The Bigsibling Blog

Canada. I’ve written some about the state of freedom in our neighbor to the north (or, to the east for those of you in Alaska). With the current kangaroo court called the Canadian Human Rights Council, which is trying its best to convict someone for writing about how, based on statistical numbers, Muslims in Europe with out-populate the natives there. They call that hate speech. Go figure.

Canada needs to change its name to ‘The People’s State of Canada’. Because that name better reflects what it is becoming. Just a few short months ago in Texas, the state moved in and seized some 400+ children from a polygamist compound. The grounds for this over-reaching and illegal maneuver was a falsified claim of abuse. What as abuse going on at the compound? Don’t know, maybe, but the state swept in and took all of these children from their parents in blanket KGB style fashion.

The People’s State of Canada must have looked at that woeful Texas incident, and been impressed. There are two kids up in Winnipeg, Manitoba up there in the People’s State of Canada who have a pair of complete losers for parents. Their parents are bigoted, white-supremacist racist pigs. And they, of course, are teaching this bile to their own kids.

Little did this couple know they were no longer living in a free state. Heck I don’t know for certain, maybe Canada was never really a free state to begin with. Although, the Canucks I have had dealings with in the past seemed perfectly normal. In addition, it doesn’t seem that our northern cousins are flocking to America to experience our free and open society. So I guess I just kind of assumed they were free, like we are. Ok, wait, I’m getting off track here. Back to the issue….

So the People’s State of Canada does not like that this couple are vile racist pigs, and determine that they should not be allowed to raise their own kids, and in KGB (or State of Texas – if you would rather) they sweep in and grab up the children and remove them from their parents, to be placed in state custody. The next hearing is set for 23 June.

This is outrageous, preposterous and many other *ous words that I can’t even think of right now. Now, sexual or physical abuse, or even extreme emotional abuse, yeah, yank the kids outta there without a second thought. But to remove these children from their parents because the People’s State of Canada does not like what the parents believe? Does not like who the parents associates with? How can the good people of Canada stand by and watch this oppression take place. In this day and age? After all we’ve seen in recent memory? After Hitler, after Stalin? After Tibet? After all of this, the people of Canada just sit back and say ‘oh well’?

I am appalled, as much by the silence of the Canucks, as I am by the actions of their government. I simply cannot understand how you all can sit back and watch something like this happen. Regardless of how despicable these parents are, regardless of what their own personal beliefs are. To take their children from them because of their ‘thoughts’. Wrong, just plain wrong. Oh sure, the line is drawn, if you have kids, and you think this way, we’ll take them from you. Funny thing about these types of lines though. They are not static. The never, ever stay in one location. And you people who are on the ’safe’ side of the line now, will one day find yourself on the wrong side of the line. What then?

I’ll close with a paraphrased version of Martin Niemoller’s poem:

When the People’s State of Canada came for the bigots,
I remained silent;
I was not a bigot.

When they took the children from the racists,
I remained silent;
I was not a racist.

When they muzzled the activists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a activist,

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

source

Stumble it!

The darned government. They get in your face and business all the time. It isn’t enough to have smoking bans, forbidding people to engage in a legal activity.

Mississippi legislators this week introduced a bill that would make it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve obese patrons. Bill No. 282, is the brainchild of three members of the state’s House of Representatives, Republicans W. T. Mayhall, Jr. and John Read, and Democrat Bobby Shows. The bill, which is likely dead on arrival, proposes that the state’s Department of Health establish weight criteria after consultation with Mississippi’s Council on Obesity. It does not detail what penalties an eatery would face if its grub was served to someone with an excessive body mass index.

*sigh*

source

h/t to Military Mom and SoHos

###

Stumble it!

One must not insult gays, but it is ok to bully non-gays. In a case that is becoming entirely too typical of the days we live in, a girl at a school in California was disciplined for uttering the phrase “that’s so gay” in response to rude questions other students asked about her Mormon beliefs.

She was sent to the principal’s office and disciplined by the school. Then the school allowed the other students to tease, demean and bully her. The school is clearly in violation of the anti-discrimination policy used to discipline her for her speech by allowing the taunting and bullying to continue.

If she had been gay, and the teasing, taunting and bullying occurred because she was gay, I am certain the courts would have sided with her and her family instead of the school. But because she was taunted,teased and bullied because she is a Mormon, does not give her the special status of being a victim of any sorts.

Being a person mostly of clinical thinking, and not letting my emotions get too involved in looking at issues, lets look at the word ‘gay’. Dictionary.com gives a definition of ‘gay‘ as ‘licentious; dissipated; wanton’. It furthers defined licentious as ‘going beyond customary or proper bounds or limits; disregarding rules.’ It defines ‘wanton‘ as ‘done, shown, used,etc,. maliciously or unjustifiably.’

I will submit, that any of these definitions apply to rude questions of any ilk. It is ignorance of the English language which falsely leads homosexuals to believe that any time the word ‘gay’ is used, it is directed at them. That or arrogance, but I’ll put my money on ignorance.

