MSNBC could serve a useful function

if they were willing to let go of the daily racialist division that appears to currently be their money maker.

I doubt they will change, as such an approach appears to be profitable in various media outlets (racialist radio is stunning in its consistently divisive racialism) but, assuming they are decent people trying to do good things in this world and this life, they might be better able to sleep at night by focusing more on promoting success stories rather than desperately seeking out every perceived slight and magnifying it to present a false sense of importance in the minds of the audience (and by doing so, in fact damaging the ability of the audience to succeed rather than helping it).

It's just like terrorism.

You're not going to die from a terrorist. Trust me.

You're going to die from something else.

I promise you.

But if you watch coverage of a terrorist attack every day for the rest of your life, you'll be convinced that the threat is greater than it is, and you'll spend an inordinate amount of your time worrying about that threat rather than focusing on things that are far more likely to impact you... things which you may have some possibility of "doing something about".

Fact.

Call me racist if you'd like, but...

I just called Seagate support and spoke with a real live American rep who spoke English as a first language and who understood the words I was saying and didn't have to speak like a robot in order to function... and it was everything I ever dreamed it could be.

The issue hasn't been completely resolved as of yet, but assuming it is after the return phone call, for this reason alone I will continue to work with Seagate.

So go ahead... call me racist if you'd like.

I don't care.

Because I know you call lots of people racist for lots of dumb reasons.

Or "xenophobic" if that's your preferred term. I still don't care.

Willing to kill and die for attention

Pay attention to your kids. And, preferably, be sane.

Greenwald seems to be playing both sides

He complains about the use of the term "terrorism" when describing the marathon bombings, and particularly the tendency to use the term in situations where the actors are Muslim, since the term wasn't used in other mass killings like Aurora and Sandy Hook, while also appearing to make the case that we should pay attention to the claims that the marathon bombings were done (as is the stated case with many attacks, specifically by Muslims) as a response to American foreign policy.

So it comes off as "I'm going to complain about this no matter what happens... cuz I need to complain and I have an agenda that must be forced onto this situation one way or another."

I would like to see him come out and declare that he believes the description of terrorism does apply here, while it did not in the other cases. So essentially I want him to express a mea culpa.

Lindsey Graham is a coward

Let the record show.

Update: Graham says the older brother went to Dagestan, "one of the most radical parts of Chexnya"

LMMFAO

Clearly the difference

is that the expressed motivations in specific cases were "religious" in nature, and

there is a movement involving a sizable number of people of that religion focused strictly on the task of establishing a political reality known as an "Islamic Caliphate" across various regions of the world, and

the individuals in that movement publicly express their desires, including their support for the use of terrorism against innocent civilians, via various forms of media.

that's the difference. duh.

there is no sizable movement believing that people in a Batman movie should be murdered, or that Gabbie Giffords was particularly rude to Jared Loughner and therefore deserving of being shot in the head, and all those visiting with her at a political event, worthy of being shot dead.

no, it's not all Muslims. <<--- retard point for retards to retard about and feel good about having covered. "there, we covered the issue". aye yaye yaye.

yes, there are many peaceful Muslims.

if you want to have a useful conversation, here are some points to address:

do certain sects of Muslims believe in using violence to force their religion as a political system onto others?
do they believe in using violence against civilians as part of that process?
do they encourage others to engage in the use of violence against civilians in order to counter what they perceive as religious persecution against their faith?
are they retarded enough to think that violence is justified when someone makes a cartoon involving their prophet?

most importantly, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

if you're avoiding the above topics, you are intentionally avoiding the important parts of the issue, most likely either out of fear of the reality, or out of a desire to maintain ratings by never resolving any important issues, in which case you're a fucking parasite and deserve to be blanket beaten until you limp home crying.

It is true

that every resident of the affected area would have been not only justified, but RIGHT to want to arm themselves in order to be able to defend themselves should the terrorists happen upon them.

It was not an argument against gun rights, it was exactly an argument for them.

Michael Bloomberg turned out to be a real

douche.

