Well, this doesn't bode well for the plastic bag ban that's working its way
through the system. If
we can't even stop creating waste that serves absolutely no purpose, it's
hard to see how something that at least gets used once stands a chance of being
banned. My favorite bit:
Sen. Mark Wyland (R-Escondido) disputed the argument that the
bill is necessary to address significant waste. He said he periodically throws
away large stacks of newspapers and junk mail. “It's just one more item. It's
not a big deal,” Wyland said.
Because everyone knows that there's no incremental cost to additional waste.
It's not like printing more books and then throwing them away kills more trees
and takes up more landfill space. It's completely binary!
Oh, and way to set a good example there Mark. Remember kids: real men throw
away all their paper; recycling is for commies!
Category: Society
Comments (0)
It's officially Christmas. This isn't a surprise, of course, but just in case
I had somehow missed it, Safeway was thoughtful enough to remind me during the
entirety of my shopping by playing non-stop from a collection called
“Top 100 Bad Holiday Covers And Remixes By No-Name Artists”.
At least, that's what I assume it was called.
Category: Society
Comments (0)
While the national races are looking pretty good, some of the state and local
issues are looking not so pleasant. I'm really hoping that the precincts that
have reported are not representative of the remainder of the state. Sure, I knew
that several things I voted for wouldn't pass (because it would just be crazy
to tax the multi-bazillion-dollar-earning oil companies for destroying the
environment extracting oil) and that others were borderline (education? housing?
the environment? who uses them?), but there are times I just foolishly like to
think, if not the best, at least some decency of my fellow man. Overwhelming
support for permanently tagging sex offenders with GPS devices? I'm not a big
fan of sex offenders by any stretch of the imagination, but come on.
Let's review that for a second: they will be tagged (you know, like cattle)
for the rest of their lives. I'm sure that won't increase any sense of
alienation that would hinder their ability to potentially become functional
members of society again. Oh, and they get to pay for it too, as an added bonus.
And then they can't live within some distance of schools and parks (because, you
know, sex offenders have no means of transportation). The writers of this
initiative did miss one obvious component: we want to keep them away from
schools, and we don't care about removing any shred of dignity. Clearly the
solution here is to surgically implant electric dog collars. Maybe next
election.
I know I feel more secure the more Big Brother watches over me. I have
nothing to fear if I haven't done anything wrong.
Freedom is slavery. War is peace.
Category: Society
Comments (0)
With all this uproar about Yahoo! turning over information to the Chinese
government, I'm sure glad we have congress to step in and set people straight.
It really warms my heart to know that our government is here to help make sure
that everyone knows that it's simply not acceptable to go around turning over
records concerning information access to a government with a proven record of
human-rights abuse against enemies of the state.
Thank goodness we won't stand for that sort of thing in the good old U.S.
of A. I'd say more, but I have to run; There are some books I need to pick up
at the library.
Category: Society
Comments (4)
In the state of the union, our esteemed president told us that we need to band
together as a nation to stand firm against a grave new threat to our
nation—and indeed to our very way of life. He was talking, of course,
about the growing problem of the creation of human-animal hybrids.
And that's why it's simply shocking to see that the Department of Homeland
Security—the very group that is supposed to keep us safe—is
trying to brainwash America's
children into not only accepting human-animal hybrids, but looking up to
them. This is a threat far more serious than that posed by
Harry Potter, more serious even than the war against Christmas. After all, once
our children have meekly submitted to the government-sactioned, half-animal
spawn of Satan, and are forced to do their evil bidding, holiday greeting cards
will be the least of our worries.
So I call on everyone to stand up and demand that the government stop paying
lip service to preserving the sanctity of creation while behind our backs it
teaches our children that abominations of nature are to be respected and
emulated. This is our sacred duty. The animal-people must not prevail.
Category: Society
Comments (2)
I went to vote today, and it was deeply depressing. Since I have this crazy
desire to have a system where, you know, votes actually count, I refuse to use
the current electronic voting machines. Yet, when I refused the electronic
card and asked for a paper ballot, I was told there was no paper-ballot voting.