It is akin to the word niggardly – for which so many in recent years have come under fire for using. Niggardly is a word devised from the Old Norse verb ‘nigla’ meaning ‘to fuss about small matters.’ It is synonymous with stingy or miserly. The word which (by complete ignorance of the English language) it is related to is ‘nigger’, which is derived from the Latin ‘niger’ which means black. In any case, niggardly has absolutely nothing to do with African-Americans or blacks of any nationality or origin. In defense of the use of the word niggardly, Julian Bond (Chairman of the NAACP) said “You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people’s lack of understanding.” I concur.

This is just another example of one group of people, ignorant of the English language, accusing those properly using the English language of being insensitive or hateful when they are, in fact, not. Before leftists start shooting of their mouths and displaying their ignorance, it might be wise to learn the English language (of course, if they were wise, they probably wouldn’t be ignorant).

source

Stumble it!

I have for years been a big fan of AMD chips. Generally, they are faster and less expensive than Intel chips. Plus, I have constantly been a sucker for the underdog. That, it appears, is about to change.

“The AMD rep spelled it out in words that would have been undiplomatic coming from me: He said that the new chips will “block unauthorized access to the frame buffer.” In short, that means an unauthorized party can’t save the contents of the display to a file on disk unless the content owner approves it.” – Tom Yager

For those who are unaware of what this means, it means that if one pops the latest Britney CD into their computer, they will not automatically be allowed to copy the songs to their PC or other media device (i.e. iPod, MP3 player etc). Does anyone out there remember the fiasco when Intel put transmitted serial numbers in their Pentium chips back in the 90s? Or just a few years ago when Sony put that rootkit on their audio CDs? This is along those same lines. What AMD wants to do is prohibit a person from using their computer as they see fit.

“This DRM will control what users have access to. In short, it will
block unauthorized access to the frame buffer. This means that
unauthorized users (that’s you, the people who will be buying these
chips) won’t be able to save the contents of the display to a file
unless the content owner (companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Sony
Pictures and so on) gives you permission.” – Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

From the articles I gather that unless a content provider, even a simple website, specifically grants one the permission to save a file to their computer, they will not be able to do so. If AMD is indeed proceeding down this path, it is good news for Intel. That is, unless Intel goes the same way. If that happens, it would be good news for anyone else who wants to get into the computer chip making business.

Personally, I would pay more for a computer chip that allows me to do what I want when I want on the computer that I paid for with my hard earned cash.

sources:
How AMD hopes to turn things around – by adding DRM directly to the CPU
Content in lockdown

Technorati Tags: AMD, DRM, Intel, Big Brother, Rights, Content Management

Stumble it!

A new policy proposed by the Blair government over there in Great Britain wants to mandate that all children are checked an monitored to see if they are at risk of committing crimes later in life.

The Government’s plan to prevent crime said: “Establish universal
checks throughout a child’s development to help service providers to
identify those most at risk of offending.

What would society do without the State to protect us from ourselves? Is there no longer any personal responsibility? With this type of program, not only is it extremely invasive, but criminals of the future can shirk their responsibility claiming that the State itself has determined that he would be a criminal. With a sentence like that hanging over one’s head, what is one expected to do?

source

Technorati Tags: Great Britain, nanny state, personal responsibility, crime

Stumble it!

I almost spit coffee through my nose this morning reading the article “Political Correctness Is Killing Our Freedoms” in the British online rag the Telegraph.  I had not dared to imagine that people in Europe believe individual freedoms trump people being offended.  It truly is good news to hear.

Mr Barroso insists that the rights of the individual, within the law, over moral strictures from either secular or religious communities, are sacred.

source

Technorati Tags: Political Correctness, Personal Freedoms, Free Speech, Europe

Stumble it!

Reason wins out in California…at least it gains a small victory, but not quite an outright victory.

California Democrat Sally Lieber re-vamped her bill which would have outlawed spanking children under 3 years old.  It’s been replaced with specific violations parents could commit while disciplining their children.

It is important to note that there is a difference between discipline and abuse.  Her bill lowers the threshold for abuse, and defines as abuse;

use of a stick, rod or belt to hit a child, striking a child with a
closed fist, and striking a child under the age of 3 years old on the
face or hand

Some of them I can see.  Hitting a kid with a closed fist, regardless of his age, is wrong.  That is plainly and simply abuse.  But using a build or rod?  No, while that can be abusive, so can the form of discipline loved by the libs – the time out.  A time out can be just as abused as corporal punishment with a belt.

Check any metro newspaper and one can find stories about kids being locked in their rooms, or a garage or a shed for hours, even days at a stretch.  But this bill would not prohibit that. 

Instead, Ms. Lieber tends to believe she knows how better to raise children than parents do.  If the current state of the populous of California is any indication of the proper way to raise children, I’ll pass thank you very much.  What we don’t need is a country full of people who engage in the same type of thinking as the people of California.

source

Technorati Tags: Parenting, Rights, Stupid Laws

Stumble it!

