Category Archives: government, law, and politics

Man Boobs

14 Replies

[davidhasselhoff.jpg] title=It’s hard to argue with this guy’s logic. Then again, St. Anselm’s ontological argument for the existence of God sounds good at first, too. That is, until you really pick it apart. So I leave it to my compitent readers. What’s wrong with this argument?

“I usually don’t send out pure opinion pieces, but let it be said: There is not one person anywhere who can give you a good reason why it’s OK to show a man’s chest on TV, but not a woman’s chest. You can ask over 100 people why — trust me, I have — and not get a real answer. It’s just a silly superstition that some people came up with, a bunch of others went along with it, and now we’re stuck with it. Have you ever heard a real reason?”

[…]

“This is different from other issues, like abortion, affirmative action, or the death penalty — I have opinions on all of those, and probably so do you, but there are two sides to each issue, and I can at least see where the other side is coming from. But I’ve never heard the other side of the boob issue.”

“A good sign of a widespread belief that has no supporting logic is that if you ask people why they believe it, they always pass the buck on to someone else. ‘Our society has decided…’ ‘The community feels that…’ ‘Judges have ruled that…’ — except with that last one, if you listen to what judges say, they pass the buck too, saying ‘According to contemporary community standards…’ What’s missing is someone standing up and saying ‘I, yes *ME* *PERSONALLY*, I believe that seeing a mammary gland is harmful, and here’s why.’

“To people who say that inciting any male lust is bad, I tell them I grew up in Denmark (although I’m American) and there you could see bare breasts in public advertisements, on the covers of supermarket tabloids, and on the beach, and nobody cared. And, the sex crime rate is much lower there. It’s not obvious that nudity even incites much ‘lust’ once you’re used to it anyway — men live in nudist colonies surrounded by naked women and don’t get turned on. (It’s the visitors who are easy to spot, because they aren’t used to it and it makes them stick out, so to speak.)”

Read the rest here and let me know what you think.

Don’t Get Mad; Get Elected

1 Reply

These floors are dirty as hell and Dignan’s not going to take it any more!….er…Actually, he’s sick of his psycho representative, Cynthia “Don’t you know who I am?!?” McKinney, and is intent on getting her out of Congress, even if it means running for office himself.

I must confess that what little I know about McKinney came from news reports about her kurfuffle with police. Politics aside, I admire a fella who decides to light a candle instead of cursing the darkness. Government shouldn’t be like the weather – something much discussed but ultimately beyond our powers to control. More citizens should get involved with their government, if only locally.

Hmm…that’s good advice. Maybe the physician should heal himself…

Destruction of Capital

1 Reply

Via Dom Bettinelli:

“A highly-educated woman who chooses to stay at home and not to work – that is destruction of capital. If you receive the benefit of an expensive education at society’s expense, you should not be allowed to throw away that knowledge unpunished.” – Sharon Dijksma, a leading parliamentarian of the Dutch Labour Party

Dom sums up my feelings well.

“Yeah, because raising children is a selfish exercise that provides no benefit to society. Of course, this is the problem with socialized education since the socialists are then allowed to argue that since the government paid for something, they have a right to demand something in return. Where does this end? ‘We own you forever! Hahahaha!!'”

Commenter Ian raises an interesting counterpoint.

“I must agree with the Dutch to some extent. Consider: The Dutch invest in the education of their young (via exhorbitant taxes) to ostensibly increase the quality of their workforce. If the young accept that free education, they have an obligation to repay Caesar.”

I’d argue that they no obligation whatsoever. That’s what “free” means. IIRC, Germany has something more like what Ian is referring to. Every male citizen has a nine-month obligation to either be in the military or do civil service. If goverments wish something in return for education provided free of charge, they need to make it obligatory rather than whining when they don’t get back what they put in. To propose punishing stay-at-home moms is especially petty. Commenter Christian Martin explains.

“Children who get ‘primary caregiver’ attention from someone who loves them (as opposed to a paid employee) come out smarter and more productive in study after study than children who do not.”

“Furthermore, those who stay at home are more likely to have larger families, which will provide a future income base upon which to build the financial structure to assist this politician and his cronies when they reach retirement age.”

“Stay at home parents also provide for their children many of the services that otherwise would be paid for by the state, so the stay at home mom actually lowers society’s financial burden for things like education and healthcare.”

Immigration Debate

7 Replies

I’ve been doing a little thinking about the current immigration debate. The two main lines of argument that seem to be dominating discussions are as follows (in broad strokes).

  1. Illegal immigrants are hard workers who just want a piece of the American pie and are willing to do jobs that Americans aren’t willing to do. Leave them alone.

  2. Illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes and heavily burden America’s educational and medical services. They’re also a security risk. Kick them out.

I think both are right and both are wrong.

Continue reading →