2007-02-26
Sarah McLachlan Lyrics
I've been a mini-fan since college, but I only bought a couple of her CDs, notably Mirrorball, which is close to a best compilation, just live. Anyway, some of the lyrics are open to interpretation so it helps to have the lyrics handy. I just found out that on Sarah McLachlan's website, the discography contains links to lyrics pages. That's rather nice of her.
2007-02-11
Not Quite Mr. Fusion
On /. a few days ago, there was a bit about a mobile biorefinery that takes garbage and produces electricity. Sounds cool, but how's it for pollution?
Censorship Alive and Well at Universities
Apparently it's not acceptable to have a conservative-leaning viewpoint at some schools. City Journal has an article regarding this phenomenon. The piece is long, but worth the read.
Seems like the Right and Left in this country keep getting more and more polarized. We're heading for serious conflict, possibly civil war. This time, it's not going to be about slaves, it's going to be about freedom: whether you can say what you want without censorship, or keep weapons to keep the government in line.
Seems like the Right and Left in this country keep getting more and more polarized. We're heading for serious conflict, possibly civil war. This time, it's not going to be about slaves, it's going to be about freedom: whether you can say what you want without censorship, or keep weapons to keep the government in line.
Minute Man Gun Range
I'm going to have to go check out this range one of these days. This time of year, it's hard to go shooting at an outdoor place!
Found the link via Packing.org. They don't list SMSC among the area gun ranges. Odd.
Here's an omake link. It came up in the search for "minuteman", with a rather unfriendly quote by Ahnuld.
Found the link via Packing.org. They don't list SMSC among the area gun ranges. Odd.
Here's an omake link. It came up in the search for "minuteman", with a rather unfriendly quote by Ahnuld.
2007-02-09
Faux Weed and "Tokyo Mango"
Check out this artificial marijuana plant for sale in Japan at Nodaya Denki.
Actually, I got that from Lisa Kitayama's "Tokyo Mango" blog, linked to from Wired News. Pretty funky, but just being in Japan leads one to lots of funky stuff. Something's wrong with one who can't find junk like that over there!
Actually, I got that from Lisa Kitayama's "Tokyo Mango" blog, linked to from Wired News. Pretty funky, but just being in Japan leads one to lots of funky stuff. Something's wrong with one who can't find junk like that over there!
2007-02-08
Lately
Recently I've been blogging more political items on my link blog. That's largely because the commentary is news-driven. Sometimes I need to just jot down what I thought when I read a given article. Furthermore, on my main blog, I don't use as much profanity, whereas I don't have such restrictions on my link blog. Here, I can call it like I see it!
Sick Educators
This country's in the toilet and ready to be flushed. Or at least Massachusetts is. First read the article, then my diatribe.
People can do that stuff in private—they're free, at least to the extent people are "allowed" now. But try to shove it down my kid's thoat as normal, and I rip them a new one to play with.
What really pisses me off is that these are the kind of idiots who bitch about teaching kids about guns, but then they force their own ultra-liberal agenda on 5 year olds. Well, I suppose hypocrisy on the part of the political correct fools is to be expected. The right to bear arms is a demonstratably important freedom; further, it's in our Bill of Rights. The "right to teach kids how to be homosexual" is not.
Lest I come off as a homophobe, I do know some gay people, and have no problem with them choosing to live their lives in the way they decide—as long as the effects on others are acceptable (i.e. no torture, homicide, etc.). They can present their ideas to me, and of course I have the right to refute them. (Democracy is about open discussion, not censorship according to a politically-correct agenda.) When the ultra-left crowd starts dictating education to birth future supporters of their agenda, however, is where the shit hits the fan. The whole concept of "King and King" is just fucked up. If we have to quit using romantic fairy tales in the classroom entirely so be it: the genre is too sappy anyway!
People can do that stuff in private—they're free, at least to the extent people are "allowed" now. But try to shove it down my kid's thoat as normal, and I rip them a new one to play with.
What really pisses me off is that these are the kind of idiots who bitch about teaching kids about guns, but then they force their own ultra-liberal agenda on 5 year olds. Well, I suppose hypocrisy on the part of the political correct fools is to be expected. The right to bear arms is a demonstratably important freedom; further, it's in our Bill of Rights. The "right to teach kids how to be homosexual" is not.
