Lost Localhost

Ugh. Can't believe I'm poking this dead, ugly horse

OOoooook. So I'll do this once publicly, then I'm done. There's only so much dead horse beating I can partake in before I'm contributing to the very thing I hate - over hype.

A guy who got his butt beat shot another guy. Somehow that was questioned if it was truly self defense, so there was a public outcry to arrest the guy. Despite no evidence, the state assigned a corrupt prosecutor, and they got him arrested and he got his day in court. Then the jury said he didn't break any law. Now the same people who said they wanted him to have a fair trial, don't want that anymore. They didn't get the result they wanted, so shit is hitting the fan.

...and I can't understand why.

Q1. Why was he carrying a gun?! I can't believe someone can carry a weapon in public.

A1. He was carrying a gun for self defense. In the case that someone does something potentially life threatening, like start a fight or straddle you and bang your head against a sidewalk, it's used to defend yourself. If Trayvon had a gun and Zimmerman was the one to start the fight, TM may have been justified in shooting him, for instance.

Wouldn't you want to be able to defend yourself if someone jumped you or your family?

Q2. It's the law - this "stand your ground" law. We should get rid of it!
A2. Wrong. Stand your ground had nothing to do with this self defense claim. Stand your ground means any situation where you are in a public place and are legally able to be, a threat can not force you to leave said place and you are allowed to remain there even when defending yourself. In this particular case, Zimmerman had no option to retreat, so even if there were no Stand your ground law, it would still be justifiable defense given the fact that he was being restrained. In the same token, Martin had no legal requirement to leave the area either - he could have stayed right where he was. According to the evidence, the first law that was broke was an assault by Martin.

Q3. Isn't Zimmerman guilty of getting out of his car? He was following TM. That's a violation!
A3. No, it isn't. There is no law against being in a public space after someone else was. Additionally, while it may not always be the smartest thing to trail someone you think is up to no good (because maybe they'll beat you up) it is not illegal. Especially when asked by police dispatch to let them know if the suspicious person does anything.

Wouldn't you want to be in a neighborhood that called the police when they saw someone acting strange around your house?

Q4. He was a wanna-be cop, obviously this means he was trying to BE a cop, right?
A4. Since when has wanting to do justice a bad thing? He did everything correct - he called the police and observed. Many of the people making this argument are the ones who support taking matters into thier own hands and harming Zimmerman, his family, those who support him, or even people who look like him.

Isn't living next to a neighborhood watch member, police officer, or someone pursuing becoming law enforcement a deterrent to crime in your area?

Q5. He was obviously racist! Shouldn't this be investigated as a hate crime?

A5. There is evidence that race may have played an issue. The terms "cracka" and "Nigga" were mentioned. The odd thing, though, is that only Trayvon Martin used these racial slurs. There is zero evidence that race played a role in Zimmermans decisions. In fact, Zimmerman has a history of supporting minorities.
Also, he is a minority himself; Hispanic.

Is anyone who is arguing Zimmerman was racist going to address the racial slurs by Martin? Anyone? There is MORE evidence Martin was racist than Zimmerman - so someone PLEASE explain that one to me.
According to the evidence, Martin committed a hate crime assaulting the "creepy ass cracka". I wonder if that will come out in the DOJ's investigation of this case. (yeah right)

Q6. Martin was just an innocent kid!

A6. All evidence shows he assaulted someone. Also, there's evidence he used drugs and was racist. 17 years old is not a child. 17 year olds can do evil things, and hurt others. 17 year olds kill, use drugs, fight, and rob pretty commonly in (sweet home) Chi-town.
Bottom line: It wouldn't matter if he WAS a perfect kid before that night, if he assaulted someone, that person had the right to defend themselves. Just like if Zimmerman hit Martin, Martin would have been justified in shooting him instead...

If a 15 year old threatened my family's or my life, and I felt the only opportunity to end that threat was with a gun, I'd do it.
He wasn't a kid.

