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.
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.