I will give credit to Tyler Cowen from Marginal Revolution for this one:
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
2-6-09: XKCD Explains the "Base System"
Sent to you by Pat via Google Reader:
Things you can do from here:
- Subscribe to xkcd.com using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
Thursday, February 5, 2009
2-5-09: Technology Thursday: "Inside the GPS Revolution"
Pat Canny thought you'd like to see this on wired.com
I personally like the astronomy app and iNap app.
Click here to see the page on wired.com: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/17-02/lp_10coolapps/
I personally like the astronomy app and iNap app.
Click here to see the page on wired.com: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/17-02/lp_10coolapps/
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
2-4-09: Firing Gays and Lesbians (and using my taxes)
On the radio this morning, I heard a story of a woman who was fired six months into her job with a church group because the group saw a picture of her with her partner. Up to that point, they had let her interact with their children and had no idea she was gay.
The story went on to explain how a bunch of religious (or "faith based") groups are all up in arms about how they should be allowed to fire gays and lesbians despite receiving federal funding. President Obama is likely to change the rules that President Bush set forth, which allowed religious organizations who receive federal money to discriminate based on religion and sexual orientation. Obama had said in his campaign that he didn't like seeing that happen.
My take on this is simple: it's fine that your group doesn't like gays and lesbians. No law outright says you have to like gays and lesbians and include them in what you do all the time. BUT… when you receive taxpayer money, and since gays and lesbians also pay taxes, you're out of luck. It's that simple. Either you don't take federal money, like how the Catholics used to do all the time before all the expensive scandals (and still mostly do), or you play ball and don't discriminate.
One of the arguments being made by these religious groups is that it's a violation of church and state to force them to act a certain way. That is accurate. But so is the act of funding religious organizations with federal money in the first place. If you look at it more closely, how strict are they? If religious groups know gays and lesbians pay taxes (at least, I hope they know that) and they know they're getting money from a federal grant, aren't they partially funded by gays and lesbians? Either way: gays and lesbians are helping your group. You're not completely excluding them, no matter how hard you try.
Religious groups also make the argument that "Well this would be like if they forced PETA to allow butchers to join." That, my friends, is a good example of hyperbole and false logic. Butchers hate animals and likely wouldn't want to join PETA (unless they wanted to take it down, I suppose), whereas a lesbian or gay man may still believe in religious principles. There are also laws protecting civil rights which get thrown in to the mix with the gay / lesbian argument; you're not violating a butcher's civil rights by saying "Hey, you can't join PETA because you completely stand against what we do by choice." Since being homosexual is a natural occurrence (despite whatever religious groups say), it has different protection than just saying "I choose to be a butcher and you have to let me join."
Don't forget: this is for groups that receive federal grant money. Private groups are still private groups.
The story went on to explain how a bunch of religious (or "faith based") groups are all up in arms about how they should be allowed to fire gays and lesbians despite receiving federal funding. President Obama is likely to change the rules that President Bush set forth, which allowed religious organizations who receive federal money to discriminate based on religion and sexual orientation. Obama had said in his campaign that he didn't like seeing that happen.
My take on this is simple: it's fine that your group doesn't like gays and lesbians. No law outright says you have to like gays and lesbians and include them in what you do all the time. BUT… when you receive taxpayer money, and since gays and lesbians also pay taxes, you're out of luck. It's that simple. Either you don't take federal money, like how the Catholics used to do all the time before all the expensive scandals (and still mostly do), or you play ball and don't discriminate.
One of the arguments being made by these religious groups is that it's a violation of church and state to force them to act a certain way. That is accurate. But so is the act of funding religious organizations with federal money in the first place. If you look at it more closely, how strict are they? If religious groups know gays and lesbians pay taxes (at least, I hope they know that) and they know they're getting money from a federal grant, aren't they partially funded by gays and lesbians? Either way: gays and lesbians are helping your group. You're not completely excluding them, no matter how hard you try.
Religious groups also make the argument that "Well this would be like if they forced PETA to allow butchers to join." That, my friends, is a good example of hyperbole and false logic. Butchers hate animals and likely wouldn't want to join PETA (unless they wanted to take it down, I suppose), whereas a lesbian or gay man may still believe in religious principles. There are also laws protecting civil rights which get thrown in to the mix with the gay / lesbian argument; you're not violating a butcher's civil rights by saying "Hey, you can't join PETA because you completely stand against what we do by choice." Since being homosexual is a natural occurrence (despite whatever religious groups say), it has different protection than just saying "I choose to be a butcher and you have to let me join."
Don't forget: this is for groups that receive federal grant money. Private groups are still private groups.
Monday, February 2, 2009
2-2-09: Logan's Run
My most recent Netflix rental was a classic sci-fi movie from 1976 called Logan's Run, starring Michael York as Logan 5.
It's not the best acting in the world, but the film itself was entertaining enough to pass for a pseudo cult classic, I suppose. The story is pretty wild, and I can't help but think that The Island was a blatant rip-off with marginally better acting.
The story takes place in the 23rd century after a series of wars has basically forced people to live in a giant domed city. There's a lot of sex and drugs and every one is under 30. The film starts out showing this bizarre, sacrificial ceremony called "Carousel" in which people who are turning 31 pretty much get electrocuted to death while floating around in the air. It's supposed to be some "renewal" or reincarnation ritual, and most of the people buy it.
The character Logan 5, played by York, is what is known as a "Sand man," and his job is to kill "runners," or people who are supposed to die in Carousel but choose to, you know, live. Logan eventually becomes a runner and tries to escape, bringing along his friend Jessica.
The film has a lot of promise, and is done decently, but even for 1976, it was just goofy. The acting wasn't that great, and the story, even for a 2 hour film, felt rushed. It's still worth seeing, but only for those in the mood for some classic 70's sci-fi.
It's not the best acting in the world, but the film itself was entertaining enough to pass for a pseudo cult classic, I suppose. The story is pretty wild, and I can't help but think that The Island was a blatant rip-off with marginally better acting.
The story takes place in the 23rd century after a series of wars has basically forced people to live in a giant domed city. There's a lot of sex and drugs and every one is under 30. The film starts out showing this bizarre, sacrificial ceremony called "Carousel" in which people who are turning 31 pretty much get electrocuted to death while floating around in the air. It's supposed to be some "renewal" or reincarnation ritual, and most of the people buy it.
The character Logan 5, played by York, is what is known as a "Sand man," and his job is to kill "runners," or people who are supposed to die in Carousel but choose to, you know, live. Logan eventually becomes a runner and tries to escape, bringing along his friend Jessica.
The film has a lot of promise, and is done decently, but even for 1976, it was just goofy. The acting wasn't that great, and the story, even for a 2 hour film, felt rushed. It's still worth seeing, but only for those in the mood for some classic 70's sci-fi.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)