Anti-Peacenik

Dumb-Dumb Quote of the Day

2010-01-28T14:55:00.000-08:00

I came across this thread a few minutes ago http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7594997 and ... my god, people are dumb.

Poster says: "Some douche from 'The Free Enterprise Nation' is whining that gov't workers are paid too much. Total average compensation for government workers is over $100k and for private workers it's $57k. So what? Did they factor for things like education, training, and length of time on the job? Conservatives just shouldn't be allowed near numbers. Period."

Um, ok. My first question is: did this poster factor for these things? Meaning, did she (presumably a she, because of her avatar) do any math? I'd be interested to see the findings from that, and see how she arrived at her conclusions. If not (and it seems like not) why the hell is she even talking? How does she know "the douche" didn't do his math? (Admittedly, it sounds likely to be skewed. Averages are stunningly misleading. But still.)

While I have no personal opinion at this time (having done no math myself) about whether government workers are paid too much, I hate to see logic destroyed. Hate it. The fact is that the government, like any big organization, wastes a lot of money. The difference is that, whereas large corporations are run by just a few people at the top, the government is run by .. who? Everyone. At least in theory, "we the people" have the power.

So whoever the "douche" is, he's taking an excellent first step by pointing out an area where he thinks money is being wasted. Somebody, apparently not our charming poster, could take an excellent next step by doing a little math to see if he's right. I think a careful approach could yield a fairly good, unbiased answer.

Bottom line: I really, really hate to see logic abused. I also hate to see all conservatives lumped together and given the same label. That is very uncool.

Float My Boat

2009-09-07T16:33:00.000-07:00

Okay, it's Labor Day. What's on television? Booze ban. Some time ago, most San Diego beaches banned alcohol from their shores. Those who are in favor of this action say that the atmosphere is now more family-friendly, and that it has solved the problem of large parties getting out of control. Those who oppose it wonder why, oh why, they can no longer just sip a cold one on the sand.
Here's the thing. The authorities don't really care about alcohol, per se, just the wild partying and fights. So, why can't they just do their job and arrest people who create a disturbance? Why do we need one more law, one more rule to tell us what we can't do?
We don't. In this case, the rule is particularly inappropriate because it targets everyone instead of only the offenders. On the surface, it appears to "work". Remember Prohibition? Granted, it never even appeared to work, but the principle is the same. Take away their alcohol, and they will hate you. Whether they deserve to have it taken away (because they are the minority who will start rowdy fights on the beach) or not (because they are like most people who just want to enjoy a cold beer on a hot day), they will hate you, and they will take action. Just wait.
Bottom line: if the ban doesn't come down, the time might soon come for organized protest. Government, off my toes.

I Want To Be a Woman Dragon When I Grow Up!

2009-04-06T11:17:00.000-07:00

Recently I picked up a copy of the "San Diego Reader". The cover story was called, "Hello, my Gender is Bunny", or something similar. It was interesting enough, and the -- very -- interesting subject matter was tastefully covered by the reporter. It seems the subject of the story is trying to begin a male-to-female transgender process, and in the meantime imagines itself to be a dragon.

So why the outcry in the next week's Reader? In any periodical publication I've ever read, I've never seen so many comments on one story. What were they all about?

The reporter refused to refer to the subject of the story in female pronouns.

Since the subject is objectively male, I couldn't help but wonder what the problem was. In reading the comments, I discovered that they feel the reporter was being disrespectful and should have complied with the man/woman/dragon's request to be referred to as a she.

Is one really the ultimate judge of one's own sexual association? One of the comments stated that, "If [the subject of the story] wanted to be referred to as Latino and not Hispanic, it would have been unspeakably rude not to do so. [The same applies to his/her/its preferred gender]." (My paraphrase)

Hmmm. Is one really the ultimate judge of one's own ethnicity, either? There are things which are appropriately called "unchangeables", including sex, ethnicity, family, parentage, and times of birth and death. The male/female/dragon can't choose for himself like he was ordering lunch. That's just not the way it works. He can, obviously, refer to himself however he wants to. He can think of himself as whatever he wants to. But it seems unjust to try to force another person to call him what he objectively is not. (Think about it ... couldn't that have been just a bit uncomfortable ...? Poor reporter guy.)