At least when I insisted that yes, there in fact was paper ballot
voting, and the desk-workers found someone with a clue, he was happy to give me
one, but it was so very sad. First, the poll workers were so badly trained
that many people who were only somewhat aware of the issue would probably have
just buckled and been pushed into using the electronic voting
machines—when poll workers are actively disenfranchising people through
poor training, that's just wrong. Second, the clueful person said, “We
were just commenting about how there has only been one paper ballot
today.” And third, that one ballot was Laura. So the poor training
probably didn't even come into play, which is even worse. (I suppose it's
possible that one or two people were dissuaded after requesting paper, but I
doubt it).
Why are people such sheep? Is it because they trust machines blindly? Or
trust authority blindly? I don't even know which is worse. Maybe it's just
apathy—I was talking with some co-workers today, who I know know
better than to trust the current machines, but they still voted by machine.
It's sad. Rigging elections at a national level is now something that requires
the know-how of a high-school student, and most people don't care. Now, I'm
not politically active—I've never written my congressperson—but if my only
option were to vote using the currently-available machines, I wouldn't vote.
I'd make a scene at the polling place, I'd write to my representatives at every
level, and I'd probably protest at the polls at every election and try to get
others to do the same. Would anyone care then? I doubt it.
In summary: the most important vote I feel like I made today was requesting
a paper ballot—and it feels like it was a write-in.
Category: Society
Comments (3)
While I'm on the subject of vile things, I heard the most disturbing commercial
on the radio the other day. Verizon is now offering a service where you can
customize your ring tone, not just for yourself, but for your caller.
You get to pick songs that will play for specific callers instead of the
ringing sound.
In other words, you can pay extra to take away a standard, useful
piece of feedback, and replace it with something that is almost guaranteed to
make the caller feel like they are on hold with a company that “values
their call”. Nothing tells the people in your life you care quite like
playing muzak at them.
I think I'll pass though. I'm holding out for the ability to require callers
to first navigate an annoying automated menu driven by a peppy but chronically
deaf voice-activated system. The ability to periodically break in to the muzak
in such a way that the caller will think they have finally gotten though, just
to give them the critical news that they in fact are still waiting would be
a nice bonus, but I'm flexible on that point.
Category: Society
Comments (0)
I was reading about the Kansas school system intelligent design debates (after
a co-worker introduced me to the Flying
Spaghetti Monster), and talking to Laura about it, and came to a
realization. I know how to deal with the question of intelligent design
in schools, and I better understand why I don't think intelligent design
belongs in biology class.
It belongs in math class.
That's right, you heard me. Math. See, creationism is an
alternative to evolution (and when I say evolution, I refer only to the
physical mechanics; that will be important later). Intelligent design
is not—it's an alternative to probability as it is currently presented,
or, to be more accurate, intelligent design is an alternative to random chance
in all of its forms. Nothing about intelligent design is actually unique to
evolution; at its core it's just a restatement of the idea that “God does not
play [fair] dice”. Fundamentally, I see nothing wrong with teaching
that in schools, in the context of probability. All of probability is based
on the precondition of “all other things being equal”, and
intelligent design just says things can never be known to be equal, because
there could be a higher power waiting to meddle at its whim. You could
argue that it's weak science, because it's not provable or disprovable
(the whims of an intelligence we don't understand being by more or less
by definition indistinguishable from random chance),
but it's not science—it's a basic assumption. And the same is
equally true of the idea that all things are governed by random
chance, and there's nothing wrong with pointing out that we should question
basic, unfounded assumptions. Probability (or at least the application
thereof to anything in the real world) is then recognized not as a
mathematical truth, but a generally useful theory for prediction, which
is exactly as it should be given that all of its applications are based on
an assumption we can't prove.
Then, all that remains is to remove the word “random” from
most scientific teaching materials, since random is in opposition to
intelligent design, and thus an endorsement of atheism in most cases.
If we simply talk about “chance”, and understand that to be
either random on not, according to our beliefs, then we all gain a
better understanding of the difference between fact and theory,
our teaching is more belief-agnostic—and the issue of evolution becomes
simply one special case of that.
So that's my plan, which I think is very workable. Except of course for
the fact that that most of the
scientific community would rebel against it, since it weakens the public
facade of infallibility so many people of science wish so wrongly to
cultivate. It wouldn't really weaken science in any real way;
probability would remain exactly as useful as a prediction tool provided
that any intelligent forces continue in the same fashion they have through
all the experiments that led to the creation of the theory of random
chance... and that caveat is nothing new, since all of science predicts based on
the assumption that things will generally stay the same. It's just a case of
all of us learning to be a little more aware of how deep that caveat runs.
