Comments

  1. says

    I’d take this class:

    Some Central Michigan University students are getting
    schooled in the undead this semester, thanks to a religion course that’s
    exploring apocalyptic themes in biblical texts, literature and pop
    culture.

    Philosophy and religion faculty
    member Kelly Murphy says she always wanted to teach a course on
    apocalyptic literature, and she is a fan of AMC’s TV show “The Walking
    Dead.” The result is Murphy’s class, which is called “From Revelation to
    `The Walking Dead.'”

    “Thinking about the end
    and imagining life in a different way is something that humans have
    always done,” Murphy said in a university release.

    Murphy’s
    class will discuss biblical texts, review popular novels and watch
    clips from movies such as “Shaun of the Dead” and “28 Days Later.”
    Students also will discuss hypothetical ethical and theological problems
    that people could encounter in a post-apocalyptic world.

    http://www.weartv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/michigan-university-offers-course-zombie-apocalypse-41356.shtml

  2. Esteleth, [an error occurred while processing this directive] says

    That does sound quite entertaining!

    My profoundest regret is that I never took LARPing for Credit in college.

    Okay, the official class name was not “LARPing for Credit,” but that’s functionally what it was.

  4. keresthanatos says

    Yes, Kligingshit, does sound fucking vile.

    One of my uncles was in Airborne during WW II. D-Day and all that, when I first heard of the DARPA research on the “brown sound” device I asked him what he thought of it. He said that it was a complete waste of money and time. He said the armies all over the world had been using the brown sound ever since the 1600’s. It was called artillery bombardment.

    He said that the right combinations of sounds would cause him to “squeeze out a little bit even to this day.” This from a man who had two purple hearts, bronze star with cluster, and several citations for bravery. Oh and by the way if Gordo Klingingshitball must know, he was straight.

  5. A. Noyd says

    keresthanatos (#504)

    He said the armies all over the world had been using the brown sound ever since the 1600’s. It was called artillery bombardment.

    One of the scariest dreams I ever had was one where jet liners were plummeting to the ground all around my house. Luckily, I got to wake up from it relatively quickly. I can’t even imagine what it would do to me to be stuck in something like that for real.

  8. says

    Disturbing dash cam video shows the dog was not a danger to the police.

    I don’t know about that. The dog was running around without leash or supervision and barking at the cop. It’s not unreasonable for him to be uncertain about what it might do.

    Of course, you have to wonder if this is really what the police handbook says you should do in that situation:
    “If faced with a barking dog you don’t know, first advance into its territory. If it continues barking, try kicking the dog and see if that doesn’t calm it down. If these sensible measures fail, feel free to shoot it. Do not at any point attempt to contact the owner to control the dog or call for animal control professionals to deal with it.”

  10. David Marjanović says

    “But homosexuality is a combat divider, dividing one’s reason to live while taking breaks on the combat field to change diapers all because their treacherous sin causes them to lose control of their bowels,” Klingenschmitt said, reading from the retired chaplain’s statement.

    That’s really funny. Do you know about the Immortals of Thebes? That was an army unit composed exclusively of gay couples. The idea was that lovers would 1) fight particularly hard to impress each other and 2) fight particularly hard to save each other’s lives.

    They conquered Sparta.

  14. carbonfox says

    Hey guys, longtime lurker seeking the hoard’s help. My sister is a writing tutor at university and is apparently assisting with a term paper on Camille Paglia, in particular the following article and interview. I’ve given her my opinion on why the article is nonsense, but y’uns are excellent at shredding this type of thing, so could you throw me a few pointers or links? Most of the rebuttals I’ve found aren’t satisfying. Thanks in advance!

    http://www.mtsac.edu/~jgarrett/RAPE%20AND%20MODERN%20SEX%20WAR.pdf
    http://privat.ub.uib.no/BUBSY/playboy.htm

  15. Jacob Schmidt says

    What the fuck is with that article? It presents an argument based on rape being prevalent, on women needing to protect themselves, but criticises feminism for being hyperbolic about rape. The premises openly and flagrantly contradict the conclusion.

  16. Jacob Schmidt says

    I caught this nonsense at the end, too:

    College administrations are not a branch of the judiciary. They are not equipped or trained for legal inquiry.

    They are not acting either as a branch of the criminal or civil judiciary, nor are they acting in any legal capacity. Really, the arguments against reporting the incident to the administration are simply nonsense.

  17. Arren ›‹ neverbound says

    Jacob:

    The premises openly and flagrantly contradict the conclusion.

    IOW, it’s a Camille Paglia piece.

  18. chigau (違う) says

    The coming weekend is a Long one in Alberta.
    I’m off to a Camp.
    I will be without internet for about 72 hours.
    What should I do to prepare?
    (I have previous experience, I’m seeking new insight.)

  28. keresthanatos says

    Anybody home….I’m feeling particularly manic tonight, probably need a thorough trouncin’ . First place I thought of , the good ole T-dome!!! A true bastion of FREE SPEECH !!!!! Don’t give a Damn what the wussies of the MRA ET. AL. and their sock puppets say (We guys know what “sock puppetes” are really for, whack, whack, whack, ohhhh babayyyyy)

    So I’m not feeling very christiny tonight, matter of fact,… ah hell just generally all around full blown misanthropanistic (not really a word but maybe it should be).

    Here is a little cut and past that sums it up rather well (from Wikipeadia article on misanthrope).

    Molière’s character Alceste in Le Misanthrope (1666) states:
    “ My hate is general, I detest all men;
    Some because they are wicked and do evil,
    Others because they tolerate the wicked,
    Refusing them the active vigorous scorn
    Which vice should stimulate in virtuous minds.[1][2] ”

    Or as I like to consider myself, an equal opportunity hater.

    Never concentrate your hate on a particular person, nationality, or people. Spread it out, give it to all in equal measure. Never concentrate it into whitehot jets of searing rage, unless you (read me) are looking in a mirror.

    Yes I am a vile and miserable person, to be reviled and scorned. Since that is out of the way, anyone want to play ????

