http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/montana-lawmaker-moves-ban-yoga-pants-article-1.2111137
David Moore, a Montana law maker, is seeking to strengthen the state's indecent exposure laws. The new law would consider ANY nipple exposure indecent (yes, guys, you have to put a shirt on) and it would outlaw clothing that "gives the appearance or simulates a person's buttocks, genitals, pelvic area, or female nipple." This means tight fitting clothes could be considered indecent exposure, which includes yoga pants. To this Moore said "Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway." And all of this was started by a bunch of nude bicyclers who participated in an even called Bare As You Dare in Missoula in August. Nice work, guys.
It seems to me that this whole debate about how much clothing people should be wearing stems from the perception that bodies are inherently sexual and should be hidden (this is especially prevalent when talking about women's bodies, but that's a debate for another day.) Say it with me everyone: bodies are not inherently sexual. Why are we so ashamed of something literally everyone has? Why do we see the forms God gave us as disgusting? Human bodies are beautiful. Have you ever watched a dancer? Or stopped to watch someone's hands while they work? Or watched athletes showing off their fitness? People are just as amazing as anything else in nature, and we are a part of nature. Our bodies are no different from the bodies of cheetahs or bears or fish or birds. We're all just built for different things. People need to stop freaking out about tight clothes and worry more about the nude bicyclers, because anyone who puts their bare flesh against a metal contraption moving at high speeds during the hottest month of the year has GOT to be crazy.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
How many times do we have to say it?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccine-politics-for-2016/
2016 Presidential candidate hopefuls are weighing in on the vaccine issue. People such as Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and President Obama have all been quoted saying that vaccines do far more good than harm, and not vaccinating kids is dangerous for everyone. They all maintain that the science is good and that vaccines work. Rand Paul, however, surprised people by saying that he'd actually heard of kids developing mental diseases because of vaccines, a position that the medical community heartily disputes. What's even more surprising is Rand Paul actually has a medical degree. Many politicians do agree that parents should have the freedom to raise their kids how they want, but vaccines are vital to keeping communities healthy. This has opened up discussions about mandatory vaccinations and whether or not such a thing would be legal.
The vaccination issue is probably what makes me the most angry out of the current issues we face as a country. This is because vaccinations are based firmly in science which, as Neil Degrasse Tyson as said, "works whether or not you believe in it." Things like gay marriage and abortion come with moral and constitutional elements, but this does not. The fact that parents are letting totally preventable and nearly eradicated diseases COME BACK because of some misplaced sense of "well I'm just protecting my kids from autism!" pisses me off so much. It has been said over and over again that the study that said vaccines cause autism was skewed, and it discredited a while ago, but mother STILL refuse to get their kids a very simple shot that almost NEVER causes complications (except in very, VERY rare cases.) I can't even begin to articulate just how STUPID this issue is. This should not be an issue! It's science, and it works. End. Of. Story.
2016 Presidential candidate hopefuls are weighing in on the vaccine issue. People such as Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and President Obama have all been quoted saying that vaccines do far more good than harm, and not vaccinating kids is dangerous for everyone. They all maintain that the science is good and that vaccines work. Rand Paul, however, surprised people by saying that he'd actually heard of kids developing mental diseases because of vaccines, a position that the medical community heartily disputes. What's even more surprising is Rand Paul actually has a medical degree. Many politicians do agree that parents should have the freedom to raise their kids how they want, but vaccines are vital to keeping communities healthy. This has opened up discussions about mandatory vaccinations and whether or not such a thing would be legal.
The vaccination issue is probably what makes me the most angry out of the current issues we face as a country. This is because vaccinations are based firmly in science which, as Neil Degrasse Tyson as said, "works whether or not you believe in it." Things like gay marriage and abortion come with moral and constitutional elements, but this does not. The fact that parents are letting totally preventable and nearly eradicated diseases COME BACK because of some misplaced sense of "well I'm just protecting my kids from autism!" pisses me off so much. It has been said over and over again that the study that said vaccines cause autism was skewed, and it discredited a while ago, but mother STILL refuse to get their kids a very simple shot that almost NEVER causes complications (except in very, VERY rare cases.) I can't even begin to articulate just how STUPID this issue is. This should not be an issue! It's science, and it works. End. Of. Story.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Prison Blues
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oklahoma-halt-executions-supreme-court-drug-review-28489823
Oklahoma may put three executions of prisoners on hold until the Supreme Court rules on a case concerning the drugs used to put criminals to death. Lethal injection is a three stage process that uses three different drugs to first sedate the prisoner, then paralyze them, and finally stop their heart. The issue is with the sedative, midazolam. The three inmates whose execution may be halted, along with a fourth who has since been put to death, sued the state over concerns that the sedative would not prevent their suffering during the procedure. These concerned were raised after Oklahoma used midazolam for the first time in an execution which ended with the prisoner dying painfully 43 minutes after the lethal drugs were administered. The government is still investigating the drug, so any executions may be halted until a substitute is found.
