The Friday Bacon

Bacon and Breasts are both mainly fat and perfect for snacking on. I don't know why this hasn't come up before, but it makes perfect sense. Bacon flavored breasts. You probably should take the bacon off the breasts before cooking.

The Nacirema

So aparently American Indians are buying up the land that once was theirs. This has become possible recently through the generous donations made by the white man at the native's traditional style gaming longhouses. They are also taking the ironic move of uitilizing a treaty that could only have been a cruel legal kick in the face when it was enacted. After using violence to drive the natives off their lands the U.S. then made it possible for the natives to buy the land back. How generous! Well now the American Indian tribes are using that treaty to take the land they buy out of the tax base of the local municipality it used to belong to and into their own sovjerenty. And OH! to hear the white man cry when you disrupt his tax base!

The thing that pisses me off the most about local governments is that they act as if the land within their boarders and the tax money they expect to bring in is theirs instead of the property of the people they are supposed to serve. Exibit A Now that someone is using the machenery of capitalism and the law to their own advantage and exercising their rights, these local governments cry foul, gnash their teeth, and beat their chests untill the blood comes out. These local government "leaders" need to have a lesson in real American freedom but sadly this is the kind of corruption that infects local government like a festering boil.

In the meantime some crazy fuckers have gone and disturbed a previously uncontacted tribe in the Amazon just to prove they exist. Now droves of anthropologists will stream down there looking for them to figure crap out. Nowhere is Heizenburgs uncertainty principle more appropriately glossed over into a philosophical statement than with regard to anthropology. The presence of the anthropologist that examines the culture alters what he is examining tremendously. All this, and social anthropology can barely call itself a science.

Game Review: Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicals My Life as King

Released two weeks ago with the first batch of Wii Ware FFCCMLAK is the most expensive Wii Ware title so far at 1500 Wii points, and it takes up a lot of space on the Wii's internal memory. That price tag can baloon because of the seperately purchaseable ad on content that ranges from 100 - 800 Wii points. Ad on content still feels like part of the game is being held for ransom away from me and I have to be fucked in the asshole by the people making the games availalbe in order to get a complete game. Personally I find the core game to be $15 dollars worth of entertainment but the ad on content does not add the value its price point demands. Especially if you consider that in order to get all the available dungeons, equipment, and jobs, the price of the game jumps up to become the most expensive Wii game yet available for the console. Its a clever marketing strategy but in a game like this where content that was available at launch is being kept seperate from the game it feels like a huge middle finger in the face of the consumer. Unlike a game like say Rock Band where one buys new songs that become available after launch.

Speaking of songs on Rock Band, you may have noticed that Motley Crue was the first group to realize the obvious, that selling music to an interactive experience greatly increases its appeal.

Apart from having a cold metal dildo shoved up my ass by Nintento and Square, FFCCMLAK is a highly entertaining game. It is a sim in that you reconstruct your fathers fallen kingdom from the memories of its people and it is an RPG in that you walk through this kingdom you are building as the young son of the king. You actually spend half of the game as a cheerleader for your subjects, raising the ir morale and improving their family relations, and you spend the other half of the game managing your adventurers.

Unlike most other Final Fantasy games you dont actually go out into the world and battle monsters. You can't even leave the walls of the castle. This combined with the mediocre graphics is where Square Enix obviously put together a cheap game to rake in some online cash. That said, the game isn't sloppy. The polygons are well shaped and are well contoured for what people have come to expect in a 3D video game.

The game itself is plenty entertaining if you like the thought of managing an army of adventurers. FFCCMLAK also gives an interisting perspective on towns in the Final Fantasy universe. If you have ever wondered why there are towns in the middle of a monster infested wilderness with weapon and magic shops and aparently no other commerce, this game gives some perspective. Managing your adventurers gets a bit annoying when the individual you intended to give a job just won't show up to to the job, and at times its difficult to understand why completely healthy adventurers flee from combat while low level adventurers throw themselves into fights twice their level.

I, For One, Welcome Our New Cybernetic Simian Overlords

In some bizarre attempt at mad science, scientists have created something that has the best chance of destroying civilization since the nuclear bomb, cybernetic monkeys.




We all know that the things most likely to destroy life as we know it are robots that have achieved scientience, hyperevolved monkeys, or zombies. Now mad scientists have combined monkeys and robots as if they are goading God on in an arrogant attempt to provoke the apocylapse. The next time congress tries to ban armor piercing ammunition remember, robot monkeys.

The Friday Bacon: Late as usual

Polygamy, Marriage, Religion, Freedom

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere
with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one
believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would
it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could
not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was
her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be
beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into
practice?

