Picture Of The Day

Spill, baby, spill. Weak, dude.

(via)

Lowering The Drinking Age To 18

I've long been a fan of doing this even after I turned twenty-one. Under my plan every American who is both eighteen-years-old and a high school graduate would automatically be of legal drinking age and able to purchase and consume alcohol. Just being eighteen wouldn't work because we would experience the same outcome we do in colleges: students who are old enough to drink would constantly be buying alcohol for those who are not. It would also be a great incentive for kids to stay in school and get their degree or pass a high school equivalency exam (all of those who do not do so would have to wait until they turn twenty-one to drink lawfully). We allow eighteen-year-olds to be tried as adults, vote, own guns and serve in the military yet when it comes to consuming alcohol they are treated as second-class citizens. I say that if someone can risk their life for their country they should be able to enjoy a beer after work. What do you think?

Picture Of The Day

The Earth as seen from Mars:

This is the first image ever taken of Earth from the surface of a planet beyond the Moon. It was taken by the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit one hour before sunrise on the 63rd Martian day, or sol, of its mission. (March 8, 2004)

Dammit, I had my eyes closed. How about a heads up next time, Spirit?

Something Someone Else Said

"Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose." -Tim Wise, Ephphatha Poetry.

He posits several other examples that force one to view the recent anger on the right in quite a different light if the tea at their parties was black. There are corollaries on the other side that Republicans will inevitably point out and they should but that will make these examples no less poignant. I encourage you to read the entire piece here.

(via)

Something Someone Else Said

"I don't know. I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like." -Republican Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, when asked what criteria will be used to establish reasonable suspicion of someone's legal status after signing a bill Friday that requires police in her state to determine whether a person is in the United States legally.

Now I'm all for securing our borders. As I've said before, both Republicans and Democrats have been dragging their feet on border and port security for years now and it's made us less safe as a country but I just don't see how this new law is going to work:

The bill requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect that they're in the United States illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.

The Republican governor also issued an executive order that requires additional training for local officers on how to implement the law without engaging in racial profiling or discrimination.

"This training will include what does and does not constitute reasonable suspicion that a person is not legally present in the United States," Brewer said after signing the bill.

"Racial profiling is illegal. It is illegal in America, and it's certainly illegal in Arizona," Brewer said.

The rules, to be established in by the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board, are due back to her in May. The law goes into effect 90 days after the close of the legislative session, which has not been determined.

Now of course race will be one of the most important components of AZPOST's criteria for identifying illegals. We know that the vast majority of illegal immigrants in Arizona are Mexican so the police are obviously going to be looking for people with dark skin and black hair but beyond that what else can they possibly do? Short of constraining their search to people who are actually caught in the act of climbing over the border fence and to anyone else wearing a sombrero or colorful wrestling mask there's pretty much no other way to determine who's here legally and who isn't just by looking at them. The aforementioned stereotypical headgear aside, illegal immigrants look just like legal immigrants and American citizens of Hispanic descent and I highly doubt that instituting a "know 'em when I see 'em" policy of differentiation will fly legally. So what other criteria can they possibly use that constitutes a "reasonable suspicion"? Is this essentially just giving the police the power to harass and racially profile brown people for being brown people or am I missing something here?

Pulling The Plug On American Power

OK, I hear you. Over the last few days I've received various comments, texts and emails advising me to just ignore Don's insults from now on because trying to honestly debate the guy is like trying to recapture a fart: it's next to impossible and everybody else has to smell it while you're doing it. So in an attempt to clear the air around here I promise to stop engaging him cold turkey. He will inevitably claim victory but he's been doing that all along so who really cares. I know that stuff was not much fun to read at times and I apologize for putting everyone through it. Consider my hands suitably wiped clean and special thanks to everyone who has recently taken to calling me Lance Thundercock; it means a lot.

In Defense Of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

Friend of this blog and Thunder from Down Under magpie of The Quiet Magpie has taken exception to my recent endorsement of Everybody Draw Mohammed Day in the comment section of that post. I was in the middle of writing a response when I decided that this issue is important enough that it should warrant its own post. First, magpie's rebuke:

I'm not totally with you on this one, JBW.

"Freedom of speech" is often a cosy refuge for those who seek simply to vilify, and then get away by calling themselves principled for doing it.
Like all our other freedoms, our conduct with regard to that freedom must be worthy of it.

It's not a catch-all get-out-of-jail for fucking people over. It's a political right to speak for truth.

