danaeris | Entries tagged with debate

Canada is discussing the legalization and regulation of the local sex trade.

CTV article here

Any thoughts? How has it worked in Amsterdam and Nevada, and what can we learn from that?

Current Mood: curious

Throughout most of history, most of the population was exposed to sex at a very young age. We saw barnyard animals doing it. We lived in one room homes and slept next to our parents, and I don't believe for a second that they stopped having sex because their kids were there. It was considered natural by the lower classes, part of the way things were.

We were considered adult at 14, or even 13, and married, and had children. We made adult decisions.

A lot has changed since then.
-We live a lot longer.
-We don't marry simply to reproduce, and our life spans are too long and we have too much leisure time for a haphazard match to function as a marriage. Thus, the decision to have a relationship, to have sex, and to partner permanently (or with the intention of permanence), is a much more complex decision.
-We are treated as children for much longer, which in turn leads to a lesser maturity -- a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
-To be fully functioning adults, we need more education, which takes longer; this has compounded the previously mentioned problem of being treated as children longer and longer.

With kinky teens, the problems with the age of consent get much worse. Being slutty, or being kinky, can be dangerous physically and mentally if not done properly. But certainly in the US, and I would guess to some extent in Canada, instructing a teen on how to flog someone safely, or run a safe orgy, for example, is ASKING for a lawsuit or legal problems.

A large part of me scoffs at the idea that there is an inherent power imbalance with age. But, I must remind myself that I am not typical, and also that that imbalance becomes insignificant by the time you're a certain age.

At the same time, I confess that I view that imbalance as being as much a question of experience and maturity as it is a matter of age.

Of course, with a high age of consent, they can't get that crucial experience legally, and they can't seek advice on how to do it safely without the threat of legal repercussions. What about a graduated age of consent? In that case, we're faced with them doing this potentially dangerous thing, but only with equally inexperienced people, which sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

The fact of the matter is that kids will have sex, and if they're kinky, they'll have kinky sex, whether we outlaw it or not. So, what can we do to help them to make the best, safest choices?

-a low age of consent. Fourteen is the HIGHEST I would go (but is, imo, about right)... there are kids much younger having sex with no idea what they are doing.
-Comprehensive sex education starting early (I'd say around 6th grade, although maybe even 5th grade).
-Legal kink classes students must seek out on their own where underage people can learn how to do the things they'll do anyway SAFELY. Although, the internet and books may adequately fulfill this purpose, so it may be that instead, a suggested reading list in the in-school sex ed class might make more sense.

A lot of right-wing people feel that the government should not be instructing kids in something as personal and religiously-fraught as sex ed. But, with the presence of STDs and all we now know about child development, this is no longer an issue of religious or moral attitudes and beliefs. It has become a very serious public health issue. An uneducated child is a potential disease vector. That can't be allowed, or at least, should be minimized with across-the-board education.

This post was prompted by a discussion in

canpolitik about a recent bill to raise the age of consent in Canada from 14 to 16, which was defeated yesterday iirc.

Current Mood: contemplative

My father sent me this article, and I have to agree with him: It's one of the most balanced responses to recent events I've seen, published in the Tech section of USA Today.

Technology succeeds, system fails in New Orleans

In a way, it's rousing. It makes me feel righteous and angry, but also hopeful. Their Pravda cannot stand up to an army of citizen journalists. And maybe seeing the contrast between their lies and the truth in all this will help people to realize how dishonest the government is. This government, or all US administrations, or all governments? That's a topic for another debate.

Current Mood: contemplative

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Hurricane_Katrina_Chronology

The above link is by far the best chronology I've found so far, complete with links to verifiable sources.

But, like a lot of what I've been able to find, it definitely has the potential of a left-wing bias.

There are a number of allegations that the right wing folk have made, but I haven't been able to find support for them. I'd love to see a timeline which included information on their side of the story, complete with links!

Current Mood: crazy

Well, here's the other side of the political argument: A forward from my dearest Daddy, siding on the right as always.

Anyone who has information refuting these arguments is more than welcome to share. They raise some interesting points but they don't back them up with much more than rhetoric, in most cases. The last paragraph is, um, priceless. Makes me want to bang my head against the wall, really.

As I research and confirm or deny facts, I will add the correct information in bold, with a link.

For those that live inside and outside the US that can't comprehend what is going on in the Gulf Coast states.
1. It is up to the city to declare an emergency and evacuate the poor.
2 If for some ungodly reason the city can't do it then it becomes a State responsibility.
3. If all else fails the Federal Government is asked for help and the President normally takes the lead in dire situations even though he has cabinet members responsible for all emergencies..