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166 (U.S. 1878) This quote does an excelent job of outlining the freedom of religion. What freedom it does guranty and what freedoms it does not. It is explained generally enough to cover almost any situation where someone tries to raise religious belief to justify some crime they have committed. More than that, it actually gives a moral outline so rare in the law. That a religious belief does not excuse a wrong act, is an excelent precept with which to weed out those that believe that God will excuse their sins if only they belive correctly.

The above quote also informs people where their right to believe as they please ends and the rights of others begins. You can believe abortion is wrong, but you cannot stop women from having them. You can believe vaccinations are against the commands of God but you cannot keep them from your children. You can believe creationism, but you cannot teach it in schools.

However that line of reasoning is used below to justify the government meddeling in marriage.

From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time
in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society,
cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity. In the
face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the
constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit
legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage,
while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most
civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it
society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations
and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required
to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed,
do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a
greater or less extent, rests. Professor Lieber says, polygamy leads to the
patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the
people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in
connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is qually
striking and profound. 2 Kent, Com. 81, note (e). An exceptional colony of
polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time
without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it;
but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of
HN21constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil
government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social
life under its dominion.

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 165-166 (U.S. 1878) Why? Why does the government get to fuck around with my marriage? Why did I have to go pay some beureaucrat to file some paperwork so that I can go to a state approved church to solmenize the commitment I have made with my wife? Because marrage is the foundation of the state? Fuck you! All that is saying is that the state and all the members of the society demand a benefit from my love for my wife and that I pay for them to have the priviledge.

All that is said when someone says that marriage is the foundation of society is that they want the benefit of your children. The benefit that more productive members of society bring. Fuck you! You have no right to demand that my marriage be of any value to you. Even in a capatilist society where each of your fingers has a dollar value attached to it the value of my future children cannot be demanded by you for no compensation.

If you want control of marriage you owe me. You owe me for the increased efficiency of a two person household. You owe me at least the cost of producing the children you will benefit from. Not only that you owe me the value their future labors will bring to society and the taxes they will pay. The cost of raising a child to adulthood is huge but only a fraction of what that person puts back into society. That value is increased tremendously if that child moves on to higher education. You have no right to demand that value and the control over my life to get it.

You have no right to meddle in my spiritual ritual and put restrictions on whom I can have to officiate the ceremony of my marriage. Every person has the same connection to the devine as each other. We all had the breath of life put in us by the creator and none of us has any more or less than our neighbors. No schooling, licence, building, location, costume, or ritual can increase or decrease that, nothing. Yet there are judges that have invalidated peoples marriages because they did not like the manner in which the person officiating the ceremony obtained the title of "minister." This is just the state insuring the continued existance of the professional clergy.

I hate that there is legal effect to the state's yoke of control over love. I hate that I could not stand up for my beliefs and refuse to register my marriage because it would send a terrible message to my wife that there was something deficient about our love.

That said, I don't give two shits about polygamy or gay marriage.

Even if I agree with the Supreme Court's rationale that polygamy fosters patriarchy and totalitarianism, it does not justify the state sticking its fingers into the exercise of faith. Back to the thought I started with. There must be some limit to the distinction between belief and action because faith is meaningless if one cannot act on ones beliefs. Clearly there must be limits, but cutting off all action leaves faith as a mute quadrapalegic.

I don't know where I would place the marker. Ideally the law would reflect morality but it does not and not all things that are wrong are illegal and not all things that are illegal are wrong. As a libertarian I want to say that ones right to act on ones beliefs ends when they interfere with the rights of another but that can be a sticky area to hash out. Harm can be a good way to solve that problem. When an act of one person harms another can be a good place to say their rights have ended but that is still far too broad and vague. How do you define harm? And so forth. It might be glib to end this way, and all of this falls below the standard of legal reasoning, but it is pretty easy to detect the harm eminating from Warren Jeffs' brand of polygamy.

The Torture Debate

The national discussion regarding the use of torture and extreme rendition is often cut short by declarations that this is a time of war. Such declarations are not usually followed by any explination as to what significance that should have because most of the time they are made by people that have no interist in actually considering the value or appropriateness of torture. Though now it appears there are legal consequences of the torture that these people had previously been unwilling to think about. Unfortunately these are not the legal consequences of those being responsible facing justice. They are the natural consequences of the unreliable information that is gained from torture. Followed by the that information gained through torture being unusable in court because of the tainted nature in which it was obtained.

Even if you do accept that torture does work and that it is called for by the current situation, the torture debate is more than just an argument over whether extreme measures are acceptable during a time of war. There are at least two other issues.

