Monday, February 28, 2005
The Name's Bond... Ooof Bond.
Discovery - Great Buildings Architecture Website
The Great Buildings Collection. "This gateway to architecture around the world and across history documents a thousand buildings and hundreds of leading architects, with 3D models, photographic images and architectural drawings, commentaries, bibliographies, web links, and more, for famous designers and structures of all kinds."
.
Chris Rock - A Big Thud of Unfunniness
(revised) What a disappointment. Chris Rock hosted the Academy Awards with a big thud of unfunniness. It seems the Oscar bosses had him really muzzled. To bring in edgy and incisive Rock and whitewash him so thoroughly (nice pun, eh?) made him more boring than a PG host doing a regular fare of family entertainment humor.
In an unusually well-written article for the degenerating Wash.Post, Shales nailed several well deserved jabs, such as:
But it will all be different next year...
In his little humor skit, homo-fanatic Robin Williams promoted the homo myth that Dobson said SpongeBob was gay. I thought bloggers had taken care of showing how orchestrated that lie was, before last night. Williams probably doesn't read much.
.
In an unusually well-written article for the degenerating Wash.Post, Shales nailed several well deserved jabs, such as:
Producer Gil Cates made a few brave tries at shortening the show. Some awards were handed out in the audience, eliminating a few of those agonizing long walks to the stage (which some shrewd winners always draw out by stopping to shake hands with everybody they met in Hollywood on their way to the top).
and
In the audience, Oprah Winfrey gave Foxx a big wave as if she somehow shared in the award for his acting talent and heartfelt performance in the movie.
[I saw that!! too funny]
But it will all be different next year...
The Oscars are losing their status as a big national party and turning instead into de facto political conventions -- and if there's anything TV and the nation don't need, it's more of those. Chances are the ratings for this year's Oscar show will not be especially high and might be especially low, unless Rock turns out to have been enough of a name to bring viewers back to their sets. More likely, the whole horrible mess will have to be rethought once again, and next year's Oscarcast will be preceded by a fresh wave of hype about how new and improved it all is.
In his little humor skit, homo-fanatic Robin Williams promoted the homo myth that Dobson said SpongeBob was gay. I thought bloggers had taken care of showing how orchestrated that lie was, before last night. Williams probably doesn't read much.
.
Kelli Davis - This is a human rights issue !
(What is this all about? See the first post that explains it all.)
I was watching part of the Oscars last night and I waited the entire time for a group of smarter-than-the-rest-of-us homo activists to stomp in the Kodak theater and cover up all the women who were showing their necks. It was awful! I've never seen so many bare shoulders in my life! Where are the homo activists to deliver us from it all? Bring in the tuxedos and cover those women up, I say!
In Kelli's mom most sane words, "This is a human rights issue!"
Mrs. Davis, you are right. Forget genocide, forget prisoner rape, child prostitution, slavery, what is all that compared to oppression from a misguided idiotic teenager not being able to dress like a man? I almost shed a tear when Kelli's mom made that statement. Yes, human rights is a serious subject, and this, folks, is heavy human rights stuff alright. Amnesty International, all this time you were looking into dingy prisons in dictatorship countries when right here under our noses in suburbia America, a village lesbiun idiot cannot cross-dress for her yearbook picture! Will there be a tomorrow?
If that wasn't bad enough, Hollywood simply bowed down completely to Mr. Ward last night. I'm sure all of Kelli's supporters were simply grossed out with the way the stars were dressed. Kelli and her supporters are no hypocrites, you see. They simply detest Madonna, Brittney Spears, Beyonce, and all that other female trash that keeps shoving their pornographic way of dressing onto society. We know just how much Kelli supporters detest those women and the way they dress. Trust me, they hate them all. They do.
Kelli's mom is here to enlighten us about what is a human rights issue and for this most serious mission, we thank her.
.
I was watching part of the Oscars last night and I waited the entire time for a group of smarter-than-the-rest-of-us homo activists to stomp in the Kodak theater and cover up all the women who were showing their necks. It was awful! I've never seen so many bare shoulders in my life! Where are the homo activists to deliver us from it all? Bring in the tuxedos and cover those women up, I say!
In Kelli's mom most sane words, "This is a human rights issue!"
Mrs. Davis, you are right. Forget genocide, forget prisoner rape, child prostitution, slavery, what is all that compared to oppression from a misguided idiotic teenager not being able to dress like a man? I almost shed a tear when Kelli's mom made that statement. Yes, human rights is a serious subject, and this, folks, is heavy human rights stuff alright. Amnesty International, all this time you were looking into dingy prisons in dictatorship countries when right here under our noses in suburbia America, a village lesbiun idiot cannot cross-dress for her yearbook picture! Will there be a tomorrow?
If that wasn't bad enough, Hollywood simply bowed down completely to Mr. Ward last night. I'm sure all of Kelli's supporters were simply grossed out with the way the stars were dressed. Kelli and her supporters are no hypocrites, you see. They simply detest Madonna, Brittney Spears, Beyonce, and all that other female trash that keeps shoving their pornographic way of dressing onto society. We know just how much Kelli supporters detest those women and the way they dress. Trust me, they hate them all. They do.
Kelli's mom is here to enlighten us about what is a human rights issue and for this most serious mission, we thank her.
.
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Firefox 1.0.1 - It's Official and Ready to Be Downloaded.
From Telendro (in Spanish).
Good Same-Sex Marriage Discussion
Over at Justin Katz' Dust in the Light, the discussion on SSM continues. The most interesting part for me was in the comments section, which dealt with some important concepts. I added a note on the concepts of sexuality and sexual orientation. (Discussion comments follows.)
I appreciated Becker's and Marty's arguments, because they have been carefully thought through and dealt with clarifying some concepts.
On a small aside, one thing I see very frequently is the conflation of homosexuality to homo orientation. Human sexuality is not equal to sexual orientation. The first encompasses the second. Human sexuality is the full aggregate of a person´s psychology (both conscious and unconscious), their intellectual thinking, their attitudes, their values, their desires, their dysfunctions, their emotions, and their behaviors about sex/body/intimacy. It is like equating a button on your computer to the entire computer.
Furthermore, the concept of "orientation" itself has been thoroughly dumbed down for the masses. "Attraction" is a very complex psychological subject. When people say John Doe is attracted to other men, this "attracted" can mean very complex psychological problems, there are a great variety of "attraction" feelings (there isn't just one type of attraction), there are complex feelings that generate these so-called "attraction" feelings, etc.
Part of the legitimizing of homosexuality is based on the following logic: "John Doe" feels a certain type of attraction, therefore this attraction must be valid, simply because it is a type of attraction that has a sexual component to it. Which is a great fallacy, but a standard in a culture where any form of sexual pleasure is promoted as good and as overriding everything else.
related entry: A Barbaric Society´s Idea of "Hate" Crime/Speech
Comments: An Analogy That Doesn't Work
Except under anti-miscegination laws, the options were unreasonable. Yes, blacks could marry, as long as they married other blacks. Whites could marry as long as they married other whites. What makes it untentable is that it denied people the right to marry people of different races (who the love, are attracted to, and want to make a life-long committment) because the status quo believe such relationships were wrong.
The flip side is that, yes, gays and marry non-gays and non-gays can marry gays. But it is untenable to deny gays the right to marry people of the same gender (who the love, are attracted to, and want to make a life-long committment) because the status quo believes such relationships are wrong.
Just because you don't want to discuss the parallels with anti-miscegination laws because they point out the inherent bigotry doesn't mean the parallels aren't apt.
Posted by Res Ipsa at February 25, 2005 12:22 PM
But there are two big ways in which the parallels are not apt:
1. Interracial couples are generally capable of reproduction, while same-sex couples are not.
2. Interracial couples are capable of engaging in the type of sexual intercourse which results in reproduction, even if they are infertile, while same-sex couples are not.
It is not enough to make parallels between one situation (interracial marriage) and another (same-sex marriage). You must also argue why the DIFFERENCES between the two are not significant. I know, some SSM supporters do make such arguments, but why thus do so many keep jumping back to the clearly inferior argument about there being no difference between interracial marriage and SSM?
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 25, 2005 04:42 PM
Since the ability to reproduce is not--not ever has been--a requirement for marriage, there is no reason to argue that point. Throwing out straw arguments that are completely unrelated to the legal statue of marriage does not make the argument work. My example is related to the legal requirements of marriage.
Posted by Res Ispa at February 25, 2005 04:47 PM
Oh, of course, you're going to fall back on that "but some opposite-sex couples don't reproduce either" argument. Still a big difference, because no same-sex couples are capable of reproducing through sexual activity. What I'm saying is that because of this, the argument that the prohibition against SSM is perfectly analagous to the prohibition against interracial marriage falls apart. Yes, the link between marriage and reproduction may not be rigidly legally encoded, but it is a big leap to say that it should be abandoned totally, and SSM does this because it in essence extends the meaning of consummation to include acts which never result in reproduction, anywhere, anytime.
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 25, 2005 05:41 PM
But reproduction is not a legal requirement for marriage. Consummation is not a legal requirement for marriage. That some religious people believe it is about procreation does not mean it's the law or make it so. While it may shape the church's cultural meaning of marriage, we don't live in a theocracy that requires states to follow the cultural traditions and beliefs of the church when creating LEGAL rights.
Thus, until we reach the point that reproduction and heterosexual sex are a requirements for marriage, the comparison to mixed-race bans stands.
Posted by Res Ipsa at February 25, 2005 05:51 PM
Oh, that would be so much easier if the idea of marriage as between opposite sexes were merely a tradition of the church rather than a universal human cultural tradition.
Obviously, the question of whether or not you can make legal loopholes for an idea is different from determining whether or not the idea is culturally wise.
To say that consummation and reproduction are not absolute legal requirements for marriage is a far cry from saying that the link between them has not been legally recognized. Marriages are frequently annulled because there has been no consummation.
What we're seeing here is an argument that because a link has not been rigidly enforced, it therefore should not exist at all.
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 25, 2005 06:37 PM
Theres such a huge differnce between descrimination over an unrelated distinction, and MAKING a distinction that is so clearly relevant.
RI: Since the ability to reproduce is not--not ever has been--a requirement for marriage, there is no reason to argue that point
Of course there is no coercive "requirement" to reproduce, or even to show the ability to do so in anything but the most abstract sense -- one man one woman. But in that same abstract sense, opposite sex couples ALWAYS reproduce -- and same sex couples NEVER do. This is such a vastly more important distinction than "skin color" that i'm suprised you even have the courage to say "straw man" in the next sentance. It's truly baffling.
Posted by Marty at February 25, 2005 07:47 PM
It's a distinction that has NOTHING to do with the legal instution of marriage. It is no different from making distinctions based on race since neither the ability to procreate or race are part of the legal requirements for marriage in the United States. While it is a distinction, it is not a distinction that matters when it comes to determining whether the state should bar people from the legal privileges of marriage.
Posted by res ipsa at February 25, 2005 09:36 PM
You do realize, don't you, Res, that your arguing like this only serves to add validity to "slippery slope" arguments, which SSM proponents are otherwise trying so hard to belittle?
Posted by R. K. Becker at February 25, 2005 09:56 PM
I can live with that risk. I just think it is important to remember that this is a legal question and we need to focus on the legal issues, not get sidetracked into religoius arguments that have nothing to do with the legal status of marriage.
Posted by res ipsa at February 25, 2005 10:31 PM
I just think it is important to remember that this is a legal question and we need to focus on the legal issues, not get sidetracked into religoius arguments that have nothing to do with the legal status of marriage.
But it not merely a legal question. (And the legal discussion must resolve, first, whether the courts are empowered to impose such changes.) It's surely inadvertent, but there's a whiff of oligarchy underlying such arguments.
At its most civil (in the government sense), the legal status of marriage is what citizens say it is through the laws that they develop through their representatives. SSM advocates like to pretend that there's some objective and inviolable LAW, but unless we are drifting toward a sort of judicial theocracy in which judges must interpret (or define) cosmic truth, that's simply a fantasy.
So, if it's true that the people are empowered to define the legal status of such things as marriage, then by necessity they can apply their votes however they want and for whatever reason, whether religion or sciencism. It's easy to declare that we must "focus on the legal issues," because in a legalistic arena we can square all sorts of circles. This is especially true at a time when repeated overreach of the judiciary has made a muddle of basic legal principles.
The bottom line, however, is that the pro-SSM side can't focus on the law, because their objective requires mushy concepts such as love, choice, and commitment, and because the law properly read requires them to take their case to the people — a group whose opinion they do not want.
Posted by Justin Katz at February 25, 2005 10:45 PM
"I can live with that risk."
Okay, but next time you hear an SSM opponent arguing that it will lead us on the slippery slope toward polygamy or sibling marriage, the arguments that you've made put you in a very poor position for trying to refute him.
"I just think it is important to remember that this is a legal question and we need to focus on the legal issues, not get sidetracked into religoius arguments that have nothing to do with the legal status of marriage."
Well, as Justin well puts it, it's not just a legal issue. Nor are the arguments against it merely religious ones, as much as you would like to reduce them to that. (Have I given you even one religious argument, Res? I happen not to be religious). The bigger question is whether SSM will harm society more than it helps it.
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 26, 2005 12:29 AM
That is just so FUNNY when this happens. First we hear "there is no slippery slope", then we get arguments that lead directly down the non-existant slope, then, when feet are finally held to the fire: "I can live with that risk." IOW: "I want what i want what i want and i dont care how it may affect anyone else but me!"
Sorry kiddo, I'm not prepared to live with the risk that you just acknowledged is very real, after denying that it existed at all.
Posted by Marty at February 26, 2005 09:54 AM
On an intellectual level, there is a slippery slope to pretty much every argument. The slippery slope, for instance, of insisting marriage is connected to reproduction is that the state will require fertility testing before handing out marriage certificates and that the state (or more likely, the church) will annul marriages of people who don't have children within a specific period of time. That's a slippery slope.
On the same token, the slippery slope of SSM is that the state will be forced to recognize polygamous relationships, relationships between siblings or relationsips between humans and their pets. Sure, it is a slippery slope, but that doesn't meant that all discussion should stop just because some slippery slope can be identified.
It's a bit of a red herring--sort of like using loaded terms like "judicial activism"--and therefore is a risk woth taking to argue a specific point.