But if you listen to the Newscast and Jesse Jackson you would think the President is suppose to be the first responder which he is not!! You want to blame someone go after the City Manager of the cities affected for leaving hundreds of buses parked like you will see farther down.. Sorry the President doesn't own a bus to send them! Also did anyone hear Jesse Jackson offer any of the money he blackmailed corporations out of to help his own people..No and you won't either..he showed up to pad his on pockets as usual!

This needs to be broadcast far and wide:

1. It was President BUSH who initiated the evacuation orders and fed. disaster declaration, not the other way around-- Governor Bianco herself admitted this! MIXED, mostly false: Bianco declared a state of emergency on Friday August 26 (http://gov.louisiana.gov/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf ). As did the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html). It was Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans, who ordered the evacuation (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/08/mayor-orders-new-orleans-evacuated.php), not Bush. It is true that the White House was the final signature on the Federal Disaster Declaration, but that's because that's how the process works; a state or city cannot declare a FEDERAL disaster. The declaration, backdated August 29 but not signed until Sept. 3: http://www.fema.gov/news/eventdfrns.fema?id=4808

2. The city didn't even attempt to offer transportation for their poor during their initial evac process. Check out: http://www.junkyardblog.net/images/NO-buses.jpg Edit:link broken
MOSTLY TRUE: If you visit the NO evacuation plan here and search for "Regional Transit Authority" or bus or somesuch in the page, you'll find that it was part of the evacuation plan... yet didn't happen. SOMEONE at the local level dropped the ball.

3. The FEMA response has been drastically slowed because of the violence which was due to the fact that over 50% of the New Orleans police walked away from their duties!! FALSE: The current percentage which have resigned, committed suicide, or are missing in action is only 13%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/national/nationalspecial/04police.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1125839324-Gx/WKaOOvv/dZllBg1criA

4. All the stupid uproar about money for the levee and the Army Corp. of Engineers is moot, as the levee failed at a POINT that WAS ALREADY UPGRADED!! UNVERIFIABLE: Information on the exact status of the levees and location of the breach is sparse. However, the levees may be affected by nearby sections as well, so even if the section in question was upgraded, if nearby sections were not, that could still lead to the breach. More information is required to confirm or deny this statement.

Start getting some facts out there, since the media, as usual, is only marginally interested in presenting them.

Check out the New Orleans emergency plan at:
http://www.cityofno.com/portal.aspx?portal=46&tabid=26
It is clearly the Governor and by delegation, the Mayor who are charged with ordering evacuation. This is to be done for a cat 3 storm. There is supposed to be an official in charge of planning emergency shelters (including 6 enumerated public schools). Nowhere is the Federal Govt mentioned.

In the plans, they mention evacuation zones, locations to be studied later. Apparently, it was never done. I agree with the comments above. Every time someone farts and craps their pants, everybody wants to blame Bush. The Mayor of New Orleans on radio the other night was a great example. Had he, the Parish and the State of Louisiana done their job, things would have be different. New Orleans is well renown for it's corruption in both the local government and the police department. If a rating were to be given for the execution of their emergency plans, I would rate them a PPP, which is an old Air Force acronym for, Piss Poor Planning" not to mention "Execution." Too bad for the innocent people in N.O. Maybe this will be a wakeup call for them to purge and elect a government that has the citizens interests at heart rather than their own selfish greed.....Charlie Stauffer

I will add this. Since our govt., or President, or anyone else for that matter, not even global warming, are responsible for Hurricanes, or where they are directed, not even good old Mother Nature, but One who controls the whole Universe, God, to be specific, then how do we know He hasn't puposely directed this storm to expose and destroy a corrupt city? Who are we to cast blame? Wasn't it God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? If that happened today, the bleeding heart Liberals would want to build it back up again to what it was, and spend our money doing it.
Just a thought!

The forward also included the text of this article:
An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State

by Robert Tracinski
Sep 02, 2005
www.tiadaily.com

It looks like a supposed newspaper which is published, edited, and written by one man. Hardly a reliable source, but nonetheless perhaps he has something worth saying. And, even if he doesn't, you must know your enemy to defeat him.

Edit
Well, I've skimmed the TIA article. The thing is a tautology. It doesn't really support anything with outside sources and includes intuitive wisdom from the author's wife. Um, yes. Whatever you say. *pats the right-wing zealot* That's right. Humans who have never been exposed to a welfare state would NEVER loot, pillage, and rape in a disastrous situation, and certainly, normal AMERICANS would NEVER do that! It must be the welfare state, which, as we all know, was in full force in Socialist Louisiana.

