis2

Mrs. Davis is in jail for defiance of the law, and rightfully so.

She defied multiple court rulings and a direct order from the governor of the state. I argue that she should have been FIRED for failure to do her job and obstructing others in her office in the completion of their jobs.

Mrs. Davis as a public official is required to execute the lawful duties of her position. She can take vacation time to picket a law she doesn’t agree with. She can speak out against the law. She can hold prayer vigils, and light candles. She’s welcome to handle rattlesnakes and scorpions and spiders, while asking God to make the gay go away, for all I care.

kimdavis3

What she CANNOT do is pick and choose which laws she will obey. She’s not allowed to look at her job as a buffet.

As I was thinking about it,  I pictured that if Mrs. Davis were not the clerk, and instead the clerk had been a devout old school Catholic,  Mrs Davis wouldn’t have been issued a marriage license due to religious reasons.  Think about it, In the eyes of the church she wouldn’t be divorced unless her former marriage(s) were annulled.  Henry VIII had the same problem, the Catholic church’s refusal to grant him divorces resulted in several murders and the creation of the Church of England.

supremecourt

Had my hypothetical situation occurred, Mrs. Davis would have been screaming bloody murder about the violation of her legal rights, by a religious zealot. It’s doubtful that anyone would be rallying to a Catholic clerk jailed for refusal to issue marriage licenses to a known adulterous person. That whole religious argument cuts both ways. 

Neither Mrs Davis, or any of the other people across the nation, refusing to issue marriage licenses or perform their legal duties are heroic, they’re misguided hypocrites using religion to selectively deny a specific group of people the ability to enter into a contract. 

Yes! It’s a contract nothing more.

contract

The contract put simply says “We’re gonna share everything equally, if you die it’s all mine, if I die it’s all yours.” This contract is freely entered into, and broken thousands of times a day. There is nothing special or divine about it except the specialness the participants bring to their joining and that the state (the government) recognizes and enforces the financial aspects of the contract.

The state was essentially providing privileged status, (which was otherwise unavailable to non members of the class), to selected  members of the population. If that’s not segregationist and unfair I don’t know what is.

The minute GLBT soldiers were accepted in the military, the government had a problem. Two service people married in a state which allowed same sex marriage were entitled to survivors benefits. But if that couple was transferred to a state which did not recognize same sex marriage, what is their status then?

Can you prosecute under the UCMJ adultery in a state where to gay people aren’t legally married anymore? Does the military still pick up the tab for spousal healthcare? Are survivor benefits still payable?

whatmarriageis

The legal wrangling could have, and probably would have, gone on for years. The governments only logical choices were to forbid same sex relationship in the military, OR simply allow any two consenting adults to be married. The court decided in favor of the simplest, fairest, and most direct solution based on common sense.

We’re all equal under the law. Marriage is an important aspect of many people’s lives, we should all be allowed to participate equally in every aspect of our society.

If these hypocritical religious people were really smart, they’d be going to school to become wedding planners and divorce attorneys. I have a feeling these will be the next growth industries.

Fired

Since I started writing this I noticed that Mrs. Davis has doubled down on her stupidity. Now she’s asking the 6th circuit to exempt her from following the law and the governor’s orders.

Why the hell doesn’t someone relieve her of her JOB? That would spare her from all the pain to her soul and spare those of us who call the South Home, and specifically those of us who grew up in Kentucky continued embarrassment.

Posted on

Sometimes a DICK is just a DICK!

VirginiaJournalists

In the wake of the Virginia journalists shooting, a lot of people are looking for a “Reason” for Vester Flanagan’s behavior.

Some are saying it’s because he was bullied for being black.

Some say it’s because he’d been bullied for being gay.

Flanagan’s manifesto says he shot those people because he was bullied by black men and white women for being gay. He also claims that he did this in response to Dylan Roof’s shooting of 9 innocents in a church.

I say none of this stands up to scrutiny.

Flanagan appears to have regularly sought out conflict with his employers, co-workers, neighbors, and anyone else over ANYTHING he could possibly construe as a “slight”. He’d filed EEOC complaints at his former television stations and he’d been terminated, fired, dismissed, (whatever term you prefer) from both as well.  No-one is quite sure what he’d been doing recently.