Posted by res ipsa at February 26, 2005 10:21 AM
marriage is not a random set of legal rights and responsibilities that the goverment gives away to this group or that at liesure. It is a cultural institution that govermant promotes.
As in "Promote the GENERAL welfare"
It is general - not specific as to each individual or group.
And goverment (did not create it) but only promotes it.
and it does so because it is in the welfare of the people (generally speaking to do so)
Posted by Fitz at February 26, 2005 12:45 PM
Res Ipsa said:
"The slippery slope, for instance, of insisting marriage is connected to reproduction is that the state will require fertility testing before handing out marriage certificates and that the state (or more likely, the church) will annul marriages of people who don't have children within a specific period of time."
Let's apply a little bit of common sense to this argument shall we? Which is more practical and cost effective for the government to enforce - 1) that all spouses be of the opposite sex regardless of fertility, or 2) mandatory fertility testing and monitoring for every married couple?
Posted by smmtheory at February 26, 2005 01:03 PM
RI, no red herrings here:
If you're saying that the opposite sex distinction is not important enough to be upheld, then you'll have little to no basis for upholding distinctions based on age, consangunity, or quantity -- nor even (and perhaps most importantly) singlehood.
And when there is no distinction made between a single person and a married person (because to make such a distinction would be "unfair"), the institution will officially be dead. People will still have the ceremony, but it will be legally meaningless.
Posted by Marty at February 26, 2005 02:12 PM
If you're saying that the opposite sex distinction is not important enough to be upheld, then you'll have little to no basis for upholding distinctions based on age, consangunity, or quantity -- nor even (and perhaps most importantly) singlehood.
I'm sorry but the slippery slope argument is a classical logical fallacy (cf. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html)
I can think of many reasons that each one of those distinctions can be maintained if we remove an opposite sex disctinction and wouldn't necessarily follow. Age: we have age laws for hundreds of things, military service, driver's licenses, alcohol consumption, etc. Consanguinity: we feel that familial relationships should be limited to one, that is, if I have a sister (one familial relationship) I cannot form another familial relationship with her (by taking her as my wife). Polygamy: we value monogamy and polyamory is a practice, not an orientation.
None of these have anything to do with whether or not two unrelated men can marry each other.
Posted by Michael at February 26, 2005 02:36 PM
Michael,
You can't turn around and say polyamory is a practice not an orientation when you've been saying all along that homoamory is an orientation not a practice. If you compare stuff, you need to compare the right stuff. Mono-gamy to poly-gamy, not mono-gamy to poly-amory. Do you understand the distinction?
Posted by smmtheory at February 26, 2005 02:51 PM
Michael,
You have read this, have you not?
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/slipperymag.pdf
The slippery slope argument may not be as fallacious as we've so long been told. I think there's a good case to be made that the line between a slippery slope argument and a cause-and-effect argument can be very thin.
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 26, 2005 03:42 PM
None of these [age, consanguineous, or polyamourous, etc] have anything to do with whether or not two unrelated men can marry each other.
You'd be right, if not for the legal precedents that are being set in your quest for same-sex marriage. Nearly ever single justification your side has to offer applies equally to the person who thinks they've been discriminated against by age, consanguinity, polyamory, or singlehood.
If this is a matter of fairness, as claimed, then the only "fair" solution is no special "marriage status" at all. You're either single with kids or single with no kids, in the eyes of the law.
Posted by Marty at February 26, 2005 04:12 PM
>> None of these have anything to do with whether or not two unrelated men can marry each other.
This also shows the weakness in the conflation of sexual orientation and sex classification that is espoused by some, but hardly most, SSM advocates.
As with closely-related combinations, the same-sex combination is unmarriagable due to too much sameness. But that traditional objection would be put aside if the radical individualism of SSM were to be elevated above the marriage idea itself.
1. Closely-related combos are deemed unmarriagable largely by virtue of the traditional line drawn around family, as Michael suggested, but also due to concerns about significant problems in reproduction. Note that the answer to the question of which related combos are too closely related varies across jurisdictions.
2. Concerns have been mitigated in some jurisidictions which have additional requirements for cousin combinations, for example -- one of the individuals must be beyond reproductive age or confirmed as surgicially sterilized. Same-sex combinations -- related or not -- are presumed to be nonprocreative and thus would not be burdened by these additonal requirements. But why is the line drawn around those with previous familial relationships that happen to be closer than second-cousins?
3. The actual medical science behind the concerns about reproduction have been shown to be well-founded but not nearly as significant as once thought. Also, unrelated combinations known to carry the high risk of passing on specific physical deficiencies are considered marriagable without additional requirements.
The man-woman criterion of marriage builds-in the presumption of sexual relations *and* procreativity -- even in the negative sense as per additional requirements on cousin combinations.
If the tradition (or 'social construct') of family bonds is considered to be more fragile today than in the past -- as per elevated rates of family dissolution and nonmarital births and blended-families and cohabitation -- then the traditional line drawn around familial relations is highly vulnerable. That line would be breached for the purpose of avoiding undue burdens on the individualized choice of one person to marry another person -- regardless of degrees of affinity.
Likewise with the increased prevalence of sperm and ova donation. How could society maintain useful lines that stand to be breached increasingly if unknowingly? Cue the diversionary SSM argument about infertile couples and the absurdities of invasive means legislated by the people's representatives.
The legalistic logic of SSM taken to its appalling ends would reveal that the argument against a brother-sister combo is no more compelling than that against any combo of unrelated men. All that would be left is the authority of the Constitutional amendments to repudicate, or head-off, the Court.
The enactment of SSM would separate procreation from marriage in the most fundamental way. If there is a right to marry the person of one's choice regardless of the man-woman criterion and the presumption of procreative combinations, then it is hard to see how there would be any closely related combinations who are too closely related.
In fact, buddy unions between closely-related persons (in loving and committed but nonsexual relationships) could become quite popular. But these would not be marriages any more than same-sex combos can be considered to be marriages. They are substitutes that vary in form.
Again, the replacement of marriage would be the outcome. If enactment of SSM is not the very end of the slippery slope, it would provide the hard push over the cliff's edge.
The marriage idea itself would be subsumed. This would lead to the eventual dispersion of the utility of marriage policy. An individual's choice, rather than the social institution, would be deemed more benefitial to society and thus society will guard that choice rather than benefit the social institution of marriage.
Posted by Chairm at February 26, 2005 05:28 PM
I can think of many reasons that each one of those distinctions can be maintained if we remove an opposite sex disctinction and wouldn't necessarily follow.
That you can think of reasons to maintain distinctions is immaterial. The more relevant point is that the rhetoric being employed to bring about SSM doesn't allow those distinctions to be drawn.
If SSM advocates were pursuing their ends through legislation, then maybe you'd have an argument, but through the courts — declaring a right to exist beyond the reach of legislation — not a chance.
Posted by Justin Katz at February 26, 2005 05:52 PM
Chairm,
Some additional thoughts related to the issue of genetically-related marriages.
If marriage is held to no longer be primarily about procreation, then what grounds would there then be to deny a marriage license to two cousins, or even siblings, on the assumption that they even intend to have children?
By severing the link between marriage and procreation, it could then be argued that any denial of a license based on a couple's greater likelihood of having children with birth defects is making an assumption about that couple's intentions which is not only not the state's business, but is irrelevant to the question of marriage anyway.
It is not so far fetched to imagine then hearing arguments like this:
"Marriage is not a license to have children. It isn't even about having children. Besides, siblings or cousins are equally capable of having sex and giving birth to children without getting married. To prevent this from happening, should we then also just prevent siblings and cousins from seeing each other at all, to prevent any chance of such children being born, whether deformed or not? If a brother or sister, or two cousins, love and care for each other and want to be together, what basis is there for the government or society to deny them this right on the assumption that they are planning something which has nothing to do with marriage anyway?"
The mechanism of argument sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 26, 2005 06:27 PM
Heh, all these scenarios are great fun: if the prohibtions against siblings and cousins marrying are largely due to procreation, what on EARTH would those prohibtions have to do with two gay brothers? Not a darned thing, so they must be struck from the law. Afterwards, will only same-sex siblings be allowed to marry, while opposite sex cousins cannot? What a strange twist of sexual orientation discrimination THAT would be!
All we're looking for here, RI, Michael, is a simple and pure Principle that will allow us to say "we'll go this far, but no further, on principle".
Posted by Marty at February 27, 2005 12:18 AM
I appreciated Becker's and Marty's arguments, because they have been carefully thought through and dealt with clarifying some concepts.
On a small aside, one thing I see very frequently is the conflation of homosexuality to homo orientation. Human sexuality is not equal to sexual orientation. The first encompasses the second. Human sexuality is the full aggregate of a person´s psychology (both conscious and unconscious), their intellectual thinking, their attitudes, their values, their desires, their dysfunctions, their emotions, and their behaviors about sex/body/intimacy. It is like equating a button on your computer to the entire computer.
Furthermore, the concept of "orientation" itself has been thoroughly dumbed down for the masses. "Attraction" is a very complex psychological subject. When people say John Doe is attracted to other men, this "attracted" can mean very complex psychological problems, there are a great variety of "attraction" feelings (there isn't just one type of attraction), there are complex feelings that generate these so-called "attraction" feelings, etc.
Part of the legitimizing of homosexuality is based on the following logic: "John Doe" feels a certain type of attraction, therefore this attraction must be valid, simply because it is a type of attraction that has a sexual component to it. Which is a great fallacy, but a standard in a culture where any form of sexual pleasure is promoted as good and as overriding everything else.
related entry: A Barbaric Society´s Idea of "Hate" Crime/Speech
Comments: An Analogy That Doesn't Work
Except under anti-miscegination laws, the options were unreasonable. Yes, blacks could marry, as long as they married other blacks. Whites could marry as long as they married other whites. What makes it untentable is that it denied people the right to marry people of different races (who the love, are attracted to, and want to make a life-long committment) because the status quo believe such relationships were wrong.
The flip side is that, yes, gays and marry non-gays and non-gays can marry gays. But it is untenable to deny gays the right to marry people of the same gender (who the love, are attracted to, and want to make a life-long committment) because the status quo believes such relationships are wrong.
Just because you don't want to discuss the parallels with anti-miscegination laws because they point out the inherent bigotry doesn't mean the parallels aren't apt.
Posted by Res Ipsa at February 25, 2005 12:22 PM
But there are two big ways in which the parallels are not apt:
1. Interracial couples are generally capable of reproduction, while same-sex couples are not.
2. Interracial couples are capable of engaging in the type of sexual intercourse which results in reproduction, even if they are infertile, while same-sex couples are not.
It is not enough to make parallels between one situation (interracial marriage) and another (same-sex marriage). You must also argue why the DIFFERENCES between the two are not significant. I know, some SSM supporters do make such arguments, but why thus do so many keep jumping back to the clearly inferior argument about there being no difference between interracial marriage and SSM?
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 25, 2005 04:42 PM
Since the ability to reproduce is not--not ever has been--a requirement for marriage, there is no reason to argue that point. Throwing out straw arguments that are completely unrelated to the legal statue of marriage does not make the argument work. My example is related to the legal requirements of marriage.
Posted by Res Ispa at February 25, 2005 04:47 PM
Oh, of course, you're going to fall back on that "but some opposite-sex couples don't reproduce either" argument. Still a big difference, because no same-sex couples are capable of reproducing through sexual activity. What I'm saying is that because of this, the argument that the prohibition against SSM is perfectly analagous to the prohibition against interracial marriage falls apart. Yes, the link between marriage and reproduction may not be rigidly legally encoded, but it is a big leap to say that it should be abandoned totally, and SSM does this because it in essence extends the meaning of consummation to include acts which never result in reproduction, anywhere, anytime.
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 25, 2005 05:41 PM
But reproduction is not a legal requirement for marriage. Consummation is not a legal requirement for marriage. That some religious people believe it is about procreation does not mean it's the law or make it so. While it may shape the church's cultural meaning of marriage, we don't live in a theocracy that requires states to follow the cultural traditions and beliefs of the church when creating LEGAL rights.
Thus, until we reach the point that reproduction and heterosexual sex are a requirements for marriage, the comparison to mixed-race bans stands.
Posted by Res Ipsa at February 25, 2005 05:51 PM
Oh, that would be so much easier if the idea of marriage as between opposite sexes were merely a tradition of the church rather than a universal human cultural tradition.
Obviously, the question of whether or not you can make legal loopholes for an idea is different from determining whether or not the idea is culturally wise.
To say that consummation and reproduction are not absolute legal requirements for marriage is a far cry from saying that the link between them has not been legally recognized. Marriages are frequently annulled because there has been no consummation.
What we're seeing here is an argument that because a link has not been rigidly enforced, it therefore should not exist at all.
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 25, 2005 06:37 PM
Theres such a huge differnce between descrimination over an unrelated distinction, and MAKING a distinction that is so clearly relevant.
RI: Since the ability to reproduce is not--not ever has been--a requirement for marriage, there is no reason to argue that point
Of course there is no coercive "requirement" to reproduce, or even to show the ability to do so in anything but the most abstract sense -- one man one woman. But in that same abstract sense, opposite sex couples ALWAYS reproduce -- and same sex couples NEVER do. This is such a vastly more important distinction than "skin color" that i'm suprised you even have the courage to say "straw man" in the next sentance. It's truly baffling.
Posted by Marty at February 25, 2005 07:47 PM
It's a distinction that has NOTHING to do with the legal instution of marriage. It is no different from making distinctions based on race since neither the ability to procreate or race are part of the legal requirements for marriage in the United States. While it is a distinction, it is not a distinction that matters when it comes to determining whether the state should bar people from the legal privileges of marriage.
Posted by res ipsa at February 25, 2005 09:36 PM
You do realize, don't you, Res, that your arguing like this only serves to add validity to "slippery slope" arguments, which SSM proponents are otherwise trying so hard to belittle?
Posted by R. K. Becker at February 25, 2005 09:56 PM
I can live with that risk. I just think it is important to remember that this is a legal question and we need to focus on the legal issues, not get sidetracked into religoius arguments that have nothing to do with the legal status of marriage.
Posted by res ipsa at February 25, 2005 10:31 PM
I just think it is important to remember that this is a legal question and we need to focus on the legal issues, not get sidetracked into religoius arguments that have nothing to do with the legal status of marriage.
