You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Uncategorized' category.
Very interesting – the nicest people I’ve met this year are one young woman from Russia, one from Sweden, and one guy from France.
I was totally surprised with this woman from Russia, because I’ve never had any (much?) contact with Russians before and what little contact I’ve had with anyone even remotely geographically close was with people from the ex-Soviet Republics in Eastern Europe — and I must say they gave me a horrible impression of their culture and mentality (Roumanians, Poles, etc.). Stupid, backwards, idolizing the US in the most nauseating and naive ways, trying to be the grossest liberals — as if thinking that equated to “progress and freedom.” From archaic retrogrades to sleazy liberals. Ugh.
Add to that, all the horrible news in the media related to Russia, Putin, the mafias, the violence, the selfish nouveaux riches, etc., and my image of Russians and Russia was a dump. But no, some very nice (and intelligent, and together) people come out of there. 
Same for Sweden. I have a different negative stereotype of Sweden, veering more towards the boring, kind of like cultural clods, too much drinking, and — unfriendly. Well, just met a very nice exception.
And the French guy was, well, within my idea of what a nice French guy is like, but that doesn’t materialize very often 
.
I think it’s such a luxury to have an international group of friends. These are all acquaintances, but I look forward to forming a real international group of friends for the long-term. One of the best things in life.
Talking to people of only one nationality bores me incredibly.
New home Feels just like when you move in real life! Heh!
inkling_revival writes: Thursday, May, 03, 2007 6:09 PM
Proponents of “hate crimes” legislation justify the special status of these crimes by saying “It affects more than just the victim of the crime; the entire class is terrorized by the crime.” For this reason, they claim, it must be differentiated from the mere violent crime itself.
In saying so, they prove themselves completely ignorant of American jurisprudence.
It is the case, in American law, that EVERY crime is considered a crime SPECIFICALLY because it affects more than just the affected party. Legal actions to address damage to a specific individual are called “Torts” in American law, and are judged in civil courts. Crimes are crimes because the commission of them attacks the very fabric of society. This is why crimes are prosecuted by the state, not by the victim.
Thus, for example, auto theft is not handled by a tort action, even though it’s an individual who lost the car. The act of stealing a car terrorizes all who own property of any sort; and the safety of private property is the basis of individual liberty in a free society. Therefore, auto theft is handled as a crime, not as a tort.
Thus, there is no basis in legal theory for special penalties for “hate crimes.” What they claim is special about the hate crime, is actually true for the entire society; the violent act terrorizes, not just the victim or the victim’s class, but the entire culture.
From Huff robert-naiman:
In his struggle to retain his position as President of the World Bank, Wolfowitz has retained the services of Robert Bennett, “a high-powered Washington lawyer known for adept legal skirmishing and negotiation,” the Times notes today.Guess what Mr. Bennett is threatening? To disclose the salaries and perks of others at the Bank:
“[He] also indicated that he was prepared to keep the temperature raised, possibly by demanding the public release of the salaries and perquisites of others at the bank.
A full public airing of the high salaries at the bank is not something that top bank officials want, many bank officials say. They may seek to avoid a confrontation if only to avoid calling Mr. Bennett’s bluff.”
Well then. Why don’t Bank employees call Mr. Bennett’s bluff? If Wolfowitz’s critics in the Bank’s staff association release the salary and benefit information – to which they surely have access – then Mr. Bennett won’t be able to use the disclosure of this information as a threat.
And – it could be argued – as the World Bank is a taxpayer-financed institution, this information should be a matter of public record anyway.
It looks like Mr. Wolfowitz will stay at the World Bank and remain as president long after all the current staff has passed away into eternity.
Hah! What interesting times these must be at the Bank right now. So many arms being twisted, so many threats, the bank dinausaurs screeching and jousting at each other with their razor-sharp claws…
Below is a textual excerpt that delineates part of the problem that I was referring to here: (All violent crimes are not “hate crimes,” because I would argue the definition of “hate crime” is selectively myopic and it enforces unequal protection and status under the law. I would even go further and argue that the concept of a hate crime is completely senseless, like saying pigs can fly, because it’s flawed in its fundament. )
Engendering Hate Crime Policy: Gender, the “Dilemma of Difference,” and
the Creation of Legal Subjects – Valerie Jenness – Dr. Valerie Jenness is Chair and Professor of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of California, Irvine.
http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/againsthate/Journal2/GHS101.PDF
“Who should be represented in hate crime law? Why? On what grounds?”
