Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Conservatives hate poor people

Why are conservatives so mean? Did their mothers not hug them enough? Did the pretty girl reject them for the prom?

Facebook, that great bastion of collegial activism, has a new feature this election season called “Campaign Issues.” This feature allows users to declare their political support for, and to unite behind, critical and devisive campaign issues, whether it be “Gay Marriage” or “Affirmative Action in the NBA”. One such issue is entitled “liberalism is a mental disorder and requires immediate vacination.” In case you don’t have a facebook account, here’s the description:

Sick of all the liberals in Massachusetts and elsewhere? Join this group if your tired of hearing the following:
1. That Bush is the real terrorist, and that the muslim fundementalists that are at fault for wanting to kill us... well they're simply "a product of their environment" AKA it is the US's fault they all want to kill Americans
2. listening to people bitch about how we should do absolutely nothing to those responsible for 9/11 but instead send them lemon cakes, give them big warm hugs, and in time.... IN TIME... ask for THEIR forgiveness
3. being told by liberals that we are in Iraq for oil when the price of oil before the war was less than $20 a barrel, while we are currently paying $70 a barrel, as of today. Set up an inequality for those 2 numbers you dumb shits.
4. Listening to people have a shit attack about how some murdering terrorist is being 'tortured' by being forced to remain in a prison where the temperature is 'uncomfortably high.' Yet in reponse to the Americans being beheaded over there, they think that it is merely America's own fault. YEEE
5. Hearing that torture of terrorists is inhuman and that it doesnt matter if slappin' some guy around a little bit would save the lives of say... 3,000 people?
6. Listening to people bitch about how President Bush cheated his way into presidency twice. Not once, but twice! Its what... 6 years after the fact? For once in your life stop complaining and get a day job.
7. Listening to liberals bitch about criminals civil rights being violated. For instance, the man convicted of rape who was given PROBATION, no jail time at all. What about the sick and twisted guy who kills his entire family... can't be his fault, he must be mentally ill... why dont we coddle him for a few years and throw him back into society. Great plan. Or, for example the illegal immigrants who try getting free tuition to our schooling systems and try leaching money out of country that they ILLEGALLY entered.
8. And Lastly, and probably the best, is how liberals and those Michael Moore lovers seem to bitch about how this country 'sucks' how 'europe is so much better.' It's okay to burn the American flag because its freedom of speech? really? How about you people go to any other country in a world and see how their government tolerates your freedom of speech. have a nice vacation free loaders!
Take a shit or get off the pot you pussy liberals.

First of all, I assume they meant that liberalism requires a vacCination. I know, I know, some people think I’m the Grammar Police. But really, if you’re going to rant about how stupid the opposing side is, you should dazzle us with your own superior knowledge by, at the very least, utilizing proper spelling. In fact, the entire description is riddled with grammar errors in the same way Richard Nixon’s body was riddled with phlebitis.

As you can see, most of the rants are what might loosely be described as "polarized" and reflect a poor understanding, if one at all, of the tenants of liberalism. For example, on point #2, I haven’t heard too many liberals bitch about how we should do “absolutely nothing to those responsible for 9/11,” and I certainly haven’t heard the proposition that “we should send them lemon cakes”…especially since sending them lemon cakes would, in fact, be doing something to those responsible for 9/11.

Some of the rants also seem to be founded on a poor knowledge of both American and world politics. Probably the best example is, well “probably the best”: “how liberals and those Michael Moore lovers seem to bitch about how this country 'sucks' how 'europe is so much better.' It's okay to burn the American flag because its freedom of speech? really? How about you people go to any other country in a [the?] world and see how their government tolerates your freedom of speech. have a nice vacation free loaders!” We’ll bypass the whole poli sci arguments on flag-burning (and the Supreme Court’s rulings on this issue) and jump right to the point that countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK all permit flag-burning. So on my way north to Canada to dodge the draft, purchase pharmaceutical drugs, and get a gay marriage I’ll be sure to note the manner in which they tolerate my freedom of speech.

But mostly I want to draw attention to this assertion: “being told by liberals that we are in Iraq for oil when the price of oil before the war was less than $20 a barrel, while we are currently paying $70 a barrel, as of today. Set up an inequality for those 2 numbers you dumb shits.

Did we go to war for oil? I don’t think so. I certainly don’t think it was the primary impetus. I think this is all just a throwback to the Cold War mentality. There’s evidence indicating that following the collapse of Mother Russia Wolfowitz and Cheney began preparing a strategy to maintain U.S. dominance on the world stage, and an Iraq war was near the beginning of their strategy. I think the Bushies saw Saddam as the primary threat to U.S. safety and felt it was their duty to take him out. Whether I’m wrong or right, I don’t think Iraq should have been the country of choice for invasion, since Iran is probably a greater threat to U.S. safety and certainly has more oil.

