Phat Words, News
May. 10th, 2004 12:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsOkay, if you're a geek who takes care of yourself and knows how to dress, is there a word for that? There is now: technosexual. A man who is not only in touch with his feminine side, but is "connected to it on many platforms," a man who both looks good and "has a gigabyte in his pocket."
Meanwhile, beware the dreaded new addiction of the millenium, food. "I compare the propensity to eat as somewhere between the propensity to breathe and the propensity to have sex. It's much worse than stopping smoking." Especially if you go cold turkey. Whoops, did I mention turkey? Sandwich anyone?
Okay, take this in context and ask yourself this question: Is it really a bad thing that for the first time in human history, even the poorest people have too much to eat? Forget the scare tactics, the article says something profoundly important: food production and distribution now exceeds the human population.
Okay, now I've heard everything. First, the abuse of prisoners in Iraq was caused by the Farelly Brothers, makers of such tasteful fare as Dumb and Dumber and Something about Mary. The idea was that Americans had gotten used to crudity and dirty humor, and so the soldiers were just acting out what they had seen.
Then, it was my fault, or rather, pornography's fault, and since I write smut I must share in the blame, right? Actually, it's Hugh Hefner's fault, but the author insists that the "few bad soldiers" are really reflecting America's true moral sensibilities. (Someone clue this fellow in that sexual degradation is a common component of all torturous regimes, okay?)
Then Rush Limbaugh gets into the act and says that there's really no harm here, it's just soldiers having a good time. Yeah, Rush, just go take your pills and shut up, okay?
So now comes Men's News Daily with an explanation even more bizarre than the mere concept that the torturers were inspired by Farellian bad taste: they were gay. There's even a wiff of Vast Homosexual Conspiracy Theory here; the Defense Department knew and was investigating the abuse, but the pictures "must have been leaked to CBS by someone."
I must be on the wrong planet.
Meanwhile, beware the dreaded new addiction of the millenium, food. "I compare the propensity to eat as somewhere between the propensity to breathe and the propensity to have sex. It's much worse than stopping smoking." Especially if you go cold turkey. Whoops, did I mention turkey? Sandwich anyone?
Okay, take this in context and ask yourself this question: Is it really a bad thing that for the first time in human history, even the poorest people have too much to eat? Forget the scare tactics, the article says something profoundly important: food production and distribution now exceeds the human population.
Okay, now I've heard everything. First, the abuse of prisoners in Iraq was caused by the Farelly Brothers, makers of such tasteful fare as Dumb and Dumber and Something about Mary. The idea was that Americans had gotten used to crudity and dirty humor, and so the soldiers were just acting out what they had seen.
Then, it was my fault, or rather, pornography's fault, and since I write smut I must share in the blame, right? Actually, it's Hugh Hefner's fault, but the author insists that the "few bad soldiers" are really reflecting America's true moral sensibilities. (Someone clue this fellow in that sexual degradation is a common component of all torturous regimes, okay?)
Then Rush Limbaugh gets into the act and says that there's really no harm here, it's just soldiers having a good time. Yeah, Rush, just go take your pills and shut up, okay?
So now comes Men's News Daily with an explanation even more bizarre than the mere concept that the torturers were inspired by Farellian bad taste: they were gay. There's even a wiff of Vast Homosexual Conspiracy Theory here; the Defense Department knew and was investigating the abuse, but the pictures "must have been leaked to CBS by someone."
I must be on the wrong planet.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-10 02:39 pm (UTC)In my perception, the main thing the NRA does is *counter* accusitory "finger pointing". (Which, of course, cause the finger-pointers to start pointing *at* the NRA instead...)
no subject
Date: 2004-05-10 02:56 pm (UTC)Finger pointing is finger pointing. That means, blame shifting to avoid responsibility for our own actions. Feminists and reactionary anti-feminists do it. It's just not the way to solve the problem no matter what.
Sure, in my perception feminists have more of a "right" to point fingers than their detractors, but finger pointing still doesn't solve the problem. The problem being taking responsibility for our own actions. (Let's not even start with yin yang groups like Planned Parenthood and Right-to-Life.)
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Carrying a weapon on your person does increase the likelyhood of someone dying - and that includes you. Unless you are properly trained (and I don't mean any one day stuff) and sometimes even if you are, you increase the likelyhood of lethal force simply by owning a gun. There's no logical way around that. The defense is that the gun is for disuading criminals - but it isn't always criminals who get hurt in a lethal confrontation. And even if it was, is death an appropriate punishment for attempted theft? I don't think so. I've considered owning and carrying a gun before, but concluded that I'm more likely giving someone a weapon to use against me than actually protecting myself.
There's no responsibility test for gun ownership, so it stands to reason that stupid, irresponsible people will buy guns and keep them in their homes. We can't prevent that and it is their right, but do they really need semi or fully automatic weapons? Um, no. That's an expensive and dangerous toy that feeds the vanity, not a legitimate form of self-protection. Heavy duty military hardware sh
Darn post limits...
Date: 2004-05-10 02:57 pm (UTC)Re: Darn post limits...
