|
|
Thursday, July 15th, 2004
| |
6:16 pm - The Nanny State
|
My conservative co-worker and I love to get in lively discussions about topics that we disagree with. Today, we actually discussed something that really irks us both. Increasingly, it seems that we live in a nanny state. Laws and rules are implemented for "our own good".
Take for instance the typical example of the fourth of July. I don't mind some regulations to reduce the danger of fire and in some areas in some years it is necessary to ban fireworks altogether because of the fire danger. But don't regulate fireworks just because they *might* be dangerous if set off by a drunk or an imbecile. If people want to blow their fingers off with a bottle rocket, LET THEM! That's part of living in a free society, the right to make poor decisions and take "unreasonable" (to some people) risks.
Tobacco falls under the same category. Ban indoor smoking if you must (although Irish pubs will never be the same). In Britain, there has been talk of outlawing tobacco altogether. This is completely ridiculous. People have the right to make a choice about what they ingest. What's next, twinkies? Thankfully, it hasn't got this far in the U.S. (thank you rich, white, conservative tobacco farmers).
The British government also had to issue an official opinion on homemade jams. It seems that new EU laws about food put homemade bakesales in a legal grey area. The government actually had to tell the country that bakesales were still ok after a local council shut one down.
Seatbelt and helmet laws are similar. Except in the case of children, people should be allowed to splatter their brains on the pavement if they wish. And if you bring up the higher premiums argument, that is a problem with how our insurance industry is structured.
In other news, I will be going to the Democratic office grand opening on Saturday. Several of the candidates will be there and in a red county like this every person counts. The problem: the candidates aren't radical enough for my tastes....
current mood: political
|
|
(5 comments | comment on this)
|
| Monday, July 12th, 2004
| |
4:27 pm - Note for Rainluong
|
I apologize for missing your calls! I haven't had my phone with me either time you called (although I almost made it the second time and I don't have your number either. If you try again and I don't answer, leave your number and I'll get back to you. Hope things are going well!
current mood: out of touch
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| |
3:59 pm - Christopher Hitchens
|
I ran into a friend on Saturday who is well known for his conservative bent. I mentioned F 9/11 and asked him if he was going to see it. He sputtered for a while before saying that he had read a review by a writer for The Nation that totally panned it and if a liberal publication accused the film of falsehoods he certainly didn't need to see it. This confused me as I had read the review from The Nation and it seemed to be quite positive. I did a little more digging and found out that the columnist my friend was referring to was Christopher Hitchens. At the time, I vaguely recalled that Hitchens was a former liberal who had gone insane and started supporting the right but I wasn't sure about the details. So I did a bit more research and found a great article by a former student of Hitchens.
http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1179/article11370.asp
It seems to me that Hitchens has bought into the idea of a dramatic showdown between the forces of Enlightened Western society and the rest of the world. He does make some good points about the Islamic world needing to learn moderation, but his transformation has gone farther. Not only is it up to us to enlighten them, but it must be done through force and at any cost to our domestic situation.
Things started going downhill for Hitchens during the Clinton years. Accustomed to being a gadfly, Hitchens attacked Clinton mercilessly, and apparently got caught up in his own venom. 9/11 was the final nail in the coffin and since then Hitchens has been seen in the company of Ann Coulter and other neo-cons.
I think we should call this "Dennis Miller Syndrome".....
current mood:  pensive
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, December 23rd, 2003
| |
3:00 pm - A New Reason to Go Veggie
|
In news that will only interest the carnivores among us, there has been a case of mad cow disease found right here in Washington State (near Yakima, in fact). This will be the first case recorded in the U.S..
I knew there was a reason I prefer chicken....
current mood:  scared
|
|
(9 comments | comment on this)
|
| |
12:20 pm - Even Canadians Make Mistakes
|
The high court of Canada has ruled today that it is constitutional to impose jail time on those that possess small amounts of cannabis. The ruling was 6-3.
The petitioners argued that cannabis has been shown to have virtually no health effects. The government argued that there exists no fundamental right to possess cannabis.
