Monday, August 27, 2012

Dear Haters

To all my haters,
I have started a successful business. I have an excellent GPA in college, where I am pursuing my passion for law.  I am surrounded by my fantastic family and friends who love me. With so much to be proud of I cannot possibly muster up the slightest concern for what you think about me. Hope there are no hard feelings. Good luck with starting fights over the internet, but in your future asshole activities go sell your brand of crazy somewhere else.
Thank you bunches,
P.S. The rest of this post is reserved for all the fucks I give.

..........................................................................No fucks were found.

Saturday, August 4, 2012

Epic Morning Find

Some times I worry that I waste too much time on the internet. Than I find something as epic as this, and I know it was worth it. 

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Obama's Impeachment Proceedings Has Begun

Ok I posted this on my facebook but the link wont work, but if you don't believe me google H.CON.RES.107.IH 
I will post the text here.

Bill Text
112th Congress (2011-2012)

Next Hit        Forward           New Bills Search
Prev Hit        Back              HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Help
                Contents Display   

Printer Friendly[Help]Congressional Record ReferencesBill Summary & Status

H.CON.RES.107 -- Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high... (Introduced in House - IH)



2d Session

H. CON. RES. 107
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.


March 7, 2012

Mr. JONES submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress violates Congress's exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.

I will post more articles as I find them.
PS I don't really think anything is going to come of this. Just found it interesting. 
Oh I don't think it is going to go anywhere. If congress really wanted to fight the president's go to war power they would have done it in the courts. They did it once with Dellum v. Bush, but the court threw it out because the case wasn't ripe. They stated Goldwater v. Cater “a dispute between congress and the president is not ready for judicial review unless and until each branch has taken action asserting its constitutional authority.” They would have to do that and take it back to court. As far as I know they have not.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

Fantastic news!

Nature Loves You!

FOr more go here



Seriously how cute is this?

Oh and Sex is awesome

Friday, February 10, 2012

Adventures in Awkwardness.

If I would have named my blog that I would have so much more to write about.
I might be the most awkward fucking person on the planet.

I use to suffer from chronic bitch face. Now I have been trying to fake it by smiling more. I'm a firm believer in fake it till you make it. So instead of having no facial expressions, all my facial expressions are wrong for my emotions.
I have the memory and attention span of a gold fish so I spend a lot of my time just trying to figure out where I am and how to get where I'm going.

Yesterday was a particularly awkward day. I have not been sleeping well and suffering from exhaustion. All moms know what I'm talking about. Some one started a conversation with me in an elevator. I forgot what I was talking about mid sentence. Stood there in awkward silence till the doors open and I walked off in the wrong direction. By the time I got out of the building and figured out where I was, I was no where near where I needed to be.

I can't flirt.

Well not with the people I want to

I got drunk a couple of weeks ago and grabbed a friends boobs (it seemed like the right thing to do at the time I guess). She told her boyfriend, who told my boyfriend, she was really into it... That's not even the most awkward thing that happen that weekend. 

At least Friday is here, and not a single fuck will be given 

I'm not sad that is just how my face looks. 

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Monsanto Corruption

This is not my article but I wanted to put these two together. 
In Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case which could have an enormous effect on the future of the American food industry. This is Monsanto's third appeal of the case, and if they win a favorable ruling from the high court, a deregulated Monsanto may find itself in position to corner the markets of numerous U.S. crops, and to litigate conventional farmers into oblivion.
Here's where it gets a bit dicier. Two Supreme Court justices have what appear to be direct conflicts of interest.
Stephen Breyer
Charles Breyer, the judge who ruled in the original decision of 2007 which is being appealed, is Stephen Breyer's brother, who apparently views this as a conflict of interest and has recused himself.
Clarence Thomas
From the years 1976 - 1979, Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto. Thomas apparently does not see this as a conflict of interest and has not recused himself.
Fox, meet henhouse.

