May 16, 2006

I thought the dems were the isolationists...

My English professor (surprise, surprise) just said that it's the conservatives who want to shut off immigration.

Didn't Bush say last night that he wants to institute a guest-worker program to allow for those already here to stay, and just keep new ones from coming in? That makes perfect sense to me. Add in an easier method for western-hemisphere citizens to immigrate here, and I am happy.

That's really the long and short of it.

Posted by Kat at 11:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 02, 2006

The world is flat

Written on the board right now in English class:

Trying to globalize the world might destroy the diversity of many cultures of humankind.

Friedman's book The World is Flat is referenced.

"There is this fear that culture will become flat."

I really don't think so. Globalization gives everyone an equal playing field on an economic level, but, if done properly, the individual cultures also become equally represented. A child in India can learn the peculiarities of the Japanese people. At the same time, a Chinese businessman can understand how to do business in France or Brazil.

I'm reminded of the trip my father took in the late 80's to Asia. He spent so much time beforehand learning the little cultural references so he wouldn't insult his associates. He studied not only the language, but the proper way to approach a colleague, how to act in a teahouse, and what would be expected of him in negotiations.

It's been years since I've thought of that. Amazing.

Getting back to the topic at hand...The current globalization trend is not the "flattening" that Friedman and his readers seem to think it is. Instead it's a rounding of the world economy and a strengthening of the understanding of all of us as "human."

Posted by Kat at 11:28 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 06, 2006

The NYTimes is going down the toilet

I should have written about this Saturday morning, while it was still fresh in my mind, but a PSY100 paper distracted me.

Hell, the damned thing is due at 11am and I'm not done with it. Though I will be in about a half hour, so I'm ok.

So here's what happened. I'm closing up the restaurant with my boss, and decide to go next door. As my boss and I are trading quips about my (not) getting shitfaced, an odd young man is standing, smoking a cig and looking like a dog at a ping-pong match. He and I start talking and we end up going in to the bar next door to get a drink. Ok, no big deal, I've done this before and I know the bartenders working that night (it's why I decided to get a drink before going home anyway). So we go in and continue our conversation. It comes out that he's a NYTimes reporter and just got back from Iraq. He's convinced it's a pile of shit and that we really screwed up. As he goes on and on, I'm bringing up stories written by Brendan Loy and Michael Totten about the good things happening. I mention Iraq the Model and Zeyad, to point out that the residents of Baghdad, those who have a bigger stake in the future of the country than we do, feel things are going very well, given the circumstances.

He uses the old "bloggers are people in their pajamas in their living room" line. He claims Glenn Reynolds is a partisan hack and that bloggers are simply people giving their opinions from 3000 miles away. He starts Bush-bashing. He calls the war a "disagreement over oil" and says we need alternative energies, but changes the subject when I mention that the creation of plastics uses more petroleum than energy plants. He bounces around, says he isn't a Democrat, but then proceeds to spout every party line. I sit there, let him rant for 15 or 20 minutes (by this point it's around 1:45 and I've been there for over an hour listening to him bluster), then just ask him if he believes his bias colors his stories.

He says that he is on a search for the truth and that facts are more important than opinion - that opinion has no bearing on real life and should be disregarded. That he is on a noble search for The Truth and anyone who tells him different is living in a fantasy world.

That pissed me off. Not really, but I was tired of listening to his bullshit and wanted to go home. So I stood up, told him he pissed me off (to which he said "good), and that he was living in a little fantasy world of his own. If he thinks his bias doesn't color his writing and his opinions have no bearing on truth, and if the rest of the reporters at the Times feel the same, then I see why their circulation is going in the toilet and I predict a total collapse of the paper within the next decade.

Then I called him a fucking idiot and stalked out.

Moron.

I can't believe people like that actually exist in positions of journalistic power. My confidence in the blogosphere has jumped by 300% and I have a ton more respect for Glenn and Karol for having the balls to fight with people like this on a daily basis. The liberals scare me. The idea that someone is willing to put up with the risk of death for the sake of some idealistic fantasy scares me. Risking death for freedom is one thing. Risking death for some perceived slight to freedom is an entirely different can of worms.

If I am not free, I may as well be dead. But if I am dead, my freedoms mean nothing. I would rather live, and live free. Whatever I have to do to ensure that, I will do. If it means torturing someone to get information about a future attack, fine. If it means domestic wiretapping of potential terror suspects, not a problem. If it means flooding the city with Marines, go for it.

I love my country, I love my freedoms, and I love being safe. I don't think it can get simpler than that.

Posted by Kat at 09:43 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 13, 2006

I'm pissed

Wanna know why?

Here.

This week, the 7-year-old was beaten to death in a Brooklyn apartment where she had been tethered to a chair with twine.

I can't even describe how pissed off I am. No child should ever go through that hell. There's all this bullshit about how kids need to be protected. Lip service to the evils in the world. When push comes to shove, nothing happens. Business as usual. "Oh, we can't get in the house cause the parents, WHO ARE THE ONES ACCUSED OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT, won't let us in. Ah well, we'll just go on about our day."

Obviously her teachers noticed. Why didn't they do something more? Why didn't they continue to file reports? Her neighbors? Friends? Where was the world as this little girl was tortured to death?

She was seven.

Probably loved playing outside and going over to friends houses. I wonder what subject she liked in school...Math? Reading?

Second grade.

That's her life. Probably not even a blip on most people's radar. She didn't have a chance to become the person she wanted to be.

And what kind of people are her siblings? All five of them stood by while their parents tied her to a chair, molested her, and then beat her to death. All it took was one well-placed blow to the head. At 36lbs, she couldn't fight back, and she couldn't survive. And no one else fought for her.

THIS is why I want to be a teacher. I want to be there for the kids who don't have anyone. I want to be the one they can turn to. I want to help them grow into the people they want to be. I want to keep another Nixzmary Brown from dying.

Posted by Kat at 02:46 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 13, 2005

A conversation in my head

I had a conversation with myself on the train this morning. Product of not enough coffee and being very very tired from working last night. I don't know why the other voice is male, that's just how it sounded in my head.

Him: It is our responsibility to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves.

Me: But what about those who are able to provide for themselves, but are just lazy-asses?

Him: That's their choice. It's their life and their right to decide how to live it.

Me: So the rest of us should support those who just don't want to get off their ass and get a job?

Him: Some of them are going to slip through, but most of those on welfare really do need the help.

Me: That still doesn't answer my question. Should we be forced to support those people who are able to work but choose to not get a job?

Him: How do we know if they are truly unwilling to get a job? What if they are simply unable, and we take them off welfare because we judge them able?

Me: That's what checks and balances are for, and that is what appeals are for.

Him: But those rarely work.

Me: But that's a problem with the system, not with the concept of welfare in the first place.

Him: And what about those who aren't able to understand how to appeal?

Me: Again, that's a problem with the system. We need to be fixing the system itself, attempting to get those who are able off welfare and into a job.

Him: But then the issue of unemployment rates comes up.

Me: That's because creativity isn't fostered enough in schools. Kids are told to follow the book and learn the test rather than actually learning skills they need to be able to start their own businesses. With the advent of the internet, there are so many more opportunities which schools don't take advantage of. Just look at Pajamas Media. If they become a true blog wire, like the AP, but without the bias and hype, then there is a whole avenue for people. Web design, blogging, online companies - all of these are providing amazing opportunities that are not being exploited by schools and work programs.

Him: But then kids aren't trained for office jobs and manufacturing jobs. The material world will collapse in favor of the online one.

Me: Manufacturing jobs are rapidly being taken over by machines and automated. The industries that still require a personal touch won't fall by the wayside because people will still prefer that over creating their own business. The internet simply puts people in control rather than forcing them under someone else's control.

Him: So how do schools train kids in this new world?

Me: In the early grades, teach them WHY something works instead of just HOW. Kids want to learn. They're sponges. Give them projects every week to draw and create, and they'll lap it up. Start teaching them programming and foreign language early, and they'll be skilled by high school. It not only creates a better-educated workforce, but it also gives adolescents and teens more say in their own lives. All of a sudden, we will have a workforce that starts at 12 instead of 16, and those kids will be exploding with interest, love, and energy. It will move people off welfare, and it will solve this oft-commented on "problem" of apathetic youth (which I think is bullshit, but that's another conversation).

Him: And how do we pay for it?

Me: We will probably have to eat the costs early on, but once the economy skyrockets and new businesses are created (with the taxes that come from them), then the costs will be reabsorbed and negligent. Less money put into welfare and more on education and training, and you have an ever-increasingly productive system.

-----------

Yeah, so I'll probably have more of these conversations in my head. They happen all the time, I just rarely transcribe them.

I still have one on apathetic youth and another on social security.

Posted by Kat at 10:43 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

December 02, 2005

Scholarship essay

Just so everyone knows, I'm a schmuck.

I wrote a great scholarship essay on alternative fuels. I was going to reprint it here.

I made some edits to the final version. In the submission window.

And I didn't copy/paste. So I don't have the final version to post here. And I don't remember the edits. But they made the difference between a spectacular essay and a so-so one.

Oops.

Posted by Kat at 10:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 01, 2005

Speakout

I wrote to Fox about the New Hampshire parental notification law. The body of the email is below.

I grew up in New Hampshire. One thing I have always been proud of is being able to say I come from the "Live Free or Die" state. That freedom is more important than anything else. With the institution of this parental notification law, New Hampshire is coming under fire from several civil rights groups, including the National Youth Rights Association (www.youthrights.org). It disappoints me to see a state so in love with freedom restricting the ability of women to choose privately based on something as irrelevant as age. A woman under 18 is considered emancipated when she bears a child because she is considered responsible enough to make decisions for herself and her child, and yet that same consideration does not apply to women who are simply pregnant. Why is a seventeen year old less capable of making a decision without her parents' knowledge than an eighteen year old?

