I think I ought to spend more time at the library (h/t: Glenn).
So yesterday I wrote about incendiary rhetoric, and in the recent past I also wrote about some human rights that I hold dear (tourism, sexual gratification, iPhones). Today I'd like to follow up on these two tangents for just a moment. Here's some rhetoric that I wouldn't necessarily classify as incendiary, but rather, I might say it is quite... compelling, to say the least. Hey Evo, I know cocaine's one of your national treasures, but you might wanna take it down a notch there buddy.
On the important issues of human rights, I look again to human rights forerunner, Great Britain. To be frank, I disagree with the the Daily Mail on both of the following accounts. The first article seemingly is against what they call a landmark victory for sex offenders. I tend to believe violent sex offenders give up the majority of their rights when they commit their crimes, but these days anything can count as a sex offense. You can lose your job or reputation just for being accused (falsely) of rape, or for looking at somebody the wrong way. Lastly, can't all the guys of the world just come out and say we all support the "If there's grass on the field, play ball, and if she doesn't consent, give her some champagne and Quaalude Polanksi" defense?
The other human rights issue the Daily Mail wrote about was the right to protect your property. I'm all about it, Daily Mail, and if somebody comes into my house to harm me or my family, I'll sleep just fine the rest of the night after bustin' a cap or two. On the other hand, is this at all defensible? Do you know how many houses I've urinated on (besides my own)? More than I can remember, and if you try to tell me that peeing on strange buildings is wrong, I fall back on my right to sexual pleasure baby! The Daily Mail expects this case to reignite the debate about the right to defend one's property, and I am calling them out for retardation.
Three cheers for National Healthcare!
Each cheer is a different link. I actually have government healthcare, and it's not all that bad to be honest. It's a little impersonal, and a lot inconvenient in many ways, but it's also free/cheap and reasonably accommodating. On the other hand, if I weren't given this healthcare, I would prefer to have my own doctor who I know and have a rapport with. I feel like I'm kinda beating up on Britain a lot recently, which is a little unfair because I don't even live there. So let's turn our sights domestic a bit, shall we? Kudos to our President for his apparently visionary space policy. I'm not very informed on NASA/Space issues, but I think that stuff is cool, and the article is a good read. Also kudos to our Commander in Chief for kicking serious ass in AfPak, and merking* (that's slang for "beating the shit out of," for all my readers over the age of 50) AQI (Al-Qaeda in Iraq) and it's leaders. Keep the drones coming, the terrizts dying, and the commies crying as I always say.
So big thumbs up to Obama on those two fronts. Big thumbs down, on the other hand, to Michael Steele and the NRC who once again reminded people why nobody trusts them to be the party of fiscal responsibility. At least there's Chris Christie...
*Do not confuse the verb "to merk" in it's main verb tense for "merking" with the completely different word "merkin," which is a pubic wig.
I'm guessing you're on TriCare...if so, remember that what you have isn't at all representative. It's socialized medicine, sure, but it's for a small and controlled group of people. Who also don't get to go to the doctor whenever they want, often have to wait a long time to be seen, and occasionally go in for an appendectomy and come out missing both legs...
Posted by: HP | 04/21/2010 at 11:10 PM