Regardless, Martin last week agreed to revive the failed bill of the previous PM to decriminalize possession of small amounts of cannabis. Right now, the bill states that an amount of cannabis equal to about 15-20 cigarettes would be decriminalized. The more conservative Martin wants to lower that amount. The penalty will be similar to a traffic ticket and will be between 100-400 Canadian dollars.
Keep in mind that several American states have already instituted fairly light penalties. California, for instance, imposes a fine of $100. Of course, this comes with a criminal record which still makes the Canadian proposal better.
If this bill is going to pass, it will happen before the end of the Spring term.
It frustrates me that almost 30 years after cannabis was finally recognized to present almost no threat to society that we seem stuck at this juncture. How long must society wait for justice?
http://www.canada.com/national/story.asp?id=B01E5741-2952-42F0-9C67-3BD805358D3C
current mood:  annoyed
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Monday, December 22nd, 2003
| |
10:28 am - Canada Here I Come
|
I'm so sick of this country. Every day there seems to be a new reason to hop on the first bus out of here.
Today, our little dose of middle-America conservatism comes from CBS News (itself a quite conservative news outlet).
Recently, they conducted a poll regarding American's attitudes toward homosexuals. Regardless of the fact that non-homosexuals should have very little to say about homosexuals, the vast majority of people in the US think that their opinions on the topic carry weight.
Some of the best bits:
Overall, attitudes toward homosexuals have soured considerably since summer. Presumably, this is because of the recent legal gains made by the gay community. What I can't understand is that if you support gay marriage, why would you all of the sudden oppose it when it looks to become more likely? It appears that some people like the idea of equal rights, but not the actual application.
Now 61% oppose gay marriage, up from 55% in July.
Perhaps in the most scary development, more than half now support a constitutional amendment to eliminate the right for gays to marry. This will definitely be noted by Congress and state legislatures. It would not surprise me to see movement on the amendment before the November election.
Demonstrating that Americans lack even a fundamental understanding of logic, while only 41% of Americans believe homosexual relations should be legal (the rest want police back in the bedroom, why not, they're everywhere else), only 49% believe that it is morally wrong. This means that some people who don't care about the morality of homosexuality still want it to be illegal! WHY?
Someone please tell me why it is anybody's business who gets married and who screws who? I still have yet to get a reasonable answer, but reason seems in short supply these days.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/19/opinion/polls/main589551.shtml
current mood:  depressed
|
|
(5 comments | comment on this)
|
| Thursday, December 18th, 2003
| |
11:50 am - The Weekly Standard
|
The Weekly Standard is a conservative rag that touts itself as the most influential periodical in the White House. That is more than enough reason to detest it, but I've found yet another.
Their reviewer panned Return of the King. Of course, I completely disagree. I was a little disappointed with the Two Towers (although it still ranks as one of the best films of all time) and went into the theatre with a bit of trepidation on this one. But I had no reason to worry.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/opinion/main589045.shtml
The film was a worthy end to the series. While the story is heavily modified in terms of details from the book, the spirit is alive and well.
The Weekly Standard Review included several points that I disagree with. He states that the battle scene is cold and impersonal. Well, yes, but I think the battle scenes throughout the films build in scale to emphasize the enormity of the struggle. The whole fate of Middle Earth could not be decided by four fighters battling against a handful of Orcs.
He also felt that the dialogue and directing were stilted. I simply didn't see any evidence of this. In fact, I think both Aragorn and Gandalf were much stronger characters in this film than in Two Towers.
But two points made by the reviewer originated from his conservative bent.
He complained about the drug references on the part of the hobbits, saying that it bordered on the offensive. First off, this was mere seconds of a three and a half hour movie. Secondly, hobbits strike me as exactly the type to enjoy the effects of a drug that inspires happiness, peacefulness, and contentment (as far as I can tell, the Partnership for a Drug Free Shire doesn't exist). Finally, hobbits consume massive amounts of alcohol and of course this doesn't even raise an eyebrow on our Puritan reviewer.
As an aside, in the books, pipeweed is explicitly identified as tobacco. I appreciate that Jackson had the guts to make the plant a little more ambiguous.