  30. keresthanatos says

    ….
    ….
    ….
    Sweet Jesus on a pogo stick, no wonder we never get visited by aliens….

  31. says

    Hey Chas, thanks for your help on different types of turtles, those links helped a lot, while also making things difficult – so many gorgeous turtles! I finally went with Graptemys flavimaculata as the base for my art piece.

  32. keresthanatos says

    Damn, way to reinforce my 528 there Chas. Somehow after seeing that, even eating a 12 gauge slug seems futile (reference to suicide for those not familiar).

  33. ChasCPeterson says

    Graptemys flavimaculata

    ooo…nice pick!
    That’s one of several species of Southeastern U.S. map turtles that Fred Cagle discovered in the 1950s by taking field crews out at night in canoes with spotlights…they like to sleep out of water for some reason (I keep a Mississippi map turtle and he does the same thing). Probably endangered.

  34. keresthanatos says

    So, I am feeling particularly pictish (olde southern Appalachian slang for prickly) tonight, I need some ….. hope, funny that I would pick thunderdome, but I find a lot that soothes me here, even if the vitriol is directed at me. Always good to be in the company of those who know way more than myself. So, what will it be ?

  35. keresthanatos says

    Lets start with one of SteverO’ s favs. Is there ever a morally justified reason to nuke (or MOAB, carpet/cluster) bomb a population? As an aside, let me just say, most govts. have scenarios where they consider this acceptable. In most cases that I have read the protocols for (U.S., Canada, Mexico, G.B. Germany, France) it is a last ditch response to a biological plague, not necessarily carried by humans. Different protocols exist for break down of social order caused by human disease, none of which call for a liquidation of the population.

  46. David Marjanović says

    Trigger warning: mentions of rape and trauma.

    Remember the “Stunned silence” thread from August/September? Near the end I said I had only read the first 100 comments and promised to catch up. I spent most of Sunday night doing that.

    That thread is a stark reminder to how easy I have it – not just in the obvious way that I’ve never been raped, never sexually harassed, never bullied in a sexualized way, and never afraid that any of that might happen. I also haven’t been traumatized. I’ve never been turned into a crying ball under the table, I’ve never had a panic attack, I’ve never shaken with anger in front of a computer, I’ve never been driven to contemplate murder – I remember having had violence fantasies once about one particular bully that would have done lasting harm if somehow lived out, but even so I’ve never wanted to inflict lasting harm on… probably anyone, let alone calmly plotted how to do that. I don’t have PTSD. I’ve been triggered once in my whole life; that was for completely asexual bullying, and although I found my hands shaking, I remained capable of talking the bully down (with my hands – it was in Fb chat) till he came down from holy-war mode and even apologized. I can use scary, evil, disgusting scenarios as philosophical thought experiments without needing a break. I don’t even know if the trigger warning at the top of this comment is necessary for anyone, because I have no experiences to relate this to. And if I didn’t have a headache right now (my nose hasn’t let me sleep well lately), I could probably double the length of this list of examples.

    That’s a privilege.

    It ought to be a right, but it’s been robbed from
    so
    many
    people.

    *blank stare*

    ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

    In that thread there’s a link to a post on ratifiedtwentyfive on how ♥ awesome ♥ Amelia ♥ is. It made me tear up, which almost nothing on a computer ever does, so I wanted to say so. Embarrassingly I had forgotten that I had already read the post when it was new – the first comment is by me –, so I wanted to mention this embarrassment, too. Didn’t work. Three times I clicked “submit”, and the page just refreshed. I tried another comment, and that didn’t work either. Ináji, can you figure out what’s up? Has WordPress (like Facebook) perhaps decided that my usual e-mail address, which has been spoofed in the past, belongs to a spammer?

  49. dysomniak "They are unanimous in their hate for me, and I welcome their hatred!" says

    Everyone and everything is fucking stupid. Me, you, Rebecca Watson, and Jesus.

    That is all.

  53. says

    Let’s face it: What we need is a good, fresh chew-toy to rip into. One with little tassels and that goes “weeeeh!” when you bite it.

  55. says

    Wait, what? That better not be until Sunday. My grandma has her birthday party on Saturday (90 years, dammit!) and I’m not missing that.

    Damn gods with their damn apocalypses. No respect for the plans of common people.

  57. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @David M, #546:

    I remember the existence of the thread very well, but there’s so much there that I can’t possibly remember everything important in it. I might reread some. I’ll certainly go looking for the name Amelia, b/c I don’t remember Amelia’s contribution.

    As for being able to comment: Comments for that thread have been disabled, for everyone. Nothing wrong with you or your login. You can always direct questions like that to the Monitors via the “Contact a Monitor” link – it’s on the left, the first link in PZ’s “Profile” section.

  59. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Chigau –

    D’oh! I thought David was talking about commenting on Stunned Silence, but on rereading it does seem to be much more likely he was talking about commenting on another blog whose post was linked in Stunned Silence.

    My bad, sorry everyone!

  72. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Why just the skulls?

    Because if he did the plastron and carapace, it would be but a shell.

  73. carlie says

    Chas – we currently have a very dead turtle in the mixed-use classroom lab for vert. zoo. A Bio 101 student asked me about it, and I told him that if you cut through one of the legs you can tell how old the turtle was by counting the number of rings in the femur bone.

    He believed me until I cracked a minute later.

  77. ChasCPeterson says

    why yes, actually, I have a painted turtle (Joey; I hatched him from an egg and knew his wild mom) out back right now to see what the ants and flies will do. Museums use dermestid beetles, but I have none of them.

  78. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Chas:

    Attempted and failed humour: ie “He is but a shell of his former self.” Sorry.

  80. says

    from th Lounge:
    David Marjanović

    How many kids would dream of doing that to an adult twice their size? Because that’s the situation we’re talking about.

    A number which might surprise you greatly; it’s not actually that uncommon in fact.

    Also, as I noted in my initial commentary on this topic, in the real world that kind of behaviour is a great way to acquire a serious beating and/or assault charges. I’d call it a vital lesson to learn that if you go around attacking people, there’s a good chance of suffering physical violence in return. I mentioned people of my acquaintance (most especially those who have a combination of martial arts/self defence training and PTSD, but either can be sufficient on its own) who would have broken that kid’s nose for him before conscious thought even started to occur, and I wouldn’t blame them at all for doing so. The original account didn’t specify an age, but any post verbal age is damn well old enough to know better, and if the parents are unable or unwilling to at a minimum teach the kid that shit you can get away with pulling on your parents isn’t the same as shit you can can get away with pulling on strangers then it’s their responsibility to keep the kid out of contact with other adults until they can and will.

  82. David Marjanović says

    A number which might surprise you greatly; it’s not actually that uncommon in fact.

    OK. In that case, at the second time, I’d hold the kid’s wrists, explain what you just explained (setting myself up as the good cop, I guess), and then let go. I’d also made sure that the parents heard this explanation (if not live, then later), because it’s entirely possible they didn’t think of that.

  83. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Also, as I noted in my initial commentary on this topic, in the real world that kind of behaviour is a great way to acquire a serious beating and/or assault charges.

    I’d call it a vital lesson to learn that if you go around attacking people, there’s a good chance of suffering physical violence in return

    Charming.

    I mentioned people of my acquaintance (most especially those who have a combination of martial arts/self defence training and PTSD, but either can be sufficient on its own) who would have broken that kid’s nose for him before conscious thought even started to occur, and I wouldn’t blame them at all for doing so.

    Most likely they would swing about a meter over the kid’s head. (I’d say lucky kid, but darn, he could have learned a valuable lesson! Bonus: a visit to the doctor’s office. More education!)
    Since morgan mentioned hitting the kid on the “well padded butt”, I can only assume it means the kid is still in diapers.

    But hey, it’s never too early to teach children some painful lessons!

  84. says

    Beatrice
    I am not advocating violence as a means of teaching this lesson; it is one which is quite possible to teach in other ways, which methods and lesson is an essential part of proper parenting. I was mostly taught in this fashion; I say mostly as we had a cat, and when the cat bit/clawed me all that my parents said was ‘what did you do to the cat first?’.
    I am merely stating that violence is a highly predictable outcome of this type of behaviour, and that if violence ensues from assaulting someone, this is simply something that happens. I am further stating that if, as the custodian of a child, you are unable or unwilling to teach your child lessons like “Don’t go around attacking people”, it’s your responsibility as a parent to keep them away from people until you can and will teach them that lesson. In other words, I blame the parents entirely for the situation morgan described, and would still hold them fully responsible had the child sustained some type of injury. If they can’t or won’t control their brat, they shouldn’t be having dinner guests. If they do, then the consequences are on their heads, whatever they may be.

    Since morgan mentioned hitting the kid on the “well padded butt”, I can only assume it means the kid is still in diapers.

    I read that to imply the child was heavyset.

  85. Dhorvath, OM says

    I’d call it a vital lesson to learn that if you go around attacking people, there’s a good chance of suffering physical violence in return

    I would call it a vital lesson to learn that if you want to spend time getting physical with people you ask first and only play rough with people who want to play that way. And that doing anything with people who don’t want to do it is not playing.

  86. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    In other words, I blame the parents entirely for the situation morgan described, and would still hold them fully responsible had the child sustained some type of injury.

    You mean if someone inflicted injury on the child.
    As in, hit them. Deliberate hitting seems to be included.

    As I said, charming.

    (I know it’s a cliche, but I can’t believe I’m reading this)

  87. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    It’s not morgan’s response that really bothers me, but some of the responses to them.

    a little kid hitting someone -> assault and battery

    adult hitting back -> disciplining, using restrained force, “hitting” (not hitting, but “hitting”) and a sustained injury (which the child apparently sustains magically without anyone inflicting it*)

    Just… the framing. I don’t even…

    * I didn’t used to be aware of the manipulative thing about that kind of phrasing. Person A didn’t hit person B, no, you say person B sustained an injury. You can’t make me start noticing this kind of thing, and then not notice it when someone here employs it.

  88. Esteleth, [an error occurred while processing this directive] says

    I don’t like the idea of spanking children (or anyone) or the idea that hitting children in any context is appropriate.

    That said, I do think that the kid did need to learn “don’t hit people.” The child was behaving an inappropriate manner and needed to learn this. The parents should have delivered this lesson.

    We have Morgan’s word that the discipline offered was ineffectual and weak. Maybe it was, and maybe that’s just Morgan’s opinion.

    I don’t know – Morgan doesn’t know – if the parents’ negative reaction was to the Morgan hitting the child, to Morgan offering discipline (any discipline), or both. Or neither, for that matter.

  89. chigau (違う) says

    For over 15 years, I’ve been involved in teaching karate to children.
    By the time we take them (usually ca. 6 years old) they have been very well instructed in not hitting other people.
    But, children really, really, really like to hit things.
    So we use punching pads.
    And if you use a pool noodle, the kids really, really, really like to get hit.
    We don’t let the kids actually try to hit one another until they’re in their teens.

  90. The Mellow Monkey: Non-Hypothetical says

    Someone I know was once attacked by her (emotionally disturbed) grandson with a knife. She used a broomhandle to smack his arm and make him drop the knife. I was there. It was a genuine emergency and she used the bare minimum of force necessary, as it would not have been safe for him or for her to turn her back on him or try to take hold of him. I don’t think she was in the wrong. I’d disagree with saying it’s wrong to hit a child in all contexts, because children are people and “child” covers a lot of ground. There are contexts when it’s necessary to hit people, for your own safety and the safety of others.

    But because children are people, I’d say they deserve as much bodily autonomy as they can possibly be afforded, with the understanding that younger children are not going to have the same capacities as the majority of adults. That means they get more leeway, not less.

  91. Dhorvath, OM says

    the kids really, really, really like to get hit.

    Yes. We have foam swords for similar reason. Also, wrestling. Constant fave with every child I know, when it’s an adult they are paired with. For some reason kids will overdo it against one another.