I bet you didn't think this was going to be an endorsement of teaching
intelligent design when you saw the title, did you? I didn't either, when
I started thinking and talking things out with Laura. It just goes to show
that you can learn some startling things when you question what you haven't
really thought to question about your education.
Category: Society
Comments (0)
Imagine if you will that you are driving in a center lane on the interstate, and
come up behind someone going slower than you. You want to pass, then return to
your current lane. The lanes to the left and right are both clear ahead and
behind. Do you pass on:
- the left, or
- the right?
If you picked a), congratulations, you aren't an idiot! If you picked b), take
comfort in the fact that you will fit right in in California.
Category: Society
Comments (0)
You know who would look totally hot in pants a number of sizes too small for
her?
Nobody.
I'm not clear on how someone who has thought through the need to wear a thong
(which reminds me, wearing too-tight pants made of thin white material is a
whole extra level of not-hot) to avoid having visible lines can miss the fat
bulging out all around the top of her pants.
The lesson here is, if the answer to the question, “do these pants make
me look fat” is painfully clearly “Yes, very much so, and skanky to
boot!”, then don't wear them.
The preceding has been a public service announcement on behalf of everyone
has to go out in public and be subjected to that sort of thing.
Category: Society
Comments (0)
Sometimes the religious right just pisses me off, but other times they make me
feel downright sick. Take the following gem from
an article
about vaccines being developed for the human papilloma virus:
In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to
oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favor
vaccinating their daughters. “Abstinence is the best way to prevent
HPV,” says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading
Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread
by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against
other viruses such as HIV.
“Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful,
because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex,” Maher
claims
Remember kids, it's wrong to allow terminally ill people to end their life
in a manner of their choosing, but it's okay to withhold potentially life-saving
treatments from people who don't choose to live their lives according your
rules!
So here's what really gets me. Lets assume the existence of a 100% effective
HPV virus (it doesn't exist yet, as far as I know, but it theoretically could).
There's no reason to think that these people wouldn't be at least as against it
as they are against the 90%+ version being tested now. Given that vaccine,
every case of HPV that leads to cervical cancer and possible death would be
preventable. Morally, there is no difference I can see between withholding
such a vaccine from everybody when it
could be administered, and intentionally introducing a new potentially deadly STD
into the population. You know what the latter would be called? Biological
warfare. Terrorism. It would get you locked in a small cell in a military camp
existing outside of normal US laws. But the former is just “protecting
family values”.
Oh, and that 80% number? I was heartened by it until I read it the other way:
20% of parents would like to see their daughters get cancer and possibly die if
they engage in pre- or extra-marital sex (or even just marry someone who
has/does).
Category: Society
Comments (2)
Part of my birthday present from Laura is an iTMS gift card (a potentially
dangerous gift, since I'd been avoiding buying anything there because it's so
freaking easy I have my doubts about being able to stop) and I decided that
the 2004 top 100 songs list would be a good place to start looking for fun
songs. As it turns out though, most people have really bad taste. Who
knew?
Category: Society
Comments (0)
We watched the second presidential debate last night, and I'm definitely glad I've been watching.
Each time I see them I feel better about voting for Kerry—he presents himself very well,
he's clearly intelligent, he's respectful, he's not a robot like Gore was, and he is able to
clearly articulate definite plans. Bush keeps looking bad in the debates: he gets flustered and
angry, steamrolls the moderator, and mostly doesn't have concrete rebuttals.
For example, they've had several exchanges that essentially went like this:
Bush: My opponent is wishy-washy! He's flip-flopped on the issue of <whatever>
Kerry: No, I've been consistent, and here's exactly why I made each of those decisions
and how it fits with my overall convictions. <clear and concise explanation>
Bush: He's inconsistent! That's just how it is!
Why doesn't he just jump up and down and say “Are too! Are too!”? Obviously I'm
biased, but I truly believe that Kerry's points are significantly more based in facts, whereas
Bush's are more based in rhetoric. And while it's not like I'm an undecided voter, I'm really
glad I can feel good about voting for Kerry, instead of being resigned to voting for him.
Now two moments that struck me most: the funniest moment and the scariest moment.
The funniest moment was Bush's comment about the sort of judges he wanted on the Supreme Court.
