Kill or be killed?

I thought that I might have covered this before, but nope. I have written about crime but not specifically about capital punishment. I had to reread my post titled "Kill the criminals" to see for sure, but I tend not to be that obvious in my titles. That is good I haven't written about it, because it gives me a topic. I have been thinking about it over the past couple of days with the announcement of the execution of the Washington sniper. It is interesting, I think, and it is also a topic that everyone seems to have an opinion on (including myself). I will touch more on that comment in the "How I relate" section.

But let's get started, shall we?

Eye for an eye: This is the basic argument in support of capital punishment. If you take someone else's life, your are then not entitled to your own. This also satisfies a basic human desire for revenge, which, while not officially part of the justice system, is a practical part of it. It is often argued as well that some crimes are so horrific but do not involve the death of the victim that capital punishment of criminal is justified in these situations as well. It still falls under the "eye for an eye" category because the damage to the victim, while not death, can be effectively death; the crime does not allow the victim to live the life they were entitled to live.

The second main support of capital punishment is the safety of society. This takes places in two ways: the actual criminal is killed, and thus unable to harm others; and the fear of death will deter others from committing crimes that will result in their own death. Both of these points are fairly self explanatory.

A third support, while lesser, is the cost basis - it costs more to imprison someone that to execute them. Society has already borne the cost of the crime - now they have to bear the financial cost of feeding, housing, clothing, and possibly rehabilitating the criminal. Since the criminal did not give these options to the victim, why should society have to continue to pay? It would be cheaper just to get rid of them.

But what if they are wrong? There are two strong arguments against capital punishment. Depending on who you listen to, the error possibility is the strongest. This position holds that if the wrong person is convicted - which has happened many times - and executed, it cannot be undone.

The second strong argument is that life is the most important thing. Basically, yes, the criminal has committed terrible acts and deserves to be punished, but the right to life is absolute. Lock them up, throw away the key, put them in solitary, fine - but let them live. This is connected to the idea that if a government condemns murder and then commits it, it is on shaky moral ground.

The cost argument has been used by the opposition as well. It holds, and I cannot verify this, that the cost to execute a person, when all the court costs and appeals are factored in, are greater than the cost to have the person live their life in prison. It is a weaker argument, but it is almost always used as a refutation of the cost argument on the other side.

What I think: It is interesting to note that virtually all countries, even those that do not have actual capital punishment laws for criminal behaviour, still have it as a potential punishment for treason. My position is that I am opposed to it, but I don't have a problem with states (such as the US or China) that do have it. I don't believe the in deterrent effect -in fact I believe that the more violent the state is, the more violent the populace is. I understand it as a form of vengeance, and I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with the potential to kill innocent people, however, and I do believe that the punishment is not applied fairly or consistently. Nor do I think that most people, no matter the crime, deserve death; and I think attempts to differentiate the crimes that deserve death are pointless. To some people, having their life savings stolen may be the worst thing to happen to them and they may feel that the criminals deserve death, but that doesn't mean it is true. I am reminded of a Star trek episode where on one planet, the punishment for any crime, no matter how small, was death - and I liked that application of the law. Fair.

How I relate: This is what I was getting at earlier. Very few of us will ever be in the situation to be executed, or to even know someone who may be or has been executed. So I don't think that I really can relate to this. The common question people ask is a hypothetical one, along the lines of "If something happened to someone you love, wouldn't you want the person responsible to be punished?" and the answer, of course, is moot - it hasn't happened, and if it does, I will deal with it then. I do know, that no matter the outcome in that situation, nothing would make me feel better. I don't think "closure" would happen just because of an execution.

I had considered, at one point, about doing a post about the purpose of the criminal justice system, but I don't think that it is worth it. It could be rehabilitation, it could be punishment, it could be safety of society, it could be all three. And I think it is all three, but I don't think I can articulate that.

Way off Topic

I'm am, as always, behind on my posts. I will be lucky to maintain my a two a month at this pace. I have an excuse, but it's not a very good one. Mainly because I don't have one. I have been thinking about things, but I find it hard to cover new ground. I could talk about Simpsons vs. Futurama; or Jon vs. Kate; or something non -pop culture related. There have been amusing things in the news that might be worth exploring - like that baby Einstein thing - but I don't really feel like it. I was thinking about maybe books vs. movies, but I think I've decided on impartiality in the media.

No, I really can't write much about that. I have bloggers block. On the other hand, my dream diary is coming along fairly decent - I record 3-4 dreams a week, handwritten. If I get them first thing in the morning they stay, but if I don't capture them immediately, they dissipate like the morning mist in a hot sun.

The reason why I can't write about impartiality in the media is because there really is not much to say. Media isn't impartial, and when it tries to be, it shouldn't be. It is because of media's attempt to appear impartial that the global warming "skeptics" appear to have some backing -because media tries to present two sides to story that doesn't have two sides. In this blog I have been trying to view issues through a fractured lens, because I really do believe that most things are not black and white.

For example, I was discussing with a friend a recent case in the US where some 12 -15 years olds were accused of murder (and, from what I've seen, are likely guilty). He was telling me that he wished that, in Canada, the identities of the minors accused of crimes was not protected. While I agree with him in part - sometimes I think too much protection is afforded criminals - I also think that everyone has a right to privacy, prior to conviction. A happy compromise might be revealing the identities of young offenders after conviction, depending on the type of crime. But even then, if we brand people criminals from the outset, we are setting them up to be nothing but. This leads to the problem of crime and punishment - do we want our criminal justice system to provide retribution, rehabilitation, protection? Can it do any of those things at a low price? Revealing the identity of the accused young offender leads me to another contradiction in our approach as well: if we want to treat 12-15 year old teenagers as adults, why afford special status to victims that age? If we can allow them the possibility that they are responsible for their criminal acts, why is it necessary to have things like pedophilia as law? Should just sexual assault be enough? What is implicit in sexual assault of a minor laws is that the victim is unable to both protect themselves fully and to appreciate the consequences of their actions. That is, a 14 year old should not be able to consent to sexual activity because they are not capable of making that decision. But if that is true, then we cannot view them as adults when they commit crimes.

So this is the thing. There is very little out there that is black and white - but media impartiality is not something that I can try to present two sides of. My own opinion on media impartiality is that it is not impartial, and it should not try to be, but it should make it's bias clear. Some media does do that -the Sun newspapers do not attempt to hide it's bias; nor do most of Canada's major news organizations. Most people, I think, have the same opinion - except those actually in the media. They all tend to think of themselves as impartial and those who disagree as biased.

I will try to get back on form in the next couple of days. If I can come up with a topic. I should be able to - I just need to focus.

Stop! Or I'll yell stop again! With my laser radar!

It's not like there haven't been issues I've been interested in, it's just that most I've been thinking about lately I've already commented on. For example, I was watching a show on the Quest program in BC, about that teacher who was sleeping with his students, and it got me thinking about the whole "Mrs. Robinson" thing, about how society deals with those types of things, but I since I've already covered that, I didn't see much else I could add to my own debate. I did think that maybe I could add a feature to this blog, a simple yes or no post - just a one paragraph thing - titled "Is it sex" or something like that. Maybe I will. Might help me hit my target. Or maybe even just a "Is it ethical". I'll think about that. Today, I will discuss photo radar.

Photo Radar is just a cash grab: Photo radar is one of those things that cops use to raise money. They don't have to do any work - they just sit in a van (or truck, car, etc). The camera and computers do the rest. For a police force, the extra revenue is huge and the cost is minimal. Ask any cop, and they will tell you the same thing - it's a cash cow.

It also takes the humanity out of traffic law enforcement. The police don't have to talk to anyone, so even if you have a legitimate reason for speeding, you can't explain that to a ticket in the mail. Maybe an officer would let you off with a warning because you were having a bad day, but a judge won't. And the cost of a ticket is less that the cost of taking a day off work, going downtown, and fighting a fight you are probably going to lose. How are you going to remember what sped you were going on a road two weeks later when you get the ticket? And two months later when you go to court? Computers have made mistakes before, but you can't argue that in court.

It is also a form of taxation on vehicle ownership. Since the government can't tax vehicle ownership like they can home ownership, they generate revenue from photo radar tickets. That is why the photo radar is always set up in busy areas - because the cities need the revenue. Read their budgets - they plan for it. That makes it a tax.

It saves lives: The main point of photo radar is to make the roads safer. And they do. Any area that is known to have photo radar has a lower rate of traffic accidents, as do red light cameras. The revenue they generate is incidental and not the point of the tickets. But it does allow police to focus their time less on enforcing traffic laws and more on enforcing other laws, which is a positive.

Humanity was never really a factor in the enforcement of traffic laws. Police were always given quotas; this just makes it more efficient. People who miss the humanity only miss the humanity because they think they can talk their way out of tickets. If they actually were not speeding, then they should fight the tickets - that is always an option, and if people choose not to exercise that option, so be it. And computers don't make mistakes very often - that's the real reason why people don't fight the tickets.

The taxation argument is probably the weakest argument their is in the photo radar debate, now matter how often it is used. If it is a tax, it is a voluntary tax, or a tax on the stupid. Don't speed, don't pay the "tax". It is not comparable to property tax at all - the registration fee is more like a property than photo radar is. Just as homeowners can be fined for not clearing their sidewalks (breaking the law) so can vehicle owners be fined so speeding (breaking the law).

What I Think: It is a very fine line to walk, between public surveillance and privacy. While I do believe that photo radar - or at least the threat of it - does prevent accidents, I do not care to be monitored on every street I drive down. Perhaps that's where the happy medium exists for me; the system we have now allows for it to be set up anywhere, at any time, but it is not always there. I do think effectiveness is limited when photo radar goes in the same places all the time, because people become used to it being in those locations; and as soon as they pass, they speed up again. So I don't want to see more of it, but maybe just in different places.

How I relate: I have had one photo radar ticket, and yep, I was speeding there. Coincidentally, I don't speed on that stretch of road at all. I also know several of the spots that photo radar is set up on a regular basis on my regular routes; and I consciously am careful in those areas. Other areas - still conscious, but less so. But I really do believe that it is a voluntary tax - one that you never have to pay. And anyone using the tax argument should really look up what "tax" means.

That turned out about the way that I wanted it to. I think too often my bias shows in the arguing of both sides before I get to my conclusion, but whatever. What did I expect?

Breakfast. The best meal of the day.

It occurred to me that if I was going to make a post about waffles and pancakes, I would be remiss in not mentioning french toast. Breakfast

itself, when it is given the proper attention, is by far the most interesting meal of the day - full of all the four major food groups and also the requisite sweets, all without dessert. On a workday I will inevitably have some cereal or toast, but on a non work day I strive to fulfill the basic human need for syrup.

That's not waffle at all: Waffles are by far the funnest of the breakfast breads. And it should be clear here that I mean real waffles, not toaster cardboard. Waffles are the most uniform, and the little holes in them are a great place to store syrup. They can be eaten by hand, and if you can't finish them, you can out them in the fridge so you can toast them later.

There is also a good variety of waffles - gingerbread waffles, for example; or you can add blueberries; you can top with icing sugar; or you could fry an egg and out it on top.

One the production side, waffles are the easiest to make, if you have a waffle iron. The little green or red light will come on when they are ready, and they are always done perfectly. The batter itself is usually light and easy to mix. Mainly because of the iron, you can pour some batter and go sit down and enjoy the meal while the next one is cooking; you don't need to worry about them burning. Also because of the iron, waffles are the easiest to clean up after.

French me and be toast: French toast is the quickest to make. You only need the eggs and bread (milk is also a good addition), and maybe some cinnamon for the extra zing. Prep time is less than five minutes; you only need one pan and a spatula. If you want, you can whip some cream to go on top, but icing sugar is just as good.

And the toppings, the variety of toppings! Fresh fruit goes best on french toast. You can throw on an egg, but since the bread is dipped in egg, it is kind of redundant. The syrup will soak into the toast, adding a wonderful bit of sweetness, but jam goes just as well. Lemon jam in particular is a lovely touch. An added advantage of french toast is that if you don't finish it, you can out it aside and make sandwiches out of it later. A ham and cheese sandwich made with french toast is particularly good.

