Oh, I am not advocating violence, merely noting that it can have a useful effect in encouraging the rooting out of corruption: if we don't seek to hold our governments accountable through lawful means, we will be more likely to suffer at the hands of those who "snap" because of corruption, real or perceived.
I do think that it will require a general belief that corrpution is pervasive, though, to counter the argument that those who "snap" do so only out of a delusion of perceived injustice. In other words, there has to be a belief that government is horribly corrupt but "what can I do about it?" that can then transition to the realization that "OMG! If I don't do something about it, some "crazy" will get me!" (apart from government abuse of power).
I've often thought that the problems inherent in democratically elected governments (yes, I know the U.S. is a Republic wherein sovereignty lies in the person, and not the population at large, but the electoral process is democratic) is that they allow individuals to collectively exercise political power without any individual responsibility. Thus, there is no incentive to seek checks on abuse of such power, when such abuse affects "others".
If there was commensurate risk to each individual in proportion to government abuse of power, things might be different.
Enter the "crazies", you know those that get ticked off, for some state injustice, perceived, or real, and take it out on "society": you know, "you", "your kids", if you happen to be in the "wrong place at the wrong time". Think rogue LA cop Chris Dorner. Doesn't matter if they "get him" in the end: if, in his rage, he kills your wife and kid, they are still dead.
So, the premise is this: increased government abuse of power correlates positively with greater number of "crazies" thinking their constitutional rights are violated (some times they are, some times they're delusional), who will take their rage out on you.
The more abusive government gets, the more likely "crazies" will harm you, or your family.
Perhaps we just need more Dorners, to show the utter incompetence of government to stop them before they cause harm: "Steal my boat, will ya? I'll kill the next 20 people I see!" After all, "the people" are ultimately responsible for government abuse, and should suffer if "they" allow it to persist. Yes, I know that is a falacious argument and completely disregards the rule of law. However, statistically it holds in the sense that the more abusive government becomes, the greater the chance that someone will "snap", and therefore you will suffer collateral damage
So, every time you turn a blind eye to this kind of abuse, you place your kids at greater risk of some "crazies" killing them.
We accept government because order strikes us as safer than anarchy, but at some point of government corruption, that stops being true. Given the propensitiy for public fear to be greatly out of proportion to real risks, perhaps that can be used to an advantage in encouraging a curtailment of state abuse before it truely reaches the point that anarchy (and thus chaotic revolition) actually are to be preferred.
Won't you think of the children?
Recall the mantra: The more abusive government gets, the more likely "crazies" will harm you, or your family.
I'd be curious to know too. Perhaps some former strippers who frequent slashdot might want to offer anectotes?
I haven't been in a strip club in decades, and didn't really frequent them as a matter of course. Of course, during business trips when I was in my 20s and the odd bachelor party, I would often "go along" with friends or coworkers.
Meh. The novelty wears off quickly.
I remember one occasion, in Toronto, where we ran into women who were from Montreal, and spoke no English (apparently, quite common for the workers to keep their social and working lives separate, and the distance between the cities offered a fair degree of separation). They were happy to run into patrons they could talk to! In turn, we gave them a break, and ponied up $360 for three of them to sit with us (clothed) for an hour to take a break, after their performance. In those days (1980s), table dances were $5, lasted three minutes, and it was customary to tip an extra dollar, so we paid the "going rate". There was no such thing as a lap dance then: you picked out a woman after her stage performance, called her over, paid her, she did her table dance, and either left, or you paid for another dance.
They reported (I trust nothing a stripper tells me, but the following was plausable) that one was working her way through school, another was an aspiring professional dancer, and one was earning money for a Corvette. Most customers were polite, the jerks were quickly taken care of by security, and yes, they preferred businessmen because we had money, and so played to the "suits" when they did their stage performance. It was a job. It paid better than the alternatives. One thing that struck me was the observation that one made that the fact that she could recognize men who didn't care where they were for their entertainment, but just "tagged along" with a group, and that prevented her from becoming jaded.
None of the trio strick me as working to support a drug habit, though all claimed that many of the "other" women did, and yes, some were prostitutes on the side, and would give them a "cut", if we were interested in making use of their services. We declined.