"It's about fighting terrorism".... Not it's not. Destroying Al Qaeda training camps is fighting terrorism.
This has nothing to do with that. And if this were about sending up Jesus we wouldn't even be talking this linkage.

"Nobody in this world has a right not to be offended".

Whoa... reconsider what you're saying there.... Because the ancillary to that is that everyone has the right to go round verbally bullying people in any way they want.
Do you reckon the parents of teens who have killed themselves because of school bullying would be on board for your argument? I reckon not.

If someone called Obama (who - despite the paranoid imagination of the Right - is not even a religious figure) a "something@#$%something nasty" you'd be on their case faster than Republican going to a sex show with donor money.
And quite rightly so.
And if the difference there is that Obama is not a religious figure, but Mohammed is, then that's tacit acceptance that vilification is just fine as long as it's based on religion.
Have I just vilified Republicans? maybe... Depends whether you are a Republican.

In any case YOU are able to comfortably say "nobody has the right not to be offended" because you are a capable debater, have high self-esteem, are emotionally resilient, not in a minority, and are at all times up for verbal agro (confrontation) because you like it.
Not everyone is so well armored.

May 20th is my mum's birthday.
Anybody saying anything about her will meet my friend 'Pain' - to quote the great Mr T.

I understand your concerns magpie but I think you might be missing my larger point. My parenthetical mention of "similarly intolerant individuals" was to address the fact that some will use this occasion as an excuse to specifically bash Muslims and Islam out of religious intolerance rather than an exercise of free speech and they should rightfully be called out for it if they blatantly cross the line into bigotry or have a history of such behaviour in the past. My point is that my merely posting a picture of your prophet or god should not be off limits in a free society, no matter what your views are on the subject. You have every right not to depict your god in bodily form and you have every right to tell me that you think I am wrong for doing so but you never get the right to tell me that I cannot do so, much less threaten me with bodily harm for doing so. In fact, that is the very definition of terrorism.

"Destroying Al Qaeda training camps" is not fighting terrorism, it's fighting terrorists. Terrorism is an ideology and as such is much harder to kill than mere terrorists. That's why the moniker "War on Terror" is as useless as "War on Poverty" and "War on Drugs", because these are wars that can never be won. We will never rid ourselves of terror and thus we will never be rid of individuals who would use terror as a tool to get what they want from others. The best way to fight back against these individuals is to never give in to their demands and thus not allow ourselves to be terrorized. South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone understand this better than anyone else at Viacom or Comedy Central (with the exception of Jon Stewart, who has publicly voiced his support for them on his show) and it's why they've created the various Mohammed episodes addressing the subject.

You are completely correct that if this were about "sending up Jesus" we wouldn't be having the conversation and that's pretty much the point. I don't want to sound all right-winger here but if this were about a depiction of Jesus the main difference would be that even if Parker and Stone were receiving death threats from Christians Comedy Central wouldn't have censored their work, just as they haven't when South Park has skewered several other major religions in the past despite loud protestations on their behalf. Islam is the only religion that gets a pass on being criticized by that corporation and it's because of credible threats of violence from Muslim organizations and religious fundamentalists that this is so. I'm not saying that there aren't violent adherents of those other faiths as well but certain branches of Islam do seem to embrace violence much more readily than do other religions (remember the murder of Theo van Gogh). If it's OK to poke fun at one religion then it should be OK to poke fun at every religion. Again, nobody in this world has a right not to be offended.

And I do not believe that "the ancillary to that is that everyone has the right to go round verbally bullying people in any way they want", it's that everyone has the right to say whatever they want unless that speech crosses specific lines that we as a society decide for ourselves and even then those lines are intentionally defined extraordinarily carefully in order to offer as much protection to our freedom of speech as possible. Now of course there are limits to that freedom and I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be: one isn't allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre or aggressively bully another student at school, for example. These limits are specific to certain circumstances and are in place for the protection of individuals and the greater good of society but to suggest that they should also extend to constraining criticism of religious beliefs or institutions is a dangerous precedent to establish and quite frankly a direct violation of the First Amendment.

As I mentioned, last Easter I posted a picture of the Easter Bunny birthing (not "crapping out" as was criticized) bloody Jesus eggs. Many people took offense at the depiction and I was called all manner of foul names and was even threatened with being satirically portrayed as "goatseing" for doing so but to their credit the individuals who criticized me never threatened me with physical violence, nor did they insist that I should not be allowed to express myself in that manner, just that they disagreed with me for doing it. I have every right to say whatever I want about Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha or Santa Claus and you have every right to criticize me for it if you wish. Criticism is fine, censorship through intimidation is not.