Leaving aside the lack of a clause allowing for health of the mother, I notice that it is a notification rather than a consent law. No permission is required from the parents, rather, it simply requires they be told, or that a judge be told. This violates confidentiality laws and medical ethics. We do not require that a parent be told when their teenager is being treated for an STD, quite the contrary. We hold that the doctor cannot legally or ethically tell a parent that their child is taking doxycycline, azithromycin, or ciprofloxacin for treatment. It is meant to act as a deterrent, yet another sign of the nanny-statism which has become so prevalent in our government.

Another concern over the notification law is that it will simply drive abortions back into alleyways and cellars, resulting in a loss of life or fertility. Women are going to have abortions. Many realize that they are not ready to have a child, and make the difficult, but appropriate decision. However, many young women are stuck in a position where they are terrified, unable to approach even a teacher or counselor, let alone their parents or a judge. Unfortunately, sometimes it is the teacher or parent who is responsible.

This law will not act as a deterrent. The only thing that will is to have better, more comprehensive education on prevention, as well as a greater availability of birth control, the morning after pill, and RU-486. Give teens more control over their bodies and you will find that they act with responsibility. If teens are treated as toddlers, not trusted to make their own decisions and mistakes, then they will never grow up to become good members of society.

Posted by Kat at 10:57 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 10, 2005

Offended

If you make me censor my language, I will be resentful. And upset. And offended.

For a very long time.

Posted by Kat at 12:40 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

November 03, 2005

Looks like another essay is in order...

Tiny paragraph from 'Gang of 14' article

"Although he didn't go quite as far as (Chief Justice) John Roberts (search) did in his hearing, he satisfied me that he recognized this to be one of the unenumerated rights in the Constitution, this basic right of privacy. And he led me to believe that he felt that it was an established right," Durbin said Wednesday after Alito visited with him during the nominee's third day of meetings and photo-ops with lawmakers.

I really need to write about privacy and the Constitution. I've done some research on it, and while I don't consider myself to be anywhere near competent when it comes to Constitutional Law, I have some ideas and suspicions.

For now, I'll let it brew and see if I get any comments from my readers that I can use to fill out an essay.

Posted by Kat at 10:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 01, 2005

Disillusionment

I find myself not only irritated with those on the left for not listening, but also those on the right, for continuing the partisanship and making gross generalizations.

It started when I was reading Blog, by Hugh Hewett. I got annoyed with all the "lefties" and Democrat-bashing.

Maybe I just actually see it now. Maybe I was missing it before.

Either way, I'm sick of it.

Posted by Kat at 09:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 31, 2005

Rare post on an area I have no expertise in

Instead of commenting myself on the Alito nomination, I'm going to point you to Insta and Volokh. I've also had a bit to say over on NYRA's Forums, which I may copy and paste here later, when I have time to expound more.

Posted by Kat at 01:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 28, 2005

Another Abortion Post

Apparantly (there's that damned word again), Karol is pro-life.

I am pro-choice, with certain caveats.

1. No late term abortions, excepting the health of the mother. Even then, every effort should be made to save the child as well...once it is viable, it is a child.

2. NO PARENTAL NOTIFICATION. Ever.

3. The health of the mother comes first in all cases, until the child is viable. This includes mental health (i.e. rape, where having the child would be too traumatic) in certain cases.

Pretty much, I'm pro-choice, but hoping to see a decline in the number of abortions because of better education, the morning after pill being available over the counter, and RU-486 being prescribed more than it is. A D&C is not necessary in most cases, and should be looked at as a last resort.

This is always a difficult topic for me to write on, because I often think "what would I do if I was in that situation?"

But I'm lucky. I have a support structure in place that keeps me from having to really worry. I know that no matter what my choice, I won't get shit from anyone who loves me.

I also know that I do what I can to ensure I won't get pregnant. But in the end, it comes down to situation. I don't know what I would do.

Which makes it hard for me to philosopize on this topic, because who am I to regulate other women's lives?

Posted by Kat at 09:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 21, 2005

I think it's someone who LIKES Saddam.

Saddam's chief lawyer, Khalil al-Dulaimi (search), said after the kidnapping that defense lawyers have gotten many threats in past weeks — by e-mail, cell phone text message and by telephone. He did not specify if they were from Saddam opponents angry at their defending Saddam's regime or from Sunni supporters angry that they were partipating in the trial at all.

Discuss.

Posted by Kat at 09:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 04, 2005

Political Positioning

You are a

Social Liberal
(81% permissive)

and an...

Economic Conservative
(75% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Libertarian



Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

The questions are so loaded though. Bah.

And yes, Sarai is still ignoring me. Popped up for a bit of attention about twenty minutes ago, but has vanished again.

I'm pretty sure she's punishing me for sleeping in today. Not that I was that late, but...eh. I'm sure everyone here knows how cats can be.

Posted by Kat at 11:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 19, 2005

Crescent of Embrace

(Quick note: I'm not totally sure which category to put this in, but I'll leave it here for now)

Sissy has an entire category about the "Crescent of Embrace" memorial slated for Flight 93. At this point, I tend to agree with everything she says, which is a far cry from where I was when the news first came out.

Few bullet points:

I'm sure I'll update this through the day as I think of more, but for now I'll just give my opinion (the best thing about the blogosphere).