When I used to live in Montreal (pre-1997), once a year all (most of ?) the strippers who worked at the various clubs would make a point of donating their tips to local children's charities as a geasture of community goodwill.
To play at Devil's Advocate here: some women may be in porn against their will, "forced" into it either through unlawful restraint, or "economic difficulty", and therefore need to be "protected" from such a fate.
How is that any different fro men being "forced" to be a coal miner out of "economic difficulty"? By that argument shouldn't Iceland ban any potentially dangerous or unpleasant job?
It isn't. That was my point by playing at "Devi's Advocate." Do you know what that means? It means to take up an argumemt from one's opponent's perspective, and show it lacks merit.
To play at Devil's Advocate here: some women may be in porn against their will, "forced" into it either through unlawful restraint, or "economic difficulty", and therefore need to be "protected" from such a fate.
Now, if unlawfully restrained, clearly a crime has been comitted, and should be prosecuted. I can't see prohibition of pornography as having much effect on such crimes, sadly, as a black market will always exist, and indeed, increase the profit motive for such criminals. Arguably, it would make things worse.
The "economic difficulty" argument is hardly "force", and while it may be sad that a woman might have to resort to pornography, or prostitution, to support herself, clearly it speaks more to the failure of a social safety net, than any "economic force" used "against" her. Personally, I have more respect for prostitutes, porn actresses, and strippers, than those on the welfare dole: the former earn a quite difficult living (often abused in places where these activities are illegal).
All that said, I've known a number of women who stripped their way through college, to wind up with a decent education, and successfull careers. (Granted, a large percentage had serious drug habits, but that should not reflect on those that didn't and saw an easy way to separate men from their money for their benefit.)
The bottom line is this: just because some may be criminally or economically forced into activites they'd rather not do, this does not justify prohibiting those who willingly chose to engage in them from doing so.
You'd think it'd be all over except for the victory parade.
The U.S. has never done well against a distributed, disorganized, guerilla enemy: all they manage to do is play whack-a-mole with them.
So long as individual "terrists" are willing to die for their "cause", they will keep comping, and killing individuals will just spur them on, until the U.S. gives up and declares victory, or is bankrupted.
If "terrorististan" is such a dire threat, just nuke the damn place: at least the "terrists" there will be gone (as will everything else), and it might send a clear message to other nations to watch their extemists, lest their civillians get vaporised (note that this does suggest rebel support as possibly more productive than traditional war, since at least *they* are the ones dying, on both sides, and not *us*, but that too can bite one in the ass: once allies with little to lose can become enemies).
Now, the punch line: it is precisely *because* the U.S. can not fight an effective guerilla war, that true patriots CAN overcome the corrupt rot that is the present government IF enough believe it is truely worth dying on one's feet rather than living one one's knees: I truely believe the evolution of modern warfare will involve distributed, disorganized, rebellion, coordinated by ideology than centralized control. It will be bloody, and barbaric, and anything but sanitized, but once "die on your feet" seems better than "live on your knees", it will happen. It always has.
Well, I was on an H1-B until I got my green card. I have a Master's Degree in Computer Science. I immigrated in EB-2 category (employment-based, person with advanced degree).
I was never paid less than my American co-workers. From what I see in our recruiting efforts, there just isn't decent computer engineering talent in the U.S. It cost my employer(s) plenty to handle my legal immigration expenses.
I think the complaints about abuses are valid, and deserve correction, but much of the articl is fear-mongering.
Also, thanks to Bush, H1-Bs can port their work visa to other employers for similar employment, and if in the last stage of immigration proceedings (waiting for consular processing or adjustment of status (literally, waiting for the people who say you are an immigrant to read the paperwork that you were deemed to be worthy of immigration and make it official)), can renew year over year past six years until a CP/AOS decision is rendered. This made the horrors of being trapped in indentured servitude far less likely as we could leave an unscrupulous employer.
Finally, I am an employer myself, having a nanny to help care for my (American) son.
By not letting inflamatory language affect my gut response, I can concentrate on the supposed science at hand, which currently appears to be bogus.