You are quite right that I would be on someone's case if they (unfairly) criticized President Obama; to do so is my right as well as their's but I would never insist that they shouldn't have that right just because I disagree with what they are saying. And the only distinction I would make between Obama and those other individuals has nothing to do with religion but rather would be that he's an actual living person so slander/libel laws could apply, though even those legal limits on free speech are defined much more narrowly in the case of public figures.

And the fact that I am a capable debater (thanks, by the way), have high self-esteem, am emotionally resilient, not in a minority, and am at all times up for verbal confrontation because I like it may allow me to say "nobody has the right not to be offended" more comfortably than most but that doesn't make it any less true or applicable to all of us. Your or anybody else's comfort level should have nothing to do with determining what I am allowed or not allowed to say in a free society. The odds are fairly good that pretty much everyone will get offended or be made uncomfortable by something they hear at some point in their lives and my advice to them is to do what I do when that happens to me: change the channel. Insisting that the broadcast should be censored or taken off the air is politically correct overkill. Most of the time a remote control is the only armor one needs.

As to your momma's birthday magpie I will gladly wish her many happy returns come May 20th but I hardly think the choice of that date for this particular political protest had anything to do with her and I would of course never advocate attacking anyone's family members (something I learned from The Godfather) for any reason, especially mommas. I hope you don't mind that I turned my response to your comment into a post but again this issue is very important to me and (I think) to the American way of life. I didn't write it so much to convince you of my side of the argument but rather just to let you and everyone else reading this better understand why I am participating in Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. Everyone is of course free to disagree with me and I welcome all opposing opinions as always. That is one of my favorite things about living in a society that holds freedom of speech so dear and why I so vigorously defend it on this site.

Picture Of The Day

Albert Einstein's desk at Princeton, taken only a few hours after he died in 1955 but never published before last week. My own filing system is very similar.

(via)

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

You can read about the entire controversy here. I've been meaning to post about this for the last several days because I think that the principles involved here are extremely important. Religious zealots are essentially threatening the lives of American citizens because they've exercised their freedom of speech. As I think I proved on Easter a few weeks back religious folks can get pretty upset when you use your First Amendment rights to say something about their god that they don't like, although to the credit of the individuals who were pissed off that day they only peppered me with verbal abuses whilst never threatening me with violence.

South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker are two of the most honest and fearless individuals working in television today and they deserve the support of everyone who believes that our freedom of speech is important enough to fight for against the intimidation tactics of Islamist religious bullies. This isn't about fighting Islam (although I'm sure some similarly intolerant individuals will use it as an excuse to do so), it's about fighting censorship through fear. It's about fighting terrorism. Nobody in this world has a right not to be offended. I'll be posting my own Mohammed creation on May 20th and I encourage other bloggers to do the same.

(via)

[Update: This always pumps me up and gets me laughing at the same time:


(via)]

American Power Slips The Bonds Of Reality

Recently a reader on this site left me the following comment:

Please tell me that Don is a made up character; that he doesn't exist. I find it hard to believe that there is someone, breathing God's good air, that thinks like that. Really?

I replied that Don(ald Douglas, my curvy conservative counterpart of American Power) is indeed real but that if he wasn't I would have to make him up just for the laughs, and Don is keeping his hilarity streak alive with his latest and lengthily titled rant against yours truly, "James B. Webb All-Talk (Non) Political Analyst Pwned: Word Bro ... Atheist Megalomaniac EPIC FAIL on Intellectual Substance". All right, let's fisk this bitch:

OPEN LETTER TO JAMES B. WEBB: WORD TO THE WISE, EXTENDED VERSION (SO BE WISE)

James (OR WHATEVER YOUR REAL NON-COWARD NAME IS), FWIW (a reponse to your sterile big talk):

You told me not to comment on your blog some time ago, and I have observed your rules. But when Repsac3 stalks and taunts American Power with genuine racist insults, when he refuses to observe my rules and common decency, you're down with that ... of course you're into racist photoshopping and cyberstalking, so NST, yo!

I'll get to the "real non-coward name" stuff a bit further down but as to my "sterile big talk" Don is referring to a comment I left at his site on a post about how he has officially banned friend of this blog and proprietor of American Nihilist Repsac3:

...end of an era, Reppy. Good night, sweet prince...