  92. says

    Beatrice
    I don’t know how I can be more clear about what I am saying. I am discussing a separate issue from striking a child with forethought as a disciplinary measure. I am stating that in the situation described, a sudden, unexpected assault causing significant pain, many people have a perfectly valid set of reflexes which includes returning violence. Furthermore, when these reflexes are triggered, the fault for any ensuing injury does not lie with the person who was a victim of sudden physical assualt. The fault lies with either the person who committed the initial assault, or, in the event that the individual commiting the assault is not considered competent (due to age or any other reason), the fault lies either with whoever has custodial responsibility for the assailant or with the nature of the universe and society such that situations like this can occur.
     
    Had the parents of this child, or other parents of other children who behave similarly, invited a person with such reflexes into their home, the child might well have suffered injury due to said reflexes. Had that been the case, the fault for said injury would lie with the child’s parents, because they failed in their responsibility to either teach their child better or to avoid circumstances where such a thing might occur.
     
    As I noted, while reading morgan’s account of the situation, I was immediately put in mind of people whom I have known who have the reflexes I describe, commonly for reasons involving PTSD, and I had a deeply troubling vision of the probable outcome of one of them having been put in the situation described. Had such a situation occurred, I would hold the guest blameless in the matter, for the reasons I have extensively elucidated.
     
    tl;dr regardless of whether morgan’s response to the situation is appropriate, the consequences of the situation could easily have been far, far worse, and regardless of whether morgan’s response to the situation is appropriate, the primary responsibility for all outcomes continues to lie with the parents, who were clearly remiss in their responsibilities.

  94. David Marjanović says

    …What’s crossdressing about it?

    Anyway: hasn’t colnago80 commented on Pharyngula a couple of times? Take a look at this. Then clean your glasses and try again.

  96. chigau (違う) says

    I guess it was good that I didn’t get into the Sean Carroll thread.
    WTF are they on about?

  97. anteprepro says

    @Lofty, 593:

    Fuck you.

    Agreed. Completely uncalled for.

    I guess it was good that I didn’t get into the Sean Carroll thread.
    WTF are they on about?

    I don’t even know anymore. I guess we are just poking the smug theist fauxlospher at this point?

  99. Lofty says

    Fuck you.

    i introduce a rare and unusual parrot
    plumed in delicate shades of pink and blue
    with a quirky title
    which i am trashed for
    so i’m clueless
    sorry
    i didn’t mean to offend
    enjoy the beautiful bird
    if you can

  100. says

    I’ll repeat the notice here.

    “Anabasis” was previously banned under the names “Hank Williams” and “georget”. Cleanup in progress.

  102. says

    @Lofty
    You know, if you want people to think that your apologies are sincere, you might want to leave out the passive-aggressive tone. Especially, the “if you can” comment pisses me off*. It’s a little fuck you cherry on top of an apology that is already sounding incredibly insincere.

    You may not have intended to offend, but you clearly don’t give a shit that you did.

    *
    On a tangent, I’ve been trying to articulate why exactly and I’m finding it a bit difficult. It ends up being a very long and complicated explanation. It’s something similar to when a guy calls a woman a “frigid bitch” because she turns him down. It’s an association of two things that are actually completely unrelated, in an attempt to denigrate anyone who disagrees with you.

    I.e. it denies that people might have reasons to disagree. Instead, they disagree because they’re emotionally stunted and abnormal. There’s something wrong with them because “normal people” would obviously agree.

    It borders on dehumanizing and it plays right into common cultural tropes about how the “PC police” are ruining all the good, harmless fun (that the privileged have at the expense of the marginalized) and if they would just lighten up and stop being offended, there would be no problem at all. It’s trying to rephrase the issue in such a manner that the criticism itself becomes the problem, rather than the thing originally criticized.

  104. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Inspired by David Marjanović:

    I went back and reread the Stunned Silence thread (and not a small amount of related material) after you brought it up. I forgot just how intense that time was. There was so much going on right then. I’m glad you mentioned it. There was a lot for me to learn in that thread and the contemporaneous ThunderDomes and other near-contemporaneous exploding threads. It’s good for me to reread it so I could take more of it in.

    Damn, the Horde can be truly, literally awesome sometimes…

  105. ChasCPeterson says

    crosspost:
    Here‘s my buddy Tim giving a TED talk in Berkeley a couple weeks ago on his Big Idea for a new approach to planet-saving. It’s a pretty good idea and might appeal to many here.

  106. says

    @ Chas

    Thanks for the linky.

    Has Tim thought about throwing about thousands of little baby plastic (biodegradable) animatronic tortoises? A lot of toy manufacturers are twiddling their thumbs here in Guandong.These can be used to (for example) shock¹ the ravens into losing all interest in the real deal. They could be really cheap, look tortoisy, charge by sunlight, discharge by capacitor and be ready for the next bird. Within a few weeks you would have jolted the birds into Pavlovian turtle-aversion.

    ¹ Obviously non-lethal. This would require the minimum power to induce behavioural readjustment. The upside to some angry birds will be live tortoises.

  107. ChasCPeterson says

    theophontes: yes, the techno-tort aversive lure is already in development. I like the way you think.

  108. Dhorvath, OM says

    Chas,
    Started watching, but an odd morning kept me from finishing so it’s on pause for after work.

  109. David Marjanović says

    There was a lot for me to learn in that thread and the contemporaneous ThunderDomes and other near-contemporaneous exploding threads.

    Could you give me a few links? I know the Thunderdome was exploding, for example, but I don’t know which number.

  112. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    The Dr Phil thread is where we developed CCC. And while we now have it, and it does distill a much of the important thinking, it’s educational to read *how* it came about (at that meta-level, which wasn’t easily possible while focussing on creating the thing) and it’s also useful (to me, at least) to re-read some of the insights that didn’t fit in CCC.

    ThunderDome 32 – 37 had a bunch of really important stuff, but I think the most important ones for me were 32, 33, and 35. Just a lot of trans* education work I was doing back then combined with a lot of work on sexism that everyone was doing made for some very useful comments by many, many people*.

    Starfishrock, for instance, made a first-Pharyngula-comment that was out-fucking-standing, and made me wistful for Starfishrock’s voice around here.

