The New York Times has an article up about how the U.S Congress might pass a bill allowing online gambling, and the subsequent taxing of it, to become legal. They of course are doing this to help make up some of the huge debt they've accrued. The tax could apparently make 42 billion dollars in 10 years.
First ridiculous thing: the government actively helping citizens indulge in their vices. This seems highly unethical.
However, the most ridiculous thing has to come from Barney Frank, who said, "“Some adults will spend their money foolishly, but it is not the purpose of the federal government to prevent them legally from doing it.”
In other words, people can do anything we please, we don't care, just give us your tax dollars. It's also crazy considering Barney Frank is perfectly content with taking the rich's money, and funneling them into social programs.
Not to say, I don't agree with the decision. Like Frank, says, government shouldn't interfere with how we want to spend our money. However, the government shouldn't be making money off of it. Also, Barney Frank is being a hypocrite for trying to act like a libertine on this issue, when he is anything but that on any other issue.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
A perfect example of a dumbed down article
Giant Panda Accidently Gassed in China
A giant panda eats bamboo--REUTERS/Stringer
This just might be the saddest news you will hear today—a giant panda, living in China's Jinan Zoo, died after accidently being gassed with carbon monoxide and chlorine.
An autopsy released on Tuesday revealed that the 21-year-old panda, Quan Quan, inhaled the gases that were being used to disinfect a nearby former air raid shelter. The toxic gases caused her lungs to collapse and despite attempts to save her, Quan Quan died in the hospital.
(See TIME's photo essay on panda Tai Shan's journey to China)
Zoo officials say that the gases had come through ventilation pipes that the zoo shared with the raid shelter. Activists are already pointing to Quan Quan's death as another indication of how zoos should improve their treatment of animals in captivity.
(See the viral sneezing panda clip in TIME's 50 best YouTube videos)
"These pandas are being bred for a life in captivity," said Kati Loeffler, a veterinary advisor for the International Fund for Animal Welfare. "Why are they being bred? Just so they can circulate through zoos and live next to old air raid shelters?"
As pandas are on the endangered species list, Quan Quan was reportedly considered a “heroic mother” in China, because she has given birth to seven cubs. (via the Los Angeles Times)
Obviously a really sad story, but did we really need a link to a sneezing panda (in red ink)! Time article: A panda died, now watch it sneeze! I find this ridiculous for whatever reason.
Two articles about marriage, sexuality, and society.
Lorne Gunter had a provocative (for the National Post) article in the National Post the other day entitled " Heterosexuals are the greatest threat to marriage."
He posited that in the 5 years since same sex marriage has been legalized in Canada, the stature of the insitution of marriage has stayed the same. It is so, because as he puts it, "Heterosexuals have already hollowed out the institution of marriage so thoroughly that it no longer means what it once did..."
His contention is that the government has a role in promoting stable families, as evidence has shown that stable two parent families lead a child to a better outcome than he/she would otherwise. However, the introduction of common law marriage (of which there are 500 000 common law families, compared to 6000 homosexual ones with kids) changed all that. Children living in common law family homes have higher rates of crime, ergo the government should not have let common law marriages.
Since they did, it becomes unjustifiable to deny homosexuals the right of marriage. Also, they are by far a smaller group than common law marriage families. Therefore he feels it is hypocritical that heterosexuals demonize homosexuals for destroying the meaning of marriage, when they in fact are doing a much better job of it.
The subtext behind his article seems to indicate, that if it was up to him, no common law marriages or homosexual marriages would be allowed. That's kind of strange I guess. Interesting nevertheless.
I saw a second article in Haaretz, in which a group of Orthodox rabbis and educators signed a statement of principle saying, "Jews with homosexual orientations or same sex-attractions should be welcomed as full members of the synagogue and school community."
This is obviously a controversial topic in the Orthodox community, and really states that it is better to bring people into the fold, rather than ostracizing them.
