http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjZjZGQ0YTEwNmI1NTU2YWUzNjFjMWFjMGJiNzZlZmY=
I suppose it could be worse--from what I understand, 18-25 unemployment in France hovers somewhere around 25%--but, hey, for those of us who want jobs (like Adalore), this might be interesting reading.
EDIT: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YThjODk3MmUxNDE0NThlZDQ2YWI0ZDI3NjBjZGRlNWQ=
Okay, scratch the "France" part; teenage unemployment here in the U.S. is at 25%. This sucks on ice.
Friday, September 4, 2009
No Elves!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLwUjyP-dkQ
This actually fits in VERY well with my personal fantasies.
I have a few complaints though; the headshot must've been done with a really low power weapon or something--no pink mist. The recon takes stupid long to actually pull the trigger, and when he addresses the cameraman you can see his finger is on the trigger at all times. But other than that...POP, haha!
This actually fits in VERY well with my personal fantasies.
I have a few complaints though; the headshot must've been done with a really low power weapon or something--no pink mist. The recon takes stupid long to actually pull the trigger, and when he addresses the cameraman you can see his finger is on the trigger at all times. But other than that...POP, haha!
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
A View on Gay Marriage
Derived from the conversation I posted with Winter, below.
(Also, I've noted biromantic tendencies in myself, so don't shoot me.)
1) For all the bluster on all sides of the aisle on "the definition of marriage", the definition is theoretically a very simple one: "a legal contract [traditionally considered between a man and a women, but that's subject to change] acknowledging the existence of a relationship, and restricting the terms of said relationship for the benefit of a third party", that third party being the government, the tribe, the future children, etc.. There's a metric butt-ton of detritus over tax breaks and visitation rights that have accumulated around this definition by various laws, but the essential core of marriage is the part I just put in quotes.
2) Having said THAT, the very term "gay marriage" suddenly becomes something of a contradiction. Implicit in the "gay" part is an EXPANSION of legally recognized relationships, expanding the choice of who can be in a consenting relationship with whom. Implicit in the "marriage" part is a RESTRICTION on the terms of such a consenting relationship; in a religious society, this may include absolute monogamy or certain divisions of care of house and home, and in more legal societies this includes splitting property ownership rights and debt obligations in a certain manner BY LAW. Thus, while I can support "gay marriage" viscerally, as an expansion of freedom, I cannot support it "intellectually", or speculate how it could be implemented, because the very term simultaneously implies an EXPANSION AND A RESTRICTION on the nature of relationships!
(It's possible that a significant number of gay couples feel the same way, as this study suggests:
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.demandforssm.pdf
It notes that, in all those countries and states where gay marriage is legal, very few couples actually take up the offer; perhaps the rest see marriage as an unwanted restriction on their relationship?)
Update, 9/2: After much conversation with Winter, again, it's noted that there is no contradiction if what is being discussed is the CHOICE of marriage, rather than the actual marrying, such that the couples can decide for themselves whether they like the chains or not. Fair enough, but once those advocates shift to suggesting the actual CONTRACT is a great win for their freedoms...see above.
She also said, and I quote: "clear definitions are luxuries ^_^" and that engies and scientists, in particular, need to dodge this. One, look who's talking, sound techie! Two...eh, another post.
(Also, I've noted biromantic tendencies in myself, so don't shoot me.)
1) For all the bluster on all sides of the aisle on "the definition of marriage", the definition is theoretically a very simple one: "a legal contract [traditionally considered between a man and a women, but that's subject to change] acknowledging the existence of a relationship, and restricting the terms of said relationship for the benefit of a third party", that third party being the government, the tribe, the future children, etc.. There's a metric butt-ton of detritus over tax breaks and visitation rights that have accumulated around this definition by various laws, but the essential core of marriage is the part I just put in quotes.
2) Having said THAT, the very term "gay marriage" suddenly becomes something of a contradiction. Implicit in the "gay" part is an EXPANSION of legally recognized relationships, expanding the choice of who can be in a consenting relationship with whom. Implicit in the "marriage" part is a RESTRICTION on the terms of such a consenting relationship; in a religious society, this may include absolute monogamy or certain divisions of care of house and home, and in more legal societies this includes splitting property ownership rights and debt obligations in a certain manner BY LAW. Thus, while I can support "gay marriage" viscerally, as an expansion of freedom, I cannot support it "intellectually", or speculate how it could be implemented, because the very term simultaneously implies an EXPANSION AND A RESTRICTION on the nature of relationships!
(It's possible that a significant number of gay couples feel the same way, as this study suggests:
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/imapp.demandforssm.pdf
It notes that, in all those countries and states where gay marriage is legal, very few couples actually take up the offer; perhaps the rest see marriage as an unwanted restriction on their relationship?)
Update, 9/2: After much conversation with Winter, again, it's noted that there is no contradiction if what is being discussed is the CHOICE of marriage, rather than the actual marrying, such that the couples can decide for themselves whether they like the chains or not. Fair enough, but once those advocates shift to suggesting the actual CONTRACT is a great win for their freedoms...see above.
She also said, and I quote: "clear definitions are luxuries ^_^" and that engies and scientists, in particular, need to dodge this. One, look who's talking, sound techie! Two...eh, another post.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Laugh or Cry? I'm Laughing.
It looks like those hybrid cars that claim to conserve limited resources of oil merely swap out one limiting resource for another.
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDQyMjgyOTY0YmU2ZGMzN2ZhODc5ZWVkMjM2NzhmY2M=
Of course, odds are, by the time the rare earth thing becomes an immediate problem we'll have a substitute. But couldn't we say the same thing about oil?
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDQyMjgyOTY0YmU2ZGMzN2ZhODc5ZWVkMjM2NzhmY2M=
Of course, odds are, by the time the rare earth thing becomes an immediate problem we'll have a substitute. But couldn't we say the same thing about oil?
Yeah, That Looks About Right
Add this to the "my political opinions" post I made earlier. Notably, the compass site thing (www.politicalcompass.com) suggested that that point is pretty darn close to Milton Friedman
(which is about as close to a Gordon Freeman joke as you're gonna get!) so yay!
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Any Sufficiently Analysed Magic...
...is indistinguishable from SCIENCE!
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20081205
New favorite quote. I'll use it on any pseudoscientists who allege we can't see "beyond" or "into" their special tricks.
http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20081205
New favorite quote. I'll use it on any pseudoscientists who allege we can't see "beyond" or "into" their special tricks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
