Pictoral Oxymoron

For the kids! For the kids!

Best way for politicians to pander to the Religious Right and much of middle America? Pass a law to protect kids!

It doesn't matter if your law actually results in helping kids. It doesn't matter if it actually results in harm to those some children. What counts is that you're actually winning the hearts and votes of soccer moms all over the country.

More importantly, how could you ever vote AGAINST kids? You won't support library filtering? You WANT our kids exposed to filth... with our taxes? Kiss goodbye to reelection.

A current example of this hypocritical frenzy is the congressional establishment of a new kids.us domain. No one has offered how this is supposed to work in practice, or even provided any evidence to suggest that it's actually a good idea in the first place. But really, what congresscritter could afford to face attack ads claiming: "Senator Smith voted against protecting your children from pornography and gambling on the net"?

From a practical perspective, I can't see how this new domain would be beneficial in any way.

Let's say schools and libraries decided to limit kids to browsing ONLY sites in this domain. How could this possibly work for both a five year old and a twelve year old, with such vastly different capacities for absorbing and synthesizing info?

Even if such access restrictions were thrust upon only elementary school kids, what content would be designated as 'kid-friendly'? In particularly what about such borderline resources as dictionaries (could be some bad words!), news sites (disturbing content), international pen pal forums (all those pedophiles!), and so on?

What incentive would companies have to even create and maintain content for this domain and this demographic, especially when such efforts would require extra work on top of existing .com (and .uk, .ca, etc.) sites?

What if 'questionable content' was found on a site in kids.us? Would the offending site be immediately removed? Could parents sue? Would there be criminal sanctions?

In a nutshell, then, the new domain is of questionable usefulness and has been ill-defined to say the least. I'm betting the Congress spent less than an hour studying the issue. After all, it's for the kids! Who could say no?

Want to know more? Read articles here.

Please stop using your name

Yet one more reason why lawyers get a (deservedly!) bad rap.

Common sense up in smoke

District Judge Thomas Gilbert has taken indefinite voluntary leave from his duties after he was spotted smoking the joint at a Rolling Stones concert at Ford Field in Detroit.
- news item on ananova.com, November 9, 2002

Am I in the minority for seeing this as absolutely absurd? Can you imagine a similar situation in which a cop caught speeding tearfully turns in his badge the next day? Oh wait, there's a key difference: the judge in the above story wasn't endangering anyone's life.

In a written statement Mr Gilbert said: "I broke the law by twice puffing on a marijuana cigarette during a rock concert. I deeply regret this error in judgment, for I have let down my fellow judges, the court staff, my family, and the community."

Could this not have appeared in The Onion without anyone blinking? What will it take for our American society to join the rest of the industrialized, civilized world and stop the guilt and -- more importantly -- stop the absolutely asinine "War on Drugs"?

I'm not all that fond of the concept of 'wars' on anything, frankly, but if we must use macho language to hammer home political themes, how about a War on Poverty (but this time, finish the job)? Or a War on Domestic Abuse?

I'm also all for a "War on Political Opportunism and Far Right Pandering" but I don't think even the spineless Democrats in office would be any help with that.

Simple relationship truths

- We want what we cannot have.
- We want what we do not have.
- When we have something, we want something else.
- This doesn't mean we cannot enjoy what we have.
- We have great advice for everyones' problems but don't follow our own advice.
- It's easier to bitch than to change.

- We cannot change others. Really.
- Women assume all men just want sex. They're wrong.
- Men assume all women want commitment. They're wrong.
- Men and women don't really love what the media suggests we love.
- If you're not getting hurt, you're not living.
- Seeking love is expensive. Love itself is priceless.
- Online dating attracts some real creeps. Just like offline dating.
- Attraction is >90% non-verbal. You cannot really be in love with someone without seeing them in person.
- Swing dancing is a great way to meet a special someone.
- Swing dancing is a sucky way to meet a special someone.
- See that 'unattractive' guy and his hottie girlfriend and visa versa? There's hope.
- Not sure how you're coming across (e.g., desperate, too flirtatious, cold, etc.)? Buy a friend (not a best friend) a drink, ask a few questions, and you'll know. You may cry, but you'll know.
- You're not the only one depressed by the pukey pda in the park.
- Work out. You'll look more attractive in the long run and exercise = endorphins which make you FEEL better, too.
- Keeping a journal helps you sort out your thoughts. Just beware / be aware of who reads it.
- Just because I'm writing this on a Friday night does not mean I'm a lame ass :D

[Originally written and posted by me on a national swing dance board]

Yet more evidence that "Military Intelligence" is an oxymoron

Nine Army linguists, including six trained to speak Arabic, have been dismissed from the military because they are gay.

- from an AP newswire article on November 14

Pathetic.

Here we have the world's greatest superpower, which also happens to be sorely and dangerously lacking in military personnel who can speak critical foreign languages, dismissing folks because of their sexual predilection.

It sometimes takes years to kick out sexual harrassers in the military, and my understanding is that harrassment against women officers is still very much a problem in the military.

But it takes just one admission or shred of evidence to highlight someone's homosexuality, and boom, they're out the door.

How ironic that we trumpet Freedom with a capital F around the world and decry discrimination around the world, yet somehow can't manage to break out of our own homophobia.

Idea for Compulsory Service in America

I think America should have compulsory service (military/humanitarian) for all 18 year olds, male and female.

Germany and many other democratic countries have compulsory service, though many only require men to serve, which I think is ridiculous.

I'd like to see our country require every 18 year old to serve one year in either a branch of the military or in civil service, with the latter including teaching in an underprivileged area, road construction, aid to seniors, etc.

No one would be exempt, period. No deferrals, no buying your way out of it, no nothing. Everyone could -- and IMHO should -- help our country in some way.

College would then (optionally) start at age 19 for most folks.

In exchange for a very modest housing/food coverage, the government -- and our country -- would get new roads built, more English-proficient youngsters (via bilingual ed assistance), more cared-for seniors, and so on.

Also, our military would likely contain a higher percentage of more-educated and upper-class youth.

Another nice side benefit would be that kids would enter college with some additional real-life experience and perhaps a bit more maturity, not to mention an appreciation for the likely-easier student life.

And lastly, I sincerely believe this requirement would add to civic pride and bring meaning to citizenship beyond merely taxation obligations and oft-ignored voting rights.

I don't have any illusions that this would ever happen in America. In the aggregate we're too individualistic at the expense of caring about our community and we're too, well, damn selfish.

But I can dream.

What do you think about this idea of compulsory service?
And have any of you actually lived in countries that already require such 'giving' back to the State?

[ I posted the note above in the 'kitchen sink' (anything goes) topic of a national swing dance board ("Yehoodi"). Read the ensuing (vigorous!) debate here. Feel free to add your own thoughts either (or both!) in the comments section on this blog, or directly at Yehoodi if you wish. ]