> Or if said gay is friends with an hetro > and they call each other fag, wuss, whatever > (personal experience). I think his words may > have been poorly chosen but to argue he's > racist is a stretch.
> two gay guys calling each other a "fag" might > be OK, or at least not imply homophobia, but > it would mean something different if a straight > guy did the same to a gay guy.
So how does this theory jibe with the explanation we were given by Rachel Jeantel in the Trayvon Martin trial that white people don't have any right to be offended when a black person calls them "cracker"?
You see, the philosophy of modern political correctness doesn't just stop with "it's okay when that word is used between two black people". It further decrees that white people have no right to ever be offended by anything said about them, that indeed it's impossible for them to even be the victims of racism in the first place.
> > Also, apparently there's this idea floating > > around some of my fellow white folks' brains > > that if it isn't okay for us to use racist > > terms then obviously it shouldn't be okay for > > the target of those words to use them either. > > A bit of advice: stop thinking that, because > > it's stupid.
> Tim seems to have tried very hard not to look > very far into what was actually said.
Yep. And his comment that this "stupid" idea is only "floating around in the heads of his fellow white people" is in itself ill-informed and bordering on racist.
Many, many, African-Americans find the use of that word by ANYONE of ANY race or color to be hateful and racist and are offended by it. Just ask Oprah or Bill Cosby how they feel about other blacks using the n-word and you'll get an earful, and it certainly isn't "stupid" of them to feel that way.
I generally enjoy Tim's articles but this one had some major problems.
Having said that, the Ohio guy is a jerk and probably shouldn't be teaching children of any color.
> How does the officer know she didn't just > turn it off between the time he pulled her > over and walked up to the window?
That's really irrelevant. In the U.S., the state has the burden of *proving* you guilty. They can't just assume you might have been doing something wrong, but since they can't tell one way or the other, they get to err on the side of punishing you for it.
If they could just assume guilt based on the available opportunity for you to commit a violation and the ease with which you could cover it up, they could cite every person they stop with all sorts of things.
Seatbelt violation-- Yes, she was wearing the belt when I walked up to the car, but how do I know she didn't just put it on when she saw me in her rearview mirror?
Cell phone violation-- Yes, the phone was off and lying on the passenger seat when I walked up to the car, but how do I know he wasn't texting (or watching videos on it, or whatever) and didn't just turn it off between the time I pulled him over and the time I walked up to the car?
There'd be no end to what a creative cop could cite you for because you *might* have been doing something wrong. That's why we require them to produce proof in court-- precisely to prevent that kind of crap.
> If this ludicrous law applies to google glass, > does it not also apply to smartphones?
Yes, technically in California, we're in the ludicrous position of being able to legally use GPS devices-- whether incorporated into the dash of the vehicle or stand-alone devices affixed to the dashboard or window-- so long as they are dedicated GPS devices and nothing else.
But if the device you're using has cell phone capability, then you can't legally use it as a GPS device while driving, even though there's no actual practical difference in terms of driver safety between the two.
It's idiotic and most cops know that and won't ticket for it, but there's always the isolated case where the cop either is just an asshole or the driver is an asshole and the cop uses the technicality as a little bit of karma.
> You know, if it's really that hard for them > to build a working site, sounds like it might > be time to give the job to some other company, > or at least put the offer of such on the table.
Someone (or multiple someones) need to go to jail over this whole thing, not just lose a contract. Instead, the same people who already flushed a half-billion dollars of our tax money down the crapper are going to get even more money to fix it. And the government bureacrats in charge, like Sibelius, instead of losing their jobs, apparently "have the full confidence of the president", at least they do according to his spokeshole, Jay Carney.
And they *really* need to stop trying to minimize their gross incompetence by calling the problems with the Obamacare website "glitches" and "technical snags".
A complete catastrophic failure of a system built on 10-year-old outdated web tech is not a "glitch" under any commonly accepted definition of that term.
> What ever happened to "aiding and abetting" > and how does this not fall under that heading
Merely showing a factual account of an actual event is not aiding and abetting the crime.
If it was, how do you think the news gets away with showing videos of crimes every day? If that was a crime, everything from the security cam video of a gas station stick-up to the footage of the planes hitting the World Trade Center on 9-11 would end up with some news producer charged and jailed.
> All I see here is that this is another 'vector' > to attack the US Government
The US Government deserves to be 'attacked' when it displays gross incompetence at a level heretofore unrivaled in human history, as it has done with the whole Obamacare rollout catastrophe.
The taxpayers of this country deserve far more for their $500 million than they got.
Today, Obama was in the Rose Garden crowing over the fact that his health care web site has received 40 million hits in the three weeks it's been live, like that's some wonderful accomplishment. Whoop-dee-shit. The Drudge Report received that many *today* and it's still functional. So is Amazon. So is Facebook.
Weird how all those folks managed to design and implement high-traffic web sites with no problem... and yet *none* of them were consulted or contracted to do the Obamacare site. No, that was contracted out to DC power brokers and lobbyists as paybacks for political favors and the result is a half billion dollars wasted on 10-year-old tech that failed the moment the "on" button pushed.
Someone should go to jail over this, and you're whining about the government being criticized for it?
> Did we even get 1? It isn't good and it isn't cheap. I'm not sure if it really counts as 'fast' either.
No kidding. We already paid a half billion dollars for what amounts to a poor-man's Geocities site that is completely non-functional. (Not a "glitch", either, as Obama and Sibelius keeping claiming. A complete, catastrophic, systemic failure is not a "glitch".)
I wonder how much more this "tech surge" to fix it is going to cost us?
At a minimum, Sibelius should lose her job over this whole thing, if not prosecuted for malfeasance of office.