What Constitutes Rape

It is quite simple-- unconsented sex.

It gets a little hazier than that once you get into college-- or more specifically when you drink.  Someone that my family knows was recently expelled from his college for date rape.  Obviously, I am not going to defend a rapist, but I don't think he was a rapist. 

Here is essentially how it worked out.  Boy and girl get drunk.  They have intimate relations, then fall asleep.  After waking, neither of the two remember in vivid detail what had happened and the girl, understandably afraid and vulnerable, claims that she has been raped.  Indeed, it makes sense that a girl cannot consent to sex when she is drunk.   But, by the same logic, can't the man not consent to sex either.

One has to look at it in a rather archeic way, in order to justify the expulsion.  You would have to say, it seems to me, that a man, who is more partial to sex than a girl, is the one who took power in the situation.  This seems a little outdated to me.  For something that is meant to liberate women (date rape policies) they seem to do just the opposite IN THIS CASE.  Of course, there are cases of real date rape, but I am talking about a boy and a girl both getting intoxicated, then having intercourse.  Should we blamwe this all on the man and assume that a woman is too feeble to have any say in the matter?

TV Everywhere

Tivo is coming out with a new product, Tivo Premiere.  It is basically the same as old Tivo, except that now you can use your Cell Phone (which, for many, can work as a TV) to schedule recordings.  This got me thinking-- are our lives too saturated by TV.  In class we talked about how the average person uses about 8 hours of screen time a day, I think that TVs are no longer what we intended them to be.  Of course, I was not around when TV was invented, but from the stories of parents and folklore, the 4 shows a day were considered something important that the whole family would get together for.

Personally, I do not watch much TV with my whole family.  One of my friend's families watches 24 together, but other than that, I can't think of anyone taking part in this antiquated ritual with their family.  I watch TV alone or, if there is nothing better to do, with friends.  I wonder what you think of TV, did it bring families together originally? Is it breaking families apart in modern life?

Mountain Top Removal Part Deux

After we watched 30 Days in class (though I missed it, I was able to catch up through the discussion) I decided I might revisist my thoughts on mountain top removal.  Mountain top removal is basically what it sounds like-- you take the top off of a mountain.  After that, you are free to take the coal from the mountain.  The downsides: it takes less workers, thus leaving miners (who have no other prospects) unemployed, and it is detrimental to the environment.  The upside: it costs less (according to some estimates) and it causes far less fatalities (this is also contested as people die from drinking water contamination due to the crude nature of mining).

After the mining disaster in the beginning of April, I was forced to rethink my stance on mountain top removal, and at first I began to support it.  I believe I was mistaken.  On the one hand, the prospect of fewer tragedies like those at the Upper Big Branch mine is enticing.  At the same time, I have to imagine that there are many more people dying quietly from the effects of contaminated drinking water.  I think that what we need is to move to nuclear power.  Not only is it relatively safer (though there have been fatalities), it is much better for the environment.

Wind farms and solar panels are simply not efficient enoug, so we will need to end up with some sort of waste.  Thus, our only true choice is to cut back.

Gross National Happiness

I heard about Bhutan setting up a thing called Gross National Happiness, in a Stuff You Should Know Podcast.  The idea is that instead of Gross Domestic Product (which measures the economic success of a country) we should measure the contentedness of the people.  For the official English website of Gross National Happiness click here.

Gross National Happiness, if you ask me, would not work in America.  Whereas in Bhutan, a country populated almost entirely by Buddhists, the idea that happiness comes from within is acceptable, it is not this way in the States. Therefore, the idea that happiness can be attained independent of economic conditions is not nearly as acceptable in the U.S. as it is in Bhutan.

Essentially, whereas in the U.S. we may believe that happiness can be achieved through some product (a car, a vacation, a shirt etc.) Buddhists (orthodox ones that is) take a vow of poverty.  Is this necessarily bad?

Some people may argue that the pursuit of material happiness will lead to an unending cycle of desire without satiation. In Bhutan, however, the Gross National Happiness, if everyone in the country is perfectly happy, can only reach 1 (on a scale of -10 to 10).

Is it possible to create a system in which people are actually sustainably happy?

Marijuana Express

I was rewatching one of my favorite episodes of Vanguard, a documentary news program on Current TV. It was called Oxycontin Express and was regarding the illegal Oxycontin trade in Florida.  (If you have time, I highly suggest that yhou watch it, it won a Peabody and is some great journalism.)  It lead me to wondering about the illegal and legal drugs in the U.S.