But it’s certainly no dazzling display of an argumentative checkmate to say we couldn’t POSSILBY be in Iraq for oil since the price of oil has gone UP. Just because something opposite of what you wanted occurs doesn't mean you lacked the original want. The conservative justifications for the Iraq invasion support this. The Republicans say we went into Iraq to stop torture, when a UN report states torture has gone UP. The Republicans says we went into Iraq to decrease the threat of terrorism, when a US intelligence report indicates that the war in Iraq has INCREASED terrorism. In fact, it seems anytime something goes right in Iraq, it must be a result OPPOSITE of what the Bush administration intended.

Really, I am just getting tired of this. “Liberalism is a mental disorder.” “Conservatives hate poor people.” Sensationalism isn’t cute anymore. Yes, we have disagreements in this country, and yes, they need to be addressed. But not like this. It’s time to get something done.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Ann Coulter is a traitor to America: Laws schmaws

I was reading Ann Coulter’s column this morning, because I have a chronic aversion to low blood-pressure (an aversion this piece of shit laptop thankfully helps me maintain). I swear, she must be on the GOP payroll, because when in doubt on national security she always pivots to the same strategy: blame Bill Clinton.

“The first month Clinton was in office,” Ann laments, “Islamic terrorists with suspected links to al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center. For the first time ever, a terrorist act against America was treated not as a matter of national security, but exclusively as a simple criminal offense. The individual bombers were tried in a criminal court.” Of course, she’s not really concerned that “terrorist acts against America” are treated as “simple criminal offenses.” She never, for example, rallies against the Clintonian response to the Unabomber or Oklahoma City. The terrorists in those attacks, after all, didn’t have brown skin or say the word “jihad.” No, her real concern is that “ISLAMIC terrorist acts against America” not be treated as “simple criminal offenses.” Good white Christian folk don’t commit crimes.

Clinton couldn’t do anything right at the tail-end of his term, either. “In October 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 sailors and nearly sinking the ship. Clinton did nothing,” resorting to what Ann denounces as “classic Democrat excuses.” Janet Reno, for example, “thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it.” I ask you, what kind of a sissy is against something they think might violate international law? The Geneva what? Or how about that wuss George Tenet, who “wanted more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack”? George Tenet and his stupid “proof.” We all saw what happened the LAST time George wanted definitive proof before responding to a terrorist regime. Honestly, I don’t mind so much that Republicans have made some blunders on the national security issue; what I mind is their complete refusal to admit that such concerns as “international law” and “proof” might be valid reasons to reconsider a counter-response.

The only way Bill Clinton’s national security policy could have satisfied Ann, it seems, would have been complete omniscience on his part. “Despite the Democrats' current claim that only the capture of Osama bin Laden will magically end terrorism forever, Clinton turned down Sudan's offer to hand us bin Laden in 1996….Clinton refused the handover of bin Laden because — he said in taped remarks on Feb. 15, 2002 — ‘(bin Laden) had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him.’ Luckily, after 9/11, we can get him on that trespassing charge.” In Ann Coulter’s mind, Bill was somehow supposed to prosecute bin Laden on the foreknowledge that he would eventually commit a terrorist attack against the U.S.—the American legal system of course being built around the philosophy of prosecuting people for acts they might commit at some future date. George Bush gets a memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack the U.S.” and goes guilt-free when aforementioned attack occurs a month later; but Clinton is culpable for not prosecuting someone who wouldn’t attack our country for another two years? How about the fact that under Reagan the CIA supplied big bad Saddam Hussein with intelligence, economic aid, and, oh yeah, ANTHRAX? Any culpability for lack of foreknowledge there?

Monday, September 18, 2006

Beauty or a beast?



I don't like this commercial. It's the one where Maria Sharapova is heading to the US Open and everyone around her is singing "I Feel Pretty" until Maria gets on the court and slams an ace. The message, of course, is that Maria isn't just a pretty face; she's a dominating force on the court. This would be a lot more impressive, though, if she actually WAS a dominating force on the court. Don't get me wrong, she's obviously quite good, but she's only won two Grand Slams in three years (and one of those was just last month). Granted, that's two more than I've won (or is it?) but then, I'm not starring in international commercials about how awesome I am at tennis. The great irony, of course, is that the reason she's popular - the reason she's in the Nike commercial - isn't because of her tennis prowess; it is, in fact, because she's "oh so pretty." The only accolade she's won consistently is Maxim's Hottest Female Athlete of the Year.

