/|\

“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”


Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Well, Even the Roman Republic Fell to Emperors

No, folks, this isn't a hoax:

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 24

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 17, 2005

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.

Which one is that again? Oh yeah:

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Via Sisyphus Shrugged

Ah yes, Mr. Sensenbrenner, he of the Patriot Act renewal non-debate. Not much of a surprise here.

|

posted by Tlachtga, 2:30 PM

Reason #469 Why People Hate Microsoft

From the BBC: Microsoft censors Chinese blogs

Weblog entries on some parts of Microsoft's MSN site in China using words such as "freedom", "democracy" and "demonstration" are being blocked.

Chinese bloggers already face strict controls and must register their online journal with Chinese authorities.

Microsoft said the company abided by the laws, regulations and norms of each country in which it operates.

Man, what a bunch of pussies. Won't stand up to Christian Fundamentalists, and won't stand up to Chinese Communist Totalitarians. And that's just the recent stuff.

By the way, you think that can't happen here? Just wait.

So yeah, I'm trying to learn Linux.

|

posted by Tlachtga, 2:30 PM

Fighting on the Internet is Like Winning the Special Olympics...

As a friend of mine used to say. Somewhat offensive, but it has a point. At any rate, after reading about the whole Kos thing, all I can say is that I learned a long time ago that most men men, progressive as they may claim to be, still don't give a shit about women or "women's issues" ('cause, you know, it's not like they're human issues either). Remember that, and nothing will surprise you.

But anyway, Amanda at Pandagon and Norbizness (among others) both have funny takedowns of the whole stupid situation.

UPDATE: (because I'm self-important)

Here's what gets me about all of this; a lot of the men bloggers are saying "hey, it's a business, he's got money to make. Yeah, oil is a business, pharmaceuticals are a business, war profiteering is a business, and Walmart is a business, too.

Call me crazy, but I've never tried to make money off my blog. I have a real job. That pays my bills, not my pontificating on a subject. Really, guys like Kos and Atrios in this respect are no different than the pundits they hate. They make money from spouting their opinions.

And if it's a business to them, why shouldn't we object to their business practices? Isn't that what "good" liberals do--look at how businesses make their money? And if business make their money from sexist, racist, or anti-labour practices, I don't patronize them. Why should I patronize Kos?

Anyway, I'm not surprised that so-called progressive bloggers have misogynistic leanings--it's just typical of a lot of men (and a lot of women, too). Maybe I'm cynical, but I just don't expect them to be on our side anymore. That's not gender warfare, that's just called not wasting my time and breath.

More good stuff at Pam's House Blend.

|

posted by Tlachtga, 1:30 PM

Apology to Emailers

If anyone has tried to email me recently (or even within the past two months) and I haven't responded, I apologize. I'm having a lot of trouble with my account, particularly with viruses. So please forgive the lack of communication.

|

posted by Tlachtga, 11:21 AM

This Is Not a Weezer Song

Via Pandagon, I heard of this noxious little idea:

The leader of a conservative Christian lobby group appears to suggest that gays should be required to wear warning labels, although he denies that was his intention.

"We put warning labels on cigarette packs because we know that smoking takes one to two years off the average life span, yet we 'celebrate' a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease and takes at least 20 years off the average life span according to the 2005 issue of the revered scientific journal Psychological Reports," Rev. Bill Banuchi, executive director of the New York Christian Coalition told the Mid Hudson News.

[snip]

The issue of labels is particularly sensitive to gays. In Nazi Germany they were forced to wear the pink triangle to differentiate them from other internees at concentration camps.

If this doesn't smell of fascism, nothing does. But then, even the New York Times is afraid to express the view that homosexuals are deserving of human rights:

The public editor found that the overall tone of our coverage of gay marriage, as one example, “approaches cheerleading.” By consistently framing the issue as a civil rights matter -- gays fighting for the right to be treated like everyone else -- we failed to convey how disturbing the issue is in many corners of American social, cultural and religious life.

NYT: "Preserving Our Readers’ Trust"

A lot of people used to be disturbed by the idea of equal rights for Jews, blacks, and women, too. Then again, a lot of people still are.

|

posted by Tlachtga, 11:20 AM