RE: Crushing Kids
I'm sorry, but I see nothing wrong in 8-year old kids holding hands and exchanging gifts. Let innocence be. I think that the article's whole approach is wrong. What a way to wreck a child's life early on. This basically tells the children that girls and boys cannot be friends. It sounds to me like there's an overreaction and some dirty minds on the adults' parts. They seem to immediately leap to the conclusion that the children are about to jump into sex.
Maybe the adults, including the author of the article, should reevaluate themselves before they start talking to their kids.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Monday, April 18, 2005
Friday, April 01, 2005
On Archiving a Comment
Over at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, I wrote the following response to this:
"...like now the armies of the culture of death are going to come in and kill all the disabled people of the world. It's not like that."and decided it would be good to archive it here:
It isn't? I guess I see things differently. I look at this and see that unless something is done, the future is a very ill place. Now that the courts can be used to rid people of their adult "burdens" (after all, it's now legal to get rid of "child burdens" and has been for years) what's to stop them from classifying other groups of people as "inhuman" or undeserving of life? I don't want my "level of humanity," my Right to life (it's a right, not a privilege), decided by anyone, especially not these pro-death advocates popping up everywhere (including here). If someone today decided that I was less than human and took away my right to life, it would be murder. If someone locked me away into a closet and let me starve and die of dehydration, it would be murder. Yet, doing the same thing to a woman who's considered an invalid is "mercy." Mercy. I wonder what torture is then, to those who believe this treatment is a mercy.Will they start leading people into buildings and "allowing them to die" just because they cause "undue stress" on society? The beginning has started to happen and this mentality has spread like a plague into all reaches of society. We haven't even begun the battle. In fact, we've been sitting idly by, letting the corruption corrode at the very principles and morals upon which this country was built. I only hope that it isn't too late to stop the damage and repair the torn fabric of this society. This is a true struggle, crossing all borders. The only question that needs to be answered is this: Are you on the side of life or death?
Draw the line and let it stand. We'll see who comes out at the end.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
On the failure of humanity
I'm tired and saddened and that's all.
Where do we go from here? The sanctity of life is gone and all we are left with is nothing. At any moment we could be classified as non-human and therefore subject to termination. I can only hope that something is done to rectify the current state of affairs.
Where do we go from here? The sanctity of life is gone and all we are left with is nothing. At any moment we could be classified as non-human and therefore subject to termination. I can only hope that something is done to rectify the current state of affairs.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
....
I have seen Soylent Green and have no wish to live in that world.
(read the whole thing and make note of the section on social security)
(read the whole thing and make note of the section on social security)
Monday, March 21, 2005
On Advancement of Technology
Is this not just so awesome and frightening at the same time?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2005/03/20/2003247076
On the one hand, I'm all for new uses of technology involving the body. This could lead to (I'm hoping) personal computers that are more along the lines of what I've been dreaming about for ten years. On the other hand, using the body for technology seems a little frightening. I mean, what next, Doctors Frankenstein?
Personally, the excitement outweighs the fear right now.
Though, it is not expressed in the article how one controls the flow of information. What if you want to shake hands, but not share information? Do both people have to have similar devices on their persons to share information? Could this be used for some sort of personal touch based telepathy?
The possibilites boggle and inspire!
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2005/03/20/2003247076
On the one hand, I'm all for new uses of technology involving the body. This could lead to (I'm hoping) personal computers that are more along the lines of what I've been dreaming about for ten years. On the other hand, using the body for technology seems a little frightening. I mean, what next, Doctors Frankenstein?
Personally, the excitement outweighs the fear right now.
Though, it is not expressed in the article how one controls the flow of information. What if you want to shake hands, but not share information? Do both people have to have similar devices on their persons to share information? Could this be used for some sort of personal touch based telepathy?
The possibilites boggle and inspire!
On .... the downfall of morality
The Schiavo case is coming to a point now and thus is sparking much more attention from the media. Personally, I have been following this story for about five years now. It seems to me that the people who wish to help the husband legally commit murder are missing the whole point. From what I have gathered, there is a preponderance of evidence that suggests at the very least, a need for the case to reviewed by a different judge (how about one who is not so greatly slanted towards the will of the husband?). This, in my mind, is not about religion, and should not be about political beliefs. However, it seems that the media and Democrats are pushing the issue into a political divide.