To emphasize the political, rather than legal nature of this question, Laurence Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard University, informed lawmakers that the question of which status provisions to include in hate crime law presents no constitutional problem. As he explained in U.S.
Congressional hearings on hate crime:
Nothing in the U.S. Constitution prevents the Government from penalizing with added severity those crimes directed against people or their property because of their race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, and nothing in the Constitution requires that this list be infinitely expanded.34
If, as Tribe suggests, legislators had considerable latitude, how did they proceed to demarcate status provisions in hate crime law?
In reading JJ’s sister’s blog, which has various passages just pulsating with life, I found this:
My days are mine
Even though the context where this phrase was found is not a poem, I found that the phrase alone is extremely poetical.
I am robbed, robbed of my days and I hate it. And every day I curse it, and pray that someday I can have a day that will be mine.
This excerpt from comments generated at a discussion of same-sex marriage at Justin Katz’s. (I can’t find the link to Justin’s original post).
My comment (where I copied some text from my previous post on the subject of homosexual violence):
Regarding the discussion on whether to normalize first, and consequently legalize, homosexual marriage:
Estimate for homosexual male domestic violence: 650,000 gay men are annually battered in the US alone
Is it a surprise that modern American society concentrates its energy in Pride Parades and normalizing homosexual marriage instead of looking at how enormously violent homosexuals are?
The day same-sex marriage activists spend even 10% of the same-sex marriage propaganda energy on disseminating info on how violent homosexuals are, they will show that even the most ignorant, dubious people can rise above the gutter.
(Domestic violence in gay male relationships is the third largest health problem for gay men in America today.)
Domestic violence is also prevalent in the gay and lesbian communities, occurring with the same or even greater frequency than in heterosexual communities (Barnes, 1998; Friess, 1997; Island, 1991; Renzetti, 1992). The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence estimates that 25% to 33% of all same-sex relationships include domestic violence.
And if they all batter so much, it is clear that homo and bisexuals have very high rates of sexual harassment behavior, including towards heterosexuals. It’s all part of the same web of sexual violence towards others.
p.s.: This book came out more than 15 years ago. From which we conclude: a society that is intent on homosexual propaganda has a profound closet, with an enormous quantity of statistics skeletons therein. You call young black female athletes some normalized denigrating hip-hop term and you hit the scandal circuit. You publish data about how criminal and diseased the minds of homosexuals are and the entire media becomes suddenly deaf and dumb, not for a week, but for decades.
I will clarify my point: I am not discussing in this comment why same-sex marriage is unequal to heterosexual marriage. I am pointing out that there is a concerted effort to censor and dismiss discussion about how violent homo and bisexuals are at the same time that there is enormous talk of the subject of homosexual marriage.
In other words, we see that topics about violence make people uncomfortable, since it disrupts their idealized stereotypes and simplistic accounts of social “reality,” therefore a continuous dismissal and resistance is found regarding these very topics, which are nevertheless key to understanding society at a more realistic and responsible level.
===================================
The day same-sex marriage activists spend even 10% of the same-sex marriage propaganda energy on disseminating info on how violent homosexuals are, they will show that even the most ignorant, dubious people can rise above the gutter.
(Domestic violence in gay male relationships is the third largest health problem for gay men in America today.)
Domestic violence is also prevalent in the gay and lesbian communities, occurring with the same or even greater frequency than in heterosexual communities (Barnes, 1998; Friess, 1997; Island, 1991; Renzetti, 1992). The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence estimates that 25% to 33% of all same-sex relationships include domestic violence.
And if they all batter so much, it is clear that homo and bisexuals have very high rates of sexual harassment behavior, including towards heterosexuals. It’s all part of the same web of sexual violence towards others.
========================================
p.s.: This book came out more than 15 years ago. From which we conclude: a society that is intent on homosexual propaganda has a profound closet, with an enormous quantity of statistics skeletons therein. You call young black female athletes some normalized denigrating hip-hop term and you hit the scandal circuit. You publish data about how criminal and diseased the minds of homosexuals are and the entire media becomes suddenly deaf and dumb, not for a week, but for decades.
