February 26, 2005
Like a free ride, when you've already paid
Parents Television Council, which some of you may recall sent thousands of complaints to the FCC after Janet, claims that their goal is to ensure that children are not constantly assaulted by sex, violence and profanity on television and in other media.
Apparently a good way to do that is to copy the profane parts and post them up on the web.
I wonder if filter software keeps kids from visiting the PTC site.
Comments:Criminalize the spread of HIV?
Canada has leveled murder charges against a man who infected many women with the disease. He was originally charged with 'endangerment', but that got bumped up when one of the women died.
There are so many issues wrapped up in this, but I am not against criminalizing the spread of HIV, assuming there are a few tests which would need to be passed before a charge would stick. First of all, I would make it a requirement that the state would need to establish that the person did not disclose their HIV status, and that the personknew their HIV status. If a person has disclosed their HIV status and another person willingly engages in sex - then I don't think it's a criminal act.
That said, I'm a little worried about the removal of the 'specific intent' clause which has been recommended to CA's HIV infection law. I understand the purpose, but this change will criminalize the example I gave above, and I don't think it should.
Comments:Brett said (at February 28, 2005 08:43 AM):
I actually like the idea of prosecuting people who spread HIV. Obviously there are some pretty significant practical problems with it, but conceptually, I think it might make people take the whole thing a lot more seriously.
Henry said (at February 28, 2005 08:53 AM):
I agree two, as long as those 2 tests are met. The person needs to know their HIV status (or that they are at high risk for having HIV) and they must not have divulged it.
Round the world in 30 seconds
Dresses are fashionable. And Manditory.
A school board upheld a principal's decision not to allow a girl to wear a tuxedo in his senior picture. She can either wear a more appropriate dress, or forgo having her 'official' picture in. Thankfully, her parents bough major ad space in the book and will run her chosen picture.
Suing Mike is Fashionable
Okay, lets assume the reports are true, and the hospital moved a heart attack patient to make room for Jackson. How, exactly, is that his fault? I'm no fan of MJ, but yeeesh.
Suing lefty bloggers is Fashionable
Apparently, Jeff Gannon/Guckert /Smith..whomever is not on board with Bush when it comes to frivolous lawsuits. He's threatening to sure the 'left wing' bloggers. There's a funny premise that you can't win a libel suit if the facts are true, and so far I haven't heard any claims that anything said is false.
Suing over the 10 commandments is fashionable
Well, it has been for a while,. but the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments on the issue this week.
Comments:February 22, 2005
BREAKING NEWS
Ummm, apparently the pope thinks gay marriage is evil.
In other news, Ice is cold, rocks are hard, and water is wet.
Comments:Brett said (at February 24, 2005 02:28 AM):
Try as I might, I just can't take moral pronouncements seriously when they come from a guy who wears a miter and a dress. :)
Henry said (at February 26, 2005 05:43 AM):
I just don't understand why this is news. It's certainly not a new stance...
John N. Hostettler
Congressman. Conservative.
And hoping to overthrow the judicial branch of the government via Executive Order fiat.
Looks like someone missed his 'The three braches of government' tutorial when he got elected. Maybe someone can send him a pamphlet.
Comments:Brett said (at February 23, 2005 03:03 AM):
Well, not to be pedantic about it, but there is ample historical precedent for the executive branch giving the judicial and the legislative the proverbial finger, dating back as far as Andrew Jackson's "now let them enforce it" contretempts with the Supreme Court, and running through Bill Clinton's "stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool" abuse of Executive Orders during his presidency.
That it's been done in the past, though, doens't make it any more acceptable, and I'd agree it's a lame, stupid, and cowardly request for Hostettler to make. If Hostettler is convinced that these rulings are transparently unconstitutional, his obligation as a member of Congress is to intiate impeachment proceedings against the judges who've issued them, and/or introduce legislation limiting the jurisdiction of the courts over the matter. Exhorting the executive branch to blow off the judicial is just a consequence-free way for the guy to grandstand, because if Bush were to abide, it'd be his ass on the line, not Hostettler's, and Hostettler knows it.
February 20, 2005
Bush and the tapes
Apparently, a 'friend' taped Bush during his pre-presidential planning. Bush mulls over why he wouldn't 'kick gays' and why he wouldn't admit to his marijuana usage.
Second Term administration - Is this the beginning of the secrets coming out?
Comments:Simpsons Gay Marriage
Overall, I give the episode a so-so.
First of all, I was amused that Fox created a special parental advisory notice. "This episode discusses same-sex marriage...". Especially since, in terms of gay-ness, the Homer Phobia episode was more pro-gay overall (Homer was worried Bart was gay). I guess because it was marriage - it could mess kids up more.
There were a couple of cool things. The 'They'll work it out on their own' comment Marge made about Lenny and Carl was funny. I also liked the fact that Homer decided to become a minister in order to 'cash in'. Amusing side note, my sister's friend became a minister in MA via a website course and married (legally) two of his (non-gay)friends. In the ceremony, he invoked elements of Lord of the Rings and other oddities.
Moving on. The nod to the 'slippery slope' argument was funny - with Homer marrying a brother and a sister and marrying Lovejoy to the bible.
The rest of the episode, though, was eh. Patty wasn't really a surprise, and Marge's opposition to the marriage seemed too weak for a 'I'm liberal but not for my family' plot. Also, I know they needed to have the marriage not work out but the whole 'I'm really a guy' thing was dumb. A better ending would have been to have the marriage law rescinded after all the money had been sucked out of the 'fad'.
Also, where was Smithers? Yes, we all knew he wasn't the one coming out - but to not include him at all? There was a ton of stuff that could have been done to include him in an awkward way. In Homer Phobia, the scene between him and John was fantastic.
Overall, a lot of hoopla for very little controversy.
BTW, the www.springfieldisforgayloversofmarriage.com site is live, though weak.
Comments: