September 26th, 2012


FBI not so Down with the Clown

Insane Clown Posse: "We're Doing the American Thing--We're Suing"

 Somethings just write themselves. Sometimes the government can cause a PR stir that can boost the very thing it wants to control. It seems someone in the FBI is not a Juggalo. So they decided to classify the band as a 'gang'. Suddenly, the clowns are not laughing....

"At first, I laughed! Just like everybody else," Insane Clown Posse's Violent J admits, seated on his tour bus. "Now I just realize how fucked up it is." It's this past Friday afternoon at the Gathering of the Juggalos and the Detroit horrorcore emcee is recalling his initial reaction to the news that the federal government officially considers his band's fans a national security threat. Less than 30 minutes ago, Violent J and his partner-in-rhyme Shaggy 2 Dope announced their plans to sue the FBI at their annual seminar and they're both still visibly reeling from the audience's joyously moving reaction. (Shaggy got goosebumps. Violent J's hand visibly shook.)

Spend an hour wandering around the Gathering and you'll hear story after story after story about cops, schools, and bureaucracies discriminating against Juggalos for wearing Insane Clown Posse gear and their label's Hatchetman logo. There's the guy who lost his kids to a foster home because of his tattoo

Collapse )
This is going to be an interesting case. There is no precedent for this, and I am curious what constitutional basis they are basing their legal position. If I were a lawyer, I'd go with the First Amendment Freedom of Assembly clause.

To me, Juggalos are like Ragers (ravers 2.0): just another form of rebellious youth orbiting some musical 'scene'. At some point, the tatts, the logos and the accouterments all fade away with the time induced demands of parenthood and working for The Man. Who is to stop the Feds from RICOing, say, the next US version of Pussy Riot from slapping the same gang=criminal=terrorist=indefinite detention label on them?

Slippery slope? Can you sue the government for defamation of character? How would they prove their case? What do you think?
Godzilla, default

Here comes Money Boo Boo II: Electrict Boogaloo:

So, Romney approves of a particular politician's ideas who it's never a good idea to agree with no matter where the idea in question comes from:
[You Know Who Approves of This Message]

You know, first of all, liquefied coal was a horrible idea the first time. It was very ecologically ruinous and the way we'd go about making it makes a deep sea oil platform a much, much safer option.

Second of all, solving ecological issues is not something with a single, simple panacea. To really do this would require a sustained, GLOBAL process that's clearly not about a way to maintain the status quo at the expense of the people on the low end of today's totem pole. There is no silver bullet that can with one stroke actually solve these issues, there is only a complicated process where multiple, integrated, interrelated issues have to be resolved in tandem. As such any quest for anyone variety of new energy of necessity must fail on a global level because different areas of the planet, simply put, aren't like other areas.
Слушам и не вярвам на очите си!
  • htpcl

The new anti-Americanism

Aaalright then, my fellow shameless procrastinatorz busy folks. Everybody seems to be eager to jump on the "OMG Muslim protests" bandwagon... so where without me? Eeeh?

You thought LJ is the hub of e-douchebaggery, didn't you? Well, you're lucky you can't read the Bulgarian forums on the Webz! You'd need a bucket for all the puke. See, in principle, spending more than a few minutes daily around the BG forums is considered dangerous for the psychic health, the Association of Butthurt Bloggers has announced. And it's true, I'm telling ya! Really, take Google translator and go to any (and I mean any!) piece of online news there, and do the stupid mistake to check the comments below the articles. After reading a few tons of all that crap, you'd surely need some intense soul cleansing. Maybe black-metal, yoga, reading Pratchett, or something more extreme.

Collapse )

Lie busters

Generalisations, over-simplifications, strawman fallacies, half truths and outright lies... all of this is part of any election campaign, especially in countries where negative ads are deemed a viable (and actually by far the most efficient) rhetorical tool. This election, although a bit more boring than usual, is no exclusion. But now there is something new in the equation. A small group of independent experts have turned finding the truth about the real facts behind the campaign speeches into a profession. Under the lens of the "untruth hunters" are the various statements of the candidates, seemingly "factual" claims by their supporters and critics, and also the omnipresent flood of campaign ads, both positive and negative.

Example: an Obama campaign ad. A retired worker from a steel factory tells the story how his factory had been shut down at the time Mitt Romney was at Bain Capital. The guy and his family lost their health benefits, soon after that his wife got ill, and less than a month later she died of cancer. The guy goes on to say he is not sure Romney is aware what he has caused to all those people, and suspects he does not care. There is a "small" detail missing from the video, Fact Checker later found out. Turns out at the moment the factory went bankrupt, Romney was no longer an active member of the board of the company that owned it, and besides the worker's wife died 5 years after the bankruptcy. What's more, she did have her own health insurance for quite some time after her husband was fired. The conclusion of Glenn Kessler, the author of the research, is that "this ad stretches the bounds of common sense and decency".

Collapse )
Godzilla, default

The real reason the West won't move on Syria:

I realize this argument may be a little controversial to some, but I believe there's a very simple reason Syria's civil war will never widen the way some other wars, like say, Libya's did. That reason is that Syria is the last vestige for contemporary Russia of the old Soviet Empire in the Middle East, in the days when damn near every Arab dictatorship was Russia's best customer and even Palestinian terrorists were Commies, not Muslims. Russia, of course, has inherited Soviet veto power in the Security Council. Russia naturally has no reason to want to sacrifice a sure base like that of the Assad regime for a more uncertain and very likely anti-Russian (just as Egypt and Libya are likely to turn anti-US for the same reason) regime.

Oil hasn't got squat to do with the refusal to intervene here. There is quite a bit of oil in Syria, too, after all, while Damascus is led by the Ba'ath so any argument made against Saddam's regime as a 'threat' applies equally to these sorry assclowns who have an even more embarrassing record (at least Iraq got Kuwait conquered, Syria couldn't even hack that much). The fundamental cause of the paralysis at the UN and the international community as a whole is that the USA is not, whatever its rhetoric and that of its more grandiloquent critics, the only power center in the world, and Syria's sugar daddy ain't about to give up the ghost on this regime without a guarantee from whatever comes after it.

This is also why Turkey hasn't simply invaded Syria yet, because Russia would attempt to attack it, albeit given how unimpressive it was against Georgia it'd be in for a hell of a beating against the Turks. The only way to kill the Assad regime is to move Putin, there is no other.