All right, we'll take a break from my cynical editorials for a day.
...And talk about the hilarity that ensued when a majority of the United States got Rickroll'd today. How ironic, I guess, that a meme such as the Rickroll would become so well-known as to actually merit recognition like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXJnOjAGR24
Now you can't refute it.
That's two cents from a turkey-comatose Brain Box. Cheers, everyone.
11.27.2008
11.12.2008
Proposition 8: GRUMBLE PROTEST GRIPE
I'm appalled. Truly appalled, sickened, disgusted, outraged, infuriated, and generally ANGRY!
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/8/
SEE THIS?! Proposition 8, the single greatest TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE THIS NATION HAS SEEN IN YEARS. I can't even write a proper editorial of this ridiculousness, my hands are shaking too badly.
...Ok, I can do this. I swear.
The very basis of Proposition 8 is discriminatory, first off. Denying the right to civil union- most often erroneously referred to as “marriage”- to someone based on their sexual preference is an archaic standpoint that has no place in a contemporary world- or even in this nation as of its founding. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states such clearly, and I QUOTE IN FULL:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Let's focus on the first two segments- establishment of religion, and prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It clearly states that no law as created by Congress may be derived from a religious institution. Institution, here, may take two meanings- either meaning a religious body, such as a church, or meaning a theological institute of society, such as excommunication. In either case, this is unacceptable.
The term “marriage” is often used to refer to a civil union, because the two acts are largely synonymous. A marriage by theological standards “makes two as one,” indicating a strong bond of love between the two participants of said bond. A civil union is the legal recognition of said bond, which results in a reduced tax rate and various other legal perks for the two participants.
I'm fine with the notion that marriage as a religious institution could be labeled as the union between a man and a woman. That's their own decision. As a social institution, this simply cannot stand- the United States of America is comprised of people with a myriad of differing religious and social views, as evident by my and others' protest of this heinous Proposition. Enforcing a religious doctrine's stance upon society at large in such a way is quite reminiscent of the days when the Catholic church endorsed the Inquisition, or when the Crusaders slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children simply for maintaining a different doctrine than their own. Enforcing it as a legal institution? Simply ABHORRENT. This single act has paved the way for a theocratic state to form, in clear defiance of the wishes of this nation's founding fathers. Our forefathers fled England to escape religious persecution, and to guarantee that the descendants and inhabitants of this nation would no longer be plagued by such archaic bigotry. They did NOT enable such a blatant violation of innocent citizens' rights, NOR WOULD THEY ENDORSE IT!
Second in my list of complaints here- look at the advertising for Proposition 8! Search Youtube for the videos, or use your favorite search engine to locate them. They bombard the viewer with loaded statements and unilateral standpoints, with no presentation of the simple and unbiased truth that such an act PREVENTS LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS FROM ENJOYING THE RIGHTS PROMISED BY OUR LEGAL SYSTEM FOR TWO HUNDRED PLUS YEARS.
You know what, let's go back to the language here. Using “marriage” when one means to refer to a civil union leads people to believe that they are not infringing upon anyone's rights with this act- when the sad fact is, it's restricting a legal institution to be accessible only by those whom this particular religious doctrine favors.
Don't believe me when I say this is being controlled by religious bodies? Take a look.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/10/now-the-mormon.html
This should suffice.
I hate this.
That's two cents from a perpetually-irked Brain Box.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/8/
SEE THIS?! Proposition 8, the single greatest TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE THIS NATION HAS SEEN IN YEARS. I can't even write a proper editorial of this ridiculousness, my hands are shaking too badly.
...Ok, I can do this. I swear.
The very basis of Proposition 8 is discriminatory, first off. Denying the right to civil union- most often erroneously referred to as “marriage”- to someone based on their sexual preference is an archaic standpoint that has no place in a contemporary world- or even in this nation as of its founding. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states such clearly, and I QUOTE IN FULL:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Let's focus on the first two segments- establishment of religion, and prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It clearly states that no law as created by Congress may be derived from a religious institution. Institution, here, may take two meanings- either meaning a religious body, such as a church, or meaning a theological institute of society, such as excommunication. In either case, this is unacceptable.
