Category Archives: Freedom

by - 0 comments

lack of ability to dual wield leads to vicious cherry tree club beating

I’m going to try and not get too into this.  As I’ve previously written, both Clinton(s) and Bush(es) need to go away.  For the sake of democracy.  But I just can’t let this one go.

First off, why did this presser occur at the UN, like, the United Nations.  Really?  Why is she giving a presidential campaign political speech from the UN?  Is the UN going to endorse her campaign?  Did she have a meeting with the ambassador from Brunei she couldn’t reschedule?  It’s just so very weird.

Second, so she bought her own creepy private server to conduct official government business because she didn’t want to carry two phones.  Really?  I want you to try that excuse the next time you get caught breaking federal law and see how long it takes the federal government to throw your ass in jail.

In very few cases is the disparity between modern America’s ruled and rulers so very clearly on display.  She doesn’t even care.  It’s like she daring anybody to call her out on it.  What are you going to do, go after her?  Sue her?  She has the finest lawyers money can buy.  And you don’t.  Me neither.  So I guess we’re screwed.

What’s next?  Is Bush(es) going to show he can actually carry two phones?  And then Clinton(s) will have to go on stage holding three phones?  Then Bush(es) goes out there with a belt full of phone holsters.  Then during the debate the both of them are wearing jackets made entirely of cell phones.  And then the ghost of George Washington comes rushing out from backstage and starts beating them both with an immaculate cherry tree club.  And the audience cheers.

"Hillary Rodham Clinton"

if I can dual wield a shot glass and beer can; she can carry two phones; otherwise she’s unqualified to lead

by - 1 Comment

my phone is my brother’s keeper

It’s good to know that if nothing else, your personal technology cares for you. Militant zombie assassins might desire your brain(s), but your phone will still be there for you. It’s so pleasant, you cannot possibly object. Can you?

So last night while attempting to max increase the music widget volume on my Samsung phone, I was kindly confronted with the following warning message before I could proceed:

“Listening at a high volume for a long time may damage your hearing. The volume will be increased above safe levels.”

Gee, thanks Samsung! It’s good to know you care. Without your wise guidance, I might have damaged my hearing.

But then I just maxed out the volume anyways. Hmm, in the future will the phone shock you if you disobey its kind, gentle warning?

Please don’t get me wrong, this is not an anti-Samsung rant. Apple is the most overrated corporation since the East India Company.

This rant is about lawyers and their stupidity. And the do-gooders who back them, truly believing it’s their duty and right to control human behavior.

Maxing out the volume on my music is precisely the point. When I’m cooking after a hard day at work, drinking beer, I want to feel the music in my spine. And if I damage my ears or spine in the process? Oh well, it’s my call. It’s my decision.

I’m reminded once from university, a snarky guest lecturer lawyer who told us to thank a lawyer when we saw a warning label on a knife that said, “Do not insert in child”.

Oh man, my brain, it hurts! Help me zombies. Help!

 

Dried Pasta:

“Note: Boil pasta in water prior to consuming.”

 

Blanket:

“Warning: Do not set alight.”

 

Car:

“Driving this motor vehicle my result in fatal and/or horrific debilitating injury involving the insertion of metal and/or glass shards into your corporeal form.”

 

Shower:

“Showering at a high temperature for a long time may damage your skin. The high temperature will be increased above safe levels.”

 

Banana:

“Caution: Do not use to perform surgery.”

 

Shoes:

“Note: Do not step on a prone human.”

 

Bathing Suit:

“Use of this item in an ocean environment may result in belligerent stingray or squid attack. Wearer is advised to don item only in the bathtub.”

 

Beer:

“Use of this product can make you happy. Purchaser is advised to not consume beverage in any quantity whatsoever.”

 

Outdoor Sporting Events:

“Use of this outdoor athletic facility requires athlete and spectator knowledge of lighting strike risk. Athletes are required to not use facility and adopt an indoor only sports posture such as video games.”

 

The Zoo:

“Warning: Risk of vicious, widespread, organized, unbridled mass animal breakout is greater than that of Moon striking Earth’s surface. Accordingly, The Zoo is closed forever. Please take your disappointed, crying children elsewhere. We don’t give a fuck.”

 

Samsung Smartphone Music Widget:

“Use of this product may inhibit your will to live via the warm, comfortable, and steady degeneration of your common sense and the human spirit via perpetual prompting from machines, lawyers, and do-gooders. Please cooperate. We appreciate said cooperation.”

 

samsung

Please obey. You don’t want any trouble? Do you?

by - 3 Comments

It’s either all okay, or none of it is

I’ve been rather disturbed at the number of professional publications and folks on this blog site who have stated something along the lines of “I am not Charlie”. Their general idea is that they do not support the violence but state they don’t support offensive behavior and so choose not to republish Charlie Hebdo images.

Freedom of speech is an all in proposition. It’s either all okay, or none of it is. The New York Times or people on this blog site may not desire to offend or believe that Charlie Hebdo is in bad taste, but I suspect they have no desire to live in a world where ultimately anything they publish can be called into question over whether it’s offensive or not.

The New York Times will not publish a cartoon of Mohammed because it’s considered offensive. Does that mean they also won’t publish a picture of a gay man because some people find that offensive? What about a picture of former President Bush or President Obama? Lots of people find that offensive or in poor taste. Whatever you write you’ll eventually get to a situation where what you put on paper is offensive to somebody.

So when you draw a red line and say “I’m not going to publish this because I find it offensive” you are accepting the premise that there are limits on free speech. And then “free speech” is replaced by “proper speech”.

When you accept that speech must have limits, there’s no limit to how much folks can limit speech. Governments, corporations, religion, cultural bullies, etc are all interested in limiting free speech because it suits their interests. When we the people self-regulate, self-censor, we are placing barriers on the greatest tool the individual has to fight power & money and maintain our liberty.

You may personally find Charlie Hebdo offensive. Or you may find that folks like me are infringing upon your liberty by mandating you publish things you find offensive.

But make no mistake, I’m not saying you must publish anything. You’re a free person too. Make your own decision. Republish or not, it’s your call.

You can say you find Charlie Hebdo offensive and refuse to republish the images. Or you can say you support freedom of speech. But you cannot do both. You have to make a choice. Sorry. You may find this inaccurate or unfair, but life’s a cruel nightmare. If you don’t stand up for freedom, even if at times it requires you to do things you find offensive, then be prepared to see your liberty progressively eroded by the forces of darkness (whoever they might be).

To alter wise words somebody else once said:

You might not be interested in offending men like this, but I assure you, they are interested in offending you.

hates freedom

This is not just about Charlie Hebdo or Mohammed or religion. This man represents a force that wants to take your freedom. There are many like him across all aspects of our Earth. We have to fight back, wherever and whoever they are.

It’s either all okay, or none of it is. Make your choice. I’ve made mine. I hope you’ll join me in choosing liberty first. Even if by doing so, you are guaranteed to offend somebody. Even if that somebody, is yourself.

by - 0 comments

Charlie Hebdo will publish next week

“It’s very hard. We are all suffering, with grief, with fear, but we will do it anyway because stupidity will not win,” [Columnist Patrick Pelloux] told the AFP news agency.

Yes, yes indeed.  And with such brave actions, we shall remain free, and darkness and stupidity is defeated.

I6HTg