Primary candidates: Felons, John Connor, and Anonymous

Now that the Republicans finally got their act together and nominated the guy who I'm positive will at some point rip off his shirt and start fighting terrorists with laser beams from his eyes, we can get down to business on the real primary challenge.

I'm talking, of course, of the Democratic primary. In Arkansas, Obama is getting fierce resistance from some dude named John Wolfe. Nobody has ever heard of this guy, but I believe it's actually just a clever alias for John Connor.

Connor's put on a little weight, apparently.

 Over in Kentucky, voters are torn between Obama and absolutely nobody at all, with 40% of the vote going to "uncommitted".

"About two out of every five Democratic voters in Tuesday’s presidential primary in Kentucky chose “uncommitted” instead of voting for President Barack Obama. …

“I’m at a victory celebration for ‘uncommitted’ who performed admirably,” said [state GOP chair Steve] Robertson. “I’ve never met the guy but know that he highly embarrassed Obama.”

Kentucky’s vote was notable, though, for the fact that there weren’t even any other candidates on the ballot. The most the “uncommitted” option won so far this primary season was previously 21 percent in the North Carolina primary earlier this month. Kentucky looks as though it will double that number.

What could be more embarrassing than almost losing when you don't have any opposition whatsoever? Maybe almost getting beat by a convicted felon who is currently serving time in another state altogether.

A federal inmate who is running for president won 42 percent of the vote in West Virginia’s Democratic primary yesterday. According to the Associated Press, Keith Judd is serving time at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution in Texas for making threats at the University of New Mexico in 1999.

 Naturally, there's no doubt Obama will actually win the nomination in the end. There's also the fact that he didn't have much of a shot in Kentucky or West Virginia anyhow, with them being all but card carrying members of the "anyone but that Obama character" club.

Still, it can't bode well if the Magic O is finding it hard to win against convicted felons and nobody at all. How hard can a fight against yourself actually be?

Pretty hard, as it turns out.

NC passes super extra ban on gay marriage

On Tuesday voters in North Carolina decided that simply having a law saying something is illegal is too ambiguous, so they had a voter referendum on an amendment to their constitution that made gay marriage super, ultra illegal. The referendum, which passed overwhelmingly with 61% of the vote, reinforces the existing statute (passed in 1996) that defined marriage as between one man and one woman.

Despite the fact that this changes precisely nothing about the current situation in the state, this turn of events has made huge waves across the country. Since I'm only gay when I'm with the military, and I don't live in NC, this has very little to do with me; but since when has that stopped me from having an opinion?

If you want to know where I stand on gay marriage in general (hint: I'm for it), I refer you to this blog, written jointly by Jonathan Rauch (a gay liberal) and David Blankenhorn (a straight conservative Christian). I'd also encourage you to read another excellent piece Jonathan wrote on his own, which is actually the article that changed my opinion on the subject. Both are persuasive because they do not start with the assumption that anyone who is against gay marriage is a hate monger. Quite the contrary, it admits and brings up a variety of completely legitimate arguments for not tampering with marriage, then addresses them.

In the specific case of North Carolina, I do not agree with how they stand. After all, what do I care who you make out with? That being said, I err on the side of the 10th Amendment, the one that tells the Federal Government to get the eff out of the State's business. The State's can and should decide this issue on their own. It is my belief that over time the views on homosexual marriage will soften, and society will come to accept it as an alternative in the future.

If you are currently gay, wish to become married, and live in North Carolina, I counsel you to move to somewhere less hostile. I say this not from the standpoint of "If you don't like Amurika you can get the hell out!" kind of rhetoric we usually hear. What I mean is, leave, and deprive the state of your talent, taxes, and resources. If states such as North Carolina lose otherwise fine, upstanding citizens due to decisions of this nature then over time it may effect change.

SCOTUS appears to be leaning AZ's way on immigration

The oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Arizona's immigration law were heard yesterday. The two lawyers arguing the case, Donald Verilli for the DOJ and Paul Clement, representing Arizona, are the same two who faced off over Obamacare a few weeks ago. Verilli, who subscribes to the "if you can't be good at what you do, at least be consistent" school of thought, once again was apparently trounced by Mr. Clement on the National Stage.