So here's my thought: If they want to divide the country, they couldn't pick a better issue to show their beliefs. Since no one seems to take notice of the children murdered by these people (yes, I said "murdered" - don't get me started on abortion. I'm all for choice - let the children choose their own fates.), I thought that maybe, just maybe, they would take notice of a grown woman's plight. However, these people instead unveil their true purpose: murder. There is no sanctity (oh, no! A religious term!) of life for these people. Ever since I heard of this case I have wanted to write a living will. My parents visited a lawyer the other day and discussed living wills - the lawyer basically told my mother that she would feel nothing if they removed the feeding tube. What would he know? It seems like he was just spouting the nonsense that the media is feeding the general population.
From personal experience, I know what it's like to starve and go without fluids for several days (most I could stand was three days surviving on just a little bread and sips of water). It is not pleasant and I cannot imagine anyone going through that for two weeks. Sure, you might slip into a coma eventually, after your body has suffered through more pain than it can bear. The again, don't just believe me. There's a woman who managed to live through the horrifying experience of having her feeding tube removed. This woman was in a worse state than Schiavo, dependent on a ventilator, not just the feeding tube. (http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/013318.html)
One thing that I find so hard to believe is the common statement that she (Schiavo) must be suffering in her current state, so it would be a mercy to kill her. What a callous statement. Does that mean that all who suffer should be killed? Apparently so. Look at the parents who use pre-birth screening tests to determine if a child will be born with defects. If a child has defects, some potentially life-threatening, these parents, usually on advice of their physician, will strike first, killing without giving the child a chance to survive.
I find it hard to reconcile my own thoughts with those who would support the legalization of murder.
Here's a good site (liberals, no less..):
http://liberalsforterri.blogspot.com/
So here's my thought: If they want to divide the country, they couldn't pick a better issue to show their beliefs. Since no one seems to take notice of the children murdered by these people (yes, I said "murdered" - don't get me started on abortion. I'm all for choice - let the children choose their own fates.), I thought that maybe, just maybe, they would take notice of a grown woman's plight. However, these people instead unveil their true purpose: murder. There is no sanctity (oh, no! A religious term!) of life for these people. Ever since I heard of this case I have wanted to write a living will. My parents visited a lawyer the other day and discussed living wills - the lawyer basically told my mother that she would feel nothing if they removed the feeding tube. What would he know? It seems like he was just spouting the nonsense that the media is feeding the general population.
From personal experience, I know what it's like to starve and go without fluids for several days (most I could stand was three days surviving on just a little bread and sips of water). It is not pleasant and I cannot imagine anyone going through that for two weeks. Sure, you might slip into a coma eventually, after your body has suffered through more pain than it can bear. The again, don't just believe me. There's a woman who managed to live through the horrifying experience of having her feeding tube removed. This woman was in a worse state than Schiavo, dependent on a ventilator, not just the feeding tube. (http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/013318.html)
One thing that I find so hard to believe is the common statement that she (Schiavo) must be suffering in her current state, so it would be a mercy to kill her. What a callous statement. Does that mean that all who suffer should be killed? Apparently so. Look at the parents who use pre-birth screening tests to determine if a child will be born with defects. If a child has defects, some potentially life-threatening, these parents, usually on advice of their physician, will strike first, killing without giving the child a chance to survive.
I find it hard to reconcile my own thoughts with those who would support the legalization of murder.
Here's a good site (liberals, no less..):
http://liberalsforterri.blogspot.com/
Thursday, March 17, 2005
On Heinlein's Job: A Comedy of Justice
Last night, I finished "Job: A Comedy of Justice" by Robert Heinlein. It started off well, but then it went to pieces. The problem is, whereas I think that Heinlein was trying to spark some kind of intellectual debate on spirituality, he failed by jumbling everything together. I wonder why "Starship Troopers" was considered controversial, but "Job" was not. Heinlein basically states that G-d is petty and cruel whereas Satan/Lucifer is kind and rather likeable - an argument I've heard before, old hat. Towards the end, everything falls apart, losing any sense. At one point, I couldn't decipher who was talking to whom. Never have I read a book that made it so futile to read, that made me feel so empty after finishing it. It seems to me that Heinlein was trying to get faith straight in his mind, but didn't suceed. Sure, I thought a bit after reading the book, but nothing came of it.
