Housing is Too Good for Arizona's Prisoners

Jails overcrowded? No problem, just start putting the prisoners outside. In tents.

That's seriously what Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio is doing right now, in Phoenix, Arizona. And it seems most of the prisoners chosen to live in the "tents" are Hispanic and nonwhite citizens.

The sheriff has said that he doesn't see any problems with housing inmates in tents because "some members of the U.S. military live in tents."

Some members of the U.S. military also have to fight in deadly combat and get killed by enemies of the state. I suppose sending our prisoners to do this is the next step when we run out of room in the tents?

This Tent City Jail also forces its inmates to wear pink underwear and sells guided tours so that paying citizens can come gawk at the prisoners.

Tonight, there will be a rally for the closing of the tent city, led by the immigrant rights group Puente Arizona and the Unitarian Universalist Association, a national church group.

Did you Know? Amphicars!

An interesting tidbit from the National Park Service:

the Amphicar: the only car that ever was a BOAT!

Built in Germany from 1961 to 1968, the Amphicar is the only civilian amphibious passenger automobile ever to be mass produced. A total of 3,878 vehicles were produced in four colors: Beach White, Regatta Red, Fjord Green (Aqua), and Lagoon Blue--the color of President Johnson's Amphicar.

President Johnson enjoyed surprising unsuspecting guests when taking them for a ride in his Amphicar.

The President, with Vicky McCammon in the seat alongside him and me in the back,was now driving around in a small blue car with the top down. We reached a steep incline at the edge of the lake and the car started rolling rapidly toward the water. The President shouted, "The brakes don’t work! The brakes won’t hold! We’re going in! We’re going under!" The car splashed into the water. I started to get out. Just then the car leveled and I realized we were in a Amphicar. The President laughed. As we putted along the lake then (and throughout the evening), he teased me. "Vicky, did you see what Joe did? He didn’t give a damn about his President. He just wanted to save his own skin and get out of the car." Then he’d roar. --Joseph A. Califano, Jr
***
So, our former President tricked his passengers into thinking they were about to die, just so he could see how loyal they were? That's either the most brilliant people skills ever, or sadistic torture. Maybe, it's both.

Stop Blaming Testosterone

Today, we have some feminist critique of the viewpoint that men "can't help" oogling women. Inspired by the trendy article, "5 Ways Modern Men are Trained to Hate Women," and it's scathing response; "Mysogyny isn't caused by male horniness."

Even after reading this critique, which makes a great point that hey, maybe women and men don't act differently just because of biology, but because of what society teaches us, some guy still found the need to cry out (comment #265: mcguinty):

You’ll also notice that I never said the average male traits make the average male better than the average female. I just said it makes the average male different from the average female. Personally I would like to be able to have some of the average female traits: better social intelligence, better empathy, and so on. But I can’t because of my biology.

O. M. Gee.

Our response:
Dear @mcguinty. by assuming these male SOCIAL traits are biological, you just spit out a whole bunch of disabling sexism. " I would like to be able to have some of the average female traits: better social intelligence, better empathy, and so on. But I can’t because of my biology." What the hell? ANYONE can have better social intelligence and better empathy, all you have to do is make an effort and try to LEARN.

Women are told from day 1 that they must consider other's feelings in everything they do, and give up their own needs to support others. This is why women have these traits in wider abundance than men, not because it's "biological." You using biology as an excuse as to why you don't have them, is just making a lame excuse to justify your continued behavior as a selfish, offensive asshole. Biology is not an excuse to treat women badly, or act like an asshole in general. That is is the whole problem with this cracked article, and this why it DOES matter if men's different behavior is based in biology or not.

If it was really based in biology, then it could not be changed. (If that was actually true, then I think all men should be imprisoned and removed from all positions of power, since they "naturally" are inclined to hurt women.) But if macho, objectifying, tit-gazing behavior is LEARNED, then we can UNLEARN it, which would be a HUGE SOCIAL IMPROVEMENT. We need to stop blaming biology and recognize the social conditioning that is all around us.

So. Why is this so hard to understand? Because I have heard men who claim to be "progressive" blame their biology all the time. You almost might think, that they don't want to understand it..

Religion Not Involved in Repeal of Prop 8!

In an amazing upset this week, Prop 8 was overturned, and the ruling judges never even mentioned religion in their decision! Right, I control+F-ed (searched) through 128 pages of statement and only civil marriage was mentioned, but never the word "religion," nor "discrimination," anywhere that I could find. How politically correct!

Yes, I'm really impressed by the court that recently declared Prop 8 unconstitutional. Yes! The way they worded the decision was so beauuuuuutiful;

Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, in requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.

Interesting, right? It was only unfair because, there was no "legitimate reason" that Prop 8 should ever have been enacted. But if there was, then it would have been okay? I guess it's okay because our government can carry out the "passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently." Hmmmm. Are gay people even a class? I guess they are now a different class, because the court said so. I guess, the court could have recognized that gay people are just, you know, people, and not even a legitimately different social class, who should ever be separate from other people in the law's eyes, but, that would have been addressing a "broader issue," and;

Broader issues have been urged for our consideration, but we adhere to the principle of deciding constitutional questions only in the contest of the particular case before the Court.

So, they couldn't ever decide that gay people deserve all the same rights as non-gay people, UNLESS there was somehow a "particular case before the Court." What would that case look like? It would have to be about someone claiming it was unconstitutional to treat gays as a separate class of people, right? Maybe because they were unnecessarily denied something given to other people?

Hmmm, it's too bad we don't have any cases like that for them to give a decision on! Maybe, one day...

Freedoms are no Longer Free, AKA American Fiscal Theory

You thought your 1st Amendment freedom was free? Think again.

Scott Walker, governer of Wisconsin, already enacted a policy that charges protesters money to protest.

American government: Ohohoho, yes! We spent all this money on the military and corporate handouts, and then we tried to cut money from social programs to fund this, but then we got all these annoying protestors, so now if we can just charge the protesters money we can kill two birds with one stone! *evil cackle*

Gosh. I don't even have to try to make fun of the government anymore. They've made a caricature of themselves before I even got there..