Time for some hanky-pancakes: Pancakes have the most variety of all. There are thick pancakes, thin pancakes, crepes, every possible flavour, adding any type of fruit. They are good with any type of syrup. They are also the most creative in what you can do with them - like mi

ckey mouse shapes! You can even buy preset pancake shapes, which just adds to their fun appeal.

Pancakes do take slightly longer to make, but that is part of the process. You can make the batter overnight, or you can premix the dry ingredients and just add the liquids when you actually make them. Pancakes have the potential to be the most healthy, as whole wheat or multigrain pancakes still taste good; while whole wheat waffles or multigrain french toast is just kind of non-tasty.

What I think: I think my pancake bias is showing. It is pretty darned difficult to pick one over the other, though, because they are also so darned good. And they all have different times when they are appropriate - I particularly recommend pumpkin pancakes at thanksgiving, french toast on bastille day or Jean Baptiste day, and gingerbread waffles at Easter.

How I relate: I like to eat all of them. Breakfast is tasty. Plus, I suppose, waffles remind me of my grandma; crepes of my mom, and french toast of my wife. No matter what, the only syrup you should ever use is maple, or perhaps saskatoon or some other berry syrup; but never fake aunt jemima stuff. That would ruin it.

Okay, now I want some pancakes. Maybe tomorrow morning. Or waffles. I haven't made waffles in a while. Or french toast - I have some Italian bread. Hmm.......

More about Drunken Teens!

Rereading one of my posts from a few weeks ago, a found my reference to parents who allow their teens to consume alcohol in their homes. That seemed like a good one to talk about, because i think it is an interesting topic. I was waffling about this one (hey, that would be a good post - what's better, waffles or pancakes?) and was actually thinking of posting something on the CFL vs the NFL, but I really wouldn't be able to be unbiased about that. The CFL is dramatically better. For many reasons.

If they get drunk, I'm getting drunk with them: The first point of all this is that parents are generally responsible. Not all, of course; but most. And most parents don't want bad things to happen to their kids. So if they feel that they can help keep their kids safe by allowing them to drink at home, then they should be allowed to. Ultimately, if anything does happen to their kids, the parents will not only feel horrible for all the usual reasons, but also will feel responsible.

Property rights have a bit to do with this as well. Generally, people are allowed to do things on their own private property that they would not be allowed to do on public land or other person's property. For example, a parent could let a child drive a vehicle on their own property; This could be dangerous to many people, but is still legally acceptable (if not always socially acceptable). Consent is also a legitimate concern here: parents can consent for their kids to undergo dangerous surgery, for example; or sign them up for potentially dangerous sports - so they can certainly give their kids consent for something like drinking.

The most popular argument for allowing parents to do this is twofold: they are going to do it anyway; and we did when we were young, so why should we deny our kids what we took for granted? Both parts are valid, and don't really need much elaboration.

Do as I say, not as I did: The last part of the argument above is the easiest to refute. Times change. We used to not wear seatbelts as well, but now we make our kids do that. And maybe they won't do it anyways. If teenagers don't have a place to drink, then maybe they won't. Tacitly encouraging them to drink by giving them the means is counterproductive to both the individual and society in general.

Property rights are not absolute. Yes, you do have control over your property, but that does not give you the right to break the law on it. Law enforcement looking the other way is not the same as being allowed to do something. Comparing teenage drinking to teenager sports is actually insulting - one is in a very controlled environment, the other, by the nature of it, is uncontrollable. A parent can't - and shouldn't - willfully put their kids at risk.

Parents are actually not that responsible. Often that's how they became parents in the first place. Being a parent does not automatically make a person responsible, and the fact that a parent would allow their teenage children to drink clearly is a sign that they are not responsible. That is precisely why we have laws - because people are not responsible unless we, as a society, force them to be.

What I think: I really like the rule of law. But I also think that it is far safer for teenagers to drink in a controlled environment. The fact that alcohol exist means that we have to accept the consequences of it's existence; the fact that we culturally and socially encourage everyone to drink means that we need to have safeguards in place to minimize the damage. So I think that if parents want to host parties for their kids to drink in a safe place, then so be it - let them. And if other parents want to allow their kids to go to those parties, then also so be it. I don't think that anyone should be allowed to complain about them unless they do not allow their kids to attend and they do anyway. To clarify that last point: parent A should not be allowed to file a complaint about parent B hosting / allowing a party, unless parent A's kids attended without their consent. That satisfies my need for the rule of law as well as the need for a safe environment.

How I relate: I spent many a drunken teenage night in the party room at our apartment building. I don't expect Dad and Mom knew exactly how much we drank there - if they did they might have been less accommodating - but they did know we drank, and they let it do on because it was safer for us. Our friends: they never told their parents, I am certain of that. Had that situation taken place now, in the US, my parents would have been at considerable risk. So that I am in favour of something that I experienced is not really a stretch. And a caveat I always attach: I don't have kids. I know many people who forget pretty much everything they learned growing up once they have their own; so my own view is coloured by that.

I haven't had a post about movies, books, or songs in a while. Maybe I should in that direction. Maybe something about sequels. Or Waffles.

Uniforms are not Unicorns!

This, then, would be the post on school uniforms, completing by 2 part series on junior high. The reason why this is about junior high and not about elementary school or high school is that in elementary school you have no choice; while in high school, you can always leave. In junior high, you think you have a choice, but really don't. Junior high seems to be the point where people really start to feel frustrated with their limitations. But more about school uniforms.

And, FYI, I define junior high as grades 6 to 9. There are variations, such as 6 to 8 or 7 to 9, but 6 to 9 will fit for my purposes.

Uniformly bad: There are several problems with uniforms. The first is that they impose the will of the person who select the uniforms on everyone. As anyone who has been forced to wear clothes they don't like can tell you, forced clothes are horrible. They never look good, they itch, they fit horribly. And the person who picked them doesn't have to wear them.