The term “marriage” is often used to refer to a civil union, because the two acts are largely synonymous. A marriage by theological standards “makes two as one,” indicating a strong bond of love between the two participants of said bond. A civil union is the legal recognition of said bond, which results in a reduced tax rate and various other legal perks for the two participants.
I'm fine with the notion that marriage as a religious institution could be labeled as the union between a man and a woman. That's their own decision. As a social institution, this simply cannot stand- the United States of America is comprised of people with a myriad of differing religious and social views, as evident by my and others' protest of this heinous Proposition. Enforcing a religious doctrine's stance upon society at large in such a way is quite reminiscent of the days when the Catholic church endorsed the Inquisition, or when the Crusaders slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children simply for maintaining a different doctrine than their own. Enforcing it as a legal institution? Simply ABHORRENT. This single act has paved the way for a theocratic state to form, in clear defiance of the wishes of this nation's founding fathers. Our forefathers fled England to escape religious persecution, and to guarantee that the descendants and inhabitants of this nation would no longer be plagued by such archaic bigotry. They did NOT enable such a blatant violation of innocent citizens' rights, NOR WOULD THEY ENDORSE IT!
Second in my list of complaints here- look at the advertising for Proposition 8! Search Youtube for the videos, or use your favorite search engine to locate them. They bombard the viewer with loaded statements and unilateral standpoints, with no presentation of the simple and unbiased truth that such an act PREVENTS LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS FROM ENJOYING THE RIGHTS PROMISED BY OUR LEGAL SYSTEM FOR TWO HUNDRED PLUS YEARS.
You know what, let's go back to the language here. Using “marriage” when one means to refer to a civil union leads people to believe that they are not infringing upon anyone's rights with this act- when the sad fact is, it's restricting a legal institution to be accessible only by those whom this particular religious doctrine favors.
Don't believe me when I say this is being controlled by religious bodies? Take a look.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/10/now-the-mormon.html
This should suffice.
I hate this.
That's two cents from a perpetually-irked Brain Box.
10.21.2008
Rent-a-Judge
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081006/OPINION03/810050307/1007/OPINION
OK, forget what I said in my last entry. Humanity on the whole is greedy and selfish, as evident when our icons of justice and truth start accepting money to let convicted criminals off the hook. Let's look at the common-sense facts for a moment, for those of you who might not be aware of the problem that this presents to our nation:
Criminals who walk free, as the result of a judge's indiscretion, have the ability to commit more crimes. Sure. There are a handful of truly reformed convicts, and a good number of people who have been wrongly convicted because of circumstancial evidence, the bias of the times- or, you guessed it, corrupt judges- but these sheep-in-wolves'-clothing are relatively few and far between in comparison to those who have gotten what they deserved. Those who have undergone the court's scrutiny once have greater knowledge of what pitfalls to avoid, and what defenses to make on their own behalf. It becomes a vicious cycle in which the guilty parties evade the law further and further until the binding Catch-22's, loopholes, and red tape of our legal system ensnares the just judges and prevents them from convicting murderers, rapists, and thieves and administering the justice they truly deserve- a life behind bars.
Something else! Judges are not entitled to form a bias in favor of social convention- only legal convention. Why do I bring this up? Because of this editorial: http://burtonfront.blogspot.com/2006/07/another-corrupt-judge-busted.html
Corruption does not extend the hand of equality to people, regardless of ethnicity, gender, social circle, appearance, or any other demographic. Compassion, reason, and justice extend that hand. The courts were not established to protect social conventions, but the citizens who engage in them, regardless of what that convention may be. To assume that anyone should be denied a right granted by the government, as the result of a social sanction, is the height of bigotry and arrogance.
That's two cents from an irked, irked, irked BrainBox.
OK, forget what I said in my last entry. Humanity on the whole is greedy and selfish, as evident when our icons of justice and truth start accepting money to let convicted criminals off the hook. Let's look at the common-sense facts for a moment, for those of you who might not be aware of the problem that this presents to our nation:
judge [juhj] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun, verb, judged, judg·ing.
–noun
1.
a public officer authorized
to hear and decide cases in a court of law; a magistrate charged with the
administration of justice.
2.
a person appointed to decide in any
competition, contest, or matter at issue; authorized arbiter: the judges of a
beauty contest.
3.
a person qualified to pass a critical judgment: a good
judge of horses.
