but they aren’t my questions. I happened across this while reading a humorous little article on Spirit. Yes, that’s the ‘Spirit’ who began to hate Mars. Any how, I thought this was at least worth sharing.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080901/engelhardt
Of particular interest to me is question 2. It is kind of puzzling, when you think of the retroactive immunity granted to the telcos and wiretapping. It’s just curious…I’m just sayin’.
I listen to gobs and gobs of music. I mean really, it’s kind of sick. Well, I just saw the Pineapple Express trailer not that long ago and thought to myself, “Holy shit, they have M.I.A. on there!” The song in the trailer for Pineapple Express is, “Paper Planes”. I was on M.I.A. before she got into the US media. For those of you not in the know, M.I.A. is a Sri Lankan music artist. She’s Tamil, if it matters to anyone, and she’s got a great voice. She sounds awesome in concert from what I have seen on You Tube. I’d love to catch her here some time, but she doesn’t come to dumb cities like mine. I’m going to have to find the disposable income to go see her. Any how, here is M.I.A. doing airplanes in concert:
If you don’t like in concert stuff, well then you can have a look-see-listen to another of my favorite songs by her, $20:
Enjoy!
This is a question so don’t jump down my throat. I’d like to preface this with a quick statement. Yes, this involves homosexuality. Yes, it involves acts of pedophilia. If either of these things sicken you, stop reading. It’s just better all around if you not continue and save me the hassle of reading an emotionally charged comment attacking me or homosexuals (as for pedophiles, feel free to attack them verbally) and then having me delete your comment. I will do it, trust me.
I am not attacking Roman Catholicism or Christians in general. I’m speaking specifically to things we’ve all read in the paper and heard on the news (radio or televions) regarding the priesthood. I am not condoning nor accusing swaths of people. I’m asking a (probably complex) question.
I have wondered in the past and it just happened to come up in something I read so I am wondering now, about the priesthood. If you’re curious, I was reading an article located here [no registration required]. Basically, it’s Intelligent Design. I won’t debate the finer points of Intelligent Design; however, I will say that it’s not science. It’s dressed up to look like science, but maybe I’m mistaken. It doesn’t seem like sound science to me. Regardless, that article called up this question in my own mind it wasn’t posed in the article.
Roman Catholic priests (I’ll generalize and say priesthood) have what some people might consider harsh restrictions placed upon them. I consider celibacy to be harsh, but that’s a personal opinion. Could one say that because of the way religion in general tends to polarize issues into binary (good and evil) that it creates a certain amount of attraction to what you’ve been banned from? Many people tend to do things that are forbidden to them. Not all people, because many fear the repercussions more than they enjoy the forbidden fruits as it were; however, there is a lot to be said for the large portion of our population that will derive pleasure from doing something if only because someone told them they couldn’t/shouldn’t.
My next question is fairly simple as well, but it touches on a complex area. Could it be said, that the priesthood draws to its numbers pedophiles and homosexuals? Now, before you jump to the “No of course not, you moron!” Hear (read?) me out. It’s certainly plausible that this is the case, but I wouldn’t accuse the priesthood of being a haven for such individuals that would subvert a religious order who for all intents and purposes are attempting to do good. I would say that it could be viewed as a particularly interesting place to seek out as a haven though, because you are given a certain amount of power in such an order. Is that not true? I think this would be something interesting to study, because the lifestyle and easy access to children would seem ideal for those that could abuse such status as being a priest.
So there are my questions, feel free to answer/give opinion/bitch at me for bein’ a hater/whatever! lol Later days!
Addendum: Would anyone agree/disagree that the priesthood is also a place that would attract homosexuals/pedophiles who are self-loathing? The people I’m speaking about are those that would seek out an antithetical to themselves. Does the priesthood provide a mechanism for such individuals to work out what is in their own mind an issue?
I had an associate who was _so_ homophobic, but had homosexual tendencies. I have and still do question his sexuality, but he’s not come out and said he’s homosexual. It’s neither here nor there, but highly interesting to me.
Update: FISA previous to the amendents contained oversight. FISA also provided for emergencies. Taps could be placed for 72 hours without a warrant in the event of an emergency, all that needed to be done is that the tap be reported and a warrant sought after the 72 hours. FISA worked for 22 years prior to it being amended in this manner. What changed exactly? I don’t know the answer to that, but I don’t think it has anything to do with emergent issues, or difficulty in obtaining warrants for wiretapping. The FISA court only ever denied probably a hand full of requests for taps. Getting wiretaps (speaking from a government perspective) was pretty durned easy as long as you crossed your T’s and dotted your I’s (that really is an i).
