Tuesday, January 29, 2013

some reruns are worse than others

via imao, also:
Why you might ask does our “Great Leader” want to disarm the populace? Why does the idea of people with AR-15 bother him so? For the same reason an armed citizenry bothered Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chavez and Hitler. When one is poised on the edge of the greatest power grab since, well ever, one must make sure the populace doesn’t have the means to fight back. One also wants to make sure that the army, which is made up of good people, doesn’t have to make the decision between the elected officials and their fellow citizens. It is questionable whether or not members of the armed forces would fire upon fellow citizens. If however he can confiscate enough weapons from the legal owners only the police, military and criminals will have guns. He will be declaring open season on America. People will not be able to protect themselves against the government and its parasites.
read the rest

Saturday, January 26, 2013

a better ban

rather than banning defensive weapons, why don't we ban violent assault movies?

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

it's only fair

gormogons via imao:
Fair is fair. The media have declared the Second Amendment ineffective. We get it.

But guns are only half the problem, right? Someone has to pull the trigger. So in the same spirit that the media are looking out for our best interests, the Czar would now propose that we look out for the media’s best interests...

1. The media want to ban assault weapons. Okay, then we propose banning “incitement reporting.” The term is just as nebulous, but basically will cover all reporting of mass shooting, sensationalized reporting of criminal activities, breaking news stories designed to provoke fear and insecurity. For example, doing a biographical piece on a mass shooter gives him the fame and attention he sought but was denied in life. And thus it appears, we know now, to inspire the next mass shooter to do the same. If a news agency reports on the shooter’s name, speculates on his political affiliation, his motivations, his former life, where he got the guns, and so on, that’s $10,000 in fines and up to 5 years in prison. After all, we are here to protect the children from the next guy.

2. The media want to limit magazines to five rounds or less. In fairness, the media will be restricted to five seconds per story. After all, that ought to be enough. And yeah, you could just change topics and get another five seconds and defeat the point, but if you can’t cover the story in five seconds, maybe you’re a crazed nutjob who dwells on unpleasant topics. And something oughta be done to stop you.

3. The media want to eliminate semiautomatic weapons. After all, there is nothing more dangerous than having a spring reload your weapon with the next bullet even if means you have to consciously pull the trigger to fire that next bullet. The point is you are letting the tool do some of the work for you. In response, the media can no longer use the internet to research or source a story. From now on, reporters need to manually fact-check stories with primary sources only, and rely on no automation whatsoever... even though using the web isn’t fully automated, but you get the idea. It makes it too easy to misreport something.

4. The media believe certain highly-effective calibers must be eliminated because they could inspire people to violence. Likewise, we suggest that the media no longer report on certain topics, such as Hollywood celebrities (which could inspire people to greedy narcissism), sex crimes (because they could inspire people to commit rapes), popular technology (because it forces sociopathic...hey, you know what? You can figure this out for yourself!). In fact, there will be no reporting on entertainment news, sports, weather, traffic, politics, or anything outside simple, harmless vanilla topics like local news, lost dogs, kittens rescued from trees, and other feel-good topics.

5. The media think that the public should rely on police for home protection, and not firearms. In trade, the media will no longer rely on reporters to report news in a timely and accurate fashion, but must call a third-party to travel from wherever they are to the scene, gather the pertinent facts, and then issue a report back the next day or so which must then be fact-checked in accordance with item 3, above. This seems inefficient and even stupid, but reporters should not be trusted to get anything right, especially when someone they don’t know who might be miles away can do it just as easily. For the most part. If everything goes right, that is.

6. The media suggest all guns and even ammunition should be registered with a federal authority. Sure, and the media shall therefore register all news stories with a federal authority prior to receiving permission to print them. Yes, this will be a slow, pointless, and laborious process—and one that will clearly indicate which person compiled the story, who specifically wrote it, who the editor was, who approved the story for transmission, and who formatted or typeset or prepared the story the recipient saw. Names and addresses and phone numbers. Because that won’t ever be abused by the public.

Of course, media types would read this and lose their lunch over how stupid these suggestions are: how trivial, insulting, and off-the-mark they are. Each one of these is ludicrous, will do no benefit for the public, and will be nothing but foolishness. Exactly. Don’t like it, do ya?
i also propose a class-action lawsuit be filed against the manufacturers of stories that inspire copycat killers.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

enemies at home and abroad

indirectly linked from instapundit
Democracy depends on an independent, investigative, even "adversarial" press. Without the disinfectant of sunshine, corruption runs rampant in the halls of power...

