Sunday, November 4, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Friday, July 6, 2007
Due to the increased paranoia of my co-workers...
I have been suspended from Krogers 832, indefinitely, on July 6, 2007. For writing in my blogs on my myspace. The link is www.myspace.com/whodey69. This is not an explicative filled blog. This is a simple statement. I was under the impression that I was excercising protected rights. I was wrong.
"The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It was adopted in its original form on September 17, 1787 by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania."
"Freedom of the press (or press freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public press for its citizens and their associations, extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution. In developed countries, freedom of the press implies that all people should have the right to express themselves in writing or in any other way of expression of personal opinion or creativity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers""
"Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies."
I did not make these blogs, or pass these blogs out at Kroger. I've never even given the link to someone while on Kroger property, or time. I simply wrote them on my myspace and left it at that. Maybe it was offensive to someone, maybe it made someone uncomfortable. Okay then, don't read it. I will not apologize, or tuck my tail between my legs. I will stand proud beside my work. There is nothing wrong with expressing your feelings online. Some people write in a journal. Some people gossip with other people. Sometimes people just keep it all bottled up. I blog it. And people like to read my blogs. If you don't beleive me, look at all of the comments I get. They're a hit. I simply report what happens to me, and others, in my daily life. I put my own humurous spin on it, and I write it in the language I speak. It's my personal choice to speak that way, as I see nothing wrong with my language, and I don't view any word as a "cuss" word.
I never allowed my blogs to interfere with my work at Kroger. I always came to work, and respected my managers and co-workers, regardless of my personal feelings or what I've said in blogs. I had a job to do, and I did it. I dealt with my personal problems elsewhere. I graduated high school in 2005, and assumed that people in the work force could be mature enough to handle things as adults. I was wrong. Instead of simply ignoring what I read, they continued to read it, then cried to management as if they were the Principal or Dean of a high school. I maintained a proffesional relationship with everyone, regardless of my feelings. I put the customer, and the company before my personal vendetta or feelings against or for another person.
So, I stood around doing my job, and the immaturity of others won over as management decided to pull me from my job, and spend a half an hour meeting with me, before suspending me, for speaking on my time, on my website, completely away from Kroger. But apparently the freedom of speech, and freedom of the press do not matter to my company. They've suspended me, and probably intend to fire me. I've been loyal to that company for 4 years so far, and had intentions of riding it until the wheels fell off. But someone was uncomfortable, so they felt the need to punish me for my private life. What's next? The firing of homosexuals for being gay? How about someone get suspended for not liking Hillary Clinton?! That sounds like it could work. Maybe because my car is in a public place, they could fire me for having a book they don't like in my front seat.
This is garbage, and a violation of my rights. Not to mention a waste of resources. Kroger has nothing better to spend it's time and money on than investigating and firing people for writing on their myspaces. There were no physical threats, just personal opinions, facts, hear-say, and history. So it begins. The silence of free speech is here. Congress wants a "fairness" bill to mediate radio, people get fired for voicing their personal opinions. Where does it stop? There is no end in sight.
"The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It was adopted in its original form on September 17, 1787 by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania."
"Freedom of the press (or press freedom) is the guarantee by a government of free public press for its citizens and their associations, extended to members of news gathering organizations, and their published reporting. It also extends to news gathering, and processes involved in obtaining information for public distribution. In developed countries, freedom of the press implies that all people should have the right to express themselves in writing or in any other way of expression of personal opinion or creativity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights indicates: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers""
"Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies."
I did not make these blogs, or pass these blogs out at Kroger. I've never even given the link to someone while on Kroger property, or time. I simply wrote them on my myspace and left it at that. Maybe it was offensive to someone, maybe it made someone uncomfortable. Okay then, don't read it. I will not apologize, or tuck my tail between my legs. I will stand proud beside my work. There is nothing wrong with expressing your feelings online. Some people write in a journal. Some people gossip with other people. Sometimes people just keep it all bottled up. I blog it. And people like to read my blogs. If you don't beleive me, look at all of the comments I get. They're a hit. I simply report what happens to me, and others, in my daily life. I put my own humurous spin on it, and I write it in the language I speak. It's my personal choice to speak that way, as I see nothing wrong with my language, and I don't view any word as a "cuss" word.
