Sunsceen Ban

So, the government is once again doing the best they can to murder your children, at least that is what the libtards would like you to believe. I personally think it's not the government's job to raise your children for you, but I'm just a silly guy without kids. If you haven't read about the two children who went to school and subsequently got sunburnt badly, go google it. The mother's blog about the incident is what I will be skewering.

http://lifephotographed.com/2012/06/burn-babies-burn/

^Here she rants about how the state and the school and the teachers; basically everyone involved other than herself, lacks common sense and the only fault I can see is the glaring omission of herself on that list.

http://lifephotographed.com/2012/06/your-questions-about-our-story-answered/

^Here she even replies to people calling her and her children idiots. One of her responses:

I would think with a child with Albinism you would ALWAYS err on the side of caution rather than put her health and safety in the hands of someone else. Was she dressed in long sleeves? Did you send along a hat? It seems too easy to blame the school staff for something that was really your responsibility.
In the course of Zoe’s nine years, we’ve kept her safe. On a normal day, she simply can’t be in direct sun because it’s painful. The result? She’s rarely in direct sun. She naturally self-protects by seeking shade. Yes, we have provided sunglasses for school use. She’s never been obligated to be exposed to direct sun for such a long time in her entire life – it was a new experience for all of us and one I could have not predicted. I think the fact that this is a first says something about our level of responsibility. We’re good, caring parents who have been able to protect and teach self-advocacy to these kids.

OK, so her daughter with albinism cannot be in direct sun. NOT being the key word there. Write that down.
Per the first blog post:

Zoe has a documented form of Albinism and associated 504 plan, the teachers and staff are aware of her extreme sensitivity.

I have no idea what a 504 plan is, and I refuse to google it, but the key part of this sentence is that her medical condition which requires her to NOT [from above, did you write it down?] be in direct sunlight is DOCUMENTED [another key word!] and that the teachers and staff are AWARE! [Ding, another!!]

The mother, the school, and the children are all aware of this legitimate medical condition which was diagnosed by a doctor. So how does something like this happen? Did the school magically spring this "field day" on them? Well if you read through her blog, she says no, she was well aware of this outdoor activity ahead of time. So this mother, who has raised her child for nine successful years, became aware of a school outdoor function that will take place outdoors and involve her vampire-daughter, and she didn't send a tube of fucking sunscreen with her daughter? You ma'am, are an idiot.

Am I too harsh on the mother? Some libtard defenses:

Defense 1: It was raining, so she didn't apply sunscreen. It's not her fault it stopped raining!

No sir. I will use her own words to help you out.

1. I didn’t send sunscreen with them because, up until yesterday, they had never had an issue at school before.
2. This was our first field day at Pt. Defiance.
3. ...it was a new experience for all of us and one I could have not predicted.

Common sense says if your kid CAN'T BE IN THE FUCKING SUN, you should probably send them to school with sunscreen if their agenda for the day is: BE-THE-FUCK-OUTSIDE, even if you think it will rain for eight hours straight. You don't have to be Nostra-fucking-dumbass to be able to predict your super-ginger is going to fry like a slab of back bacon on a skillet if she participates in an event with the word FIELD in the title!!!!!!!!

Defense 2: She didn't have a prescription for sunscreen! She shouldn't have to pay $X to some doctor just so her daughter can remain safe at school!

This defense does hold water if you assume every person in the world is a fucking asshole. Seriously. What police officer, or other arbiter of the law, would actually enforce this law? Do you really think Sally's mom is going to call her Senator to complain that Zoe the albino was using sunscreen illegally during their school field day and that any type of consequences would come from that? I honestly cannot comprehend the level of pure fucktitude required for that scenario to even exist and refuse to acknowledge it.

Defense 3: It's the law! If we don't follow the laws, we'll have chaos and blah blah blah.

Please don't reproduce.

Defense 4: Did I mention the raining thing? Ya? Dang. Um, how about the mother just assumed that teachers wouldn't be d-bags and would actually take care of her child?

