Pontificatus Silverian!
Jun. 27th, 2006 11:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptOr, we have a lot of links tonight.
Context on the Internet is important. Remembering that there is a lack of it on the Internet is also important. Someone forgot - and ended up killing a classmate because of it. That's not cool. I'm guessing, though, this will be billed as an "Oh, internet! You made my child kill someone else!" rather than "Um, child misunderstood and then acted very inappropriately."
In Republican news - Rush got caught with a bottle of blue pills and a prescription for it - the prescription's not in his name, though. Rush needs Viagra, huh? Can't get up enough natural steam that he needs help?
Close vote expected on flag-burning amendment. The Congresscritters are lobbying to make "desecration" of the flag illegal. Seems more like an election-year smokescreen stunt than anything of substance to me, but if it makes it past the Congress, there's a good chance it'll make it past the states. And this opens up an entirely new venue to cart people off with - not that any good government would, but I can just see plants who burn flags in a group just to get the group and their political ideologies off the field and in jail. Plus, this feels like a potential slippery slope about the "redress of grievances" as well as "freedom of speech" bits. Although, I joked when![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
annaonthemoon asked, "Our freedom's already gone. Now they're just cleaning up." I wonder how close to the truth that phrase actually is.
Pro-lifers don't like Warren Buffet's gift, since the foundation he chose donates to (shock!) Planned Parenthood, and they think it will spread the "culture of death" further. That's silly. It's not about death, but about life - specifically, making sure that lives aren't destroyed because someone has a fetish for punishment and believes their ideology to be the only true one.
Which leads, somewhat obliquely, into the Male Privilege Checklist - all the benefits that I can enjoy as a man, without having to think about it, worry about it, and that women have to fight tooth and nail to obtain. I went through the list withannaonthemoon, and while I do agree (somewhat regretfully) with some of them, others I placed conditionals on or rejected entirely, and others she rejected entirely as well. We may not be normal people, of course. Anyway, what do you think? Are these on target, off-target, or off-kilter?
Men with older brothers appreantly are more likely to be homosexuals. Perhaps it's having a male figure in your life that loves, cares, collaborates, and is a positive role model for much of your life? Maybe now we'll find out that having an older sister makes a guy more effeminate. Or that girls who have older sisters turn out to be lesbians more often, and older brothers more tomboyish. But this apparently has nothing to do with societal or familial influences, but some prenatal factor that turns makes younger brothers more likely to be gay. I can hear religious conservatives squeeing and hoping this turns out to be valid in much larger study samples. Of course, this could be put to good effect to argue that since it is a biological thing, then gays deserve protection under law from the discrimination statutes. Could go either way, really. Although I wonder if there will be another rash of Henry VIII behavior, where the woman is blamed because she carries the "gay gene" in her.
Waterproof finger scanner.Getting closer every day to biotech being a requirement... and it's still not properly able to do all it should, securely. If it did, then I'd be lamenting that such things lead to ubiquitous data tracking and the fun that develops from that.
Not that the person's being a git about it, but apparently, the Red Cross would like people not to use their symbol willy-nilly. It being, however, a relatively simple image, this seems a little on the silly side. It seems a little tough that an object such as a red cross will be subject to permission-granting before it can be used anywhere. There's something that feels not-quite-right about this, like it's being overzealous or something. Can't quite put my finger on it. They do have a case, but it seems like the symbol has taken on additional meaning, and that to start restricting it back will be detrimental to the society as a whole.greyweirdo also gives a list of truly ridiculous stuff regarding patents.
An uncomfortable restroom decoration. Apparently, they don't want you to linger in this bathroom, so they've put up some observers to comment on the size of the people who use it. I suspect, unless it were, say, General Tom Thumb, that many men would be off-put by the looks on the faces of the urinal and toilet observers.
Anyway, after that scintillating set of strangeness, I'm being dragged away by two arms and goddess knows how many other appendages. (But I'm not about to be taking part in any sort of Call of C'thulhu game or Japanese tentacle porn, so I think I'm relatively safe.) G'night, and if I survive it, I'll see you tomorrow.