When the news first came out, I was outraged with most of the blogosphere. Then Sissy's first entry on the subject came up. While reading it, I realized that I was misreading the models that had been posted. Having done some landscape art installation in high school, I knew how misleading topological maps can be, especially if you look at them from the wrong angle.

I have continued to read her entries on the subject, and find myself more and more in agreement with her. There is little I would add, except that it is not too late to change the name. "Arc of Embrace" would better suit a memorial than "Crescent" even if one is not taking into account the Islamisism of the word. When one thinks of a memorial or a tribute, one thinks of the Arc de Triomphe, rather than a moon or crescent.

For the first time, I disagreed with the Cox and Forkum cartoon. Their "Crescent of Embrace" annoyed me more than most of the other alarmist bits throughout the blogosphere. I'm not sure why, but maybe it had to do with the visual aspect.

In any case, I think the blogosphere should pull it's head out of it's collective ass and realize that the name is the only bothersome thing about this memorial. For once, admit that one of your own, whom you disagree with on this point, is right, and you are wrong.

Posted by Kat at 10:49 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 06, 2005

Quick note -

You do what you have to in war to be able to win. Might does not make right, but oftentimes, being right means you have might on your side.

Posted by Kat at 12:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 29, 2005

Confirmation of past beliefs

Sissy yet again clarifies what I try to say.

She gives, among other things, a history of the hijab, the head covering that Muslim women wear. Disturbing in the least to find out that it is truly a modern invention.

Alex, having responded to my previous post a while back, falls into the same trap that most anti-war people do - That we advocate the "taking out" (to quote Pat Robertson) of the extremists and fundamentalists.

How do these two things tie together? Pretty easily. You have Sissy illuminating the ridiculousness of modern Sharia law, while Alex views that law as an establishment that has no alternative other than complete destruction.

Destruction is part of it, sure. But destruction using the bloggers, the elected officials, the students, the moderates, the children, the historians, the true scientists, and the ones willing to stand up and be counted.

War is only part of it. The other part has to come from the ordinary people.

That actually brings me to Israel/Palestine. I'm still not sure if I think the withdrawl is a good thing. I don't like that Hamas thinks it a victory, and wonder how that could have been dealt with. At the same time, this does make it easier for Israel to protect it's citizens.

But then why not leave those who wish to stay, with no support, no reimbursement, and being treated the same as the Palestinians who stay? Why drag them, kicking and screaming?

Anyway, back on topic. Alex, I think you should read more of Sissy's posts. Oftentimes I find myself thinking that I should just simply link to one of hers, rather than writing one of my own.

Posted by Kat at 12:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 22, 2005

Subway searches, constitutionality, the MTA and the NYC government

Dan, a Couple things in response to your post.

I am mostly against the searches, and would refuse to be searched if asked (unless I'm drunk and with a group of people, as happened a few weeks ago at US). However, since it is the police conducting the searches and not the MTA, your bit about corporations is invalid. It is the city itself doing the searches, not MTA officials. Although I understand your bit about the MTA being the ones requiring the searches, it is the government doing the actual searches. This brings it under the scope of the constitution. The fact that it is the MTA requiring them instead of the state doing so just means that it is an attempt to get around it. The MTA board has direct links to the Governor's office and the Mayor's office. It was also put out as the NYC government being the ones asking for the searches. Every news piece I have watched has declared it an NYC policy rather than an MTA one.

My issue with the searches comes down to their statement that if they find anything illegal on you (gun, drugs, slave children) you will be arrested and charged with the relevant crime. If they were to remove that bit of the policy, I'd be ok with it. I still wouldn't submit to it, but the process means just as much as the policy.

Ok, there is no direct "right to privacy" within the constitution. But I think these searches are pushing the boundries of the constitution in it's current interpretation.

Yup, you read that right. Current interpretation. I think that the constitution was meant to be interpreted, not taken at face value. Yes, it was written in English, but it also created the judicial system, meant to interpret the constitution as times change. That also applies to my views on Roe v. Wade, but that's another post.

Posted by Kat at 12:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 12, 2005

Almost right, when it comes to the drug war

Jeff, you know I love you. But you're missing a few points on the drug war and drugs themselves.

Yes. Pot, coke, meth, crack, heroin are bad. Evil. Should be fought to the utmost of our abilities.

Ok, maybe not pot. Pot...I go back and forth on. I know people who are fully functional and smoke pot once in a while. I know people who are addicted, and yet are able to hold down a job, make some decent money, and generally enjoy their life. I also know people who's lives have been ruined by smoking too much pot.

Then again, I know people who's lives have been ruined by drinking too much alcohol.

I guess that's what it comes down to. Does the drug itself cause the addiction, or is it possible to have drugs that don't?

I believe the latter is true. There are drugs which are not in and of themselves addictive. One of these is alcohol. Another is LSD. Another is MDMA.

Psylocibin, which I've written about before, is an interesting drug in that it makes you *not* want to take it again within a short period of having taken some.

Heh. "Mushrooms - My Anti-Drug"

Sorry, that just popped into my head, and I felt the need to share it.

Moving on.