First, intelligence failures prior to 9/11 indicate that the US intelligence community doea not need more information since they had enough to know the attack was coming, and they are too incompetant to use the information they do have.

Second, there are serious questions about whether the person being detained under suspicion of being a terrorist is actually guilty of anything. People have been spirited away, aparently based on nothing more than a muslim sounding name, tortured, and released after months when it is discovered a mistake was made and that these people were not criminals or if they were, after the CIA had fouled up the investigation.



Many people are not conserned with this because they don't have muslim sounding names and are merely mundane white people living in the heartland. This should consern everyone because it is the start of a slippery slope. If the people responsible for this get away with abducting and torturing innocent people for something as vaguely defined as being a suspected terrorist it is a small step to other criminal suspects and then another small step to the imprisoning and torturing of people for legal but unpopular behavior. And then you have the thought police.

These steps are smaller than most people want to believe because the first step has been so large. That people that are merely suspected of being terrorists are being tortured is highly significant. It causes the ensnarement of innocent people based on unchallenged circumstantial evidence.

Yager-bombing the Middle East

Aparently Hillary Clinton was able to drink McCain under the table in Estonia. This raises serious questions for the McCain presidential campaign. How can we expect a presidential candidate to be hard on the terrorists when they go easy on their own liver? While they both only consumed four(4) shots of vodka at least we can assume Hillary could out drink both Osama Bin Laden and Muqtada al-Sadr because muslims are not permitted to drink alcohol and we can assume they would not be prepaired for it. We have yet to hear of any exploits of Obama's capacitiy to imbibe intoxicants and this story raises the question. How much can Obama drink? For that matter how much can Ron Paul drink? Obama looks pretty lanky, and Ron Paul is no spring chicken but experience is what counts. Also, the story lacks information on how large a shot is in Estonia. I would assume that being married to President Bill Clinton would give one plenty of experience with keeping ones composure after consuming mass quantities of alcohol. So I was quite shocked to find that the contest had ended after four shots. Perhaps that is just when McCain threw in the towel. Which brings us back to the question. If McCain gave in to Hillary after just four shots of vodka, how can we believe his talk that he will stand strong against the terrorists and win the war in Iraq?

The Walk of Shame

There is a set of common arguments that have as their basis the assumption that morality flows from religion. Any athiest will tell you how foolish this is. One need only look to history to learn the lession that people are terrible regardless of what God they kneel to or whether they believe or not. Something that is frequently overlooked is just how dangerous it is to have faith in religion or the law to make people treat each other well. If someone is not killing you or raping you or not robbing you because they are afraid of God or jail then that person is actually evil. Not only evil but an evil coward.

All that crap was to introduce this article about an accused child molesting pastor.

The Friday Bacon

Bacon Fried Rice

Bush Seeks Coalition Against The Troops

Since the run-up to the war in Iraq anyone who has questioned the Bush administration has had to endure ad hominem attacks on their patriotism and accusations that they don't support the troups. But it has been the Bush administration that has failed to support the troops. If you are like me, when Rumsfeld attempted to justify the lack of adaquate but available armor plating on hum-vees, you were so overcome with rage that you passed out half way through the press conference. The hypocracies and outrages continue even in these late hours of the dark years of the Bush administration as the President has promised to veto an expansion of the GI Bill.

This is particularly significant in relation to war profiteering, the topic an earlier posting on this very blog. The members of the administration who ducked out of military service and their friends and business associates rake in the cash while overcharging the government on essentials for the troops, telling the manufacturers not to include available additional armor, force wounded soldiers to live in decrepid conditions, and deny expansion of the GI bill. When the government is being overcharged here its you and I that are being screwed in the pooper.

These soldiers have taken it on the chin from this administration and continue to step up and volunteer to serve this country. It is a true testiment to the indominable spirit of the United States soldier.

More Fucking Earthquakes!

The last year leading up to the Olympics has taught us many things about China and reenforced some old lessons about what to expect from a one-party communist state. One thing in particular that China has had an unfortunate chance to display is their efficiency at disaster relief. As this article attest the Chinese don't fuck around when it comes to responding to a natural disaster. The real test comes in the long term aftermath where the response is measured in terms of how quickly life returns to normal for the residents of the disaster struck region. I don't foresee a state-run news outlet covering anything less than a complete victory.

We're gonna' shove our aid up your river delta!

I just read the most insane article regarding humanitarian aid I have ever seen. At first I thought that this must be from the Onion but it turns out this is not satire, this is from Time. Its from fucking Time! Christ on a fucking unicycle!