The next problem with school uniforms is that they aren't fair. That is to say, the teachers don't have to wear uniforms but the students do. This may not seem like much - I mean, life is unfair, right? But this has a stronger negative effect in that it teaches kids that authourity is to be obeyed, even if the authourities aren't following the rules. This leads to an unquestioning population, which while may seem like a good thing actually leads to things like totalitarianism.

The last major problem is that they encourage two archaic beliefs. The first is that boys will be less distracted by girls (and vice-versa) if they all dress the same; and that if all the kids look the same, they will be less likely to form cliques. This is a problem because kids will form cliques based on whatever they want - clothing is only one part, and besides, kids will dress however they want outside of school anyway. And the former is a problem because the simple acknowledgement of that belief perpetuates and encourages it - it teaches boys and girls that they should be distracted by the opposite sex and their appearance.

We're all the same, and have the uniforms to prove it: Any small problems with uniforms are vastly outweighed by the benefits. Uniforms come in many sizes; it's not like they are one size fits all. One of the strongest benefits is that uniforms teach kids to dress in accordance to a certain set of standards. Virtually any workplace, expect for virtual workplaces, will have a dress code. Just as english class teaches kids how to put thought into a coherent argument, so uniforms, so uniforms teach kids to dress appropriately.

True, kids will form cliques. But in order to do so, they will have to actually talk to the other kids and make a judgement on more than just a first cursory glance. If uniforms make kids have to place less value on appearance, that's a good thing. And maybe dealing with the symptom - boys getting distracted by girl's clothing and vice versa - is a good step to find the cure. Most junior high school teachers don't really care if they are perpetuating some archaic belief. They just want to have the student's attention. One less distraction is a blessing.

Lastly, uniforms are cheaper. Kid's clothes can be expensive. Every person who was a teenager remembers this, and not having to buy 8 million outfits for their kids is great. Any parent will tell you that if they can save money on a cosmetic part of their kids lives, they will be able to spend more on the things that really matter.

What I think: I personally disagree with school uniforms, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who read my last post. The caveat to that is always that it really comes down to the parent. If the parent wants their kid to wear a uniform, then they are going to wear it. When I have spoken to people who went to schools with uniforms, girls (now women) were fairly consistent in their approval. They felt much less the intense need to compete with all the other girls. One thing I find ironic is that, while some parents may want their daughters to attend a school with uniforms to help prevent them from wearing sexual clothing, they are putting them in one of the most sexualized uniforms in current pop culture ( the school girl). And yes, the term ironic was used properly in the last sentence.

How I relate: Again, never went to a school that requires uniforms. Had some friends that did. I definitely notice the students who do go to uniformed schools - because they look so different than students from other schools. I don't know how I would feel if I did have kids, but I would probably still be opposed to it. Now that I am an adult, I do have a dress code but not a uniform, although some jobs have had uniforms (like McDonald's). I think that if I had been forced to wear a uniform when I was in school, I would be wanted some freedom from that once I finished.

I'm not sure where I'm going to go from these posts, I don't have any specific ideas right now. I will reread some of my old posts as I have put some topics in there that I haven't touched on yet.

Junior High School Confidential

I was walking past one of the schools in my area, and it is one of those "new" schools; that is, it is a junior high school only for girls, and they wear uniforms there. So that led me to think about two topics that were worthwhile: one, the gender specific schools, and the the uniform issue. Today, I think I will deal with the gender specific issue.

You gotta keep 'em separated: Separate schools have shown to be better for the students, in particular girls. Girls who go to separate schools do better for a variety of reasons: they get more individual attention; they aren't competing with boys for funding, classroom, gym and lab time; they don't get distracted by boys. Boys do better in gender specific schools as well, for pretty much the same reasons. If keeping the students separate leads to better grades and performance for every one, then why shouldn't it be done? And what parent doesn't want all the advantages for their kids?

Socially, there is no difference in how the kids do. Sure, they may not be in a single sex environment when they get into the real world (or, in some cases, high school), but they will adjust; they always do. But just because they are not in a single sex environment, there is no reason to believe the kids will be socially retarded, any more that home schooled kids are. The rest of the world is non-gender specific; kids get plenty of exposure to the opposite sex when they are in the mall, at family gatherings, in life.

The only real issue is where the finding should come from. Single sex schools have always been available to those who were willing to pay extra for it. But if there s enough demand for it, then it should be an option for any parent who wants it, just as a school with a music based curriculum or sports based curriculum is available. Then those who can't afford the extra cost of private school can have the same benefits as those who can.

We got to live together: The studies that show single sex school students do better are flawed at best. They do not control for private schools, which traditionally score better than public schools due to increased funding. They also do not track post-school results, which is far more relevant than just in school results. Do students from single sex schools have better paying jobs? Are they happier? Would the students - not the parents - do it again? Would they send their kids to single sex schools? These are the real questions that the studies need to address, and the fact that they haven't suggests that the authors don't want to know the answers.

School is where people learn their social skills that they will use as adults. If girls don't learn to boys at an early age, they won't succeed later on. That's why we teach people to read: so they have the same skill set as their peers. And boys need to learn to compete with girls as well. Girls already score better than boys on most tests, right up to (but not through) high school, and boys will only catch up if they are in the same sex environment. Keeping them from each other is counterproductive for both boys and girls.

Funding is a moot issue. If people want to pay more for it, then they can go with private school. The same goes for the music schools and sports schools and every other specialty school. Sure, schools can have different focuses, but the curriculum is still the same: math, language arts, science, social studies. If you don't want to pay extra for it, then you see no value in it. And if you can't afford private school - well, that's the whole point of private school, isn't it?

What I think: I think that the studies that show better results for girls are important. And I think that if I was a parent of a girl, I might be really tempted to send her to an all girls school. But I also know that the absence of boys does not make a school clique free; and both boys and girls are not going to suddenly accept everyone just because there is only one gender there. But I think my real problem with same sex schools is that they are archaic and they tend to reinforce gender stereotypes, not minimize them. A boys school is pretty unlikely to have, say, cooking as an optional class, and a girls school is less likely to have an auto mechanic class. So a tomboy or nancyboy will be even more out of place. If some people wanted to do the other gender's stuff, they wouldn't even have the option. The social skills are I think are irrelevant. It's not like you can avoid the opposite sex in real life, so that doesn't matter. I also don't really agree with what the existence separate schools implies about boys and girls - that both will be so distracted by the other that they will be unable to get their work done. But it does imply that, which reinforces the belief, which reinforces the behaviour, which is moving backwards.

