Call to Action

As we approach the year two thousand and ten, we approach the year of the Personhood Amendment. With activity in 32 states, at least one is likely to pass, but fight vigorously anyway to make sure.

But don't let this very important issue mak e you loose track of the bigger picture. Fight for the unborn, yes, but also fight for the poor, the young, the old, the gay, women, et cetera. Fight for free speech, freedom of religion, for the separation of church and state, for school reform, for a more reasonable language (Esperanto), for a more reasonable numeral system (dozenal), and for logical arguments.

Fight against euphemisms, restrictions on freedom, and unequal treatment.

RotH Updates

Notice anything different? Restraint of the Heartless is now a Blue Ribbon Site. In addition, the momentum of the personhood movement has led me to reopen the poll on personhood amendments.

"Wait, there's a debate over ______?": flag burning

Really? As long as the flag is your own and the fumes don't, like, poison people somehow, is this really something some people oppose? Who's rights are being violated?

The flag is just a symbol; what's really important are the ideas America was founded on. Ones like freedom of expression.

Oh, yeah.

I almost forgot to tell you guys about this.

Censored? Really?

Cap-and-trade only allows companies to sell their extra carbon credits. It does not punish polluters. It certainly does is not a tax.

Your cute little chart is misleading, since much of the sections are automated and you don't have to work through it. Plus, it's not laid out in a line like it should be.

Quote mining Obama is not an argument.

The public option is just that: an option. For health insurance. It's not "government-run health care".

So, Republicans. Pelosi saying you can't lie to your constituents is not violating your freedom of speech. Your job is not to use shady tactics to manipulate and defraud your constituents. Your job is to represent them. You work for them.

Ireland FTL

At first, I was outraged. Europe has shown a lack of testicular fortitude when it comes to religion, such as making polygamy legal (but only for Muslim males!). But, really, you're delusional if you think this makes America better. Our constitution just forces us to pick the installment plan.

At least Ireland just came out and made it illegal to offend religious people.

Google

Google is disallowing ads for abortuaries in seemingly random countries.

I guess their slogan is "Don't be evil.".

This post is not short because I'm lazy (okay, not entirely because I'm lazy); today is the deadline for both the slogan and the logo contests. Your time is precious.

I'm all for freedom of speech, but a company has no obligation to help the soliciting of killers-for-hire.

Indecent Exposure

Laws against nudity are expressly religious in nature, curtail liberty, and have no secular purpose. The purpose of the law is to protect the populus from violence and exploitation, and to provide basic services such as police, fire, health care, etc., not to protect the delicate sensibilities of the populus.

If there was a law against gay couples holding hands in public, or a law against purple socks, there wouldn't be such support for it.

Harvey Milk report is sex ed?

A school censored a report on ther first openly gay elected official.

Because we can't have teens learning about sex!

Wait, what?

Thoughtcrime

BTW, the word does not come from 1984. In 1984 it was crimethink.

I'm sick of thoughtcrime. Hate crime laws add an extra punishment for bigotry. People are demonized for mere sexual fetishes. Make it stop!

Etymological misunderstandings

Note to all feminists: before making up a new word, research the etymology of the original.

Here are some common feminist neologisms, and why using them makes you look stupid:

1. womyn
   
2. herstory*
   
3. ad feminam - "Ad hominem" means "to the person". "To the man" would be "ad virum". "Ad feminam" implies women aren't human. How's that for irony?
   

Don't even try "femail" (female comes from the same root as feminism), womanufacture, or "femstruation"!

There are no prefixes "wo-", "hu-"**, or "fe-". If a cow was called a "wobull", or if bovines were called "hubulls" you might have a case.*** Pairs like "(wo)man" and "(fe)male" are purely coincidental (cf. "girl"/"boy") and do not shape anyone's opinion of women or of gender roles in general. Making up words without looking into the etymology of the original, however, makes me think less of you.

Now, I'm not saying you don't have a right to call yourself a "womon"; I have the right to call myself a "rugaflax" if I want to.

I'm just saying, were I to excersize my equal right to call you a moron for doing so, I would be much more justified.

*I know this is just a pun poking at the percieved male-centricity of history. The only problem is that, in most of history, women weren't permitted to do anything important.

