Equality
Laaaaaaaw, is a many splendored thiiiiiing… Not.
OK, forgive my musical refrain. I ran across an article today that kinda illustrated how important it is that the laws be objective, not morally motivated, and constantly revised to stay current with the changing times:
Dying in parliament is an offence and is also by far the most absurd law in Britain, according to a survey of nearly 4,000 people by a television channel showing a legal drama series.
And though the lords were clad in their red and white ermine cloaks and ambassadors from around the world wore colourful national costumes, at least nobody turned up in a suit of armour. Illegal. – [Yahoo/AFP]
Obviously many of these laws probably had some practical logic to them when they were made, and merely suffered from being too broad or too specific in scope. However the same is true of many of the laws on the books today. They are based on historical or social standards that are either obsolete or irrelevant today.
On the other side of the coin, there are laws placed on the books, that are simply poorly thought out. Most often emotional the result of knee-jerk reactions by over zealous lawmakers. For instance banning baggy pants? No tag in school? No hugs?!? Seriously, how is banning baggy pants supposed to reduce the crime rate of a city? (see <Dumb Laws.com> for a big list of really wacky laws… Fair warning, you may laugh yourself into oblivion 
)
But on a more serious note, the law has become a means for activists to push their own agendas, as opposed to protecting the society at large, and no, the two are not the same thing. An equitable legal system does not discriminate against anyone on the bases of race, color, creed, beliefs, etc, so it is absolutely ludicrous that any one should have to face prosecution simply because of their choice of clothes. What we are seeing is an abuse of the legal system. And it really needs to stop.
Die and you’re under arrest! Britain’s most stupid laws – [Yahoo/AFP]
Is the battle of the sexes over? Ummm, I think not…
A recent study suggests that, contrary to traditional beliefs, both men and women enjoy sex for primarily the same reason:
After exhaustively compiling a list of the 237 reasons why people have sex, researchers found that young men and women get intimate for mostly the same motivations. It’s more about lust in the body than a love connection in the heart.
College-aged men and women agree on their top reasons for having sex – they were attracted to the person, they wanted to experience physical pleasure and “it feels good,” according to a peer-reviewed study in the August edition of Archives of Sexual Behavior. Twenty of the top 25 reasons given for having sex were the same for men and women.
Expressing love and showing affection were in the top 10 for both men and women, but they did take a back seat to the clear No. 1: “I was attracted to the person.”
“It’s refuted a lot of gender stereotypes … that men only want sex for the physical pleasure and women want love,” said University of Texas clinical psychology professor Cindy Meston, the study’s co-author. “That’s not what I came up with in my findings.”
Forget thinking that men are from Mars and women from Venus, “the more we look, the more we find similarity,” said Dr. Irwin Goldstein, director of sexual medicine at Alvarado Hospital in San Diego. Goldstein, who wasn’t part of Meston’s study, said the Texas research made a lot of sense and adds to growing evidence that the vaunted differences in the genders may only be among people with sexual problems. – [AP]
Well, as usual (I guess) somehow I didn’t find this study to be that helpful. It could just be me, but the results seemed to be a little obvious. Not to mention that the study seemed to cripple itself in the universality department.
The first issue I saw in the study was stated in the article. They were essentially studying college kids. And the vast majority of college age kids, both male and female, spend a great deal of time thinking about sex. Their primary motivation is fun, not marriage or settling down, etc. So of course, their reasons are going to primarily be lust driven. Strike one.
Next, even within the more sexually balanced middle-aged group, the claim to gender stereotypes may not particularly be culturally valid anymore. I happen to have known several men who were really pushovers, and women who were much, much worse than men in terms of sexual predation. (Think “Sex in the city.”) Strike two.
And last, but not least, even within the hormonally boosted college demographic you could still see gender differences in the attitudes towards sex, with men tending towards being more opportunistic, and women apparently doing so to please their partner. That kinda hints that the men/Mars women/Venus thing still isn’t entirely as baseless as they suggest. Strike 3. Out!
Perhaps we shouldn’t simply abandon the idea of men being from Mars and women being from Venus. Maybe we all just ought to remember that both Mars and Venus still occupy the same solar system…
Lawsuits: Gang violence deterrents? Or Prejudice?
I just read a troubling article regarding cities using lawsuits to pro-actively disrupt gang activity:
Fort Worth and San Francisco are among the latest to file lawsuits against gang members, asking courts for injunctions barring them from hanging out together on street corners, in cars or anywhere else in certain areas.
The injunctions are aimed at disrupting gang activity before it can escalate. They also give police legal reasons to stop and question gang members, who often are found with drugs or weapons, authorities said. In some cases, they don’t allow gang members to even talk to people passing in cars or to carry spray paint.
“It is another tool,” said Kevin Rousseau, a Tarrant County assistant prosecutor in Fort Worth, which recently filed its first civil injunction against a gang. “This is more of a proactive approach.”
But critics say such lawsuits go too far, limiting otherwise lawful activities and unfairly targeting minority youth.
“If you’re barring people from talking in the streets, it’s difficult to tell if they’re gang members or if they’re people discussing issues,” said Peter Bibring, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. “And it’s all the more troubling because it doesn’t seem to be effective.” – [Yahoo/AP]
I find this turn of events troubling for a number of reasons. First it is a very dangerous thing for anyone to implement any kind of enforcement that violates an individuals rights, especially when they have yet to actually commit a crime. And re-purposing laws so that actions that are legal for the average citizen become illegal for a specific demographic is simply unethical.
