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}
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