One of the great things about living in Kansas is that a lot of the cow-pattie-like political correctness crap just doesn’t touch us much.  Sure there is the occasional infraction, but for the most part, Kansans just want to be left alone to do their job, raise their kids and live their lives.
�
Now, this legistlator, David Wysong, from Mission Hills, KS wants to ban smoking in all inside places – except private homes.  For those who don’t know, Mission Hills is in Johnson County.  Johnson County is where the money is.  The people there are, for the most part, rather snooty.  Of course, they know what is best for everyone based on what they think is best for themselves.
�
Mr. Wysong has recently lost several family members to cancer.  He feels very strongly about the whole thing.  And while I sympathize with his loss, his mandate that everyone act as he would have them act is a little way overboard.  No one forced his family members to smoke, or to frequent businesses which allow msoking in their buildings.  Not one person forced his family members to injest any second-hand smoke.  If they found themselves in a situation where they were taking in smoke, there was nothing to prevent them from leaving.
�
Look, I understand all the studies that second hand smoke is problematic.  I don’t discount that.  What I do have a problem with the state running private businesses.  If business owners don’t want patrons smoking in their place, they have every right to ban it in their establishment.  Look at just about any fast food restaurant.  No government entity told McDonald’s that they had to prohibit smoking, but they did and I don’t think they lost any money over it either.
�
In fact, if what the legistlators want us to believe is true – that business income will increase with more non-smokers frequenting smoke-free establishments – then they shouldn’t even need to make a law saying one has to prohibit smoking in a business.  Businesses will do whatever they have to do, make whatever changes they have to make, to remain competative and in business.  If prohibiting smoking in a place will truly increase revenues, then I believe business owners would volutnarily do so.
�
Basically, they need to stay out of business.  Who was it that said “The government which governs least, governs best”?  Oh, right, Thomas Jefferson.  Man,for a Virginian, that guy was pretty smart.

This just in, as almost tailor made for this post, NPR’s “All Things Considered” aired this story on the drive home today.  It seems that three Chicago area suburbs are considering lifting the smoking bans enacted this year so they can “review the policy.”  Funny how that happens just before the big Bears playoff game.  Considering how they dind’t give a crap about the bar owners when the ban went into effect 2 Januray 2007.  The bars have complained they have lost up to 50% of their revenue as folks either go to another suburb that doesn’t have a ban, or just plain stay home.

Topeka Captial Journal
NPR

Stumble it!

Coming soon to a radio near you, stuff you don’t want to hear anyway.  Radio is a business.  Radio station owners are in the business to make money.  If they don’t make money, they don’t survive.  The way radio stations generate income is by advertising.  They can charge for advertising, whatever the market bears.  

The ad prices are determined by how many listeners the radio station has at any given time.  For instance, if the radio station holds 250,000 listeners during the 12:00 to 14:00 time frame, they can charge more for their advertising than they can for the 20:00 to 22:00 time slot which only holds about 75,000 listeners.

This all makes perfect sense to anyone who has a radio station, or a product to sell.  If one wants to reach the maximum amount of people at any given time, they have to pay a premiumm.

Enter Congressman Dennis Kucinich.  This guy wants to revive the “Fairness Doctrine.”  The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated in 1987 because it was…well…unfair to radio station owners.  Basically, the Fairness Doctrine states that for every hour of opinion it broadcasts on one side of a subject, it must broadcast an hour of the opposing viewpoint.

This, on the surface, seems like it might be (stealing from Fox News) Fair and Balanced.  Now, everyone knows that talk radio is bombarded with right wingers.  From Rush, to Sean, to Levin, to who knows who else.  And there was a liberal radio network setup over a year ago called “Air America”, which failed miserably because they couldn’t generate the ad revenue because not enough people listened to it.

But it doesn’t matter to the likes of Kucinich.  His real goal is to shut up the likes of Rush and Hannity and Levin and how ever else is out there spouting stuff he doens’t want the rest of the country hear.

Look for his future bills to be announced soon, including the “Equalization of Opportunity Act” which will restrict how many industries any one person can be involved in.  And the “Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Bill” which will dictate that if someone has a somewhat profitable business in one location, a competing business cannot open up shop to compete with the established business.

source

Stumble it!

The secularlists are at it again.  They are pressuring Philadelphia to punish the Boy Scouts of America for excercising the rights granted to them by the Constitution.  The Philly city council says since the Boy Scouts don’t accept homos as leaders or scouts, then they have to vacate the building that they have been operating out of since 1928.
�
Here is the kicker, tell me if you find this at all ironic – back in 1928, the City of Philadelphia built the building, named the “Bruce S. Marks Scout Rescource Center” for the specific purpose of giving the Scouts a place of their own.  The Scouts have enjoyed the facilities rent-free.
�
But, because they stand for moral values and dare to make moral judgements, the Scouts are penalized.  In a world that is increasingly dominated by the secularist ‘anything goes’ crowd, this is to be expected.  It rings of something that might have been written by Ayn Rand.

source

Stumble it!