These cities have, in effect, sued a demographic, without regard for either the innocence or guilt of any of the individual members of that demographic. They have surreptitiously made gangs illegal. And in doing so, they done little more than legitimize prejudice.
The ability to stop, search and detain a person without probable cause, and for no other reason than their age, race, or the color of their clothes, is unconstitutional. Plain and simple. The increasing willingness of American police forces and lawmakers to violate an individuals rights in the name of keeping the peace is becoming a common and disturbing trend nowadays, especially in The Peoples Republic of Kalifornia. The end does not justify the means.
It is wrong to apply laws differently depending on such things as race, stereotypes, clothes, age, etc. Creating second class citizens does not solve problems, only exacerbate them. History has taught us that any demographic unfairly treated, will bear no concern for the fair treatment of others. It simply creates a vicious cycle. It may appear to be a a good solution in the short term. But unfairly treated people have long memories, and as a long term strategy, it is a no-win.
Be very careful America. I see a very ugly pattern developing. At the rate we are going, we will soon all be prisoners, held captive by the illusion of freedom…
Cities sue gangs in bid to stop violence – [Yahoo/AP]
Obamas’ flameless firestorm…
Presidential hopeful Barack Obama apparently ignited a “firestorm” of controversy by responding to a YouTubers video questioner that he would, “without precondition”, meet with leaders of renegade regimes:
In Monday’s debate from Charleston, S.C., Obama was asked by a questioner via YouTube if he would be willing to meet — without precondition — in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
“I would,” he responded.
Clinton said she would not. “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes,” she said. Clinton said she would first use envoys to test the waters. – [Yahoo/AP]
Now I’m no political expert, so my opinion may hold little value. But Hilary Clintons rebuttal makes no sense either. At least not to my admittedly politically intolerant mind. What exactly does the phrase “I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes” mean? And why is the possibility of being a propaganda item more important than establishing peaceful relationships? And why has this possible method of establishing a peaceful resolution been equated to pandering to rogue nations?
If a police officer tries to get a criminal to cooperate in an investigation, does that mean he/she is pandering to the criminal element? Is plea bargaining pandering? It’s done all the time. How is this concept any different? It seems some folks are more concerned with the appearance of impropriety than actually solving problems. This is why I hate politics.
I am a big fan of the “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” school of thought, but our current international policy is broken. Severely. It just ain’t workin’ out too well for us. And we can’t honestly just sit here and say we don’t care what other countries think. It should have become apparent by now that our ability to solve our international problems is seriously affected by other nations relationship with us.
Perhaps we need to try something new. And at least Obama is willing to give it a shot, even if he is a newbie. I certainly don’t think he can do much worse than we are doing right now, especially if we continue with our current, and in my humble opinion, seriously jacked-up policies. So why not?
Obama debate comments set off firestorm – [Yahoo/AP]
Copyright infringement. Guilty until proven innocent?
Yet another Mom gets targeted for, get this, posting a home video of her toddler dancing to Princes “let’s Go Crazy”:
She wanted to share it with other folks around the world so she uploaded it to YouTube, just like thousands of other proud parents have done.
What happened? Big 4 organised music cartel member Vivendi Universal claimed the recording infringed a copyright. – [p2pnet.net]
Apparently the video got removed from YouTube because Universal claimed copyright infringement. I guess you don’t even need to have actually engaged in verifiable copyright infringement to have your videos taken down. Someone merely has to accuse you of it. Now is it just me, or does it seem like the RIAA has YouTube wrapped around it’s little finger?
I’m sure there are many legitimate complaints of copyright infringement from the RIAA on YouTube videos, but shouldn’t they at least verify that some sort of infringement has actually taken place before removing videos? What happened to the rights of the posters? After all, without it’s posters, YouTube would be little more than, say, WebTube. Or InterTube. Or just ‘Tube. Now those don’t sound to popular do they?
Mum sues Universal over YouTube video – [p2pnet.net]
A cow run does not equality make.
OK, this article made no sense to me. Or rather, the premise of equality being presented by the women of Pamplona made no sense to me:
The students say it’s only logical that women should have their own bull-run.
“Cows, as well as bulls, have four legs and a natural instinct to run,” says their manifesto. “An encierro for cows, would put Pamplona at the vanguard of traditional fiestas with equality for men and women.” – [Yahoo/Reuters]
Is it just me, or do some of the ideas put forth in the name of gender equality sound more like exercises in gender separatism instead? Equality, as I understand it, means that no one is restricted from doing something simply because of gender, race, creed religion, lifestyle etc. I applaud anyone who actively promotes the ideal of gender equality, but isn’t the idea of a gender specific event anathema to the whole idea of gender equality?
How is having a “women only” bull cow run any better than a “mens only” bull run? Aren’t they both equally sexist? And it’s not like bulls are used because they are male, but rather because, from my understanding, they are more aggressive than cows. None of this makes any sense to me, especially since women have been allowed to run along side the men for years. Can someone explain to me how a womens only run would foster gender equality? If these women want equality, why don’t they just organize to run alongside the men? As far as I can tell, no one is preventing them from doing so. Wouldn’t that be the best way to demonstrate that women are equal to men?
Women demand female Pamplona bull run, with cows – [Yahoo/Reuters]
Log In
My Thoughts…
Blogroll
General Info
Phyreblades Blogs
Famous Last Words
The Time Machine
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Jan | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | ||||
Issues
Pick your Poison:
Easy Eavesdropping.
- Phyreblade on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- dreadrocksean on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- shamelesslyatheist on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…