I'll admit, though, I'm completely inconsistent on this, since it used to annoy me whenever people said that Anna Kournikova sucked at tennis and the only reason she was famous was because she was hot. Eh. She was no Bille Jean, but she didn't SUCK. She dominated the doubles circuit, and at one point she was ranked #8 in the world. She was better than all but seven women at tennis. How many of us will ever be better than all but seven people at anything? For myself, I dominate at backgammon/

Sunday, September 17, 2006

I have to go PP

Here's a video from Yahoo. It shows a gentleman parallel parking off a U-Turn. It'd be a lot cooler if I hadn't seen the exact same trick on the Internet six years ago, but I actually want to draw your attention to the comment from "kollanil": "perfect parking...hope one day my wife gets it right too..without any insurance claims." HAHAHAHA! I love sexist humor, too, so whenever I encounter a topic about driving, I also immediately pivet to a "women can't drive" joke. They're always popular, never excessive, and unerringly sequitur. I hope one day his wife leaves him...with alimony.

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Anything you can do I can do better

The facts are in: men are smarter than women. Do I give a shit? No. Who cares if men have higher IQ averages than women? What are we going to do with this information? I mean, really, I guess it's nice to know that the "boy crisis" doesn't mean that all boys are in fact idiots (although Judith Warner thinks the "boy crisis" is just a myth, anyway, perpetuated by rich mothers of stupid children) but this information won't really help advance our civilization. This whole issue just serves to further divide the sexes. There are some smart men and some smart women; can't we just leave it at that and all get along?

Personally, I think the idea of an IQ test is pretty stupid. This is an odd phenomenon of our society, the desire to measure and compare and rank ourselves. I really don't think intelligence is something that can be "measured." That being said, I am pretty tired of all these people who claim these study results are the product of bias towards white European men. That's right, everytime women or minorities do poorly on a standardized test it must be because the system is stacked against them. How much longer am I going to have to tolerate this parroted line? "It's not that women are stupid, it's the test!" Of course it's the test. It's always the damn test. Rather than being defensive about it, how about just blowing it off.?Let's even say it's true: men have higher IQs than women. Who gives a shit?

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

OCI fall fashions

Every year during OCIs I have to suffer through yet another cadre of guys who are apparently dressing in "business attire" for the first time and don't fully know what the phrase means. So I'm going to help you all out. First of all, guys, when you go to an interview, your pants, your shoes, your socks, they should all be the SAME COLOR. I don't want to see brown shoes with black pants, and I don't want to see navy socks with khaki pants and brown shoes. ALL. THE. SAME. COLOR.

"I Want To Work At Dorsey Because I Had a Traumatic Experience With Sleep When I Was Younger" writes: "What if I don't have a pair of shoes that match my pants?" That's a good question. The "experts" (...) differ as to what you should do in those situations. Some say you should match your socks with your pants so as to make your legs look longer. Personally I already look lanky enough, but you shouldn't have asked me that question anyway because WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING wearing some funky colored suit to a law firm interview? Navy or black; navy or black. Nobody likes your plaid gray suit, and though it does appropriately reek of the "I'm a douchebag" attitude that firms like Dorsey are probably looking for, on your first try it's probably better to go conventional.

Today I saw a student who featured a delightful tan ensemble. Tan suit. Tan shirt. Tan tie. Why would you do this? Are you trying to stand out, be a unique snowflake? You think the interviewer won't remember you, so you'll make a splash by dressing like lawyer-on-safari? Don't do this. Be a unique snowflake by exercising your personality. Again, though, it's probable personalities are frowned upon at the likes of Dorsey. Maybe recite your title of choice from the US code instead.

Point #2: Do not, do not, DO NOT wear funky-colored shirts. I agree with Anonymouse Lawyer: shirts come in two colors. White. And blue. I don't care what your J Crew catalogue tells you. There is no other dress shirt color. Those other color tabs are a ruse. A trap. They're designed to separate the men from the boys, and to take your money while doing it. Don't fall for it. Lavender doesn't exist, and lime green is a myth perpetuated by the liberal left to save the sky. White. And blue. If you get really bored you can combine the best of both worlds with white-and-blue stripes, but I don't recommend it. White. And blue. If you wanted to dress like you had personality, you should have worked in a GAP commercial.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

2 Legit 2 be a 2L

I don't know what it is, and I know it's irrational on my part, but something about the 2Ls is really annoying me this year. Not the 1Ls. The 1Ls are so cute, wandering around with a wondrous and aimless look in their eyes as they clutch their laptops and cluster in little study groups in the library. But those damn 2Ls. SO ANNOYING. I really can't point to anything definitive, which is probably a testiment to aforementioned irrationality on my part, but they are really bugging me.

Monday, September 11, 2006

On the day after

I suppose I should say something about the five-year anniversary about 9/11. But really, I don't care. I just don't. I did enjoy watching Sherri Palmer as Condileeza Rice on that ABC movie last night, though. She's like a version of Condi I'd actually do. And Stephen Root as Richard Clarke. I'm not saying he's a version of Clarke I'd actually do, I'm saying I enjoyed watching him.