He basically said he wants constitutional literalists. Then as an example of what he doesn't want,
he talked about the Dred Scott decision:
Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago,
said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's a personal
opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution
of the United States says we're all—you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the
equality of America. And so, I would pick people that would be strict
constructionists.
www.washingtonpost.com
This is priceless stuff. He was clearly about to say that the Constitution says that we're
all equal. So... he wants judges on the Supreme Court who don't know the difference between
the Constitution and the preamble to the Declaration of Independence? I don't think that a
document that at the time counted some people as three-fifths of a person can really be said to
be one that “speaks to the equality of America.”
The scariest moment was when Bush spoke about the Patriot Act:
Our law enforcement must have every tool necessary to find and disrupt terrorists
at home and abroad before they hurt us again. That's the task of the 21st century.
And so, I don't think the Patriot Act abridges your rights at all.
Wow. He could have said something about why it's important, and then talked about making sure
it's done carefully and adjusted as necessary to protect rights, but he didn't. Instead he said
several times that he doesn't believe it treads on our rights at all. That's a disturbing stance,
as is his statement that “every action being taken against terrorists requires court order,
requires scrutiny”, in light of the fact that part of the Patriot Act was
ruled
unconstitutional for lack of judicial oversight. The fact that he thinks that preserving our
rights is the same as giving law enforcement “every tool necessary”—would he
say that a police state wouldn't infringe our rights because it's necessary to keep us safe from
the terrorists, then? I'm not saying that I think he really wants a complete police state, but
the idea of being led for another four years by someone who thinks that giving more power to
law enforcement is the same thing as preserving our rights is very scary.
Category: Society
Comments (0)
Perhaps
not. As a ballroom dancer, formerly competitive, I was excited to see a
major article in the NYT about ballroom—but the content of the article,
I'm sad to say, doesn't surprise me in the least. When the dancers said that
the rules of competitive ballroom are “archaic”, they were really
not kidding. In fact, by far the most surprising thing in the entire article
was that the YCN stood
up to the rest of USABDA and got them to allow same-sex
partners at the collegiate level. I've been at college competitions where in
order to be considered an official YCN/USABDA competition, there had to be a
rule that women could not wear pants while dancing—dresses or skirts only.
And this wasn't just a lip-service thing, because the YCN coordinator was on
site making announcements, and preventing at least one couple from competing
again until they changed costumes. Never mind that there are plenty of great
Rhythm and Latin outfits with pants. Progressive they are not.
I had always assumed that USABDA was the biggest group of fuddy-duddies,
but reading what the IDF folks had to say to the media I'm realizing that
the IDF is at least at the same level of fossilization. This was my all-time
favorite section:
“Just as the Hopak dancers do not have to start adding other
ethnic groups' elements to their dances because to do so would fundamentally
contradict what the dance is about, DanceSport does not have to start adding
dances about some other relationship,” Jim Frasier, who heads the legal
commission of the Europe-based federation, wrote in an e-mail message,
referring to the Ukrainian folk dance to explain why his organization has
sought to restrict same-sex couples.
Citing as an example the pasodoble, a dance based on movements performed
during a bullfight with the man in the central matador role, Mr. Frasier
added: “It is performed by a man and woman because it is about the
relationship between a man and a woman, using the metaphor of the matador and
the cape to express one more aspect of the man/woman
relationship.”
What the hell are they thinking over there, letting this guy do their PR?
The pasodoble is they example they choose, of all the dances in their
repertoire, to hold up as an example? Pasodoble, while a very interesting dance,
is pretty much the black sheep in terms of the equality of the roles of leader
and follower. They may as well have issued a press statement saying,
“Well, we don't really see ballroom dance as an art form, or a way of
exploring the dynamics of partnerships in a broader sense—we like to
think of it as a way of preserving the misogynistic elements of our society's
past. If there's no woman in the couple to push around, what's the
point?”
Also not surprising was the mention of the Olympics as a possible factor
in the IDF's stance. Three or four years ago, even at the YCN (collegiate)
level, the powers that be in this area were already obsessed with the Olympics.
That was already becoming a primary motivator. And when I say
“Olympics”, I of course mean “money”
I seriously wonder if any of the leaders of these organizations remember what
it was like to enjoy dancing.
Category: Society
Comments (0)
Articles like this
one really frustrate me. Sure, the BSA/RIAA/MPAA/whoever are going to lie
to serve their own interests. But does every journalist have to parrot
their report as if it were gospel? Every story I saw today about the BSA's
report on software piracy contained a paragraph functionally equivalent to
the following:
A BSA study of $80 billion in software installed on computers
last year found only $51 billion was legally purchased, resulting in a $29
billion loss.