"The question or cause of one's sexual orientation is irrelevant "to our obligation to treat human beings with same-sex attractions and orientations with dignity and respect," the signatories said."
I think overall I have to agree with that sentiment. As easy as it is to push people away for who they are, I feel it is better to do the more difficult thing and accept them. The Orthodox community does not treat people who cheat on their wives, steal, or do a whole host of other things as badly as they treat the gay community. Obviously there seems to be some sort of cultural component for why gays are treated in this way.
The signatories say they won't officiate marriages between same sex couples, as that would be against Halakah.
However, I think this statement is a good compromise position for the Orthodox community too take.
He posited that in the 5 years since same sex marriage has been legalized in Canada, the stature of the insitution of marriage has stayed the same. It is so, because as he puts it, "Heterosexuals have already hollowed out the institution of marriage so thoroughly that it no longer means what it once did..."
His contention is that the government has a role in promoting stable families, as evidence has shown that stable two parent families lead a child to a better outcome than he/she would otherwise. However, the introduction of common law marriage (of which there are 500 000 common law families, compared to 6000 homosexual ones with kids) changed all that. Children living in common law family homes have higher rates of crime, ergo the government should not have let common law marriages.
Since they did, it becomes unjustifiable to deny homosexuals the right of marriage. Also, they are by far a smaller group than common law marriage families. Therefore he feels it is hypocritical that heterosexuals demonize homosexuals for destroying the meaning of marriage, when they in fact are doing a much better job of it.
The subtext behind his article seems to indicate, that if it was up to him, no common law marriages or homosexual marriages would be allowed. That's kind of strange I guess. Interesting nevertheless.
I saw a second article in Haaretz, in which a group of Orthodox rabbis and educators signed a statement of principle saying, "Jews with homosexual orientations or same sex-attractions should be welcomed as full members of the synagogue and school community."
This is obviously a controversial topic in the Orthodox community, and really states that it is better to bring people into the fold, rather than ostracizing them.
"The question or cause of one's sexual orientation is irrelevant "to our obligation to treat human beings with same-sex attractions and orientations with dignity and respect," the signatories said."
I think overall I have to agree with that sentiment. As easy as it is to push people away for who they are, I feel it is better to do the more difficult thing and accept them. The Orthodox community does not treat people who cheat on their wives, steal, or do a whole host of other things as badly as they treat the gay community. Obviously there seems to be some sort of cultural component for why gays are treated in this way.
The signatories say they won't officiate marriages between same sex couples, as that would be against Halakah.
However, I think this statement is a good compromise position for the Orthodox community too take.
Arcade Fire Album.
The new Arcade Fire album, 'The Suburbs' can simply be described as fantastic. If one has not listened to their previous albums, 'Funeral', and 'Neon Bible', one really is missing out on some great music. The critics seem to agree, as 'The Suburbs' has garnered a score of 93 on Metacritic (that's really good).
Their sound is so eclectic that reviews of the album have compared them too: U2, Neil Young, Depeche Mode, Tom Petty, and the Rolling Stones (I detect some Blondie).
Only one guy seems to dislike the album because he thinks Win Butler is being disdainful of his fans. Who cares? That doesn't change the quality of the music.
I personally found 'We Used to Wait' and 'Sprawl 2' to be the best songs, although all of them are very good.
Anyways, I'm not going to pretend I'm a music critic, but I highly recommend you give this new album a listen.
And they're Canadian, go Canada!
Their sound is so eclectic that reviews of the album have compared them too: U2, Neil Young, Depeche Mode, Tom Petty, and the Rolling Stones (I detect some Blondie).
Only one guy seems to dislike the album because he thinks Win Butler is being disdainful of his fans. Who cares? That doesn't change the quality of the music.
I personally found 'We Used to Wait' and 'Sprawl 2' to be the best songs, although all of them are very good.
Anyways, I'm not going to pretend I'm a music critic, but I highly recommend you give this new album a listen.
And they're Canadian, go Canada!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)