SB 1070 has been controversial since it was passed, with opponents objecting to it discriminating against "people of color", which is absolutely 100% the case as long as you use the standard definition of "people of color", namely "people who have broken the law regardless of their actual color and/or race". In case you haven't heard of the law, here's the post I did on it when it was passed bay in May of 2010.

The judges, even those appointed by Democrats and considered to be left leaning, were not terribly friendly to the Feds argument that the States making them do their job was "totally unfair" and "like, not cool at all".

"In Wednesday’s oral arguments, Supreme Court justices showed little sympathy for the federal government’s complaint that state police officers would violate federal immigration jurisdiction if they check the status of someone they pull over. That argument is seen by legal analysts as the weakest in the government’s case against the Arizona statute.

Justice Antonin Scalia all but laughed the federal government’s lawyer out of the courtroom when he suggested that Arizona police officers would somehow deter the federal government from enforcing immigration by calling federal officials to ask about a person they stop. “Arizona isn’t trying to kick out anybody that the federal government hasn’t already said doesn’t belong here,” he said. “The Constitution recognizes that there is such a thing as state borders and a state can police their borders.”

Verilli, in a breathtaking display of wit and insight, stated that "Well, you know, we're kinda busy and stuff...so...we don't really have time to deal with this whole 'invasion of illegals across our sovereign borders' thing."

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. said the federal government has limited resources and should have the right to determine the extent of calls it gets about possible illegal immigrants.

“These decisions have to be made at the national level,” he said.
But even Democratic-appointed justices were uncertain of that.

“I’m terribly confused by your answer,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who went on to say that the federal government can always decline to pick up illegal immigrants when Arizona officials call.

Only eight justices are sitting on this case, Justice Elena Kegan having recused herself (presumably due to her work on this case as solicitor general). That means that the possibility of a tie exists, which would be a de facto victory for the Administration.

Based on the comments by the various Justices during the hearing, however, it does not appear that an even split is forthcoming.

Newt comes down with "Black Knight" syndrome

On Tuesday Rick Santorum dropped out of the Republican primary race. I was planning on making a snide comment here but, out of respect for his daughter's medical condition, I will refrain. (To my own great surprise, it appears I still have a soul. Who knew.)

That makes Romney the unopposed candidate, thanks to Newt's concession after he publicly declared that "It's patently obvious to each and every American that I have not a snowball's chance in hell of even becoming a statistically significant player in this primary, let alone win. I mean, my campaign bounced a $500 check that was needed to get my name on the ballot in Utah! Seriously, who would stay in after that?"

Just kidding! Newt's vowed to fight to the very end. After an interview with the Gingrich campaign it was revealed to Just Another Capitalist that Newt's decision is based solely on the advice from an unidentified consultant. The consultant was described only as an "expert in reliable bridge security", but he did consent to a quick photo op.



Reportedly Don Quixote was Newt's first choice, but he went with the Black Knight to make a grab for the essential quadruple amputee vote.

Newt's campaign cited "technical issues" as the reason the $500 check to Utah bounced. Upon further investigation it was found that the "technical issue" was "having no money", also known as "being flat-ass broke".

When speaking with Mike Huckabee on Huck's radio show he essentially said he was glad to "finally get Romney 1-on-1".

That's right, Newt, you've got him just where you want him.

Seriously, enough with the Obama trip price tags

In my perusal of the news a couple days ago I ran across yet another story on Drudge that had a headline something like this:

"Obama trip to Ohio costs taxpayers $365k, plus several first born males!!!111!!11!! Oh Noes!"

When I clicked to the story, I found an article on Obama visiting Ohio with British Prime Minister David Cameron. They both watched a NCAA tournament game with Ohio Governor John Kasich, who lobbied the President on developing natural gas production in his state.

"During the first half, Mr. Kasich talked to the president and White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew at length about promoting the safe development of shale gas in Ohio....The president ate a hot dog at the game, chatted with students and appeared to be explaining the finer points of basketball to Mr. Cameron."

All the way at the bottom was this fact.

"At a cost of roughly $180,000 per hour to operate Air Force One, the trip cost taxpayers at least $365,000, not including the staff costs and other expenses."

Since I am a Conservative, I suppose I'm legally obligated to respond something like this.