Now, I only took a year of economics, and that was in high school, but I'm
pretty sure I have a basic understanding of the laws of supply and demand.
Dumbed down, and ignoring weird fringe effects like prices of luxury status
symbols, it goes like this: more people buy stuff when it's cheaper. And yet,
everyone who reports "losses" from illegal software/movie/music
trading seems to have skipped this basic lesson, and blithely assumes that
every high-school and college student with a pirated copy of Photoshop would
have shelled out $650 dollars for a legal version if they didn't know a guy
who could give them a free copy. Yeah.
I'm not condoning piracy, saying that it doesn't legitmately hurt any industries,
or that no-one with pirated software would buy it if they had to, but please.
If the real number is even a few percent of the $29 billion they quoted, I
would be shocked. Some of the countries where they quote the biggest piracy
numbers are places where Office or Windows would cost months, sometimes years,
of the average salary of their inhabitants.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to set up a paid subscription to my
weblog. I figure I'll charge $100,000 or so per page view—so far, people
have been getting this content for free, resulting in millions, maybe even
billions, in losses for me.
[Edit 7/8: Apparently I can't type. Hopefully it was clear that I was
not condoning piracy. Thanks Laura!]
Category: Society
Comments (0)
Imagine, if you will, a very large island (or a small continent if you prefer).
On this island there are horses, but for various evolutionary reasons they
are all brown. Every last one of them. Also on the island are people, who
develop completely isolated from the rest of the world. They develop language,
writing, and eventually create dictionaries, all without interacting with any
other civilizations. Not unsurprisingly, their dictionary defines their word
for horse basically as a large, brown, four-legged, hoofed animal.
One day, a boat arrives with people from another island/continent. Cultural
exchanges of various kinds ensue, and eventually one of our island-folk visit
the other island. Shortly after arriving, he sees someone riding a
black horse. "What's that animal?" he asks his guide. "Why,
it's a horse," she replies, confused. "I've seen many people
riding them on your island." "Ridiculous," replies the man
from our island, "horses are brown!" "But surely,"
says his guide, "you can see that it is in every practical way
identical to the horses on your island, except that it happens to be
brown." "Perhaps," says our islander, "but it's clearly
not a horse. As you can see, it says right here in this dictionary that
horses are brown, so that creature must be some entirely different
animal."
At this point, it should be apparent that our islander is rather foolish.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine how this story
applies to people who try to base their primary argument against gay marriage
on the fact that marriage is defined to be between a man and a woman.
(For those of you already compiling a list of reasons why this is a
terrible analogy, I invite you to consider the definition of "person"
at the drafting of the US Constitution, and what bearing that has on the
validity of the civil rights movement.)
Category: Society
Comments (0)
Anyone unsure about Blizzard's target audience should take a look at their
wallpapers.
These artists are clearly all people who grew up on the old D&D books,
which teach us the important lesson that fantasy-genre women wear basically no
clothing. I always felt sorry for the women depicted in these books, on the
covers of fantasy novels, and in now in many video games. Don't they realize
how doomed they are? Their male fighting companions get full suits of plate
armor, or at least a nice hauberk or something. What do the women fighters
get? Chainmail bikinis, and if they are really lucky some thigh-high boots.
Helmets? No way. So basically, they will be fine if their opponents attack
only their breasts (or rather, the third of their breasts that's protected),
but otherwise that they are SOL.
On the other hand, heroines are better off than evil women, who often
don't
get any clothing at all. I guess the fact that she's not human makes the
nudity ok? At some point, they should give up the pretense and just
strap feathers to some women's arms and legs and film porn to sell to
teenagers.
Category: Society
Comments (0)
Living here is a constant voyage of discovery when it comes to traffic law.
For example, I'm well aware of the "right on red" rule, but on
the way to campus today I was reminded about another rule I often forget
about: the "left on red at a busy 5-way intersection from a direction
where you are only allowed to turn right ever" rule. I'm
not sure if that's a special Cleveland traffic law, or just a consequence
of the popular "any red light can be treated as a stop sign" rule;
someday I really should pick up an Ohio driver's manual and check.