    *In the Stunned Silence thread at the end there are also TDome links to particular comments that are most relevant to SS, though it’s also true that after SS got left behind, another TD (33? 35?) took up some of those issues again – searching for Cyranothe2nd might help you get to the core of that quicker. Searching for Inaji will get you to the core of pretty much all of the useful anti-oppression stuff, so you can skip over things that were important at the time, but less so now.

  114. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Caesar, from the current lounge:

    You’re in the US, talking about US rights?

    Try the cases interpreting the 24th amendment, the first amendment to incorporate the phrase “right to vote” into the constitution. The amendment explicitly assumes a “right to vote” and though by itself it only protects abridgment via direct or indirect payment of tax, courts have interpreted that to mean any financial relationship with the government – e.g. you can’t lose your right to vote (or be forced to “agree” to give it up) for accepting TANF. Remember this for later.

    Further cases have clarified the existence of a right to vote and both states and the federal government are restricted from violating this right for more reasons than equal protection, substantive due process, procedural due process, and financial relationship.

    The 26th amendment prohibits denying the vote based on old age or youth, provided the voter has reached at least 18 years. It also asserts a “right to vote”. Though it also limits the protection of this right to age-related discrimination, it clearly articulates and further establishes the right to vote.

    Given these and a whole slew of cases going back to reconstruction, a constitutional right to vote is clearly established in the US and is considered subject to strict scrutiny – that is ANY abridgment for ANY reason must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. Abridging acts or actions must use a means of accomplishing that compelling goal that is least infringing on the right in question.

    Moreover, you deny that their is a “right” to vote but seem completely unaware that there are statutory as well as constitutional rights, and that some rights have been established through common law and inhere to at least any natural person – sometimes any legal person – without ever being written into any constitution.

    If you have no fucking clue what the law is, don’t go making claims here. Bring some evidence that there is no right to vote – like an appellate case (not later overturned) declaring such a thing that is more recent than the 26th amendment (and you won’t find such a case).

    Your #86 has 2 points:
    1: there is no right to vote: Clearly here you’re lying, maliciously or not, knowingly or not.
    2: “even if, your rights aren’t absolute”: duh, the relevant question is “sure, but what is the standard of review and could such legislation pass a reasonable application of that standard”.

    you don’t know the standard. You don’t mention that IDs cost money and that the state of Texas hasn’t appropriated funds to eliminate this cost. You don’t know the consequences that has for 24th amendment analysis. You have know idea how to go about doing that analysis. And, finally, you give no evidence of knowing anything about the composition of, politics of, or history of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal which might give you insight useful in reasonably concluding that such a right would or wouldn’t be upheld in the face of contrary Voter ID legislation

    In other words, you know absolutely nothing relevant, and yet you believe your opinion to be valuable enough for others to read.

    Rather arrogant of you. Perhaps you should come back when you know something…at all.

  115. anteprepro says

    All I’m saying is that showing id is not objectionable.

    And you’re either ignorant or utterly callous and indifferent to the fair treatment of others. Take your pick, caesar.

    Last I checked, all I did was make a comment stating my opinion of voter id. It’s “you guys” that started arguing with “me”.

    “All I did was talk about how it is totally fair to pay women less than men! And suddenly you folks just started arguing, like I said something objectionable! You started it!”

  116. carlie says

    Waiting here for Ceasar to explain why it’s worth all the hassle to prevent 26 counts of voter fraud per 197 million votes.

  117. ChasCPeterson says

    Waiting here for Ceasar to explain why it’s worth all the hassle to prevent 26 counts of voter fraud per 197 million votes.

    Presumably, the idea would be to prevent any frauds that were not detected, not the 26 that were.

  118. anteprepro says

    Presumably, the idea would be to prevent any frauds that were not detected, not the 26 that were.

    If so, then we might be delving into “tiger-repelling rock” territory.

  121. caesar says

    Crip Dyke@644:
    I realize that the courts have interpreted the constitution to contain a right to vote. All I’m saying is that there isn’t a right to vote explicitly stated in the Constitution, but fine, lets not quibble over minor details. Whether voter id would be considered by the courts to be an undue burden is up for debate, and I don’t particularly care whether or not they would make a ruling in support of it or not. It’s my opinion that showing an id in itself is so hard as to constitute a major impediment for most people.

  122. caesar says

    carlie@616:

    Waiting here for Ceasar to explain why it’s worth all the hassle to prevent 26 counts of voter fraud per 197 million votes.

    Again, I’m ambivalent to voter id itself. I don’t believe that the level of voter fraud is as high as voter id proponents claim. I’m only arguing that the showing an id in itself is not an issue.

  123. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    And to to your point, I don’t need to personally help her. It’s unfortunate that she is handicapped, but I’m not causing her any issues by my support. There are plenty of groups around who will put in the work helping those with issues voting.

    Again with the lack of acknowledging responsiblity for your ENEVIDENCED BELIEFS. Where is the solid and conclusive evidence of voting fraud effecting an election without picture ID. It is solution without a problem. Parsimony says it isn’t needed.

  124. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I realize that the courts have interpreted the constitution to contain a right to vote.

    Then you have NO POINT. Either it is right or it isn’t. It IS a right.

  125. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I don’t believe that the level of voter fraud is as high as voter id proponents claim. I’m only arguing that the showing an id in itself is not an issue.

    Show how it isn’t an issue to the elderly and poor who must drive say 90 miles to nearest state office issuing those ID’s, and those offices are only open for non-driver ID only a few hours a week. Welcome to Texas. It IS an issue.

  126. chigau (違う) says

    How many fraudulent votes would it take to actually change the results of a … say … US presidential election?
    or would that take the … say … Supreme Court?
    Did anyone ask for their ID?

  127. says

    casear#622

    I’m only arguing that the showing an id in itself is not an issue.

    No, you’re asserting it, in the face of many people pointing out the reasons why it is, none of which you’ve addressed, as you would have done were you in fact presenting an argument.

  128. Dhorvath, OM says

    Chas,
    Thanks so much for that link, I lack the background to really comment, but would be interested in seeing how this moves forward. I do game, and would not be averse to using that time both for recreation and something more.