While your head is once again in the right place, as they definitely should have and I can't argue that the teachers who had sunscreen AND knew this kid couldn't be in the direct sunlight should've done the right thing and gave her some sunscreen. HOWEVAH, the problem I have here is NOT that the teachers are fucktards, the problem I have is the mother trying to deflect ANY personal responsibility for the situation. You are the MOTHER. When you poop out a kid, every fucking thing they do is your responsibility. Everything. While I agree with the premise that we as adults have a collective responsibility to take care of all children to help create a better society, that in no way removes or nullifies your own personal responsibility for your children.

I Hate The UN

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/12/syrian-forces-killing-children-un?intcmp=239

The above story is about the Syrian civil war where children are being used as human shields, being raped, tortured, and murdered. Not cool right? If only we had an international body comprised of many countries around the world that we could use to put pressure on Syria to stop the violence. That would be easy right? Throw a few sanctions at them, maybe they will realize that being isolated in the world is a bad thing.

Well naturally being the good moral people that we are we tried exactly that. Unfortunately the United Nations is a giant bag of fuck. You see they have 193 member countries, and of those 15 are on the Security Council. Ten of those serve two year terms on a rotational basis and five are permanent members. The five permanent members are: The United States, The United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia. These five members all have veto power.

I'll let that sink in for a minute.

Got it? No? Ok one more minute...

Ready? Good. So we have the United Nations whose job it is to make the world a wonderful place. We have a Security Council to make sure when some stupid country acts a fool, we slap their dick. Well that becomes difficult when you have five members with veto power, especially when some of the countries are diametrically opposed to one another. I could go on and on giving past examples of why this is stupid, or even just break it down logically, but then you would forget about the story up top about the Syrian civil war where children are being raped and tortured. So I will give you here the bottom paragraph from that story to chew on:

The US and UK have refused to rule out military intervention but appear wary of entering another conflict as they attempt to exit Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia and China have constantly warned against foreign interference and have already vetoed two UN security council resolutions that threatened sanctions against the Assad regime.

Take your time. Read it a couple times if need be. Russia and China refuse to even threaten Syria with sanctions! We are not even talking about invading or bombing, we are talking along the lines of stopping the exporting of goods to Syria. Yet Russia and China use their veto power to prevent us from doing even that.

Here is where some people get divided, including myself. Some people feel that as the last remaining "super power" (though I would argue China should be considered a super power) we should use our power to help those who cannot help themselves. Others think we should leave the world alone and concentrate more on helping our own people. I am somewhat a fan of both schools of thought. I feel that if we are going to exert our influence around the globe, we should gain from it in a much more direct form (read: yay imperialism!), however I also like to think that if a bunch of people still basing their lives on societal norms from the 10th Century want to kill each other, let 'er buck! The more of them that die, the less people there are to continue to threaten the security of every other person on Earth.

Since America has grown a big floppy vagina in the last half century or so, we are forced to reap the benefits of our global "big-brother-ness" in much more subtle or indirect ways. It is essentially political correctness on a global scale and it is bullshit.

Our continued allowance of Russia and China to stand in the way of sanctions on shitty countries (Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc...) is a tacit agreement to allow evil to flourish.

It is all fun and games until you see stuff like this. ^

North Dakota Ballots June 12th

There are four measures coming up on the June 12th North Dakota ballot. In true political form, what they are is being skewed by both sides of the issues to such an extent that it is hard to really know what you are voting on. As I am a proponent of educated voting, I will attempt to explain them in a simple and unbiased way.

Measure 1:

This constitutional measure would amend and reenact section 6 of Article IV of the North Dakota Constitution.  This measure would prohibit the appointment of a member of the Legislative Assembly to a state office for which the compensation was increased in an amount greater than any general legislative increase provided to full-time state employees during the member's term of office. 

You likely haven't heard much about this one as it's actually pretty straight forward and wasn't initiated. Voting yes would mean that a legislator who votes for a larger than normal pay increase for an appointed position, would be unable to be appointed to that position. If the position received an increase of pay equal to that of all other state employees, then there is no problem.

I agree with this as it makes sure no one is giving themselves unfair pay raises and I will vote yes.