I will clarify my point: I am not discussing in this comment why same-sex marriage is unequal to heterosexual marriage. I am pointing out that there is a concerted effort to censor and dismiss discussion about how violent homo and bisexuals are at the same time that there is enormous talk of the subject of homosexual marriage.
In other words, we see that topics about violence make people uncomfortable, since it disrupts their idealized stereotypes and simplistic accounts of social “reality,” therefore a continuous dismissal and resistance is found regarding these very topics, which are nevertheless key to understanding society at a more realistic and responsible level.
===============================================
alessandra:
I don’t know what book you got those numbers from, if from a bigot’s, or from some liberal activist who (being a liberal) exagerates problems so as to have something to fix, the kind of liberal who also finds that over half of women get “raped” in their lifetime. The truth is just the opposite of what you say. Gays are typically less violent individuals than straights. Everyone knows that. It is, actually, for their less aggressive natures that more “manly” men hold them in contempt.
Posted by arturo fernandez at April 25, 2007 12:45 AM
Alessandra, domestic violence is a serious problem in both heterosexual and homosexual communities.
So?
I know straight folks who have been battering victims, and gay folks who have been.
Why should that prevent anyone who does not assault someone from marrying?
Posted by DRettmann at April 21, 2007 6:23 AM
============================
That’s not the question. The question is why so many people lie about how violent homosexuals are or keep silent about it.
Is it because if you don’t lie so much about how violent homosexuals are, you won’t achieve your homosexual normalization quest?
(Domestic violence in gay male relationships is the third largest health problem for gay men in America today.)
Why are such a huge number of homosexuals so violent?
Why are you not debating how to make homosexuals a less brutal and violent group of people?
I think it is a higher priority for society to have less epidemic levels of violence than any same-sex marriage.
If you had two homo neighboring couples, one couldn’t get a marriage license, and in the other, there were constant episodes of brutal violence – which one would you think deserved a priority of attention? Of regulation? Of media spotlight?
Anyone who turns a blind eye to the violent couple and effuses concern about the marriage issue shows how disgusting their system of values is. And voilà 95% of our society!
Posted by alessandra at April 27, 2007 2:35 PM
oh look, a troll!
======================
alessandra:I don’t know what book you got those numbers from,
[you can click on the link and find out]
if from a bigot’s,
[what is your definition of a bigot?]
or from some liberal activist who (being a liberal) exagerates problems so as to have something to fix, the kind of liberal who also finds that over half of women get “raped” in their lifetime. The truth is just the opposite of what you say.
[Arturo on his soapbox is here to tell us the truth, the whole truth, and…]
Gays are typically less violent individuals than straights. Everyone knows that.
[Or so you like to fool yourself. ]
It is, actually, for their less aggressive natures that more “manly” men hold them in contempt.
[So you are saying that being a homosexual and perpetrating domestic violence are two things that are biologically determined? What about bank robberies? White collar crime? Are you saying heterosexual men just can’t help battering women because it’s in their nature? Did you know 50 years ago people denied heterosexual domestic violence just like you deny homosexual violence? Same sweeping statements as you like to use, “EVERYONE knows that domestic violence is very rare…” Isn’t it interesting that people like you don’t like to face how violent homosexuals are? What about bisexuals? Are they half as violent as heterosexuals or not?]
Posted by arturo fernandez at April 25, 2007 12:45 AM
=========================
As much as you hate reading books, Arturo, you would be better off reading them, instead of relying on gossip for your information on personal violence issues.
Posted by alessandra at April 27, 2007 2:59 PM
In other words, we see that topics about violence make people uncomfortable, since it disrupts their idealized stereotypes and simplistic accounts of social “reality,” therefore a continuous dismissal and resistance is found regarding these very topics, which are nevertheless key to understanding society at a more realistic and responsible level.
==========================
Arturo our latest most precise example.
Posted by alessandra at April 27, 2007
From WND:
Shell Oil Co. has determined “Playboy” and “Penthouse” no longer are pornography, but instead are “adult sophisticates,” according to a company statement.
The issue arose when the Florida Family Association contacted Shell about the sale of such explicit magazines at convenience stores owned by Circle K in southeastern parts of the United States.