If you are going to ban drugs, then alcohol and nicotine, as well as caffeine, should be on that list. I've seen people jonesing so hard for a cigarette that they're tapping out a nonsensical rhythm on the walls of an elevator. I've seen people who are so in need of an espresso shot that they practically push everyone else out of line at the Starbucks.

You wanna call that "ok" just because it's legal? If it was illegal, we'd have the same problems, only much more widespread. Look at prohibition, as an example. The rise of gangsters and the mob. How can you see that and not compare it to the dealers of today? The only difference is that illegal drugs have been, well, illegal for so long that we're used to it and it's been pushed even further underground than the "tea houses" of the 1920's. Addicts are ostracized in our society, told they are worthless because they're hooked on a drug we've deemed "wrong", while we laugh about our caffeine and cigarette addictions.

Where's the reason in that?

Posted by Kat at 08:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 26, 2005

Random thoughts from conversations

If Condi Rice is really doing what Haaretz says she did, I'm upset.

------------

How can anyone think a welfare state is a good idea? If you are able to work and don't, you don't eat, and can't afford somewhere to live. Simple.

If you are working, and still unable to make ends meet, then government assistance, and extra education to increase your skills is a good idea.

If you are unable to work, and have no family and no money, then government assistance is necessary.

If you are able to work, but can't find a job, unemployment benefits and more education/training is a good idea.

Get people off their asses and you'll reduce violence, drug abuse, and the need for either a welfare state or projects.

Until then, don't come crying to me that you only get enough money from the government for one BMW. I've worked my ass off to get where I am, and I didn't need any help from the government.

Posted by Kat at 11:18 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 22, 2005

Why

It's simple.

Posted by Kat at 07:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 11, 2005

Moonbat insanity

The far leftists really are insane. They don't understand that the housing projects keep people in poverty instead of lifting them out. That they are one of the reasons NYC is having problems. The only way this city can become a wonderful place to live is if the landlords and owners create affordable housing in the private sector and make usre those who work are able to hae a place to live. It is those who live on the public dime, those who are able to work and *choose* not to who ruin it for the rest of us.

When a person decides to add to the culture and economy of the world, they become a true member of society. When they make the declaration "society should support me," they lose out on the chance to join the human race.

By human race I don't mean the collection of creatures that share 99.9% of a set of genes. I mean a group of the species homo sapiens sapiens who make the concious decision to create a better world. When those people are pushing their boundries, challenging themselves and the world around them to rise above the standard, then they become a member of the human race, and we welcome them into the fold.

Alors.

I happened to have a conversation with two moonbats and a potential member of the human race on Saturday night in Union Square. The one man was standing, listening to us discussing and arguing about poverty, gentrification, the government, and other moonbattery. I was speaking about how I am working to ensure that Harlem would become a magnet for intelligent professionals who wanted to see the city become unified and the need for the projects disappear. That the people who live in the projects are mostly uninterested in bettering themselves.

Because I am white, the moonbats, one in particular who was wearing a dirty, torn, white t-shirt with magic-marker slogans written all over it and anti-Bush pins scattered amongst the slogans, felt it necessary to inform me that I am a yuppie WASP who is gentrifying the black neighborhood and that my father deserved to die because he was a minister and therefore contributed to the problem of the Christian Right(tm).

He was a raving lunatic who drew more emotion out of me than was healthy. However, he helped me sober up enough to get on the train and write the above screed on a little notepad.

I'm curious what my readers think. Please comment. I think this will be my entry for the RINO carnival this week.

Posted by Kat at 10:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 22, 2005

Addendum

A quick addendum to the previous article:

I am intimately familiar with addiction. Not only have I watched friends struggle with heroin and painkiller addictions, but I have watched family members become alcoholics.

Most painful of all was watching my father rapidly become addicted to morphine and demerol while he was dying of cancer. Being a child and watching one's father go through that kind of thing, knowing that he hated it but needed it at the same time...And in the end, knowing that it was the only thing keeping him lucid at times...There's nothing quite so difficult. It gives me a not-so-unique view of addiction.

Posted by Kat at 10:28 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Time for the Entry About Drugs

Jeff has an interesting article over on his site about opinions on drugs in the blogosphere

Now, I disagree with him on several points, so I'm going to go along and quote bits, then respond. A semi-academic article.

(NOTE: all information is from one of three sites, all of which are linked at the bottom. If quoted directly, a link will be provided.)

Dub’s point is that the sale of drugs is used to fund terrorism not because drugs are prohibited but because drugs are addictive. This rates a giant “duh” from me.

Actually, the definition of drugs is a substance that alters the chemical makeup of the body. This is why prescription drugs such as Naproxen, Viagra, Celebrex, and others, are called drugs. A drug does not have to be addictive to be called a drug.

Many "illegal" drugs are not addictive. Some actually are counter-addictive. One example of this is Psilocybin, a toxin found in shrooms. Because of the high fever and general malaise caused by this toxin, resistance to taking it again is very high immediately after coming down and reduces over time.

The mushrooms can be fun. One may feel like eating them every day. A -- not cool, B -- not good. A mental/physical tolerance builds up quite fast: usually three or four times with 7 day intervals cause diminished effect...

