June 14, 2004
supreme sidestepping
gee, you'd a thunk it was an election year with the clever way the supreme court sidestepped the "under god" pledge issue. come on, get some fucking balls, eh? it's not like the justices are elected. aren't you getting paid big bucks to address the tough issues? then address them, don't find a way to get an extension on your term paper and go drinking instead. it makes me mad when thiis kind of thing happens about issues that seem very clear to me. like:
flag burning - this is protected speech
under god - this is unconstitutional, even when it's on money
gay marriage - this should be legal, and why is anyone afraid of this?
drugs - these should be legal; great source of tax, less crime, fewer od's
creationism in public schools - once there is real scientific support(never) then i say "teach it."
sex education is school - i mean come on, do i really have to talk about this? just look at the average age a girl loses her virginity in the usa(15.8) compared with the netherlands(17), and the lower incidence of std's in europe. (by the way, the netherlands, and most of europe, has very extensive sex ed programs.)
death penalty - killing is wrong, whether a person does it or the state does it. the death penalty doesn't work as a deterant, costs more than life imprisonment, is racially biased, and has been carried out on innocent people. how many more reasons do you want?
so, when is the supreme court going to stop dodging the issues on technicalities, grow some balls(or i don't know, what is the equivalent female anatomy? ovaries, i guess) and stand up and deliver. (of course the last time they delivered it was the election to shrub, so maybe they should just hide away like the cold frightened penises they are.)
oh and on a lighter note:
mother of all gravity games (linux only)
LBreakout2 (linux / win32)