The situation sucks. But of all the murders everyday, why does this one set the fire under so many people's asses? He's later been an idiot in what he says, but that doesn't change the facts of the incident...


Today I saw a link on G+ (holy crap, other people use that?!) about Oklahoma Rep Mike Reynolds saying: "It is not our job to see that anyone gets an education. It is not the responsibility of me, you, or any constituent in my district to pay for his or any other persons [sic] education. Their GPA, ACT, AS[V]AB, determination have nothing to do with who is responsible. Their potential to benefit society is irrelevant."

This led to a couple short back and forth's with the person who shared this until he asked "Are you a certain that you would prefer a totally privatized educational system? Because not so long ago, we actually had a very good public education system. Yes, it has fallen into decline. But I don't think that this is something that can be pinned on any one entity."

Then my short "yes" turned into a paragraph. Then Three. Then I said awww screw it: BLOG POST ANSWER!

So this is based solely on the message I feel this rep was conveying in that quote. I know nothing about this rep otherwise, or Oklahoma law... So if you get halfway in and think "that's not applicable!" then move along. :)

First of all, you'll have to separate k-12 vs. college education. He was only speaking about higher education college.
To answer your question in the context of this article, yes. I am in favor of a privatized educational system - solely. Government sponsored/controlled [insert any industry government has run] has never been nearly as successful, stable, or beneficial as it's private counterpart. Education is no exception.

To add on to what [GA] alluded to...
'Education level' is dependent on the teachers, the curriculum, and most importantly the parents/family. When you have an entity that pays for your education, there is a responsibility tied to that, and there are influences on the teachers and curriculum.

I have a hard time trying to justify why you should have to pay a dime for my son to go to college. If you believe that, can't you just write him a check? College is a specialty learning opportunity that people choose. If you are paying some for him to go, you do have a right to care. In typical loan/grant situations that "care" is demonstrated by a promise to repay in a certain time with a certain interest, or perhaps it's a guarantee of sport performance etc... If you write the check, what's the deal?

My solution: Leave college education to family, and private entities. When I say family and I are responsible for his education, I mean it in the same way we're responsible for feeding him. i.e.: I didn't pick the apple, but I found a way to get it to his mouth. I didn't kill the cow, but when his teeth come in, he'll enjoy a damn good burger because I found where to get one and paid for it myself. Same thing: If I (family) can not educate him enough to be happy, self sufficient, take care of his family, and be a moral human, then I will find and work with the resources to meet our expectations and pay for them ourselves if that's what's needed: without asking you for anything. By doing that, I don't have to answer to any other tax payer - and no tax payer has to worry about what he decides to do with his life. By 'private entities' you have to realize there are a ton of available grants and loans available without having to go the public route.

What will it do to the teachers when money always comes and a paycheck is guaranteed because government money flow never stops? (especially here in IL) What incentive is there to be innovative? If someone is paying you for a goal, and you don't meet it, you stop getting paid. That's incentive. What happens to the students when they don't learn to work for what they get - especially young people. The best things in life are earned, never given.

Why would you WANT "constituent[s] in [your] district to pay for any other persons [sic] education" ??? Why would you ask that of the people, and more to my above point, what would you ask in return?

Now I completely believe in contract concepts: if one person agrees to pay for someone else's education, and the other agrees, then they have the terms of what they can demand from each other. I think this rep is saying that is not a contract the people of his district wish to be in because they also don't think it's worth being on the receiving end of the money and, therefore, the expectations and baggage that comes with it.

I agree the decline is not because of "one entity" - but I know that it is more controllable and correctable when there truly is one entity: the family.
When college is paid for by the students own work (seeking out contracts like loans/grants with stipulations that they agree to, family help, or working a job) then I fail to see any decline happening on a larger scale. This now become a true capitalist system where the best is attractive, and those institutions that fail have a choice to make. They can continue to fail, or they can change for the better - it becomes a competitive environment which only leads to great things. The only people who have an issue with this are those invested in the failing institutions, but you can't provide a service no one wants and expect the tax payers to foot the bill to support you. If you're not doing well at something, make a change for the better, or do something you are good at.