The reviewer also had a problem with the "homoeroticism" present in the last film. Apparently, a stiff handshake is all that is needed between Sam and Frodo after they experience a life-shattering journey and are separating forever. First, their relationship has nothing to do with homosexuality. Men these days are so homophobic that any physical contact between two males that doesn't involve fists threatens them. Tolkien lived through the first world war, a disgusting affair which pushed people past their limits. Friendships were intense and extremely important. Also, in those days, homophobia was not nearly as rampant as it is today (homosexuals were not accepted, but they were so hidden that causal affection between men didn't even conjure up those thoughts. I've seen many pictures of soldiers from that time period holding hands and hugging.) After all, Sam marries Rosie at the end. Frankly, its about time that the public accepts that heterosexual men can have close friendships.
Secondly, even if there are homosexual undertones (which there are not, read your history you slashers), I care not one wit, and neither should anyone else. It's bad enough that these people try to cram their sexual preferences down Americans throats. Leave hobbits (a completely different species that only exists in literature, for gods sakes) alone! I wonder if the Shire allows gay marriage?
|
|
(4 comments | comment on this)
|
| |
10:41 am - Jobless Rate
|
I've been having a discussion with a friend on whether it is likely that Bush will win the next election. I believe that it is quite probable that he will win, somewhere in the range of a 80-85% chance. He doesn't think the odds are that bad. I think he's charmingly optimistic.
The reasons Bush will probably win:
1. Regardless of the lack of practical significance, the capture of Saddam has already boosted Bush's numbers by over 20 points. Granted, this is only temporary, and the whole Iraq thing can go south at any time. But over 66% of Americans have indicated that capturing Saddam was a primary measure of success in Iraq.
2. As Dick Meyers puts it: Demo-cannibalism. While hopefully this won't have an effect after the nomination, the simple truth is that Democratic in-fighting has severely weakened the party.
3. Of course, the most important factor will be the economy. No matter what else is going on, voters generally make their decision based on economics. Until now, Bush has been a dismal failure. Of course, he continues to be a dismal failure, but the economy functions on a cycle that is largely independent of presidential actions. Just as Clinton was not primarily responsible for the boom of the nineties, Bush is not primarily responsible for this recovery (or, unfortunately, the recession that preceded it). We must face the fact that the economy is now obviously in a recovery stage. We had 8.2% growth last quarter, the greatest since 1984. As my friend points out, this won't matter unless jobs are created. Thus, this article from CNN:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/18/news/economy/jobless/index.htm?cnn=yes
Can the economy falter? Yes. Could Iraq turn into a quagmire? Yes. Could Bush be visited by three ghosts and turn into a progressive fire-brand? Unlikely but we can hope. But right now, right here, Bush seems like he's here to stay.
So what does this mean? Do we give up? Do we close ourselves in our homes and ignore the horrific realities of outside world?
No, in fact, it means we should struggle even harder. In Japanese culture, the most revered heroes are those that continued the struggle even when all hope was gone. It was in their willingness to accept sacrifice for a cause that they believed in but was impossible to attain that they found honor and dignity.
The Enemy seems undefeatable. There is not much hope, perhaps only a fools hope. But sometimes that is enough...
current mood:  hopeful
current music: Computer Whirring (But Fellowship theme in my head)
|
|
(10 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, December 14th, 2003
| |
2:55 am - Just Because I Want to Beat CBS NEWS to the Headline....
|
Saddam Hussein has theoretically been captured. This news story from the BBC fills in the few details available at this hour. In about an hour, there will be a news conference to confirm this, but I think I'll be in bed by then....
Needless to say, while I'm glad he's been caught, I'm sure the Administration will milk this for all its worth...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3317429.stm
current mood: cynical
current music: Frasier
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, December 9th, 2003
| |
11:39 pm - Here's A Question...
|
I actually don't have an answer to this one, I haven't ever read a good explanation.
Why did the prohibition of alcohol require a constitutional amendment?
After all, other substances have simply been outlawed by standard federal and state laws. And before national prohibition, alcohol was restricted by local ordinances.
I can think of two possible reasons.
Number one, it could have been a demonstration of the extent of the victory of the prohibitionists, perhaps to send a message to any fence-sitters.
