Jack Hudson is a moron, part 1

In all likelihood, Jack Hudson still reads this blog. As regular readers will know, he left in a huff when I exposed the ‘anonymous’ phone calls he or one of his friends had been making to a family member of mine. Of course, I went out of my way to point out that the best evidence was track phone numbers which originated from his home state, but he’s likely one of the most deluded, arrogant individuals I’ve encountered so that fell on deaf ears since he didn’t want to hear it. My relative then berated him for the sake of causing anger, pulling out a number of insults which any rational person would have seen as zingers that should have little consequence beyond a small blog in the corner of the Internet. Then after all that, Jack blamed me for what someone else said (sharing 1/4 of my genes with someone makes me guilty, I guess?), defriended me on Facebook a la John Lott style, and stormed off the set.

But he still probably reads this blog.

He has this post about a case of bigotry in Sonoma County in California, likely having taken the news from FTSOS; the main ways of finding the story were via a short post from PZ or by being someone who specifically searches gay and lesbian sites for news. And since most of Jack’s posts relating to PZ only pop up after I post about them, it’s hard to believe he doesn’t still peruse FTSOS. And that’s fine. I glance at some of his posts. I’ve even tried leaving a couple comments, but alas, he has already gone out of his way to block my IP. Some people just can’t take it. (Even those who can beat people up real bad!)

But enough qualification, let’s get to the post in question (which is about two elderly gay men who were forcefully separated by Sonoma County).

So the story came out, was gobbled up (though not digested) – and of course no follow-up will happen, because these folks aren’t interested in facts which might muddle up their epistemic closure on all things homosexual.

Of course there will be follow-up. If the result is in favor of the elderly gay man who is still living (despite having all his property stolen), then that’s good news for gay rights. If the result is against the elderly gay man, it’s an unfortunate blow which serves roughly the same political purpose as the initial story.

At the outset its important to note the events themselves take place in Sonoma County, California. This is important because we aren’t talking about some back-woods, redneck, right-wing enclave that systematically oppresses anyone who isn’t a white heterosexual – this is perhaps one of the most gay-friendly places on earth. It is also one of the most ‘progressive’ parts of the country; so there is little indication that politics ordered the set of events detailed in this story.

Here Jack wants a strawman. No one said there was some deep political current. Those in charge separated the two because the couple could not get married. Nothing beyond that matters.

It also went without note the reasoning the county gave for acting as it did with the two men…In this case of course, the left-wingers weren’t interested in the whole story, because another set of facts might threaten the usefulness of the story they had concocted

(The ellipsis is for some meaningless, irrelevant excerpt from the Bible.)

One of the first sites to break the story actually linked to the .pdf of the lawsuit which included that claim.

No one is saying supposed accounts of abuse are unimportant, but the county did not charge anyone. No convictions were made. The county had no right to dissolve all the legal arrangements the two had set up. They did it with no authority, and in fact, they repeatedly claimed both men were suffering from dementia. Isn’t it just convenient that both men were suffering from severe mental impairment, yet the county was still able to selectively believe certain claims? And how can anyone believe these people? The man who is still living, Clay, is not actually suffering from anything (other than the torment of having not seen the final days of his partner’s life). He is actually free from the abuse he actually suffered at his prison nursing home.

And what is even more ironic is what is really bothersome in this case is the wanton disregard the county showed for property rights. The fact that they felt they could imprison an individual and then confiscate his property to pay for his incarceration, even if they felt it was for his own health, is outrageous – but it is outrageous for conservative reasons, not progressive reasons. In this situation the bureaucrats were acting exactly as progressives want the state to act; to be indifferent to our property, to act in what they deem is our best interest, and to intrude into what should be personal and individual financial issues.

Going off the looney deep-end with a non-sequitur much? If the couple was married, the county would not have been able to steal property. End of story.

Hey, I’m from Maine

And I’m awesome.

PZ is wrong again

It was advertised earlier this week that South Park was going to feature an image of Mohammed. They, of course, never did because they prefer to entice their audience with lies, but I don’t think anyone familiar with the show really thought it was going to happen anyway. But it seems that PZ Myers might only be somewhat familiar with the series and so thought it would happen.

Are you ready for civilization to end? I guess the television show South Park is going to show a cartoon rendition of Mohammed tonight. I think the show has been steadily declining in quality, but I’ll tune it in one more time just to support the public desecration of the sacred.

Have they ever done a show where they lampoon juvenile libertarianism? I’d also tune in for that, but that probably hits a little too close to home for the creators.

Does anyone else see the glaring problem here? Does anyone recognize just how little sense this makes?! PZ called the vague ideology of the South Park creators “juvenile libertarianism”. That is completely inaccurate. Come on. Everyone knows libertarianism is infantile at best.

And even then, that’s being redundant.