How I relate: Never had the "privilege" of attending a separate school. One year, we did have a boys entrance and a girls entrance, though. So I am really having an opinion here without the benefit of living through it. I have had friends who attended boys schools, but always private and often sports focused, so I can't really use them as a barometer either. So I don't know - ultimately, I think it has to come down to what the parent wants, but I don't think it will really make a difference one way or another.

It's the 28th today - will I make another post by the 31st? And thus maintain my 3 per month average? Only the next three days will tell!

What do I call you again?

Well, it's been over a month since I posted. I do have an excuse; and it goes back to a previous post about home ownership. My spouse and I have purchased a property, one unit of a four plex. It is lofty and pretty much exactly what we were looking for; and we didn't expect to find it. But that completely destroys my even more pathetic goal of 4 posts a month, and almost kills my 3 posts a month average as well. Maybe I can bring it back up, but I don't think so. This post is more of just a "get back into it" post, and so the post is going to be kind of weak. In fact, it is going to be about the terms for "significant others". 

I'll call you whatever I want: The term that people use to refer to their significant others is irrelevant. What is important is how they feel about each other, and what they want to be called. If a woman wants to be called "wife" and the other is OK with it, then that's what it should be - even if they aren't legally married. And everyone else should go along with their wishes, as well; especially if they are friends, then they will go a long with it. 

The same applies for all terms of this nature: spouse, significant other, common law husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, partner, better half, whatever. And this is applicable for same sex as much as opposite sex. Because the law now recognizes same sex relationships as well as common law ones, the designation should now be up to the couple. 

And lest you think this is unromantic, then just remember: there is nothing more romantic than addressing your spouse with a term of endearment that they like. 

Stick to the definition, please: Every single term has a specific meaning and a specific use. A husband is not the same as a boyfriend; a spouse is not the same as a partner. For better or worse, the words have different things attached to them - sometimes in terms of power, sometimes not (that is, a spouse is not necessarily equal, but a partner is). So each term should be used in the correct context; anything else is just going to confuse friends, third parties, and even the people involved. 

This is even more pronounced when you talk about legalities. The law may recognize same sex couples and common law couples, but it doesn't yet, in all places, recognize them on equal footing as a spouse. With this in mind, the terms used should match the legal terms. If you have been living together in a committed relationship for 10 years, call them your "common law spouse" not wife or husband. 

And maybe this isn't romantic, but it is the way the world is. And sometimes the world isn't romantic. 

What I think: I don't like some of the terms, because they are not very good descriptors. A spouse is clear; a partner is not. If you are 15, a boyfriend/girlfriend is clear; going out is clear. Teens may be confused, but they do have their labeling down pretty good. I think the only terms that should exist are husband/wife and spouse. It clearly defines the relationship, and if you have to put in qualifiers, fine (such as ex wife, common law spouse, or open relationship husband) but it makes things much clearer to just use the same terms that are as close to the legal ones as possible. And same sex couples should be entitled to use the same ones as well; two husbands or two wives in a relationship is fine with me. 

How I relate: I have to admit that when I got married, things did become easier. And I don't support the terms just because of ease of use, but it doesn't hurt, either. Some terms have always bothered me - partner, for example, seems too antiseptic; like the people don't want the true nature of their relationship coming out. I'm not saying you should use terms like "This is my bed buddy" but clarity is always a good thing. Even if only in the small things. 

See, that was kind of a cop out post. I've had a few good ideas for posts, such as whether or not parents should let their teens drink at home; if nationalism is a good thing or bad thing; if culture is real or just an excuse to do shitty things to other culture or if culture even exists in this global society.  But we'll see where the day takes me. 

Drink, Drink, Drunk.

I am starting to think that a much more reasonable, and achievable, goal would be three per month. This is what I have averaged pretty much since I started this, so to hit my goal, I should just change the goal to what I already hit. But since I already hit it, it isn't really much of a goal, is it? But to hit the goal of 4 per month, I would have to do five per month, at least until October. I think I'll keep the same goal; of course, there are no consequences if I don't hit it. 

Like most of my posts, this one stems from a conversation that I was having with my spouse. I talk with her about a fair number of things, so that's not really a surprise. I suppose there was a bit of irony in that we were talking about this while we were on our way to a pub. What I wanted to write about today was about alcohol (hence the irony). Specifically, I was thinking about whether people are responsible for their actions when they are under the influence of alcohol. There are some legal aspects I will touch on, but the legal aspects are not the only ones in play here. 

I may be drunk, but I know what I'm doing:  The consumption of alcohol does not excuse behaviour. There is no dispute that alcohol changes behaviour, but the individual is still responsible for their actions - that is the whole point of free will. Alcohol itself does not make an individual do things - the individual still makes choices that make them responsible. Some people may get really drunk, but never get into a fight when they are drunk, because that is not who they are. Some people may have their valve turned off when they get drunk and say or do things that they wouldn't say or do if they were sober, but still there was thought that went into whatever they said and they ultimately chose to say it. That someone doesn't remember saying something doesn't mean that it was any less a reflection of what they thought. 

There is also a basic premise that the individual chooses to get drunk, and therefore is responsible for their actions because they put themselves in the drunken situation. If a person knowingly and consciously makes a choice to drink, they are fully aware that they may potentially become drunk and are that they may act differently when drunk. Acting and feeling differently is one reason why people drink. Even if you may not be able to predict the specificity of their actions, the individual can still predict that they will become intoxicated. 

The best argument for the individual being responsible for their drunken actions are the existence of drunk driving laws. If an individual is legally responsible for drunk driving when they clearly had no intention of drunk driving, then they are morally responsible as well. The same application of the principle applies in cases of, for example, spousal abuse. Maybe someone only abuses their spouse when they are drunk, but they are still legally and morally responsible. And they have to deal with it when they sober up. 

