Archive Page 2

Buzzed driving is drunk driving?

I frequently hear ads on the radio from the U.S. Department of Transportation regarding the issue of drunk driving. There is nothing objectionable about simply encouraging responsibility, but one particular series of recent ads really infuriates me. These ads have the tagline, “Buzz driving is drunk driving.” The ads also usually portray a supposed perpetrator (who has just caused a wreck and killed somebody) say something along the lines of, “I only had a few beers.”

Buzz driving is drunk driving? Well why don’t you tell that to the Tennessee General Assembly — because the real law actually states that you are not committing a crime unless your blood alcohol concentration is .08% or higher. Granted, even .08% is itself a bit low and should arguably be raised. But I think .07% could pretty easily qualify as being “buzzed,” yet it would clearly NOT be drunk driving according to the law. So the ads are flatly false and deceptive.

These damned nanny-staters feel like they are doing a good deed, when in reality they are just lying to the public (with our tax dollars). I don’t know whether these jackasses are actively trying to taint juries, but such tainting seems like an inevitable result of this deception. These statists are giving out the false impression that “a few beers” equals crime. But according to most of the charts I’ve seen, a few beers over about an hour and a half would still be under the limit for most men. And even if drinking an amount like that did put someone over the limit, supposedly a normal human burns up about one beer’s worth of alcohol every hour. So in such cases the proper solution would be…wait around a little bit.

But then these wicked, lying fools won’t be satisfied until alcohol is absolutely prohibited, as if we were in some Islamic caliphate or something. God made wine to make people happy. Get it through your thick skulls, you creeps. Quit trying to ruin everyone’s day.


Obama birth certificate digitally altered

Well, based on some recent comments by Ilíon, I decided to check up on the latest conspiracy theories regarding Barack Obama’s birth certificate. I was rather amazed at my findings, which came up very quickly via internet searches and via looking at the birth “certificate” myself with a close eye.

It is pretty clearly evident that the birth certificate recently offered by the White House has been digitally altered. And significantly so. All you really have to do is go to the official file, zoom in to about 6400%, and then look at the word “Barack” in “Barack Obama” to see that something has been altered. Note that the pixels on ALL the letters except the letter “R” are only one-fourth the size of the pixels in the letter R. That is, the non-R letters have four times as many pixels per area.

Also note that substantial portions of the type are computer-generated. As the following video points out, you can tell they are computer-generated and not real ink, because the pixels are all black. With real ink, you would be able to see multiple different shades of gray (as with the “R” in “Barack”!). See this point, and also other, arguably even more blatant errors, below:

As far as I can tell from looking back at news video, Obama never did actually show any reporters a physical copy of this alleged birth certificate. I doubt that one even exists. All he did was let everyone know that he had posted the PDF file on the White House website “for everyone to see.” Granted, to further the scam, I guess he could always just try printing out a copy of the PDF listed on the White House website, but that probably would not look realistic because it would be on the wrong type of paper.

Maybe I’m crazy, but this seems HUGE to me. People always say that the crime isn’t the big deal in politics; it’s the coverup. Here, regardless of what underlying crime there may be (i.e., whether Obama is eligible or foreign), it appears rather obvious that Obama is covering something up. If this news really gets out, it seems like it could be a major scandal.

Anyway, until now I’ve always considered myself healthily agnostic on this Birther issue, but this is flatly ridiculous. I don’t think I’m crazy. This whole situation is what’s insane.

Regarding women and work

Maybe it is just my own fault for regularly reading a blog that is obsessed with the lifestyle of womanly housewifeyness, but the supposedly “traditional” idea that women should never work has really gotten on my nerves lately. In a recent post, the blog in question cites an old movie character approvingly:

IN THE the 1931 movie “Bad Girl,” a husband reacts to his wife’s suggestion that she get a job so they can have an apartment of their own. He explodes in anger (go to minute 09:09). “My idea of a husband is a guy that looks after a wife and takes care of her… If I can’t do that, I won’t be a husband.”

