aubreyturner.org

Off to the range to cull the herd of paper targets.  It’s a welcome relief after the way this week has gone.

It’s too bad every day can’t be range day (which is why one of my long-term goals is to have my own land with enough space for my own private range).

It appears that some people are taking the “terror” warnings seriously.  At the Denton Wal-Mart last night I observed a number of people with carts full of bottled water and the shelves were nearly completely empty.  This was a bit annoying, since I was there to replenish my own supply (but not because of the alert).  I drink a lot of bottled water, primarily because of the convenience, but also because of concerns about the water supply.  Denton gets its water from Lake Lewisville, which is one of the busiest lakes in the country for boaters.  Until MTBE goes away, I’ll stick to bottled water.  Anyhow, I tend to go through 6 to 8 bottles a day (with the added benefit that I’m less likely to develop clots in the legs since I have to get up all the time ).  But I digress.

I’m getting kind of tired of how these alerts are dubbed as “terror” alerts by the media.  I’m not afraid of these Islamic nutbags and I’m certainly not terrorized by them.  I think my general state is more of aggravated annoyance, with a hint of anger.  Maybe we could start calling them “annoying Islamofascist dipwit” alerts.

And as for the duct-tape and plastic nonsense, I didn’t bother to even consider that recomendation to be serious.  If you sealed your house well enough to keep out chemical agents, you’d suffocate.  And if the gas (or spores or whatever) is already at your house, it’s too damn late to be putting up plastic.

I’ve been boiling over this one all day, ever since a friend forwarded me an email alert about Texas House Bill 194, which is currently assigned to the Juvenile Justice & Family Issues Committee.  This steaming pile of excrement was filed by Pasadena-area (a suburb of Houston) Republican Representative Robert Talton.

Let us examine HB194 (text current as of today, use link for updates):

By:  Talton                H.B. No. 194

            A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

                        AN ACT

relating to disqualifying certain persons from serving as foster parents. 

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

    SECTION 1.  Subchapter B, Chapter 264, Family Code, is
amended by adding Section 264.1062 to read as follows:

    Sec. 264.1062.  FOSTER PARENT DISQUALIFICATION.  (a)  The department shall inquire of an applicant who is applying to serve as a foster parent or of a foster parent whose performance is being evaluated whether the applicant or foster parent is homosexual or bisexual.

    (b)  If the answer to the inquiry required by Subsection (a)
is affirmative, the department is prohibited from:

        (1)  allowing the applicant to serve as a foster parent; or

        (2)  placing a child or allowing a child to remain in foster care with the foster parent whose performance is being evaluated.

    (c)  Notwithstanding a negative answer to the inquiry required by Subsection (a), if the department determines after a reasonable investigation that an applicant who is applying to serve as a foster parent or a foster parent whose performance is being evaluated is homosexual or bisexual, the department is prohibited from:

        (1)  allowing the applicant to serve as a foster parent; or

        (2)  placing a child or allowing a child to remain in foster care with the foster parent whose performance is being evaluated.

    SECTION 2.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2003.             

Short, direct, and to the point.  At least Rep. Talton is up-front about his bigotry.  And yes, that’s exactly what it is.  If we were to take this bill and substitute Black or Hispanic or Jewish for “homosexual or bisexual” would it still be acceptable?  Hell, NO!  This is the same kind of overworn, rehashed crap about homosexuals and pedophilia that these nutbags have been peddling for years.

This is not an issue about so-called “special rights” either (damn I hate that phrase).  I do not claim that adoption of foster children is a right.  I’m approaching this issue from that of state-sponsored discrimination against a segment of society.  If Rep. Talton were running a private adoption service and had this policy, I would think him a damn bloody fool for doing it, and I would complain about it, but I would recognize his right to do so.  However, government must deal with all citizens equally.  Such discrimination by government is simply not acceptable nor is it compatible with a supposedly free society.  If we allow the government to discriminate in this fashion, where does it end?  Where do we draw the line?  What group is next? 

You may be saying to yourself that this doesn’t affect me.  Why should I care?  Or you may even be mightily pissed off at me for protesting this if you agree with Rep. Talton.  But if we allow government to usurp the power to make these kinds of decisions there will eventually come a time when your own ox is gored.  What if there comes a day when Christians are a minority and are falsely associated with some socially taboo crime, like child molestation?  Who will stand up for you when someone proposes a bill that prevents Christians from adopting foster children?  Those who support this bill definitely won’t have a leg to stand on at that point and those who currently face discrimination certainly won’t be interested in defending the new minority.

Now, allow me to fire a salvo directly into the heart of the Republican party.  This is exactly the kind of crap that makes me nervous about Republicans.  Just when I think you’ve overcome your old bad habits, something like this pops up again.  If you’re really interested in projecting the image of being “compassionate conservatives”, you’ll excise this cancer from your midst.  I’ve voted for some of you, but it’s been grudging at best.  If this kind of nonsense continues I will vote exclusively Libertarian or I won’t vote at all.  And don’t bother to bleat that this will effectively give a vote to the Democrats.  As I’ve said before, Republicans are not entitled to my vote.