The one set of links he does provide are links which are intended to prove the corruption of the NO police force. The first link shows that the police who had headed to the Wal Mart to get supplies for their division (dog food, probably for search and rescue dogs, food for humans such as chili and spaghetti-os, t-shirts, probably necessary because many of them may not have changes of clothing and they are rescuing people who may only have soaked clothing (soaked in toxic sewage, from what I hear about the water in NO by now) and yes, admittedly, one DVD) did not stop the mob of looters who had descended upon the walmart. Yes, well. First of all, in an emergency, people need to get food somewhere, and if all the stores are closed, they aren't expected to starve. Second of all, for the majority of the "looters" who were actually looting valuable luxuries rather than disaster necessities, I'm sure there were just too many of them for the police to do anything. Stopping looting is not a priority. Rescuing people who are stranded without food or water is the priority, and these police officers probably had a mission: Get food and supplies, and get them back to the station/staging area. Do not get distracted by lower priority missions.

The second link is much more informative... apparently 200 of the 1500 officers in the NO police force resigned or never showed up, after a week of working around the clock (some never showed up, and some stopped showing up partway through, or resigned). Two committed suicide. If you read the article, it's a matter of humans getting overwhelmed, and not being able to "take it anymore." I'm not sure how I feel about those who resigned, but this does show that the police were understaffed as of Sept. 3, and possibly earlier.

Current Mood: contemplative

This morning, Bush was interviewed live on Good Morning America. What he said is generating a great deal of outrage.

The pertinent quote:
"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded. And now we are having to deal with it and will."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/09/01/BL2005090100915.html

His assertion that no one could have anticipated the breach is patently false. This article, which was published before the hurricane hit, explicitly states,

But officials admit that the levee system, built to withstand a category 3 hurricane, could be easily breached by a stronger storm.

"If we had a direct hit of a category 4 or 5, or maybe even a slow moving cat 3, we would be totally inundated with water," said Geneve Grille, a levee engineer. "You couldn't pump it all out."
-http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Weather/story?id=1074910&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Here's a special two part radio show from 2002 by NPR which talks about what a disaster it would be if a hurricane hit New Orleans.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1150366

Now, the painful truth is that several factors contributing to this tragedy have been caused by the current administration.
Cuts to disaster funding for the present and future, the deconstruction of FEMA, and more! You can read about it here:
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=24745

Of course, that fails to mention that a lot of the Louisiana National Guard is in Iraq.
http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/2001/030101/N9.BIHquakebu.html

And, rumour has it that because the National Guard was pre-empted for Iraq, recruitment has been down -- people don't want to go to Iraq, so they won't join the National Guard.

Arguably, it goes even further than that. Environmentalists argue that a lot of Bush's administration's policies are causing the bizarre weather which led to Katrina.

More verifiable are the allegations in this column, which cover some of those mentioned earlier here, as well as some interesting information regarding the wetlands surrounding New Orleans. It's a biased source, though, so grain of salt:
http://www.workingforchange.com/printitem.cfm?itemid=19557

I'm being lazy, I know. I'm not looking for primary sources in some of these links. But, enough places which are relatively reliable are saying these things. I'm pretty sure they are accurate.

Current Mood: angry

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/23/fetal.pain.ap/

Summary:
Some experts claim that fetii can feel pain after 20 weeks. A new study at UCSF claims that it isn't until 28 weeks. Arguing ensues.

The debate is particularly relevant in light of proposed American legislation to require counseling for women considering abortions after 20 weeks, in which they would be told that the fetus/baby might feel pain, and would be offered anaesthetic for the fetus/baby which might pose a health risk to the woman.

Yay controversy! Um, err, not so much.

Current Mood: crazy

The head of the Women's Health division of the FDA has resigned from her post over the endless politically motivated delays heaped upon Plan B's approval.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050831/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/morning_after_pill

By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer 8 31 05
WASHINGTON - The highly regarded women's health chief at the
Food and Drug Administration resigned Wednesday in protest of her agency's
refusal to allow over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception.
Assistant Commissioner Susan Wood charged that FDA's leader overruled his own
scientists' determination that the morning-after pill could safely be sold
without a prescription, and stunned his employees last week by instead
postponing indefinitely a decision on whether to let that happen.
"There's fairly widespread concern about FDA's credibility" among agency
veterans as a result, Wood told The Associated Press hours after submitting her
resignation Wednesday.
"I have spent the last 15 years working to ensure that science informs good
health-policy decisions," Wood, director of FDA's Office of Women's Health,
wrote in an e-mail about her departure to agency colleagues. "I can no longer
serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and
recommended by the professional staff here, has been overruled."
It was an unprecedented public show of discord for the FDA, and prompted
lawmakers to call for congressional hearings into whether the nation's leading
public health agency allowed politics to trump science in determining the fate of
the morning-after pill called Plan B.

