silveradept | Finished!

No more examinations for this frame. Now, just to wait and see what appears for grades. Plus, ice cream, and packing, and relaxation, and spending a large part of my book money (I know, I shouldn't have, but manga was 4 for the price of 3...) I feel better, though, and I'll find a way of getting it all to pack. I'm not exactly lacking for storage containers here. Although I do feel a sort of inertia here, that I don't want to pack until I have to. That's bad to do, though, and so I need to get things all packed before then, if possible. Anyone have any good ideas on how to pack posters and prints and other things that I will be very cross about if they should get damaged?

Regarding the President, this is probably an old picture, but it was mentioned to me today, and so I thought it a stroke of good fate that I should have it linked. Namely would someone kindly give Bush a blowjob so that he can be impeached?

Ever wonder why "safety" improvements are met by relief with some and grumbling with others? Well, it might be that we're comfortable with a certain perceived risk level, and that depending on whether we perceive the risk to be higher or lower than our comfort level, we adjust our behavior until we have the right perceived risk.

Following up on the post about involuntary exposure to Christianity,

bradhicks produced a side-by-side comparison of two of the maps found in Mapping Religion in America as a way of determining the "baseline" of such exposure. He ntoes that church attendance, however, is not necessarily an accurate way of computing exposure, because the figures are not necessarily accurate - churches may be claiming people who don't attend or have no interest in proselytization. Even so, though, he considers it a significant number of people that believe in some of the doctrines contrary to doctrine, even after any potential adjustments for the people who attend or are claimed by a church but aren't really on the rolls.

There are some people, however, who aren't accidental about their belief exposure. The correctness of their beliefs is something left to the reader. In this particular case, I disagree vehemently with the position taken by the creators of the page No Special Rights, who make the conclusions that:

"I. The negative impact of special rights initiatives on all businesses and property owners, with a particularly negative impact on faith- based and faith-inspired businesses and property owners.

II. The negative impact of special rights initiatives on every citizen's constitutionally protected rights to freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.

III. The negative impact of the practice of homosexuality on the individuals who practice it and on the rest of the society.

The main emphasis of the group is now to respond to issues before the South Bend Common Council, to respond to the controversy at the University of Notre Dame regarding homosexual activism at several levels, and to facilitate help and ministry for those suffering from the ill effects of the homosexual lifestyle."

I would like to note that the use of the word "special rights" in this context puts me in a very foul mood and makes me inclined to use invectives involving bovine urine. Considering the currently unequal status, sometimes enforced by law, of homosexuals, I cannot view anything that gives them lawful protection from discrimination as "special rights". Unless members of certain races, sexes, creeds, national origins, veteran status, and the whole list of nondiscriminatory measures are also given "special rights" by not being discriminated against. If that's true, though, then the concept of "equal rights under law" is, and always has been, an illusion. Then, if "equality" is sought, then everything all the way through the Bill of Rights and the Constitution should be overturned.

...now that I follow that thought all the way through, I realize that is quite precisely the goal of several of the errorists that hide behind and abuse Christianity to their own purposes. They would rather have the situation that develops from I Drew This's cartoon on equality than an actual equality. (Someone may now begin a tirade about my moral relativism and how I have no Godly, and thus none at all, anchor for my ethics.)

Regarding their positions, number one could be extended to say that people should be free to employ only the people that meet their definitions, which easily opens up another accusation that they would only employ WASPs (or WASCs, or whatever) in their enterprises, and leave the others to fend for themselves. This has been done before - it did not produce a workable social situation, thus anti-discrimination laws. Not to say that's actually what will happen, but that it is conceivable such an accusation can (will? has?) be levelled against them for espousing that position.

II, were this actually something that I would define as "special rights", might actually hold some water. Except that anti-discrimination laws usually have nothing to do at all with abridging free speech. You'd want to go look at libel, slander, and hate-speech laws for that. Assembly isn't affected by it, either, really - using an extreme example, the KKK still has the right to assemble, even though most people would agree that the philosophy espoused by them is repugnant.

III requires scientific proof to be anything other than an opinion, and will be treated as such, namely, I don't believe that, and I find that so far there is an absence of evidence proving homosexuality has negative consequences on society, other than people deciding to do things like what happened to Matthew Shepard.

Anyway, I should go to bed. The hockey game isn't helping me feel fuzzy, and I'll probably do at least a little more packing tomorrow. But there may be a significant amount of the day spent in idleness, reading or playing games.