If the person fails to get enough money, or to meet the expectations of institutions willing to loan them money, or work out some other arrangement with the school, then they may fail. That sucks. For them. Not for all of this guys constituents. In failing, that person may find another way to do things. Maybe a better way. I'm a firm believer that when no one gives a job to a hard worker, that person will make a job. Those who can find a way and need to, do.

Super Gay Post

Been a long time since I've posted here.
I had one all ready last week but got distracted by my kid. Who I had by having sex. With a woman...

Because that's what I do, because I'm not gay.


Gay marriage debate is going on in the SupC.
There's a few things about it that come to mind.

  • If gay marriage is legalized, will I become gay and marry a dude? (If so, then I'm against it. If not, then "eh, whatever")
  • For those fighting against because of tradition, and gender roles in the house, are you also fighting with as much gusto against heterosexual relationships that are messed up? I mean really... if you're going to push to dictate what others do, are you being fair in that?
  • For those fighting against gay marriage because of religious reasons, are you also fighting against other sins as well? I mean... everyone does that. Some sins we do choose, but we're all sinful by nature. Some are built in. Are you lobbying against smoking and drinking? Other government subsidized, taxed, or supported sinful activities? What about theft in the form of unauthorized redistribution of your money?
    Also, A church should be able to deny marrying anyone if it's against their teachings. You can't force a choice on a group. You can only go find a group, or start one of your own that fits what you believe.
  • For those who think people will marry tables/chairs/pets... Really? How many contracts has your dog signed? If they have perfect english diction, penmanship, and can pass a legal overview inquiry to the sanity and ability to make decisions on his/her own - then I wish you and Lassie the best.
    As for inanimate objects, no one would marry an object. The sex toy industry would go out of business if everyone were monogamous.
  • For those fighting against it for "the children" ... invoking children for emotional leverage - real classy. Again I bring up heterosexual couples. Are you fighting for all the completely fucked up and shitty heterosexual parents out there?
  • Flamboyant gay men gross me out. It's true. So do people who let their kids go crazy in public. So do heterosexual couples who do very private things in public. So do people who shorten words: "fab" means "fabulous" - just say the whole word, hippie. So does the Harlem Shake. (Banning the marriage of the Harlem Shake to youtube? Now THAT I would have supported)
    Being gross doesn't justify legal action or negating rights. It just means when I see it I have the freedom to let out an "ew" or other audible judgment. It would be under my breath, of course. I don't want to offend anyone.

I personally believe that a child is best brought up in a home with a man and woman. If I thought differently, I'd do differently. I also believe there are gender roles in a family - and that's ok. If another couple (regardless of their sex) think differently, that's ok for them. Will I judge them any more than I already judge other parents? Hell no. It will be the exact same amount. Come on, I'm not homophobic. Just human...and an asshole sometimes... funny. I'm also Funny.

The purpose of regulation and law should be to regulate actions that may impede on another persons right to health and freedom. A regulation on smoking in public keeps your second hand smoke out of my lungs. (In private or in a space specialized for smoking, you're all good) A ban on murder keeps me safe from harm. A law keeping you from threatening me with your weapon keeps me safe. (also keeps you safe from me returning fire.) A ban on gay marriage does nothing for heterosexuals, nor does it impede a heterosexuals access to health or liberty. If it's legal, I won't wake up someday married to a man. If I was, thank God it's so easy to get a divorce in this country.

Basically, it affects some of my friends, but I don't care about them "because they're gay". That's not why we're friends - just like I'm not friends with anyone else because they like the opposite sex. Why is it even an issue to just say "sure, you can be just like everyone else because I don't care where you choose to put your penis, as long as you don't put it near me". (Same rule applies to my straight friends, BTW)

While I truly believe this country was founded on religious principals, the primary purpose was to create a country where the government wouldn't get in the way of your thoughts, feelings, and expression. Get government out of all marriages.