The Meat of the Matter

V is also for Very Very Good!

I gave up on the Wachowski brothers after their horrible sequels to The Matrix. I had assumed that their sudden rise to greatness after The original Matrix (which I loved) had poisoned their minds and their work. Maybe they learned? Whatever ... don't really care. All I know is that "V for Vendetta" kicks butt. It was a great movie, and I highly recommend it. I'm actually quite surprised that it hasn't caused a greater amount of controversy than it has. Has anyone seen this who was offended by the implications, by the metaphors, by who is actually a hero in this movie? I don't want to ruin it for people by getting into the dialog, so please post your thoughts in comments and if you haven't seen it--don't read the comments!

Xenophobia

Christians are outraged that Afghanistan is considering the execution of a man, simply because he converted to Christianity. That is a justifiable reason to be outraged. But were they outraged when Afghanistan stoned a woman to death simply because her husband accused her of adultery? And have they been outraged when homosexuals have been persecuted, oppressed, and executed by Afghan officials? Just asking ...

The Cat Among Cats

Alas, the Vet has confirmed that our dear Scallywag won't be with us much longer. He was a great fisherman. He was feared by most of the cats who ever knew him. He was loved by most of the humans who ever knew him. He liked to swim in toilets. He once protected Gayle from a racoon in a fierce battle. He ate all manner of human food. A cat among cats! He will be missed.

Roe V. Wade For Men

This the subject du jour in the news, on talk radio and political websites. Under Roe v. Wade, woman have the right to choose whether or not they will have a baby. Men, on the other hand, do not have the option to choose whether or not the woman will have the baby, and subsequently they do not have the option to choose whether or not to pay for the baby's life. By calling up "equal protection under the law," men are saying that they should have the right to choose as well. They claim that if a woman chooses to keep a baby against the will of the man, the man should not be required to pay for the child. But wait, there's more: This is all coming about because of a suit that's being filed by The National Center for Men. They have been at this, allegedly, since 1990. They do have a valid point (which I don't care enough about to argue here) but I have to ask myself one germaine question. Why is this a big splash in the news now? After all, this is not a new concept, and it is not a new fight. This is a long shot. It's always been a long shot. Why is this a big splash in the news now? Here's a possible reason why I think it is. The NCM's argument makes sense in a way. It's logical, and to the casual observer it might pose a threat to the position of strength that women currently have under Roe V. Wade. In fact, it might make it seem like Roe v. Wade might not be a good idea for women who actually want to have a baby. If you do, after all, you might risk being forced to take financial responsibility for the child's life, if the man is opposed. She might not have child support ro rely upon. But Roe v. Wade For Men will fail miserably, as have the many similar attempts in the past 30 years. A possible reason this is being prominently played in the news now is because it is an attempt to deteriorate the popularity of Roe v. Wade, and to soften the criticism against the anti-abortion legislation that will be before the Supreme Court soon. There are some women who are against abortion (or think that they would never have one) and are currently fence-sitters who are basically Pro-Choice because they feel pressure from other women to be so. This news might push them to the other side of the fence, because they don't ever want to be a single mother without child support. So this "Roe v. Wade For Men" will cause these fence-sitters to move over to the Pro-Life camp. I think that's what this is all about.

Bush is the New Nixon

Yesterday, Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee voted not to investigate President Bush's illegal wiretapping program. Apparently the Senate is being fast and loose with the term "Intelligence." His approval ratings are now 34%, a scant above Nixon's record low of 29%. Just a few more scandals (which are sure to come) and we should hit paydirt.

Car Alarms

When you hear a car alarm, what conclusion do you reach? 1. A car is being stolen. Investigate and/or call the police immediately. 2. Someone may be in trouble, and has activated their car alarm as a signal for help. Investigate and/or call the police immediately. 3. Some asshole's car alarm is going on. You hope his noisy car is being stolen, or that he is being mugged. 4. What? I can't hear you, there's a car alarm going off. The fact is, we think 3 or 4, not 1 or 2. So car alarms are a completely superfluous element of our society--an element that has negative externalities and very few positive contributions. The positive contribution is that you can click your remote until it chirps, so you know your car is locked. Then you can tell it's unlocked by the double-chirp. This is cool! But it doesn't require an actual alarm system to work. Here's what I think people should do: 1. When you buy a car, cut the alarm cable so it does not go off, or disable the alarm. 2. When you have a neighbor or person in your workplace whose car alarm frequently goes off, call the police and tell them you think a car is being stolen ... every time. (OK, maybe you shouldn't do this, but it's fun to think about.) But car manufacturers wouldn't dare try to sell a car without an alarm system, as it is perceived as a necessary component. Wake up car manufacturers! It's not only unnecessary, it's a nuisance.