This movie character’s idea is contemptible. Seriously, what idiot first thought up the idea that women should never work? “Hey guys, I have a wonderful plan to spur economic growth — Let’s keep half the population at home to loaf around all day!” A man who considers his masculinity to be dependant on his spoiling of a woman is not a natural man. Rather, he has gone the way of matriarchy. He may think that he is simply loving his wife, but he is actually worshipping a goddess.

We see the results of this goddess-worship played out today on many of these recent Housewives of ________ shows on Bravo. Women without children stay at home and gossip and leach off the productivity of others. Anyway, the Thinking Housewife does suggest one emotional reason why women should not work:

Husbands of working wives felt less adequate as family breadwinners than did husbands of housewives, and this appeared to account for their lower levels of job and life satisfaction.

Yeah, but the manly solution is to earn more yourself. The solution is not to drag your wife down to make yourself feel better. And if you do expect that specific a girl can earn more than you (and if that matters to you, which it reasonable might), then DO NOT MARRY her. Simple.

Of course, I do understand how this extreme “traditional” idea derived that women should abstain from work. Natural women will tend to have children over time. While the women are pregnant, they will become at least partly and temporarily disabled from performing strenuous work. And then once the kids are born and still young, someone will need to raise them. Having to raise the children can obviously place some limitations on women’s ability to work. But these natural limitations on women’s ability to work are no reason to prohibit women from working altogether. The correct solution is simply to discourage careerism in women, not to discourage them from making sensible efforts to stay productive. Women should focus on their family in their hearts, and value it above the idea of a career. Then the right work moves will flow from that proper attitude. Obviously, this generalization does not apply to women who plan to stay single and not have children. But most women are not like that.

But this glorification of female idleness is wrong. It is basically a joke of a position.

Proverbs 31:10-31

Who can find a capable wife?
She is far more precious than jewels.

The heart of her husband trusts in her,
and he will not lack anything good.

She rewards him with good, not evil,
all the days of her life.

 She selects wool and flax
and works with willing hands.

She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from far away.

She rises while it is still night
and provides food for her household
and portions for her servants.

She evaluates a field and buys it;
she plants a vineyard with her earnings.

She draws on her strength
and reveals that her arms are strong.

She sees that her profits are good,
and her lamp never goes out at night.

She extends her hands to the spinning staff,
and her hands hold the spindle.

Her hands reach out to the poor,
and she extends her hands to the needy.

She is not afraid for her household when it snows,
for all in her household are doubly clothed.

She makes her own bed coverings;
her clothing is fine linen and purple.

Her husband is known at the city gates,
where he sits among the elders of the land.

She makes and sells linen garments;
she delivers belts to the merchants.

Strength and honor are her clothing,
and she can laugh at the time to come.

She opens her mouth with wisdom,
and loving instruction is on her tongue.

She watches over the activities of her household
and is never idle.

Her sons rise up and call her blessed.
Her husband also praises her:

“Many women are capable,
but you surpass them all!”

Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting,
but a woman who fears the LORD will be praised.

Give her the reward of her labor,
and let her works praise her at the city gates.

Like I said, there are certainly some productive things that a woman can do at home. And raising children is indeed one of those productive things, which should be encouraged. And like I said, women should generally avoid careerism, because most women want to have children at some point. But I just do not like this idea that women should flatly avoid work. It is a stupid notion.


OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD! I only wish it could’ve happened on a Friday or something — so that more partying would be in order. Oh well. I did at least make it a point to burst out my American flag tie, to wear to court this morning.

Throwing Osama’s body out into the middle of the ocean for sharks to eat was kind of cool, I guess.

But I think it might have been better if we had smeared pigs blood all over him, and then cut up his body into eight parts, and then threw one piece of him into each of the seven seas, and finally put his head (the eighth piece) up onto a pike on the White House lawn, to keep up for at least 100 days. But whatever. Since I’m not the one in charge of America, I guess we can’t demand perfection. The situation is still pretty cool, anyway.

Let murderers be haunted until death.