Don, despite the ongoing program of intolerance and radical totalitarianism I rock at Brain Rage you are still totally welcome to leave comments there, no matter how many people say how stupid, and frankly too easy to poke fun at, you are. I personally believe that comment censorship, especially within the political blogosphere, is one of the lowest forms of cowardice one can betray and I refuse to indulge in it. You know what I'm talking about...

And I don't blame you for moderating or disabling comments to avoid debating me: I wouldn't want to debate me either. Snoogans.

Now I don't remember telling Don not to comment on my site but as Reppy says in his own response to Don's open letter he's probably thinking of last year when I told him not to leave off-topic comments and links here but I don't want to make fun of an old person who's memory is slipping so I'll just point to the comment above in which I welcome Don's comments with open arms. And as to Don's charge of "racist photoshopping" I know which picture he's referring to and I'll admit that perhaps he has a point:
So I would like to offer the following: I want to formally apologize to Jabba himself and any other Huts who were offended by my Photoshop portraying him as that particular member of the human race. It was not my intention to insult this proud race of intergalactic gangsters and I will happily double the bounty I've issued for Megan Fox encased in carbonite. Bargon u noa-a-uyat.

Frankly, son, you're nothing but a child to me, with an overdriven playground gotcha mentality. Fact is, every single time I've argued substantive points you've ignored them and moved on predictably to insults and snarks: On the budget deficit you blamed Bush and FAILED. On my post on faith, morality and fighting Satan, you dissed it without a single mention of the issues ... FAIL. On Sean Trende's RCP analysis on the November congressional elections? Ignored it again ... FAIL.

Now perhaps my "overdriven playground gotcha mentality" hasn't made this clear in the past but I could really give a damn what Don thinks of me. I was going to refute the three examples he mentions here but I'm kind of in a hurry as I write this so I'll let readers decide for themselves whether or not I've thoroughly addressed Don's arguments in the past but just to cover my bases I'll also use Don's favorite rhetorical device to devastating effect: FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! Booyah.

And you recently wrote at my blog:

"I'm not suggesting that the left isn't responsible for many acts of hate and violence in the world. I'm just pointing out the stupidity of the myopic worldview that one side of the ideological aisle is so much better/worse than the other and regardless of which side says it (and I hear it from both on a constant basis) they always sound like uninformed children when they do."

Actually, the contemporary left's entrenched ideological culture of violence is unmatched on the conservative right. And I responded to you with a link to Jamie Glazov's, United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror. Glazov's book is deeply argued and written from personal experience of tyranny and terror. His parents were Soviet dissidents. Their lives were put on the line for speaking out against the Communist Party in 1968, when Jamie's father signed the famous "Letter of Twelve" human rights manifesto. The forward to the book was written by R. James Woolsey, who was President Clinton's Director of Central Intelligence from 1993 to 1995. United in Hate received critical reviews from both sides of the spectrum, and retired United States Air Force Lieutenant General Thomas McInery called the book "a must-read if America is to survive the global war against Radical Islam." In short, this is serious stuff, worth engagement.

And what was your response to the citation for United in Hate? Totally predictable:

That's exactly what I mean when I talk about uninformed children, Don. Thank you as always for illustrating my point.

Breathtaking juvenile anti-intellectualism topped with a staggering heaping of brain-addled stupidity.

The comment I left was referring to one of Don's commenters making the inane statement "Violence is the hallmark of the Left" and posting several instances of violence perpetrated by people on the political left. I refuted this by similarly posting several instances of violence caused by people on the political right. Don then tried to refute me by linking to the above book at Amazon.com, so I rightfully lumped him in with the other people I was referring to as uninformed children for insisting that one side of the aisle is so much better/worse than the other. Put simply:

Interchangeable American Power Commenter: The left is horrible and violent.

JBW: Well, there are bad people on the left but there are also bad people on the right and people from either side who say otherwise are fools.

IAPC: The left is horrible and violent and here's a list of examples.

JBW: Again, both sides have bad people on them and here's a list of similar examples from the right.

Don: The left is horrible and violent and here's a book that claims as much.

JBW: Wait, all you did was point to a book that says the same thing the commenter above just said. How does that refute what I just said about both sides including bad people?

Don: Check and mate.

JBW: You're a fool.

I'm not saying that the book isn't as incredible and persuasive as Don claims it to be because I haven't read it and I don't plan to (predictably, all of the "critical reviews from both sides of the spectrum" I came across were on right-wing websites) but by merely pointing to another list of examples about how bad the left is he only proved my point about partisan foolishness and his calling me juvenile or stupid isn't going to change that.