No, by overlooking the significance of the word "legitimate" and instead congratulating yourself on your own "scientific" worldview, you are totally missing the point. We all know that the science is "bogus." That much is obvious. What is actually interesting (alarming, shocking) is there there is a sitting member of congress who seems to think that there is a large group of "rapes" out there that are not legitimately called rapes. We are left to wonder exactly what category he had in mind, but in light of my view (and the views of many others) that under-recognition of rape is the problem, not over-recognition, the conclusion suggests itself that this man might be deplorable and not fit to serve as a U.S. congressman.
There will always be "underrecognition", or rather "under-prosecution" of some crimes. It is the nature of an "innocent until proven guilty" society with due process of law.
The solution is not to make prosecution of corner-cases easier by implicity moving toward a "guilty until proven innocent" model which is effectively what the gender feminist agenda is.
The problem with the word choice is not just political. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but words mean things. One is not just as good as any other and one's choice among the available words tells the listener something about the thoughts happening inside your head. That is what communication is for. An honest slip of the tongue I'm willing to overlook, but I don't think that's what happened here. I think Akin accidentally told us the truth of what he believes.
He may have engaged in a Freudian slip, and have been trying to advance some kind of anti-abortion agenda, with flawed logic and bad science.
But when someone uses an adjective like "legitimate" before a word like "rape", it makes me wonder what the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate rapes is, and the context in which it matters. I can see some getting upset because of the presumption of a context suggesting decriminalization of some currently criminal activity, but I would not jump to that conclusion absent further reseach into the author's motives.
By not letting inflamatory language affect my gut response, I can concentrate on the supposed science at hand, which currently appears to be bogus. There may be contexts in which it is valid (women killed after being raped surely would not carry a fetus to term, and one can work backwards from that), and it might be interesting to see if there is a narrow set of circumstances in which the hypothesis is correct, but I would expect it to be for such extreme cases, that it would be irrelevant as pertaining to large populations.
Why do we have to use your preconceptions as the baseline for the development of our criminal law? I think that your "mental image" is precisely the problem exactly because it defines out of existence all but the most heinous (and, I might add, rare) offenses. Why do that if what we're actually trying to punish is making a woman have sex with you without your consent, and not just battery?
No, it doesn't. You only think it does. It's exactly the reverse of the present argument. Just because something is less depraved does not make it less unacceptable. But by making the definition of a word so all-encompassing, it dilutes its impact in referring to the most vile circumstances. Case in point: so-called "sex-offender" registries are practically meaningless because they lump in the pedo who raped eight year old Sally with the drunk college kid who mooned people out a bus window.
See, I was raised to think that forcing or tricking someone do do my bidding is wrong. And, that encompasses all the "lesser evil" forms of rape that you think I seek to undefine.
I'd really prefer the notion of the crime of "sexual assault" with varying degrees thereof, with "rape" being the most serious.
The present situation leads to absurdities where a husband can find himself lumped in with the most violent criminals because his wife got pissy at him for not mowing the lawn the day after they had consensual sex after coming home from dinner at a restaurant where she had two or three glasses of wine. And yes, there is a misandrist political agenda to go after such "low-hanging fruit" under the label of "rape" (implying violence and helplessness), because it fuels the meme that men are inherently violent as evidenced by inflated numbers of "violent crime" arrests.
In WA, a man is guilty of "domestic violence", if among other things, he acts in a way that makes his wife afraid of him. Guess what? Disclosing that he discovered her adultery qualifies as "acting in such a way", because a "reasonable" woman would fear his reaction.
His choice is to stay in the home, and put up with the betrayal; stay in the home and disclose the discovery (which can lead to his immediate arrest and likely conviction even as he may be more hurt than threating); or leave, disclose the discovery, and likely file for divorce. If he does the last of the three, it will be presumed that he has abandoned his childre
See, I'm an engineer. A scientist. What's in a name? "Legitimate" in that context is just as good as anything else. Of course, it is an unfortunate term politically. And, I am well aware of political agendas fueled by pesudo-science.
The term may be inflamatory, but such things sometimes are useful to draw attention to the rest of one's argument, whereupon it can be considered in the whole on its merits.