But it not merely a legal question. (And the legal discussion must resolve, first, whether the courts are empowered to impose such changes.) It's surely inadvertent, but there's a whiff of oligarchy underlying such arguments.
At its most civil (in the government sense), the legal status of marriage is what citizens say it is through the laws that they develop through their representatives. SSM advocates like to pretend that there's some objective and inviolable LAW, but unless we are drifting toward a sort of judicial theocracy in which judges must interpret (or define) cosmic truth, that's simply a fantasy.
So, if it's true that the people are empowered to define the legal status of such things as marriage, then by necessity they can apply their votes however they want and for whatever reason, whether religion or sciencism. It's easy to declare that we must "focus on the legal issues," because in a legalistic arena we can square all sorts of circles. This is especially true at a time when repeated overreach of the judiciary has made a muddle of basic legal principles.
The bottom line, however, is that the pro-SSM side can't focus on the law, because their objective requires mushy concepts such as love, choice, and commitment, and because the law properly read requires them to take their case to the people — a group whose opinion they do not want.
Posted by Justin Katz at February 25, 2005 10:45 PM
"I can live with that risk."
Okay, but next time you hear an SSM opponent arguing that it will lead us on the slippery slope toward polygamy or sibling marriage, the arguments that you've made put you in a very poor position for trying to refute him.
"I just think it is important to remember that this is a legal question and we need to focus on the legal issues, not get sidetracked into religoius arguments that have nothing to do with the legal status of marriage."
Well, as Justin well puts it, it's not just a legal issue. Nor are the arguments against it merely religious ones, as much as you would like to reduce them to that. (Have I given you even one religious argument, Res? I happen not to be religious). The bigger question is whether SSM will harm society more than it helps it.
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 26, 2005 12:29 AM
That is just so FUNNY when this happens. First we hear "there is no slippery slope", then we get arguments that lead directly down the non-existant slope, then, when feet are finally held to the fire: "I can live with that risk." IOW: "I want what i want what i want and i dont care how it may affect anyone else but me!"
Sorry kiddo, I'm not prepared to live with the risk that you just acknowledged is very real, after denying that it existed at all.
Posted by Marty at February 26, 2005 09:54 AM
On an intellectual level, there is a slippery slope to pretty much every argument. The slippery slope, for instance, of insisting marriage is connected to reproduction is that the state will require fertility testing before handing out marriage certificates and that the state (or more likely, the church) will annul marriages of people who don't have children within a specific period of time. That's a slippery slope.
On the same token, the slippery slope of SSM is that the state will be forced to recognize polygamous relationships, relationships between siblings or relationsips between humans and their pets. Sure, it is a slippery slope, but that doesn't meant that all discussion should stop just because some slippery slope can be identified.
It's a bit of a red herring--sort of like using loaded terms like "judicial activism"--and therefore is a risk woth taking to argue a specific point.
Posted by res ipsa at February 26, 2005 10:21 AM
marriage is not a random set of legal rights and responsibilities that the goverment gives away to this group or that at liesure. It is a cultural institution that govermant promotes.
As in "Promote the GENERAL welfare"
It is general - not specific as to each individual or group.
And goverment (did not create it) but only promotes it.
and it does so because it is in the welfare of the people (generally speaking to do so)
Posted by Fitz at February 26, 2005 12:45 PM
Res Ipsa said:
"The slippery slope, for instance, of insisting marriage is connected to reproduction is that the state will require fertility testing before handing out marriage certificates and that the state (or more likely, the church) will annul marriages of people who don't have children within a specific period of time."
Let's apply a little bit of common sense to this argument shall we? Which is more practical and cost effective for the government to enforce - 1) that all spouses be of the opposite sex regardless of fertility, or 2) mandatory fertility testing and monitoring for every married couple?
Posted by smmtheory at February 26, 2005 01:03 PM
RI, no red herrings here:
If you're saying that the opposite sex distinction is not important enough to be upheld, then you'll have little to no basis for upholding distinctions based on age, consangunity, or quantity -- nor even (and perhaps most importantly) singlehood.
And when there is no distinction made between a single person and a married person (because to make such a distinction would be "unfair"), the institution will officially be dead. People will still have the ceremony, but it will be legally meaningless.
Posted by Marty at February 26, 2005 02:12 PM
If you're saying that the opposite sex distinction is not important enough to be upheld, then you'll have little to no basis for upholding distinctions based on age, consangunity, or quantity -- nor even (and perhaps most importantly) singlehood.
I'm sorry but the slippery slope argument is a classical logical fallacy (cf. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html)
I can think of many reasons that each one of those distinctions can be maintained if we remove an opposite sex disctinction and wouldn't necessarily follow. Age: we have age laws for hundreds of things, military service, driver's licenses, alcohol consumption, etc. Consanguinity: we feel that familial relationships should be limited to one, that is, if I have a sister (one familial relationship) I cannot form another familial relationship with her (by taking her as my wife). Polygamy: we value monogamy and polyamory is a practice, not an orientation.
None of these have anything to do with whether or not two unrelated men can marry each other.
Posted by Michael at February 26, 2005 02:36 PM
Michael,
You can't turn around and say polyamory is a practice not an orientation when you've been saying all along that homoamory is an orientation not a practice. If you compare stuff, you need to compare the right stuff. Mono-gamy to poly-gamy, not mono-gamy to poly-amory. Do you understand the distinction?
Posted by smmtheory at February 26, 2005 02:51 PM
Michael,
You have read this, have you not?
http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/slipperymag.pdf
The slippery slope argument may not be as fallacious as we've so long been told. I think there's a good case to be made that the line between a slippery slope argument and a cause-and-effect argument can be very thin.
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 26, 2005 03:42 PM
None of these [age, consanguineous, or polyamourous, etc] have anything to do with whether or not two unrelated men can marry each other.
You'd be right, if not for the legal precedents that are being set in your quest for same-sex marriage. Nearly ever single justification your side has to offer applies equally to the person who thinks they've been discriminated against by age, consanguinity, polyamory, or singlehood.
If this is a matter of fairness, as claimed, then the only "fair" solution is no special "marriage status" at all. You're either single with kids or single with no kids, in the eyes of the law.
Posted by Marty at February 26, 2005 04:12 PM
>> None of these have anything to do with whether or not two unrelated men can marry each other.
This also shows the weakness in the conflation of sexual orientation and sex classification that is espoused by some, but hardly most, SSM advocates.
As with closely-related combinations, the same-sex combination is unmarriagable due to too much sameness. But that traditional objection would be put aside if the radical individualism of SSM were to be elevated above the marriage idea itself.
1. Closely-related combos are deemed unmarriagable largely by virtue of the traditional line drawn around family, as Michael suggested, but also due to concerns about significant problems in reproduction. Note that the answer to the question of which related combos are too closely related varies across jurisdictions.
2. Concerns have been mitigated in some jurisidictions which have additional requirements for cousin combinations, for example -- one of the individuals must be beyond reproductive age or confirmed as surgicially sterilized. Same-sex combinations -- related or not -- are presumed to be nonprocreative and thus would not be burdened by these additonal requirements. But why is the line drawn around those with previous familial relationships that happen to be closer than second-cousins?
3. The actual medical science behind the concerns about reproduction have been shown to be well-founded but not nearly as significant as once thought. Also, unrelated combinations known to carry the high risk of passing on specific physical deficiencies are considered marriagable without additional requirements.
The man-woman criterion of marriage builds-in the presumption of sexual relations *and* procreativity -- even in the negative sense as per additional requirements on cousin combinations.
If the tradition (or 'social construct') of family bonds is considered to be more fragile today than in the past -- as per elevated rates of family dissolution and nonmarital births and blended-families and cohabitation -- then the traditional line drawn around familial relations is highly vulnerable. That line would be breached for the purpose of avoiding undue burdens on the individualized choice of one person to marry another person -- regardless of degrees of affinity.
Likewise with the increased prevalence of sperm and ova donation. How could society maintain useful lines that stand to be breached increasingly if unknowingly? Cue the diversionary SSM argument about infertile couples and the absurdities of invasive means legislated by the people's representatives.
The legalistic logic of SSM taken to its appalling ends would reveal that the argument against a brother-sister combo is no more compelling than that against any combo of unrelated men. All that would be left is the authority of the Constitutional amendments to repudicate, or head-off, the Court.
The enactment of SSM would separate procreation from marriage in the most fundamental way. If there is a right to marry the person of one's choice regardless of the man-woman criterion and the presumption of procreative combinations, then it is hard to see how there would be any closely related combinations who are too closely related.
In fact, buddy unions between closely-related persons (in loving and committed but nonsexual relationships) could become quite popular. But these would not be marriages any more than same-sex combos can be considered to be marriages. They are substitutes that vary in form.
Again, the replacement of marriage would be the outcome. If enactment of SSM is not the very end of the slippery slope, it would provide the hard push over the cliff's edge.
The marriage idea itself would be subsumed. This would lead to the eventual dispersion of the utility of marriage policy. An individual's choice, rather than the social institution, would be deemed more benefitial to society and thus society will guard that choice rather than benefit the social institution of marriage.
Posted by Chairm at February 26, 2005 05:28 PM
I can think of many reasons that each one of those distinctions can be maintained if we remove an opposite sex disctinction and wouldn't necessarily follow.
That you can think of reasons to maintain distinctions is immaterial. The more relevant point is that the rhetoric being employed to bring about SSM doesn't allow those distinctions to be drawn.
If SSM advocates were pursuing their ends through legislation, then maybe you'd have an argument, but through the courts — declaring a right to exist beyond the reach of legislation — not a chance.
Posted by Justin Katz at February 26, 2005 05:52 PM
Chairm,
Some additional thoughts related to the issue of genetically-related marriages.
If marriage is held to no longer be primarily about procreation, then what grounds would there then be to deny a marriage license to two cousins, or even siblings, on the assumption that they even intend to have children?
By severing the link between marriage and procreation, it could then be argued that any denial of a license based on a couple's greater likelihood of having children with birth defects is making an assumption about that couple's intentions which is not only not the state's business, but is irrelevant to the question of marriage anyway.
It is not so far fetched to imagine then hearing arguments like this:
"Marriage is not a license to have children. It isn't even about having children. Besides, siblings or cousins are equally capable of having sex and giving birth to children without getting married. To prevent this from happening, should we then also just prevent siblings and cousins from seeing each other at all, to prevent any chance of such children being born, whether deformed or not? If a brother or sister, or two cousins, love and care for each other and want to be together, what basis is there for the government or society to deny them this right on the assumption that they are planning something which has nothing to do with marriage anyway?"
The mechanism of argument sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Posted by R.K. Becker at February 26, 2005 06:27 PM
Heh, all these scenarios are great fun: if the prohibtions against siblings and cousins marrying are largely due to procreation, what on EARTH would those prohibtions have to do with two gay brothers? Not a darned thing, so they must be struck from the law. Afterwards, will only same-sex siblings be allowed to marry, while opposite sex cousins cannot? What a strange twist of sexual orientation discrimination THAT would be!
All we're looking for here, RI, Michael, is a simple and pure Principle that will allow us to say "we'll go this far, but no further, on principle".
Posted by Marty at February 27, 2005 12:18 AM
Saturday, February 26, 2005
Kelli Davis - The Tuxedo in the Yearbook Lesbian Revolution
(Welcome Pandagon readers! Here's your chance to feel even more self-righteous about how right you are about everything. Even though you cannot answer a single question re this issue, you can call people who do ask questions all kinds of bad names. We are impressed.)
From local6.com. This issue has liberals and pro-homos up in arms, ready to storm the school and shoot down the "asinine" principal (which is the mildest thing they called him). My comment that I left at one of their blogs follows the news excerpt:
Pro-homos have taken up this girl as their latest heroine, and they are all clamoring about how horrible the principal is for holding up the "oppressive" male-female dress code for the yearbook.
Yet I did wonder if Kelli isn't just one big idiot of a kid. Was the photo in the news cropped or is that all of it? Unless her cleavage starts in the middle of her neck, what exactly is the big exposure if she were wearing a dress?
Are the dresses for women in the yearbook pornographic, I mean, so low-cut that taking community standards, they are indecent? Will people now enforce a code that women must cover themselves to the top of their necks or else it means they want to be "exposed" and are being visually "violated?" If 3 inches of one's neck is so problematic, I suggest a full-body veil for Kelli. That way she doesn't expose one fraction of an inch of herself. And she could wear it black, 'cause that´s real tough.
There's another even more important problem here: if one woman showing her neck is a problem, then that's a problem for all women. A neck is a neck. Now you've got me worried. Don't all women need to be protected from having their modesty violated? And what better way than forcing women to wear tuxedos for every party and yearbook in the future? Then we can all be smart like Kelli. We can't be women, but we can be man-imitators and cross-dressers. What wonderful progress brought about by you smarter-than-the-rest-of-us people.
And this Kelli doesn't go to the beach, I suppose, or does she wear a tux to the beach as well? Because God forbid if anyone should see 3 inches of her neck at the beach... her whole orientation might suffer a seizure... her steady psycho health would be at extreme risk.
But she's big, she's tough! She's a lesssbian, and she don't wear no dresses! Aren't we impressed? Carry on with the cheering, folks... you people need to show us the way... It's so effin rebellious! What you've been waiting all your lives... the tuxedo revolution. You're not going to take no dresses in the yearbook anymore! Cross-dressing is the solution. It's black, it's powerful, and it has a bow-tie, for Christ's sake! It's the smart lesbo against the asinine principal contest!
BTW, is her homosexuality a result of how many psychological problems she has with the standards and roles society has for women?
Oh, I forget, pro-homos can't ask those questions.
And then, when I looked at the blouse of the woman clad with a low-cut blouse, lying across the banner of Rox Populi, the pro-homo blog where I saw the above, I commented:
And you know what I just noticed!!! The irony of it...
Just where exactly is the cleavage of the banner photo on this blog??? That amount of flesh represents a what? An immodest woman? An exposed woman? It's barely covering the nipples, for crying outloud! Kelli must have gotten sick when she looked at it... or didn't she?
You people have me confused... I thought we were up in arms about women having to wear such horrible immodest, or, in street slang, slutty clothing for the yearbook! I thought the principal was a horrible man because he forces young women to expose their freaking necks, which is way less than the banner photo on this Rox Populi blog... you people are so coherent, it makes it difficult for the rest of us to follow...