Alternatively, it might have been felt at the time that the federal government could not legislate on this issue because it more properly lied in the states sphere to do so (which is obviously the case from a very strict constitutionalist view). Therefore, it required an amendment.
Any thoughts?
current mood:  lazy
current music: The Sopranos
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| |
11:01 pm - SF Politics
|
Yeah, yeah I haven't been on in a long time. I'll try to be better, yada yada. Seriously, I've missed LJ a little so I'll make a more concerted effort.
Today we have an article from the SF Chronicle announcing a winner for the mayorship. What makes me love SF is that its a two party system, but the two parties are the Democrats and the Greens. Unfortunately, the Democrat won (he looks like an underwear model, which could have something to do with his victory). Virtually all state and national level Democrats supported him, which is not surprising. But this really shows the danger of party politics. The better candidate was rejected not because of his beliefs but because of his party affiliation. Pragmatism such as this is important sometimes, the 2000 election proved that. But it should be balanced with idealism as well. If SF had elected a Green mayor, it really wouldn't affect other statewide or national elections. Progressive Democrats like Pelosi should have endorsed the Green for mayor. Conversely, if the Green had been elected, he should have supported the Democratic candidate for the presidency, not just reflexively backed whoever the Green will be (hopefully not Nader. I like him, but he really screwed us over last time).
Check this out to see America's Most Sexy Mayors (brought to you by FOX):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/10/MNmayorrace.TMP
current mood: contemplative
current music: The Sopranos
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Saturday, October 4th, 2003
| |
11:42 am - I Hate this Place
|
So it's Saturday, my only day off, and despite my best efforts to do something fun, I have ended up just sitting here at home. My two friends who live here are both otherwise engaged, Homecoming is going on, which means its a zoo here in town, there are no good movies playing (except Pirates, which I've already seen), and I don't have enough money to go buy a new computer game or DVD. Maybe I'll just go back to bed....
current mood: annoyed
current music: stupid saturday TV
|
|
(5 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, October 1st, 2003
| |
11:54 pm - The Walrus on Our Laps...
|
It really bothers me that our Administration has shown such little concern over the whole North Korea situation. Yes, I know that N.K. has had a history of blustery rhetoric, but I think they feel desperate enough to lash out if pushed further. This suggests one of two things:
1. The Administration blundered when it included N.K. in the "axis of evil" (this event seemed to have a profound impact on N.K. perceptions, an impact that the Administration had not foreseen). Making their mistake, and not having a good grasp of what the correct policy toward N.K., they have gone with their instincts and have refused to negotiate, preferring political heat to fall on S. Korea and China.
2. The Administration knew exactly what it was doing. It has purposefully caused a crisis with the North to either force outsiders to impose change on the country or, more sinisterly, to facilitate armed action when N.K. takes more desperate steps.
Either way, I live in the fallout plume from both Hanford and Seattle. We need to treat N. Korea as our top priority while we still have a chance to avert nastiness. Instead, we get daily updates about a state that looks like its going to have Conan as its next governer....
What do you all think? Is N. Korea less of a threat than I state here?
current mood: anxious
current music: Deadly Silence
|
|
(5 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, September 28th, 2003
| |
6:33 pm - Hello Again
|
So here is my first post in a long while. I have no excuse, other than I am somewhat introverted and I am stressed over school. My Phd program is going......actually it depends on the day for how its going. It's extremely intense, with me reading about 12 25 page articles a week and summarizing them, working on a paper to develop a new theory with respect to virtual reality, designing an online class for the distance degree program, and trying to learn statistics! I'm spending about 10 hours a day up there during the week, and about 5 on sunday. I take Saturdays off, dammit! :)But anything worth doing should be chanllenging. Besides, I want to work at Cambridge....
