Suspension of Disbelief | Ain't Complicated

Mangling the First Amendment

Cal Thomas published yesterday,

Intellectually, I understand the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision that the First Amendment protects the most violent of video games.

Well, I don’t understand.

Because I thought the First Amendment was intended to protect political speech.

But I can’t see that it says so expressly:

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.

So we’re “stuck” with going by what it actually says.

I still say the modern-day usage of the First Amendment has become mangled, perverted, and distorted.

And inconsistent. For example, how does the government get away with fining broadcasters for using certain language on the air waves? And for another example, how come imaginary hate speech isn’t protected?

Politics.

Humanity.

Imperfection.

Oh well.

I must say, though, that I’m very thankful for the First Amendment.

And I’ll also say that I agree with Mr. Thomas’ closing statements:

In a perfect world, children would listen to, respect, and obey their parents. But this is far from a perfect world and parents could use occasional help from the state in preventing violent culture from undermining what’s in the best interest of the child, and the country. This ruling by the Supreme Court does not achieve that end.

My Info Is Online

Attention: Whoever Sent This Email to Me

This e-mail is to inform you that your E-mail Address has won you the sum of £3,500,000.00 (Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Pounds Sterling) from the GM LOTTERY. For your payment, you are required to contact our fiduciary agent with the contact details below:

Look, my info is already available online.

It shouldn’t be difficult for you to find a valid mailing address for me.

I know you’ll have to work harder for that information (than if I were to simply email it to you).

But I’ll compensate you handsomely for that little bit of extra work on your part. Just send me 10% of the amount you mention above…and you keep the rest.

I really could use the money, so please don’t delay.

Thank you.

Passport ‘Wisdom’

Children are no longer born to mothers and fathers.

They’re born to parents; specifically, Parent One and Parent Two.

At least so says the US Department of State. And a very sorry state that is indeed.

And it will get sorrier, is my forecast. At some point, they will “get real” and make room for Parent Three.

But never mind the forecast. Here’s shades-of-Dr-Zeuss the story:

The words “mother” and “father” will be removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender neutral terminology, the State Department says.

“The words in the old form were ‘mother’ and ‘father,’” said Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services. “They are now ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two.’”

A statement on the State Department website noted: “These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.” The statement didn’t note if it was for child applications only.

The State Department said the new passport applications, not yet available to the public, will be available online soon.

Sprague said the decision to remove the traditional parenting names was not an act of political correctness.

“We find that with changes in medical science and reproductive technology that we are confronting situations now that we would not have anticipated 10 or 15 years ago,” she said.

[…]

The new gender-neutral passport application will be rolled out in February.

“Improvements”? Then we measure by different standards.

“Not an act of political correctness”? Oh. OK. Right.

“Changes in…reproductive technology”? Eh? Two men can now reproduce together? As can two women? 😯

America’s downward slide accelerates. And the condition isn’t unique to the United States.

Launch Button; Panic Button?

Wait a minute. Something like this shows up abruptly…

Mysterious missile launch off California

and nobody thinks it’s a warning shot to the USA?! 😯

And if it had been targeted on Los Angeles, they would have had no forewarning to speak of.

Well, never mind me and my Conspiracy Bait and whatever else this is.

Few details are surfacing about the mysterious missile launch seen Monday night Nov. 8 from a point just off the southern coast of California, with aerospace and defense officials trying to find out exactly who launched it and why.

“We’re looking into it,” Ian Gregor, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration, told SPACE.com.

CBS affiliate KCBS caught the launch on camera and reported that military officials were “tight-lipped over the nature of the projectile.”

In the video, a long plume of exhaust can be seen as the missile rockets into the evening sky. The launch occurred about 35 miles out at sea, west of Los Angeles and north of Catalina Island.

Source: Mysterious Missile Launch Off Calif. Coast Sparks Investigation

So there you are. No big deal. Nothing here. Move along now.

I’ve launched model rockets before as well. 🙄

How Perceptive Are You?

This post of mine is not a political statement of any sort. (See that period there?)

So, please, no political blah-blah-blah in the comments.

Thanks!

Now I repeat the question to go with the above news clip: How perceptive are you?

Fishy: Zucchini-on-Bear

What a great story!

The abused, misunderstood, underappreciated zucchini gets its day (or night, rather) in the spotlight.

Too bad we weren’t able to have a garden this year. Just think for much I could be selling zucchinis on eBay or even down at the local farmers’ market.

Oh well. 🙁

But wait. I haven’t even let you read the story yet.

Police say a Montana woman fended off a bear attack with an unlikely weapon — a zucchini.

Missoula County Sheriff’s Lt. Rich Maricelli says a 200-pound black bear attacked one of the woman’s dogs just after midnight Wednesday on the back porch of her home about 15 miles west of Missoula.

When the woman, whom police did not name, tried to separate the animals, the bear bit her in the leg.

Maricelli says the woman reached for the nearest object at hand on the porch’s railing — a large zucchini that she had harvested from her garden.

The woman flung the vegetable at the bear, striking it and forcing it to flee.

Maricelli says the woman did not need medical attention. Wildlife officials were trying to locate the bear on Thursday.

Source: Mont. woman fends off bear attack with zucchini

Yup. That’s the story. Exactly as it reads at the above link. Or at least read as of 2:25 pm Pacific on September 23, 2010.

I thought it was a great story. And funny, too! I still do, in fact.

But that next-to-the-last sentence set off my Fish Alert Bells.

The woman was bit by a bear…and didn’t require medical attention?! Please!

🙄

Either that bear is a wimp — and being chased off by a vegetable may verify that — or that woman is mighty tough.

Or something is fishy about the story.

So I read it again.

Go wading into a dog-bear fight and try to separate the animals?

Maybe.

Be close enough to a bear to be bit and close enough to the porch railing to merely reach out for the Attack Vegetable…and then fling said weapon at the bear?

Maybe it’s all just a matter of semantics, but when you’re close enough to a bear for hand-to-paw and leg-to-tooth combat, you don’t fling, you clobber.

Fling, my friends, is for out-of-reach combat.

No sale.

I like zucchini. But not fishy zucchini.

Now, go ahead, tell me how you believe the story. 😯