I also read another article which said Kelli's mother does not understand what Kelli is going through (her homosexuality problems), but that she thinks she needs to be supportive. Being a supportive parent and clapping at everything your kid does is not the same thing. A parent should help a kid to discern. Kelli's mom stopped doing that, apparently thanks to activists. This is how a homo-obsessive culture can really hurt a kid. An (op-ed) pro-homo activism article disguised as "news" says:
Pro-homos just love the homo gene theory, don't they? Never try to dig deep at Kelli's own psychology and see what happened from the time she was born until today. Just slap on the homo gene and voilà the "everything I am is justified and legitimate" conclusion. And it came from nowhere, just some inexistent gene.
Update:
I think this case also relates to the Australian PC free speech hypocrisy, where I wrote:
The very great majority of pro-homosexuals, including the ones that are clamoring about how horrible this yearbook female dress code is, don't give a whit about modesty for women. Generally, they are all very happy with women showing themselves as pieces of meat, of women swearing, of women engaging in all kinds of crude behaviors. So these are major hypocrites that now raise up the "Oh, deliver us from the immodest dress oppression or we are going to faint" banner.
This is not about sexually objectifying women through attire (which is an important issue). This is about shoving homosexuality down everyone's throats without thinking about where this homosexual behavior is coming from. The most hypocritical statement in all of this, aside from the "dresses are all pornographic," is that this is not about homo activism.
It is exactly what this conflict is about.
Update feb 28-2005:
Kelli Davis - This is a human rights issue!
Update mar 1 2005:
This is another very important human rights issue, being fought in California.
Update mar 2 2005:
Someone left this comment:
I didn't say the stupid lesbiunnn couldn't wear a tuxedo. Actually the dress code was voted by the all the students (it was not instituted by me, in case you didn't notice). And the student-voted dress code was upheld by the principal. But that's another detail.
I was just asking all you smarter-than-the-rest-of-us people, why does Kelli have such a mental problem with female attire? Why is she so profoundly uncomfortable in a dress?
Why does she have to put on a tuxedo and make a battle of it, and when everyone doesn't bow to her discomfort with being a woman, she gets mommy dear to hire an attorney to force it down the yearbook?
Aside from James Bond, I didn't think we had other people who could not live outside a tuxedo.
I haven't seen you people answer that simple question. In case you didn't notice, the "modesty" reason stated by Kelli sounds like a circus act from a little hypocritical twit. Buy it if it makes you feel better, but for reasons explained in my posts, I found it a tad unconvincing.
.
From local6.com. This issue has liberals and pro-homos up in arms, ready to storm the school and shoot down the "asinine" principal (which is the mildest thing they called him). My comment that I left at one of their blogs follows the news excerpt:
GREEN COVE SPRINGS, Fla. -- After a spirited discussion over a photo of a girl wearing a tuxedo at Thursday's Clay County School Board meeting, the principal's decision to ban the picture from the Fleming Island High School yearbook stands.
Kelli Davis, 18, had her senior class photo taken in a tuxedo top and bow-tie outfit provided for boys rather than the gown-like drape and pearls provided for girls. The school's principal decided it could not appear in the yearbook because she didn't follow the dress code.
Kelli, a straight-A student with no discipline problems, is a self-proclaimed lesbian. She said she was uncomfortable to have her chest exposed in the photo.
"Because that's me, you know. That represents me. The drape does not," Davis said. "They're not accepting me, that's the whole reason we're here."
Davis denies it's about her sexual orientation, just about a student not following the rules.
"There's a dress code to follow -- a dress code expected for senior pictures in the yearbook, and she chose not to follow them. It's just that simple," Clay School Superintendent David Owens said.
Pro-homos have taken up this girl as their latest heroine, and they are all clamoring about how horrible the principal is for holding up the "oppressive" male-female dress code for the yearbook.
Yet I did wonder if Kelli isn't just one big idiot of a kid. Was the photo in the news cropped or is that all of it? Unless her cleavage starts in the middle of her neck, what exactly is the big exposure if she were wearing a dress?
Are the dresses for women in the yearbook pornographic, I mean, so low-cut that taking community standards, they are indecent? Will people now enforce a code that women must cover themselves to the top of their necks or else it means they want to be "exposed" and are being visually "violated?" If 3 inches of one's neck is so problematic, I suggest a full-body veil for Kelli. That way she doesn't expose one fraction of an inch of herself. And she could wear it black, 'cause that´s real tough.
There's another even more important problem here: if one woman showing her neck is a problem, then that's a problem for all women. A neck is a neck. Now you've got me worried. Don't all women need to be protected from having their modesty violated? And what better way than forcing women to wear tuxedos for every party and yearbook in the future? Then we can all be smart like Kelli. We can't be women, but we can be man-imitators and cross-dressers. What wonderful progress brought about by you smarter-than-the-rest-of-us people.
And this Kelli doesn't go to the beach, I suppose, or does she wear a tux to the beach as well? Because God forbid if anyone should see 3 inches of her neck at the beach... her whole orientation might suffer a seizure... her steady psycho health would be at extreme risk.
But she's big, she's tough! She's a lesssbian, and she don't wear no dresses! Aren't we impressed? Carry on with the cheering, folks... you people need to show us the way... It's so effin rebellious! What you've been waiting all your lives... the tuxedo revolution. You're not going to take no dresses in the yearbook anymore! Cross-dressing is the solution. It's black, it's powerful, and it has a bow-tie, for Christ's sake! It's the smart lesbo against the asinine principal contest!
BTW, is her homosexuality a result of how many psychological problems she has with the standards and roles society has for women?
Oh, I forget, pro-homos can't ask those questions.
And then, when I looked at the blouse of the woman clad with a low-cut blouse, lying across the banner of Rox Populi, the pro-homo blog where I saw the above, I commented:
And you know what I just noticed!!! The irony of it...
Just where exactly is the cleavage of the banner photo on this blog??? That amount of flesh represents a what? An immodest woman? An exposed woman? It's barely covering the nipples, for crying outloud! Kelli must have gotten sick when she looked at it... or didn't she?
You people have me confused... I thought we were up in arms about women having to wear such horrible immodest, or, in street slang, slutty clothing for the yearbook! I thought the principal was a horrible man because he forces young women to expose their freaking necks, which is way less than the banner photo on this Rox Populi blog... you people are so coherent, it makes it difficult for the rest of us to follow...
I also read another article which said Kelli's mother does not understand what Kelli is going through (her homosexuality problems), but that she thinks she needs to be supportive. Being a supportive parent and clapping at everything your kid does is not the same thing. A parent should help a kid to discern. Kelli's mom stopped doing that, apparently thanks to activists. This is how a homo-obsessive culture can really hurt a kid. An (op-ed) pro-homo activism article disguised as "news" says:
"I didn't and still don't understand what she's going through," says Cindi Davis, a registered nurse. "But my job as Kelli's mother is simply to love and support my child unconditionally, and I do." For her part, Kelli says her announcement wasn't about advertising her status or seeking a relationship. It was about coming to terms with her identity. "I didn't just choose one day to be a lesbian," she says. "That's how I was born. My mom taught me my entire life to be honest and true to myself. I just couldn't keep living the lie."
Pro-homos just love the homo gene theory, don't they? Never try to dig deep at Kelli's own psychology and see what happened from the time she was born until today. Just slap on the homo gene and voilà the "everything I am is justified and legitimate" conclusion. And it came from nowhere, just some inexistent gene.
Update:
I think this case also relates to the Australian PC free speech hypocrisy, where I wrote:
The only way pro-homosexuals can dictate homosexuality as legitimate in society is by suppressing every single form of questioning or criticism regarding human sexuality and how dysfunctional it can get. And pro-homos have been very active in that respect legally, under the banner of "anti-discrimination."
The very great majority of pro-homosexuals, including the ones that are clamoring about how horrible this yearbook female dress code is, don't give a whit about modesty for women. Generally, they are all very happy with women showing themselves as pieces of meat, of women swearing, of women engaging in all kinds of crude behaviors. So these are major hypocrites that now raise up the "Oh, deliver us from the immodest dress oppression or we are going to faint" banner.
This is not about sexually objectifying women through attire (which is an important issue). This is about shoving homosexuality down everyone's throats without thinking about where this homosexual behavior is coming from. The most hypocritical statement in all of this, aside from the "dresses are all pornographic," is that this is not about homo activism.
It is exactly what this conflict is about.
Update feb 28-2005:
Kelli Davis - This is a human rights issue!
Update mar 1 2005:
This is another very important human rights issue, being fought in California.
Update mar 2 2005:
Someone left this comment:
Who gives a crap! Let her wear what she feels more comfortable in, the world won't come to an end.
I didn't say the stupid lesbiunnn couldn't wear a tuxedo. Actually the dress code was voted by the all the students (it was not instituted by me, in case you didn't notice). And the student-voted dress code was upheld by the principal. But that's another detail.
I was just asking all you smarter-than-the-rest-of-us people, why does Kelli have such a mental problem with female attire? Why is she so profoundly uncomfortable in a dress?
Why does she have to put on a tuxedo and make a battle of it, and when everyone doesn't bow to her discomfort with being a woman, she gets mommy dear to hire an attorney to force it down the yearbook?
Aside from James Bond, I didn't think we had other people who could not live outside a tuxedo.
I haven't seen you people answer that simple question. In case you didn't notice, the "modesty" reason stated by Kelli sounds like a circus act from a little hypocritical twit. Buy it if it makes you feel better, but for reasons explained in my posts, I found it a tad unconvincing.
.
Animal Cruelty Attitudes - PETA and Roadkill Candy
Two similar posts regarding PETA taking action against a new roadkill candy on the market. One calls it an "over-reaction," the other, ridiculous.
Bob at Commotion then comments:
"You can tell these hot dogs arent parents. If they were theyd know that children love to be grossed-out except by actual food, which can be condemned for so little as a slight intrusion by the gravy upon the rightful territory of the corn."
Children do not love to be grossed out. I would say Bob never took a walk outside his block. Small children are very curious about their world, including, for example, bugs. A small child that runs into a small colorful bug may just get fascinated by this new little wonder that popped out of nowhere. Usually the first thing the child will do after it observes the bug a little while is to go and touch it. It doesn´t matter what type of bug it is, a cockroach, a slug, a beetle. The child is not grossed out at all, quite on the contrary, the child is enormously curious. However, because the child will often have these "bug encounter experiences" with adults or older kids around it, what is the reaction of the adults?
"Don't touch that!" or, "That's yucky!" or, "Oh, what a gross bug!" The child is socialized into having these same gross feelings as it grows.
Now take a child that would be grossed out because of witnessing an act of cruelty to animals, but grossed out in the sense of uncomfortable and upset, not entertained. In this example, because this child is being loved and is developing healthy caring attitudes towards other people and creatures. You put this child in a culture where the adults teach it to have fun with other people or animals being tortured or killed and the child loses the empathy feelings and adopts the "laugh at" feelings. This process is called desensitization. Adults who socialize children in this way then claim, "Oh, my child just loves to be grossed out." As if it came out of the blue.
Anne at Haight Speech has an even "lovelier" view:
"Generally speaking, anything that annoys animal rights activists, especially PETA, is cool."
How sad. I am personally very much against animal cruelty.
Anne then adds:
"Roadkill happens. Everybody's seen it. It's accidental. Nobody goes out of their way to run over animals on the road. Also, cartoons typically make fun of incidents like being run over by vehicles, leaving part of the cartoon animal flattened with tire marks. Then he gets up and in the next scene he's fine. "
Regarding "roadkill happens and everybody's seen it" - so does murder, and just about every type of violence, and we´ve all seen it if not for real, then 1000 times on TV. That does not mean it should be made into entertainment or candy.
Haight Speech:
"Kids understand this is fantasy. You're a liar if you never laughed at the Coyote being run down by one of his own ACME products, or a random truck in a tunnel, or a train."
She misses the point. It's not a question of thinking fantasy is reality, it's a question of forming insensitive attitudes towards animal cruelty. Obviously, people who are insensitive think sensitivity is ridiculous. Cruelty to animals goes far beyond the local road. And yes, some kids do torture animals for "fun," and I would not be surprised if some older kids and adults would run over an animal for fun. And we also have an enormous problem with cruelty and negligence towards pets in society.
This is no joke, but it's a product of myriad insensitive and cruel attitudes towards animals.
And regarding "you're a liar if you never laughed at the Coyote being run down," actually any person who says a lot of kids or adults do not enjoy violent cartoons is lying. A child who is "fed" nothing else but crap TV, such as violent cartoons, learns this is what she is supposed to laugh at. A child that is given a different environment to develop may not like cartoon violence. Also, when a child watches anything and they laugh, they may be laughing for very different reasons than an adult watching the same thing. Quite often, the child does not make the same meaning out of what is being watched as an adult.
For the most part, I detest violent cartoons. I don't laugh, I don't think it's funny, it's not entertaining, their stupidity and violence irritate me a lot. I don't know for how long I've felt this way, that is, I can't remember exactly what I laughed at and what I didn't laugh at with TV programming when I was a child. I have one clear memory of a very unpleasant feeling at watching several TV series that had all kinds of stupid messages and which were being fed to me as "good entertainment" to watch. There was a shock in my mind, here I was watching things which I felt were no good, but I was getting the a big authority message that these things were good. Obviously at that time, I didn't have the intellectual tools to critique the environment I was in.
Anne takes a media product that is the same problem as the roadkill candy to justify why we should have mediocre, insensitive cultural products fed to children. Two wrongs don't make a right.
related entry: Stop Mistreating Elephants and Other Animals at the Zoo.
Ill grant that roadkill candy is in bad, ummm, taste but this is an over-reaction.
The fruity-flavored Trolli Road Kill Gummi Candy in shapes of partly flattened snakes, chickens and squirrels fosters cruelty toward animals, according to the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
It sends the wrong message to children, that its OK to harm animals. And thats the wrong message, especially from a so-called wholesome corporation like Kraft, said society spokesman Matthew Stanton.
The society is considering petition drives, boycotts and letter-writing campaigns to get the candy pulled from the market, Stanton said. [emphasis added]
Bob at Commotion then comments:
"You can tell these hot dogs arent parents. If they were theyd know that children love to be grossed-out except by actual food, which can be condemned for so little as a slight intrusion by the gravy upon the rightful territory of the corn."