I do think the term "rape" has been diluted to the point of being rediculous. There is a difference between consensual sex between minors, women who lacked dimished capacity through their own voluntary consumption of alcohol, those who changed their mind right in the middle of the "main event", and those that are grabbed, manhandled, stripped, penetrated, and quite possibly beaten within inches of their lives. I grew up with the last of these as the mental image of rape. All the others might very well be exploitation, assault, even sexual assault, sleazy and wrong, but they do not rise to the same level of violence, depravity and the body's possible reaction. I might even be so bold as to suggest that if the evidence does not support the hypothesis, perhaps the rapes studied were not "legitimate enough" to use the author's own vocabulary.
I would further suggest this: the ever-increasing set of actions which get included under the legal umbrella of "rape" are likely part of a misandrist agenda to create in the mind the image of the most violent act above so as to encourage a "guilty if accused because the crime is so horrible" societal bias. "No" is no, and wrong is wrong, but to vigorously prosecute those who's actions barely meet the legal definition, in circumstances often lacking mens rea, because they are easy pickings, while avoiding the harder prosecutions, in order to pack prisons-for-profit, is a greater injustice to women (and people in general), than an inappropriately chosen adjective.
Rape is a [b]legal[/b] term, as far as criminal prosecution goes. And the feminazi misandrist agenda has sought to expand it's definition far beyond unconsentual sexual intercourse.
"Legitimate rape" may be an unfortunately politically incorrect term, but as a moniker to distinguish between a violent, frightening, repugnant encounter, and one that was not [b]at the time[/b] (and this can include relations that, while not violent or forceful, could exclude consent and therefore be rape because of drug-altered capacity to consent), it serves the purpose.
The question of whether a woman's body can shut down reproductive functions in extremis is a legitimate area of scientific inquiry: pregnancy is taxing on resources, and if there is strong evidence both parents will not contribute toward raising the child, it serves questionable evolutionary value.
The UN is looking for a source of funding other than the US Government, because if the US Government pulled out of the UN it would go bankrupt and implode financially.
It is (relatively) easy for skilled workers to work in the U.S. either temporarily or to immigrate.
Basically, there has to be no American that can be found that meets the minimum job requirements at the prevailing wage.
I did write skilled.
Of course, "found" has different interpretations depending on whether the stay is temporary (H1-B) or permanent (EB-2 or EB-3 "Green Card").
For the temporary case, the employer has to assert they can't find any Americans (and not have layed off any in the last six months, not have an ongoing strike, not be in the immigration department's "dog house", etc.).
For the permanent case, the employer has to hire the least-qualified American from responses to a ten-day nation-wide advertised job search.
Immigration attornies can "fudge" things a bit, to make it easier, but not mutch.
My recent gig gave me one. The one button touchpad is a bit of a pain, but you can live with it and add an external mouse if you can't.
I run Ubuntu, Winbloze, and MaxOs on mine.
If you have two large to burn, you can't go wrong.
Of course, my bias stems from the fact that the i7 with 8GB of RAM under the hood of mine rocks. It's also my personal build machine, and I've never had a laptop fast enough to be a decent build machine.
But, you know, for $250 I picked up some Acer chepie laptops at Fry's (three to be exact), and for browsing the internet, they are fine.
Do I like the Mac, always having shunned them? I guess. Would I spend $2k of my own money on one? Probably not. But, there is nothing wrong with the machine that a Linux varient can't fix.
For all the venom directed at them, Comcast has done a great job of providing me with business class service in a residential area for about $70 a month. Up to a/29, 5 Mb/s down, 1.5 Mb/s up. No traffic shaped or blocked.
Sure, one might see 20 Mb/s bursts on the heavily blocked and shaped $19.95 residential traffic service. But, my rate is guaranteed 24x7. I can get bettter if I need.
And, often I do much better than 5 Mb/s down and 1.5 Mb/s up.
Slashdot Mirror
Or a Bell Box..
Oh, I am not advocating violence, merely noting that it can have a useful effect in encouraging the rooting out of corruption: if we don't seek to hold our governments accountable through lawful means, we will be more likely to suffer at the hands of those who "snap" because of corruption, real or perceived.
I do think that it will require a general belief that corrpution is pervasive, though, to counter the argument that those who "snap" do so only out of a delusion of perceived injustice. In other words, there has to be a belief that government is horribly corrupt but "what can I do about it?" that can then transition to the realization that "OMG! If I don't do something about it, some "crazy" will get me!" (apart from government abuse of power).