4.
an administrative head of Israel in the period
between the death of Joshua and the accession to the throne by Saul.
5.
(esp. in rural areas) a county official with supervisory duties, often
employed part-time or on an honorary basis.
Criminals who walk free, as the result of a judge's indiscretion, have the ability to commit more crimes. Sure. There are a handful of truly reformed convicts, and a good number of people who have been wrongly convicted because of circumstancial evidence, the bias of the times- or, you guessed it, corrupt judges- but these sheep-in-wolves'-clothing are relatively few and far between in comparison to those who have gotten what they deserved. Those who have undergone the court's scrutiny once have greater knowledge of what pitfalls to avoid, and what defenses to make on their own behalf. It becomes a vicious cycle in which the guilty parties evade the law further and further until the binding Catch-22's, loopholes, and red tape of our legal system ensnares the just judges and prevents them from convicting murderers, rapists, and thieves and administering the justice they truly deserve- a life behind bars.
Something else! Judges are not entitled to form a bias in favor of social convention- only legal convention. Why do I bring this up? Because of this editorial: http://burtonfront.blogspot.com/2006/07/another-corrupt-judge-busted.html
Corruption does not extend the hand of equality to people, regardless of ethnicity, gender, social circle, appearance, or any other demographic. Compassion, reason, and justice extend that hand. The courts were not established to protect social conventions, but the citizens who engage in them, regardless of what that convention may be. To assume that anyone should be denied a right granted by the government, as the result of a social sanction, is the height of bigotry and arrogance.
That's two cents from an irked, irked, irked BrainBox.
10.01.2008
FINALLY SOMEONE LISTENS!
http://www.ksdk.com/news/world/story.aspx?storyid=156133&catid=28&provider=email
Maybe humanity isn't quite as doomed to failure as I had originally thought. Scumbags deserve to be cooked off and dropped like bad habits, and the man who put this particular piece of filth in his grave deserves recognition as a community hero. Thank you, good sir, for going to every length to stop this psycho from victimizing anyone else.
That's two cents from a very, very, very proud Brain Box.
Maybe humanity isn't quite as doomed to failure as I had originally thought. Scumbags deserve to be cooked off and dropped like bad habits, and the man who put this particular piece of filth in his grave deserves recognition as a community hero. Thank you, good sir, for going to every length to stop this psycho from victimizing anyone else.
That's two cents from a very, very, very proud Brain Box.
8.31.2008
Russia and Georgia, as well as Obama
Some people might be following this conflict, and others might not, but the nation of Georgia (not the state, for those geographically-challenged, paranoid hillbillies who still swear "the Reds" will invade the U.S.) has been coming under fire by Russian military because of internal conflicts within the nation. According to reports, two separatist factions are trying to break away from Georgia... and for some reason, Russia doesn't like this idea, so they're strafing bombers across Georgian airspace.
World War Three... here we come, full-tilt. I'm just waiting for some trumped-up report that one side or the other is "sympathizing with Middle Eastern terror cells" and results in both of the world's futile, ignorant skirmishes being fused into one enormous clusterfuck of a war.
On an unrelated note, I'm under the distinct impression that Barack Obama's speech gained him a number of supporters, even if he doesn't deliver on all of his promises (and he promised quite a lot!). His speech seemed to be patterned loosely after the temple monologue in The Matrix Reloaded, in my opinion- but that's not a bad thing. He's got the energy and the willpower to make something happen in this nation, and to be honest- anything's better than where we're headed, the way we're going now.
That's two cents from a groggy BrainBox.
World War Three... here we come, full-tilt. I'm just waiting for some trumped-up report that one side or the other is "sympathizing with Middle Eastern terror cells" and results in both of the world's futile, ignorant skirmishes being fused into one enormous clusterfuck of a war.
On an unrelated note, I'm under the distinct impression that Barack Obama's speech gained him a number of supporters, even if he doesn't deliver on all of his promises (and he promised quite a lot!). His speech seemed to be patterned loosely after the temple monologue in The Matrix Reloaded, in my opinion- but that's not a bad thing. He's got the energy and the willpower to make something happen in this nation, and to be honest- anything's better than where we're headed, the way we're going now.
That's two cents from a groggy BrainBox.
7.29.2008
Virgle: What?