I’m not sure how many people are aware of the bill addressing Telco Immunity. For those of you not in the know, the bill is: S. 2248. This bill only applies to illegal wire taps after 9/11, so anything illegal prior to that would not fall under this bill. That’s not much consolation to me in general though, because there were wiretaps without warrants even being sought after the fact (on an ‘emergent’ basis) that are/were illegal at the time and the telcos will be given immunity for that. I find that to be disturbing in general.
“How can you expect ANYONE to stand up to any pressure if you can’t expect enormous companies with enormous pockets and 15″ long lawyer penises to stand up to pressure?” Interesting question. I didn’t ask it, but it is an interesting question.
Another interesting thing is what I gleaned from the this here article. It would appear that Bush intends to veto the bill should it pass after an amendment was made. Basically what it boils down to as I understand it, and this may be faulty on my part, is that Bush is giving the impression that Telecom Immunity is more important than the ‘keeping American’s safe’ bit that the bill was supposed to be about in the first place. Now, I’m not a proponent of the increased powers that the bill wants to give with regards to wiretapping and the like. I believe the laws we have currently (and those we had prior to 9/11) are/were sufficient to protect Americans.
Some individuals have it in their heads that since it was an emergency, that the telecoms should be granted immunity to any illegal acts. This ignores the entire issue of after the emergency, illegal acts were still going on. I’m sorry, but I don’t fall into the idea that the government is above the law, and I believe that retroactive immunity is bad for US citizens. I believe immunity to any group of people complying with illegal orders regardless of the situation is bad for citizens. Correcting my previous statement to be less broad. I believe granting immunity to the telecoms in this particular context is counter to our rights as citizens and creates (or can create) a way to hide misdeeds. I am very concerned how this will turn out and I’m very concerned with what is coming down the line as far as our ‘digital’ rights as they were. Our rights in general are in peril, as I’m sure some of us are already aware.
As any parent will tell you (and I have a child, so I’m aware of how it works and I know the things I did when I was a teenager) you can’t always know what your children are doing. You hope they have enough sense to do/not do the things you’ve instilled in them. It doesn’t always work out that way, but we all have to learn our trade as human beings in a variety of ways. I learned a lot of mine from just being who I am. Other facets of being me I gathered from my parents. I didn’t do a lot of the things my parents did, such as drink or smoke. I still don’t. That’s just who I am. I do however have anger management issues on occasion, this is a problem I’ve been solving with my understanding of Zen. I’m pretty sure my anger management is an issue having to do with my father. My father was (he’s changed a lot since my childhood) an angry man in my opinion. I don’t remember a lot of my childhood because of that issue with my father. I don’t know if that’s intentional or not, but that’s the way it is.
So, do I think that Lori Drew is a poor parent? Well, yes I do. I also think the law has taken a really poor route of getting her charged as well, and that’s really more the focus of what I’m writing about anyhow. I imagine Lori Drew isn’t a dumb person, and should have known better than to do the things she did to facilitate the cruelty that was perpetuated upon that girl whom killed herself. Her name is, Megan Meier. Perhaps you’ve read about it in the news. Admittedly, I only heard about this case because it involves something that involves my field. Lori Drew was indicted based on laws designed to prosecute crackers. No, I don’t mean white people (in case anyone read it that way, it that’s funny, no that’s not what I’m saying). I believe the media uses the term hacker. It’s totally incorrect, but I’m done fighting that battle with people.
Lori Drew’s indictment totally flies in the face of what the laws were designed to accomplish. Am I glad she’s being prosecuted? Well, I don’t know. What transpired under her supervision was heinous to me, I imagine to alot of people; however, her prosecution is going to create issues I think with regards to technology. In particular, what kind of precedence is this going to set in our country with regards to the Internet? If I don’t want to be spammed by every random company that puts up a TOS that says I have to enter information that identifies me to that website (say to register a game or to get an e-mail account to use as a spam filter/throw away account or any other random issue) will I be prosecuted later on for fraud under the laws in which Lori Drew is being indicted?
I’m of the opinion that’s a bad thing. I mean, am I committing some sort of fraud just by posting here? The issue, as I understand it at least, is that the indictment is a civil issue, and they are using it as a means to create a criminal case. I wonder why they aren’t using some of the other laws that relate directly to children or in particular harassment? I probably have not scoured the net well enough to answer that question.
Powered by WordPress