I've often thought that the problems inherent in democratically elected governments (yes, I know the U.S. is a Republic wherein sovereignty lies in the person, and not the population at large, but the electoral process is democratic) is that they allow individuals to collectively exercise political power without any individual responsibility. Thus, there is no incentive to seek checks on abuse of such power, when such abuse affects "others".
If there was commensurate risk to each individual in proportion to government abuse of power, things might be different.
Enter the "crazies", you know those that get ticked off, for some state injustice, perceived, or real, and take it out on "society": you know, "you", "your kids", if you happen to be in the "wrong place at the wrong time". Think rogue LA cop Chris Dorner. Doesn't matter if they "get him" in the end: if, in his rage, he kills your wife and kid, they are still dead.
So, the premise is this: increased government abuse of power correlates positively with greater number of "crazies" thinking their constitutional rights are violated (some times they are, some times they're delusional), who will take their rage out on you.
The more abusive government gets, the more likely "crazies" will harm you, or your family.
Perhaps we just need more Dorners, to show the utter incompetence of government to stop them before they cause harm: "Steal my boat, will ya? I'll kill the next 20 people I see!" After all, "the people" are ultimately responsible for government abuse, and should suffer if "they" allow it to persist. Yes, I know that is a falacious argument and completely disregards the rule of law. However, statistically it holds in the sense that the more abusive government becomes, the greater the chance that someone will "snap", and therefore you will suffer collateral damage
So, every time you turn a blind eye to this kind of abuse, you place your kids at greater risk of some "crazies" killing them.
We accept government because order strikes us as safer than anarchy, but at some point of government corruption, that stops being true. Given the propensitiy for public fear to be greatly out of proportion to real risks, perhaps that can be used to an advantage in encouraging a curtailment of state abuse before it truely reaches the point that anarchy (and thus chaotic revolition) actually are to be preferred.
Won't you think of the children?
Recall the mantra: The more abusive government gets, the more likely "crazies" will harm you, or your family.
I'd be curious to know too. Perhaps some former strippers who frequent slashdot might want to offer anectotes?
I haven't been in a strip club in decades, and didn't really frequent them as a matter of course. Of course, during business trips when I was in my 20s and the odd bachelor party, I would often "go along" with friends or coworkers.
Meh. The novelty wears off quickly.
I remember one occasion, in Toronto, where we ran into women who were from Montreal, and spoke no English (apparently, quite common for the workers to keep their social and working lives separate, and the distance between the cities offered a fair degree of separation). They were happy to run into patrons they could talk to! In turn, we gave them a break, and ponied up $360 for three of them to sit with us (clothed) for an hour to take a break, after their performance. In those days (1980s), table dances were $5, lasted three minutes, and it was customary to tip an extra dollar, so we paid the "going rate". There was no such thing as a lap dance then: you picked out a woman after her stage performance, called her over, paid her, she did her table dance, and either left, or you paid for another dance.
They reported (I trust nothing a stripper tells me, but the following was plausable) that one was working her way through school, another was an aspiring professional dancer, and one was earning money for a Corvette. Most customers were polite, the jerks were quickly taken care of by security, and yes, they preferred businessmen because we had money, and so played to the "suits" when they did their stage performance. It was a job. It paid better than the alternatives. One thing that struck me was the observation that one made that the fact that she could recognize men who didn't care where they were for their entertainment, but just "tagged along" with a group, and that prevented her from becoming jaded.
None of the trio strick me as working to support a drug habit, though all claimed that many of the "other" women did, and yes, some were prostitutes on the side, and would give them a "cut", if we were interested in making use of their services. We declined.
When I used to live in Montreal (pre-1997), once a year all (most of ?) the strippers who worked at the various clubs would make a point of donating their tips to local children's charities as a geasture of community goodwill.
To play at Devil's Advocate here: some women may be in porn against their will, "forced" into it either through unlawful restraint, or "economic difficulty", and therefore need to be "protected" from such a fate.
How is that any different fro men being "forced" to be a coal miner out of "economic difficulty"? By that argument shouldn't Iceland ban any potentially dangerous or unpleasant job?
It isn't. That was my point by playing at "Devi's Advocate." Do you know what that means? It means to take up an argumemt from one's opponent's perspective, and show it lacks merit.
