Old Time Radio at OTRCat!

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Isn't FB GREAT?!!

My business has a FaceBook page. It is for "networking". What it really is, is the world beating a path to my door to waste my time and make me crazy.

I hate FaceBook.

One particular current joy I have is people promoting their pet issues. Pro-this, anti-that, if you don't agree, you are anti-ME, you hater.

Did I say I hated FaceBook?

I am particularly weary of people whose claim to fame is doing voices for foreign cartoons dubbed into English, seizing this fame as a soapbox to tell me I am evil because I do not support their cause. I am a hater because I do not support government-supported this or that. Not merely me, but people of similar thought are haters.

They do not understand, at least my point of view. I do not want ANY government intrusion on business, relationships, life in general. If the government GRANTS a right, it can REVOKE that right.
Marriage? Do you realise state marriage licensing was to prevent racial intermarriage? The excuse was "health". Why do you want the government in your life at all, much less using it to bludgeon people into accepting you, or me? The next regime may not be "you" friendly? Do you still want government to have the power?

A year ago, or so, there was an io9 post about the Internet Kill Switch. One guy was inclined to like it:

"So maybe I am alone on this but wouldn't a kill switch be a good idea in the event of a massive internet offensive?" --w****r

I had to respond:
"Those who trade internet freedom for internet security deserve neither internet nor freedom." -- Cyborg Ben Franklin

Seriously, placing a kill switch in the hands of any one man (or party) is a recipe for major trouble. Ask yourself: "Would I want a President of The Other Party to have this power?"

The lesson holds for every issue where we want the Government- Fed, State, and local- to help us get Our Way.


Here is a bit of info:

The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.
By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks, “mulattos,” Japanese, Chinese, Indians, “Mongolians,” “Malays” or Filipinos. Twelve states would not issue a marriage license if one partner was a drunk, an addict or a “mental defect.” Eighteen states set barriers to remarriage after divorce.
In the mid-20th century, governments began to get out of the business of deciding which couples were “fit” to marry. Courts invalidated laws against interracial marriage, struck down other barriers and even extended marriage rights to prisoners.--STEPHANIE COONTZ


Giraffe said...

Do you realise state marriage licensing was to prevent racial intermarriage?

I did not know that. I do think that getting the govt out of marriage business would help get them out of divorce business.

Michael W said...

"I am particularly weary of people whose claim to fame is doing voices for foreign cartoons dubbed into English, seizing this fame as a soapbox to tell me I am evil because I do not support their cause."

You mean you're NOT evil? That's admittedly something of a disappointment.

One of my favorite adages is something from Proudhon that I usually end up misquoting. It goes something like: "Question - What is Government? Answer - Government is whoever lays their hand on me".

In regards to regulation of marriage I'd like to point back to the excellent "Ring Of Fire" books and stories which Eric Flint has been editing. Part of the job of editing has been to ride herd tightly on the accuracy of depicting technology, history and social customs of 17th Century Europe.

In 1634: THE BALTIC WAR it's mentioned that (at least in the England of that period) a declaration of intent to marry was practically as good as the actual ceremony. The reasoning behind this was that a young couple might have to work for years before they could afford a wedding. In the meantime, however, they were allowed to cohabit (and all that sort of stuff), and the odds were therefore good that, by the time they could go down the aisle and tie it up properly, there could be at least two kids (and one in the oven). As long as the relationship was working out it was cool with everyone (and, if things weren't working out, the Bride usually had a father, or at least one or two brothers, who could take it upon themselves to visit the Groom and personally administer what passed for marriage counseling back in those days).

And in regards to Government, I feel Kipling provided the best outline with his "Law Of The Jungle". "The Lair of the Wolf is his refuge, and where he has made him his home, not even the Head Wolf may enter, not even the Council may come".

Sorry for all the quoting, by the way. I've been sweeping up inside my head recently.

The Aardvark said...

JY-raff: A raucous "AMEN" from this 'Vark.

Michael- I just prefer to own up to my own evil, rather than being posted with their lame-equivalent-of-evil.

I DO try not to disappoint.

As to the 17th century, yes, I read some about this as well. The intent WAS the marriage.

"Marriage counseling" RIOT!

I rather miss that method of attitude adjustment. I was HIGHLY inclined to minister such with a chair, bungees, and a car battery when I learned of abuse involving someone close to our family.

I spent measurable computational cycles working it out.

Dangit...now I have to blog about our CJ system.

Jay Agan said...

I have a Face Book account too. How the heck do you use it? I can't make head nor tail of it.

"Foreign cartoons dubbed into English." You don't mean ..... anime ..... do you?

What is it about "celebrities" that makes them think they're "experts"? I remember Meryl Streep being called into congress to give "expert" testimony on alar in apples. She was there because she played a farmers' wife in a flick, so that must have made her an "expert" on the subject.

As for the state getting involved in marriage: There's no government like no government.

The Aardvark said...


Nnnnnyeeeaahhh, could be...

The Aardvark said...

"I've never been able to make up my mind if this demonstrates an actor's talent or people's stupidity."