I’m really pissed off about this one.  My gay and lesbian friends are human beings, not some kind of disease that is to be feared and shunned.  I may not be able to convince other citizens of that, and they’re entitled to their opinions (no matter how wrong).  I will fight to the death for their right to speak their minds.  But I will also fight them to the death over any attempt to implement the ideas that they are espousing.

Note:  The issue of fitness of homosexuals and bisexuals as parents cannot be addressed at the group level.  Fitness can only be determined for individuals, which is why foster parents are interviewed and investigated to determine their fitness.  I will not entertain arguments about pedophilia or child molestation.  As far as I am concerned that is uninformed prejudice of the worst sort and not worthy of being addressed.  Am I stifling dissent?  Guilty as charged.  But then this is my forum.  If you disagree, you’re welcome to do so on your own site.

Penultimate Note: I suppose some people think that this is about the children, but the above bill carries the implication that current foster parents who are homosexual or bisexual will have their children removed.  How does it help the children to rip them away from their current parents after all they’ve been through?

Final Note: I don’t support legislation that singles out any one group for any particular reason and I strongly believe in the right of free association.  So I happen to oppose this bill, no matter how fraught with good intentions it may be.

Update:  Fixed some typos above.

Update 2:  I should clarify that my thoughts on the equivalence of race and sexual orientation are based on the idea that a person’s sexual orientation is not a choice.  I realize that in some cases people do choose a sexual orientation for various reasons.  However, that does not make the case that all homosexuals do so.  It has been my general experience that it is not a choice.  Purposefully treating a segment of the population differently because of an inherent characteristic is discimination.

Damn!  The stupid train has left the station and these people are the conductors.

I’ve grown weary of this nonsense.  I often wish there were a device that would remove the stupid from the planet.  Bah.

I’m too damn tired to rant about it, but Rachel Lucas has a few choice words for these dipwits.

Bear with me, as my mind works in strange ways and sometimes in my more feverish moments I may overreach.  But two separate posts on different sites have created an unexpected neural connection (kind of like scratching a dog’s belly connects to his leg).

First, there was this post from Emperor Misha I that got me to thinking about hate crime laws:

For now, we’re happy to announce that Henry Earl Dunn, received on Death Row on 10/11/95 for the brutal murder of 23-year-old Nicholus West, was sent off to roast in Hell this past Thursday night.

Mr. West was shot several times by Mr. Dunn with a .357 for the “offense” of being gay.

It’s interesting to note that there was a tremendous furor over passing a hate crime law when James Bird Jr. was killed in Jasper, TX.  The Democrats tried to capitalize on the killing in their advertising against President Bush when he was running for office.  What no one seemed to notice was that all but one of these mutant killers were given the death penalty.  And the case that Misha mentions is also from Texas.

I am of mixed ancestry.  My mother is Hispanic and my father was white (he was of mixed European and American Indian ancestry).  While I have a white name, I still have brown skin and dark hair.  While I will be the first to admit that I’ve never experienced the level of racial animus that many blacks have, I have nonetheless experienced some.  Regardless of this, I would never want to be in the situation where an attack on me is treated differently than an attack on anyone else.  I refuse to trade on minority status for preferred treatment in anything.  I’ve never done it and I never will.  If I can’t compete for something on my own merits, I don’t want it (nor would I deserve it).  This is why I oppose hate crime laws (and affirmative action, quotas, and any other such schemes as well).

On the practical level they do nothing other than making the politicians feel good.  Who really thinks that someone who is so far gone as to drag someone behind a truck would give a rat’s ass about a hate crime law?  They’ve already commited murder.

It’s also possible that these kinds of laws will engender a false sense of security in some people, leading them to drop their guards.  I think that the most effective remedy for hate crimes would be if people finally stood up and said, “Enough!”  If enough of these bastards get shot and/or killed trying to kill minorities or bash gays the problem would begin to take care of itself.  We don’t need any more laws.  We just need to stand up and exercise our rights.  And it’s the exercise of rights that leads me to the next thing I read today.

I saw this comment over at Alphecca.  I’m going to quote it, because Jeff’s site doesn’t have comments with the articles.

02/08/03
“I am disgusted that as a queer you would be happy that shrub and his oil cronies now control congress. Every right we enjoy was given to us by the Democrats. You’re the idiot and your website is idiotic.”
  —Julius R.

Let me repeat part of that for emphasis: Every right we enjoy was given to us by the Democrats.  I’m always saddened when I see a horribly uninformed statement like this.  While I realize that the commenter was referring to gay rights, I think it points out a systemic problem we’re seeing more and more in our society.  Too many people today think that rights are “given” to the people by government.  Once again, the complete and utter failure of our public indoctrination centers (did I say that?  I guess I should have been PC and said “schools”) to teach even the tiniest thing about our Constitution and our form of government is evident.  Rights implicitly belong to the people.  We are not required to squat and lick the boots of some bureaucrat or politician to obtain them.  If government has encroached on our rights, then we must stand up and demand their return.