Anyway, just a little note to get back in the swing of things...
current mood: pensive
current music: Madreblu by Certamente (Italian Techno)
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, July 27th, 2003
| |
11:15 pm - We Were Soldiers
|
I just finished watching the film "We Were Soldiers". It's a Mel Gibson flick about the first large battle between American soldiers and troops from North Vietnam. I watched it with fearthuinn's father, a very cool guy that served in Vietnam. Overall, my conversations with him and the movie simply made me very angry. 58,000 Americans (mostly of the poor or minority variety) died for nothing. They died for the unsound policy of "containment". In the end, nothing was accomplished. Today, over 200 Americans have died for an equally unsound foreign policy. How many Iraqis won't be coming home to their wives and mothers is unknown. And for what? Probably nothing.... I'm an agnostic, but today I hope that its all true, because I'm sure that God has reserved a special place in hell for politicians like Saddam, W, and Rove that have sent people to their pointless deaths...
current mood: angry
current music: Bruce Lee
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Wednesday, July 23rd, 2003
| |
1:26 am - Serve the Corporation
|
This is a rather unremarkable article about how the mafia organization known as the RIAA is targeting small-time music downloaders. This is not news. The interesting thing that I was unaware of is that apparently, music companies can issue their own subpoenas! They don't require the oversight of the justice system, their lawyers can simply write them up and they have the force of law! This was part of that wonderful little package of laws passed in 1998 as the DMCA. Isn't that peachy?
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/203/nation/BC_MIT_decline_to_name_students_in_music_use_case+.shtml
current mood: irritated
current music: None--The RIAA says I can't have any
|
|
(comment on this)
|
| |
1:04 am - This is...interesting
|
The Administration is getting support from a surprising person. Clinton has come out more or less on the side of the President. "You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president." Well, some more than others. Clinton goes on to say that people should move on and reiterates his support for the war, noting that large stockpiles of weapons were unaccounted for when he left office. I'm not sure what to think about this, although I'm leaning towards "covering my ass"....
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/index.html
|
|
(2 comments | comment on this)
|
| Tuesday, July 22nd, 2003
| |
2:35 pm - Uday, Qusay Dead
|
Today the U.S. military announced that Saddam's two sons were killed in Mosul. While I certainly don't lament the deaths of two men who caused great suffering in Iraq, others were hurt and killed as well during the operation. Again, using force should always be a last resort. Was it not possible for the military to seal off the compound where they were staying?
I also have mixed feelings because this will no doubt boost the position of the Administration. In reality, this event has no bearing on the questions surrounding the justification for the war. WMD have still not been found, Iraq still has no effective government or infrastructure, the cost of the war is digging us further into debt, and there are other dictators that are just as bad as Saddam around the world that are actually supported by our government (Saudi Arabia comes to mind).
But no matter, this will be seen as a vindication of the Administration. Why? Because the American people are a TV nation...sigh
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/22/sprj.irq.sons/index.html
current mood: annoyed
current music: Drinking fountain
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Monday, July 21st, 2003
| |
12:06 am - Anyone but Bush
|
Just read an article on Salon.com that is an interview of Todd Gitlin, a famous 60's era progressive. He's just written a book called "Letters to a Young Activist" a blueprint for conducting grass roots politics. Mr. Gitlin is a strong critic of Nader supporters in the 2000 election. While I have sympathy for those that voted for Nader (I supported him almost all the way to the end, and then switched to Gore in the last week), I must agree that the consequences of this experiment ended in disaster. Honestly, at the beginning it seemed like a good time to pressure the Democrats to a more progressive platform. But Gore didn't pay attention, and Bush won the Republican nomination. Mr. Gitlin also calls on progressives to learn some lessons from the opposition. Republicans are well-organized and their primary motivation is for results. They are willing to comprimise and to accept authoritarian orders because they want victories. The Republicans are not afraid of power. Sometimes progressives are, since they are always leery of authority. In short, this guy hit the nail on the head...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2003/07/19/gitlin/
current mood: thoughtful
current music: Frasier
|
|
(3 comments | comment on this)
|
| Sunday, July 20th, 2003
| |
1:09 am - "Police" State
|
The time draws near...the Republicans actually called the police on fellow Democratic Representatives. While the article comes to no conclusion on which version to believe, knowing me do you think I'd side with the GOP?;) Honestly, no one but those involved will probably ever know, but the frustration of being railroaded on the part of the Democrats is very real. The country needs to realize that a healthy opposion means a more healthy nation...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/18/house.disarray/index.html
current mood: fatalistic
current music: Commercial----Mmmm...Capitalism...
|
|
(comment on this)
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
elbaz's journal