David Caton, executive director of the pro-family organization, said his group asked Shell to require Shell-branded Circle K Stores to stop selling the pornography, as it has done in the past with other retailers.
The request, Caton told WND, has been made to more than a dozen major oil companies supplying fuel to nearly 150,000 outlets in the United States. And until now, Caton said, there has been virtually a 100 percent positive response.
“However, Shell Oil Company has decided instead to change their definition of pornography, unlike all other major oil companies, to exclude Penthouse and Playboy magazines which are sold by Circle K Stores,” he said.
The confirmation came in an e-mail from Otto O. Meyers III, a Shell executive, who told the Florida Family Association those stores selling “Penthouse” are not selling pornography.
“In regard to your inquiry about specific Circle K locations, our investigation has concluded that these stores are not selling pornography as one would think the general public defines it, but rather ‘adult sophisticate’ magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse,” Meyers wrote.
Caton said that puts Shell in a crowd of one among companies who “no longer consider the hardcore content of Penthouse and explicit nudity in Playboy to be pornographic. No other major oil company has taken this position.”
Following Scott Ott’s style- this just released to the media 
Following Shell Corporation’s pronouncement last week that it no longer considered the hardcore content of Penthouse and explicit nudity in Playboy to be pornographic, Shell executive Otto O. Meyers III today gave a similar rebuttal when questioned about Shell stores selling crack. “Our stores don’t sell ‘crack,’ but ’stimulating-candy-sophisticates’. Our serious investigation in the matter has concluded these stores are not selling what the general public usually defines as a destructive, viciously addictive illegal drug.”
The issue arose when police, emergency doctors, and a long line of politicians complained to Shell about the sale of the illegal, lethal drug at convenience stores owned by Circle Xtasy in southeastern parts of the United States. In just one week of its candy sophisticate sales, crime exploded in the region, when dissatisfied candy-sophisticate customers returned to Shell outlets for more and found the stores had sold out. Sgt. Boyles, of the Atlanta police department, confirmed the total of 50 armed robberies, 37 shoot-outs, and 3 arson fires that took place, leaving 84 people dead, including 5 passer-by children.
“To say that crack is a destructive and vicious illegal drug is a retrograde definition of crack, largely held by the general ‘uninformed and not Shell-sophisticate’ public,” said Mr. Meyers. He further added that the oil giant would be among companies who “no longer consider the brain-damaging power of crack and laws against its distribution as anything close to qualify it as a destructive, illegal drug.”
Until the present time, no other major oil company has taken this position. When criticized for their lonely position on the matter, Mr. Meyers argued, “someone has to take the lead in championing our customer’s demands. Although our competitors lag behind us, several of the world’s greatest drug lords concur with our decision and have applauded our initiative.”
March 10, 2004 – Sexual Abuse by Educators Is Scrutinized
By Caroline Hendrie
A draft report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education concludes that far too little is known about the prevalence of sexual misconduct by teachers or other school employees, but estimates that millions of children are being affected by it during their school-age years.
Written in response to a requirement in the federal No Child Left Behind Act, the report by a university-based expert on schoolhouse sexual misconduct concludes that the issue “is woefully understudied” and that solid national data on its prevalence are sorely needed.
Yet despite the limitations of the existing research base, the scope of the problem appears to far exceed the priest abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church, said Charol Shakeshaft, the Hofstra University scholar who prepared the report.
The best data available suggest that nearly 10 percent of American students are targets of unwanted sexual attention by public school employees—ranging from sexual comments to rape—at some point during their school-age years, Ms. Shakeshaft said.
Law Required Study
The Education Department contracted with Ms. Shakeshaft to examine what is known about the prevalence of sexual misconduct against students by school employees. The agency was responding to a provision in the No Child Left Behind Act.
The little-noticed provision required a “study regarding the prevalence of sexual abuse in schools, including recommendations and legislative remedies for addressing the problem of sexual abuse in schools.” The provision went on to set a completion date of “not later than 18 months” after the enactment of the law, which was signed by President Bush in January 2002.
Ms. Shakeshaft said her initial understanding from the department was that she was to conduct a review of the existing research to set the stage for a broad national study. She said the department had interpreted the statute’s reference to “sexual abuse in schools” as meaning misconduct by school employees against students, and not by students against their peers.