I'm more annoyed than anything, having wasted my time reading this book. Usually, I like confusing writings because they spark some kind of need to untangle the goings on, but "Job" was just confusion with little purpose. Or is it that I resist the purpose to the point of being unable to accept the author's argument (accept, not agree). I don't know; I'm confused, muddled, and thouroughly annoyed at Heinlein. I will, however, have some faith and try to read another of his books in the future in hopes of finding another gem like "Starship Troopers" or "The Door into Summer".
I'm more annoyed than anything, having wasted my time reading this book. Usually, I like confusing writings because they spark some kind of need to untangle the goings on, but "Job" was just confusion with little purpose. Or is it that I resist the purpose to the point of being unable to accept the author's argument (accept, not agree). I don't know; I'm confused, muddled, and thouroughly annoyed at Heinlein. I will, however, have some faith and try to read another of his books in the future in hopes of finding another gem like "Starship Troopers" or "The Door into Summer".
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
No words...
Can truly describe my love for Robert A. Heinlein's writing. The first book I read by RAH was "The Door into Summer" closely followed by "The Puppet Masters." I haven't had a chance to read all of his books yet, but I've amassed a small collection during my short life. One RAH novel that I've always wanted to read (for about ten years now, I think) but never got a chance to is "Starship Troopers." Now, I know there was a movie and an animated series with the same name, but they weren't strictly "Starship Troopers" material. Based on, yes, but not that exact story. (Like in the animated series and the movie (I think... I've only seen bits), there were women in combat alonside the men. I don't think there were women in the MI in the book). I'm getting ahead of myself. I finally got to read "Starship Troopers." It seems impossible to describe just how much this book grabbed me. The story, though short, is filled with more lessons than a year in school. My thought is that this book should be required reading for all children, the younger the better. Bedtime story time should be all about this book.
I have never had greater pride and honour for a character. To me, Heinlein captured the essence of what it means to be a citizen. This story was not really an action adventure novel, but a look at philosophy and the nature of being human, of being a part of a society.
I have never had greater pride and honour for a character. To me, Heinlein captured the essence of what it means to be a citizen. This story was not really an action adventure novel, but a look at philosophy and the nature of being human, of being a part of a society.
Monday, March 07, 2005
On Books
I finally made it to the bookstore. I was only able to get three novels and two manga (obligatory, since I'm collecting the two series that I bought installments from). The novels I bought were: Neil Gaiman's Stardust, Heinlein's Job, and Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Each is a book I've been wanting to read for a long time, if not years. Heinlein's Job has been haunting me ever since I read umm... one of Heinlein's books and saw the ad for Job. That must have been about ten years ago. Starship Troopers always looked interesting, but I never wanted to read it until I saw some discussion on it recently. Of course, being a Gaiman fan since I was about nine, when I read the snippet of Stardust in the back of Smoke and Mirrors (or was it American Gods?), I had to get the book. It's been at least a year since then and I finally got the book. Really, I was looking for Coraline, which I'd picked up back when it was still a hardcover. However, since I think it's been moved to the children's section (on the second floor of the store), I decided to pick up the only Gaiman book on the shelf that I hadn't read. (My first brush with Gaiman's novels was either Neverwhere or Good Omens... most likely it was Good Omens. I don't know, my memory timeline is a bit rusty. Of course, when I found out that Gaiman was also the author of my beloved Sandman series (without which I would not be reading comics/manga/manwha today), I was doubly excited. Neverwhere is still one of my favorite reads and I must confess to owning the miniseries on dvd (and think it quite dull, actually).
Anyway, so I read, no, I devoured Stardust first. Finished at about one or two in the morning, having started at about ten or eleven at night. Wonderfully done, with a great ending. It's a shame there wasn't more and it's a shame that I had basically outlined the entire book in my head during the first section. Is it that Gaiman's predictable or that I'm just good at figuring out what's going to happen?
So, next up is one of the Heinleins. I haven't quite figured which one to read yet. Depends on what my mood is tonight. Of course, if I don't finish it tonight, I won't finish it tomorrow. The reason being that tomorrow I should receive a wonderful little piece of technology and if that is the case, all of my attention will be on that for a while.
