Discussion in 'The Sanctum Santorum' started by Otterloop, Apr 5, 2012.
Arizona surpassed Florida a while back, I think.
Well, the general attitude here is that there is no reason to spend anything on educating *anyone*, regardless of skin color or anything else for that matter. The fucktards aka public servants here don't worry about the public education system, because that is not the system they or their well heeled contributors use for their own children. I was having a discussion where some actually said "If He wanted their children to get an decent education, then The Good Lord would have given them parents with decent jobs". And I was the only one not nodding along, including the very folks among the crowd who were NOT being referred to positively. The attitude here boils down to why spend money to educate the vermin who were born to the people not blessed enough to be born white and affluent?
When I see on the news about the shockingly narrow minded anti-education decisions the Legislature passes, I feel compelled to comment aloud, in a mocking hick-ish deep timbre Western tinged drawl a la the "Beef it's what's for dinner" voice over guy, "Edumication; we don' need none'a tha-yuht stuff hee-yer". If I am feeling particularly smarmy, I'll toss in a "Noo Yowrk Citeeeee?!?!?", a la the salsa commercials, in front of it.
One of the candidates here actually used the same salsa shtick in an utterly non ironic way as a campaign commercial theme in the most recent election season, with guns prominently displayed. The locals ate it up.
On the other hand, the local jester aka Sheriff Joe, spends money on his idiot circus of incarcerating minor criminals like they're Soviet dissidents banished to Siberia, aka Tent City. Unsurprisingly, when you send people into the desert heat when it's 120 degrees F, some of them die. But hey, the public claps and jumps around for joy for their "tough on crime" morality play. Never mind that the "hard criminals" are overwhelmingly likely to have been jailed for the "serious crime" of possession of minor amounts of marijuana. They're criminals and should all die no matter how small the crime is shockingly common sentiment here. Even more shocking when the public is aware that the crazy has cost the County nearly a hundred million dollars in penalties in civil wrongful death lawsuits over the years.
I can't stop asking myself and anyone who will listen, what the hell is wrong with the folks here that Arizonans are more willing to pay for immoral criminal justice farcical theater than to educate children?
I'm amused they used the same oath the military and public office use. It's inappropriate for private citizenry because we don't expect them to defend the Constitution against foreign enemies. Unless Arizona has suddenly reinstated the draft?
Umm... Hello? Arizona has to defend 'merica from those Mexicans that comes sneakin' 'cross the border in the middle of the night to the slit the throats of our children, take our jobs and steal our Constitution.
"Driving around, listening to raps and shooting all the jobs" is still one of the best lines of the best show ever.*
* (Archer, you Philistines.)
Is it legal for a Sheriff's department to even own a tank? I think it's just so cute that they painted the muzzle red, like an Airsoft gun. Not dangerous at all!
Red, the blood of angry (white) men,
Black, the dark (skin) of ages past!
Red, a (pure) world about to dawn,
Black, a night (of border crossings) that ends at last!
It's not a tank, it's a heavily armored mobile t-shirt cannon.
"I was deported by Sheriff Arpaio and all I got was this lousy shirt!"
That thing is a show piece. They own an APC like every else, and have been sued for using it in a pretty reckless manner.
It's not a tank, it's self-propelled artillery. The difference being: it's not designed to take hits from much more than shrapnel and small arms, and it's designed to blow things up from 18 kilometers away. Also, unlike an APC, it's not exactly designed to deploy people; so it's not even easily re-purposed into something usable.
But yes, it's legal. As a private citizen you can buy a tank in the USA. You might need clearance from the ATF for the gun.
Repurpose it? Why, it's perfect for serving no-knock warrants as is! After all, no risk to police if you serve them from 18k away!
He got the thing under some program whereby local pd's can buy military surplus for "educational" or "anti-drug" purposes. Its gun is plugged and the engine is removed, so it's essentially a multi-ton metal billboard at this point.
Now, you might be wondering "how does a completely inoperable self-propelled artillery piece promote the war on drugs?" Never fear, though, the Maricopa Sheriff's office has addressed your concerns: "Charles Krieger, the division commander for the defense procurement division of the sheriff's office, said the howitzer is 'designed to impress' people and drive home an anti-drug message. 'You have to get the kid's attention,' Krieger said."
My reaction: I'm not sure what is more ridiculous about that statement, (a) the notion that surplus military hardware somehow helps kids realize the dangers of drug abuse, or (b) the fact that the Maricopa Sheriff's office has a discrete "defense procurement division."
"So what you're saying is the war on drugs is like an outdated piece of military hardware?"
I get the designed to impress idea, but I don't think it's impressive enough. They should add some truck balls to it.
I went to a guy's house once. He had 2 T34s, a FlaK88, and 2 halftracks in his backyard.
He seemed pretty normal.
I once got to visit this fellow's garage. I'm fairly certain the Scud was no longer functional, but I believe some of the tanks had working guns. He seemed like a normal guy too, aside from presumably having more money than Croesus.
I assume you mean T-34?
I was under the impression that, while it's totally legal to own military hardware, the weapons had to be rendered nonfunctional, first.
ARISE, ARIZONA. Your work is not yet done in claiming the Shittiest US Legislators title:
BATHROOM BIRTHERS. Only in Arizona.
If only there was a serious crime associated with indecent exposure to minors already! This will protect them.
Society is immutable. Just like people. How're the 1950s going for you?
I'm glad the country was founded on the principles of majority comfort.
I pay particular attention to Arizona because I've got a lot of horrible Tea Party family there, and I'm looking forward to the day I'm surprised at their politicians doing something decent. A week after Gaben delivers me a pony, I'm thinking.
I'm really psyched for the first case where a dude uses the women's room because his birth certificate has an error on it in order to comply with the law.
At this point, I've already accepted that the entire Republican party and the people who vote them into office consider me a subhuman other, but gosh, it's nice to get reminded of their contempt and hatred every week or two, just in case I forgot.
Nobody will give any fucks whatsoever because this isn't about protecting women or kids, it's about transphobia. No cisgendered individuals will ever be prosecuted for any law of this nature; that is my prediction.
Come on guys, this is forward-thinking stuff! They're obviously going to a lot of trouble to protect young girls from secretly heterosexual pedophiles, while letting dudes who show their stuff to young boys keep the free pass they've had all these years! They're on our side now.
It's another excuse for cops to arrest and harass us. From stonewall to now, little has changed in the way the police treat trans* individuals, particularly trans women. It was just last year that a trans* OWS protester was arrested, chained up by her wrists in an interrogation room and left there while cops came by to look at or show others her genitals. She won a couple million in damages, but that hardly mitigates the event having happened. There are damned good reasons that people in my community generally don't trust or turn to the cops, generally. These laws are part of that.
(Just to clarify: I was making a dual commentary on how odd it is that the same folks who are so manically afraid of anyone who isn't straight cis tend to also be apologists for organizations rife with men committing sexual assault against boys, which completely muddies their phony moral outrage -- while also pointing out the fallacy of thinking they're protecting anyone in a scenario that is as likely a primer for assault as it would be if trans people didn't exist. I already knew my snark outpaced my wit there, but it's Wednesday.)
I was pointing out that "our side" was somehow the side of homosexual pedophiles.
Separate names with a comma.