No more domestic disasters

I have grown fairly bored of politics and news lately. Part of my inattention to the news is because I have been busy doing law work, which sometimes stresses me out because I am still fairly new and don’t always know what I am doing. But more than that, I think the news lately has just been boring ever since the new Republican congressmen got sworn in this year. We got to hear about a week or two of news just about Gabrielle Giffords getting shot — mainly, I think, because she was pretty. Then later we got to hear a week or two or three about Charlie Sheen’s insanity. But his show basically sucked, so although his breakdown was funny, I have a little bit of a hard time seeing why people consider him important. And then since then, we have gotten to hear about three weeks straight of talk about revolution in Egypt, then two or three weeks about revolution in Libya, and of course there was the week or two about disaster in Japan.

Note that from a domestic policy standpoint, none of these events has been all that important. Maybe the moral of the story is that once Republicans take office to block continued Leftist activity, the domestic disasters and general heading off the cliff tend to die down, and hence the media have less of the exciting domestic doomsday information to report.

I guess the two or three weeks spent discussing the stupid teacher strike in Wisconsin was at least mildly important. But only mildly. And I never did find it interesting enough to warrant a post. Even listening to Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin lately has become somewhat of a chore, and I have frequently found myself changing the station to listen to music by Katy Perry, Kesha, and other somewhat annoying artists. I don’t know; maybe I am just getting too old for this politics stuff.

Intervention in Lybia for justice

Today, with regard to the bombing of Libya, I actually heard someone (who is otherwise fairly conservative) ask, “What did they ever do to us?” Some people just make truly idiotic statements in their support for isolationism.

Although I did not say it out loud, I just thought to myself, Do you mean, what did they do to us, besides murdering 270 of our people, besides just generally being a thorn in our side, and besides oppressing their own citizens? I don’t know why people love peace so much, anyway. Any time some murderous jackass overseas finally gets what’s coming to him, I just smile a little inside.

In my book, there’s no statute of limitations on certain kinds of horror. Haunt these creeps to their graves. In fact, I think it’s a little bit silly that Barack Obama took so long to get us involved.

Test the genuineness of Christians

Inspired by Dan’s comments on a recent post.

The next time someone tells you that he is a Christian but disagrees with your moral perspective on politics, first find out the genuineness of that objector’s Christianity. The word “Christian” doesn’t seem to mean much in modern culture. Ask the objector if he actually believes that Jesus is his savior, and that Jesus has thereby given him eternal life which cannot be lost, based simply on faith in Jesus. I suspect that the majority of “Christians” would answer no to at least some part of that question. For example, they might say that hell does not exist so we have no need to be saved, or that Jesus was just a good man, or that Jesus was indeed God but that we must live a moral, perfect life in order for him to “save” us. If so, point the objector toward John 11:25-27:

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?” “Yes, Lord,” she told him, “I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.”

Alternatively, if the objector does agree that Jesus is the Savior, then ask him whether he also believes that the Bible is the Word of God. Jesus did, and stated in John 10:35 that “the scripture cannot be broken.”

If the objector then agrees that the scriptures cannot be broken, then ask him whether the scriptures don’t also define government as “an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4).

You might also point out that our nation was founded on Christian principles, as referenced in the Declaration of Independence. You might point out that inalienable rights come from Christ, that Christ oversaw the divine providence which created our country, and that Christ was the eternal judge who adjudicated our dispute against England. But in many cases, I doubt you will even get that far. You will often find that the objector does not even believe that Jesus saves all who believe on him, and so he lacks any real foundation to get to those more complex, political matters.

By contrast, if the objector is only a liberal Christian, he might agree that Jesus is the Christ, but will disagree on the authority of the Bible. In such cases, he might theoretically be called a “Christian,” but he certainly isn’t much of a Christian.

Finally, I suppose it is conceivable that you might find a Christian who really has Jesus as Savior and really believes in the authority of the Bible, but simply disagrees with moral political principles. In such cases, the problem is basically that the Christian has not read the Bible, and that should be your recommendation to him.