Context on the Internet is important. Remembering that there is a lack of it on the Internet is also important. Someone forgot - and ended up killing a classmate because of it. That's not cool. I'm guessing, though, this will be billed as an "Oh, internet! You made my child kill someone else!" rather than "Um, child misunderstood and then acted very inappropriately."
In Republican news - Rush got caught with a bottle of blue pills and a prescription for it - the prescription's not in his name, though. Rush needs Viagra, huh? Can't get up enough natural steam that he needs help?
Close vote expected on flag-burning amendment. The Congresscritters are lobbying to make "desecration" of the flag illegal. Seems more like an election-year smokescreen stunt than anything of substance to me, but if it makes it past the Congress, there's a good chance it'll make it past the states. And this opens up an entirely new venue to cart people off with - not that any good government would, but I can just see plants who burn flags in a group just to get the group and their political ideologies off the field and in jail. Plus, this feels like a potential slippery slope about the "redress of grievances" as well as "freedom of speech" bits. Although, I joked when
annaonthemoon asked, "Our freedom's already gone. Now they're just cleaning up." I wonder how close to the truth that phrase actually is. Pro-lifers don't like Warren Buffet's gift, since the foundation he chose donates to (shock!) Planned Parenthood, and they think it will spread the "culture of death" further. That's silly. It's not about death, but about life - specifically, making sure that lives aren't destroyed because someone has a fetish for punishment and believes their ideology to be the only true one.
Which leads, somewhat obliquely, into the Male Privilege Checklist - all the benefits that I can enjoy as a man, without having to think about it, worry about it, and that women have to fight tooth and nail to obtain. I went through the list with
annaonthemoon, and while I do agree (somewhat regretfully) with some of them, others I placed conditionals on or rejected entirely, and others she rejected entirely as well. We may not be normal people, of course. Anyway, what do you think? Are these on target, off-target, or off-kilter?Men with older brothers appreantly are more likely to be homosexuals. Perhaps it's having a male figure in your life that loves, cares, collaborates, and is a positive role model for much of your life? Maybe now we'll find out that having an older sister makes a guy more effeminate. Or that girls who have older sisters turn out to be lesbians more often, and older brothers more tomboyish. But this apparently has nothing to do with societal or familial influences, but some prenatal factor that turns makes younger brothers more likely to be gay. I can hear religious conservatives squeeing and hoping this turns out to be valid in much larger study samples. Of course, this could be put to good effect to argue that since it is a biological thing, then gays deserve protection under law from the discrimination statutes. Could go either way, really. Although I wonder if there will be another rash of Henry VIII behavior, where the woman is blamed because she carries the "gay gene" in her.
Waterproof finger scanner.Getting closer every day to biotech being a requirement... and it's still not properly able to do all it should, securely. If it did, then I'd be lamenting that such things lead to ubiquitous data tracking and the fun that develops from that.
Not that the person's being a git about it, but apparently, the Red Cross would like people not to use their symbol willy-nilly. It being, however, a relatively simple image, this seems a little on the silly side. It seems a little tough that an object such as a red cross will be subject to permission-granting before it can be used anywhere. There's something that feels not-quite-right about this, like it's being overzealous or something. Can't quite put my finger on it. They do have a case, but it seems like the symbol has taken on additional meaning, and that to start restricting it back will be detrimental to the society as a whole.
greyweirdo also gives a list of truly ridiculous stuff regarding patents.An uncomfortable restroom decoration. Apparently, they don't want you to linger in this bathroom, so they've put up some observers to comment on the size of the people who use it. I suspect, unless it were, say, General Tom Thumb, that many men would be off-put by the looks on the faces of the urinal and toilet observers.
Anyway, after that scintillating set of strangeness, I'm being dragged away by two arms and goddess knows how many other appendages. (But I'm not about to be taking part in any sort of Call of C'thulhu game or Japanese tentacle porn, so I think I'm relatively safe.) G'night, and if I survive it, I'll see you tomorrow.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-28 04:52 am (UTC)This also has other larger implications because of the protected status the Red Cross is supposed to enjoy under international law reguarding war zones and other trouble spots.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-28 01:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-28 01:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-28 01:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-28 08:38 pm (UTC)I can no longer find the link, but there was a webiste that claimed to have copyrighted the :-).