Guest Piece

Seeing as how I barely do my posting duty on this site, I thought I would do a little something on the side - shameless plug - look for the Dylan article.

See you in Mexico

The wife and boy will be heading out of town next week, leaving me with seven days to fend for myself. While a due amount of time will be spent on housework, I will have significant time to do whatever, but no one to do it with. What would you do?

Funny!!!

So a man walks into a video rental store and seems to be having a very hard time finding a video. The video store clerk suspects the man is lost and decides to offer his help.

"You need any help?", asks the Clerk.

"Well, I can't seem to find a certain movie about feet," says the lost video store rental wanderer.

"Is it 'Happy Feet'?", asks the Clerk.

"Oh yeah! I was looking for 'SAD FEET!'"

-THE END SEBI

500 hours a new song by the Proclaimers

So the iPhone has been cracked by young Mr. Hotz (If that's your real name). I mean Hotz with a 'z' at the end? Come on, there are no geeks in real life (or irl) with a name that cool. And then he posts exactly how the iPhone can be hacked on his own blog.

Wait a minute! *queue record scratch* Does anyone else see what is happening here? Not only can they communicate with these magic boxes we call computers, but now they can talk to cell phones?? What's next? Toasters?!? If so, that's a crack I can use. Ah, the perfect piece of toast.

But look at this guy! He says in his interview that information and knowledge should be "free". This is why Bill Gates is Bill Gates. He controls geeks in the palm of his hand because they have no business sense. Take a good look at yourself Hotz! Before you know it you'll be in a small cage all alone begging for a graphing calculator.

Wheel of Fortune Audition Test Answers

The answers to the puzzles at the Wheel of Fortune Audition include:

Garlic Mashed Potatoes
People who Need People Magazine
Hot Apple Fritters with Powered Sugar on Top
Carrier & Stool Pigeon
Common Courtesy

Is it wrong to post this?

FICA: Made in China?

There's something I need to get off my chest. Where are all these Vietnamese coming from? I mean every other domain name that has a John Smith jingle is registered by a Thomas Jones, that is really Toa Joeng disguised as a Thomas Jones! They only sell and trade amongst themselves, but they still cut each others throats! And then what about all that talk amongst the Georgians with the Hawaiians? Hello?? Is this making any sense to anyone?? Exactly.

Oh, that's right, one more thing. Don't be surprised to see them sweat-shopping FICA faster and cheaper than you can say Chioculate.

Romney's private love affair with Hillary

Across the polls, about 30% of folks say they'd never vote a Mormon president. This looks pretty bad for Mormon Mitt Romney. Those 30% make up two groups: Those who think he worships God and those who think he doesn't.

24% of Americans would never vote for a conservative/god-loving/church-going candidate and see Mormons as fitting that category (I take 24% from the percentage that would never vote for a member of the Christian Coalition). Since he's too churchy the liberals won't vote for him. But the liberals don't vote for conservatives anyway, so Romney is no worse than the other Republicans with them. In the end, these poll numbers don't say anything new.

The remaining 6% or so are the real problem for Romney. These are typically evangelicals who think Mormonism a cult. Ordinarily Romney would not be able to bring them to the polls. But just as Romney looks doomed, a gallant Hillary appears on her white horse. The first commandment of evangelical politics is that the Clinton's are the devil. No one can get the Republican base to the polls like Hillary. These 6% will go to the polls and vote, not because they love Romney, but because they (like 47% of the country) abhor Hillary.

Evidence of this comes from Democrat Congressmen in close races. Many of them are privately expressing concern that if Hillary tops their ticket they will lose 3-4 points in the polls due to an influx of Republican turn-out. So in the end, the folks concerned about Romney's religion are either Democrats or so afraid of a Democrat that they'll vote for Romney in the general election anyway. God works in mysterious ways.

Why Paul is Wrong, except for the connection to Fontana

This would have been just a comment – but it was too long and too good to be held back. Just like Das Kapital.

Paul’s argument has several fatal flaws, but I will limit myself to talking about two (yes, it is hard to be this condescending)

1. The drug example was set up with the sole purpose of illustrating the dangers of addiction, and therefore why a substance should be banned. However, one could easily argue that heroin and angel dust are not illegal due to their causing addictions, but because it drives up the price, uh, I mean because of the negative effects they cause the body.