Bottom line: body parts don't lie. Get this down, commenters, since you may have flunked out in sixth grade.

The Tub O' Lard at the End of the Rainbow

2008-07-22T19:49:00.000-07:00

At Disneyland, USA, you'll find go-karts near the entrance. They are intended for use by disabled guests to ease their access to the parks. That noble goal helps to keep Disneyland "the happiest place on earth" for everybody. Some of the carts, though, seem to be a little . . . large. Funny, 'cos so do the guests who use them.

It's time for ever-broadening America to realize that "fat" is not a disability. It's a nuisance. They people who ride those carts have to transfer every time they enter an attraction, which takes time. Which means more people wait longer in line. And if the guest is particularly rotund, they make sitting near them uncomfortable at best and repulsive in general. (Note: if you are only slightly overweight, have a disease limiting your mobility, or are pregnant, I'm not talking about you.) I once saw a guest who was stuck fast after his ride was over and had to be prised out by cast members. It took ten minutes to unload that train, rather than the thirty seconds it should take.

There are more problems with "fatness". If a fat person rides a city bus, he or she takes up two seats. With a seated walker, a wheelchair, or a personal shopping cart, he or she takes up four. But guess what: they paid for only one. And if they're over sixty, or have managed to invent a disability, they've paid for only half of one. And for every seat they take, one more person has to stand. Maybe we should all gain 300 lbs so we can get our money's worth, too. (Once again, if you have a genuine disability which requires you to use a wheelchair, I am not talking about you.)

Bottom line: use your imagination: what happens when a scarcity is created? The prices go up. Fat people are effectively driving up fares.

Drive My Car

2008-07-22T19:33:00.000-07:00

The largest number of automobile accidents are the fault of young drivers. Everybody knows that, courtesy of the federal government. But what about the second largest -- senior citizens? We never hear anything about them. Although more laws go into effect every year limiting the rights and privileges of young drivers, the concern with the elderly driving has remained largely unaddressed.

Currently (at least in CA), there is no maximum age to drive or to be licensed. There is a (slightly) more frequent renewal requirement, and a few unenforced advisories to elderly drivers and their families. Conversely, young drivers find themselves having to weigh the benefits of driving against the time, the trouble, and the hassle it takes them. Besides that, youth pay insurance premiums heavy enough to break them -- or their parents.

The main problem with teen drivers is their inexperience. For most elderly drivers, the main problem is failing health. Eyesight, hearing, judgment, reflexes, and mental capacity (e.g. memory) all start failing after a certain point -- which can be as early as 35! Additionally, many older adults take prescription medications, which can further impair driving ability. There's no "zero tolerance" for old people!

If the government is not afraid to dish it out to teens, they shouldn't hesitate to give it to grandparents -- or anyone else who needs it. Limit the hours they drive. Require more rigorous and frequent testing. Insist on regular doctor reports and medical examinations to keep a license. Set zero tolerance laws: prescription medications can be every bit as dangerous as alcohol. And nothing says old people don't drink!

Bottom line: respect for the elderly doesn't mean ignoring the problems they create. Respect them on the sidewalk, and insist that they earn the right to be respected on the street.

Happy and ... Gay

2008-07-12T11:18:00.000-07:00

Not too long ago a San Diego newspaper ran a story about an usher at a ballgame who asked two lesbians to stop kissing, because they were disturbing some other fans. They were quite offended at this request. One comment published discussed how "everyday events can become traumatizing, because people think they have to stare or say something." (my paraphrase)

What the hell is wrong with these people? Trauma? Because somebody stares at you? Get over it. If you are going to do something that could possibly be considered offensive or even just unusual, you had better grow a thicker skin in a hurry. No, being stared at does not cause trauma. No.

If you want people to like you and accept you, stop making such a fuss over every little thing. Remember that saw about flies and vinegar? You'll catch more with honey. Same principle applies.

Bottom line: get a freakin' life!