The Everlasting Phelps

TRIGGER WARNING: This entire site will cause massive butthurt in any precious snowflake that needs a trigger warning for anything.

Halloween Rules

October 31st, 2005

mASS BACKWARDS has a list of rules for Trick or Treaters, and I am going to ratify his rules and add some of my own:

RULE #1: Wear a Friggin’ Costume!

Do I look like a god-damn welfare office? Nothing’s free, my friends. If you are one of the 15-year-old losers that showed up on my front porch last year without even the slightest hint of a costume on, there will be no candy for you – Mr. Nice Guy is on sabbatical this year. Instead, you will receive a small pack of low-sodium, fat-free pretzels.

Got a problem with that? Go screw.

It’s simple, wear a costume that shows a modicum of planning and preparation on your part, and great riches await you. I’ve loaded up on 20-pound duffel bags of candy from Costco, and it’ll all be flying out the door tonight, provided you play along.

RULE #2: Parents, Don’t Disarm Your Children!

Pirates without cutlasses, soldiers without M-16′s, police officers without sidearms, and swordless Zorro’s will have their candy allotment reduced significantly. Sorry, kids, but you’ll have to take it up with your sissy parents. It’s my house, my rules.

Conversely, the children of parents who allow them to carry their weapons of doom and destruction will be showered with all sorts of unhealthy, rot-your-teeth-out crap.

Rule #3: Protect Your Sack

If you are over the age of six, and I still manage to scare you so badly that you drop your candy, I’m taking your candy. Sissy. I’ve done it before, and I’ll do it again. If you come back, I’ll sit the bag down three feet in front of me, and if you can nut up and snatch it back, I’ll let you get away with it. Only one kid has had the guts to do that, and she was a girl. Who cried a lot.

Chainsaws are GrrrrrrrrrrrEAT!!!

Rule #4: Say “Trick or Treat”

If you shove a bag at me and act like you are entitled to the product of my work, you will be sadly mistaken. If your child is too young to manage anything resembling “trick or treat”, then you should say it for them. And don’t let language be an excuse. I’m not grading pronunciation or enunciation. Just effort. “Treekor Tree” works for me. Especially if you roll one of the Rs. That always cracks me up. Laughing rednecks give more candy.

Parents, this is just plain manners. It is your job to teach your kids this crap. Just like it is your job to teach them to say Sir and Ma’am and Thank You. If they don’t, you failed.

Rule #5: Get your candy before you start talking smack

So the chainsaw isn’t real huh? What’s that roaring motor then? There’s no blade on it? Then why are you running? And are you a little old to be trick or treating or a little young to drive yourself trick or treating?

I actually had one kid say he was going to go home and get his gun and come back. Little did he know that I already had one behind my back in my waistband. And the candyass still didn’t come back. All I’m saying is if you are going to talk shit, you better get your candy first, because you will end up running away. Like the pansy you are.

(Via Unca)

Sox or Soldiers?

October 28th, 2005

Here’s a pop quiz: Which photos are White Sox World Series celebrations, and which ones are solemn memorials for 2000 dead soldiers and certainly not parties?

Celebrating for the White Sox or Dead Soldiers?

001.jpgCelebrating for the White Sox or Dead Soldiers?

002.jpg

Celebrating for the White Sox or Dead Soldiers?

003.jpg

Celebrating for the White Sox or Dead Soldiers?

004.jpg

Celebrating for the White Sox or Dead Soldiers?

005.jpg

Celebrating for the White Sox or Dead Soldiers?

006.jpg

(Via The Indepundit)

Taiwan Violates Patent

October 23rd, 2005

Taiwan announced that it is going to ignore a flu drug patent and make as much as it needs to of the drug:

A top health official said Taiwan had demonstrated its goodwill to Roche in talks – and the country hoped it would eventually secure permission to copy the drug.

“We have tried our best to negotiate with Roche,” Su Ih-jen told Reuters news agency.

“It means we have shown our goodwill to Roche and we appreciate their patent. But to protect our people is the utmost important thing,” he said.

Some of you who know me as a rabid libertarian might not be expecting this from me, but Taiwan is absolutely right to do this. Intellectual property is not an inherent right. It is a government granted privilege. That is why copyright and patents are explicitly carved out in the US Constitution — they have to be.

When you are granted intellectual property rights, you are being given a government protected monopoly. (Government protection is the only way a true monopoly can arise anyway.) That is why they come with so many limitations. You are time limited. Patents and copyrights expire (although the big media companies are doing their damndest to end that.) Your right o free speech doesn’t. That is because speech is an inherent right.

You are also under a duty of disclosure. When you apply for a patent, you have to tell the world everything they need to know to duplicate your invention. Why? Because when that patent expires, you are giving everyone in the world the right to use it. You don’t have to patent it. KFC never patented the 12 herbs and spices. That meant they could keep them secret. The same for Coca Cola never patenting the recipe for Coke. It is still secret after 100 years because they didn’t apply for a government monopoly.

So what is the flip side? Sometimes, this privilege is revoked. When there is a pandemic on the horizon, and you are holding out for more money, expect the government to stop protecting the monopoly they gave you. If you want to screw people over with your invention, then you better figure out a way to keep it a trade secret — once you patent it, it belongs to We The People — it is just a matter of how long we let you borrow it from us.

Taliburning

October 21st, 2005

A bunch of people are in an uproar over some bodies that were burned in Afghanistan:

The US has expressed concern about film footage of US soldiers burning the bodies of two suspected Taliban militants which comes as a new blow to the image of the US military.

Okay. Why would this be bad? Is it illegal?

Under the Geneva Convention, the disposal of war dead “should be honorable and if possible, according to the rites of the religion to which the deceased belonged.”

Okay, what is supposed to happen to them?

