an Uncensored Mind

Quebec tribunal orders comedian to pay C$42,000 over jokes

Come on – there is no “right to not be offended.”

Oh, wait – this was Canada; thank (insert deity of your choice here).

North Miami shooting: Police officer identified who shot unarmed man

Already, the excuses are flying, and they border on the absurd.The most ridiculous excuse? Try this one:

“The officer, Rivera said, had been aiming for the patient beside Kinsey, whom he thought posed a danger.” [‘Rivera’ refers to John Rivera, president of the Dade County Police Benevolent Association]

Tell me, someone, please: why in the world would you need to shoot ANYONE sitting on the ground playing with a toy truck, let alone his handler who is laying on the ground with hands in the air? Continue reading “Ridiculous excuses abound…”

I abhor this kind of obvious bias. It shows just how skewed the system has become. Here’s a CNN headline:

Queen upset Trump used ‘We Are the Champions’ – again

Queen’s problem? According to band member Brian May,  Trump didn’t get “permission” from the band to use their song. However, according to RNC Communications Director Sean Spencer they did license the rights to use it, just as anyone else wishing to honor copyright law would have had to do.

Ok – so don’t read anything into this next statement. It is meant to be provocative, and so will touch on a “hot-button” topic for many people. However, it’s not meant to express a personal viewpoint or opinion – it’s just meant to point out the hypocrisy of Queen making such a biased remark. In any event, here it goes:

Queen thinks that they should be allowed to discriminate against customers who want to use their services  (in this case, access to a music catalog) based solely on the customer’s political beliefs. How do you think this would go over if it ran the other way? Say, if someone wanted to not bake a wedding cake for a Queen member because of Queen’s beliefs (political or other)? Yeah, I though so…

We cannot tolerate discrimination of any kind – to do so invites discrimination of all kinds.  Queen is welcome to independently voice their opposition to a politician using their music, but to imply that someone should be denied use of their “product” due to their political leanings is no less egregious then denying  service due to sexual orientation, skin color, or religion.

Shame on you, Queen.

… was, in my opinion, a crotchety old bastard. I like that.

The column referenced below has been purported to be his last. However, most legitimate sources disagree. I am not willing to spend much time investigating this assertion, as it is unimportant to me. What is important is that I agree with some of what he has to say.

The link below is to the article at the Orlando Sentinel, where he is purported to have worked during this time. This gives credibility to the column, but not to its designation as his “last”. Still, it is a good read.

Charley Reese

Suppression in the name of freedom. Calls for religious demonstrations. Fear among the populace. Ring a bell?

Erdogan’s appeal to Islamists in wake of failed coup spurs fears for Turkey’s future

I received this link to an interesting op-ed piece in the LA Times from a friend:

Obama is not a scientist. JAMA shouldn’t pretend he is.

I am perfectly comfortable with the President submitting editorials on his beliefs or accomplishments; being President should not be an impediment to the dissemination of ones ideas. I also believe in a free press. But op-ed disguised as a peer-reviewed research paper… ? Peer reviewed research papers from prestigious journals such as JAMA are frequently cited as fact, as I’m sure this one will be by supporters of President Obama’s policies. However, under the circumstances I think that a significant disclosure preamble would be in order as to the true nature of the article.