So Google and Virgin Mobile have joined forces to put humans on Mars... good luck with that, guys. Especially considering how you're suggesting that all the colonists breed with one another "for the good of the colony." HA! Space Station Arkansas is what you're gonna get with that logic. Allow me to illustrate my point.
Say you have five healthy couples- A, B, C, D, and E. They each have several kids- we'll assume for now that the gender logistics work out just fine.
Their kids come of breeding age, and result in:
AB, AC, AD, AE; BC, BD, BE; CD, CE; DE
From here, it goes downhill. In order to avoid inbreeding, we get:
ABCD, ABDE, ACDE; BCDE, BECD.
At that point, we're screwed, courtesy of Google.
Two cents from a confused BrainBox.
Say you have five healthy couples- A, B, C, D, and E. They each have several kids- we'll assume for now that the gender logistics work out just fine.
Their kids come of breeding age, and result in:
AB, AC, AD, AE; BC, BD, BE; CD, CE; DE
From here, it goes downhill. In order to avoid inbreeding, we get:
ABCD, ABDE, ACDE; BCDE, BECD.
At that point, we're screwed, courtesy of Google.
Two cents from a confused BrainBox.
7.19.2008
See these scumbags?
http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupid=102104125&redirect=1&Mytoken=E9E2B686-B794-4628-A8EDAC9FDA7FAE8183088880
This is why I hate humanity. This is why I hate criminals. This is why I believe America has gone to hell in a handbasket- because we idly TOLERATE subhuman behavior like this! We as a society PERMIT atrocities like this! WE DON'T STEP UP AND PUT THESE SCUMBAGS IN THEIR PLACE!
No more. Those who do evil to others must be met with unrelenting punishment for the wrongs they have brought about. Tear them apart.
Thank you, friends.
-Vic.
This is why I hate humanity. This is why I hate criminals. This is why I believe America has gone to hell in a handbasket- because we idly TOLERATE subhuman behavior like this! We as a society PERMIT atrocities like this! WE DON'T STEP UP AND PUT THESE SCUMBAGS IN THEIR PLACE!
No more. Those who do evil to others must be met with unrelenting punishment for the wrongs they have brought about. Tear them apart.
Thank you, friends.
-Vic.
6.30.2008
National failure.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/25/scotus.child.rape/index.html
I shouldn't even have to explain why this disturbs me so greatly. A convicted felon, whose actions directly violated the rights of another individual- let's just ignore the fact that it was his EIGHT YEAR OLD STEPDAUGHTER for a second here- is not going to be put to death for inflicting physical damage that required surgery, and emotional trauma that will probably never be resolved. His actions destroyed her life, and almost ended it- and all he's gonna do is sit in prison, no doubt in solitary confinement? This is ridiculous!
If they're going to sentence scumbags like this to a prison term, they should strip them of their right to solitary confinement. Let the other prisoners deal with him as they see fit, if our LEGAL SYSTEM that is supposed to PROTECT law-abiding, innocent citizens is going to be too slackjawed and limp-wristed to do what needs doing. I honestly almost prefer the convicts' sense of justice to what our courts say is "not excessive."
This brings me to my next subject. "Criminal rights." The phrase should be considered an oxymoron- at least when used in regards to felons! These are the scumbags whose actions have destroyed or severely damaged innocent people's lives. They have absolutely no respect for the rights of other human beings- why should we be forced to respect their rights? They clearly have no regard for the concept of such entitlements, else they would not have done what they did. There is no reason why they should be PAMPERED all the way up until their RELEASE DATE from prison- you know, that place where the GUILTY are supposed to SUFFER PUNISHMENT for the crimes they committed against humanity?
They're trying to illegalize lethal injection by saying that the paralyzing agent they use to incapacitate the condemned doesn't always work; as such, they feel pain. Ooh! MURDERERS and RAPISTS feel A LITTLE BIT OF PAIN in their last moments! God forbid they be put to death in any state besides CATATONIC or COMATOSE! What about their victims, huh? The people who suffered excruciating agony in body, mind, or both? Have we forgotten what they went through? Is the comfort of these SICK, DEPRAVED MENACES so much more important or valuable than the LIVES of the people they BUTCHERED and VIOLATED?!