In that page, scroll down to The Eraserhead Syndrome for the above quote.

Other drugs which are not necessarily addictive are Ecstasy and Acid. Both of which, if done on a regular basis, cause a resistance to build up, reducing the effectiveness and killing the enjoyment.

The way I see it, drugs are fundamentally a civil-rights problem. In any incident of drug use, there are two parties involve. There’s the consumer and the seller. (There’s also a producer who is almost certainly separate from the seller, but let’s ignore that for the moment.) The consumer buys and takes the drugs; the seller provides the drugs in exchange for money.

There are many more than just two parties involved. In addition to the producer, there are the middlemen, the seller, and the buyer. Often there are many middlemen, ranging from distillers to just people who pass along the drugs, making quite a bit of money off them. Most drugs are not as expensive as their street value. Most of them can be produced for anywhere from $0.25 - $2.00 per dose. It is the middlemen who push up the price, and often it is the middlemen who get arrested with the massive amounts of drugs being trafficked. One could say that it is the middlemen who cause most of the problems with drugs.

But the seller is stomping all over the buyer’s civil rights. See, the defining characteristic of drugs is that they’re addictive. We don’t fully understand the physiology of addiction, but we know that certain substances are addictive. When somebody is addicted, he’s not free to choose whether to consume the object of his addiction or not.

We've already dealt with the addiction concept. It's false. Yes, narcotics tend to be addictive, meth, crack, cocaine, certain prescription narcotics, etc. I agree that the production and distribution of those should be illegal in the U.S. However there are many drugs, emotigens, empathigens, and hallucinogens, which are not fundamentally addictive and should be, at the least decriminalized.

I don't see it as the seller STOMPING on civil rights, or even as it being an issue of freedom from addiction. It's a transaction.

But taking it from his point of view, it still isn't the SELLER doing the stomping, it's the person who PRODUCED the drugs in the first place. Ditto for overdoses/reactions to the substances used to cut the drugs. It's whoever mixed the drugs in the first place.

Even then, it is only the seller/producer if it is a top-down system. If the system is P2P, with the producers being the buyers/sellers/etc, then the concept of one person taking away another's freedom to choose goes down the toilet.

However, there’s a complex interaction between suppliers and consumers. We can’t turn all our wrath to those who produce, distribute and sell drugs and just ignore those who consume them. We have to attack the supply and the demand.

But does it do any good to take drug addicts — and for purposes of discussion I’m considering all individuals who consume drugs to be addicts — and throw them in jail? That doesn’t make sense to me.

When discussing only the addicts and addictive drugs, he's dead on. No argument here.

So if I were king and could make all the laws, here’s what US drug-control policy would look like: Anybody caught in possession or under the influence of drugs would be sentenced to a 180-day in-patient drug treatment program or five years in prison. (I don’t see how we can force otherwise competent people to undergo medical procedures, but we can give them a difficult choice.) Meanwhile, anybody caught producing, trafficking in or distributing drugs would be sentenced to the harshest punishment we have: twenty-five years to life.

Ok. Treatment for addicts: good. Harsh punishments for producing, trafficking or distributing with no distinction and no consideration for the various levels of addiction/effect: not so good. This is my biggest problem with the Roc laws in NYState. They have no allowances for anything. Pot? Crack? same punishment, because they're both schedule 1 drugs. That's exactly what I've been fighting against.

So, the basis of this article is good. It's just some of his facts and most of the hard-line punishments I have an issue with. But tell me what you think. I want to hear your opinions. He has comments closed, so I'll trackback him, and you comment here. Yo, Jeff, link to me so they'll come over here to comment! I need commenters!

(Yes, I admit it, I'm a comment-whore)

The New Bluelight
Erowid
Magic Mushrooms: The Shroomery

DISCLAIMER: The above is an academic discussion, not intended to promote or deter drug use.

UPDATE: I felt like trackbacking another person who provided a slightly more logical tearing apart of the entry posted by Jeff. Though we made the same basic points, hers is more organized.

Posted by Kat at 07:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Conversations and Inspirations.

I've been having email correspondance with Jeff over the last week or so. It's gotten very interesting. During today's conversation, I'm sitting in Starbucks, listening to launch.yahoo.com, and what comes up, but one of my favorite songs.

God Bless The Broken Road

I set out on a narrow way, many years ago
Hoping I would find true love, along the broken road
But I got lost a time or two
Wiped my brow and kept pushing through
I couldn't see how every sign, pointed straight to you

Every long lost dream lead me to where you are
Others who broke my heart, they were like northern stars
Pointing me on my way, into your loving arms
This much I know is true
That God blessed the broken road
That lead me straight to you

I think about the years I spent, just passing through
I'd like to have the time I lost, and give it back to you
But you just smile and take my hand
You've been there, you understand
It's all part of a grander plan, that is coming true

Every long lost dream, lead me to where you are
Others who broke my heart, they were like northern stars
Pointing me on my way, into your loving arms
This much I know is true
That God blessed the broken road
That lead me straight to you

Now I'm just rolling home
Into my lovers arms
This much I know, is true
That God blessed the broken road
That lead me straight to you
That God blessed the broken road
That lead me straight
to you

Posted by Kat at 07:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 20, 2005

Words

I live mostly in my head.