While I was at the bookstore, I browsed the Stephen Kings and the William Gibsons. I saw books from each that I wanted to get. Almost bought The Tommyknockers, but due to limiting my budget (still need to save some money for Best Buy), I had to put it down. There was a wonderful book on King's universe, but it was too much and I decided that I'd rather read his entire library and try to figure it all out first. On the Gibson side, the collection was quite lacking and there were only two books that I had not read. However, they were in the format I most detest, that of paperback that is taller than normal paperbacks. Of course, they charge twice as much for these paperbacks. Last time I ordered a book from King's Dark Tower series (The Drawing of the Three) from Amazon.com, I ordered in paperback and got one of those tall ones with illustrations. It didn't help that the illustrations were some of the ugliest I'd ever seen. That and the font was larger and took up more space on the page. I like my books unblemished. However, the last three of the series I received in Hardcover as a gift and I love them to death, so I'll buy the books I have in paperback in Hardcover, just so they display better. Normally, I like books that are easy to carry around.
So, I didn't get any Gibson or King, even though I wanted to. In all my browsing, I completely forgot that one of my goals was to buy some Nero Wolfe and Poirot. I suppose that this means a special trip out to the mystery book shop out past the mall.
Well, I certaintly feel more alive now that I've gotten some books.
Anyway, so I read, no, I devoured Stardust first. Finished at about one or two in the morning, having started at about ten or eleven at night. Wonderfully done, with a great ending. It's a shame there wasn't more and it's a shame that I had basically outlined the entire book in my head during the first section. Is it that Gaiman's predictable or that I'm just good at figuring out what's going to happen?
So, next up is one of the Heinleins. I haven't quite figured which one to read yet. Depends on what my mood is tonight. Of course, if I don't finish it tonight, I won't finish it tomorrow. The reason being that tomorrow I should receive a wonderful little piece of technology and if that is the case, all of my attention will be on that for a while.
While I was at the bookstore, I browsed the Stephen Kings and the William Gibsons. I saw books from each that I wanted to get. Almost bought The Tommyknockers, but due to limiting my budget (still need to save some money for Best Buy), I had to put it down. There was a wonderful book on King's universe, but it was too much and I decided that I'd rather read his entire library and try to figure it all out first. On the Gibson side, the collection was quite lacking and there were only two books that I had not read. However, they were in the format I most detest, that of paperback that is taller than normal paperbacks. Of course, they charge twice as much for these paperbacks. Last time I ordered a book from King's Dark Tower series (The Drawing of the Three) from Amazon.com, I ordered in paperback and got one of those tall ones with illustrations. It didn't help that the illustrations were some of the ugliest I'd ever seen. That and the font was larger and took up more space on the page. I like my books unblemished. However, the last three of the series I received in Hardcover as a gift and I love them to death, so I'll buy the books I have in paperback in Hardcover, just so they display better. Normally, I like books that are easy to carry around.
So, I didn't get any Gibson or King, even though I wanted to. In all my browsing, I completely forgot that one of my goals was to buy some Nero Wolfe and Poirot. I suppose that this means a special trip out to the mystery book shop out past the mall.
Well, I certaintly feel more alive now that I've gotten some books.
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
On Books and reading
I haven't had a chance lately to go to the bookstore. Honestly, I don't know how I've survived two months without a fresh book of some sort (well... the online comics help a little bit). Soon, probably after I visit the bank, I'll finally make it down to the store. Is it possible to be so excited at the prospect of reading a new book? I'm already planning what I'll get: Maybe a Stephen King, a Heinlein, possibly try out a Harry Turtledove... who knows. That's in addition to my manwha, manga, and graphic novels that I plan on perusing. Life is lonely without some books by your side. I've learned that the hard way. It's tough enough that I abstained from spending money for a little over two months so I could save up for a Big Thing. I find it funny, though, that I am more excited over the prospect of some new books than over the Big Thing that I sent off for on last Friday. Of course, now I have to decide if I should wait an extra week or what so I can afford both books and dvds. When I ponder these decisions, I am quickly brought back to the fact that soon I will not be able to afford these luxuries, especially once I have to pay rent.
Sometimes, you look down life's path and begin to feel a little depressed. It's likely that this is why I would am very obsessive compulsive about my saving habits. I want to develop a mad money fund, a savings fund, and a bill fund - if only in my head. Soon, I will find a program akin to Quickbooks and get this all sorted out.
It seems unfair that a young person like me has to deal with these issues, but at the same time, I relish it.
Sometimes, you look down life's path and begin to feel a little depressed. It's likely that this is why I would am very obsessive compulsive about my saving habits. I want to develop a mad money fund, a savings fund, and a bill fund - if only in my head. Soon, I will find a program akin to Quickbooks and get this all sorted out.