I could get into whether death or a life sentence is worse and whether or not death is actually too good for our worst criminals, but that's not what this is about. I think people who do get lethal injection shouldn't have to suffer horribly during the procedure. We're not barbarians. This is not the medieval ages where people were killed by being drawn and quartered. If we kill people in cruel and awful ways, we're no better than the criminals. We are no more humane. Some people might see criminals suffering as justice or something they deserve, but then we're getting into revenge which doesn't solve the problem. Hopefully the Supreme Court will get this fixed if there is, in fact, a problem with the drugs.
Oklahoma may put three executions of prisoners on hold until the Supreme Court rules on a case concerning the drugs used to put criminals to death. Lethal injection is a three stage process that uses three different drugs to first sedate the prisoner, then paralyze them, and finally stop their heart. The issue is with the sedative, midazolam. The three inmates whose execution may be halted, along with a fourth who has since been put to death, sued the state over concerns that the sedative would not prevent their suffering during the procedure. These concerned were raised after Oklahoma used midazolam for the first time in an execution which ended with the prisoner dying painfully 43 minutes after the lethal drugs were administered. The government is still investigating the drug, so any executions may be halted until a substitute is found.
I could get into whether death or a life sentence is worse and whether or not death is actually too good for our worst criminals, but that's not what this is about. I think people who do get lethal injection shouldn't have to suffer horribly during the procedure. We're not barbarians. This is not the medieval ages where people were killed by being drawn and quartered. If we kill people in cruel and awful ways, we're no better than the criminals. We are no more humane. Some people might see criminals suffering as justice or something they deserve, but then we're getting into revenge which doesn't solve the problem. Hopefully the Supreme Court will get this fixed if there is, in fact, a problem with the drugs.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
*slams head into keyboard* I'm in.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/01/14/no-one-at-homeland-security-is-addressing-cyber-threats-for-government-buildings/
According to a report from the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Homeland Security is totally unprepared for cyberattacks on vital government buildings and networks. There are no strategies for fending off cyber terrorists, hackers, or 35 year olds with laptops, a misplaced sense of social justice, and a little too much Mountain Dew in their systems. Ok, maybe I made that last one up, but the fact of the matter remains that the DoHS has no clue what they're doing when it comes to threats from hackers. Evidently not only are their computer networks vulnerable, but things like elevators, heating and cooling systems, and other electrical things in federal buildings are also open to cyber attacks, and no one is doing anything about it.
Admittedly making a building a little too hot or stopping an elevator isn't a great strategy if you want to cripple a country, so I don't think we're going to see hackers getting into that any time soon, but given that government social media accounts and companies like Sony have all recently been hacked by our enemies, I think that cyberattacks are definitely going to become a problem in the future. While the information age is still a baby at this point, technology has been around long enough that Homeland Security should have some idea of what they're doing. Even if it's really simple, at least it would be a plan, and they don't even have that. It's pretty pathetic.
According to a report from the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Homeland Security is totally unprepared for cyberattacks on vital government buildings and networks. There are no strategies for fending off cyber terrorists, hackers, or 35 year olds with laptops, a misplaced sense of social justice, and a little too much Mountain Dew in their systems. Ok, maybe I made that last one up, but the fact of the matter remains that the DoHS has no clue what they're doing when it comes to threats from hackers. Evidently not only are their computer networks vulnerable, but things like elevators, heating and cooling systems, and other electrical things in federal buildings are also open to cyber attacks, and no one is doing anything about it.
Admittedly making a building a little too hot or stopping an elevator isn't a great strategy if you want to cripple a country, so I don't think we're going to see hackers getting into that any time soon, but given that government social media accounts and companies like Sony have all recently been hacked by our enemies, I think that cyberattacks are definitely going to become a problem in the future. While the information age is still a baby at this point, technology has been around long enough that Homeland Security should have some idea of what they're doing. Even if it's really simple, at least it would be a plan, and they don't even have that. It's pretty pathetic.
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
A vote of no confidence
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/day-old-congress-hated-ever
America isn't interested in giving second chances. According to a survey done by the University of Minnesota, Congress' approval rating is at 8%. Only 8% of the country likes Congress, and it's only the first day that the 114th Congress is in session. And to make matters worse, one of the senators, Joni Ernst (a Republican from Iowa) said this: "If you ask somebody to pick a number between one and ten, eight is a pretty high number. So it's all good." After that, the approval rating dropped to 4%.
Where do I begin? It's bad enough that this is the most hated Congress in history, but Ernst's comment has pretty much made me lose all faith in humanity. People, this lady was just sworn into office. This lady is part of the majority party in the most powerful house in Congress. This lady is helping run our country. It's official. I'm moving to Australia.
America isn't interested in giving second chances. According to a survey done by the University of Minnesota, Congress' approval rating is at 8%. Only 8% of the country likes Congress, and it's only the first day that the 114th Congress is in session. And to make matters worse, one of the senators, Joni Ernst (a Republican from Iowa) said this: "If you ask somebody to pick a number between one and ten, eight is a pretty high number. So it's all good." After that, the approval rating dropped to 4%.