Most people will tell you that Oxycontin, a psychotropic drug, is much more addictive than marijuana.  At the same time, it does not do a better job than marijuna at easing pain, especially when you consider the lethargy that comes as a side effect to Oxycontin.

I have talked with many adults who are against marijuna use.  One woman said that marijuna does terrible things to a developing brain.  This may be true, though I have not seen any studies to back it up (if you have, tell me in the comments).  At the same time, surely legal (for those of age, as marijuna would be if it were legal) are just as harmful.  This woman also used vicodin, one of  Oxycontin's brothers (very chemically similar) after a surgery-- is that any different than someone using marijuna after a surgery.

I guess I simply wonder, is it our simple stupidity and our resignation to believe whatever our government tells us is true the reason that we, as a nation, buy into the idea of illegalizing marijuna?  I like to think that Americans are smarter than that.

New Immigration In Arizona

Arizona has just made their immigration laws TOUGHER.

Most people that I know think that America should be open to immigrants.  People who don't want to allow immigrants into the country apparently don't know two things
1) America was founded by immigrants.
2) There is no fundamental differences between "us" and "them."  Immigrants are the same as us, just sometimes speaking in a different language.

After the governor of Arizona signed the law, protests started.

To be fair to people who believe that America needs tougher immigration reform, I do have an easy situation to look at immigration from an ideological standpoint.  I live in a northern state far from the borders of the Mexican and southern and Central American countries that produce illegal immigrants.  Most importantly, illegal immigrants do not effect me the same way that they do everyone.  Sure, I pay for healthcare if an illegal alien shows up in an ER, but I don't have it that bad.  My parents are both college educated.  I plan on having a white collar job which will not be in competition with the majority of illegal immigrants.

What do you think of immigration?

Do Words Hold a Meaning?

Coprolalia is what most people actually think of when they think of Tourettes.  Coprolalia is when someone uncontrollably yells or utters an obscenity.  This seems odd, considering my former belief that words are merely social constructs that we give meaning.

I guess what learning that Coprolalia is a true thing has lead me to a believe that words have meaning beyond what we give them.  They are something bigger than that.

My question, then, is do you think that words get their meaning because of what we give them or is there something deeper?  Is there a naturally cruel sound to the N word or the F word?  Are these words biologically wrong, or do they just become so ingrained in our heads that they become socially unacceptable?  As humans we have literally turned noises into emotions (I think).

In light of this, what do you think of censorship and political  correctness?

Isreal Part Trois: Why We love Them

Americans love Israel for three simple reasons, I think.

The first is that we (as a country) feel guilty for having waited so long to get involved in WWII, along with remaining neutral to the other genocides in the world (though ironically, some claim Israel is committing Genocide, according to UN statutes).  We are able to look at the way we treated these other people and say, ooh, that's ok, we helped the Jews.

The second reason that we love Israel is that we love the underdog, even if we turn the underdog into an overdog.  By giving Israel a huge amount of money and Nukes, we have turned them into the overdog.  It doesn't matter, we can still cheer euphorically when they inevitably win all of their conflicts.

The third reason that Americans love Israel is the Conservative Movement and the Bush policy towards Israel.  Most Evangelical faiths believe that all Jews should return to Israel.  Most Conservatives prefer Jews to Muslims.  Finally, and this is the big one, as most of the Jews in Israel immigrated from Europe, they are Caucasians.  Can you imagine that, white allies in the center of the Middle East.

I don't know, though.  Why do you think we let Israel getaway with anything?

Israel part deux: Why I am mad at Israel

Netanyahu-- Not only did he announce new settlements in the West Bank the day of Joe Biden's arrival in Israel, he said what, if you ask me, is the most inflammatory statement ever.  This is what he said of Goldstone:

"We face three major strategic challenges: the Iranian nuclear program, Rockets launched at our civilians and Goldstone."

I was really angry when he said this.  I know that he put goldstone in the same group as Iran and Hamas because he justified their actions as opposed to forthrightly helping them, but I simply do not think that this was an acceptable thing to say.  Dissent from within is what is supposed to set you apart from your enemies.  If you lose that, you are left with nothing.

My fellow teacher at Sunday School was trying to argue that the UN was full of antisemites and biased against Israel (as evidence by the Goldstone Report).  That seems like the most inflammatory comment I have ever heard.  Simply look at what Israel gets away with compared to every other country in that area.  They have a "secret" nuclear program.  They invade disputed areas consistently without repercussion.  They continue to hold the unwavering love of America (see my next post for that).

Someone said on NPR that Israel was a country run by the equivalent of all Mike Huckabees who believe they are fighting a holy war against the ungodly. That explains alot.