The stance I hold on this, and the stance those I've spoken with on this hold, is this:

The FDA is supposed to determine if a drug is safe for the user, and approve it based on scientific evidence. Plan B has been proven to be safe for the user, based on scientific evidence, and should be approved by the FDA.

It is then the government's role to arrive at some conclusion as to whether it is ethical or right for Plan B to be used, and outlaw it, or not.

These are two separate processes. It is essential that they remain separate.

To be devil's advocate, my stated position starts from a position wherein the fetus/child is assumed to not be a life at the stage where Plan B is used (72 hours after conception, iirc). If you go by the assumption that both lives exist, and have equal rights under the law, then the FDA should NOT approve it, because it obviously is not safe for the fetus, any more than rat poison is safe for toddlers. Neither position is really provable at this point; it's purely a matter of opinion. My impression, however, is that the consensus of society as a whole is that it is more important that women have access to things like Plan B in order to ensure their freedom and independence, than it is that every potential child have the opportunity to be carried to term.

Anyway. Interesting news.

Current Mood: crazy

Amazon is selling an illustrated children's book entitled Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed. (link courtesy of

pyat)

It tells of two nice boys who like baseball and say their prayers at night who want to buy something, so they decide to start a lemonade stand business. Hyjinx and madness ensues as the liberals try to squeeze them for every cent they make and swamp them, presumably, with bureaucracy and other minor hindrances.

My first reaction upon seeing this was, "Ow, my brain is bleeding."

Reading the page further though, I realized that the issue is far more complicated than that. Liberals have been making children's books that are, for instance, gay positive, for years. This is an attempt at doing something similar for conservatives. Sure, religious children's books exist, but none that attempt to focus on the perils of socialism and the goodness of capitalism.

Not having read the book, we can only go so far in this discussion as it pertains directly to this particular book. But we can still address the general question: "What's the difference?" If it's ok for us to give them books like "My two daddies" what's wrong with them choosing to give their own slant to THEIR children?

I'm going to play devil's advocate for the most part in this conversation. This book gives me the heebie jeebies, but I'd really like to try to debate this with folks in earnest and see what shakes out.

Current Mood: curious

The newsletters I write are archived on our website.

Currently, you can select issue date to see all the stories written in that issue.
You can select company name to see all stories tagged with that company.
You can select topic to see all stories tagged with that topic.

You cannot search.

I just had a conversation discussing this with the boss person. He wants to use tagging because it doesn't turn up false positives.

I argued in favour of replacing the tagging system with a search window, because I believe that search is good enough these days that the false positives are rarely a problem, and with tagging, if you forget to tag it or didn't think of tagging it for topic A when it included topics A, B, and C, you simply won't find that article.

But then I thought about how useful tagging has been on livejournal. Then again, has tagging been "so useful" because we don't have a real search function? I must admit that tagging on LJ has been somewhat frustrating for me because I don't have a list of tags I've used before handy, and I keep on making variations of the same ones. With a fresh document at work or on LJ, there are a bazillion different applicable topics with which I could tag. I could sit there brainstorming for several minutes and come up with a huge list of possible tags for any given article or post. I find this frustrating, even stressful, and at work, I find it to be a waste of my time (not that my time is at that much of a premium, but the truth is, I don't want to do it; it's tedious and frustrating).

In many ways, tagging vs. searching is like the difference between folders in a traditional email application, and search on gmail. A lot of folks tell me that they don't miss folders, because gmail's search function works so well.

So, I'm wondering what you guys think. If you were going to choose one as the reader, which would you choose? Tagging, or searching? Obviously, both could be implemented, but does the tagging really add that much value, to be worth the amount of time and effort it would take to add the tags?

Let the debate begin!

Current Mood: curious

Profile

danaeris

August 2022

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Syndicate

Page Summary

Prostitution in Canada
Age of consent and sex education
More Katrina
Katrina: Excellent Timeline Link
Katrina stuff - What the Right are saying
The politics of Katrina
While I'm at it: Fetal pain
Plan B in the US
Indoctrinating children
Tag vs. Search

Style Credit

Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Jul. 29th, 2025 11:54 pm

A Danae of All Trades

Entries tagged with debate

Prostitution in Canada

Age of consent and sex education

More Katrina

Katrina: Excellent Timeline Link

Katrina stuff - What the Right are saying

The politics of Katrina

While I'm at it: Fetal pain

Plan B in the US

Indoctrinating children

Tag vs. Search