But that's to be expected from someone who's not right in the mind, oddly consumed by some kind of big man syndrome (when in fact nothing seems to warrant such a psychology, which thus raises appropriate and characteristic questions of megalomania).

And let's not forget your online perversions and stalking. When called out on these you own them with insecure phony laughter and some backslapping with your braindead followers in the comments at Brainrage.

Claiming that I'm "not right in the mind" is the pot calling the kettle black (uh oh, is that RAAACIST!?) and I have to ask: what exactly is "big man syndrome"? Is he setting me up to make a fat guy joke? And perhaps I am a bit megalomaniacal but I'd argue that most people who blog are to an extent. I've addressed his whiny, PC claims of perversions and stalking before and I do indeed own them but I assure you that my laughter is very secure and completely genuine. While we're on the subject of perversion though let me just point out that my blog isn't the one with a picture of a porn star in the sidebar (Who's Nailin' Paylin? is a cinematic tour de force if you're interested, Don). Also, Brain Rage is two words, old man.

So, JBW, let's be real, okay. Honestly, you're but a lost child to me. I'm a Ph.D. professor with 15 years experience teaching. I'm a father of two who's been married for 16 years. I've traveled widely and have nearly lost my life. But credentials, wisdom, life failings, and experience mean nothing to you, BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT ALL ALREADY.

Didn't he use that "child" line once already? And yes, he's a Ph.D. professor yet he can't spell or debate his way out of a wet paper bag. And a wife and two kids? Wow, Don got married and reproduced; that's quite a feat. He must be the envy of every man he knows. I've actually traveled to over a dozen countries myself and have I ever written here about the time I had a threesome with a stripper and a nineteen-year-old girl who looked just like a young Denise Richards? It's a true story: you see, I was bartending one night and... Come to think of it, I'm not even going to try to compete with Don here. A wife and two kids. Man... Oh, and credentials, wisdom, life failing, and experience do mean something to me: just not Don's. And I obviously don't "know it all already" but I'm not going to waste time trying to learn about these things from a serial liar with a victim mentality.

Anyway, I understand the sources of your disrespect (hey, four years of college and you've got knowledge), but it's obvious to anyone who's been around the block a couple of times that you're all talk and little action. And the fact that James B. Webb is not your real names adds a hilarious touch to any mention by you of the word coward. So, here's a bet. You will not come out and identify yourself, and you will not meet me for a beer where you express a little humility and respect for someone who ought to be, frankly, your intellectual mentor. I'm in the O.C. Name the bar, on a weekend evening, and we'll meet.

So, what do you say big boy? You have my e-mail. Send me your name, phone number, and a location, and we'll meet like men ... instead of playing meaningless tit-for-tat on blogs that few people actually read.

Donald

I'm not really sure what he's trying to say here. Is he implying that people with college degrees who lack PhD's aren't intelligent or well-educated? And the source of my disrespect is pretty much just the things Don writes on a daily basis. To wit: his newly minted claim that James B. Webb isn't my real name. I had to read that line a couple of times to make sure that he was actually claiming such, and without any shred of citation or proof but in the face of such a compelling argument I suppose I can't continue with this charade any longer. Admittedly, James B. Webb is just a clever pseudonym I employ online to hide my true identity: Lance Thundercock. Wow, it feels really good to finally have it out in the open like this. What, you don't believe me? Well here's definitive proof that Don isn't just some chubby deranged paranoiac with a persecution complex:
I'll bet all of you jerks who like to make fun of him are feeling pretty damn stupid right about now, huh? Speaking of bets and stupidity how about Don wagering that I won't travel 400 miles to have a beer with someone who has at various times called me stupid, human defect, intellectually impotent, morally depraved, weightist-wanker, poser-boy, sexist weightmaster prick, Barebacker, young cocky sucker, ass, Master Enforcer for the Annihilation of Non-Hypocrisy, idiot, adolescent dork, atheist online-troll sex-predator, bereft of moral virtue, small-penis prick, fail, loser, sorry-assed punk, communist, nihilist, and RAAACIST!? Yeah, I have a feeling Don's gonna win that one.

Oh, and he wraps his post up by playing the Black Flag song "No Values" because I assume he thinks that it describes me so touché, mon gros ami:


[Update: Apparently I told Don directly that I blog under a pseudonym (I didn't but why let reality influence what one writes?) and now it appears that he has some problems with the color of my skin. But isn't that RAAA...]