  129. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I’m only arguing that the showing an id in itself is not an issue.

    Arguing: This is what I think, and this {link} is the evidence to back that up.
    Assertion: This is my opinion.
    You offer nothing but opinion.

  130. carlie says

    Ceasar – you haven’t even shown why showing an ID would be beneficial. Given the way that voter registration and sign-in works, and given how easy fake IDs are to obtain, how would showing ID be a benefit to the voting process?

  131. caesar says

    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls@623:

    Again with the lack of acknowledging responsiblity for your ENEVIDENCED BELIEFS.

    I’m not responsible for making sure she or anybody else is able to vote. I’m not the cause of anybody’s hardship. If it’s such a big issue to you, then “you” make sure that she is taken care of, if you’re not able to.

    Where is the solid and conclusive evidence of voting fraud effecting an election without picture ID. It is solution without a problem

    Again, it’s not my position that voter fraud is a serious problem.

  132. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I’m not responsible for making sure she or anybody else is able to vote. I’m not the cause of anybody’s hardship.

    WRONG. If you support something will disenfranchise them due to hardship of obtaining ID, then YOU are a problem, since you haven’t and refuse to EVIDENCE there is a problem with voter fraud. Only an idiotlogue would not acknowledge the effective results of something not needed for fair and honest elections unless they agree with what is effectively happening. As you seem to.

  133. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    By the way, the hardship goes all around. When I take the Redhead to the doctor, I have to take a vacation day. I’m lucky I’m an old fart where I work and have lots of vacation time. Others aren’t so fortunate, and would have to lose a days pay. Until you grasp those types of realities, you don’t understand why some of us are giving testimony to the hardship your belief causes certain folks. And you don’t give a shit.

  134. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Caesar, #621:

    All I’m saying is that there isn’t a right to vote explicitly stated in the Constitution,

    Fractally fucking wrong. When you zoom out to the big picture and take just the biggest gist of what you’re saying incorporating all context and interpreting you to mean that the constitution doesn’t specifically prohibit the government from passing the Texas law, it’s wrong because of what I said earlier about Texas’ failure to provide IDs for free. Permit me to quote from the 24th:

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

    When you read your statement right on its face, it’s wrong: the constitution does mention a right to vote. From the 15th, of which I’m certain even you are aware since you cited it:

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State

    When you read for detail and drill down to clause-level, we find, “All I’m saying” when in fact you were saying a great deal more than that. In fact, you said:

    2.Even if you had a specific right to vote, your rights aren’t absolute and there’s no reason why verifying your identity would be considered an undue hardship for the vast majority of people.

    Which is wrong – there is a reason. In your opinion, which is entirely uninformed as far as I can tell, those reasons would not succeed as arguments before a court of competent jurisdiction. That doesn’t mean there is no reason.

    But even if you were right in #2, you’re still saying more than there is no explicit right in the constitution, because #2 (right or wrong) says more than that.

    If we drill down further, to individual words, let me remind you that “constitution” isn’t in your original argument at all:

    1. You don’t specifically have a right to vote.

    While you cite the 15th’s limited scope, your complete thought expressed in this sentence is clearly a statement about rights of any kind, from any source. If you are so ignorant as to be unaware that right can come from statute, common law, or constitutional sources, fine. That means you were **unable to understand the difference between your own statements**, but it doesn’t render either of the statements correct.

    Your statement is so fucking wrong that I bet if we looked at phonemes and letters there would be more wrong in there.

    Give it the fuck up. You’re either lying or your arguing so incompetently as to make people assume you’re lying just to allow themselves to believe you’re not as stupid as you would otherwise appear.

    It takes some fucking arrogance for you to make these wrong statements with such passion.

    How unexpected from someone with such a retiring internet handle.

  135. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Caesar, #621:
    Now that your completely ludicrous statement has been dealt with, we can deal with this:

    It’s my opinion that showing an id in itself is so hard as to constitute a major impediment for most people.

    Either you have entirely reversed your position, or you meant to say:

    It’s my opinion that showing an id in itself is not so hard as to constitute a major impediment for most people.

    To which I can only say,

    It’s my opinion that being white, in itself, is not so hard as to constitute a major impediment for most people. Therefore, Voting White laws should be no constitutional problem. QED.

  138. opposablethumbs says

    Oh, but don’t you understand? All caesar is saying is that it’s easy to put your hand in your pocket or bag, take out a piece of paper or card that is already in there, and show it to someone. Easy peasy! The fact that it is difficult to acquire that piece of paper or card in the first place is irrelevant! Caesar doesn’t find it a hardship, anyway, so that proves it!
    .
    All caesar is saying is that it’s easy to pick up a piece of food in your hand and put it in your mouth, chew it and swallow it. Easy Peasy! The fact that it’s difficult to get the job to earn the money to buy the food is irrelevant! Therefore nobody is hungry! Well, caesar isn’t hungry, anyway, so that proves it!
    .
    caesar’s “point” works perfectly well, just as long as you divorce it completely from actual reality.
    .
    What amazes me is that caesar has actually acknowledged and agreed several times that the jumping through hoops to get voter id is a problem and that it is aimed at disenfranchising the poor and vulnerable. While in the same breath insisting that a requirement to show id is fine. The only conclusion I can come to is that they are arguing on the nano-scale – the physical act of holding up a piece of paper is easy! Wow.

  139. caesar says

    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls@629:

    Arguing: This is what I think, and this {link} is the evidence to back that up.
    Assertion: This is my opinion.
    You offer nothing but opinion.

    How about this study from the Brennan Center showing that there
    is a lack of evidence for voter id having a significant negative effect on turnout:
    here

  140. caesar says

    CripDyke@635:

    When you read your statement right on its face, it’s wrong: the constitution does mention a right to vote. From the 15th, of which I’m certain even you are aware since you cited it:

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State

    I can read and while the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th does plainly mention a right to vote, the purpose of the amendments was to spell out what states are not allowed to do when they decide on their qualifications to vote. They were not intended to explicitly state a universal right.