Children do not love to be grossed out. I would say Bob never took a walk outside his block. Small children are very curious about their world, including, for example, bugs. A small child that runs into a small colorful bug may just get fascinated by this new little wonder that popped out of nowhere. Usually the first thing the child will do after it observes the bug a little while is to go and touch it. It doesn´t matter what type of bug it is, a cockroach, a slug, a beetle. The child is not grossed out at all, quite on the contrary, the child is enormously curious. However, because the child will often have these "bug encounter experiences" with adults or older kids around it, what is the reaction of the adults?
"Don't touch that!" or, "That's yucky!" or, "Oh, what a gross bug!" The child is socialized into having these same gross feelings as it grows.
Now take a child that would be grossed out because of witnessing an act of cruelty to animals, but grossed out in the sense of uncomfortable and upset, not entertained. In this example, because this child is being loved and is developing healthy caring attitudes towards other people and creatures. You put this child in a culture where the adults teach it to have fun with other people or animals being tortured or killed and the child loses the empathy feelings and adopts the "laugh at" feelings. This process is called desensitization. Adults who socialize children in this way then claim, "Oh, my child just loves to be grossed out." As if it came out of the blue.
Anne at Haight Speech has an even "lovelier" view:
"Generally speaking, anything that annoys animal rights activists, especially PETA, is cool."
How sad. I am personally very much against animal cruelty.
Anne then adds:
"Roadkill happens. Everybody's seen it. It's accidental. Nobody goes out of their way to run over animals on the road. Also, cartoons typically make fun of incidents like being run over by vehicles, leaving part of the cartoon animal flattened with tire marks. Then he gets up and in the next scene he's fine. "
Regarding "roadkill happens and everybody's seen it" - so does murder, and just about every type of violence, and we´ve all seen it if not for real, then 1000 times on TV. That does not mean it should be made into entertainment or candy.
Haight Speech:
"Kids understand this is fantasy. You're a liar if you never laughed at the Coyote being run down by one of his own ACME products, or a random truck in a tunnel, or a train."
She misses the point. It's not a question of thinking fantasy is reality, it's a question of forming insensitive attitudes towards animal cruelty. Obviously, people who are insensitive think sensitivity is ridiculous. Cruelty to animals goes far beyond the local road. And yes, some kids do torture animals for "fun," and I would not be surprised if some older kids and adults would run over an animal for fun. And we also have an enormous problem with cruelty and negligence towards pets in society.
This is no joke, but it's a product of myriad insensitive and cruel attitudes towards animals.
And regarding "you're a liar if you never laughed at the Coyote being run down," actually any person who says a lot of kids or adults do not enjoy violent cartoons is lying. A child who is "fed" nothing else but crap TV, such as violent cartoons, learns this is what she is supposed to laugh at. A child that is given a different environment to develop may not like cartoon violence. Also, when a child watches anything and they laugh, they may be laughing for very different reasons than an adult watching the same thing. Quite often, the child does not make the same meaning out of what is being watched as an adult.
For the most part, I detest violent cartoons. I don't laugh, I don't think it's funny, it's not entertaining, their stupidity and violence irritate me a lot. I don't know for how long I've felt this way, that is, I can't remember exactly what I laughed at and what I didn't laugh at with TV programming when I was a child. I have one clear memory of a very unpleasant feeling at watching several TV series that had all kinds of stupid messages and which were being fed to me as "good entertainment" to watch. There was a shock in my mind, here I was watching things which I felt were no good, but I was getting the a big authority message that these things were good. Obviously at that time, I didn't have the intellectual tools to critique the environment I was in.
Anne takes a media product that is the same problem as the roadkill candy to justify why we should have mediocre, insensitive cultural products fed to children. Two wrongs don't make a right.
related entry: Stop Mistreating Elephants and Other Animals at the Zoo.
Discovery - Site for World Sign Languages
Slaves to Inefficiency
I ran into this post that talks about...
Although we all know this happens by simply living in our modern world and experiencing the joys of being subjected to inefficient technology monopolies, I, at least, didn't know some economics prof had justified their tenure privileges by giving it a nice name and writing on it.
That the QWERTY was designed to slow down typing is news to me! But I don't feel like reading more to ascertain the fact. I always thought it was just that the QWERTY designer wasn't all that smart to think about how to configure the letters in a way it would make it the most efficient layout for typing.
Maybe we should change the name of QWERTY keyboard to the Microsoft keyboard. Or the Internet Explorer keyboard.
What I would like to know as well in terms of typing trivia, is what percentage of people who use computers actually type with the QWERTY at all? I still see a lot of people who do not know how to type (with all their fingers). They use mostly just their index fingers.
.
a new economic theory called Economic Geography which states that sometimes a less efficient product or system becomes the winner in the marketplace and thus the standardized technology, or system. And the further development of that market is path dependent, that going back and changing to the more efficient system would entail costs so huge that it becomes infeasible.
Although we all know this happens by simply living in our modern world and experiencing the joys of being subjected to inefficient technology monopolies, I, at least, didn't know some economics prof had justified their tenure privileges by giving it a nice name and writing on it.
Some notable examples of this are VHS beating out the smaller Betamax VCRs, or Unleaded Gasoline engines becoming the American standard over the more efficient Diesel engines, or even MS-DOS over Macintosh operating systems. But the gold-plated standard when discussing path dependency is the QWERTY keyboard. ...
Yes the very thing sitting beneath your fingers as you read this. The earliest typewriters used to jam whenever someone typed too fast. So the keyboard was redesigned into its current configuration to make the process of typing less efficient, to slow down typists and thus keep the typewriter from jamming.
That the QWERTY was designed to slow down typing is news to me! But I don't feel like reading more to ascertain the fact. I always thought it was just that the QWERTY designer wasn't all that smart to think about how to configure the letters in a way it would make it the most efficient layout for typing.
A more efficient keyboard would have all of the most used letters in that middle row so that the fingers would never have to be extended. Such has been designed, the Dvorak keyboard, and a Navy study showed that those who used the Dvorak typed twice as fast, made half the errors, and their fingers traveled 1/20 as far. This would over time cause fewer repetitive stress problems.
So why don't we switch over the the Dvorak keyboard? Because it would be too big of a hassle. Everyone would have to re-learn how to type. And a phase-in of the Dvorak keyboards would be difficult because offices would lose their ease of convertibility, just as offices today only have one type of computer.
Maybe we should change the name of QWERTY keyboard to the Microsoft keyboard. Or the Internet Explorer keyboard.
What I would like to know as well in terms of typing trivia, is what percentage of people who use computers actually type with the QWERTY at all? I still see a lot of people who do not know how to type (with all their fingers). They use mostly just their index fingers.
.
Friday, February 25, 2005
PC Homo Hate-Speech Wars - This Time in Australia
New legislation proposed in Australia to undo the problems with PC Homo Laws. Two radio talk shows made a couple of jokes about homosexuality on air and action was taken against them:
Just exactly what was this extremely offensive or severe ridicule?
I'm sure half of homos around the world fainted after hearing that. I mean, this is strong language. This is horribly, profoundly, mind-shattering vicious. One apology is too little.
If we were going to ban such horrible language in television every time it appeared in other contexts, 90% of television programming would be banned tomorrow. Talk shows of any kind would be gone, on radio or TV. I think it's not such a bad idea. Television producers should be forced to apologize to us by the minute. Every sixty seconds, TV would beep and a suit-clad TV spokesperson would appear saying:
"We apologize for this interruption of our normal programming, but we must apologize for the crude, the stupid, the ridiculing, the virulent program we are currently bringing you. You may now continue watching. Thank you."
Even I would watch more TV like that, I mean, they would show us how much they care about my feelings. They feel our pain.
And the best question in the article:
"You make a joke about Baptists, Catholics, the Pope, Irish people ... why can't you make a joke about homosexuals?"
Because domination is not about fairness or equality. The only way pro-homosexuals can dictate homosexuality as legitimate in society is by suppressing every single form of questioning or criticism regarding human sexuality and how dysfunctional it can get. And pro-homos have been very active in that respect legally, under the banner of "anti-discrimination."
My question to the homo activist:
Is he going to sue all the homos that produce homo pornography that degrades or demeans homos? Or that contains sexual violence or aggression in homosexual contexts?
Or is he just one more piece of hypocritical liberal/homo trash?
.
The complaint was brought by a homosexual activist under provisions of the state's Anti-Discrimination Act, which outlaws any action that "promotes or expresses hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of" homosexuals.
A state tribunal decided that the comments constituted vilification "because they were capable of inciting severe ridicule of gay men." It ordered Price and Laws to apologize on-air and in three major newspapers.
Just exactly what was this extremely offensive or severe ridicule?
"How would you explain it when children asked; 'What do they do, Daddy?" the hosts asked.
They jokingly suggested that an "uncut" version of the program, shown late at night, could allow the pair to "do all sorts of grubby things," renovating in their underwear, or even "with no clothes on at all."
I'm sure half of homos around the world fainted after hearing that. I mean, this is strong language. This is horribly, profoundly, mind-shattering vicious. One apology is too little.
If we were going to ban such horrible language in television every time it appeared in other contexts, 90% of television programming would be banned tomorrow. Talk shows of any kind would be gone, on radio or TV. I think it's not such a bad idea. Television producers should be forced to apologize to us by the minute. Every sixty seconds, TV would beep and a suit-clad TV spokesperson would appear saying:
"We apologize for this interruption of our normal programming, but we must apologize for the crude, the stupid, the ridiculing, the virulent program we are currently bringing you. You may now continue watching. Thank you."
Even I would watch more TV like that, I mean, they would show us how much they care about my feelings. They feel our pain.
And the best question in the article:
"You make a joke about Baptists, Catholics, the Pope, Irish people ... why can't you make a joke about homosexuals?"
Because domination is not about fairness or equality. The only way pro-homosexuals can dictate homosexuality as legitimate in society is by suppressing every single form of questioning or criticism regarding human sexuality and how dysfunctional it can get. And pro-homos have been very active in that respect legally, under the banner of "anti-discrimination."
My question to the homo activist:
Is he going to sue all the homos that produce homo pornography that degrades or demeans homos? Or that contains sexual violence or aggression in homosexual contexts?
Or is he just one more piece of hypocritical liberal/homo trash?
.
Large cable firm stops offering hard-core pay-to-view pornography
Large cable firm stops offering hard-core pay-to-view
A victory, but what to do about the Internet? The Internet is the medium for pornography, because of its easy and immediate access and, to some extent, partially free (not-charged) content, which includes the most virulent, the most violent, and the most mentally diseased material.
"Nobody who peddles porn cares a whit about women and children"
Precisely.
"The boldness of mainstream cable companies to even consider offering this type of material is an indication that more vigorous law enforcement is needed from the top levels of government."
Very little will be achieved if there are no broad educational programs about why pornography hurts society. You don't combat cigarette smoking by simply trying to close the cigarette factories, it's foremost a question of public education. And where is the school curriculum on this, may I ask?
In the Triassic era.
Update:
I had seen this post before, and had thought about blogging it, but it got lost along the way. Since the subject is related, here it is. Finally something worth reading at American Spectator, even though, ever so mild. The first quote is from a disgusting homo professor (over at Slate) talking about the new and old Deep Throat Movie:
Mild, but to the point, comes Douhat's comment on the above:
related entry: Glorifying Rape - New Deep Throat Movie
.
"This stuff is illegal. Obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment," Knight said. "We'd give Adelphia a pat on the back, except that they should not have planned to break the law in the first place. Nobody who peddles porn cares a whit about women and children, or the men who get addicted and destroy their marriages and families."
AFA hailed the 130,000 e-mails that went to the Justice Department due to its efforts.
"We made the Justice Department fully aware of Adelphia's hard-core pornography," said Randy Sharp, director of special projects for AFA. "Did the DOJ become involved? We don't know for sure. What we do know is that distribution of obscenity is a crime and Adelphia evidently recognized that too."
Continued Sharp: "The boldness of mainstream cable companies to even consider offering this type of material is an indication that more vigorous law enforcement is needed from the top levels of government."
A victory, but what to do about the Internet? The Internet is the medium for pornography, because of its easy and immediate access and, to some extent, partially free (not-charged) content, which includes the most virulent, the most violent, and the most mentally diseased material.
"Nobody who peddles porn cares a whit about women and children"
Precisely.
"The boldness of mainstream cable companies to even consider offering this type of material is an indication that more vigorous law enforcement is needed from the top levels of government."
Very little will be achieved if there are no broad educational programs about why pornography hurts society. You don't combat cigarette smoking by simply trying to close the cigarette factories, it's foremost a question of public education. And where is the school curriculum on this, may I ask?
In the Triassic era.
Update:
I had seen this post before, and had thought about blogging it, but it got lost along the way. Since the subject is related, here it is. Finally something worth reading at American Spectator, even though, ever so mild. The first quote is from a disgusting homo professor (over at Slate) talking about the new and old Deep Throat Movie:
[Inside Deep Throat] also steps awkwardly around Linda Lovelace's allegations in her 1980 memoir Ordeal that she made the film under emotional and physical threat, forced at gunpoint by her then boyfriend-manager to participate. (Disputed by all the film's other participants, needless to say.)
But Ordeal itself is fairly confused, concluding with this piece of wisdom about Lovelace's experience of being forcibly transformed into a porn star: "I never thought something like that could happen to me, but now I know better. It could happen to me, and it could happen to you." This is pure melodrama, of course. But then so are all discussions about the social evils of pornography: Innocence is corrupted, people's wills are overtaken, everyone is at risk.
Mild, but to the point, comes Douhat's comment on the above:
Pure melodrama, says Laura Kipnis, professor of media studies at Northwestern. And in a way, she's right: everyone isn't at risk, and what happened to Lovelace couldn't happen to her. She, after all, is well-educated, upper-middle-class white woman, with a job at a major university and a nice intellectual career -- a career in which she explains to other well-educated, upwardly-mobile types (like you and I, constant reader) why they shouldn't worry about the "social evils of pornography."
As for Lovelace, well, if the miserable reality of her actual life couldn't compete with the fantasy portrayed in her porn movies, isn't it reality that should be doing the apologizing?
related entry: Glorifying Rape - New Deep Throat Movie
.
Worldwide Anglican Church Heading towards Schism over Homosexuality
Breaking!
Anglicans give ultimatum to pro-gay liberals
If it does split, then all the people in US and Canada that want to have a traditional Church will be left with no Church. The Church should split in the US and Canada as well. Not every American and Canadian Anglican is pro-homosexual.
.
Anglicans give ultimatum to pro-gay liberals
The worldwide Anglican Church was heading towards schism last night as its leaders prepared to force out the pro-homosexual liberal Americans and Canadians.
If it does split, then all the people in US and Canada that want to have a traditional Church will be left with no Church. The Church should split in the US and Canada as well. Not every American and Canadian Anglican is pro-homosexual.
.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Actions and Values Conference - from Philosophers
Whether the people presenting have something worthwhile to say, I don't know, but the topic is very interesting.
As I mentioned here, I don't think philosophers are the best people to answer these questions, but that's just a generalization. I will withhold my joke on the event and the presenters for the time being, until I know more ;-)
By coincidence, Dennis the Peasant has another funny essay on the subject (although in the context he is obsessing with, Ward Churchill). How wonderful for us if Churchill was a tiny exception and not a certain amount of the rule in academia. Nothing new in that it is very easy to take down one person compared to fixing an entire system.
Abolishing the tenure system creates serious problems, keeping it the way it is maintains serious problems.
.
* ACTION and VALUES: A Conference in Honor of the Publication of Gary Watson's book, Agency and Answerability, at UC Riverside.
Since the 1970s Gary Watson has published a series of influential essays on human action, examining such questions as: in what ways are we free and not free, rational and irrational, responsible or not for what we do? Moral philosophers and philosophers of action will welcome this collection, representing one of the most important bodies of work in the field.
As I mentioned here, I don't think philosophers are the best people to answer these questions, but that's just a generalization. I will withhold my joke on the event and the presenters for the time being, until I know more ;-)
By coincidence, Dennis the Peasant has another funny essay on the subject (although in the context he is obsessing with, Ward Churchill). How wonderful for us if Churchill was a tiny exception and not a certain amount of the rule in academia. Nothing new in that it is very easy to take down one person compared to fixing an entire system.
Abolishing the tenure system creates serious problems, keeping it the way it is maintains serious problems.
.
Age Discrimination Is a Very Serious Issue
Ran across this post and I totally agree. If there's a case about race discrimination, people are up in arms. Gender discrimination, it's a scandal (Summers anyone?) Homo discrimination, and it's the evil hate-filled ones trampling on sacred rights. But age? No big deal.
Not to mention that many such 40+ people have families to support, or they just need to work decently and honestly to support themselves. Not everyone turns out to be Bill Gates by the time they are 40. I know a lot of people who went through appalling hardship because of age discrimination and the very prolonged unemployment that resulted from it.
With the continued and considerable growth of the population that are aged 40+, age discrimination spells disaster.
related entries: problems with job interviews, answers in job interviews.
.
My experience is that it kicks in at 40 and really starts with a vengeance at around 45.
[...]
There are many of us who are north of 40 (I will turn 50 this year) who still work long hours, work hard, keep up with new technologies as required by our jobs, and are just as valuable employees as anyone else. But when we get laid off, most of us can't find work at anywhere near the same level. No one wants to hire a 50-year-old or a 60-year-old when for far less money they can get a 23-year-old who they can delude themselves will stay for 30 years.
Not to mention that many such 40+ people have families to support, or they just need to work decently and honestly to support themselves. Not everyone turns out to be Bill Gates by the time they are 40. I know a lot of people who went through appalling hardship because of age discrimination and the very prolonged unemployment that resulted from it.
With the continued and considerable growth of the population that are aged 40+, age discrimination spells disaster.
related entries: problems with job interviews, answers in job interviews.
.
JEWISH BUDDHISM is the Answer
Little grasshopper, are you feeling lost? Those mundane anxieties are tearing you apart? Salvation is at your fingertips. Thanks to IsThatLegal, we bring you the solution to our distraught modern lives: Jewish Buddhism. Here are its 14 golden principles:
1. Let your mind be as a floating cloud. Let your stillness be as the wooded
glen. And sit up straight. You'll never meet the Buddha with such round
shoulders.
2. There is no escaping karma. In a previous life, you never called, you
never wrote, you never visited. And whose fault was that?
3. Wherever you go, there you are. Your luggage is another story.
4. To practice Zen and the art of Jewish motorcycle maintenance, do the
following: get rid of the motorcycle. What were you thinking?
5. Be aware of your body. Be aware of your perceptions. Keep in mind that
not every physical sensation is a symptom of a terminal illness.
6. If there is no self, whose arthritis is this?
7. Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Forget this and
attaining enlightenment will be the least of your problems.
8. The Tao has no expectations. The Tao demands nothing of others. The Tao
does not speak. The Tao does not blame. The Tao does not take sides. The Tao
is not Jewish.
9. Drink tea and nourish life. With the first sip, joy. With the second,
satisfaction. With the third, Danish.
10. The Buddha taught that one should practice loving kindness to all
sentient beings. Still, would it kill you to find a nice sentient being who
happens to be Jewish?
11. Be patient and achieve all things. Be impatient and achieve all things
faster.
12. To Find the Buddha, look within. Deep inside you are ten thousand
flowers. Each flower blossoms ten thousand times. Each blossom has ten
thousand petals. You might want to see a specialist.
13. Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated?
14. Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do
you have? Bupkes!
.
1. Let your mind be as a floating cloud. Let your stillness be as the wooded
glen. And sit up straight. You'll never meet the Buddha with such round
shoulders.
2. There is no escaping karma. In a previous life, you never called, you
never wrote, you never visited. And whose fault was that?
3. Wherever you go, there you are. Your luggage is another story.
4. To practice Zen and the art of Jewish motorcycle maintenance, do the
following: get rid of the motorcycle. What were you thinking?
5. Be aware of your body. Be aware of your perceptions. Keep in mind that
not every physical sensation is a symptom of a terminal illness.
6. If there is no self, whose arthritis is this?
7. Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Forget this and
attaining enlightenment will be the least of your problems.
8. The Tao has no expectations. The Tao demands nothing of others. The Tao
does not speak. The Tao does not blame. The Tao does not take sides. The Tao
is not Jewish.
9. Drink tea and nourish life. With the first sip, joy. With the second,
satisfaction. With the third, Danish.
10. The Buddha taught that one should practice loving kindness to all
sentient beings. Still, would it kill you to find a nice sentient being who
happens to be Jewish?
11. Be patient and achieve all things. Be impatient and achieve all things
faster.
12. To Find the Buddha, look within. Deep inside you are ten thousand
flowers. Each flower blossoms ten thousand times. Each blossom has ten
thousand petals. You might want to see a specialist.
13. Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated?
14. Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do
you have? Bupkes!
.
Nice Article about Blogging Conference
At Corante.
I found this an interesting point about audience spikes:
Also talks about audio and video blogging, which is something I think has great potential in education and other professional blogs.
.
I found this an interesting point about audience spikes:
I'm also interested in spikes, what causes them and their shape, for example my recent Instapundit mention caused a huge, one-day spike with no retention afterwards, but a link from Kuro5hin had a four day upward climb and a six day fall-off with a good retention rate afterwards.
Which one is more valuable? Well, the Instapundit spike was bigger, but the Kuro5hin one spread my link more widely and persisted longer, with more people sticking around on the blog afterwards.
Also talks about audio and video blogging, which is something I think has great potential in education and other professional blogs.
.
Who's the Psycho in this Case?
Very nice question asked by Commotion re the following:
Granted that news is not information, it's a bait for you to think that you have information, we know just as much about this case before reading the news as we did afterwards. However, if this case is what it sounds like it is, where are the children's rights organizations to defend a child being subjected to forced drugging in our Brave New World elementary schools?
We live in a society that does not care how much children suffer. This society does not care to ask what causes a child to behave in a disruptive way, neither to fix that, as long as they can mask the disruption that materializes in the external behavior of the child. The inside of a child can go to pieces, but as long as it doesn't show on the outside, mission accomplished.
If this child was with a psycho educator for three years and he is only 7, it means that he started having major behavioral problems when he was 4. And they continued for all the remaining 3 years! That's how wonderful the work of the psycho educator was (the hyphen in "psycho-educator" in the original article seems to be an incorrect addition). And that's half of the little boy's life! Where is all this disruptive behavior coming from? Who is doing what to this child for this to happen? Is this learned behavior from a major adult in his life or is it a reaction to how one or more adults are treating him?
No child has major disruptive behavior without cause. And usually where there are major behavioral outbursts that would require medication, there is a majorly dysfunctional environment or dysfunctional adult in that child's life.
"The school did everything it could to help this child."
And if it were an isolated case... It's a disgrace.
.
Child suspended after not taking Ritalin
Fournelle was sent home because of "inacceptable behaviour". The school did everything it could to help this child. But we have to think about other students,” Commission scolaire Marie-Victorin spokesperson Jocelyne Alarie, said.
He was under the care of a school psycho-educator for three years, she said: "When he takes his medication he functions normally."
Granted that news is not information, it's a bait for you to think that you have information, we know just as much about this case before reading the news as we did afterwards. However, if this case is what it sounds like it is, where are the children's rights organizations to defend a child being subjected to forced drugging in our Brave New World elementary schools?
We live in a society that does not care how much children suffer. This society does not care to ask what causes a child to behave in a disruptive way, neither to fix that, as long as they can mask the disruption that materializes in the external behavior of the child. The inside of a child can go to pieces, but as long as it doesn't show on the outside, mission accomplished.
If this child was with a psycho educator for three years and he is only 7, it means that he started having major behavioral problems when he was 4. And they continued for all the remaining 3 years! That's how wonderful the work of the psycho educator was (the hyphen in "psycho-educator" in the original article seems to be an incorrect addition). And that's half of the little boy's life! Where is all this disruptive behavior coming from? Who is doing what to this child for this to happen? Is this learned behavior from a major adult in his life or is it a reaction to how one or more adults are treating him?
No child has major disruptive behavior without cause. And usually where there are major behavioral outbursts that would require medication, there is a majorly dysfunctional environment or dysfunctional adult in that child's life.
"The school did everything it could to help this child."
And if it were an isolated case... It's a disgrace.
.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Dyke gets 5 1/2 years of jail for setting her ex-lover and another woman on fire
London dyke gets 5 1/2 years of jail for setting her ex-lover and another woman on fire.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the first thing she did when she got out of jail was to go on a Pride Parade? Such fitting applause would be seen from the audience. You know what I find amusing about pro-homos, is that they never ask this question about how many criminals just might be participating in a Pride Parade. And if they knew for a fact that there were many criminals parading, would they still clap? My guess is yes. Rationalize something, dismiss the thought, and bring on the claps. But I digress...
I don't know much about sentencing issues, except that sentencing decisions have enormous problems, and no one seems to be able to figure out how to fix them. But, to me, 5 years is a very light penalty for setting people on fire. At least, she did get a sentence. Given that most child abusers don't even go to prison, you see the system is just a huge failure. As I've blogged before:
And on the other extreme:
In other words, show me how your sentencing goes and I will show you what is wrong with your society.
BTW, on a very tangential note, did you know that public trials in ancient Greece had nothing less than 200-700 jurors? (please note, not every trial was public). How, will you ask, did they ever manage to deliberate?
Simple, they didn't. Each juror cast a vote after hearing both sides of the indictment. There was no consensus to reach.
.
Enraged the jealous Metcalfe returned to the trailer with a can of gasoline and poured over the bed then put a match to it.
The pair [of victims] were initially trapped, but escaped through a window the jury was told.
Wrigglesworth suffered extensive burns to her arms, legs and body. She was hospitalized for ten weeks and continues to have trouble walking. Shakesheff, 32, sustained extensive second degree burns to 44 per cent of her body. She underwent major skin grafts and a doctor said she will never look the same.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the first thing she did when she got out of jail was to go on a Pride Parade? Such fitting applause would be seen from the audience. You know what I find amusing about pro-homos, is that they never ask this question about how many criminals just might be participating in a Pride Parade. And if they knew for a fact that there were many criminals parading, would they still clap? My guess is yes. Rationalize something, dismiss the thought, and bring on the claps. But I digress...
I don't know much about sentencing issues, except that sentencing decisions have enormous problems, and no one seems to be able to figure out how to fix them. But, to me, 5 years is a very light penalty for setting people on fire. At least, she did get a sentence. Given that most child abusers don't even go to prison, you see the system is just a huge failure. As I've blogged before:
of 1,115 people convicted of sexually abusing children in New York City between 1993 and 1995, only 44 percent went to jail. More than 30 percent received probation and 20 percent received conditional discharges.
And on the other extreme:
Possession of 4.99 grams of crack is punishable with no more than one year in prison; possession of 5.01 grams of crack is subject to a mandatory minimum of five years. These "sentencing cliffs", as they are known, create absurd disparities in sentencing, yet there is no way for judges to circumvent them.
In other words, show me how your sentencing goes and I will show you what is wrong with your society.
BTW, on a very tangential note, did you know that public trials in ancient Greece had nothing less than 200-700 jurors? (please note, not every trial was public). How, will you ask, did they ever manage to deliberate?
Simple, they didn't. Each juror cast a vote after hearing both sides of the indictment. There was no consensus to reach.
.
Few People Are Worse than Libertarians
Well, liberals, perhaps, but it's a tough call.
Techcentralstation is whining about why the majority of Republicans are too deranged for not being libertarians (or transvestite liberals, which is a much more fitting label for them).
Well, isn't that sad? Go to the nearest corner and cry there.
The ACLU is so magnificently representative of what the grotesque problems with libertarians are.
To me, libertarians (such as Instapundit, techcentral and his foollowers) are usually the worst of both worlds, the most selfish macropolitics with the most irresponsible and destructive personal politics.
My God, and now the evil government wants to hold Churches accountable for private behaviors of priests!
Where is the freedom to abuse in private without interference from the government, I ask?
So much violence happens in the personal sphere and that nasty government keeps insisting to have laws about it, and policing, and bringing people to justice. How oppressive...
The me, me, me libertarians must have freedom to do anything in the personal sphere or they will have a snotty temper tantrum.
The philosophy of blackguards.
.
Techcentralstation is whining about why the majority of Republicans are too deranged for not being libertarians (or transvestite liberals, which is a much more fitting label for them).
Then there was the speech by Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, another CPAC rock star. Santorum made the revealing choice of referring to marriage as "the ultimate public good" -- i.e. a product or service that the government must provide because the free market won't.
Santorum, of course, doesn't just support banning gay marriage (though that's where all the energy in the so-called "pro-marriage" movement is directed), he also supports various government programs to promote the institution of marriage.
But as one Log Cabiner asked, just when did the Republican Party become the party of Washington, D.C.? Just where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power or responsibility to manage citizens' family lives?
To be fair, libertarian -- or classical liberal -- principles were not without representation. The Libertarian Party (ugh ) had a booth. The ACLU had a booth. The wonderful folks over at Bureaucrash had a booth.
But precious little libertarianism came from the stage, and what little did was seldom well received.
Well, isn't that sad? Go to the nearest corner and cry there.
The ACLU is so magnificently representative of what the grotesque problems with libertarians are.
To me, libertarians (such as Instapundit, techcentral and his foollowers) are usually the worst of both worlds, the most selfish macropolitics with the most irresponsible and destructive personal politics.
My God, and now the evil government wants to hold Churches accountable for private behaviors of priests!
Where is the freedom to abuse in private without interference from the government, I ask?
So much violence happens in the personal sphere and that nasty government keeps insisting to have laws about it, and policing, and bringing people to justice. How oppressive...
The me, me, me libertarians must have freedom to do anything in the personal sphere or they will have a snotty temper tantrum.
The philosophy of blackguards.
.
Landmark Ruling Regarding Responsibility of Church in Sexual Abuse Case
There is absolutely no entity or institution on Earth that should be exempt from having a legal responsibility in child abuse issues. I haven't read this decision or the ones contrary to this one, but this needs to change. Hopefully decision will not be overturned.
Superior Court judge makes landmark church official abuse ruling
related entry:
This is what happens when people say "I don't want to know what others do in their private lives."
.
Superior Court judge makes landmark church official abuse ruling
BOSTON -- A Superior Court judge has ruled that a Jehovah's Witness church in Boston can be sued for breaking its trust and legal duty to a girl who claims she was sexually abused by one of the church's ministerial servants.
Suffolk Superior Court Judge Herman Smith Jr.'s ruling earlier this month is believed to be the first time a Massachusetts court has ruled that church officials have a "fiduciary duty" to members of their congregation. Lawyers and doctors already owe a similar legal responsibility to their clients and patients.
Smith's ruling also is expected to open another legal channel for attorneys to bring civil suits against churches for clergy abuse cases, according to Lisa Bruno, news editor for Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly.
"It gives another piece of ammunition to plaintiffs, another grounds for finding a church liable for the actions of priests and ministers," Bruno said.
related entry:
This is what happens when people say "I don't want to know what others do in their private lives."
.
God Save Our Wedding Imbroglio
Hilarious post on the enormous quantity of bureaucratic and public logistics problems generated by Charles' future wedding to Camilla. (in French)
It's from a newly discovered blog, Journal d'un Avocat. The whole mess of the legal/religious/wedding site imbroglio is just too funny... along with an adorable line such as this:
Un mariage civil simple et discret, 700 invités et 720.000 euros de budget...
(related to this previous entry)
.
It's from a newly discovered blog, Journal d'un Avocat. The whole mess of the legal/religious/wedding site imbroglio is just too funny... along with an adorable line such as this:
Un mariage civil simple et discret, 700 invités et 720.000 euros de budget...
(related to this previous entry)
.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
Web Techie Stuff - Web Search Tool Awards
Thanks to Telendro, a blog entry on these Web Search Pandria Awards. I had never heard about them, but it lists lots of interesting web search tools and products. Includes perhaps, a serious competitor to Google (Gigablast), which is what we need, before Google turns into another Microsoft, if it hasn't already. I am very suspicious of how effective Google is. In my non-techie way, every time I search something with it, I wonder how many sites it did not return that fit the search.
Update Feb 24-2005
And in the Image Web Search wars, Yahoo upgrades. (in Spanish)
.
Update Feb 24-2005
And in the Image Web Search wars, Yahoo upgrades. (in Spanish)
.
A Blog Supported by Micropatrons
From the Guardian on a blogger that wants to go pro with his blog:
I don't know this blog, but I think "micropatrons" is a fine idea. It's a wonderful alternative to the obligatory advertising revenue model. I think it will be the future for many blogs. They may grow into a one-person business or a small group blog enterprise and function like all other publications. And pretty soon, they will be enmeshed in all the problems traditional publications have always had. Nevertheless, the one-person-blog enterprise is a valid one.
Editing and writing for a blog on a daily basis as an individual takes a lot of work if your blog is up in the professional publication level. There's no reason why anyone should be barred from living from it if they have a supportive audience and the blog author can provide them a service they are willing to pay for.
Any time my millions of readers want to make their 100K contributions for me to continue my glorious blog reflecting, my email is at the top left corner. I prefer macropatrons to micropatrons, I might add. I don't reflect for peanuts, you know. A little yacht near my own Greek island is the very least I could get for the golden pearls of wisdom I am revealing here. ;-)
.
I don't know this blog, but I think "micropatrons" is a fine idea. It's a wonderful alternative to the obligatory advertising revenue model. I think it will be the future for many blogs. They may grow into a one-person business or a small group blog enterprise and function like all other publications. And pretty soon, they will be enmeshed in all the problems traditional publications have always had. Nevertheless, the one-person-blog enterprise is a valid one.
Editing and writing for a blog on a daily basis as an individual takes a lot of work if your blog is up in the professional publication level. There's no reason why anyone should be barred from living from it if they have a supportive audience and the blog author can provide them a service they are willing to pay for.
Any time my millions of readers want to make their 100K contributions for me to continue my glorious blog reflecting, my email is at the top left corner. I prefer macropatrons to micropatrons, I might add. I don't reflect for peanuts, you know. A little yacht near my own Greek island is the very least I could get for the golden pearls of wisdom I am revealing here. ;-)
.
Astounded Once Again
Five minutes ago, I was surfing the blogsphere, just meandering around, like walking around some sunny country meadow that you are not familiar with, and you tell yourself it doesn't really matter all that much where the path will take you, but that's not true, because what you'd really like to find is something interesting and I bumped into a blog that prompted a discussion on polygamy. My comment is not on the latter, but on a matter I find particularly salient with liberalism.
It is perfectly illustrated with the comment someone made:
I need to think for awhile to find a good metaphor or proverb to highlight the problem above. I will let you know when I find it. For the moment, let me just say that I have always found particularly intriguing the enormous level of denial contained in the above mentality.
Simply put, there is no understanding of any social institution that does not involve moralities and judgments.
However, liberals are usually profoundly convinced of the following:
a) other people have religions, but liberalism does not function as a religion
b) other people have moralities, but liberals do not
c) other people make judgments, but liberals are non-judgmental
The degree of denial that a person must be in to have this as a profound belief of what they are is what keeps astounding me every single day. The fact that there are literally millions of people who have these profound beliefs about themselves is not insignificant to me.
(if you'd care to read a heated discussion of hate speech/homosexuality/and liberalism as a religion - see this previous post).
A fourth, and related common belief is that:
d) there is something that we can hold as objective that is completely separate from subjective news
I won't be commenting on this now.
.
It is perfectly illustrated with the comment someone made:
"Institutions need to be understood, and the reasons they exist and persist has to be understood apart from any moral judgment of them. This is especially true when the institution is one you want to abolish."
I need to think for awhile to find a good metaphor or proverb to highlight the problem above. I will let you know when I find it. For the moment, let me just say that I have always found particularly intriguing the enormous level of denial contained in the above mentality.
Simply put, there is no understanding of any social institution that does not involve moralities and judgments.
However, liberals are usually profoundly convinced of the following:
a) other people have religions, but liberalism does not function as a religion
b) other people have moralities, but liberals do not
c) other people make judgments, but liberals are non-judgmental
The degree of denial that a person must be in to have this as a profound belief of what they are is what keeps astounding me every single day. The fact that there are literally millions of people who have these profound beliefs about themselves is not insignificant to me.
(if you'd care to read a heated discussion of hate speech/homosexuality/and liberalism as a religion - see this previous post).
A fourth, and related common belief is that:
d) there is something that we can hold as objective that is completely separate from subjective news
I won't be commenting on this now.
.
Old Art/Funding Debate Flares Anew with Christo
See today's updated post here.
Update Feb 23-2005
Here's a great take on a similar recent controversy regarding Hillary Clinton and the funding war for the Brooklyn Museum of Art regarding an insulting religion art piece.
.
Update Feb 23-2005
Here's a great take on a similar recent controversy regarding Hillary Clinton and the funding war for the Brooklyn Museum of Art regarding an insulting religion art piece.
.
Monday, February 21, 2005
Insist on Yourself; Never Imitate.
Insist on yourself; never imitate. Your own gift you can present every moment with the cumulative force of a whole life's cultivation; but of the adopted talent of another you have only an extemporaneous half possession... Do that which is assigned to you, and you cannot hope too much or dare too much.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
The Portuguese Are Coming!
I have (blog) guests! And from across the ocean! Because of a blog entry at a Portuguese blog, all of a sudden I got all these hits from Portugal. Instead of getting an Instalanche, I got a Portulanche. :-)
The wonders of the Internet. An ocean is nothing more than a poem.
So, since this is a special occasion, let us blog something for our guests...
For those that are not Portuguese, this is by Amália Rodrigues. She was the greatest singer of fado, an enchanting type of Portuguese music.
Misery, not from being poor
Misery, not from being mad
Misery is having to carry the fado
in my voice and in my heart.
The wonders of the Internet. An ocean is nothing more than a poem.
So, since this is a special occasion, let us blog something for our guests...
Não é desgraça ser pobre,
não é desgraça ser louca:
desgraça é trazer o fado
no coração e na boca.
For those that are not Portuguese, this is by Amália Rodrigues. She was the greatest singer of fado, an enchanting type of Portuguese music.
Misery, not from being poor
Misery, not from being mad
Misery is having to carry the fado
in my voice and in my heart.
Sunday, February 20, 2005
TV - Coming to a cell phone near you!
Scandinavians and Koreans, two of the most adventurous groups of mobile users, are betting on mobile TV.
Update Feb 21-2005
I am always the last person on Earth to find out about new technology advancements. I am always buying the useless tech stuff that went out of date 5 years ago, because no one told me there were simply 23 newer models. The smaller things get, the more annoying I find them. I am probably the only person on the globe that does not like cell phones. For talking, that is. They are safety equipment, isn't that obvious? Why other humans use them constantly to annoy passer-byers with their senseless conversations is something of a mystery to me. I used to like the huge 1 foot long cell phones that did not flip, twinkle or tap dance, but their production was interrupted at the end of the Triassic era, forcing yours truly to adapt or perish. Evolution is cruel.
This magnificent Jetsons TV-cell phone, on the other hand, is something that would make me upgrade and join the elites of the hightechy phone stratosphere. A TV-cell phone is a revolution upon a revolution.
I had this image come up in my mind of inside a bus. Every person on the bus has a TV-cell phone and there is a total cacophony of sounds. Half of the people don't bother with earphones, obviously. You know that is what will happen. Fifteen kids watching MTV, hockey, ranting and yelling, plus the rest of the people with the action movies, the cooking lessons, CNN, talk shows, soap opera reruns, and, of course, wrestling. Each of them in their own little electro-media world, who are totally oblivious to every human around them, except, of course, to shout obscenities at the others for having their sound volume on too loud. It's a dream, it couldn't be more wonderful.
Let us hail how wonderful our modern times are once again.
.
Cogito...
I have started taking my first philosophy class of my life, not by choice. It is an intro to Phil type class. And, what is my conclusion after the first week?
Two or three philosophy departments in the world could take care of discussing anything that remains useful in philosophy. The rest is a waste of money and resources that could go to much better ends.
The most important contribution of Western philosophy today, in my view, is just to remind people they need to ask questions, specially about anything that is value related. Regarding the rest, the social sciences have each grown in their various directions, incorporating the reflexivity of earlier philosophy questions, in ways that left philosophy (as a field) mostly asking abstract questions that have little practical use. Although a person who does not know much about a particular field can still ask some profound questions about that field, this questioning person will be able to ask even more questions or more profound questions if they know more about the field. This has not always been so, quite on the contrary, philosophers were highly influential before the explosive growth of the social sciences. But nowadays, it seems it's become one more vain and vacuous tenure country club.
So far, in my vast readings for the first week of a couple of Intro to Phil texts, an overview of 25 centuries of Western philosophy and a couple of specific foci, I find myself profoundly irritated about how ignorant philosophers are regarding human psychology. Philosophers have a crude and limited knowledge of the human mind and psyche, while all the body of knowledge put together so far by psychology, sociology, psychiatry, and others is comparatively enormous, much more sophisticated and complex.
Apparently this has gone by unnoticed by philosophy profs and students who seem to delight themselves in thinking they know a lot about what happens in the upstairs region of the homo sapiens. So I have already started the course with an expression on my face that says, "I am not amused." But still I am curious to see what discoveries lie ahead for me in the course.
My Intro to Philo is actually a combo of two courses, and one of the professors is simply excellent in terms of teaching and classroom communication. This guy was born to teach. Half of the class time, my eyes are glued on him, not because I am interested in any of the wasteful philosophy stuff he is trying to elaborate on, but because I am so very keen in observing how he teaches and analyzing why it is that he is such a good teacher, how he engages the students, how he illustrates, elaborates, throws out intriguing enigmas and answers tricky questions, so that I can learn from his example. The other half of the time I actually pay attention to what he is saying or think about other more interesting things.
On a personal level, most of the questions about fundamentals in life that big name philosophers inquired, I don't need to read about, not that I mind, it is, I must admit, interesting. Specifically regarding the big questions on ethics, either I have already asked them to myself long before last week when I read that some famous philo dude also made an eloquent and silver-tongued speech about the issue, or because I had already figured out some answers by other means. Then there are the enormous amount of useless questions that philosophers love to ask about "what is" (these endless recursive logic questions about basic building blocks of meaning), and it is like daydreaming or solving game puzzles, a nice diversion if you have nothing more serious to do in life.
My big question at the moment is what do I want to spend my life doing, given the enormous existing restraints and course obstacles? What is the most important for me to invest my sweat and labor to accomplish in the remainder of my life and how to do it? Near future, mid, and long-term. Given that I already have a good deal of the answer figured out for the master plan, although it needs to have a more narrowly focused answer, most of my remaining questions are at the practical "how to get from A to B" level, that is, how to overcome the 100 obstacles that lie ahead between A and B, then B to C, and so forth. And no philosopher answers any of that.