Date: 2004-05-10 03:15 pm (UTC)You seem to be talking about something other than the NRA.
The NRA stated and formal position is that gun ownership is NOT for "everyone".
They are not for unsupervised children. They are not for criminals, for felons, for the drug-addeled, for people with poor impulse control, for people with severe mental disorders. FerEx, all my NRA instructors universally stated "if you sleepwalk, you probably should not keep a gun".
The NRA supports, to a fault, IMO, things like "Operation Exile" and "Felon Bans".
It sounds to me like you are ascribing to the NRA a parody extreme position painted by it's enemies, not anything that it itself stands for.
Re: Darn post limits...
Date: 2004-05-10 03:33 pm (UTC)Criminals, felons, drug addicts, people with poor impulse control, people with severe mental disorders - um, yeah, that's a given but not a very well defined one. These people also shouldn't own kitchen knives either.
What about alchoholics, should they be allowed guns? What about overweight people, we're supposedly subject to poor impulse control, should there be a weight limit for gun purchasing? What about government separatists? People with fringe religious beliefs? People who have strong nightmares? Where does it end?
What about people with poor judgement? Is there a test for that? No, there isn't. As to unsupervised children, is there a requirement to buy a gun case that locks anywhere? No? Well, how exactly then do you make sure your children can't get at it? They can find Christmas toys, they can damn well find a gun in the closet or drawer even if you think it is well hidden. I frankly question that guns should be stored in the same building as children under 10, no matter what level of precaution is used.
I think the poor judgement test ought to be applied to all marriages and parenthood, as well, but that won't happen. The truth is when more people can legally buy guns, more people out there who shouldn't own guns will own them. Accidents will happen because they bought guns. And that's where the NRA could admit that, despite it's guidelines, facilitating gun purchasing will lead to more gun related violence period. Do you deny that? No amount of policy or posturing will change the fact that guns are lethal and selling them at all means that some will fall into t
Re: Darn post limits...
Date: 2004-05-10 03:34 pm (UTC)As for believing enemy propoganda, it has been a while since I visited the NRA website, I admit. But it did make a lasting impression on me. And I do seem to recall watching interviews with NRA members at the senior level that did imply that there was no reason to ban the sale of fully automatic weapons for "self defense" purposes.
Re: Darn post limits...
Date: 2004-05-10 04:09 pm (UTC)One. Automatic weapons are lousy for "self defense", as anyone with any gun knowledge will know.
Two. I would like to see a transcript of those interviews.
Three. Do you know what the last time was that an automatic weapon was used in a crime in the US, and what the situation was? I do, but I'll let you find out an an excercise in research. (Oh, and be careful, the HCI/Bradyite/Gun"Safety" lobby websites will lie, deceive and misdirect you about what an "automatic weapon" is...)
Re: Darn post limits...
Date: 2004-05-10 04:17 pm (UTC)I saw those clips when I was in college, so sometime between 1994 and 1998. Want to guess how long it will take me to find them? I want to say that it was in the course of researching a paper on ethics. Does that mean I misremembered? Not necessarily.
I can research from now until next year, but given that all of those sites are going to "lie" to me, I don't see how I'll find the "truth." Thanks for digesting it for me.
Re: Darn post limits...
Date: 2004-05-10 11:42 pm (UTC)As somebody with a bit of knowledge of statistics, I think it's fair warning to point out differences in definition. I can see how an anti-gun site could talk about "automatic weapons" and quote figures on "assault weapons".
Re: Darn post limits...
Date: 2004-05-11 08:32 am (UTC)The thing is, I'm NOT on the other side as this person, he just thinks I am! I try to be skeptical about everything I read because I'm aware of how people are more willing to accept the written word as truth. Therefore, if a website used the term "automatic weapon" and then, in some way, indicated a gun that was not one, I would know because I would be paying attention to that sort of thing. Because I am an informed consumer of information not a drone with a keyboard and a slavering desire to re-educate gun enthusiasts.
I was simply trying to point out that I use my own brain to form opinions and I resent the implication that anyone who disagrees with the NRA on any topic must have been brainwashed or hoodwinked by their "enemies," or must have unquestioningly accepted anti-gun "propoganda." Or that if I disagree, I either don't understand or was misinformed as to their actual politics. I'm sure that proper understanding of NRA politics would eliminate all political opposition, right? Think about this - a former SOLDIER is probably not anti-gun. I mean, that would take hypocritical to whole new levels given that I volunteered to serve.
I'm not against guns, I'm against stupid people with guns, something I've seen way too much of. And defending the NRA with a rabid intolerance to open debate is not the way to win hearts and minds. They point fingers - whether they are justified in doing so is beside the point when the point is that people shouldn't point fingers! ARGH!
I'm married to a Catholic, he'll be the first to admit that the church has a history of finger pointing. It's sad that anyone can get so emotional about the NRA and ignore the comment on the Catholic church. I'm a little ammused by that, actually. God bless Charleton Heston, who cares about the Pope? Should I now imply that NRA members can't tell the difference between Chuckles and God? No, because it is ridiculous to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is, a priori, an idiot.