Too drunk to walk, too drunk to think: Most people believe that consumption of alcohol does excuse behaviour.  Many people would accept an apology from someone who did questionable things when that person was drunk; but they wouldn't accept an apology if the person wasn't under the influence. If a person gets drunk and pees in a houseplant, for example, it may be funny and the person who owns the plant would probably laugh about (maybe much later). But if someone just peed in a houseplant when they were stone cold sober, it wouldn't be funny at all. 

Even when people choose to drink and get drunk, they do not always choose to get as drunk as they do. Every drink a person takes changes their internal meter, and their judgement becomes impaired. Many times people will say, the next day, that they had no intention of getting that drunk, it just happened! And even if the intent was to get drunk, that is a decision that can't be made when one becomes too impaired to think about the consequences of their actions. 

Legally, a person is still responsible if they drink and drive, for example. But the courts routinely recognize that judgement was not clear. A murder, not involving a drunk driver, could get anywhere from 10 years to life. A drunk driving causing death conviction is likely to get no more than 5 years, and more likely 3 or less. This is because the courts, which are an extension of our moral thought, believe that unless there is a pattern of behaviour, the action that caused the death is not part of a usual thought pattern. So if the courts recognize that it is less of an offense - and therefore not as much of a choice - then so does the rest of society. 

What I think: I have wrestled with this issue for a long time.  Ultimately, i think that the individual is responsible for their actions whether they are drunk or not. But where I always run into muddy waters is when we look at things from a victim's point of view. If a drunk driver kills a passenger in their own vehicle who was also drunk, is the passenger also not responsible for their own death? If they weren't capable of making the decision to get into a car because it wasn't safe for them, why do we hold the driver accountable? Same thing goes, much as I suspect this will cause some discomfort, for victims of drunken date rape. If a victim is unable to consent to sex due to alcohol, then how can we hold an equally drunk attacker responsible? I do not think that alcohol is an excuse for doing shitty things to other people - the old saying "In alcohol there is truth" may have some truth in it itself. And I never believe that alcohol should criminally relieve responsibility, and this is because I really do believe that the individual chooses to get drunk, and therefore is responsible for their actions. 

How I relate: Been drunk many many times. And have done a few things that I sincerely believe I wouldn't have done if I wasn't drunk. And wished I hadn't done them later. I have had a tendency to commit petty acts of vandalism and theft when drunk - and I don't usually do that unprovoked when sober. A few other things, too. But I always reflect on those things and think that maybe I didn't want to do those things when sober - but only because of the consequences. Ultimately I was the one who did them, and I hold myself responsible; and I have never used the "I was drunk" excuse for anything. The only times that really worried me were the few times that I blacked out. That is a truly horrible experience and I really don't like what it can reveal about me, if only to myself. But none of that is going to stop me from drinking. It will keep me from drinking too much, though. 

There's nothing booze to get me talking. All this typing had made me thirsty. And only 4 more posts this month! 

  

Kill the Criminals

I've been posting about sex and rape (not that the two are related) for the past two months. Perhaps it is time to switch things up. It's not like my life is dominated by sex, now, is it? But where to go from here? There are a couple of issues that have made the news in the past week. For example: the Governor General eating seal, which brings us to animal rights; the rugby murder conviction, which brings us to violence in sports; and the upgrade of the charge to first degree murder in the Tori Stafford case. It is this last one that I will talk about. 

But not directly. I heard some discussion over whether murder / assault of children should automatically warrant a higher charge. This is what I think I will go with  today. 

People are People, and a victim is a victim: To hold some people as more worthy of upgraded charges places excess value on some individuals over others. While certainly some people may have more relative worth than others, the standard 

for this is virtually impossible to apply arbitrarily. Whose standards of value should apply? Is one person more valuable because they have more to contribute to society, because they are more innocent (IE, children) or because they had a big family and more people loved them? 

The only exception to this rule is in the case of police officers. Because we ask them to place themselves directly in harms way for the purposes of protecting society at large, we do place more  value on them. This is an economic argument: society benefits by having police protection, and therefore they are worth more to society, and therefore crimes against police warrant a higher charge and higher punishment. As distasteful as it is to people who have lost children, there is explicit extra value to society in children - there is more explicit value in the owner a company that employs several hundred people.

Another basis for extra punishment for people who harm children is that children are unable to defend themselves. However, this is a revenge argument, not a deterrent argument. People who are intent on injuring children will not be deterred by a stronger penalty - instead they will just try harder not to get caught. The argument also implies that if you are able to defend yourself then any injuries you suffer from are less relevant. 

Children Deserve a greater protection under the law: Children do have a greater value to society than any other type of person - because children will be the ones that will determine the future in all things for society. Every time a child is injured or killed some part of the future is lost or 

changed.  If a child is injured seriously it will affect their lives and the lives of many others for a long time. To compensate society for that, offenders should be punished more than if an attack was on a grown person. 

Society already does arbitrarily assign more value to some people in the eyes of the law. Police is just one example. And if it can be done for one group of people, there is no good reason why it cannot be done for others. Criminal charges are routinely upgraded in the event of sexual assaults; so why not in the event of children victims? 

Defense is an essential element of the argument for upgrading the charges. Because children are unable to defend themselves in the same way that an adult, then the law must provide an additional layer of protection. While this may not be ideal, it is one of the few methods that society has of providing protection to those least able to provide it for themselves. Whether it is a deterrent or an punishment is moot; society has agreed that laws are deterrent and so the increased charges would serve as such. 

What I think: Tough one here. Both sides have good points. But I tend to think that a crime is a crime, and the victim's status shouldn't matter. That extends to age, gender, race, and everything else. An elderly person may be just as unable to defend themselves as a 10 year old; and a 10 year old may be carrying a gun (although unlikely; but I put that in there for illustration sake). It also leaves the entire system up for interpretation about the seriousness of the crime, and makes it necessary to put in arbitrary cut off points - so assaulting a 12 year old might get you an upgraded charge while assaulting a 16 year old may not - even the injury to the 16 year old was more severe. The law should be blind. Best way for it to function - even if it is not blind, always, in practice. There is also the question of mental capacity in this equation, and punishment for minors attacking minors. 