It seems unfair that a young person like me has to deal with these issues, but at the same time, I relish it.
Monday, February 21, 2005
On The meaning of angst... and Movie Reviews
I don't understand how I'm supposed to survive a whole week without my Joe Ohio!
Oh, the cruel fate wrought upon the faithful readers... woe, woe is me!
Ahem. Ok, I'm done.
----------------------------------
Last night I went to the theater to see Hitch. It took great effort to find something worth seeing and luckily Hitch ended up the final choice.
In this day and age of Hollywood, it is very difficult to find a good comedy that is not geared towards the children, or... made by Pixar. The last comedy that I saw in the theater was Meet the Fockers, a piece of incompetant drivel if I ever saw one (can you tell I was dissapointed?). That movie was so crude I spent most of my time laughing in embarrassment, for myself (for going to see the film) and for the actors in the film (do they really enjoy this work?). It seems to me that most modern day (adult) comedies (and/or movies in general) are all about one thing. Say it with me now, "sex." When was the last time you saw a movie (specifically about dating) that didn't have a sex scene? Along the same line, when was the last time you saw a comedy that wasn't overflowing with crude jokes about sex and bodily functions?
Well, Hitch was just what the doctor prescribed. Hold on. Let me think... Nope. I don't recall a single sex scene in the entire movie. Oh, rejoice, for I actually enjoyed a comedy in the year 2005! Not once did I feel embarrassed or uncomfortable. Not once did I wish I could leave the theater and wash my eyes with lye. Here, we have a slightly complicated story about a man who helps other men with wooing the women of their dreams. The purpose is not to deceive but to be true to yourself. Hitchens, the "date doctor," does not provide his services to men whose only purpose is to sleep with a woman. He must see that love exists, only then will he help his clients catch the notice of their loved ones. What a refreshing thought. Here is a man who only providees his clients with a boosted morale and an opportunity.
Naturally, I have some strong opinons on how the film worked out in the end. (Oh, hollywood, if only you would hire me to proofread and edit your films!) Number 1: The emphasis was not strong enough on the message - Hitch only provided his clients with the tools they needed. He never once helped his clients in deceiving their loved ones. When it came down to it, the film stopped short of really supporting its moral message. If you weren't too dense, you'd get that the movie was about Love, not sex (as is more common nowadays). At the mention of being used to get a girl into a man's bed, Hitch balks, showing his disgust at the thought of such a morally deprived purpose. Still, when the explanations come at the end, there lacks an emphasis on this concept of "being who you are." Sure, it works out and is even emphasized for one of the clients, but... there are loose ends.
Overall, I was very satisfied with the movie. I just can't help but feel like it was held back in some way. It would be that much greater, if only I could figure out what it was missing. Maybe it was the suprise that Hitch gets when he learns that his method actually works... wait... what?
Now, I am confused.
Oh, the cruel fate wrought upon the faithful readers... woe, woe is me!
Ahem. Ok, I'm done.
----------------------------------
Last night I went to the theater to see Hitch. It took great effort to find something worth seeing and luckily Hitch ended up the final choice.
In this day and age of Hollywood, it is very difficult to find a good comedy that is not geared towards the children, or... made by Pixar. The last comedy that I saw in the theater was Meet the Fockers, a piece of incompetant drivel if I ever saw one (can you tell I was dissapointed?). That movie was so crude I spent most of my time laughing in embarrassment, for myself (for going to see the film) and for the actors in the film (do they really enjoy this work?). It seems to me that most modern day (adult) comedies (and/or movies in general) are all about one thing. Say it with me now, "sex." When was the last time you saw a movie (specifically about dating) that didn't have a sex scene? Along the same line, when was the last time you saw a comedy that wasn't overflowing with crude jokes about sex and bodily functions?
Well, Hitch was just what the doctor prescribed. Hold on. Let me think... Nope. I don't recall a single sex scene in the entire movie. Oh, rejoice, for I actually enjoyed a comedy in the year 2005! Not once did I feel embarrassed or uncomfortable. Not once did I wish I could leave the theater and wash my eyes with lye. Here, we have a slightly complicated story about a man who helps other men with wooing the women of their dreams. The purpose is not to deceive but to be true to yourself. Hitchens, the "date doctor," does not provide his services to men whose only purpose is to sleep with a woman. He must see that love exists, only then will he help his clients catch the notice of their loved ones. What a refreshing thought. Here is a man who only providees his clients with a boosted morale and an opportunity.