The 7/11 Robbery

a ridiculously, statistically impossible coincidence? or a miscategorization amidst the fog of the situation? i assume the latter. i assume it was misreported as a robbery somewhere along the chain. it probably simply referred to the carjacking.

if it was robbed within minutes of their being there, it would be a lottery-winning-esque coincidence.

One of the most disgusting dynamics in the world

is watching one individual adapt their own thoughts and/or statements and/or actions to conform to the sentiments they believe those around them want to hear... when the topic being discussed is important.

It apparently applies to the individuals involved in this attack (based on published reports), and it most certainly applies to most of those blabbering about in media outlets.

So all the video was kept secret

and the "professionals" were given the opportunity to review that hidden evidence, and so, since they noticed certain individuals via that hidden evidence, that somehow proves that "crowdsourcing" couldn't have been valuable, had the "crowd" been given access to the same evidence?

Self-serving illogic.

If the public had access to all the video (video taken by PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS for their own PRIVATE PURPOSES which they VOLUNTARILY PROVIDED TO THE GOVERNMENT when it SEEMED REASONABLE TO THEM), the case would have been solved more quickly, but that doesn't lend itself to an increased police presence, and to increased overtime pay, and so that solution is not desirable. It's that simple. We're all in it for ourselves. Freedom allows the largest number of people to work "for themselves" towards the same goal. Everything else is a distasteful appropriation of credit amongst a smaller group of individuals who happen to be paid via funds forcefully acquired from everyone else.

That's the only difference.

Fuck you, Deval.

Fuck you, everyone who fails to understand this.

I'm not sure who hates American freedom more...

terrorists, or Peter King and Lindsey Graham.

I don't agree with

having weight benches in prison, nor do I agree with providing Muslim terrorists with Qurans, or the opportunity to read Qurans provided by others.

I think they should be provided with whatever the fuck we feel like providing them with (like cartoons mocking Mohammed). Or nothing at all. That includes if/when they are being led to their state-sponsored deaths. Perhaps provide a Muslim with a Christian priest. I might be ok with that.

I have a hard time understanding why

the public safety wasn't best served by releasing all applicable video around the bomb scene as soon as possible, even if you had to block out some of the victims.

I'm a little annoyed at the desire of certain government actors to appropriate responsibility for the resolution of the situation specifically to "professionals". I'm inclined to want to toss a "fuck you" the way of anyone who takes such an approach.

Might we have saved another life by immediately publicly releasing the video showing the placing of the bombs and the reaction of the bombers? Rather than keeping that video accessible only to those "professionals"?

I think we might have.

I sure do.

Update: Plus, of course, he wasn't found until people were free to go about their lives again, essentially leveraging the eyeballs of millions of "non-professionals", which directly resulted in finding him. I didn't take issue with the decision to shut the city down, and I give credit for the realization that such an approach could not continue for more than a day. I think they are defensible decisions, and I think you could even argue that the lack of targets plus the extended, exhausting time period may have also saved lives. But you could also argue that he'd have been caught more quickly without such a heavy-handed approach, and when I see people excluding this possibility in favor of promoting their own broader philosophical agenda (government "professionals" good, civilians bad), I get pretty fucking annoyed.

"They were losers"

It will never be said more effectively or succinctly.

Jealous, bitter losers.

Nothing more.

Obama proposes 10 MPH federal speed limit

No?

Does he not want to save lives? I mean it *would* save lives, right? Lots of lives? So why doesn't he support such a measure? Is he beholden to the automobile industry?

The Objectivity Unicorn

I'm ENRAGED that I haven't seen the Objectivity Unicorn!!!

How DARE the Objectivity Unicorn refuse to be seen!!!!

I blame that group of human beings over there for not showing me the Objectivity Unicorn!!!

Why come they can get away with hiding the Objectivity Unicorn??!!??

Resumption of sports games definitely helps.

Feels more normal already. Sports are serving exactly the purpose they were intended to serve. I'm glad they didn't cancel any more games. It's providing a wonderful escape. I shall be seeking out such escapes more often going forward. Thanks to all the organizations and participants who sent messages of goodwill.