This is not to say that I don't live in the world. I am very rooted in the world, and enjoy all sorts of worldly things.

But underneath it all, I live in my head. I am always thinking. Often it takes me a long time to wind down, because even though my body is exhausted, my mind just won't stop working. I started this site partially in the hope that I would be able to get some of these thoughts out.

I'm still thinking as much, maybe even more, but for some reason, the words just don't want to put themselves down in a blog format. Message boards have caught my interest.

I'm also dealing with a shitload of trackback spam. Yuck.

Posted by Kat at 05:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 19, 2005

Durbin and the Moonbat Left

I've been having some interesting conversations lately in blog comments and message board PM's. The following is an amalgamation of said comments. Most of the replying comments have been taken out, except where they further what I've said.

The site I was commenting on is The Shape of Days. I've also edited my own comments to only include the pure philosophy.

Durbin was wrong for one reason and one reason only. He compared the torture of walking hundreds of miles through Siberia, the gas chambers of Birkenau, the torture rooms of the mullahs, with being forced to listen to Christina Aguilara music. I'll admit, it is fairly torturous to listen to her, but I wouldn't classify it with the above.

He also had the audacity to say this in a public forum.

I stopped being a registered Democrat only in the last election. And only because I didn't want to associate myself with people such as this. Living in NYC means I am subjected to the ramblings of people such as Al Sharpton, Schumer, and the general ignorant, slogan-spewing radicals on a daily basis. To know that they are in the Senate as well merely reinforces my belief that I did the right thing by changing my associaion.

A note about the Geneva Convention: It is only meant to apply when BOTH sides abide by it. The terrorists, no matter where they are, do not abide by several points. Technically, the entire thing should be thrown out the window.

ju:femaiz responded:

kat: but how to determine a terrorist from a person who may be misguided enough to fight for another nation?

See events in WWII by US citizens prior to the entry into WWII by the USA. Should they have been classed 'enemy non-combatents'?

If you do not apply the Geneva Conventions in one case, who's to say that those opposing you will pre-empt you and ignore them too?

Darleen said:

Take a moment and think on this -- how is the Geneva Convention enforced?

It's not. There is no GC police force or courts.

The GC holds force only by the goodwill of its signatories and the incentives provided by the way it is written.

Islamists in general and al Qaeda in particular are not signatories to the GC AND in both word and deed they reject the GC.

What incentive does al Qaeda or other non-signatories have to actually become signatories if they know they will be treated to the full power of the GC and never have to abide by it themselves?

The GC makes clear distinctions between civilians/POWs and others. And it puts the responsibility of harm to civilians who are used as shields on the people who USE them as shields (ie when Islamists hide among civilians the Islamists are 100% responsible for any harm to civilians, even if the harm is from American or Iraqi National soldiers)

And I responded, again:

ju said:

"kat: but how to determine a terrorist from a person who may be misguided enough to fight for another nation?

See events in WWII by US citizens prior to the entry into WWII by the USA. Should they have been classed 'enemy non-combatents'?

If you do not apply the Geneva Conventions in one case, who's to say that those opposing you will pre-empt you and ignore them too?"

The difference between terrorists and enemy combatants is a grey area. There are many things one can call a terrorist that can also apply to EC. I guess the biggest distinction is are they trying to kill us because we are trying to kill them, or because they are morally outraged by us?

I've always had a problem with putting my feelings on this into words. I've always just been able to point and say "terrorist" or "not terrorist".

RE: the Geneva Convention, Darleen has the best answer. I'll leave it to her. Kudos, Darleen.

ju responded to me again...

@ kat: if we stoop to their level, what have we achieved? Nothing. What have they achieved? Everything.

By that concept, everyone should shrink back into individual isolationism, nations would not exist and it would literally be 'every man woman or child for themselves'

And later:

Dropping the nuclear bombs has been heavily debated on both sides - both at the time and from then on - and I don't think there will ever be a consensus that it was completely necessary in the scheme of things.

Fire bombings of Dresden continued more for the sake of vengence and civilian moral than to achieve any military victory except perhaps by secondary and tertiary effects. Even Churchill conceded this in stopping such bombings.

One wonders of the secondary and tertiary effects of a superpower performing as you speak - and by way of speaking you are acknowledging that morals hold no part in the 'war on terrorism' (or, I'm assuming, any other war on *tism). How many more nutcases come about when they see people they empathise with suffer? Your anger at S11 was guided into Afghanistan (still a mess to this day) and misguided into Iraq (moving on from Afghanistan before it was tidied up). Where can their anger at act against someone they empathise with be chanelled?

Again, Darleen responded (I think I like this woman)

'ju:femaiz

Those that criticize the A-bombing of Japan due so from the conceit of being alive because of those bombings.

If you have any knowledge of the battles of Wake Island or Iwo Jima, then you have to know that the full invasion of Japan that would have taken place instead of the bombings would have been a protracted bloodbath on a scale that would have dwarfed all losses up to that time.

Not speculation. Cold, hard, cruel reality.