How I relate: I would really hate to think of anything ever happening to my niece or nephew, and if anything did, I would want the maximum punishment possible. But an equal possibility is that they could injure someone else, in which case I would want the least punishment possible. The point is, that if you can relate, you would have a very clear opinion on it depending on which side of the victim/attacked coin you are on. As such, 

can't really relate. So I'll leave it at that. 

Well, at least I can still compose a good argument. I was worried that I killed far too many brain cells last week. It did get me thinking about alcohol, drinking ages, and that type of thing. But I have a few others things on the back burner right now, so I'm not sure where this will go.  

Again, Rape me.

The title of this post and the one before it are obviously a reference to the Nirvana song. This was deliberate - first because I like Nirvana and if I can put a reference in, I will; also because it helps to illustrate the point about men being raped by women and also the point that it is often made fun of. The song itself is about a woman who is held captive and repeatedly raped, and finally she numbs herself and just tells her attacker "fine, rape me again, get it over with". By doing this, she regains a bit of control over the situation and eventually her attacker leaves. I recall reading an interview with Kurt Cobain, in Rolling Stone I believe, where he intimated that he was generally not happy with the success of that song for the wrong reasons. He would look out at the crowd and see people he wouldn't have liked (i.e. jocks) singing "rape Me" and not getting it - but rather making a joke of the intent if the song. They wanted to be raped. (It's been a while since I actually read the interview. I may have some details fuzzy). But this as well I think illustrates the view about men being raped by women. 

That was one of my longer preambles. Curious. The same definition of rape as in the previous post applies here. You would also have to look back for previous definitions of sex, as well.

Men can't be raped by women: There is no way that women can rape men. It is physically impossible. For a man to have sex, he has to be hard; and if he's doesn't want to have sex, he won't get excited and he won't get hard. It may be possible for men to be in sexually uncomfortable situations with women, but not raped. 

The point about the song just furthers the point that men want to have sex with pretty much any woman. The jocks were singing along because they didn't care who they had sex with, they just wanted to have sex. It is pretty much accepted, whether biological, social, or genetic, that men want to have sex with as many people as they can; and since it is an innate need, it can't be forced. It would be like forcing a person to drink water. 

From a feminist point of view, there is also no way a woman can rape a man. This is because rape is about power, and in our current patriarchal society, women do not have power. Men use their power over women in many ways, including by forcing them to have sex against their will. Since women do not have power in our society, they cannot force men to have sex. It would be comparable to a peasant forcing the king to provide free land. 

If men can do it, women can do it too: Having a physical reaction -  getting hard - is not the same wanting to have sex. Look at all the people who had hard-ons when they were wearing sweat pants and had to do a problem at the chalkboard. But adolescence aside, a physical reaction to stimulation does not mean consent; to seriously use that argument would be saying that if a woman's nipples were hard or her vagina became lubricated during an unwanted sexual experience, she was then consenting to sex. 

Contrary to the myth of the constantly seeking sex male, sometime men don't want to have sex. Just like women, men get tired; they may be in committed relationships; they may just not want to have sex with a particular individual. Even if an individual is a nympho and wants to have sex all the time, there still has to be consent involved. 

The feminist argument is relevant in many situations - but not in all. There is more than just the male / female power dynamic that exists in the current social world. In many situations, a woman may have economic power over men, she may be part of a privileged class or race, she may just be a strong woman who forces herself on a weak man.

What I think: I think that it is kind of obvious what I think. I think that there are many many situations that would be considered rape if the situations were reversed. I read an article about other situations where sex is forced on men by women , but men really don't have any way of expressing any feelings about it - either than to pretend they liked it. If they don't, people will assume that there is something wrong with them, or that they were the instigator in the attack. I also think that men are far less likely to be physically injured than women in a sexual attack, but this is where the societal training helps men: if a man is attacked by a woman, he is told he should just lie back and enjoy it; a woman is told that her "virtue" is important and thus should risk all to defend it. 

How I relate: Never been raped, been in a couple of situations I probably wished I wasn't. And I have a ton of friends who have slept with people they never wanted to, but were inebriated. They would never admit to being raped - a rose by any other name - . There are also a lot of situations that would appear to be consensual but on examination probably weren't. An example: A woman could very easily say to man "sleep with me or I'll tell your spouse that we did". 

That was a quicker post I've written, probably because I had a pretty strong opinion on this. That, and it was about sex. Not sure where I'll go from here, but I'm sure something will come up. Maybe I'll switch gears completely and go with something on animal rights.  

Rape me, Again

So I guess I'm going to take a shot at this. It's a very touchy subject and I've had to think a lot about how I want to approach it. I tossed around various ideas - like, what exactly is rape; is is different for men and women; what punishment is appropriate for it; do circumstances matter. The only way that I think I can approach it, right now at any rate, is if it is different for men and women. As in my previous posts, I will not be dealing with same sex rapes, although I may in a different post. Something like "is a man raping a man the same as a woman raping a woman". 

And as an aside, I really object to the common colloquial usage of the term "rape". I liken it to the dumbing down of the term "holocaust" and that the common usage detracts from the word and makes the word and thus the action more acceptable. 

Before I even get into this, I have to define rape. So what it specifically means , in this post - feel free to disagree - is having sex with a person against their will. This is the strictest definition that I can go with. Why the definition is important will be clear throughout the post; so when I think about this, I will have to keep it within that definition. 

Rape is worse for women that for men: How can anyone think that rape is equal for men? Rape is committed by men against women; it is a violent and misogynist act. It is a violation of a woman's body; it is not a violation of a man's body. In the very rare cases when men are raped by women, the physical injuries to a man are nothing on comparison to the physical injuries to a woman. 