Category: Society
Comments (1)
I just came across this
editorial by Mitt Romney, governor of Massachusetts. Basically, it's a plea to the country to
pass "defense of marriage" acts—which is fine with me; it's a free country and he should feel
free to make all the pleas he wants to. I did find it interesting that he specifically mentioned
the Dred Scott case, given the parallels many draw between these rulings and the progressive civil
rights rulings in the 60's. I guess it's an attempt to point out that the Supreme Court isn't always
right. This is, however, a sword that cuts both ways, as you can substitute "slavery" for
marriage in his arguments (and other terms in other places as appropriate) and get a document that,
in many places, reads like arguments for slavery that might have been made at the time had the
Supreme Court decision gone the other way. For example:
In a decision handed down in November, a divided Supreme Judicial Court of [the United
States] detected a previously unrecognized right in our [100]-year-old constitution that permits [slaves]
to [be free]. I believe that 4-3 decision was wrongly decided and is deeply mistaken.
Contrary to the court's opinion, [slavery] is not "an evolving paradigm". It is deeply
rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and
our nation by millennia. The institution of [slavery] was not created by government and it should
not be redefined by government.
A few simple substitutions shows how absurd some of his arguments truly are. But that's just an
interesting mental exercise, and not the main point. The main point is this:
I am deeply disturbed by some of the statements he makes about the way our government works.
I am not sure whether he is truly ignorant, or simply trying to manipulate people through their
ignorance; either way it is entirely unacceptable behavior. Here is one of his primary arguments:
Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the
Legislature's job to pass laws. As governor, it is my job to carry out the laws. The Supreme Judicial
Court decides cases in which there is a dispute as to the meaning of the laws or the constitution.
[...] If the powers were not separated this way, an official could make the laws, enforce them and
stop court challenges to them. No one branch or person should have that kind of power.
It is inconsistent with a constitutional democracy that guarantees to the people the ultimate power
to control their government.
By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the
executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That is wrong.
What? The court did exactly what he says they should be doing: it
interpreted a dispute as to the meaning of the state laws and constitution—and found the
law wanting in light of the constitution. So by the definition he gave, they did nothing wrong,
and yet he calls what they did "[assuming] the power of legislating." I can see no other
interpretation of his statements except that he believes that the court should be able to make
only minor interpretations of laws, and that disagreeing with a law—even if that decision
is based firmly in the state constitution—is overstepping their power. So what is he saying?
If you read between the lines, it looks a whole lot like he believes that the Legislature should
have complete control over laws (or in his own words, "stop court challenges to [laws]").
He invokes separation of powers but uses it to argue against
separation of power! The argument is of course even more absurd than that, because he leaves
out the crucial point that there exists a check already in place, namely the ability to create
constitutional amendments, for exactly the case where an overwhelming majority of people disagree
with the court's decision... odd that he's forgotten it, when only a paragraph earlier he urged
people to pursue and support that course of action. Or is it truly that it has not occurred to him
that the only reason to have the power to make constitutional amendments is if the drafters
of the constitution intended the courts to have exactly the power they exercised in Massachusetts?
I also take issue with the one-liner about the constitutional democracy, and his later statement
that "This issue was seized by a one-vote majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
We must now act to preserve the voice of the people and the representatives they elect." Taken
together, it sounds suspiciously like he is trying to make everyone feel like the courts trampled on
their right to have the government respond to "the voice of the people"—also known
as "majority rule". In fact, our government is a constitutional republic,
precisely because mob rule was seen by our founders to be a terrible idea (partly because our founders
are, like me, elitist snobs, but partly because life under the Articles of Confederation had pointed
out some serious problems with majority-rule government).
In summary, I have this to say to the governor of Massachusetts, and others who make similar
arguments: You don't like the idea of gay marriage? Fine. You disagree with the court's decision?
Fine. Convene a constitutional convention, and vote on a Discrimination against Homosexuals act
(I refuse to call it Defense of Marriage; I am married, and feel entirely unthreatened. To me, it
looks like a spade, and I'll call it such, even though some of those promoting it genuinely
believe that it's not a spade). Maybe it will even pass, and I would be saddened by that. But
what I will not be, if that day comes, is dishonest and manipulative. I will never claim that
a constitutional amendment is an abuse of power, or that any branch of government has overstepped
its bounds in creating such an amendment. I will not try to sow misinformation about the workings
of our government and conflate a moral issue with one of governmental process in an attempt to
win people to my side.