**"Human" comes from the same root as "Homo sapiens".

***Interesting note: Many peopleactually use "cow" as gender-neutral like "man" is often used. Is that misandry? No.

EDIT: The etymological origins of the word "feminazi" and its links to Glenn Beck have come to my attention. To apologize for any misunderstanding, here's a webcomic!

Feminism

I noticed NOW is now opposing conscience protection. Conscience protection has nothing to do with ensuring equality for women. Conscience protection doesn't even restrict abortion. It doesn't restrict pro-choice doctors, or even pro-life doctors, from performing abortions. All it does is not force pro-life doctors to perform abortions. Not only that, but the source of the controversy is a rule that merely calls for the enforcement of laws already on the books!

I hate it that feminism has been taken over by Roebots.

Feminism is about affirming the rights of females human beings. Being pro-life is about affirming the rights of unborn human beings. Not only are the two compatible, the two groups overlap! It's not about "the right to choose when to have a child". Men have the same right. You choose by having sex and not using protection. A man does not have a right to kill the unborn child. Nobody has a right to kill the child once the child's existence begins. Once you have a child, you can't choose to not have a child by killing him or her.

Nobody has a right to choose to abuse their child. Feminism is not about letting women do whatever they want regardless of how immoral it is.

 2. [After F. féminisme.] Advocacy of the rights of women (based on the theory of equality of the sexes). (Cf.WOMANISM.)

Statements by the original feminists such as calling abortion child murder can't be dismissed by saying abortion was illegal and dangerous back then. Those are statements of the worth of the child. Not merely stating that the procedure should be avoided, they state that it is morally wrong.

On a related note...

Being a nonpartisan organization does not mean all your members must be nonpartisan. Sarah Palin's membership in Feminists for Life in no way makes them conservative.

Modern Art

According to Google, today is Jackson Pollock's Birthday.

I feel it reflects badly on society as a whole when someone can get rich off of cleaning their paintbrush on parchment, or by superglueing random crap together.

Actually, no. I think I'll take advantage of this craze on Restraint of the Heartless to turn it into a masterpiece of persuasive-expository literature.

Ahem.

eruig   IiooIObf#$6$%^4%36 b65436erW#$ ew;f    hOI8O IGE8GWifuew bfeb 89235$%26#^T25^@$364

Censorship 3/2

Have you seen that Hormel Compleats (or whatever) commercial? In the chaos that ensues, it used to show someone smashing open a vending machine to get food, then someone pushes him aside, and a croud grows plucking stuff from it. Guess what? It now shows a guy fumbling in his pockets for change, who is then pushed aside. Why do you think they changed that?

Recently, curses were edited out of a Joe's Crab Shack commercial, such that it didn't really make sense any more.

LOL J/K!!!1

Restraint of the Heartless will remain active. I just wanted an intersting segway into today's post.

Censorship.

The first amendment to the US Constitution gives all persons the right to Freedom of Expression. This is important. However, it is frequently being infinged, frequently by schools against students (there are many other examples, but this is the most prevalent and most highly accepted.

An important thing to point out is students have a right to free speech as granted by the First Amendment and upheld by the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court case. While this right was later restricted by Morse v. Frederick in 2007 in regards to free speech condoning the use of illegal drugs, the right overall still stands.

Schools restrict freedom of expression in a multitude of ways. They may ban certain words that are considered "profane" or "offensive". They may prohibit the distribution of an unofficial school paper, or prohibit students from passing out leaflets. They may also institute a uniform or dress code, thus forcing the students themselves to become an outward sign of their homogeny, placing punishments on unapproved clothing, and putting unnecessary financial strain on families, forcing them to buy a second wardrobe for a student. There are also other violations such as bans on certain haircuts, or students forced to shave their eyebrows due to having shaved lines in them (allegedly a “gang sign”, which is what gets many things banned), students being suspended or expelled for drawings, or students being forced to attend therapy due to the use of a drug “look-alike” an anti-drug commercial, but these are far too numerous to go into.

Related to the Right to Speak is the Right to Listen. This is obviously frequently infringed upon, and I will go into this in more detail tomorrow.