I worked with a woman once who behaved exactly the same. She destroyed a number of careers and in the end, got promoted to a position where she could do no more harm. Maybe Flanagan was just trying to litigate his way into a cushy position or enough money to retire.

Hell, if I wanted to, I could paint several places I’ve worked as “Hostile” toward gay people, and even White People or Men. I’ll bet I could even get a payout from EEOC hearings for any number of infractions.  I don’t because I wouldn’t want to harm the genuinely good and decent people I’ve worked with who would be collateral damage in a “hostile workplace” kind of suit or investigation.

SickFucker

Yesterday watching the unfolding story I found myself asking, “What kind of asshole do you have to be, to have an ex-football playing straight cameraman take you to HR after working with you one time?”  

Wow! I mean I’ve personally witnessed one guy calling another a motherfucker in deadly seriousness and neither man went to HR about the conflict, (It used to be ok that guys would sometimes get amped up, and back in the day we usually resolved the problem without HR, lawyers, or fists.)

I can only imagine that Adam Ward, (the cameraman) felt that Flanagan was so far out of line that HR was his only option. I can tell you this, as a white male I’d think long and hard before I took a problem with a black person to HR. The odds are good that HR’s solution to the problem would be to fire me to fix the conflict. This is not a new phenomenon it’s been that way for the last 20 years.  There are some things you just don’t do as a white dude, unless you have witnesses and absolutely NO other choice. Even if you’re right, and you “win”, you’re still likely to end up at the top of the layoff list.

If you’re gay in this country, you better get used to “Faggot”.

I’m not saying it’s right but It’s worth noting that some comedy routines still contain jokes about gay people. Gays are still fair game as targets of ridicule and the butt of jokes. Some comedians are more noted for faggot jokes than others. My point is… “NEXT!”  Being picked on because you’re gay isn’t reason enough to kill yourself OR others, anymore than being male, female, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Canadian, or whatever the hell else you might be.

JustaDICK

Reports say that Flanagan purchased the gun legally. In other words he passed all the background checks, and waited the required cool down period in his state of residence. This morning politicians and antigun people were calling for more gun control and asking how this person was able to purchase a weapon.  The short answer is this;

You can’t take away someone’s 2nd amendment or any other constitutional rights just because they’re an asshole!

Flanagan didn’t kill Adam Ward and Alison Parker, because of any of the reasons he or others have claimed. He killed them because he was a twisted fucker who was looking for any excuse to justify a belief structure based on victimhood and revenge.

The bottom line is:

 Vester Flanagan was simply a DICK!

Posted on

After a while the insanity gets to me

CisforCisgender

The Urban Dictionary defines Cisgender;

“an adjective for someone whose gender corresponds to their assigned sex.”  As in “I am perfectly comfortable identifying as the gender my parents put on my birth certificate. I am cisgender.”

Okay, I’m good with that until other definitions of the word pop up and appear to have different meanings.

So is this a term that simply exists to allow transgendered, or transexuals a word to insult, demean, or shame, all the rest of us? Why the hell should I even have to think about this?

I must have missed the memo stating that I was either supposed to become a really ugly woman, or I was supposed to live my life apologizing for being normal.

…Or white, Or male, or American, or from the South, or, or, or or…

Screen Shot 2015 08 09 at 2 04 44 PM

I’m confused as hell as to why we have to create special terms that mean the same things as terms that are already extant and well understood.

However, since we’re about creating new terms, I’ve decided to add mine to the melee.

“CockNormal”

The condition of being male in gender and thinking, happy and proud of being male, pleased that one’s genitalia consists of a cock and balls, a shameless man-spreader. Of, or defining a man independent of the gender chosen with which to share their dick.

Screen Shot 2015 08 09 at 2 04 29 PM

This burbled to the top of my brain because a friend sent me an article describing gay folks who are calling for a boycott of the new movie “Stonewall”.

What got me was this

“The petition argues that white cisgender gay man Danny (Jeremy Irvine) is presented as the hero while other transgender and ethnic minority cast members appear secondary, despite being a crucial part of Stonewall’s history.”