    While you cite the 15th’s limited scope, your complete thought expressed in this sentence is clearly a statement about rights of any kind, from any source. If you are so ignorant as to be unaware that right can come from statute, common law, or constitutional sources, fine.

    I am actually aware that the constitution does not explicitly spell out all of our rights via the 9th amendment as well as SCOTUS’s judical review powers. At the time I made the comment I was thinking of the constitution, and it didn’t occur to me in that moment that the courts have established an explicit right to vote. Therefore, I’m conceding that while my argument was true on its face, it wasn’t entirely accurate that we don’t have a right to vote.

  141. anteprepro says

    caesar should apply to become the next Scalia. Word games and using overly literalistic interpretations whenever it suits him. The entire fucking reason that prohibitions against literacy tests and poll taxes exist is because they disproportionately affect poor people and, because black people are also disproportionately poor, disproportionately discriminates against black people as well. That is why those barriers to taxes were removed. And requiring IDs, that cost time and money? SAME FUCKING PROBLEM. For fuck’s sake, caesar and his conservative kin are short-sighted sophistic gits.

  142. says

    At the time I made the comment I was thinking of the constitution, and it didn’t occur to me in that moment that the courts have established an explicit right to vote.

    It occurs to me that if you did not believe that universal suffrage was guaranteed, your time might have been better spent arguing that it’s about time it damn well was guaranteed.

  143. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Still not one iota of solid evidence that voter ID is even necessary. If it isn’t necessary due to rampant voter fraud, then why bother? It’s nothing but a solution without a problem. The only logical and skeptical reason for even proposing it is that he wants to be a bigot and suppress the right to vote of people he doesn’t consider to be fully people due to color, age, poverty, and other irrelevancies.

  144. anteprepro says

    Therefore, I’m conceding that while my argument was true on its face, it wasn’t entirely accurate that we don’t have a right to vote.

    My notpology senses are tingling.

  145. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @anteprepro

    requiring IDs, that cost time and money? SAME FUCKING PROBLEM.

    It’s not just that. It’s that there’s case law interpreting the 24th amendment specifically on point: Notably including Harman v Forsenius. (For those not interested in the original source material and willing to trust the Pfft!, There’s this link to a brief paragraph, and this one to a larger discussion that also mentions Harman.

    And in Harman the certificate was free…

  146. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Nerd:

    1. to be fair to his improvement, Caesar’s 639 was hir most useful contribution yet, and at least provides evidence for hir assertion that VID is no big deal for most people (which in the US, like being white there, is true).

    2. to be fair to the arrogance of hir opining where xe has no evidence, when you say:

    If it isn’t necessary due to rampant voter fraud, then why bother? It’s nothing but a solution without a problem.

    It’s more than that. Voting rights are subject to strict scrutiny, and require a compelling government interest. The Pfft! briefly notes:

    While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

    While there is also a later hurdle about how burdensome the act or action is to the right in question, the very first task is establishing that an act or action is “necessary or crucial”.
    ===================
    @opposablethumbs

    caesar’s “point” works perfectly well, just as long as you divorce it completely from actual reality

    I think Caesar really is arguing (typo caused autocorrect to give me “raging”, which I found amusing but not appropriate) that VID is not burdensome “in theory”, or at least intending to argue that.

    I believe that a reasonable interpretation of some of what xe’s said is that xe opposes these specific laws b/c republicans are being jerks, but xe wouldn’t necessarily oppose any VID measure that comes down the pike.

    So, yeah, “Please everyone, divorce this statement from anything happening in the real world and allow me to reasonably believe that there’s such a thing as statutory language that could and would construct non-burdensome VID, though it’s unclear if a benevolent legislative body could or would ever actually find it. If you do that, then maybe you wouldn’t judge me so harshly,” seems to be his plea.

    Except that to the extent anyone is judging hir (you, to caesar), it’s not for holding that opinion. I’m just flabbergasted that xe said, “there is no such right” and then followed it up with “not mentioned in the constitution” and an insistence that “all I am saying” is, y’know, a tiny fraction of what xe actually said. To the extent that I’ve judged hir at all, it’s that I’ve judged the combination of sloppy error and high confidence to be very likely indicative of intellectual arrogance. Noting the choice of ‘nym didn’t help caesar much either.

  147. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    Error in my #646:

    1. to be fair to his improvement, Caesar’s 639

    Argh. I thought I was careful to use gender neutral pronouns.

    If I have misgendered you, caesar, I sincerely apologize.

  149. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Tony,

    Seconded, but I’m still reading the thread so maybe it got resolved later

  151. rorschach says

    Tend to secretly tear up watching “Love, Actually”? Well do I have the movie for you! My favourite Brit actor Bill Nighy starred recently in a not widely known film called About Time. Awesome stuff to clean out those tear ducts.

  152. chigau (違う) says

    I’m doing my Japanese language homework on my iPad.
    With two virtual keyboards and one of them rubber nipple pen thingys.
    and rum.
    to be emailed.
    My poor 先生。

  153. Dhorvath, OM says

    Touchscreens make me angry. I have ten fingers and none of them like touch screens, typing with only one stylus is not fun.

  155. says

    Haha. I just finished writing a proposal for replacing the laptops of a (fictitious, this was for class) department with tablets, for some inexplicable reason. I had a hell of a time with it, because the idea seemed absurd for the reasons you two mention. I finally found a gadget that folds between laptop and tablet and proposed getting a bunch of those.

  156. A. Noyd says

    @chigau (#652)
    If you want something to procrastinate with, may I suggest seeing what the iPad comes up with when you use voice input in the wrong language? Speak Japanese to it when it’s set to English and vice versa.

  157. Dhorvath, OM says

    Key feature in my wife’s tablet: usb port for a normal keyboard. No extra batteries, it just works.

  160. Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought says

    Touchscreens are evil. I have small fingers, and I still miss the right letter half the time on my “smart”phone.

  164. says

    re: touchscreens

    Are they impractical? Yes.

    But they are also great for things like communication devices for non-verbal kids. (I’m thinking of a girl I went to summer camp with, non-verbal, and she would point at images or words on laminated cards. It seemed a bit time consuming.)