Where I see this connecting to hate crimes laws is in how some people seem to implicitly think that government is the only solution to all problems.  Simply passing a law will make the problem go away and government is the source of all rights.  I abhor this attitude and everything it stands for.  It both enrages and saddens me to see people squandering the legacy of freedom we were given by this country’s founders.

Now this is the right way to handle the next September 11.  If it involves shooting I’m all over it.

Thanks to the Bitter Bitch for the link.

Pejman Yousefzadeh thinks that Condoleezza Rice would make a strong candidate for President in 2008.  From all that I’ve heard this may be true.  Her credentials are certainly good, although she isn’t a politician.  I know that other politicians will make hay of this, but that doesn’t disqualify her (and it might give her an edge with parts of the population).  However, my evaluation of all candidates eventually comes down to one issue.  Those who know me will immediately know what that is.  It all comes down to guns.  Where a candidate stands on the issue of guns tells a lot about their political philosophy. 

While I may not embrace all of his anarcho-capitalist ideas, L. Neil Smith still speaks for me on this topic.  This is from a short essay of his entitled, “Why Did it Have to be … Guns?”:

Over the past 30 years, I’ve been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I’ve thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn’t true. What I’ve chosen, in a world where there’s never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

So, call me a single-issue voter if you will.  I don’t mind.  But there’s a lot more to it, as noted above.

I was digging around in my email folders looking for something and came across this rant.  I didn’t write it.  I originally encountered it on Slashdot a while back and sent it to some people in an email.  It was originally written by someone named Andy Walton in a Usenet flamewar concerning how Usenet was administered.  Someone made the comment that “Freedom without responsibility is no freedom at all.”  Which is a familiar refrain that we often hear from those who would trap us in the straitjacket of regulation to the point that all we have is responsibility and no freedom.  To which Mr. Walton had this reply:

And responsibility without freedom is not responsibility at all.  Totalitarian control of human beings means the death of responsibility, as everyone is “just following orders.”

<engage rant mode>

I would rather be a brain-dead junkie in a gutter with a sticky copy of Hustler as a result of my OWN stupidity than a clean and well-fed automaton in a tiki-taki house with my actions dictated by you or another self-anointed earthly representative of God’s Will ((C), All Rights Reserved). I want to run through parking lots like a lunatic, fall and scrape my knees. I want to color outside the lines. I want to cover myself with lime Jello and run down the street shouting random lines from Finnegan’s Wake (are there any non-random lines in Finnegan’s Wake?). If I want to smack my skull against the wall, damn it, it’s my skull and my wall. If I want to sing the Leave it to Beaver theme in Esperanto while whacking off with topless pictures of Sandra Bernhart and standing ankle-deep in a galvanized steel tub full of Kraft Honey Dijon salad dressing, that’s none of your business.

And if this means that I’ll be shot as an anarchist when the revolution comes, so be it; I’d rather have the worm-eaten stench of a private tomb than the prim, sterile, chrome-lined common tomb which people like you want to make of the Earth. And when they decide that you’re not quite orthodox enough, I’ll save you the next spot over up against the wall.

<rant mode off>

Clear enough?

That’s got to be one of best rants of all time.  It takes a truly sick and twisted individual to come up with that whole Leave it to Beaver/Esperanto/Sandra Bernhart thing.

I have to admit that my brain works in strange ways.  I often set out to do one thing and end up with something completely different.  The tiniest thing will often send me off on a tangent.  Once I read that rant I forgot what I was originally looking for.  It’s sort of the electronic equivalent of going into a room and forgetting why you’re there.  Oh well, I guess it’ll come to me one of these days.

The EU has become so absurd that it is now impossible to parody them.  Check this nonsense:

The European Commission has certainly “gone to work on an egg”. Its latest requirement is that farmers must stamp every egg they sell with their home address, the details of the hen which laid the egg, the method of production, the code for the producer-packer, and a sell-by date (News, Feb 7) (registration required).

One would think that the method of production would be obvious, but maybe they know something we don’t.

As an early adopter of DVDs I’ve been pleased by the progress they’ve made in the past few years.  It’s reached the point where most video stores now have all the new releases on DVD and no major studio would dream of releasing only on tape.  I will now only rent or buy movies on DVD.

The unfortunate downside of this, though, is that the DVD format is not as robust as VHS in the rental market.  DVDs are susceptible to scratches and because of their higher data densities are more sensitive than CDs to this problem.  I’ve always taken great pains to avoid scratches and fingerprints on my CDs and DVDs.  I only handle them by the edges when possible (and in the truck, where I have a front-loading CD player, I tend to only use copies rather than originals to avoid permanent damage from scratches to the original).  Unfortunately, it appears that a lot of people are not as careful as I am. 

I mention this because a friend recommended Requiem For A Dream a couple of weeks ago.  I rented it yesterday and tried to watch it last night.  I got through most of it, but there were several times where my DVD player froze and had to jump ahead to get past a bad spot on the disc.  When I took it out and looked at the data side of the disc it looked like someone had hit it with a belt sander.  That or they’d been using it as a hockey puck on a concrete surface.

Anyhow, I just wish people would exercise a little common sense and remember to be kind to the next person who gets that DVD.  It’s a simple thing to just put the disc back in its case when it’s not being used.