Ask yourselves these questions... then tell me if you agree with the following statements:
I shouldn't even have to explain why this disturbs me so greatly. A convicted felon, whose actions directly violated the rights of another individual- let's just ignore the fact that it was his EIGHT YEAR OLD STEPDAUGHTER for a second here- is not going to be put to death for inflicting physical damage that required surgery, and emotional trauma that will probably never be resolved. His actions destroyed her life, and almost ended it- and all he's gonna do is sit in prison, no doubt in solitary confinement? This is ridiculous!
If they're going to sentence scumbags like this to a prison term, they should strip them of their right to solitary confinement. Let the other prisoners deal with him as they see fit, if our LEGAL SYSTEM that is supposed to PROTECT law-abiding, innocent citizens is going to be too slackjawed and limp-wristed to do what needs doing. I honestly almost prefer the convicts' sense of justice to what our courts say is "not excessive."
This brings me to my next subject. "Criminal rights." The phrase should be considered an oxymoron- at least when used in regards to felons! These are the scumbags whose actions have destroyed or severely damaged innocent people's lives. They have absolutely no respect for the rights of other human beings- why should we be forced to respect their rights? They clearly have no regard for the concept of such entitlements, else they would not have done what they did. There is no reason why they should be PAMPERED all the way up until their RELEASE DATE from prison- you know, that place where the GUILTY are supposed to SUFFER PUNISHMENT for the crimes they committed against humanity?
They're trying to illegalize lethal injection by saying that the paralyzing agent they use to incapacitate the condemned doesn't always work; as such, they feel pain. Ooh! MURDERERS and RAPISTS feel A LITTLE BIT OF PAIN in their last moments! God forbid they be put to death in any state besides CATATONIC or COMATOSE! What about their victims, huh? The people who suffered excruciating agony in body, mind, or both? Have we forgotten what they went through? Is the comfort of these SICK, DEPRAVED MENACES so much more important or valuable than the LIVES of the people they BUTCHERED and VIOLATED?!
Ask yourselves these questions... then tell me if you agree with the following statements:
- Criminals should be denied the "right" to solitary confinement in most cases, and felons should never have access to such an option.
- The condemned should be punished in a means that reflects their crime. Murderers should be either decapitated or put to death via electric chair; rapists should be castrated and allowed to bleed out. I'm all for bringing back hangings for the other capital crimes, as well.
- Lethal injection is far too merciful for the likes of its intended targets, and should be discontinued.
- Inmates should be identified in a way that makes their crime apparent to other inmates.
- Inmates should not be punished for inflicting their own form of justice upon someone convicted of an action that violated someone else's rights.
- Prison guards should be entitled to use as much force as they deem necessary against convicts who violated others' rights.
There's two cents from a very frustrated BrainBox.
6.13.2008
Extinctions.
I'd like to address an issue that has recently been in the news; namely, the extinction of various species of wildlife. As some of you may know, the Caribbean Monk Seal was recently declared extinct. I would really think that humanity as a whole had grown enough of a conscience for the world surrounding us that we'd actively stive to not kill off other species on this planet. I think that it's absolutely pathetic that we're unable to control, or at least influence, such things so that they don't happen.
Dry humor for the day- well, I don't have anything, except that if I follow the vein of this rant, it brings me back to one of my most intense and primal fears- spiders- and leads me to ask, "Why couldn't the Huntsman spider be the next name on the roster of extinctions?" Twenty pounds of hairy, man-eating death... that does pose a threat to humanity... and we can't kill IT off?! But we wipe out something that's completely defenseless? What's the deal?
That's two cents from the BrainBox.
Dry humor for the day- well, I don't have anything, except that if I follow the vein of this rant, it brings me back to one of my most intense and primal fears- spiders- and leads me to ask, "Why couldn't the Huntsman spider be the next name on the roster of extinctions?" Twenty pounds of hairy, man-eating death... that does pose a threat to humanity... and we can't kill IT off?! But we wipe out something that's completely defenseless? What's the deal?
That's two cents from the BrainBox.
6.12.2008
The BrainBox
This will be my means to communicate my personal standpoints on issues, as well as a springboard for intelligent debate. Give me topics, and I'll give you answers.
Keep it at least somewhat respectful. It's a brain box, not a warchest.
Keep it at least somewhat respectful. It's a brain box, not a warchest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
