Wednesday, August 09, 2006Monday, July 24, 2006Friday, March 17, 2006Friday, March 10, 2006Thursday, March 09, 2006men's rights - the new roe v. wade
women can opt out of a pregnancy if they decide that a baby isn't what they want right then (although this is coming under fire in several states), but what about the man involved? if the woman decides to have an abortion he's in the clear, but if she decides that she wants a baby (even if at the time of 'making the baby' she didn't, the man didn't, AND they had taken precautions against it), he must pay child support for the result. i've always had a problem with that (the idea of fair still hasn't been washed from me yet), and now the National Center for Men is trying to fight it. their timing is, of course, awful considering south dakota just passed a law banning almost all abortions and other states are making moves in that direction. Another aspect of problems finding support comes from party lines. i may agree with it, but i'm not exactly in tune with the majority opinion. liberals, as a friend pointed out, can't afford to support it for fear of losing the vote of women. conservatives, with concern for personal responsibility and dislike of abortion, aren't likely to support it either. so hopefully the courts will not be swayed by public opinion and rely on the very simple logic of -if women can opt out of a pregnancy, shouldn't men be able to opt out of financial responsibility for one (especially if his choice was previously known)-.
(fun with parentheses time is now over) Tuesday, February 21, 2006layout
hooray!
i took the time to fix the layout so everything should display properly now for both ie and firefox (and hopefully anything else all you people who aren't viewing this blog might be using) Monday, February 20, 2006Friday, February 17, 2006Thursday, February 09, 2006Thursday, February 02, 2006Wednesday, February 01, 2006Friday, January 27, 2006google and politics
i have been accused of worshiping at the altar of google. i don't agree with that, but i do like it a lot. bias specified, i would like to have a one-sided discussion about their current moves that have made a lot of fuss.
first, defying the justice department. what a great advertisement! they get lots of publicity, people who are upset that everyone else of note turned over the information are turning to google as their last stand of hope for privacy, and they get to appear noble in some circles (most importantly, the circle that includes their users). they DON'T WANT the gov. to restrict their searches any more, they make a lot of money from the porn industry, more restrictions mean less money. kids can get access to porn without the internet, they certainly don't need a search engine to get it. hey, guess what!, it's the parent's responsibility to regulate what their children view online, not the gov's. this is not china... oh what a fabulous segue to topic two, google voluntarily filtering content in china. china is a HUGE market, if google wants to survive against the other search engine/media companies, they need to be in there now. the chinese gov. wouldn't let google grant access willy nilly even if they tried. when the gov. filters results you don't find out that you were being restricted, nothing shows up. when google filters results, you get a note saying 'hey, we filtered this'. that subtle difference can have a huge impact. when people know exactly what is being restricted it creates unrest and google coming to china could be a major step in capitalism taking hold in that country. so basically, google - keep on keepin on, your service is fantastic and while i really think my idea related to your news service would put you ahead of everyone else, i still like you just the way you are. Tuesday, January 24, 2006 |
|