Islamic tradition requires the bodies of Muslims to be washed, prayed over, wrapped in white cloth and buried, if possible, within a day.

Okey dokey. What does that have to do with these turds?

Hear me out. That is what happens to Muslims, right? So… what about these guys? I’m told constantly that these terrorist bastards are not acting in accordance with Islam and the Koran. I’m told that Jihad doesn’t mean killing me or converting me at swordpoint. So… what is the big deal? These guys weren’t treated like Muslims? I thought they weren’t Muslims.

The troops, members of the US 173rd Airborne said they burned the corpses for health reasons after they had been left out in the open for more than 24 hours, however a US psychological operations unit then broadcast a propaganda message on loudspeakers to Taliban fighters, taunting them to retrieve their dead and fight.

Makes sense to me. The burning, at least. Dead corpses are disease and pest farms. Burn them like we have been doing since ancient times. It is really the taunting that bothers the ninnies.

“Attention Taliban, you are all cowardly dogs,” one message said.

“You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burned. You are too scared to retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be.”

Another stated: “You attack and run away like women. You call yourself Talibs but you are a disgrace to the Muslim religion and you bring shame upon your family. Come and fight like men instead of the cowardly dogs you are.”

I thought that all the ninnies agreed that these guys were a disgrace to the Muslim religion!!! Where is the freaking problem? Muslims are entitled to get steamed over this as soon as they acknowledge that the Taliban and the terrorists are their own. This is one of the “with us or against us” moments. There is no middle way.

(Via Joe Huffman)

Ghost Blogging

October 19th, 2005

August at The Liberal Avenger has alleged that Michelle Malkin doesn’t write her own blog. August and LA, are, by any measure of my opinion, stark raving fools. That’s my disclosure. This is an issue, though, that should be explored. The argument is pretty shaky and highly circumstantial, which coincidentally seems to be the main problem that LA writers have with Malkin’s posts, but hypocrisy has never been a problem for a modern liberal.

Where I really want to explore is the rationales behind the accusation as to why it matters.

#1: It’s the lying.

No, it’s the failure to be transparent. Transparency is the heart of credibility in the blogosphere as Jeff Jarvis has detailed beautifully. The problem isn’t that the act may have been done, it is that it is done and hidden.

#2: It’s the scandal.

Which is really simply an admission that they don’t like Michelle Malkin and are simply out to get her. Way to go, guys. With Clinton, was “the scandal” a justification? With Sandy Berger, is “the scandal” a justification? I would say that the perjury and the spoliation were the issues, but I wouldn’t try to justify it by saying that it is scandalous and therefore newsworthy.

#3: It’s the persona.

This is the part where I agree. The persona is what matters on the internet. That is why I am 100% behind pseudonymity on the internet. Auguste’s opinions are worth no less than Malkin’s because she uses her government name and Auguste uses a pseudonym (at least, I think it is a pseudonym). The opinion stands on its own. However, if the opinion is a result of committee, then that should be transparent. Group blogs have great value, but they should be identified as group blogs.

#4: It’s the questions it raises.

Has “Michelle” ever blogged or written about topics related to what Jesse was working on for the government at the think tank while Jesse was still connected with the think tank in any way?

This one has legs too. Not because of the opinions expressed on Michelle’s site, but because of the conflict of interest that may be apparent for the think tank. If there is some sort of exclusivity in Jesse’s contract, and he was using Michelle’s name to get around that, then this has legs. To say that Michelle can’t comment on something because it is related to her husband’s work — that’s ridiculous.

#5: It’s none of the above.

This one really comes to life via a comment by Hida Reju:

In the end it comes down to misrepresentation. If she has her husband writing posts or even heavily influencing her ideas then are they really hers? Or is she trying to make her husband happy?

And this is where the argument falls apart. The goalposts move from “is Jesse writing under Michelle’s name?” to “is Jesse influencing Michelle’s opinion?” Which is a absurd standard. Influencing? None of my opinions erupted from some tabula rasa hiding in my lizard brain. Every single idea I have has been influenced by someone. Every. Single. One. Locke. My father. Reagan. My third grade teacher. Mises. The guy I played soccer with when I was nine. It would be ridiculous for me to marry and live with someone and expect my opinions to be “untainted” by that person. That doesn’t mean that I am going to look for someone with identical opinions. Nature, being the bastard that he is, has decided that I should be attracted to people who aren’t as right on everything as I am. In fact, sometimes I actually listen to people I trust and think about what they say and sometimes even change my opinion based on that!!!

Auguste comes up with some intriguing, but ultimately insufficient circumstantial evidence. I see no reason to dismiss the theory, but I see even less to subscribe to it. Malkin posts a lot. Wee. Most of it is links to other posts and liberal quoting. I don’t see it as being unfeasible. That isn’t enough to get me to his side. Sometimes Michelle has said “we”. That doesn’t get me there either. Michelle and her husband have similar opinions. Nope, not there yet. Individually, and taken as a sum, this doesn’t get me there.

But it is worth talking about.

Swiss Miss

October 19th, 2005

It’s OK to have a second Swiss Miss Chocolate Pudding at 0130 as long as you have a nice healthy applesauce in between as a palate cleanser, right? I mean, you know, because I’m having a second one now, and if anyone says peep, I’ll cut them.

Swiss Miss is by far the premiere pre-packaged ready to eat chocolate pudding. I mean, Jello is… OK. But it sure as hell isn’t Swiss Miss. My brother likes the chocolate and vanilla parfait, but it’s straight chocolate for me, baby.

Pudding can’t fill the emptiness inside me — but it’ll help!
– Captain Murphy

The Everlasting Phelps

TRIGGER WARNING: This entire site will cause massive butthurt in any precious snowflake that needs a trigger warning for anything.