March 20th, 2007 - Open Knowledge
Mar. 20th, 2007
MOM: Pass the wine, please. I want to become crazy.
GRANDMOTHER: Did you see the politics? It made me angry.
DAD: Me, too. When it was over, I had sex.
UNCLE: I’m having sex right now.
DAD: We all are.
MOM: Let’s talk about which kid I like the best.
DAD: (laughing) You know, but you won’t tell.
MOM: If they ask me again, I might tell.
FRIEND FROM WORK: Hey, guess what! My voice is pretty loud!
DAD: (laughing) There are actual monsters in the world, but when my kids ask I pretend like there aren’t.
MOM: I’m angry! I’m angry all of a sudden!
DAD: I’m angry, too! We’re angry at each other!
MOM: Now everything is fine.
Jane Galt writes:
children (and to my mind, the severely disabled), have positive rights. They have a right to be fed, educated, clothed, sheltered, and given medical care on someone else's dime. And if their parents abdicate this responsibility, then it passes onto the community, including the state, even if none of us asked said parent to reproduce. So arguing that educating poor children is immoral . . . well, I hardly know what to say, except remind me not to get into a lifeboat with you.
To which I responded:
No one objects to educating poor U.S. children. If that's an important value to you, then by all means, spend as much as you like of your own money educating them.
What I object to is your presumption that your preference for how I should spend my money supercedes my own.
For example, even if one grants that we have a moral duty to "educate poor children", it's by no means clear that the "poor" children of America are the ones who should be getting the money. After all, there are many more children outside the U.S. who are in far more dire straits. Perhaps I would prefer to spend my money helping them instead. On what ethical basis would you tell me otherwise?
Laetitia Daguenel and Sabine Herold give me hope for French culture.
Unfortunately, over here, Congress is busy trying to restrict the right of U.S. women to own and shoot guns. Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.)has recently introduced a bill ( H.R. 1022 ) that would renew the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. So far, the bill has received 30 sponsors (all of them Democrats). If passed, the bill would have the following effects (details below the cut).
The bill has not yet emerged from committee. However, even if this bill doesn't pass, we can expect ongoing attempts to restrict gun ownership. Therefore, I encourage everyone who wants to own guns to join an advocacy group like Gun Owners of America. The most effective means of lobbying is a short, one page letter to your representative, politely detailing your opposition. You can find your rep here.
If you're a Democrat, you may also wish to join these guys:
( Read more...Collapse )
11:24 pm - The 1984 Apple Commercial
I found this part amusing:
In keeping with industry tradition, Chiat/Day paid $10 to run 1984 in the 1:00 A.M. sign-off slot on December 15, 1983, at a small television station (KMVT, Channel 11) in Twin Falls, Idaho, thereby ensuring that the commercial would qualify for that year's advertising awards.
So, the only other time the 1984 ad was shown on network televison was on my hometown TV station, no doubt chosen because it was the most podunk station they could find.
|← Previous day||(Calendar)||Next day →|