Naturally, I have some strong opinons on how the film worked out in the end. (Oh, hollywood, if only you would hire me to proofread and edit your films!) Number 1: The emphasis was not strong enough on the message - Hitch only provided his clients with the tools they needed. He never once helped his clients in deceiving their loved ones. When it came down to it, the film stopped short of really supporting its moral message. If you weren't too dense, you'd get that the movie was about Love, not sex (as is more common nowadays). At the mention of being used to get a girl into a man's bed, Hitch balks, showing his disgust at the thought of such a morally deprived purpose. Still, when the explanations come at the end, there lacks an emphasis on this concept of "being who you are." Sure, it works out and is even emphasized for one of the clients, but... there are loose ends.
Overall, I was very satisfied with the movie. I just can't help but feel like it was held back in some way. It would be that much greater, if only I could figure out what it was missing. Maybe it was the suprise that Hitch gets when he learns that his method actually works... wait... what?
Now, I am confused.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
On Blogging and Peggy Noonan
Short post via Little Green Footballs
I wish I could register to the site if only to make this comment:
Somebody finally gets the concept of what my mother would call "Weapons of Mass Function."
Rock on, bloggers.
I wish I could register to the site if only to make this comment:
Somebody finally gets the concept of what my mother would call "Weapons of Mass Function."
Rock on, bloggers.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Friday, February 11, 2005
On the change over at TongueTied
Not every change is bad, but in my opinion, the change over at Tonguetied.us is not exactly good. When the news came that the site was looking for a few good people, I had hoped that it would continue on as before. However, now it looks like the site has been hijacked as a group blog and not as a retainer of the ridiculous. Unless, that is, you want to regard the new people as ridiculous. Now, instead of just snippets of news stories and not a whole lot of opinion, readers are subjected to long political rants and no news stories. Where are my news stories?!
I used to like TongueTied as it pointed out ridiculous PC issues around the country and sometimes the world (again, with a minimum of opinion). It seemed that the only purpose was to bring to light just how close-minded and easily offended people have become. Not anymore. There is a new group of people and instead of offering up tidbits of the ridiculous, they subject the readers to political statements. I'm sorry, but I go to other websites for politics. Also, what the hell are these people trying to say? I cannot tell what issues they're trying to bring up.
At this time, I'm keeping the link to TongueTied on the list, but if this change continues on its present course, I will take it out and not look back.
I used to like TongueTied as it pointed out ridiculous PC issues around the country and sometimes the world (again, with a minimum of opinion). It seemed that the only purpose was to bring to light just how close-minded and easily offended people have become. Not anymore. There is a new group of people and instead of offering up tidbits of the ridiculous, they subject the readers to political statements. I'm sorry, but I go to other websites for politics. Also, what the hell are these people trying to say? I cannot tell what issues they're trying to bring up.
At this time, I'm keeping the link to TongueTied on the list, but if this change continues on its present course, I will take it out and not look back.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
On Freedom of Speech
You can find at this address Eugene Volokh's small (and then larger) discussion on Freedom of Speech. What I find interesting is the professor in question's statement:
Wow. Someone actually gets it. (more on this)
Now, I support his right not to be censored. In fact, I think that it is someone's right to express their opinions and a professor's door is his place to do so (not that I approve of doing that, as I would love to see a line placed between political and educational means, but that would be a personally enforced decision, not controlled by law). Let's get this clear, I am by no means a law student. I just want to understand these things, for myself and for any future generations (in case anyone asks questions...). A good overview of the law related to this is here. If you follow all of the Volokh links, you will find your knowledge enriched as a result.
Anyway, back to the quote. Here is someone that represents almost all of my professors from college, a liberal, who actually gets to be on the other side of the fence. I wonder if he would have the same view if another professor was getting the same treatment for putting conservative views up (for example: Pro-Life statements, Pro-Bush statements, etc...). Then again, when is it that you would actually find a conservative professor on campus actually willing to post material outside his or her door? Really, I am truely curious on this issue. In my four years on campus, I cannot remember ever walking past a professor's door and seeing a conservative statement. I also wonder if the veteran in this particular case was just tired of seeing negative statements all across campus and finally took issue with this particular door. It's a big, open hole of information.
All I can say is... finally, someone in academia on the other side gets the feeling of being censored for their political views.
