This column was originally published on Sept. 26, 2016, and because of the comments of the president, it’s very relevant almost a year to the day. I am heartened to see the protests against police brutality on minorities rising to such a prominent level in the American debate. Now let’s remember how silly it is that people get upset when people take a knee to a song about a fort being bombarded.
Another week of the NFL is coming to a close, which means we have another round of reports and hot takes on the National Anthem, and who did and didn’t kneel in protest. On one side are supporters, who argue that 49ers backup quarterback Colin Kaepernick is right to use his stage to speak out against the injustice of police officers shooting unarmed black people, on the other are the people who say to not stand for the National Anthem is an insult against the troops/all cops everywhere/America/insert broad apolitical group used for political gain here.
Kaepernick’s protests have inspired others to join him, even in other sports. They have also brought down a lot of heat from talking heads on TV and police unions alike. Which lead to the Seattle Seahawks doing a “protest” so careful not to offend either side it had no purpose. The issue is far from resolved, and it seems like every week another controversial shooting makes headlines.
In the suit, the foundation alleges that the NSA’s efforts to track communication with people not in the U.S. violates U.S. citizen’s rights to free speech. They argue that, by tapping into the backbone to collect data on Internet use, the NSA is “straining the backbone of democracy” and “inevitably scoops up data unrelated to any target and will also include domestic communications, violating the rules governing what the NSA can spy on.”
Besides, if NSA needs data on anything important, they can do what the rest of us do already: go to Wikipedia.
It appears that the U.S. Supreme Court fancies boobs. It seems a bit early in the year for the highest court in the land to start making hnews, but there you have it. I mean, we all knew that Justice Clarence Thomas was big on the ladies, and it certainly makes sense that the lady justices would be in support of women, but still.
You don’t know what I’m talking about? The Supreme Court decided not to hear the “I (heart) boobies” wristband case, which probably would have resulted in the greatest headlines in the court’s history. That means that the federal appeals court’s ruling that such bracelets are OK for students to wear will stance.
We’d like to extend a hearty congratulations to Comedy Central for almost having the courage to strike a blow for comedy and free expression.
Despite the “warnings” of a group of online Al-Qaeda wannabes, the network did air the 201st episode of South Park, which was the continuation of a two-part story concerning Muhammad and other figures the show has lampooned over the years.
Unfortunately, they also added extra bleeps, including over any mention of the name of Muhammad and the entire “I’ve learned something today …” exchange at the end. (We’d include footage, but Comedy Central refuses to release it online.)
That’s right: they covered the whole point of the episode with a long, offensive, caterwauling screech that we could still hear every time we closed our eyes to go to sleep last night. There are probably animals that are still running towards cable offices, trying to figure out who called them.
So, bravo, Comedy Central. Your cowardly sensibilities won out again, which have brought us such safe choices as “The Jeff Dunham Show” and “The Blue Collar Comedy Show.”
Remind us again: when has the safe choice ever worked out for you?
… then garner pity by attempting it again. And again.
Erik Estavillo is back, and this time, he means it! Not content with getting his ludicrous case thrown out of court, Estavillo has decided to appeal the decision, determined to make Sony pay for the mental anguish that a PSN ban allegedly inflicted on him.
Not only will Estavillo appeal the original case, he has also filed a new civil claim against Sony, demanding $108,000 compensation. This is quite a significant boost to his original claim, which “only” asked for $55,000. Estavillo claims that Sony’s banning caused him “pain and suffering” and violated his rights to free speech. He also alleges that he had money invested in his PSN account, which amounts to theft on the part of Sony.
Protesters are canvasing the streets of the nation’s capitol today, sustaining themselves on the leftovers in trashcans from Tuesday’s inauguration/big-ass balls. They’re marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the only Supreme Court case most Americans can name, which made abortion legal in the United States.
Oh, but they’re not burning babies like their hippie forebears. No, they want abortion made illegal again.
This Web site supports free speech and all consequences that result from it, but don’t these people know what they’re asking for?
Parents have maintained order in the great nation of ours with a threat: “I brought you into this world, and I can take you back out of it.” As we’ve mentioned before, this threat does not work if it is an empty one. It will only work if some parents occasionally take their children out of the world, and if others refuse to bring their children into the world. (You know, to punish them for presumably making a #2 inside of you.)
So, how can you bring your well-behaved teenage children to sleep-ins (no, really) to protest the actions of others that enabled you to raise them? Hypocrites.