I know it's too much to ask that everyone be honest about how our political process works and
is intended to work, but it is not too much to ask that our politicians do so. Mr. Romney,
I pity you—you are clearly driven by fear to lash out in this way—but I cannot respect you.
Category: Society
Comments (0)
Screw you.
The best part is how they keep pointing out that there is absolutely no legal
precedent for the position the telemarketers took (i.e., "But it's not
fair! It should be fair"), and that in fact many similar
rulings were against them. That and they called the stupid "The economy
will collapse as we fire everyone" bluff, pointing out that it's pretty
stupid to argue that not being able to call people who are just going to hang
up on you will hurt your business. All in all, the decision reads like a
slightly legalese version of, "You're idiots; go home."
Category: Society
Comments (0)
I've discovered that the reason such a large chunk of the people coming here
are looking for statics on homosexual promiscuity is that I'm magically the
number two Google result for "(gay OR homosexual) promiscuity statistics"—
maybe even number one after this gets indexed. I feel bad about all these
people wanting statistics who are just getting
my rant, so as
a public service I did a little bit of looking and found this
survey of papers
about promiscuity among gays and lesbians, which is far more worthy
of being a front-page Google result (but doesn't look as useful from the
blurb).
Disclaimer: the author is himself gay, so has a vested interest in his
interpretation of the papers. However, he is very explicit about places where
he is interpreting data instead of just quoting it, and he gives full references
for every study and paper he uses, so you can go get the data yourselves if you
don't trust him. That, and his presentation of studies that give bleaker
results than other studies rather than just glossing over them, makes me
inclined to trust him. If nothing else, it's a good list of papers.
If you are just looking for information proving that all homosexuals are
terrible people, you can do your own damned research—or just keep
misusing the same partial statistics from a few questionable studies like all
the other intolerant homophobes.
And there you have my unbiased effort to bring light to all sides of this
issue.
Category: Society
Comments (0)
Well, the Thanksgiving leftovers are dwindling away, the dishes are almost done,
and we're all starting to regain mobility after the Turkey-induced stupor.
That's right, it's officially Christmas!
I hope everyone looking forward to a month of non-stop Christmas music
and crazy shopping. I know I can already feel the Christmas spirit all around
me! Or is that rampant capitalism?
Category: Society
Comments (0)
While reading about the recent Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling against the
ban on Gay marriage (personal note to Scalia, who said, "The premise of our system
is that those judgments are to be made by the people and not imposed by a
governing caste that knows best": if you are going to be a Supreme
Court Justice, please learn the difference between a democracy and a republic. Thanks)
I found the fascinating article
"The Negative
Health Effects of Homosexuality" by the Family Research Council. Since this group is fanatically
opposed to homosexual marriage, they fall into one of the common traps of
fanaticism: trying to twist everything to be evidence in their favor, instead
of sticking to the points that actually make sense for them to argue. While
it's unfortunate, it also makes for some highly entertaining reading at times.
My personal favorite is this choice quote:
The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships
engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency
than those without a steady partner. Anal intercourse has been linked to a
host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including
AIDS.
Well gosh, that's just shocking! Clearly they must be against heterosexual
sex (I'm pretty sure that's also linked to sexually transmitted disease)
which begs the question: are they against heterosexual marriage, or do they
support it because they have studies that show that married couples have less
sex than unmarried couples?
Even better is when they don't seem to remember which side they are on:
Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than
are traditional married households: The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S.
Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families
experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of
relationships. [...]
It should be noted that most studies of family violence do not differentiate
between married and unmarried partner status. Studies that do make these
distinctions have found that marriage relationships tend to have the least
intimate partner violence when compared to cohabiting or dating
relationships.
So... married women are abused less than unmarried women, and lesbian (and
thus by definition unmarried since these are U.S. statistics) women are abused
more than married couples. That seems pretty obvious, so I'm with them so far.
But what's their point? Is it that they are pro–lesbian marriage, or
that they are pro–abuse of lesbians?
More insidious, and thus more disturbing, is their manipulation of (lies, damned
lies and) statistics. They quote statistics about things like homosexual
promiscuity left and right, but never once do they give statistics on
heterosexual promiscuity. They quote one study that compared promiscuity of married and
unmarried gay couples in the Netherlands, and give only the statistics from
the married couples—from which I can only conclude that they were, in
fact, better than those of the unmarried couples. So the majority of their
arguments may sound impressive, but are in fact totally meaningless since they
have no context.