"That darn dirty communist bastard! How DARE he entertain the leader of our closest ally by watching an American sporting event! How could he even think of spending taxpayer dollars to improve relations with a foreign dignitary!? Who does he think he is, the leader of the free world or something?! He's clearly out of touch and/or insensitive to the budget crisis!"

Unfortunately, I also am capable of independent thought. So, to my Conservative brethren I feel obligated to say: Chill out. Seriously, just sit down and stop talking.

News flash: The President is the public face of the Nation to those abroad. Sure, we have a Secretary of State, but when the President visits someplace, it means something. Moreover, if we received the Chief Executive of a close ally with anything less than our own Chief Executive, it could (and should) be considered a slight. Like it or not, the Office of the President has power, and with power necessarily comes the trappings of power.

What alternative would you prefer? The President to have received Mr. Cameron in a rented taxi, driven all the way to Ohio college student style, and slept in the Wal-Mart parking lot while dining on that fancy Scottish place down the road, McDonald's? Perhaps they should have listened to the game on the radio for free in order to save taxpayer dollars? What sort of image of power and prestige does that project for America?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for cutting the budget. I am all for starving the beast of government spending till it's thinner than the Olsen twins. At the same time I understand that there are some expenditures that are reasonable, and entertaining foreign dignitaries is one of them.

Oh, and also, his gift to the Prime Minister of a custom grill with custom cooking outfits, made with the British and American flags and seals with Mr. and Mrs. Cameron's names on them, was actually quite thoughtful and completely appropriate (and also not terribly expensive, by the way).

So seriously, lay off the guy for the one time he actually did his job right. Rest assured he'll give you plenty of reasons to bash him tomorrow.

Destroy the Earth for fun (and other cool stuff)

Since it's the weekend I thought we all could use something a bit more lighthearted. A good way to relax for the weekend. And what better way to relax than to drop a thermonuclear device on your neighbors house?

For years this has been out of reach of just about everybody (except for the US that one time. Go us.) But now you, too, can destroy your least favorite city from the comfort of your own house. Using the Nukemap by Alex Wellerstein, you select where you want the nuke to go, what size you want, and it shows you on an interactive map the level of destruction you plotted. Here's what it looks like if we hit DC with the biggest nuke in our arsenal:



Maybe human caused destruction isn't your preferred diversion. Maybe you like it better if our annihilation comes from the void of space. Well you're in luck! Impact: Earth! is a nifty web program developed by the Imperial College in London (and hosted in a better looking, more graphic form on Perdue's website). Kinda like the nuke thing, you pick where you want the meteor to go, and give it the variables (like composition of the asteroid, angle of strike, whether it hits water or rock when it lands) and it'll tell you the destruction. It will even tell you if you managed to knock the Earth off it's axis, or ripped a giant chunk out of it, in addition to the size of the crater you left.

Before we get blown up or smashed into oblivion, we're doing some pretty cool stuff in science. The first example of this is Taylor Wilson, who at 14 became the youngest person in the world to ever independently achieve fusion. Read this article for the whole story of how he started (and continues) to brew yellow cake in his garage. He intends to use his fusion know how to make it so that hospitals can make the necessary isotopes for treatment in house, instead of needing to fly them around the world, which would make it much easier to treat cancer. He also has dreamed up a possible application for scanners in airports that would detect bombs and nuclear material by beaming it with particles and seeing what happened on the other side.

Second, a pair of fellas have discovered that not having a pulse might not be a bad thing. Bud Frazier and Billy Cohn have developed what they believe may be the best replacement for the natural heart. All they had to do, they said, was get rid of the heartbeat.

One of the reasons artificial hearts are so difficult to make is that the beating motion, constantly forever is very hard on artificial materials. Small turbines implanted inside existing hearts have been helping patients with heart problems for years by giving the heart a little boost. They found, though, that some patients who had this procedure later had hearts that had ceased to function entirely, and yet were completely healthy since the turbine was enough to push the blood through their body. Might we be able to survive with no heart at all?

Ever had one of those times when you're in the grocery store check out line and the person two spaces behind you in line is talking so loudly on her cell phone that you can't concentrate on flirting with the hot cashier, and you tried to politely tell her that you didn't need to hear about why Timmy is, like, the greatest guy ever, but she just wouldn't listen so you finally had no choice but to bludgeon her to death with a jar of spaghetti sauce?