While the trend toward corrupt, self-dealing statists buying a permanent voting majority with other people's money has been in place a long time, the collaboration of America's once proud press is stunning and new.

The print and broadcast media still dominate the national dialogue, and have succeeded in downplaying to outright non-coverage of everything damning to the Obama regime. It's as if Woodward and Bernstein helped Nixon cover up Watergate, and outed and smeared Deep Throat as a subversive crank.

Consider the economy. Remember the relentless drumbeat of "recession," "hardship," and "struggling families" stories during the George Bush I re-election campaign? We got none of that during the Obama re-election, despite the economy being much worse now than in 1992.

How about Benghazi? The incompetence, utter disregard for American lives, and cover-up should have been the final nail in Obama's re-election campaign, a Jimmy Carter foreign policy disaster after four years of a Jimmy Carter economy. But the media were more interested in criticizing Romney's statement on Benghazi than covering what actually happened.

Fast and furious, Black Panthers, warrantless wiretapping, drone strikes... the list goes on and on. How much did you hear about those in the mainstream media and how much would you have heard if a Republican were in office?

Journalists have always been left-leaning as a group and overwhelmingly always vote Democrat. But even when Journolist-ing, though they were using unethical tactics to manipulate an election, they could at least rationalize it by the notion that they were opposing those currently in power, i.e. a truly "adversarial" press. Now that their guy is entrenched in power, they no longer have that fig leaf.

Journalism didn't just die. It went to work for the enemy.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

made up words

believe it or not, a friend of mine helped me write a perl program to generate words* like the ones dustbury found in his spam folder - so i had at least as much fun coming up with some definitions for them as he did:
  • "viscent" - n. - a small coin minted in honor of a viscount.
  • "simposconcia" - n. - the practice of electing morons to positions of leadership.
  • "gramazing" - adj. - in a manner that elicits wonder in cows.
  • "reextruch" - v. - a medical term for the action of giving yourself leg cramps
  • "matempendully" - adj. - in a manner similar to the flabby upper arms of a maternal ancestor.
  • "recroutratess" - n. - a woman who serves seconds at a german restaurant.
and two of them are proper names.
  • "disgroonesset" is the name of a massachusetts island, derived from the algonquin words for "fever and vomiting".
  • "squero" is a vehicle produced by a pontiac-scion joint venture.

* as a phonotactic experiment related to conlangs, not for spam.

Friday, January 11, 2013

a country run by idiots

found in a forum (edited)
You know a country is run by idiots when you can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally.

You know a country is run by idiots when the government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more of our money.

You know a country is run by idiots when a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for calling his teacher "cute" but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable.

You know a country is run by idiots when children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of "underprivileged" drug addicts are left to rot in filth infested cesspools.

You know a country is run by idiots when working class Americans pay for their own health care (and the health care of everyone else) while unmarried women are free to have child after child on the "State's" dime while never being held responsible for their own choices.

You know a country is run by idiots when hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid and subsidized housing, and free cell phones.

You know a country is run by idiots when the government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks (to not work).

You know a country is run by idiots when being self-sufficient is considered a threat to the government.

You know a country is run by idiots when politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the constitution is really protecting the rights of the people.

You know a country is run by idiots when the rights of the Government come before the rights of the individual.

You know a country is run by idiots when parents believe the State is responsible for providing for their children.

You know a country is run by idiots when being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you "safe".

You know a country is run by idiots when you have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to get an abortion.

You know a country is run by idiots when an 80 year old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a Muslim woman in a burka is only subject to having her neck and head searched.

You know a country is run by idiots when using the "N" word is considered "hate speech" but writing and singing songs about raping women and killing cops is considered "art".

You know a country is plagued with idiocy when they vote in those kinds of idiots.

Friday, January 04, 2013

al gore jazeera

i'm guessing that al jazeera made this purchase to rid themselves of their pro-America image...


edit: i promise, i did not see this imao post before i wrote this one.

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

sick sad world

it's difficult, but necessary, to remember
in light of
this, and