On a sidenote: Whereas this brings up all sorts of topics, one thing I feel I should express is this: I have no opposition to being exposed to dissenting views. In fact, that is really the only way to learn. However, I do object to being subjected to only one side of an argument and having my own right to express an opinion be supressed. That was the gist of my own college experience: agree or be silenced. Yes, at one point during my freshman year, I was told to shut up by a professor. Throughout my stay at the university, I was subjected to classes that were taken over by radical professors who refused to teach the subject matter and instead ranted on their own personal topics (usually on politics, national and educational). To be turned upon and attacked just because you think you drive a larger car than you actually drive (by two cylinders, thank you very much, and the actual result was still a larger car that most people in the class) is so ridiculous but at the same so frightening as a young student. This is about free sppech? What about both sides? Who is it that actually has the right to speak freely in schools (let's not get into the arena outside of schools...)?
I want to know.
"I was investigated because of my political views because someone objected to
them, and that's frightening," Stowell said. "Everyone on campus should be
concerned."
Wow. Someone actually gets it. (more on this)
Now, I support his right not to be censored. In fact, I think that it is someone's right to express their opinions and a professor's door is his place to do so (not that I approve of doing that, as I would love to see a line placed between political and educational means, but that would be a personally enforced decision, not controlled by law). Let's get this clear, I am by no means a law student. I just want to understand these things, for myself and for any future generations (in case anyone asks questions...). A good overview of the law related to this is here. If you follow all of the Volokh links, you will find your knowledge enriched as a result.
Anyway, back to the quote. Here is someone that represents almost all of my professors from college, a liberal, who actually gets to be on the other side of the fence. I wonder if he would have the same view if another professor was getting the same treatment for putting conservative views up (for example: Pro-Life statements, Pro-Bush statements, etc...). Then again, when is it that you would actually find a conservative professor on campus actually willing to post material outside his or her door? Really, I am truely curious on this issue. In my four years on campus, I cannot remember ever walking past a professor's door and seeing a conservative statement. I also wonder if the veteran in this particular case was just tired of seeing negative statements all across campus and finally took issue with this particular door. It's a big, open hole of information.
All I can say is... finally, someone in academia on the other side gets the feeling of being censored for their political views.
On a sidenote: Whereas this brings up all sorts of topics, one thing I feel I should express is this: I have no opposition to being exposed to dissenting views. In fact, that is really the only way to learn. However, I do object to being subjected to only one side of an argument and having my own right to express an opinion be supressed. That was the gist of my own college experience: agree or be silenced. Yes, at one point during my freshman year, I was told to shut up by a professor. Throughout my stay at the university, I was subjected to classes that were taken over by radical professors who refused to teach the subject matter and instead ranted on their own personal topics (usually on politics, national and educational). To be turned upon and attacked just because you think you drive a larger car than you actually drive (by two cylinders, thank you very much, and the actual result was still a larger car that most people in the class) is so ridiculous but at the same so frightening as a young student. This is about free sppech? What about both sides? Who is it that actually has the right to speak freely in schools (let's not get into the arena outside of schools...)?
I want to know.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
On new links
Someday, I hope to expand my link list. Until then, I will just add a link every once in a while.
Links such as:
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/torch
Links such as:
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/torch
Monday, February 07, 2005
On the Superbowl...
(These titles are odd, but satisfying...)
So. Last night was the Superbowl. While some people sat in the living room and watched the proceedings, I turned on my computer and jumped into my other life: World of Warcraft. I did, however, take some time to watch the opening ceremonies, the halftime show, and some commericials. The game was wholly uninteresting to myself, especially since I was not invested in either team. Getting past the introductions, I now take you into the meat of the subject.
Putting the game aside, last night was the best Superbowl I can remember. When was the last time I felt proud to watch the opening cermony (minus the ick I felt, still do, from seeing Clinton's face... nice tie, though)? That was the best... The Best rendition of the national anthem I have ever heard. There is nothing like it in the world. My heart swelled so large it seemed to be searching for escape from the confines of my ribs. Indeed, I was moved to choke back my tears, even as I just think about it as I write a day later. I thought only Air Force commericials from a couple years ago would do that to me.
Moving on.... The halftime show was great. I can say it is the best I have ever seen. Hurrah for being prudish! Paul McCartney seemed happy to be there and I could not find evidence of lip-synching (Shania Twain, you know who you are!), even though I did look. Of course, the best part was "Live and Let Die," but then again, I've always been fond of Bond and that theme in particular. The whole segement was great, though "Hey Jude" is definently one of my least favorite selections (a little too... wishy washy).