Yeah, me too. Fortunately, a couple of clever fella's in Japan have a better solution: Use a gun! A speech impeding gun!

"The idea is simple. Psychologists have known for some years that it is almost impossible to speak when your words are replayed to you with a delay of a fraction of a second.

Kurihara and Tsukada have simply built a handheld device consisting of a microphone and a speaker that does just that: it records a person's voice and replays it to them with a delay of about 0.2 seconds. The microphone and speaker are directional so the device can be aimed at a speaker from a distance, like a gun.

In tests, Kurihara and Tsukada say their speech jamming gun works well: "The system can disturb remote people's speech without any physical discomfort." "

Finally, what is possibly the coolest website I've ever seen in my LIFE, is this neat little gadget that lets you trace the route of your web info from any site to your computer. In seconds it'll show you, on google maps, how many jumps the Internet had to take to get from, say, the Chinese Government's website, to their servers and then ultimately to you (23 hops, 3 seconds, travelling 13,093 miles), or from Starbuck's website (23 hops, 20.8 seconds, travelling 10,445 miles), or from...

The People's Islamic Republic of Pennsylvania

Here's a situation: You have a man (guy A) who wore a t-shirt that another guy (guy B) thought was very insulting. So, guy B takes it upon himself to attack guy A in the streets. The entire incident is caught on tape. Guy B is arrested, charged, and admits that he committed the crime.

You're the judge. What's your verdict?

I'm going to guess nigh on 100% of those polled would answer guilty. You would be incorrect, according to the People's Islamic Republic of Pennsylvania. The very same incident occurred there, with two differences:

Guy A was dressed as the Prophet.

Guy B was Muslim.

Oh, well I guess that changes everything. Innocent it is, then!

The "Pennsylvania State Director of American Atheists, Inc., Mr. Ernest Perce V., was assaulted by a Muslim while participating in a Halloween parade. Along with a Zombie Pope, Ernest was costumed as Zombie Muhammad. The assault was caught on video, the Muslim man admitted to his crime and charges were filed in what should have been an open-and-shut case. That’s not what happened, though.

The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet."

[NOTE: Many articles you may read about this case may indicate the judge was Muslim himself. This is incorrect, and stems from an isolated sentence in his ruling that was unclear and seemed to be him admitting to being Muslim.]

Judge Mark Martin is a veteran of the Iraq war, and uses that as justification for his ruling.

Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead.

Perhaps Judge Martin might want to invest a little less in Islamic studies and bit more in humor, particularly an understanding of satire.

Martin goes on to berate the assaulted victim, saying that he should think before he insults a religion, and basically saying it's his fault he was attacked. He also says that he's lucky, cause if he were in a Muslim country he'd be put to death...

...cause that's a good thing...

This ruling is completely inane, and I hope it is appealed so this whacko can be paraded on the world stage as the idiot he is. Here are the facts:

• "ignorantia legis neminem excusat" or "Ignorance of the law excuses no one": The defendant is a Muslim immigrant who claimed he was ignorant of the fact that you can't assault people in the streets of America. While I understand it may be difficult for him to get cable, what with living under a rock and all, the fact remains that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
• First Amendment protects speech, not assault: The assaulted atheist was clearly not attacking anyone. Regardless of how offended the Muslim man was, he does not have the right not to be offended. He could have left. He could have heckled. He could have explained to the 9 year old son he had with him that the man was violating God's law and would be punished. He cannot, however, simply attack someone because he feels like it, and if he chooses to do so, ought to pay for it under the law.
  
• "Hate" is not a crime: It's unlikely that Mr. Perce saw his costume as anything other than a harmless mockery of religion in general. Regardless, even if he is a hate-mongering Koran burning Islamaphobe, the fact remains that hate is not a crime. This is the problem with defining "hate" crimes as separate from other sorts of crimes. If we punish people for simply feeling a certain way, for holding a certain opinion, you are giving the government the ability to define what is an acceptable opinion to have and express.

Think that the government would never abuse such an authority?

I bet Mr. Perce did too.

As a show of solidarity to Mr. Perce, I leave you with this picture of the Prophet with his turban on fire, painted in central Asia.