Happy [chat]sgiving.

Remember to take a moment to think about all you are thankful for. I am thankful for pies and term limits.

Stupidest Litigation Evar

The Romantics are suing Activision for covering their song too well. Activision is not being sued for music they did not pay for, but are instead being sued because their cover sounds too much like the original.

I can't imagine this going too far, especially considering that GH denotes that it isn't the actual band in question at the start of the song. I'm just amazed at the gall of this band.

Second Amendment.

While I am not a Constitutional Scholar I am a native speaker of the English Language. So I think that with regard to sentences written in English I have some ability to assess them and discern their meaning. That being said, here is the Second Ammendment to the Constitution:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It does not seem to be a sentence so much as it is four clauses:
1 A well regulated Militia
2 being necessary to the security of a free State
3 the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
4 shall not be infringed

Is that even a sentence? I know that it is four clauses. But do these four clauses a sentence make? And since there are four clauses, which is the main clause? What are those other clauses doing?

Here are some possible combinations I have devised in the three minutes in which I have thought about this:

A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Which is the correct read? I think it depends on what is the main clause and what the other clauses are doing. Is the primary focus on militias? Is the primary focus on the right to keep and bear arms?

I think the "being necessary to the security of a free state" is the primary focus, the main concept being stressed. The rest of it modifies and clarifies, through a lack of clarity, what is necessary.

My guess is that the focus is not "Everyone ever ought to have guns always" but rather "States need to be Free" and the result of that is that gun ownership is required. But I could be wrong.

Blog of Agglutination

Entry #8

Well, if Mike Franc says it's true...

I was reading the conservapedia and found a link to an article entitled, "The Reality of Thanksgiving" on humanevents.com (Leading the Conservative Movement since 1944).

I was surprised to learn that the Conservative Movement had access to the tubal interwebs since 1944 but more surprising was the information that Thanksgiving is actually a celebration of the triumph of Plymouth Colony over communism. From the article:

"But the Pilgrims’ triumph over hunger and poverty at Plymouth Colony can be traced to something more than the charitable gestures of a few local Indians. Rather, it involves their courageous decision to replace a failed, socialistic agricultural system with one informed by the free-market principle of private ownership of property"

Note the use of the word "Indians" as opposed to "filthy savages". The Conservative movement has truly come a long way.

Anyway, the article explains that Plymouth Colony suffered great hardships until "the colony’s leaders identified the source of their problem as a particularly vile form of what Bradford called 'communism'.” I always thought that the problems of Plymouth Colony were malnutrition and death, but apparently a socialist ideology was the true culprit. This evil force was that solved by applying liberal (get it?)amounts of free-market capitalism which allowed the colony to thrive.

The article cites no external sources to verify its claims which is fine I guess. I can't imagine that Mike Franc, vice president of Government Relations at The Heritage Foundation, would lie to anyone about anything.

Tahmincioglu

One mother's epic Attempt to Boycott China is covered in this article.

This thing is gold. It's drenched with alarmist idiocy, irrational self-imposed rules, and has enough "but I meant well" to absolve Hitler of everything he ever did minus that one painting of a boat.

And people wonder why no one wants to join the military!!!

This was on Fark. I'm outraged at the U.S. Government because of crap like this. If this were any other job wouldn't we give them disability pay or workman's comp. This is just ridiculous!!!!


http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html