What the hell is a gisgender gay white man?

Okay, yes I know what it is. But do we need to apply such a specific label?

How about “Gay white guy” How about “Pissed off Gay Dude”

Does anyone except transgendered people give a flying fuck about the guys gender identity?

Here’s a thought, YOUR gender confusion or angst is not MY problem. Furthermore I don’t need to have your terminology forced down my throat.

I miss the “good old days,” you know, when folks who had sex with their own gender were queer and everyone else wasn’t. (It should be noted, I don’t miss the days when people who had sex with their own gender were in asylums being subjected to “treatments” that would have given Josef Mengele the ‘willies’.)

Nowdays, I feel like I need a computer just to keep the terms straight… Can I use that term like that, or is that use demonizing someone?

 

Posted on

Can’t take it anymore…

IBM PC XT

I’ve been pointedly ignoring all the bullshit about Trump, the billion or so goofball Republican candidates, Megan Kelly (Who the hell is she?) And Hillary freakin Clinton.

I can’t remain silent anymore.

Hillary Clinton should be in Leavenworth, in a deep dark hole of a cell, shackled and awaiting trial. The FBI should have picked her happy ass up wherever the hell she was on the campaign trail the moment it was discovered that she had sent classified material over her private little server.

Hillarys Email Server

I’m not talking about material that has since been classified, or material that has been declassified, because there is no distinction. The business of the State department of the United States of America, should by default be considered Confidential if not Classified from the get-go. That’s why the United States has a whole bunch of Operational Security specialists, and requires employees and contractors to be re-certified in Operational Security every six months to a year, (Depending on the materials employees are handling,) just to keep it straight. And the rule of thumb is ASSUME a document is Classified and you’ll never go wrong. 

Classified

Which means this private email server should never have been allowed to exist. Innumerable agencies within the government who are charged with maintaining the security of the United States had to know about this server, its location, and its security status. They were told to “ignore it” because… why?

If I’d done what Hillary did… I’d be lucky to be sitting in Leavenworth. I think it’s more likely I’d have been sent someplace really nasty, provided the government didn’t put me on trial for treason then shoot me.

Leavenworth Penitentiary

I don’t think treason can be proven but the government tends to “over charge” in this kind of litigation because they want to make sure you don’t get off on a technicality.

One only has to look at the case of Aaron Swartz as example.  

Aaron Swartz

Swartz was simply making academic articles available via a P2P network from JSTOR and the issue had been settled between JSTOR and Swartz when the Federal Government stepped in.  Once involved, the Feds slapped Swartz with 13 criminal charges carrying a potential 35 years in prison and 1 million in fines. The case was pending when Swartz killed himself. By the way, most if not all, of the information Swartz distributed, was free, and still is today. I think the majority of Swartz’s crime was that he used the P2P distribution system to bypass JSTOR’s requirement for you to be a registered subscriber. I’m not clear on if he was costing JSTOR money.

So here we have a guy who’s maybe costing someone a little cash.

Hillary Clinton

Then we have Hillary who, for her own convenience hired a company that appears to have been unvetted by the US government, whose employees were apparently not subject to background security checks, to set up a server outside the control of the US government, handling Classified material and emails from one of the highest levels of the US government.

As the onion got peeled Hillary denied that classified emails were on the server. (Turns out there were classified emails on the server.) Hillary then said SHE decided what was important to turn over to the government, and deleted the rest of the information. Uhh that’s not how this works ma’am.  Now we’re finding out that the security of the server is in question. (Was there encryption? Who had physical access to the machine?)

Hillary Clinton

Hummm. IS IT JUST ME?

I thought rules and the law were supposed to apply equally to everyone. Yet here we have a clear example of someone who is not only above the law and social constructs, but they are still running a campaign to become President!

For God’s sake people, we’ve burned other politicians down for far less.

It’s well past time to force Hillary out of the Presidential Race.

This is not the kind of elitism we need in our government. We don’t need another liar in the White House. We don’t need yet another person in office who doesn’t understand and obey the rules.

I admit, I look forward to Hillary’s arrest for Contempt of Congress. That will be a day to be watching CSPAN.

