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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
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