And finally, some food for thought. They go on and on about the abnormally
high incidence of long-term depression, drug and alcohol abuse, and suicide
among gays and lesbians. Am I the only one who finds it likely that this has
more to do with, oh, say, living in a society where they are stigmatized,
discriminated against, and tormented by their peers, rather than how they
get their kicks in the bedroom?
So on the balance, the article reads to me more like advocacy for homosexual
marriage than against it. What disturbs me isn't that people write things like
this—it's that they (and many others) undoubtedly believe everything they
are saying at face value.
Category: Society
Comments (3)
And for me, today, Dave Barry is that hero. After his
original commentary on the Do Not Call list generated some
negative feedback in the telemarketing world, he really let them have it.
Of course, the ATA spokesperson played right into his hands; you just can't
make up quotes that good. But basically, he's my hero for writing the sort
of article that we would all write if we were a) that clever, and b) had
a nationally syndicated column. Way to stick it to them! It almost makes
me want to sent money when the "Barry for President in '04"
campaign rolls around.
Category: Society
Comments (0)
So I knew about Sunday alcohol laws, and I always thought that they were
silly... I had no idea how silly they really are (in Ohio at least).
So this morning, we're doing a grocery run, and I thought, "Hey, I should
grab some hard cider". I knew that they didn't sell wine or liquor in the
morning, but since beer is ok, I foresaw no difficulties. Sadly, they were out
of hard cider, so I grabbed some Bacardi instead. But will they sell me the
Bacardi? No. "Oh, I thought, I guess beer isn't ok after all". But
no, of course that's no it, because that would make too much sense. They won't
sell Bacardi because it's a cocktail containing hard liquor. Never
mind that it has the same alcohol content as beer. Never mind that they would
almost undoubtedly have sold me the hard cider. But if I had wanted, say, 4
cases of Miller, hey, no problem. Who thinks these things up?
In unrelated weird-law news, today I saw the strangest
ordinance ever. I can't decide which is weirder—the fact that a
city would adopt an ordinance in 1982 that requires heads of households
to own guns, or the fact that it contains an exemption for, among other
things, people "who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a
result of beliefs or religious doctrine." I can just see everyone sitting
around drafting ordinance, when someone says, "What we really
need is to make everyone own a gun!" "But wait," says another
guy, "What if people don't want to own guns?" "Good point,"
says the first guy, "Lets make the law say that everyone has to own
a gun, but only if they want to."
And apparently, nobody thought that was a stupid idea.
Category: Society
Comments (0)
This is
the biggest piece of government stupidity since... Well, since not nearly as long
ago as it should have been since something this unbelieveable. Looks like
another winner from DARPA.
Category: Society
Comments (0)
I saw this headline on Google news, and found it somewhat disturbing:
Mice
succumb to HIV at last. From the article:
"Mouse cells are naturally resistant to HIV in many ways. Some
of these barriers have been overcome by adding human genes to mouse
cells."
Um... hooray for us, because we've genetically engineered mice so that
they can contract a deadly disease that they would otherwise be immune to?
And next on their list is figuring out ways to make the HIV virus spread
even more quickly in the mice, so they can get sicker faster.
I understand the research significance, but still. It seems a bizarre
thing to celebrate.
Category: Society
Comments (0)
It's a good day to die if you are a telemarketer, that is: the
National Do Not Call Registry
is now open. Ok, it would be open if it weren't for the fact
that it's such a fantastic thing that it was
"slashdotted"
before it was even posted to Slashdot.
The new
FTC Telemarketing Sales Rules has some other nice features as
well; I sure won't miss all of the dead calls we get.
Despite all the bitching from the telemarketing industry, I am
convinced that this is a bright day for humanity. I only wish
we could get a similar law for spam, and a way of enforcing it.
Category: Society
Comments (0)
At this moment, I can think of no crueler ordeal for good people than to have the whole
future of another person given into their hands, with the imperative to Decide.
Who are any of us to set the whole course of another person's life in a single moment?
What is an hour's deliberation, even a day's deliberation, in the attempt to understand any
person?
Category: Society
Comments (0)
In any semi-stable group of peers, there is almost inevitably someone who needs
to be argumentative in meetings. So the question is, are argumentative people
attracted to stable, friendly groups, or does the nature of a non-antagonistic
group transform one of its members into a spiteful person?
Category: Society
Comments (0)