Tue 18 January 2011 5:03 AM
Gun Control
I'm sick of these opportunistic douche bags (both left and right) crying about the shooting in Tucson, AZ last week. Lone gunmen and shooting sprees are the Fred Phelps of the 2nd Amendment. Admit that interpreting the militia to be individual citizens is in direct conflict with a safe, non-violent society or roll with the occasional bloodbath and shut the fuck up.
Wed 12 January 2011 6:58 PM
Political Correctness
I shared a link from the ACLU website the other day on Facebook. The link talked about some Republican nitwit in Iowa (I think) who wants to repeal portions of the 14th Amendment because Mexicanz are in ur backyardz stealing ur jobz.
I didn't expect anything to come of it because wingnuts wasting time trying to steal rights from American citizens is so obviously "bad" that it should have been uncontroversial.
Well, it wasn't and one of my "friends" foamed at the mouth that she was sick of this PC stuff and doesn't want to support "them" anymore. Wading through her inability to form a coherent argument and her imprecations against the wrong group of brown people (she hates illegal aliens but the article was talking about the children of illegal aliens who are born in the United States - in other words Americans), I have a hard time seeing what political correctness has to do with this issue. Political correctness is parochial censorship from self-righteous mouth-breathers who want us all to avoid offending thin-skinned cocksuckers (like when some trisomic cunt leaves her Fortress of Dumbitude in Alaska to visit the normal parts of the United States (i.e., where the cities are) to insist that people stop using the word 'retarded').
The only thing I can figure is that my friend suspects being racist isn't PC (which I guess it isn't) and she's sick and tired of having to hold in her hatred for browner people. Still, lost in all her mouthfoam is the fact that no one who claims to hold to the ideal of liberty and justice for all should think it's a good idea to take away the rights of certain Americans based on who their parents are, but, sadly, there are people (like these Teabagger shitheads) who do.
I didn't expect anything to come of it because wingnuts wasting time trying to steal rights from American citizens is so obviously "bad" that it should have been uncontroversial.
Well, it wasn't and one of my "friends" foamed at the mouth that she was sick of this PC stuff and doesn't want to support "them" anymore. Wading through her inability to form a coherent argument and her imprecations against the wrong group of brown people (she hates illegal aliens but the article was talking about the children of illegal aliens who are born in the United States - in other words Americans), I have a hard time seeing what political correctness has to do with this issue. Political correctness is parochial censorship from self-righteous mouth-breathers who want us all to avoid offending thin-skinned cocksuckers (like when some trisomic cunt leaves her Fortress of Dumbitude in Alaska to visit the normal parts of the United States (i.e., where the cities are) to insist that people stop using the word 'retarded').
The only thing I can figure is that my friend suspects being racist isn't PC (which I guess it isn't) and she's sick and tired of having to hold in her hatred for browner people. Still, lost in all her mouthfoam is the fact that no one who claims to hold to the ideal of liberty and justice for all should think it's a good idea to take away the rights of certain Americans based on who their parents are, but, sadly, there are people (like these Teabagger shitheads) who do.
Sun 2 January 2011 1:18 AM
Yes and No
Modern parenting article from FT Magazine, by Katie Roiphe
I find myself so wanting to wholeheartedly agree with everything the author says in this critique of yuppie, hipster parentdom, but I can't quite get myself to blurt out "Amen!" because while she is railing against particular practices I find ridiculous (overly obsessive childproofing that seeks to remove all sharp edges and hard surfaces) or harmful (hand sanitizer and not allowing children to play in dirt), she is also arguing against the core idea that parental behavior (specifically, parental slacking) isn't likely to have a deleterious effect on a child.
The notion that there is one study that found that drinking alcohol or smoking crack doesn't leave detectable marks on the children studied by some arbitrary developmental milestone (say by age 2 or age 5 or age 10) kind of misses the point that subjecting a fetus to poison in utero for the sake of the mother getting her freak on is child abusish. The fact that we can't notice it in the noise of 1000 children sampled at random X years after the crime seems (to me) beside the point.
The author praises the "benign neglect" of her middle to upper class childhood during the 1970s and 80s, but is oblivious (apparently) of how much parental work was needed to create an environment where she could safely cavort with other children in the absence of direct parental involvement for a couple of hours while her mother got drunk (while she was ex utero, I might add). I've always considered my parenting style rather laid back and I don't even know what "Dwell" or "Oeuf" is, but maybe I'm part of the problem this author is complaining about and the words hit too close to home.
Still, hipsters are ghey.
I find myself so wanting to wholeheartedly agree with everything the author says in this critique of yuppie, hipster parentdom, but I can't quite get myself to blurt out "Amen!" because while she is railing against particular practices I find ridiculous (overly obsessive childproofing that seeks to remove all sharp edges and hard surfaces) or harmful (hand sanitizer and not allowing children to play in dirt), she is also arguing against the core idea that parental behavior (specifically, parental slacking) isn't likely to have a deleterious effect on a child.
The notion that there is one study that found that drinking alcohol or smoking crack doesn't leave detectable marks on the children studied by some arbitrary developmental milestone (say by age 2 or age 5 or age 10) kind of misses the point that subjecting a fetus to poison in utero for the sake of the mother getting her freak on is child abusish. The fact that we can't notice it in the noise of 1000 children sampled at random X years after the crime seems (to me) beside the point.
The author praises the "benign neglect" of her middle to upper class childhood during the 1970s and 80s, but is oblivious (apparently) of how much parental work was needed to create an environment where she could safely cavort with other children in the absence of direct parental involvement for a couple of hours while her mother got drunk (while she was ex utero, I might add). I've always considered my parenting style rather laid back and I don't even know what "Dwell" or "Oeuf" is, but maybe I'm part of the problem this author is complaining about and the words hit too close to home.
Still, hipsters are ghey.
Sidebar