Where do I begin? It's bad enough that this is the most hated Congress in history, but Ernst's comment has pretty much made me lose all faith in humanity. People, this lady was just sworn into office. This lady is part of the majority party in the most powerful house in Congress. This lady is helping run our country. It's official. I'm moving to Australia.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Back to Davy Jone's Locker...for now
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/pirate-bay-file-sharing-website-sweden-police-raid/story?id=27498033
The popular site for illegally downloading media such as music, movies, and TV shows, Pirate Bay, has been taken down by a raid on the servers in Stockholm, Sweden. The website has completely disappeared from the Internet, marking the biggest raid on the site in recent history. Pirate Bay's original co-administrator, who is no longer involved, expressed indifference and hopes that if the site resurrects, it'll be better than it was before as he expressed disappointment in what it had become. As for the site's eventual fate, no one has any delusions that it'll stay sunk for long. Administrators are already formulating new ways to avoid authorities and bring the site up again.
I don't have any strong opinions on the topic of pirated media, but I don't think it's as big of a deal as authorities think it is. The creators of the media still get a good amount of money from their work, and if it reaches a wider audience their work will be promoted. Among those who see it in an illegal setting will be people who like it well enough to support it with their money by legally buying merchandise or future media. The temporary destruction of Pirate Bay won't change the illegal media trade in the long run. After all, who doesn't like free stuff?
The popular site for illegally downloading media such as music, movies, and TV shows, Pirate Bay, has been taken down by a raid on the servers in Stockholm, Sweden. The website has completely disappeared from the Internet, marking the biggest raid on the site in recent history. Pirate Bay's original co-administrator, who is no longer involved, expressed indifference and hopes that if the site resurrects, it'll be better than it was before as he expressed disappointment in what it had become. As for the site's eventual fate, no one has any delusions that it'll stay sunk for long. Administrators are already formulating new ways to avoid authorities and bring the site up again.
I don't have any strong opinions on the topic of pirated media, but I don't think it's as big of a deal as authorities think it is. The creators of the media still get a good amount of money from their work, and if it reaches a wider audience their work will be promoted. Among those who see it in an illegal setting will be people who like it well enough to support it with their money by legally buying merchandise or future media. The temporary destruction of Pirate Bay won't change the illegal media trade in the long run. After all, who doesn't like free stuff?
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Our prison system is broken
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-execution-stayed-amid-mental-health-dispute/
The execution of convicted murderer Scott Panetti has been halted on an appeal of mental illness. Panetti's lawyers say he is too delusional to qualify for capital punishment and have been trying to get Panetti a new competency test. There have also been other appeals to the Supreme Court, saying that mentally ill people cannot be executed if they cannot understand why they are being punished. Critics have said that Panetti's mental state has not change much since he was given his last competency test, and no court has found him insane. In 2002 , justices prohibited the execution of the mentally impaired, but 5 years later they said the mentally ill could be put to death if they understood why they were being punished. Panetti was sentenced and convicted in 1995 for the murder of his estranged wife's parents. In court he was his own lawyer, dressed in a purple cowboy outfit, and attempted to subpoena over 200 witnesses including Jesus and the pope. He also claims that Satan is working through the justice system to try and get him executed for preaching the Gospel.
I think that if this guy really is mentally ill and does not understand completely why he's being punished, then he shouldn't be given the death penalty. Capital punishment, I think, should really only be reserved for really dangerous killers who cannot be redeemed. I'm a huge believer in trying to reform prisoners and give them the help they need so that they don't resort to crime once they're released. I don't think that locking people up and treating them poorly is going to make anything better, especially in the case of mentally ill prisoners. If a prisoner has a broken leg or a heart problem when they come in, the prison will take them to a medical facility to treat that. Why isn't is the same for the mentally ill? Why are they locked up and punished for things they can't control? We should be helping these people, not condemning them to death.
The execution of convicted murderer Scott Panetti has been halted on an appeal of mental illness. Panetti's lawyers say he is too delusional to qualify for capital punishment and have been trying to get Panetti a new competency test. There have also been other appeals to the Supreme Court, saying that mentally ill people cannot be executed if they cannot understand why they are being punished. Critics have said that Panetti's mental state has not change much since he was given his last competency test, and no court has found him insane. In 2002 , justices prohibited the execution of the mentally impaired, but 5 years later they said the mentally ill could be put to death if they understood why they were being punished. Panetti was sentenced and convicted in 1995 for the murder of his estranged wife's parents. In court he was his own lawyer, dressed in a purple cowboy outfit, and attempted to subpoena over 200 witnesses including Jesus and the pope. He also claims that Satan is working through the justice system to try and get him executed for preaching the Gospel.
I think that if this guy really is mentally ill and does not understand completely why he's being punished, then he shouldn't be given the death penalty. Capital punishment, I think, should really only be reserved for really dangerous killers who cannot be redeemed. I'm a huge believer in trying to reform prisoners and give them the help they need so that they don't resort to crime once they're released. I don't think that locking people up and treating them poorly is going to make anything better, especially in the case of mentally ill prisoners. If a prisoner has a broken leg or a heart problem when they come in, the prison will take them to a medical facility to treat that. Why isn't is the same for the mentally ill? Why are they locked up and punished for things they can't control? We should be helping these people, not condemning them to death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)