I, myself, would not be here if such an invasion took place. My father was a paratrooper with the Army 11th Airborne. He would have been first wave of the invasion. As it turned out, he was with the occupation troops on Okinawa for 2 years.

And my most recent response:

Ju:

You completely misunderstood what I said. I am, in no ways, an isolationist. I have never been one, and I will never be one. It isn't a matter of "stooping to their level", it's a matter of doing what is necessary to protect those who want to see this world succeed.

That is the key point of this war, of everything that is going on. Not "free the Iraq people" (though I think that's a great benefit) not "invade a country to get its oil", not even "expansionism". We have to protect the people who will contribute the most good to the world. If that means we have to go free Iran next, I'm all for it. If it means we have to assasinate Kim Jong-Il, wonderful. If it means we have to pull a "Team America" on the world, FUCK YEAH!

To paraphrase Batman Begins, we must do what is necessary, but we must do it with compassion. Go after the dictators, but give candy to the children.

So that's where the conversation has gone. Let's see if it continues.

Update: Whoops. Forgot to include the conversations about the 9/11 memorial. I'll stick a second entry in later, since I'm still waiting for responses.

Second Update: Darleen apparently also wrote a post about this.

BTW, if anyone knows how to keep MT from sending multiple trackbacks to Typepad blogs, I'd be much obliged.

Posted by Kat at 01:24 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 16, 2005

Video Games and Kids

If video games influenced kids, we'd all be running around darkened rooms, listening to bad techno music and popping pills.

Posted by Kat at 08:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 14, 2005

The verdict

I really don't care about Jackson. I think he's a pathetic little man who is either simply trying to get publicity, or a true pervert. Either way, any parent who let their kid go near him after the incident in 1993 is a moron and shouldn't have had kids in the first place.

I have no patience for people who hurt kids or give the impression that they're going to hurt kids.

Ditto for cats, but that's another entry.

I've been babysitting for C. since she was 20 months old. I started babysitting her sister, S., when she was 3 weeks old. If they trip on the playground I feel for them. I can't imagine what would happen if either of them was seriously hurt. These girls have my heart.

Posted by Kat at 10:25 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 16, 2005

Day by Day

I love this cartoon.

via DaybyDay (duh)

This one is pretty good too. And ties into the Newsweek thing (which really does have me royally pissed off)


Which is via Cox & Forkum

Posted by Kat at 04:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 05, 2005

WOW

This is just amazing.

Even more amazing is that I can type after attending the YR event, getting drunk, and reading that. *sniff*

Seriously. Go read. Truly amazing.

Karol, you missed out not coming tonight. It kicked ass.


NEXT MORNING UPDATE: I think my body disagrees with me about how much fun was had last night. *groan*

Posted by Kat at 02:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 03, 2005

Incomprehensable Religion

It amazes me that a religion which puts so much emphasis on spirit, soul, and afterlife, displays their leader's body for all to fawn over.

Yet another example of why I have nothing to do with The Church.

Posted by Kat at 02:51 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 02, 2005

A Passing is Always Mourned

There are few deaths which pass without at least a moment of sadness. The Pope garnered a bit more than a moment, mostly out of respect (on my part) for my RC family.

Terri Schiavo, however, produced in me nothing but a feeling of relief. It's over, I don't have to listen to the two warring sides bitch at each other anymore. There's a reason I haven't posted about the whole situation, mostly because I refuse to give it any more publicity than it deserves. Which is none. It's a private matter and a private conflict and the media should never have gotten involved.

Posted by Kat at 05:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Passing is Always Mourned

There are few deaths which pass without at least a moment of sadness. The Pope garnered a bit more than a moment, mostly out of respect (on my part) for my RC family.

Terri Schiavo, however, produced in me nothing but a feeling of relief. It's over, I don't have to listen to the two warring sides bitch at each other anymore. There's a reason I haven't posted about the whole situation, mostly because I refuse to give it any more publicity than it deserves. Which is none. It's a private matter and a private conflict and the media should never have gotten involved.

Posted by Kat at 05:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 23, 2005

The Poetry of Death

I have a weird relationship with death. Having been surrounded by it since my fifth or sixth year of life, it holds a special place in my emotions.

It's one of two things that can make me curl up in pain at any given time. The other is variable, dependant on where my emotions and my hormones are. But death...I'm not sure quite how to describe it. I read the school massacre stories, the Right-to-Die stories, the murder stories, the abortion stories. I stay up to date, and try to figure out what I believe.

But I can't come to a conclusion. Terri Schiavo might be in a PVS, or she might just be brain damaged and able to recover some kind of life. But why is there no independant review by a panel of doctors? Why aren't MRI's and CT's and PET's being done to truly determine her physical state? Why the hell are the politicians getting involved?

What does this mean for the death penalty? For abortion? For euthanasia? Assisted suicide?

I either think too much, or...I think too much.

Chris Muir of DaybyDay said it best (following is paraphrased)...We live in a world full of color...liberals live in a black and white one.

Amend that to say liberals and conservatives. Very few people see the true brilliance of the colors. Purple, Orange....

Posted by Kat at 03:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack