It bothers me that Fred Phelps and his fellow loonies at Westboro Baptist get so much media attention, because they perpetuate a lot of incorrect images that many people have of Christians.

He doesn’t deserve our attention, but if he must get it, we should get his affiliations right. Westboro “Baptist” has no affiliation with any mainstream Baptist organization, as far as I can tell. Fred Phelps might consider himself a Christian, but his actions definitely show that he is not. Giving him the attention that we (as a society) do only serves to perpetuate some of the many misconceptions that some people have about Christianity.

Mary Madigan shows, over at Dean’s World, that we could write a technically true article that is just as biased as most pieces on Phelps and have it reflect poorly on Democrats. The fact that I’ve never seen a news story that called him anything other than a “Church leader” seems kind of suspicious, since we all know our media is never biased, right?

( þ Say Anything)

ScrappleFace is always a good satirical read, but this is one of the best posts I’ve seen there… or anywhere, for that matter:

Dear Mrs. Sheehan,

You have asked me to identify the noble cause for which your son died. I have not answered you personally out of respect for the nobility of your son’s sacrifice.

Being president forces me into the spotlight, but I would rather stand in the shadows of men like Casey Sheehan.

Go read the whole thing.

The FCC will be shutting down the VoIP phones of about 30,000 customers because the internet can go down, and if it does, your Enhanced 911 may not work.

The FCC is out of control. They have a raging hard-on for the Internet, and are doing everything they can to gain regulatory control over it. Now, 31,000 customers who receive VoIP (voice over Internet protocol) service are getting cut off. See, the FCC thinks people are stupid and that people don’t know that when the power goes off, your internet goes off, or that sometimes… for random reasons… the internet cuts out. If you’ve been using the internet for more than a day, I think it’s bleeding obvious that the thing isn’t exactly 100% reliable. 404 Error, Page not found. “Could not connect to server.” “You have been disconnected.” Par for course, right? Well, the FCC has decided that unless you explicitly state that you are aware that the internet can sometimes be suddenly disconnected and that your VoIP service might not work all the time, they are going to shut your service off.

Now, my phone (the second line I use for the internet) has a nasty habit of going out every time a drop of rain falls. In addition, I went through several weeks where my phone cut off every evening at exactly 7 p.m., just after it became impossible to reach any customer service reps. Not only did Verizon not warn me that my phone might sometimes go out, they told me that it wasn’t going out at all! (Eventually, one of their technicians admitted that he’d had to reset a particular breaker every morning for the last few weeks, and after they replaced the bad board causing that, my phone stopped going out. Funny, that.)

Is the FCC going to shut off my phone service now?

( þ Tempus Fugit )

According to this post on blogging advice, Jon apparently didn’t think that this post wasn’t getting enough of a response. It’s well written, but I probably would’ve appreciated it more if I hadn’t seen the twist coming from the first paragraph. The fact many on the Left supported removing Saddam Hussein (and believed he was supporting terrorism) up until the point that Bush actually started working toward that goal isn’t exactly new news.

Still, if you know someone who wasn’t already aware of the hypocrisy on the Left side of America’s political spectrum (either because they’re living under a rock, or get all their news from CBS), now you know where to point them.

Kevin has an interesting debate with a guest poster about the 2nd Amendment and gun control. I suggest you go read it. (Each post has, at least, a link to the last, if you’d like to go to the beginning.)

I’d like to make a comment on a post by Alex (the guest poster/debater), titled “A few More Points“:

Straw Buyers and Large Volume Purchases

This dovetails off the first point. You cannot argue that, even if you interpret the 2nd to mean “any individual can own guns”, somehow the 2nd amendment prohibits placing a limit on how many guns a person can purchase at one time (or in a fixed time period like a month). Allowing someone, as in the case of Williams v Bemiller, MKS et. al, to purchase 87 guns, pay cash, and step aside to let his girlfriend fill out the papers, is not a “right” guaranteed under any provision of the constitution. You have the right to arms (under that interpretation) but not to an unlimited quantity of arms. Limiting the purchase of handguns to, for instance, 1 per month does not stop any lawful citizen from exercising their right to obtain arms. It also doesn’t preclude the collection of multiple arms, over time, or the assembly of a cache of weapons (I would argue that even under the “you have a right to arms” interpretation of the 2nd, it doesn’t guarantee that- but let’s say for the sake of argument that it does). All this does is remove the privilege of rapid assembly of, say, 87 Saturday Night Specials. Why not limit the number that can be purchased, since this case showed the damage one trafficker has on a population (10,000 traceable guns recovered in crimes from one dealer- that figure is truly stunning- how could they remain an authorized dealer?)

The case also demonstrated the willingness to look the other way for obvious straw men purchases. If the first point I made about the industry policing itself were followed, and the second point about the limits on numbers of weapon purchased within a time period, the straw man approach would become much less effective and, presumably far less prevalent. A panacea, no. But a start in the right direction, unquestionably.

Why the “industry” is required to obey the existing laws, I have no idea. Usually, when industries police themselves (see the motion picture rating system or the ESRB), it’s to discourage the government from passing laws. Once the laws are passed, it’s the government’s responsibility to enforce the law, not the industry’s.

That’s a minor point, though. The line that caught my eye was this one: “You have the right to arms (under that interpretation) but not to an unlimited quantity of arms.”

Now, let’s imagine the outcry if someone on the right said something similar: “Under the current Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, you have a right to an abortion, but not to an unlimited quantity of abortions.”

Somehow, I don’t think that’d go so well. What do you think?

Also, while I’m substituting links for real content, you should go read this post from Erica at Jewbavitcher:

But what makes me madder is THIS. Like Bec (who wrote a kick-*ss letter about this), I trick-or-treated with my UNICEF donation pushkes in tow. I brought in money to that damned organization. Like Bec, I thought the United Nations was an organization whose mission is for the good of all humanity, an organization “united” against poverty, “united” against war, “united” against genocide, and “united” against terrorism.
Turns out, the UN is also “united” against Israel ever being elected to a long list of UN bodies, including the World Intellectual Property Organization and the International Labour Organization’s Governing Body.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

I’m afraid I’ve lost the actual permalink, but while going through the Gas Guy‘s archives, I noticed a post that talked about our society’s expectation that gas station workers will be able to provide directions.

As the Gas Guy points out, there’s no particular reason to believe that gas station employees will be able to provide directions. They’re probably local to the area where they work, which implies some familiarity, but not necessarily an expertise in navigating the area, much less in giving directions.

So, I was thinking — why doesn’t someone design a kiosk that, for a couple of bucks, would provide directions? The kiosk could be installed in convenience stores (or other businesses that see a lot of travelers), thus eliminating the need to get vague directions from an old man who thinks “and then you go thataways for a little bit” is a fine way of navigating. Seems like it’d be simple enough; in addition to the online services like Mapquest, I can think of at least two companies (DeLorme and Microsoft) that provide software that, given two addresses, can generate directions quickly. By locking the “start” address to the gas station (or at least auto-filling it), it’d be almost impossible for a customer to get bad directions.

In addition to ensuring that your customers would be able to obtain accurate directions to their destination, a device of this type would help to stabilize the American family. After all, there would never be any reason to ask for directions, and therefore, no reason for men to avoid it (or women to nag at them for not doing it).

Since I have no actual content today, I figured I may as well take part in the Idiosyncrasies/Quirk meme thing:

“Write down five of your own personal idiosyncrasies.”

• I’m almost physically incapable of saying nice things to someone’s face. I can be as mean as I like, but when it comes to complimenting someone, I can only do it if they’re not around. (Conversely, I tend to be very uncomfortable saying mean things behind someone’s back, at least if I know them personally. The idiot strangers I deal with are talked about viciously.)
• I hate to be in the “wrong lane” when driving in town. If I know that, a mile up the road, I need to be in the left lane, I’ll be in the left lane as soon as possible. I’ve got a completely irrational fear that if I don’t get in the correct lane when I can, I won’t be able to get over when I need to. Since I understand the need for a “fast lane” on the interstate, I don’t get into the inappropriate lane there (this is helped, no doubt, by the fact that there are few exits on the left), but I’m always nervous when I pass someone. I can’t help thinking that I’ll never get in front of them and over again before my exit comes — even if my exit is still miles away.
• When I go to the movie theater, I like to sit in the middle of an aisle, near the back of the theater. I want to be standing in line when seating for my movie begins, even if it’s a flop of a movie that’s been in theaters for weeks and I’m the only one going to see it — I hate to risk being forced to search for a seat. I prefer to stay seated to the end of the credits, but I usually don’t — between everyone else standing up, and the employees getting impatient as they wait to clean the theater, I feel pressured to leave. I also have a few other rules about the movies.
• While I’m prone to getting songs stuck in my head, the most insidious “earworm” I’ve ever found is the voice of “Don Adams. I’m incapable of hearing the man’s name without spending at least a couple of hours muttering various quotes to myself, like “…and loving it.”, “Would you believe…”, “Missed it by that much.”, or “Tennessee Tuxedo will not fail!”. I have no idea why Get Smart and Tennessee Tuxedo quotes stick in my head this way (especially since they were both off the air long before I was born).
• Like Michele, I have an aversion to meeting people’s eyes when I’m talking to them. In order to make it less obvious that I’m trying not to meet their eyes, I’ll often focus on something else while listening, which tends to make people think I’m not listening at all, even if I am. I’ll confess that this tactic occasionally fails, as I’ve been known to get distracted while practicing it, though that happens far less often than people think it does.

( þ A Small Victory )