To play at Devil's Advocate here: some women may be in porn against their will, "forced" into it either through unlawful restraint, or "economic difficulty", and therefore need to be "protected" from such a fate.
Now, if unlawfully restrained, clearly a crime has been comitted, and should be prosecuted. I can't see prohibition of pornography as having much effect on such crimes, sadly, as a black market will always exist, and indeed, increase the profit motive for such criminals. Arguably, it would make things worse.
The "economic difficulty" argument is hardly "force", and while it may be sad that a woman might have to resort to pornography, or prostitution, to support herself, clearly it speaks more to the failure of a social safety net, than any "economic force" used "against" her. Personally, I have more respect for prostitutes, porn actresses, and strippers, than those on the welfare dole: the former earn a quite difficult living (often abused in places where these activities are illegal).
All that said, I've known a number of women who stripped their way through college, to wind up with a decent education, and successfull careers. (Granted, a large percentage had serious drug habits, but that should not reflect on those that didn't and saw an easy way to separate men from their money for their benefit.)
The bottom line is this: just because some may be criminally or economically forced into activites they'd rather not do, this does not justify prohibiting those who willingly chose to engage in them from doing so.
After all, the U.S. is STILL fighting them.
You'd think it'd be all over except for the victory parade.
The U.S. has never done well against a distributed, disorganized, guerilla enemy: all they manage to do is play whack-a-mole with them.
So long as individual "terrists" are willing to die for their "cause", they will keep comping, and killing individuals will just spur them on, until the U.S. gives up and declares victory, or is bankrupted.
If "terrorististan" is such a dire threat, just nuke the damn place: at least the "terrists" there will be gone (as will everything else), and it might send a clear message to other nations to watch their extemists, lest their civillians get vaporised (note that this does suggest rebel support as possibly more productive than traditional war, since at least *they* are the ones dying, on both sides, and not *us*, but that too can bite one in the ass: once allies with little to lose can become enemies).
Now, the punch line: it is precisely *because* the U.S. can not fight an effective guerilla war, that true patriots CAN overcome the corrupt rot that is the present government IF enough believe it is truely worth dying on one's feet rather than living one one's knees: I truely believe the evolution of modern warfare will involve distributed, disorganized, rebellion, coordinated by ideology than centralized control. It will be bloody, and barbaric, and anything but sanitized, but once "die on your feet" seems better than "live on your knees", it will happen. It always has.
Well, I was on an H1-B until I got my green card. I have a Master's Degree in Computer Science. I immigrated in EB-2 category (employment-based, person with advanced degree).
I was never paid less than my American co-workers. From what I see in our recruiting efforts, there just isn't decent computer engineering talent in the U.S. It cost my employer(s) plenty to handle my legal immigration expenses.
I think the complaints about abuses are valid, and deserve correction, but much of the articl is fear-mongering.
Also, thanks to Bush, H1-Bs can port their work visa to other employers for similar employment, and if in the last stage of immigration proceedings (waiting for consular processing or adjustment of status (literally, waiting for the people who say you are an immigrant to read the paperwork that you were deemed to be worthy of immigration and make it official)), can renew year over year past six years until a CP/AOS decision is rendered. This made the horrors of being trapped in indentured servitude far less likely as we could leave an unscrupulous employer.
Finally, I am an employer myself, having a nanny to help care for my (American) son.
Wouldn't bet on it. Probably just reinvented the wheel.
I coded Reed-Solomon FECs for packet radio in the 1980s to combat picket-fencing for mobile data radios using Z80 CPUs.
I would agree, however, that there is no scientific evidence to back this congressman's claims.
That said, I find that the last 30 years of the Marxist-inspired gender-feminist agenda no less reprehensible.
Oh, I missed this:
By not letting inflamatory language affect my gut response, I can concentrate on the supposed science at hand, which currently appears to be bogus.
No, by overlooking the significance of the word "legitimate" and instead congratulating yourself on your own "scientific" worldview, you are totally missing the point. We all know that the science is "bogus." That much is obvious. What is actually interesting (alarming, shocking) is there there is a sitting member of congress who seems to think that there is a large group of "rapes" out there that are not legitimately called rapes. We are left to wonder exactly what category he had in mind, but in light of my view (and the views of many others) that under-recognition of rape is the problem, not over-recognition, the conclusion suggests itself that this man might be deplorable and not fit to serve as a U.S. congressman.