So, right now, my impression is, modern philosophers are quite tied to the chains of their philosophy cave in more ways than they'd care to admit. As long as there are high paying philosophy tenure tracks, they will remain very comfortably in their chains.
All in all, I am looking forward to see what next week's class will reveal in this grandiose subject. Undoutedly, there are lots of gold nuggets amid the remaining glittering cheap foil of Western philosophy. And the cave allegory was certainly my favorite discovery this week.
Two or three philosophy departments in the world could take care of discussing anything that remains useful in philosophy. The rest is a waste of money and resources that could go to much better ends.
Philosophy triumphs easily over past evils and future evils; but present evils triumph over it.
~La Rochefoucauld, Maxims, 1678
The most important contribution of Western philosophy today, in my view, is just to remind people they need to ask questions, specially about anything that is value related. Regarding the rest, the social sciences have each grown in their various directions, incorporating the reflexivity of earlier philosophy questions, in ways that left philosophy (as a field) mostly asking abstract questions that have little practical use. Although a person who does not know much about a particular field can still ask some profound questions about that field, this questioning person will be able to ask even more questions or more profound questions if they know more about the field. This has not always been so, quite on the contrary, philosophers were highly influential before the explosive growth of the social sciences. But nowadays, it seems it's become one more vain and vacuous tenure country club.
So far, in my vast readings for the first week of a couple of Intro to Phil texts, an overview of 25 centuries of Western philosophy and a couple of specific foci, I find myself profoundly irritated about how ignorant philosophers are regarding human psychology. Philosophers have a crude and limited knowledge of the human mind and psyche, while all the body of knowledge put together so far by psychology, sociology, psychiatry, and others is comparatively enormous, much more sophisticated and complex.
Apparently this has gone by unnoticed by philosophy profs and students who seem to delight themselves in thinking they know a lot about what happens in the upstairs region of the homo sapiens. So I have already started the course with an expression on my face that says, "I am not amused." But still I am curious to see what discoveries lie ahead for me in the course.
My Intro to Philo is actually a combo of two courses, and one of the professors is simply excellent in terms of teaching and classroom communication. This guy was born to teach. Half of the class time, my eyes are glued on him, not because I am interested in any of the wasteful philosophy stuff he is trying to elaborate on, but because I am so very keen in observing how he teaches and analyzing why it is that he is such a good teacher, how he engages the students, how he illustrates, elaborates, throws out intriguing enigmas and answers tricky questions, so that I can learn from his example. The other half of the time I actually pay attention to what he is saying or think about other more interesting things.
On a personal level, most of the questions about fundamentals in life that big name philosophers inquired, I don't need to read about, not that I mind, it is, I must admit, interesting. Specifically regarding the big questions on ethics, either I have already asked them to myself long before last week when I read that some famous philo dude also made an eloquent and silver-tongued speech about the issue, or because I had already figured out some answers by other means. Then there are the enormous amount of useless questions that philosophers love to ask about "what is" (these endless recursive logic questions about basic building blocks of meaning), and it is like daydreaming or solving game puzzles, a nice diversion if you have nothing more serious to do in life.
My big question at the moment is what do I want to spend my life doing, given the enormous existing restraints and course obstacles? What is the most important for me to invest my sweat and labor to accomplish in the remainder of my life and how to do it? Near future, mid, and long-term. Given that I already have a good deal of the answer figured out for the master plan, although it needs to have a more narrowly focused answer, most of my remaining questions are at the practical "how to get from A to B" level, that is, how to overcome the 100 obstacles that lie ahead between A and B, then B to C, and so forth. And no philosopher answers any of that.
So, right now, my impression is, modern philosophers are quite tied to the chains of their philosophy cave in more ways than they'd care to admit. As long as there are high paying philosophy tenure tracks, they will remain very comfortably in their chains.
Leisure is the mother of Philosophy.
~Thomas Hobbes
All in all, I am looking forward to see what next week's class will reveal in this grandiose subject. Undoutedly, there are lots of gold nuggets amid the remaining glittering cheap foil of Western philosophy. And the cave allegory was certainly my favorite discovery this week.
If you've never met a student from the University of Chicago, I'll describe him to you. If you give him a glass of water, he says, "This is a glass of water. But is it a glass of water? And if it is a glass of water, why is it a glass of water?" And eventually he dies of thirst.
~Shelley Berman
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Who Do You Say I Am?
what a pic...
Artist: Roger Varland
FCC News Protocol to Label Agenda News
from Scrappleface:
We could also have live newscasts from a studio where the audience would be supplied with colored balls. Newscasters would sit on a seat over a tank of water. Every time the newscaster said something biased the audience would throw the balls to hit the target and make the newscaster fall into the tank.
We could call it "Spin and Splash News -
They spin, they splash. Infotainment for the whole family!"
Or we could keep the serious demeanor and have every newscaster have a sign hung on their chest saying:
TRUST ME.
Dan Rather could feature on his sign:
OH, THE HUMANITY!
.
"Americans have a right to know whether there is an agenda or any bias behind the news reports they read, hear or view," said a spokesman from the FCC. "Just as the White House shouldn't try to accomplish its public relations goals with unattributed faux newscasts, so the editors at the Washington Post and MSNBC cannot hide their political agendas behind a patina of journalistic credibility."
Under the terms of the new protocol, the New York Times, Washington Post and L.A. Times, for example, may continue their traditional 'news' coverage, but all sections of the papers will now be labeled 'Op-Ed.'
Televised news operations, like CNN or CBS, will be in compliance if newscasters simply wink at the camera at least once every 20 seconds during agenda-driven stories.
We could also have live newscasts from a studio where the audience would be supplied with colored balls. Newscasters would sit on a seat over a tank of water. Every time the newscaster said something biased the audience would throw the balls to hit the target and make the newscaster fall into the tank.
We could call it "Spin and Splash News -
They spin, they splash. Infotainment for the whole family!"
Or we could keep the serious demeanor and have every newscaster have a sign hung on their chest saying:
TRUST ME.
Dan Rather could feature on his sign:
OH, THE HUMANITY!
.
Christian Band Banned from Playing at School Sues
A Christian rock band banned from playing at a public school assembly filed a federal lawsuit against the suburban Toledo district on Thursday, claiming discrimination and violation of their right to free speech.
Rossford High School officials in December canceled the band Pawn's performance at an anti-drug assembly. Board members said they feared a lawsuit if they allowed a religious performance in a public school.
What do you think about this case?
I think it's ridiculous to ban just the religious bands. What do the people who want to ban the religious bands fear exactly? That students will all immediately convert to Christianity after listening to a Jesus song?
Most non-religious youth band songs just say a lot of trash. So, if from the point of view of atheists, the religious stuff is trash, trash is trash, it stands equally. All trash has an equal right to be played, independently of your philosophical perspective.
Why should just non-religious trash be played?
Seriously, I don't get it.
And the ridiculousness of the school's mentality is only exacerbated by the fact that a lot of big rock artists are drug addicts and, by example, when not by explicit lyrics, incentivize their little fans to imitate them.
So it would be really funny for the school to make a big ado about how they saved the school from the horrible Christian band and then, in the anti-drug event, put up one of those big screens and show a bunch of totally stoned rock stars. All of which are non-religious, of course.
Youth has been saved. We can breathe a sigh of relief now since horrible religion was replaced by something so much better.
On a related note, I hardly ever listen to the radio because I don't like most of the radio stations available. My right to turn on the radio and be able to choose from 10 different radio stations that I actually like is being seriously violated. I want to sue somebody.
.
The ACLU and NAMBLA - Again
A good article on the latest NAMBLA attempt to abuse boys that was busted. This is what happens when people say, "I don't want to know what other people do in their private lives."
See what I am saying:
And did you notice the "sexually involved" - there's a whitewashed term for abuse of a child.
So what happens when an organization practices exactly the opposite of what it preaches and everyone by now already knows that?
Which is exactly what pro-homos do regarding homosexuality. They want to rationalize there are no problems in homosexuality. Pedophiles tell us there are no problems in pedophilia, ephebophiles tell us there are no problems in ephebophilia, homosexuals tell us there are no problems in homosexuality. And homosexual pedo/ephebophiles tell us there are no problems at all with anything. It's all a "there are no problems anywhere" party. Meanwhile, vulnerable children get abused.
And who is defending the homo child abusers? Well, the ACLU, of course!
Obviously, the question here is not just how popular the speech is, but how harmful and criminal. Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on all the intricate problems with speech that incites people to commit crimes, but on its face, you don't need to be a lawyer to see that any group that defends NAMBLA is aiding and abetting in NAMBLA's criminal activities. The ACLU has become profoundly corrupt in its values and consequent actions.
Now why wouldn't they want the cops showing up?
And if the government, who spends billions of dollars on Iraq wanted to stamp out these garbage of homo pedophiles, they couldn't have done it already?
see related blog entry on this NAMBLA bust.
Also, by coincidence, did you notice the parallel in the statement by the nudism restaurant owner:
"[nudists] are no different to you or I."
Same thing that pro-homos say about homosexuality. Same dynamics that pedophiles engage when they connect or meet: give each other validity for whatever they feel or do to normalize it and legitimize it.
The power of normalization.
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
(possibly by Aristotle)
.
Law enforcement officials and mental health professionals say that while NAMBLA's membership numbers are small, the group has a dangerous ripple effect through the Internet by sanctioning the behavior of those who would abuse children.
"A lot of people who commit sexual crimes against children won't believe it is wrong," said Gregg Michel, a San Diego psychologist who interviews sex offenders for Superior Court sentencings. "An organization like this basically says it is not."
See what I am saying:
"Friends, relatives and co-workers of the men expressed shock at the arrests, but the FBI said in court papers that most of the men told the undercover agent they had been sexually involved with children in the past, including boys they met through the Internet and others abroad."
And did you notice the "sexually involved" - there's a whitewashed term for abuse of a child.
On its Web site, NAMBLA says it opposes abuse and coercion of young people and does not advocate illegal activity.
It also says children should have the right to have sex with older men and that such relationships are "benevolent." The 26-year-old organization wants to overturn statutory rape laws and free molesters from prison, and encourages members to send Christmas cards to jailed molesters.
In California, it is illegal for an adult to have sex with someone younger than 18, but many other states set the age of sexual consent at 16.
So what happens when an organization practices exactly the opposite of what it preaches and everyone by now already knows that?
"It is, in fact, a trade school for pedophiles," said Patrick Gillen, lawyer with the Thomas More Law Center, a Christian legal advocacy group that has sued the organization's leadership and made that argument in court.
Cathy McLennan, an Escondido counselor who interviews children as part of molestation investigations, said NAMBLA's argument that sexual relationships are not harmful to children parrots what many child abusers tell themselves.
"That's how they're rationalizing a despicable form of behavior in their own mind," she said.
Which is exactly what pro-homos do regarding homosexuality. They want to rationalize there are no problems in homosexuality. Pedophiles tell us there are no problems in pedophilia, ephebophiles tell us there are no problems in ephebophilia, homosexuals tell us there are no problems in homosexuality. And homosexual pedo/ephebophiles tell us there are no problems at all with anything. It's all a "there are no problems anywhere" party. Meanwhile, vulnerable children get abused.
Child molesters join organizations such as NAMBLA to meet others like themselves and gain confirmation they are not alone, said Jones, the San Diego police sergeant.
"They don't see that they're doing anything wrong," he said. "These are intelligent, well-educated, high-functioning people, but they've got this desire to involve themselves with children."
And who is defending the homo child abusers? Well, the ACLU, of course!
In his suit in Boston federal court, Gillen says NAMBLA's activities led to the murder of a 10-year-old boy. The killer, Gillen claims, was emboldened by NAMBLA members who told him he could entice the boy by stealing his bicycle and offering him a better one.
The boy resisted, and the killer smothered him with a gas-soaked cloth, violated his corpse and dumped it in a river.
The killer and an accomplice have been sentenced to prison. Gillen is suing NAMBLA's leadership on behalf of the boy's parents.
The American Civil Liberties Union has come to the defense of the group's leaders and publications.
"There is nothing in them which is unlawful, which is outside the bounds of what is normally protected by the First Amendment," ACLU lawyer John Reinstein said in an interview.
As distasteful as most people find the group's views, those opinions are protected by the Constitution, he said.
"If the standard by which First Amendment protection is judged is whether enough people agree with it, we would be deprived of speech which is either controversial or opposed to the majority view," he said.
Gillen said the ACLU has blocked efforts to get information about the group. "We haven't been able to get a firm fix on how many members, who they are, where they are," he said.
The lawsuit is pending, and the ACLU has asked a judge to toss it out of court.
About 10 years ago, NAMBLA counted about 1,100 members, said Fairfax County, Va., detective Tom Polhemus, who went undercover and joined the organization's governing board.
Polhemus said the group had a San Diego chapter at the time. Jones, the San Diego police sergeant, said he doesn't know if one still exists.
A former member of the organization's leadership said in court papers filed in Boston that in the mid-1990s, the group discouraged establishing local chapters to avoid police infiltration.
Obviously, the question here is not just how popular the speech is, but how harmful and criminal. Not being a lawyer, I can't comment on all the intricate problems with speech that incites people to commit crimes, but on its face, you don't need to be a lawyer to see that any group that defends NAMBLA is aiding and abetting in NAMBLA's criminal activities. The ACLU has become profoundly corrupt in its values and consequent actions.
The annual meetings, Polhemus said, were hush-hush affairs. Attendees were told to go to the host city, and the venue was not disclosed until the last minute.
"They don't want press and they don't want the cops showing up," he said.
Now why wouldn't they want the cops showing up?
And if the government, who spends billions of dollars on Iraq wanted to stamp out these garbage of homo pedophiles, they couldn't have done it already?
see related blog entry on this NAMBLA bust.
Also, by coincidence, did you notice the parallel in the statement by the nudism restaurant owner:
"[nudists] are no different to you or I."
Same thing that pro-homos say about homosexuality. Same dynamics that pedophiles engage when they connect or meet: give each other validity for whatever they feel or do to normalize it and legitimize it.
The power of normalization.
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
(possibly by Aristotle)
.