But 9/11. Really don't care. Maybe because it was five years ago. The earth has rotated around the sun five full times since that day. Zippity-do-da. I also don't particularly care about birthdays, either, so at least I'm consistent. Maybe I'd feel different if I hadn't had 9/11 jammed down my throat for the past five years. I'm sick of 9/11. "On 9/11 this, on 9/11 that." Change the subject, already! You probably think I'm talking about the Bush Administration right now. I'm not. I'm talking about you, and your sister, and every ass-clown American who thought a candle-light vigil on the night of 9/11 was some great testament to American solidarity. Why did we do that? So we could act like, at that moment at least, we gave a shit? Nevermind the fact that five years later we're once again completely divided by our partisan bickering. Abortion is baby-killing versus getting our laws off your body. Cutting-and-running versus bringing freedom to the Middle-East. A nation where everyone recognizes Dennis Haysbert and not Dennis Hastert. So what did we really learn from 9/11? Nothing. We learned that we're one nation indivisible up to the point where we actually have to ACT like one nation indivisible. Thank you, 9/11. On this day we remember your legacy.

Friday, September 08, 2006

The Supreme Court is staffed by morons: An historical perspective

Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)

Justice Holmes, dissenting:

"A patriot might think we were wasting money on aeroplanes, or making more cannon of a certain kind than we needed, and might advocate curtailment with success, yet even if it turned out that the curtailment hindered and was thought by other minds to have been obviously likely to hinder the United States in the prosecution of the war, no one would hold such conduct a crime...I do not doubt for a moment that by the same reasoning that would justify punishing persuasion to murder, the United States constitutionally may punish speech that produces OR IS INTENDED TO PRODUCE a clear and imminent danger that it will bring about forthwith certain substantive evils that the United States constitutionally may seek ro prevent."

So, in case you weren't sure, speech can be punished when it produces OR IS INTENDED TO PRODUCE a clear and imminent danger...unless, of course, the speaker is a patriot who doesn't intend to produce the danger, in which case he can't be punished. I lasted three days before descending back into a bad mood.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Only the penitent man shall rant

The past month wasn't a fluke. I suppose I should say I'd grown sick of blogging generally and my blog in particular, but the truth is I'd actually grown sick of my blog generally and other peoples' blogs in particular. And I'd decided to let my blog go the way of the Dodo, or maybe the way of justice in our legal system (which is in the same direction as the Dodo, in case you found my metaphor klutzy and weren't sure what I was driving at). But I checked the ole webcounter the other day and I see that some of you just check this stupid thing SO DAMN FAITHFULLY, so this Bud's for you.

What's with crazy religious people on public campuses (campi?)? It's like I can't walk across the East Bank campus - and I'm being serious here, not on some anti-religion ranting rampage - I can't walk across the East Bank campus without being handed a free mini-Bible* or being accosted by someone who asks me, "Would you like to discuss our Lord Jesus Christ?" No I would not. In fact, what particular quality am I currently exuding that makes you think I have any interest in discussing our Lord Jesus Christ? Is it something I'm doing? Whatever it is, please let me know so I can stop doing it right now. I thought the eternal scowl I wield whenever traversing from Point A to Point B would have made my stance on random discussions clear, but apparently I was wrong. Is it the glasses? Do the glasses make you think that I'm the kind of person who enjoys intellectual discourse, in whatever shapes and sizes I can get it in? Glasses can be deceiving.

* Interestingly, I also can't walk across the East Bank campus without being accosted by a giant soda cup who offers me a coupon for $2 off at Quiznos. So, apparently, the Word of God = a cheap hoagie.

Like today, there was a young black man dressed and pressed in his Sunday best, and I didn't really pay attention to what he was saying, but he was standing next to a sign that read, "The Bible says: Christ is your only savior, all other religions are false." The Bible says, the Bible says. Really, when are people going to stop this nonsense? The Lord of the Rings says that on his eleventy-first birthday Bilbo Baggins had a party of special magnificence, but I don't really think it's true.

I also don't understand why people gather round trying to engage these guys in some sort of point-counterpoint discussion. What is it about a person who spends his days standing around and sporting signage to the effect that anyone who doesn't immediately and unequivocally convert to his way of thinking is doomed to eternal damnation...what is about this situation that makes you think rational debate will win the day?

And it's not just at UMinn. I was in East Lansing a couple weeks ago, and I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since it's been pretty-well documented that Michigan State is an inferior institution in just about every way imaginable, but once again, there was a young black man, ranting about the Bible and wearing a t-shirt that said "All Homos Go To Hell" and "No Homos Go To Heaven." I suppose I could have been humored by the irony, since folks were saying similar things about his ilk in not-too-distant memory, but I was more perplexed by a troubling paradox. You see....

IF all homos go to Hell
AND all dogs go to Heaven
WHERE do gay dogs go?

Makes you think.