I never allowed my blogs to interfere with my work at Kroger. I always came to work, and respected my managers and co-workers, regardless of my personal feelings or what I've said in blogs. I had a job to do, and I did it. I dealt with my personal problems elsewhere. I graduated high school in 2005, and assumed that people in the work force could be mature enough to handle things as adults. I was wrong. Instead of simply ignoring what I read, they continued to read it, then cried to management as if they were the Principal or Dean of a high school. I maintained a proffesional relationship with everyone, regardless of my feelings. I put the customer, and the company before my personal vendetta or feelings against or for another person.
So, I stood around doing my job, and the immaturity of others won over as management decided to pull me from my job, and spend a half an hour meeting with me, before suspending me, for speaking on my time, on my website, completely away from Kroger. But apparently the freedom of speech, and freedom of the press do not matter to my company. They've suspended me, and probably intend to fire me. I've been loyal to that company for 4 years so far, and had intentions of riding it until the wheels fell off. But someone was uncomfortable, so they felt the need to punish me for my private life. What's next? The firing of homosexuals for being gay? How about someone get suspended for not liking Hillary Clinton?! That sounds like it could work. Maybe because my car is in a public place, they could fire me for having a book they don't like in my front seat.
This is garbage, and a violation of my rights. Not to mention a waste of resources. Kroger has nothing better to spend it's time and money on than investigating and firing people for writing on their myspaces. There were no physical threats, just personal opinions, facts, hear-say, and history. So it begins. The silence of free speech is here. Congress wants a "fairness" bill to mediate radio, people get fired for voicing their personal opinions. Where does it stop? There is no end in sight.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Guns don't kill people. Fucktards with guns kill people.
From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.
But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.
Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy — in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.
It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing — as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.
The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.
Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.
And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.
Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.
From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?
It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.
Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.
But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them.
Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.
Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone — at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.
Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.
But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"
If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.
^^^^ Genius. In every sense of the word.
All praises be to A.C.
But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.
Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy — in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.
It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing — as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.
The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.
Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.
And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.
Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.
From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?
It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.
Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.
But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them.
Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.
Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone — at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.
Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.
But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"
If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.
^^^^ Genius. In every sense of the word.
All praises be to A.C.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
am I a racist?
We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are a White people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community.
We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These White Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever White are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community
3. Commitment to the White Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
What do you think? I was considering putting this on my website. But I think it might be considered racist against non-white cultures. What do you think?
Be careful what you answer. Replace the word "white" with the word "black" and you have Obama's church beliefs.
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
Do we really want someone who believes in such segregation, running our nation?
We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These White Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever White are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community
3. Commitment to the White Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.
What do you think? I was considering putting this on my website. But I think it might be considered racist against non-white cultures. What do you think?
Be careful what you answer. Replace the word "white" with the word "black" and you have Obama's church beliefs.
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
Do we really want someone who believes in such segregation, running our nation?
Friday, February 2, 2007
Objectify Women
[Verse 1]
She makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up
Just one touch
And I errupt like a volcano and cover her with my love
Babygirl you make me say (Ohh ohhh ohhhh)
And I just can't think (of anything else I'd rather do)
Than to hear you sing (sing my name the way you do)
When we do our thing (when we do the things we do)
Babygirl you make me say (Ohh ohhh ohhhh)
[Chorus]
Sexy love girl the things you do
Keep me sprung keep running back to you
Who I love making love to you
Babygirl you know your my (sexy love...)
[Verse 3]
Oh baby what we do it makes the sun come up
Keep on lovin' til it goes back down
And I don't know what I would do if I would lose your touch
That's why I'm keepin' you around... my sexy love
Those are some of the lyrics to a song, "Sexy Love" which Angela absolutely adores. Now, due to my past, my girlfriend and I had a conversation regarding strip clubs. Of course she gave the typical female response:
"It's degrading to women. It objectifies women."
That whole routine. Now, I sit back and listen to songs like "sexy love" and I find myself wondering how it's any different. Girls will adore a song, sung by a black man, that is basically saying he's with her because the sex is good, but men watching naked women is bad. They can hang posters of oiled up guys on their walls, but guys admiring a female body objectifies them. How is that right?