First paragraph; "How dare a foreign government exercise its sovereignty and refuse our great aid?"

Second paragraph; "If they won't accept our paltry hand-out we shall force it on them with violence!"




I sent them a little feedback. You have to believe me that I was trying my damndest not to sound like a crazy person but if you have read anything on this blog you already know how hard a time I have with that. Here is my editorial reply.





"The entire premise of this article seems like a thought that isn't even reasonable enough to rise to the surface of an intelligent person's mind. How did it become a Time article? The very idea that the U.S. should invade a country because they won't let us provide disaster relief to them is completely absurd. This is the kind of juvenile warmongering that one would expect from the far right of the blogosphere because it is too insane for Fox News. Just because a country is governed by evil men does not give us the right to violate their sovereignty."

War and Business as Usual

When one learns of phenomenal profits reaped by elected officials during their tenure, the typical reaction isn't necessarily one of disgust. However, when one learns that several officials personally profited off of W's decision to go to war, any American citizen who claims to 'support our troops' should be incensed. Incredibly, to belabor the point with an altogether morbid and tragic twist, the fact that 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, one is left simply flabbergasted.

Why, after all, should the voters attempt to disregard an individual's rational choice? If the decision is presented that one must vote against or otherwise hinder and impede a potentially illegal invasion of another country yet lose billions of dollars (and counting) in the process, or wave a flag and cash the checks, the voters should not expect much.

Clearly, many American politicians are in the business of war, but how much of this business is really in the public interest?

The Friday Bacon

Expert Testimony Powers, Activate!

I wish to preface what I am about to say by clarifying my position on Tasers and also preface that with this disclaimer, that the other contributers to this blog may not necessairly share my views.

I think the Tazer is a good and useful technology. I think it is a wonderful substitute for a gun or pepper spray for self defense, depending on your preference. If you feel threatened but don't want to kill anyone or are intimidated by a gun, then a less-lethal taser can give you a comprible amount of self defense in its ability to incapacitate. The Taser also has advantages over pepper spray because it is relatively contained and the effect is limited to the individual hit with the wires. With pepper spray you release a cloud of fine particles that can shift with the wind, cover your clothes, and should never be discharged indoors. I have accidentally pepper sprayed myself and being just as incapacitated as the person you are attempting to flee from is a ticket to disaster town. A taser is a weapon but is not a firearm and that legal distinction makes it far more practical as a person's self defense device since you can use them in more states and carry them across more state boundaries without fear of breaking the law. They are still subject to certain restrictions though.

My problem is not with the Taser devices. My problem is with the cops and thugs that use them as a weapon for torture.

Ohio is one of the few U.S. states where a judge may overrule the county coronor as to the cause of death on a death certificate. When the Summit county medical examiner ruled that three suspects had been murdered by police and that Tasers were partly responsible for the heart failure, Taser International sent is lawyers to Ohio to get a judge to change the record. yesterday they were successful.

I am not the least bit suprised that Taser International would use every means at their disposal to protect the reputation of their flagship product. Given the nature of how the devices tend to be used, I think they would appear to be better corporate citizens if they denounced misuse of their product by pointing out these are the actions of bad people and that their device does not have discretion as to who it electrocutes.

I see two odd clashes in the public statements of Taser International. They loudly proclaim their support for law enforcement. Cases like the one above lead to the assumption that this support of law enforcement goes beyond providing a useful tool to suport a necessary public institution, and actually extends to blind support of the individuals that wear the badge. Admititadly that is a bit of a strech. But it is hard to see this case as anything other than an interference with justice.

The second clash of policy with reality I see within Taser International is what I percieve as a sympathy for the arguments of the anti-gun lobby. It is commendable that Taser International takes every step possible to insure the safety of each of their devices. The instruction manuals are concise and effective, the models for civilian use are locked with a security code so only the person who purchased them can activate the device, they even sell a camera that attaches to the device that starts recording as soon as the safety is switched to the fire position so that there is video evidence that it was necessary to fire. It is admirable that Taser Interantional has chosen to go the extra mile in providing for the safe and proper operation of their products. This intersects with reality because the company and its devices cannot control when they are used. just like a firearms company cannot control when their guns will be used or who will get their hands on them. Once an object is sold it is beyond the control of the manufacturer. So the problem here is that while Taser International is not responsible for misuse of their devices by wicked cops or juvinile thugs, they inject themselves into these instances, insisting that their inanimate device that is beyond their control is incapable of being misused. My main point here is that the Tazer is a good and useful less-lethal alternative for self defense and law enforcement but Taser International needs a more mature and consistant public relations policy.

The Friday Bacon