As for commercials, I was suprised to see the GoDaddy.com commercial, but at the same time I didn't think anything of it. It did seem out of place among the others. I don't remember much of the commercials, most were for cars, I think. Apparantly I missed a really great one involving a cat, spaghetti sauce, a knife, and an unfortunate circumstance. Hopefully, I'll catch it sometime.
All in all, I can say I'm glad last year's debacle happened. Otherwise, we'd not have had such a great event this year.
UPDATE - Tuesday, February 7th, 2005:
Apparantly, the Superbowl did not go down as well with other people:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146712,00.html
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001878.html
In a way, I am saddened. I ask, "What more do you want?"
Are people in this society so deadened that they prefer to watch oversexed performers wiggle and gyrate across the screen? Don't get me wrong, I am not a "prude" or whatever you may think I am. I just prefer something light hearted and fun as opposed to watching something so vulgar that I turn away. Last year's Superbowl halftime was almost painful too watch. In fact, I turned away from it in disgust. This year was so well done, and without the oversexed performances of old. I was hoping that this might be a turning point for culture, maybe bring back or support that little known concept of "values." ("Values? What's that mean?"... "oh, nevermind"). If you look at it one way, it seems as though the media (read: popular culture) is pushing an agenda to get rid of values and modesty. I've written about this before (See On Freedom of Religion). It just seems to me that most people wouldn't want to read a book or see a movie if they already know the ending (figure that one out... if you can). Or maybe it's the other way around.
So. Last night was the Superbowl. While some people sat in the living room and watched the proceedings, I turned on my computer and jumped into my other life: World of Warcraft. I did, however, take some time to watch the opening ceremonies, the halftime show, and some commericials. The game was wholly uninteresting to myself, especially since I was not invested in either team. Getting past the introductions, I now take you into the meat of the subject.
Putting the game aside, last night was the best Superbowl I can remember. When was the last time I felt proud to watch the opening cermony (minus the ick I felt, still do, from seeing Clinton's face... nice tie, though)? That was the best... The Best rendition of the national anthem I have ever heard. There is nothing like it in the world. My heart swelled so large it seemed to be searching for escape from the confines of my ribs. Indeed, I was moved to choke back my tears, even as I just think about it as I write a day later. I thought only Air Force commericials from a couple years ago would do that to me.
Moving on.... The halftime show was great. I can say it is the best I have ever seen. Hurrah for being prudish! Paul McCartney seemed happy to be there and I could not find evidence of lip-synching (Shania Twain, you know who you are!), even though I did look. Of course, the best part was "Live and Let Die," but then again, I've always been fond of Bond and that theme in particular. The whole segement was great, though "Hey Jude" is definently one of my least favorite selections (a little too... wishy washy).
As for commercials, I was suprised to see the GoDaddy.com commercial, but at the same time I didn't think anything of it. It did seem out of place among the others. I don't remember much of the commercials, most were for cars, I think. Apparantly I missed a really great one involving a cat, spaghetti sauce, a knife, and an unfortunate circumstance. Hopefully, I'll catch it sometime.
All in all, I can say I'm glad last year's debacle happened. Otherwise, we'd not have had such a great event this year.
UPDATE - Tuesday, February 7th, 2005:
Apparantly, the Superbowl did not go down as well with other people:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146712,00.html
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001878.html
In a way, I am saddened. I ask, "What more do you want?"
Are people in this society so deadened that they prefer to watch oversexed performers wiggle and gyrate across the screen? Don't get me wrong, I am not a "prude" or whatever you may think I am. I just prefer something light hearted and fun as opposed to watching something so vulgar that I turn away. Last year's Superbowl halftime was almost painful too watch. In fact, I turned away from it in disgust. This year was so well done, and without the oversexed performances of old. I was hoping that this might be a turning point for culture, maybe bring back or support that little known concept of "values." ("Values? What's that mean?"... "oh, nevermind"). If you look at it one way, it seems as though the media (read: popular culture) is pushing an agenda to get rid of values and modesty. I've written about this before (See On Freedom of Religion). It just seems to me that most people wouldn't want to read a book or see a movie if they already know the ending (figure that one out... if you can). Or maybe it's the other way around.