New resolution

I'm going to try not to read comments sections anymore.

I'm going to try not to absorb news media more than once or twice per day.

I'm going to try to put much more time and effort into productive activities.

I'm going to better myself by limiting my exposure to those who serve no useful purpose in my life.

I'm going to leave the masses and the crazies to their time-wasting, tribal herdishness and insanity.

I'm going to protect my well-being by limiting my exposure.

I'm responsible only for me, my thoughts, my beliefs, my actions, and no one else's.

I am, as of this moment, truly free.

Evolutionarily Speaking

following the herd has many obvious advantages.

Just not intellectual ones.

Einstein was wrong.

The most powerful force in the world is not compound interest.

The most powerful force in the world is confirmation bias.

I Simply Can Not Believe

how quickly, calmly, and selflessly some people can head towards a bomb explosion rather than away.

I can't even comprehend it.

Heroism of the highest order.

God bless them and God bless the victims and their families.

On Being Hurtful

Even though I am a proponent and practitioner of being as honest as possible, I am going to *try* not to say things that are intentionally "hurtful" to others going forward because of the words I recently read of the most brilliant blogger I've ever come across. Unfortunately, sometimes hurtful words seem most appropriate, and certainly serve to convey the sentiments I am intending to express. They also tend to catapult propaganda more effectively. It will be up to me to decide if the sentiments themselves are legitimate, defensible, and/or "desirable", or if they are negativities I should work to eliminate from my life. I suspect I will go back and forth on that forever, basically depending on the kind of day I am having. I'm not a very strong person in that regard.

But I admit that my motivations for "intentionally hurting another" through words come most often from fairly negative places that serve fairly destructive roles in my own life. I can certainly justify the practice in certain contexts (aside: why does it seem like the same word (certainly in this case) often finds its way multiple times into a single sentence and then proves too difficult to remove and replace without altering the meaning of the sentence beyond repair? frustrating result of a limited vocabulary and decision to never read any of my summer reading books, I guess), as can anyone who believes in one's right to self-defense. When others are engaging in pursuits designed to encroach upon my life and my freedom and doing so based on what I believe to be fundamentally ridiculous premises, ESPECIALLY while doing so in an aggressive, "intentionally hurtful" manner themselves, a response-in-kind feels justified.

Perhaps that is a limitation of my maturation process, or perhaps that's just one of those realities of life. I don't know, but either way I will be more aware of my response going forward and will attempt to reduce the instances of "intentionally hurtful" behavior, if only as a tribute to the unnamed blogger referenced above.

"European American"

The term wouldn't provide much useful information, would it?

It would imply a rather nebulous "bond" among people who most likely have little to nothing in common with each other other than perhaps the color of their skin... if even that. It also most likely groups together various factions including groups who engaged in slavery and genocide amongst each other.

LOL

I guess I am a "European American" just like the French.. and Germans... and Spanish... and Portuguese... and Italians... and Irish... and Scottish... and English..... etc..

Ridiculous collectivist retardation.

I find the use of the term "African American" to be similarly completely useless and, in fact, embarrassing. I am embarrassed for any individual who uses the term, in the same way I am embarrassed for people who say "irregardless", or "I could care less". It's a crutch, and it's time to retire the term. If you know the country you are from, or region within the country, or if you have some other meaningful identifying trait amongst your ancestors that you feel is relevant to who you are today, please provide it. That would at least have a touch more relevance to defining "you" (at least as you define yourself) than the broader terms which really have no meaning.

Unintended Consequences of Universal Background Checks

People will obviously start limiting their exposure to mental health professionals. Depending on your frame of reference, that could be either a very good thing, or a very bad thing.

Not to mention the fact that such a policy would probably not have prevented a single one of the mass killings it is being promoted in response to.

The Liberal Utopia

A liberal's definition of "freedom" goes something like this:

the government should be free to do whatever it wants, as long as I agree with it

people should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't offend anyone else, or, more to the point, me

i should be free to do whatever i want regardless of who it offends because those people are just right wingers or republicans or something and so they deserve to be offended.


Have I left anything out?