  170. says

    I dislike touchscreens for typing.

    I like them for the uses in adaptive technology for the disabled. I guess, on the whole, I’d have to be pro-touchscreen, just for this reason, even if I don’t use one myself.

  172. chigau (違う) says

    I really just got up to pee.
    but
    Dhorvath
    touch-screen wrestling?
    intriguing
    can you fit in a luge?

  173. Dhorvath, OM says

    touch-screen wrestling

    \
    It beats typing. And I expect we can find a reasonable analogue to luge.

  174. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    I am disappoint.

    caesar says in other thread:

    I said it was technically stealing, so it wasn’t meant to be taken literally.

    Bwuh? o.O

    Y u no snine fangs, caesar?

  175. A. Noyd says

    Two points in defense of touchscreens:
    1) Touchscreens are really versatile when it comes to input. I use both an iPad and iPhone. If typing on an iPad screen ain’t your thing, you can hook them up to any variety of bluetooth keyboards. Some keyboards are normal sized while some are small enough to act as screen covers. Then there’s voice diction. Once you’ve enabled it, the button is right there on the virtual keyboard. Voice diction includes recognition of voice commands for things like new lines and punctuation. You can use a stylus if you like the control and feel of a pen. I have one I bought at a dollar store and it works great. There are a number of add-on devices made just for gaming, too.

    There is also the option of gesture input, where instead of trying to hit a particular key, you slide your finger from the general region of the first letter of a word to the next and the next, etc. You only lift your finger after the word is complete and the device predicts which word you meant from the path. Smartphones other than iPhones tend to accommodate this better, but you can get apps to do the same thing on an iPhone. Here’s a guide for one of them.

    I’m not even covering all the possibilities because i don’t know them all. But if you’re writing off touchscreens because you’re uncomfortable with poking at the virtual keyboard, you need to take better advantage your options.

    2) Touchscreens are fucking awesome for annotating PDFs. One touchscreen + a stylus + an annotation app gives you the equivalent of thousands of pages of paper and dozens of pens, markers and highlighters in one neat package. You have both the option to draw or write directly on the page and the option for text input via a keyboard (virtual or otherwise). The one I use (GoodNotes) also has a button that toggles between drawing freehand and drawing perfect geometric shapes and straight lines (which can be soothing if you’re obsessive about making things look as tidy as possible).

  176. Nick Gotts says

    But they are also great for things like communication devices for non-verbal kids. – WMDKitty@670

    Yes, very much so. Assessing such systems, matching them to their potential users, programming them, etc. is a big part of my wife’s work with people (not just children) who have never had, or have lost, comprehensible speech and in many cases, other linguistic abilities (language comprehension, word-finding etc.). Eye-gaze systems are much more temperamental!

  177. says

    My tablet is good for some things, my laptop is good for other things.
    Typing is clearly for the laptop. I also quite love myself my mouse. I will miss it, because tonight I’ll give my laptop to a friend who’ll try to fix the damn thing.
    But I got myself a keyboard for the tablet. Still, it will not be the same.

  180. Goodbye Enemy Janine says

    “There has got to be some downside to having a woman president, right?”

    Why can I imagine that Justin Vacula asked this question?

  181. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Tony! – 678:

    yeah, if you mean caesar, he’s pretty pathetic. Way to easily shredded to be any use in snining fangs and claw.

  183. says

    Hoo, boy, that libertarian thread is jumping. I keep meaning to comment, but the fiskings that are called for would take a lot of time and energy, and I’ve been busy catching up with homework and getting ready for a game I’ll be running this afternoon. I might muster a few posts tonight, as it doesn’t look like it’ll stop anytime soon.

  184. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    Dalillama:

    Screw the homework. We need your brain in the liar libertarian thread.

  185. Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. says

    All hail Tpyos.

    The strike should end after the word ‘liar.’

  186. Howard Bannister says

    I flirted with Libertarianism.

    Back in the day.

    The thing is, though, what made it attractive was I got to KEEP the right-wing authoritarian mindset and hatred for minorities, denying women’s rights and all the other ultra-right-wing things that were important to me. And feel like I was an intellectual, to boot!

    So obviously these days it’s just as much a reminder of the horrible things I’m capable of thinking and believing and doing as my Terry Goodkind book collection.

  187. Howard Bannister says

    (and why am I posting here, instead of the Libertarian thread? I don’t know, but I don’t feel like yet another round of ‘but you weren’t a true libertarian blah blah’)

  188. says

    Oh yeah, I was a big fan of libertarianism when I was a teenager, because it seemed to make sense at the time, and I genuinely believed it would work out best for everyone. Then I grew up and had to live in the real world, realized it was bullshit, and became the raging lefty I remain.

  189. says

    Also, to avoid derailing that thread:
    Nerd Of Redhead

    Just like there are for communism.

    The problem with liberturdismcommunism is that it can’t show 30 years of being used in a first world country

    Assuming that’s your standard, I’ve posted the links in dozens of threads, but I can do it again if you insist:
    Emilia-Romagna and the Mondragon coops

  190. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Assuming that’s your standard, I’ve posted the links in dozens of threads, but I can do it again if you insist:
    Emilia-Romagna and the Mondragon coopsWe have a couple of small grocery chains in our area that are of the employee-owned model. Elective communism if you will, as you can chose to join with open eyes. I was thinking more of government claiming to be communist, and theoretically imposing such a theology on the country. Usually not good for the economy of the country.

  191. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Dang, borked the blockquotes, if I even put them in, in #690. Responding Dalillama, SG, #689.

  192. says

    The former case is exactly that; the regional government’s been electing Communists since the end of WWII, and the economic reforms that those governments initiated are what led to the prevalence of cooperatives. Authoritarian centrally planned economies are as Communist as the Nazis are Socialist and the DPRK is democratic.

  193. chigau (違う) says

    Stopped by the liquor store on the way home.
    In the bag I find an offer for something that I interpret as a Frequent Boozer Club.
    *contests* *discounts* *special events*
    I don’t know if I should be saddened or if I should join up.
    I will drink on it.