Another very popular song, "U and Dat," is very popular, where the artists are very openly talking about wanting to get to them and hook up with them for the night. "Whisper in your ear while I'm holding my dick" is one of the lines in this song. Another example of a song that makes women out to be nothing more than a piece of ass. Fun for a night.But the girls love it. They request it all the time. They buy the cds.
The artist "Akon" sings a song called "Smack That." As you can probably assume by the title, it referring to smacking the girls ass. Throughout the song he talks about "maybe go to my place and just kick it like tae bo, and possibly bend you over and smack that." Another man referring to women as nothing more than a piece of ass. But it sits on top of Yahoo Music's video list. I hear it on the radio all the time. Does this not objectify women as much as exotic dancing or pornography? What's the difference? What part of the equation am I missing?
Another great example of a very popular song that objectifies women is “Laffy Taffy.” The whole song is about a girl dancing (at one point “on a pole”) and how the rappers want to take the girl home. See, if a rapper talks about strippers, or goes to a strip club, or sings about taking a girl home for sex, or lusting after a girl… it’s ok. But if anyone else does it, then they’re degrading women.
I could do this for days. The song “Gimme That” by “Lil Boosie” (wtf?) and “Lil Webbie” (WTF?) is the exact same thing. The song says “Girl gimme that pussy.” That’s the fucking song. I can’t do it. Someone please explain this to me. Show me the logic.
She makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up
Just one touch
And I errupt like a volcano and cover her with my love
Babygirl you make me say (Ohh ohhh ohhhh)
And I just can't think (of anything else I'd rather do)
Than to hear you sing (sing my name the way you do)
When we do our thing (when we do the things we do)
Babygirl you make me say (Ohh ohhh ohhhh)
[Chorus]
Sexy love girl the things you do
Keep me sprung keep running back to you
Who I love making love to you
Babygirl you know your my (sexy love...)
[Verse 3]
Oh baby what we do it makes the sun come up
Keep on lovin' til it goes back down
And I don't know what I would do if I would lose your touch
That's why I'm keepin' you around... my sexy love
Those are some of the lyrics to a song, "Sexy Love" which Angela absolutely adores. Now, due to my past, my girlfriend and I had a conversation regarding strip clubs. Of course she gave the typical female response:
"It's degrading to women. It objectifies women."
That whole routine. Now, I sit back and listen to songs like "sexy love" and I find myself wondering how it's any different. Girls will adore a song, sung by a black man, that is basically saying he's with her because the sex is good, but men watching naked women is bad. They can hang posters of oiled up guys on their walls, but guys admiring a female body objectifies them. How is that right?
Another very popular song, "U and Dat," is very popular, where the artists are very openly talking about wanting to get to them and hook up with them for the night. "Whisper in your ear while I'm holding my dick" is one of the lines in this song. Another example of a song that makes women out to be nothing more than a piece of ass. Fun for a night.But the girls love it. They request it all the time. They buy the cds.
The artist "Akon" sings a song called "Smack That." As you can probably assume by the title, it referring to smacking the girls ass. Throughout the song he talks about "maybe go to my place and just kick it like tae bo, and possibly bend you over and smack that." Another man referring to women as nothing more than a piece of ass. But it sits on top of Yahoo Music's video list. I hear it on the radio all the time. Does this not objectify women as much as exotic dancing or pornography? What's the difference? What part of the equation am I missing?
Another great example of a very popular song that objectifies women is “Laffy Taffy.” The whole song is about a girl dancing (at one point “on a pole”) and how the rappers want to take the girl home. See, if a rapper talks about strippers, or goes to a strip club, or sings about taking a girl home for sex, or lusting after a girl… it’s ok. But if anyone else does it, then they’re degrading women.
I could do this for days. The song “Gimme That” by “Lil Boosie” (wtf?) and “Lil Webbie” (WTF?) is the exact same thing. The song says “Girl gimme that pussy.” That’s the fucking song. I can’t do it. Someone please explain this to me. Show me the logic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