Lest I come off as a homophobe, I do know some gay people, and have no problem with them choosing to live their lives in the way they decide—as long as the effects on others are acceptable (i.e. no torture, homicide, etc.). They can present their ideas to me, and of course I have the right to refute them. (Democracy is about open discussion, not censorship according to a politically-correct agenda.) When the ultra-left crowd starts dictating education to birth future supporters of their agenda, however, is where the shit hits the fan. The whole concept of "King and King" is just fucked up. If we have to quit using romantic fairy tales in the classroom entirely so be it: the genre is too sappy anyway!
2007-02-06
Who's to Blame?
CNN had a link to an article from Time regarding what should be considered rape. Out-and-out sexual assault is pretty clear: man wants woman, woman doesn't want man, man takes woman anyway. Consent on the part of the woman is central in this case. But what if the woman initially gives consent, then withdraws it during the act?
The Time article notes a case where a man and woman began sex consensually, then she asked him to stop, which he did. The article made it sound like that although the guy stopped almost immediately and did not ejaculate, he was found guilty of rape and sentenced to five years in jail. If the facts are correct, that's just wrong. Guy and girl start banging, girl says stop, guy does without blowing his load, and yet that counts as rape? Bullshit!
Obviously, true rape is a brutal mala in se crime. However, "withdrawal-of-consent rape" doesn't seem to be of the same level. A woman has the responsibility of judging who she lets in her bed. If she changes her mind partway through, then she's relying on the man to be honorable enough to stop. She did the screening, and should accept responsibility for such decisions. From a moral perspective, if a man doesn't stop, I'd say that makes him a scumbag, but not necessarily a criminal.
Of course that's discussion at a theoretical level. Saying that a woman is fully responsible is not acceptable because men could easily claim that she gave initial consent. I've read that some rapists seem to actually believe that their victims wanted the act. Plus, not punishing the man for continuing after 'stop' would accentuate the date rape problem. On the other hand, making it too easy for women to blame men after the fact, i.e. having consensual sex and then due to some later event, such as the discovery of other sexual partners, changing her story and declaring rape, is a disservice to men as well. (Promiscuity may be immoral, but it is not a crime.)
Ejaculation doesn't seem like a good criteria, either, because in the case of a "minute man", the woman might stay stop just a second too late; or in the case of a "marathon man", going against the woman's will would be a protracted assault!
The notion of a "consensual sex contract" is legally on-target, but practically absurd. Who would have sex with someone that asked for a signature first?
The bottom line is, in my opinion, that rape should only be used to describe a forced non-consensual sexual act, where the whole affair is from the start against the victim's will. If initial consent is given and later retracted, then it becomes simple assault. The former should carry much greater penalties than the latter, because the intent behind each act is very, very different. Of course either way, as with any disagreement between a couple, the issue will degenerate into a bout of he-said, she-said.
The Time article notes a case where a man and woman began sex consensually, then she asked him to stop, which he did. The article made it sound like that although the guy stopped almost immediately and did not ejaculate, he was found guilty of rape and sentenced to five years in jail. If the facts are correct, that's just wrong. Guy and girl start banging, girl says stop, guy does without blowing his load, and yet that counts as rape? Bullshit!
Obviously, true rape is a brutal mala in se crime. However, "withdrawal-of-consent rape" doesn't seem to be of the same level. A woman has the responsibility of judging who she lets in her bed. If she changes her mind partway through, then she's relying on the man to be honorable enough to stop. She did the screening, and should accept responsibility for such decisions. From a moral perspective, if a man doesn't stop, I'd say that makes him a scumbag, but not necessarily a criminal.
Of course that's discussion at a theoretical level. Saying that a woman is fully responsible is not acceptable because men could easily claim that she gave initial consent. I've read that some rapists seem to actually believe that their victims wanted the act. Plus, not punishing the man for continuing after 'stop' would accentuate the date rape problem. On the other hand, making it too easy for women to blame men after the fact, i.e. having consensual sex and then due to some later event, such as the discovery of other sexual partners, changing her story and declaring rape, is a disservice to men as well. (Promiscuity may be immoral, but it is not a crime.)
Ejaculation doesn't seem like a good criteria, either, because in the case of a "minute man", the woman might stay stop just a second too late; or in the case of a "marathon man", going against the woman's will would be a protracted assault!
The notion of a "consensual sex contract" is legally on-target, but practically absurd. Who would have sex with someone that asked for a signature first?
The bottom line is, in my opinion, that rape should only be used to describe a forced non-consensual sexual act, where the whole affair is from the start against the victim's will. If initial consent is given and later retracted, then it becomes simple assault. The former should carry much greater penalties than the latter, because the intent behind each act is very, very different. Of course either way, as with any disagreement between a couple, the issue will degenerate into a bout of he-said, she-said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)