There will always be "underrecognition", or rather "under-prosecution" of some crimes. It is the nature of an "innocent until proven guilty" society with due process of law.
The solution is not to make prosecution of corner-cases easier by implicity moving toward a "guilty until proven innocent" model which is effectively what the gender feminist agenda is.
The problem with the word choice is not just political. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but words mean things. One is not just as good as any other and one's choice among the available words tells the listener something about the thoughts happening inside your head. That is what communication is for. An honest slip of the tongue I'm willing to overlook, but I don't think that's what happened here. I think Akin accidentally told us the truth of what he believes.
He may have engaged in a Freudian slip, and have been trying to advance some kind of anti-abortion agenda, with flawed logic and bad science.
But when someone uses an adjective like "legitimate" before a word like "rape", it makes me wonder what the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate rapes is, and the context in which it matters. I can see some getting upset because of the presumption of a context suggesting decriminalization of some currently criminal activity, but I would not jump to that conclusion absent further reseach into the author's motives.
By not letting inflamatory language affect my gut response, I can concentrate on the supposed science at hand, which currently appears to be bogus. There may be contexts in which it is valid (women killed after being raped surely would not carry a fetus to term, and one can work backwards from that), and it might be interesting to see if there is a narrow set of circumstances in which the hypothesis is correct, but I would expect it to be for such extreme cases, that it would be irrelevant as pertaining to large populations.
Why do we have to use your preconceptions as the baseline for the development of our criminal law? I think that your "mental image" is precisely the problem exactly because it defines out of existence all but the most heinous (and, I might add, rare) offenses. Why do that if what we're actually trying to punish is making a woman have sex with you without your consent, and not just battery?
No, it doesn't. You only think it does. It's exactly the reverse of the present argument. Just because something is less depraved does not make it less unacceptable. But by making the definition of a word so all-encompassing, it dilutes its impact in referring to the most vile circumstances. Case in point: so-called "sex-offender" registries are practically meaningless because they lump in the pedo who raped eight year old Sally with the drunk college kid who mooned people out a bus window.
See, I was raised to think that forcing or tricking someone do do my bidding is wrong. And, that encompasses all the "lesser evil" forms of rape that you think I seek to undefine.
I'd really prefer the notion of the crime of "sexual assault" with varying degrees thereof, with "rape" being the most serious.
The present situation leads to absurdities where a husband can find himself lumped in with the most violent criminals because his wife got pissy at him for not mowing the lawn the day after they had consensual sex after coming home from dinner at a restaurant where she had two or three glasses of wine. And yes, there is a misandrist political agenda to go after such "low-hanging fruit" under the label of "rape" (implying violence and helplessness), because it fuels the meme that men are inherently violent as evidenced by inflated numbers of "violent crime" arrests.
In WA, a man is guilty of "domestic violence", if among other things, he acts in a way that makes his wife afraid of him. Guess what? Disclosing that he discovered her adultery qualifies as "acting in such a way", because a "reasonable" woman would fear his reaction.
His choice is to stay in the home, and put up with the betrayal; stay in the home and disclose the discovery (which can lead to his immediate arrest and likely conviction even as he may be more hurt than threating); or leave, disclose the discovery, and likely file for divorce. If he does the last of the three, it will be presumed that he has abandoned his childre
See, I'm an engineer. A scientist. What's in a name? "Legitimate" in that context is just as good as anything else. Of course, it is an unfortunate term politically. And, I am well aware of political agendas fueled by pesudo-science.
The term may be inflamatory, but such things sometimes are useful to draw attention to the rest of one's argument, whereupon it can be considered in the whole on its merits.
I do think the term "rape" has been diluted to the point of being rediculous. There is a difference between consensual sex between minors, women who lacked dimished capacity through their own voluntary consumption of alcohol, those who changed their mind right in the middle of the "main event", and those that are grabbed, manhandled, stripped, penetrated, and quite possibly beaten within inches of their lives. I grew up with the last of these as the mental image of rape. All the others might very well be exploitation, assault, even sexual assault, sleazy and wrong, but they do not rise to the same level of violence, depravity and the body's possible reaction. I might even be so bold as to suggest that if the evidence does not support the hypothesis, perhaps the rapes studied were not "legitimate enough" to use the author's own vocabulary.