Emotionally, women are far more damaged by rape than men. You don't hear about men taking a 3 hour shower to wash the feelings of dirtiness from them. Throughout history, the one thing that women have always had recognized control over was their bodies - raping a woman is taking this one unequivocal control away from her. For men, if they are ever raped by a woman, they still have control over the rest of their lives, while women do not. 

The psychological damage for women is far greater as well. Men do not become afraid of women; but women become afraid of men, afraid to trust them, afraid to put themselves in any potentially threatening situations. Men go on with their lives like nothing has happened.  Men won't hide in their houses for years, afraid to get in a relationship, because the damage is no where near as painful to men. 

Rape is rape, no matter who the victim is: Just because most men are stronger than men, it doesn't mean that they aren't physically injured. In any rape, it is horrible and men can be just as physically injured by women as women can by men. There is no doubt that rape of women by men is misogynist; and rape of men by women is misandry. In either case it is effectively a hate crime against the opposite sex. 

Emotionally, men are just as affected by being raped; they just aren't allowed to show it in any way. Likely, for men the emotional impact could not even be manifest as there is no acceptable emotion for a man who has been raped by a woman. And just because you don't hear about men taking 3 hours after being raped, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The only way for men to have any reaction is keep control of their lives, because that's all they are allowed (socially and culturally) to do.

 

The psychological damage for men who were raped by a woman is equal to that of woman who has been raped by a man. It will affect everyone differently based on any number of factors, but men will become withdrawn; they may hide in their homes; they may never trust women again. Men are capable of having the same reactions to a violent personal crime that women are. 

What I think: I believe that men are just as damaged by rape as women are. I also believe that men do not have any method of actually dealing with rape if it were to happen to them, because nobody - and I mean nobody - would believe them. I also think that it happens a lot more than people think, because virtually no man would ever report it, and they would likely blame themselves - the exact things that happen when women are raped. There are many jokes about men being raped by women (example: Beer, the date rape drug being used on men) that illustrate the point that men have few options if it happens to them - and there are a whole pile of jokes that trivialize the rape of women (many of the fake "motivational posters", for example).  

How I relate: Well, I can't say I've ever been raped by a woman - but then I wouldn't say anyways, would I? Still, I have known men who have been raped by women but would never admit it, but it has really messed them up. I have also known women who have been raped by men, and it has put them in a world of shit. Both men and women have the internal capacity to recover from something horrible like rape happening to them, but capacity is only part of the recovery. Some people never do, never have. 

I think that I may make my next post just on men who have been raped by men. I think I may be able to fill that one up.  And I likely won't be able to find any non- porn pictures for that post. 

There were a few places to go with this post. I had mentioned looking at rape, I had mentioned looking at how different people may perceive sex, and the Mrs. Robinson thing. I think that I'm not quite ready to tackle an issue like rape - mainly because I don't really think that people would be able to see more than one side of it. Men raped by women might be one way to ease into the topic, but I still think I'm not quite ready for it yet.  The Mrs. Robinson thing, though, I can start there. 

Dirty Old men does not Dirty old women make: Men routinely sleep with younger women. They do this because they can, because they have power -  economic, social, physical. Women, especially younger women, do not have this power. Instead, they do have some degree of sexual power and use it. Young men do not have this type of power; so if a 40 year old woman sleeps with a 20 year old man, it is not the same as when a 40 year old man sleeps with a 20 year old woman. The 40 year old woman has very little actual power while the 40  year old man does. 

This is also unsuprisingly uncommon. Older women do not usually sleep with younger men. The latest "cougar" fad notwithstanding, there is little to be gained by a woman  sleeping with a younger man. Often, much as people might not like to believe it, women marry up (i.e. older), not down. So you can't make a comparison about what the majority of what men do with what a minority of women do. 

There is always the sexuality argument - the one that involves men reaching their sexual peak at 18 while women reach it at 35. If this argument has any basis in fact, and many people can anecdotally confirm it, then it is natural for women to want so have sex with younger men. They are just trying to match their libidos, and this is perfectly natural, and certainly doesn't make them "dirty old women". 

If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander: A 20 year age difference is a 20 year difference. A 20 year old can have nothing in common with a 40 year old. It's not about power, its about having sex with someone who could be the same age as your kids. And if men who do are looked down upon, so should women. That's part of the whole equality equation -  you have to take the good with the bad.

 

While men may often marry younger, the gap is actually pretty small. The average age for women getting married is 29; for men it is 33. This is not a huge difference - it's the difference between freshman and seniors. Look at most people you know who are in couples - are they 20 years apart or less than 5? If it is less then 5, then  you have to hold women to the same candle that men are held to. 

The sexuality argument is weak at best. Maybe there is anecdotal evidence, but there is equally anecdotal evidence for girls maturing faster than boys - so it is equally natural for men to look for younger women. That's if anecdotal evidence means anything, which it usually doesn't - it just means that you can remember an example. 

What I think: My position is that neither women nor men who sleep with, have relationships with, people significantly younger than them are not perverts. As long as they are all adults - which perhaps I will work at defining in a later post - then it is perfectly OK. Either side may have an ulterior motive; the young woman could be Anna Nicole Smith and want economic security; the older woman could be Stifler's mom and just want some hot sex. Or they could actually be in love. And the older man could be rich old man who wants a trophy wife, while the younger man could be a pool boy who wants some story to tell his buddies. Or they could actually be in love. And I don't just mean in the legal perspective, either; people can be naive or jaded at any age.

How I Relate: My wife is a few years older than me, and my two girlfriends before her were older than she was. I knew what I was doing and so did they; i never hid my age or did they hide theirs. And I know many people who have been with people twice their age, half their age, half their age plus seven, and so on; some relationships have worked, some have not. Some people who are the same age don't last - some do. And being attracted to someone older or younger than yourself doesn't make anyone a pervert; just makes you a person. 

So that's actually a pretty decent post, I think. My portfolio idea is not doing much right now; I've had a bunch of stuff on my mind and had a pretty lousy weekend, but I still have what's important - my wife. I still want to work on it, but I'm a bit behind, that's all. I think i could probably ease my way into the rape discussion from here, but I'll have to wait and see how it unfolds. I also think about culture often, and I may be able to get a post out of that.