Get a rope.

This made me sick to my stomach this morning (go to about 2:42 on the timeline):

In this clip, Representative Virginia Foxx (R – North Carolina) is arguing against H.R. 1913, a proposed bill that would expand the legal definition of hate crimes to include crimes based upon someone’s gender, sexual orientation, sexual identity or disability. Or rather, specifically, she’s arguing against calling it the “Matthew Shepherd Act”. Why? Because, according to Rep. Foxx, Matthew wasn’t actually killed because he was gay.

The hate crimes bill that’s called the Matthew Shepard Bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that the young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn’t because he was gay. The bill was named for him… but it’s really a hoax.

Are we really still at this place in our society? I mean, hey, by all means, let’s grudgingly pass a law making it illegal to stomp a faggot to death, but let’s not call it after Matthew Shepherd, because before those two pieces of shit pistolwhipped his skull to a pulp and left him hanging off a goddamned fence to die, they snagged his fucking wallet…which is clearly proof that it wasn’t a hate crime. Right?

Rep. Foxx later claimed she made a “poor choice of words”, but I don’t really think that covers it. Poor choice of thoughts, maybe.

Random Thought Of The Day

It’s a terrible thing to watch Nathan Barley and feel all superior to those trendy new media assholes…and then suddenly realize that you’re watching Nathan Barley and feeling all superior to those trendy new media assholes whilst simultaneously editing together clips from the Prelinger archives to make videos for spoken word pieces about monsters.

While wearing a lime-green sleeveless t-shirt with an Indian print of an elephant on it.

Jesus, turn me into a bird and let me fly away from here.

I am. I really am.

Oakland cop shoots cuffed prone suspect…on video

I am not an anti-police sort of person. I have a couple of friends who are police and, by large, they and their colleagues do as best they can in a thankless, difficult and probably traumatizing job. I think 95% or more of policework happens within boundaries which are tolerable by society.

But then you have the stupid bastard in Oakland who murdered a kid on New Year’s in the BART station — a kid who, by all accounts, was the victim of an attack by a bunch of other guys. The dude is on the ground, he’s cuffed behind his back, he’s got his face on the pavement, there are two policemen on him — one on his neck, one on his back. He looks like he’s struggling a bit, but nothing particularly out of the ordinary.

Until the cop that’s on his back stands up, draws his gun, and shoots the suspect point-blank. With two different people filming him from different angles.

I can’t think of any way this is even remotely justifiable. I mean, I could have kept that guy on the ground with nothing more than a firm hand. His hands were cuffed behind his back. He was face-down. He had another cop holding him. How in the hell did anything about this situation require the use of deadly force? Particularly in the middle of a bunch of other cops? The officer holding the kid’s neck couldn’t have been more than twenty inches from where that bullet hit.

What kind of complete fucking retard psychopath shoots a cuffed, unarmed, mostly docile suspect with another cop holding him right next to your gun?

I hope they fry this fucker. Because there’s no worse misuse of power than to murder someone who not only can’t fight back, but who legally can be killed if he does try to fight back.

The Thought That Keeps Me Awake At Night…

…is that 100,000 years from now, when aliens discover the scattered remnants of what’s left of the human species, the dialogue’s going to go something like this.

“Hey, Zerplax!”

“Yes, Kiplorg?”

“Check out this video the humans left.”

“Okay, what am I…okay, there’s two girls, and…what are they eating?”

“Just keep watching.”