I would further suggest this: the ever-increasing set of actions which get included under the legal umbrella of "rape" are likely part of a misandrist agenda to create in the mind the image of the most violent act above so as to encourage a "guilty if accused because the crime is so horrible" societal bias. "No" is no, and wrong is wrong, but to vigorously prosecute those who's actions barely meet the legal definition, in circumstances often lacking mens rea, because they are easy pickings, while avoiding the harder prosecutions, in order to pack prisons-for-profit, is a greater injustice to women (and people in general), than an inappropriately chosen adjective.
Hardly. Statutory rape is often consensual sex.
Rape is a [b]legal[/b] term, as far as criminal prosecution goes. And the feminazi misandrist agenda has sought to expand it's definition far beyond unconsentual sexual intercourse.
"Legitimate rape" may be an unfortunately politically incorrect term, but as a moniker to distinguish between a violent, frightening, repugnant encounter, and one that was not [b]at the time[/b] (and this can include relations that, while not violent or forceful, could exclude consent and therefore be rape because of drug-altered capacity to consent), it serves the purpose.
The question of whether a woman's body can shut down reproductive functions in extremis is a legitimate area of scientific inquiry: pregnancy is taxing on resources, and if there is strong evidence both parents will not contribute toward raising the child, it serves questionable evolutionary value.
I run my own. Always did. There, in the living room rack, under the TV. As natural as a mailbox streetside.
I pay cash for cat food, so by seeing me the system will not know that I buy cat food. But, by seeing my cats, it could infer that I buy cat food.
So, a cat food commercial will be presented whenever one of my cats enters the room?
The UN is looking for a source of funding other than the US Government, because if the US Government pulled out of the UN it would go bankrupt and implode financially.
And that would be a bad thing?
EB-1
It is (relatively) easy for skilled workers to work in the U.S. either temporarily or to immigrate.
Basically, there has to be no American that can be found that meets the minimum job requirements at the prevailing wage.
I did write skilled.
Of course, "found" has different interpretations depending on whether the stay is temporary (H1-B) or permanent (EB-2 or EB-3 "Green Card").
For the temporary case, the employer has to assert they can't find any Americans (and not have layed off any in the last six months, not have an ongoing strike, not be in the immigration department's "dog house", etc.).
For the permanent case, the employer has to hire the least-qualified American from responses to a ten-day nation-wide advertised job search.
Immigration attornies can "fudge" things a bit, to make it easier, but not mutch.
My recent gig gave me one. The one button touchpad is a bit of a pain, but you can live with it and add an external mouse if you can't.
I run Ubuntu, Winbloze, and MaxOs on mine.
If you have two large to burn, you can't go wrong.
Of course, my bias stems from the fact that the i7 with 8GB of RAM under the hood of mine rocks. It's also my personal build machine, and I've never had a laptop fast enough to be a decent build machine.
But, you know, for $250 I picked up some Acer chepie laptops at Fry's (three to be exact), and for browsing the internet, they are fine.
Do I like the Mac, always having shunned them? I guess. Would I spend $2k of my own money on one? Probably not. But, there is nothing wrong with the machine that a Linux varient can't fix.
For all the venom directed at them, Comcast has done a great job of providing me with business class service in a residential area for about $70 a month. Up to a /29, 5 Mb/s down, 1.5 Mb/s up. No traffic shaped or blocked.
Sure, one might see 20 Mb/s bursts on the heavily blocked and shaped $19.95 residential traffic service. But, my rate is guaranteed 24x7. I can get bettter if I need.
And, often I do much better than 5 Mb/s down and 1.5 Mb/s up.
You pays your money and you makes your choice.
Not recently. Way back in 2003/2004.
Subject says it all.
Contact me if you want to see my resume.
Interviews have been coming at a steady rate so far, and in one shop I'd be one of the younger people if hired.
I recently interviewed for a senior position dealing with massively parallel hardware for "Big Data" analytics.
I was probably younger than all the interviewers (would-be boss, coworkers, etc.)
I am 50 years old.
I don't intend on retiring any time soon.