The lawsuit was filed by plantiffs which include the Center for Food Safety, the National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Dakota Resources Council and other farm, environmental and consumer groups and individual farmers. The original decision  :
The federal district court in California issued its opinion on the deregulation of “Roundup Ready” alfalfa pursuant to the Plant Protection Act on February 13, 2007.   Upon receiving Monsanto’s petition for deregulation of the alfalfa seed, APHIS conducted an Environmental Assessment and received over 500 comments in opposition to the deregulation.  The opposition’s primary concern was the potential of contamination.  APHIS, however, made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and approved the deregulation petition, thereby allowing the seed to be sold without USDA oversight.  Geertson Seed Farms, joined by a number of growers and associations, filed claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  as well as the Endangered Species Act and Plant Protection Act.  In regards to NEPA, they argued that the agency should have prepared an EIS for the deregulation.
Addressing only the NEPA claims, the court agreed that APHIS should have conducted an EIS because of the significant environmental impact posed by deregulation of the alfalfa seed.  A realistic potential for contamination existed, said the court, but the agency had not fully inquired into the extent of this potential.  The court also determined that APHIS did not adequately examine the potential effects of Roundup Ready alfalfa on organic farming and the development of glyphosate-resistant weeds and that there were “substantial questions” raised by the deregulation petition that the agency should have addressed in an EIS.  Concluding that the question of whether the introduction of the genetically engineered alfalfa and its potential to affect non-genetic alfalfa posed a significant environmental impact necessitated further study, the court found that APHIS’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious” and ordered the agency to prepare an EIS.  The court later enjoined the planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa from March 30, 2007, until completion of the EIS and reconsideration of the deregulation petition, except for those farmers who had already purchased the seed.  In May of 2007, the court enjoined any future planting of the alfalfa.  An order by the court in June, 2007 required disclosure of all Roundup Ready planting sites.
Monsanto filed appeals in 2008 and 2009. In both instances, they were unsuccessful in having the original decision reversed, so they appealed to the Supreme Court, who agreed to hear the case.
Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the United States, behind corn, soybeans, and wheat.
South Dakota alfalfa farmer Pat Trask, one of the plaintiffs, said Monsanto's biotech alfalfa would ruin his conventional alfalfa seed business because it was certain his 9,000 acres would be contaminated by the biotech genes.
Alfalfa is very easily cross-pollinated by bees and by wind. The plant is also perennial, meaning GMO plants could live on for years.
"The way this spreads so far and wide, it will eliminate the conventional alfalfa industry," said Trask. "Monsanto will own the entire alfalfa industry."
Monsanto has a policy of filing lawsuits or taking other legal actions against farmers who harvest crops that show the presence of the company's patented gene technology. It has sued farmers even when they have tried to keep their own fields free from contamination by biotech plants on neighbouring farms.

The case has implications beyond alfalfa crops. About eight hundred reviewed genetically engineered food applications were submitted to the USDA, yet noenvironmental impact statements were prepared. Even as this diary is being written, a federal judge in San Francisco is reviewing a similar case involving genetically modified sugar beets. The decision is expected this week and could halt planting and use of the gm sugar beets, which account for half of America's sugar supply.
Back to the Supreme Court case, oral argument is slated to begin on April 27, 2010. With Breyer recused and Thomas opting not to recuse, the bench appears to be heavily tilted to Monsanto.
Once more with feeling. Fox, meet henhouse. 


Facts of the Case 
Geertson Seed Farms ("Geertson") and Trask Family Seeds ("Trask") sought an injunction against Monsanto Company ("Monsanto") in a California federal district court. Geertson and Trask feared that the wide-scale sale of a new Monsanto alfalfa variety, resistant to one of the company's herbicides, would lead to cross-pollination with Geertson's and Trask's conventional alfalfa variety and thereby lead to its disappearance. The district court granted the injunction pending an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") about the effect of Monsanto's new alfalfa variety.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed holding that the injunction was appropriate and that an evidentiary hearing was not required before the issuance of the injunction.
1) Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that the plaintiffs are exempt from showing a "likelihood of irreparable harm" to obtain an injunction?
2) Did the Ninth Circuit err in holding that a district court may enter an injunction without conducting an evidentiary hearing?
Decision: 7 votes for Monsanto Co., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:
No. Yes. The Supreme Court first held that the plaintiffs have standing to seek injunctive relief. However, the Court further held that the district court abused its discretion when it entered an injunction absent the completed EIS. With Justice Samuel A. Alito writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that no factor favoring the imposition of an injunction yet existed.
Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. He argued that the district court's findings of fact all supported the imposition of an injunction: (1) the new alfalfa variety could contaminate other plants, (2) contamination could take place even in a controlled setting, (3) the relevant regulator has limited ability to control or limit limitations on planting, and (4) genetic contamination could decimate farmers' livelihoods all supported.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Ignoring It Doesn't Make It Go Away.