2. No where, not even in the conundrums of the big C, is it stated that we have the right to choose our addictions, or rather, that we have the right not to have addictions inflicted upon us. Do you think I chose to be addicted to the idea that having and eight-hour workday, two vehicles, a TV big enough to watch American Idol, and a worthless piece of land is all I need to not want to rise up in revolution? As Paul must be well aware, the connection between speech and pornography is tenuous even though it has thus far been used to uphold the “rights” of dirty capitalists. But the connection between speech and addiction is just too much.

Going down the road of “X is bad because it hurts me against my will and therefore invades my rights” is fine if X is randomly if X is randomly throwing needles, but what if X is randomly inviting people to play Alpha Centari at portable kiosks (addiction), or singing “La Macarena” on a bus (speech, addiction, and causing people to commit suicide)?

Attack the porno = speech side. Try passing an amendment defining porno and saying it isn’t speech. Good luck with that definition and good luck keeping what is outside the U.S. from coming in. Heroin, anyone? FICA!

Fica-loving fire hazards: To the kind old man at the Globe Theatre

I was told last Thursday I couldn't sit in the aisle of a theatre because it's a fire hazard (it blocks others from getting out). Every seat in a theatre blocks other people from getting out. Did they assume I wouldn't move if there was a fire? That I'd just sit there while the theatre burned, blocking others from leaving? If so, would I be any less dangerous if I was blocking them from my seat?

Pornography, Heroin and the 1st Amendment: Finally a post dealing with Fontana

Does someone have the "right" not to be offended. Bednar says we don't when someone says something to us. Kimball says we do when someone abuses their freedom of speech. I think the right to not be offended about an idea or insult is indefensible. Freedom of speech only protects speech that someone would want to stop. But I'm having a harder time with the right not to be offended with other non-verbal types of speech. Here's my hypothetical:

It is clearly a violation of my rights for you to inject me, against my will, with heroin as I'm standing next to you in the subway (assume a sterile needle). But is that only because of the needle prick? I think most people would agree that creating a heroin addiction is is worse than just being pricked with a needle. Taking out the needle, what if I just blew Angel Dust into the air and everyone around inhaled it unwillingly. That also seems like a violation of my rights. It seems that no one has a right to create an addiction (a slippery word) in me without my consent. So what if I show pornography, which studies have shown is as addictive as many illegal drugs, to an unwilling audience? Does free speech trump or do they have a right to mental integrity? I've been mulling over this for a few days. Do you think there should be any limits on speech? If we have a right to control what addictions we develop, shouldn't we have a right to ban pornography?

McClellan, Pedophilia and the Constitution

This week a judge in Santa Clarita issued a restraining order prohibiting Jack McClellan, admitted pedophile, from being near children in California. McClellan has not violated any law, but runs a website for pedophiles talking about his favorite public places to loiter and watch children.

Law professors are outraged. Volokh from UCLA says this is unconstitutional because McClellan has not committed any crime so there is no probable cause and so no restraining order can be issued. I think this analysis misses the point and I'm surprised the law community has skipped so many good arguments to rush to the aid of the pedophile.

It is not necessary to have committed a crime to have a restraining order issued. All the plaintiffs would need to show is that there is probable cause that the defendant will harm the plaintiff. This is the interesting part of the issue. Assuming (which is probably true) McClellan will probably act upon his disgusting impulses, it will certainly harm someone. But will it be the plaintiffs? Who can identify who that child will be? So can he be restrained from being around any child because he may harm one? It seems sensible to say yes, but it sets a dangerous precedent. Could a racist be barred from being near any black person? Could someone who reads the bible literally be prohibited from being near homosexuals?

It makes sense to allow restraining orders that prohibit dangerous people from being near a large group of unidentified people. The policy behind a restraining order is to protect someone who is in danger from someone who has shown a propensity to harm them. Given that policy extending the protection to groups does not seem too problematic.

It is also worth considering, where McClellan will be allowed to go. Since nearly every store in every town has children in it, he will not be able to continue living in California. This may violate other Constitutional requirements of federalism, since it will force California pedophiles to other states (you currently can't export poor people; pedophiles are more problematic).

FICA!

Ever ready to adopt a new expletive, I was looking at my pay-stub when I had the desire to shout "FICA!." New words rarely have a long shelf-life - we all still use nastto, right? - but I think this one has potential. Stub your toe? give it a shout. Forget to roll up your window before heading into the carwash? FICA, FICA, FICA! As I see, four letter F-words haven't been this useful since high school.