Measure 2:

This initiated constitutional measure would amend sections 1, 4, 14, 15, and 16 of Article X of the North Dakota Constitution and repeal sections 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of that same article, eliminating property taxes, poll taxes, and acreage taxes, effective January 1, 2012. The measure would require the Legislative Assembly to replace lost revenue to cities, counties, townships, school districts, and other political subdivisions with allocations of various state-level taxes and other revenues, without restrictions on how these revenues may be spent by the political subdivisions.

This one has gotten a lot of play by both sides and unless your head is stuck in the sand you've no doubt heard about this one. Side one says property taxes are a burden to taxpayers and cause people to lose their homes. Side two says if we cut property taxes we lose local control over our government.
Here in North Dakota we've been extremely fortunate to avoid the massive foreclosures caused by the bursting of the housing bubble a few years ago which in my opinion greatly weakens the argument of side one. Side two wants you to think that if property taxes get cut, when a city or county government wants to spend money, it will have go hat in hand to get the funds from individuals who don't live in that community.
Common sense says that if a government loses a leg, it will lean more heavily on the other legs (sales, income, etc).

I pay property taxes that in my opinion are too high, but I have yet to hear an argument that says removing property taxes will force our government to run more efficiently. I will vote no.

Measure 3:

This initiated constitutional measure would add a new section to Article I of the North Dakota Constitution stating, “Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty.  The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest.  A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.”

Measure three is my favorite just because it's so absurd. Side one wants you to believe that if you vote yes, you are granting religious freedom to North Dakota, or that if you vote no you are stripping people of their religious freedom. Side two wants you to believe that if you vote yes that Muslims will be able to come here and practice Sharia law freely.
If you read the Constitution of the United States of America, you will see that religious freedom is something that every American citizen is already granted and can not be infringed upon. You. Have. Religious. Freedom! This is NOT a measure to take away ANYTHING! So the premise of this measure having anything to do with religious freedom is absurd.
I can't try to explain this any more as I can't figure out a way to do so without backtracking the argument to why this issue currently exists (Rhymes with shmashmortion) so I will just give my opinion.

This is an attempt by the hyper-religious to make it easier for them to further push their belief system on others. (Study history, this is nothing new nor is it specific to a single religion.) This is why I will be voting no.

Measure 4:

This referendum measure concerns Senate Bill 2370 as passed by the Legislative Assembly in the November 2011 special session (Session Laws, Chapter 580).  Senate Bill 2370 repealed section 15-10-46 of the North Dakota Century Code, which required the University of North Dakota to use the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo.

This is easily the most confusing so I will provide the yes/no as well:

YES – means you approve Senate Bill 2370, the effect of which would allow the University of North Dakota to discontinue the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo.

NO – means you reject Senate Bill 2370, and would require the University of North Dakota to use the Fighting Sioux nickname and logo

 If you are unaware of the Sioux nickname issue, I will summarize it for you:

NCAA: No more Sioux for you!
UND: Nu uh! We going to court.
NCAA: K. How bout if you get the tribes to agree in the next few years?
UND: No probs.
+a few years later+
NCAA: So...
UND: We um, one more minute?
NCAA: Sigh...
UND: K, fine. We'll change it.
North Dakota Government(NDG): UND you HAVE to be the Sioux.
UND: K.
NCAA: Remember me?
UND: My hands are tied!
NCAA: I don't care.
UND: FML.
Side one(S1): Screw it, go Sioux!
Side two(S2): Um, but I like postseason play.
UND: I know right?
NCAA: You guys are idiots, I'm out.
S2: Hey NDG, you are stupid.
NDG: You don't like it, vote.
S1: Noooooooo!

Measure 4!

So, if you vote yes, you are voting no to keeping the nickname and if you vote no, you are voting yes to keeping the nickname. The NCAA doesn't give a hoot what our state law is, the sanctions against UND will remain in place until they have a new nickname. Watching UND athletic competitions is more important to me than saying a name, so I will be voting yes.


No matter what, you need to go vote. Voting is how your voice is heard.
If you would like more information about any of the measures, you can find that information here:
https://vip.sos.nd.gov/BallotMeasurePortal.aspx