I hate when people say I shouldn't talk about things because of (insert stupid reason here).

Other then for a few rare occasion where you don't discuss something out of politeness talk about what is happening in reality.  For the love of Logos people talk about stuff that makes you uncomfortable. 

I got a bunch of shit for saying that they should have published the pictures of Bin Laden. 
I got shit yesterday for posting about marines peeing on dead bodies. 
This shit is happening weather you want to hear it or not. I think we should be forced as Americans to see what is being done in our name. We should see bodies. We should be faced with the monsters war creates along with the mutilated children.  Maybe we would cut this shit out if we weren't so detached from it. 

"You can't judge those men this is war" 

I didn't say anything about judging them, but I refuse to ignore it and just let them do what ever they want.
It's good for Americans to see what war does to people. I bet most of those men were loved fathers and sons who have family who never thought they were capable of this. Maybe this will start showing how war fucks people up and it is not worth it. At the very least show that we shouldn't leave people fighting for as long as they do and when they go to war they need more physiological support. I guess I'm an optimist. Ignoring problems is not a good answer. 

I posted a video about how parents with children who are injured by vaccines are bullied and belittled. What happen? I was bullied and belittled. Even though anyone with the sense god gave a goat knows that children are injured by vaccines. I shouldn't talk about it because "It might discourage someone from getting a vaccine" and I was "putting people's lives in danger" . What the fuck? We should ignore injured children because knowing about it might help some one make and educated choice?  Ignorant people are the best publicity big pharm and big Ag have. Even though the maker of the HPV vaccines will openly admit that people in first world countries are better off with out it, large groups of uneducated people are more then willing to give up their rights and the rights of so many children to make it mandatory. Because it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling believe in the magic of vaccines. 
Food companies are not going around saying GM foods are the same as selective breeding, but for some reason a bunch of people think that and like to spew it all over the internet. No one wants to talk about it. I don't even care if you care about GM food, but don't expect me not to talk about it cause it might make you sad when you eat corn. Diffidently don't try to attack me because you don't like the fact that bad things are happening to our food, pesticides are bad for you, blah blah blah. It's a big scary world out there and everything isn't black and white get over it. 
I was told by someone maybe people shouldn't be told what is in their food because they didn't know enough to make choices about their food anyways. Not in a sarcastic way I asked. This is the kind of logic we are dealing with. Keep people ignorant, because they are too ignorant to know what is good for them. 

I get shit for saying anything bad about Obama. Even if it is true. Just because I'm a democrat doesn't mean I'm going to blindly follow someone. Reality shouldn't be ignored because "he is better then a Republican". Yes, Obama has done a lot of good. He deserves credit for those things. Should we give him a free pass on some of the stuff he has really fucked up on?  NOOOO! I'm am so sick of the hero worship. You would think he walked on water. When this happens in other parties they are sheeple. When democrats do it they are standing behind their president?  

I'm not saying everything I say is perfect or that everything needs to be said, but talking about stuff that makes us uncomfortable is how we grow as people. 

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

FDA Has Concluded Walnuts Are Drugs

No, seriously. They say that  "Diamond of California Shelled Walnuts"  Are good for you and now should be considered drugs. I would tell you more but you really have to check this shit out yourself.

Edit: I should probably add some more. Sorry I got all flustered when I found out. This probably, maybe wouldn't be such a fucking joke if they weren't ok with selling Mcnuggets to kids. Along with all the other GMO and/or ammonia soak mystery meat slurry they are a ok with passing off as "food"