 

Posted on

I don’t think that means what you think that means…

NewImage

I’ve been reading the various articles about the “ Social Justice” push to have confederate monuments “removed from public view.”

My views on Social Justice have changed over the years. In the words of Inego Montoya from The Princess Bride; 

Inego

“I don’t think that means what you think that means…”

When I was first on the Social Justice bandwagon I had a simplistic view. I thought it was about justice for everyone and that we all were supposed to have equal access in all things. Additionally, we were supposed to respect each other’s rights and beliefs. Someone’s beliefs were to be protected just as surely as their right to speak because the two were inexorably intertwined.

egalitarian

It was incumbent on the observer to listen OR NOT, however, we were all supposed to defend each other’s right to speak, be heard, or believe whatever we wanted to believe, no matter how wrong headed or outlandish what was being said might have been.

Naively I believed that the end goal of Social Justice was a completely egalitarian society were all of us rose or fell in accordance with the level of our abilities and work.

bellcurve

Very lazy or stupid people fell, very clever or lucky people rose, and those of us in the middle ground could look forward to having nice lives, families, and retirements. In my world view the wealthy weren’t evil, they were incentive. Inherent in my view was that even the wealthy could and sometimes did fall, just as clever people (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs) rose.

My belief was that no-one in this great nation should have a child go hungry, and everyone should be contributing. I thought that even the lower bounds of society could and should contribute and be compensated for their contributions. I’d happily feed the homeless guy who’s picking up trash on a city street. (In fact I still do that today. Someone in need who has pride enough to be concerned about where we all live will get a meal, or two, and / or a ride from me.)

Medieval Torture Devices

This was a simple concept, and for me, very easy to incorporate into my world view.

Then it started to get mean. My fellow Justice warriors weren’t all that interested in balance. They seemed only interested in retribution.  After all, what you may consider “Just” the people on the receiving end of your “Just Cause” may view as a loss of their rights and freedoms. Many of the Social Justice warriors, then and now, were more than willing to impose their will on others without mercy, because after all, Social Justice was “RIGHT”.

I began to have serious problems with Social Justice when I saw that the same “Sins” the Social Justice crowd railed against, being perpetuated by the SJ crowd. The only difference was that the “SJ Warriors” had picked new targets, and that made it all okay.

Today, in the name of Social Justice we’ll shame people, we’ll fire them, we’ll destroy their careers at the drop of a hat, and even if the reasons for “Punishing” someone turn out to be unfounded, our society never looks back and never even tries to repair the damage.

NewImage

Some Social Justice pundits seem to have the opinion, “They (The target du jour) deserved what they got. If not this time, then for all the times they got away with it.”

Remember the La Cross team in North Carolina? How about the Fraternity that was closed due to false gang rape allegations?

NAACP

Which leads to the current madness of removing confederate monuments. There are two contenders for the “Most insane / inane” award.  The leader in this category is the push in Memphis to dig up Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest’s grave. A close second is Al Sharpton and the NAACP demanding that Stone Mountain monument in Georgia be sandblasted from the side of the mountain. I ask myself how the hell is any of this behavior different from ISIS blowing up Palmyra, or The Taliban blowing up the reclining Buddha’s? The short answer is there’s not one whit of difference.

eyeball

The Bible says something like;  “If thine eye offends thee, Pluck it out.”

That passage says nothing about gouging something YOU find offensive, out of the side of a mountain. It says nothing about gouging everyone else’s eyes out, and in truth isn’t saying pluck out your own eye either.  It’s saying take responsibility for yourself and don’t look at something if it offends you.

Bible

True social justice would be making these monuments about teaching. Teaching that these monuments are built to honor people deserving of respect because they stood up for what they believed in. Then explain why they were wrong, and the horrible losses on both sides of a conflict that should have been avoided. Let these monuments serve their intended function, to remind us that deep divisions within our nation lead to very sad, dark places.

I’d take up the social justice banner again if the movement was about doing things better but these days, Social Justice is about cracking an offensive egg with the 20LB sledgehammer of punishment.

Go ahead, argue with me! I’ve got DIRT on all of you; what I don’t have I’ll make up!

That’s how we do things these days isn’t it?