News Mondays!
Aug. 7th, 2006 10:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trinityvixenLet's wrangle us up some stuff!
-Heee! 'The most secure Windows platform EVAH' pwned! It's not that I hate Windows especially--I use a PC, and I am too lazy to look into an alternate OS. But Microsoft can always use a few lessons about what hubris gets them.
-Further proof that all will love Google and despair! Or, just, you know, love it. Bonus points for the use of the word "dodgy" about spy-ware laden websites. Dodgy! I love the BBC.
-For the love of Baby Jesus, STOP TAKING TEENAGERS' WORD FOR IT! This reads like another "AAAAH!!! LOOK AT THE DEGENERATE YOOOOOOUTH" "scientific" "study." Before it even got to its method, I was going, "I need PubMed, and I need it now."
What was its rigourous method? "The study is based on a 2001 telephone survey of 1,461 youths when they were between the ages of 12 to 17. They were interviewed again in 2002 and 2004.
Among teens who listened to high amounts of explicit music, 51 percent went on to initiate intercourse by the follow-up call, said Steven Martino, a psychologist and lead researcher of the study with the Rand Corp. in Pittsburgh. Among kids who listened to low amounts of such music, 29 percent initiated sex by the call in 2002.
So, basically, they called a bunch of kids, and took it as fact if they said either they listened to a lot of "sexually charged" music and/or then went on to have/not have a lot of sex. Aside from this being totally stupid (and also totally unavoidable, because there's no way to make sure they're telling the truth or do it another way that wouldn't be just as skewed for being observed), this whole study is being run like a moralizing circus. At The Washington Post, this "science" is being treated as a little bit of nothing (which it is). It's not nothing.
It's chock-ful of something. Are rap songs fucking degrading 99% of the time towards women? Are the songs predominantly about getting ass? Abso-fucking-lutely. Does that mean women listening to it need to be offended? Depends on the woman. I don't listen to rap because I don't like the style of music first, and loathe the content second, easy as that. But I know I listen to other music that is easily just as sexually charged (Hello, Trent Reznor, may I have sex with you now?), and it's not an excuse to go out and fuck a person blind (were we already knocking boots, hey, turn on the Nails bay-bee).
But there's all this bullshit about "Radio stations bear responsibility" (yes, to make money playing what kids want to hear, and they do). Parents have to disapprove of listening to "sexualized" music or else their kids will make babies right under their noses. Then there's the pure "we liked our women when we had to do the (non-aggressive!) pursuing bits":
When children don’t have adults to balance strong sexual messages from television and music, they wrongly interpret them on their own, said Curtis Gossett, 47, a father of five.
"You can ride down the street and see 5- and 6-year-old girls shaking their butts, and that’s not cute to me," said Gossett, of the East Side.
I am all for not sexualizing minors, I really am, but you are pushing it pal. This was a study of teenagers, and you are exaggerating and thus undermining the case of people like me who really do find sexualizing pre-pubescents repugnant. I have not seen (and I live in the Reggaeton capital of New York City right now) a single girl under 10 wiggling her ass except when she's running through the opened fire hydrants. Fucking relax.
And those teenagers and women who want to shake their rumps? Go right ahead. If someone tries anything untoward, smack their ass and let them know that "the sexualized music made me do it" doesn't fly as a legit defense in court.
This guy does, to be fair, have a good strategy for making sure his kids are educated:
So Gossett, a contractor, listens to edited versions of music with his youngest children, Sheniece, 13, and Curuan, 11, and explains what the lyrics means.
"You have to teach them how to have their own boundaries," he said. "They can listen to it and dance to it, but not run out and do it."
That's great. His kids are too young to be going out and fucking, and he's doing the right thing. He sets the right tone by saying this may be fun to sing or to dance to, but doing the things mentioned is a whole other story. Now, if only the people making this inflammatory study had thought their "method" through even half so well...
-Dude, chiiiiiiiill. It's Madonna. Doing this shit is just what she DOES.
“It is disrespectful, in bad taste and provocative. Being raised on a cross with a crown of thorns like a modern Christ is absurd. Doing it in the cradle of Christianity comes close to blasphemy,” said Father Manfredo Leone of the Santa Maria Liberatrice church in Rome. “This is a blasphemous challenge to the faith and a profanation of the Cross. She should be excommunicated. To crucify herself in the city of Popes and martyrs is an act of open hostility,” said Vatican Cardinal Ersilio Tonino.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe in one land being holier than another. I'm not one for religious mysticism that associates a stronger connection to the power of God/Allah with a place (and if I were to pick? Italy: so not the Holy Land). I believe this world went through dramatic changes to make the place suitable for life, and life took about 2 billion years to get to evolution's worst mistake (us, duh). Us associating some sort of holy power concentrated in the cradle of civilization is redonkulous. We came from Mesopotamia, so it's sort of precious to us, I get it. Doesn't mean your prayers go farther or, Allah forbid, it's worth killing people over (though clearly the events of the past weeks prove I am not in the majority in thinking this).
-And, lastly, a bit of happier news. They're damned right: the Federal government will never figure out a way to make health care more affordable. Congress has been delegating power to the states on everything to avoid contentious issues hurting entrenched elected officials (like equal rights for homosexual couples, the continued right for a woman to have an abortion, you know, those things we're told "will never change" but that the fundie-driven GOP was trying its damnedest to?), so why not on health care?
Know what most cheered me in that? The emphasis on prevention with health care. Punish people who don't keep doctors' appointments, yes. Push through legislation to encourage (ugh, much as I hate it) exercise and eating right to avoid the complications we know are linked to obesity and diabetes (which are so vast and definitely contribute to our health care work-load). Get people healthy to start, get them comfortable with using health care so they will use it before a problem passes the manageable stage into the serious, heavy-bill, long-term care stage (if possible).
Now, if only we could convince the Red Staters that applying the same philosophy toward Sex Ed would result in fewer unwanted pregnancies and cases of STD infection, we'd probably have an even more robust health care nation still.
-Heee! 'The most secure Windows platform EVAH' pwned! It's not that I hate Windows especially--I use a PC, and I am too lazy to look into an alternate OS. But Microsoft can always use a few lessons about what hubris gets them.
-Further proof that all will love Google and despair! Or, just, you know, love it. Bonus points for the use of the word "dodgy" about spy-ware laden websites. Dodgy! I love the BBC.
-For the love of Baby Jesus, STOP TAKING TEENAGERS' WORD FOR IT! This reads like another "AAAAH!!! LOOK AT THE DEGENERATE YOOOOOOUTH" "scientific" "study." Before it even got to its method, I was going, "I need PubMed, and I need it now."
What was its rigourous method? "The study is based on a 2001 telephone survey of 1,461 youths when they were between the ages of 12 to 17. They were interviewed again in 2002 and 2004.
Among teens who listened to high amounts of explicit music, 51 percent went on to initiate intercourse by the follow-up call, said Steven Martino, a psychologist and lead researcher of the study with the Rand Corp. in Pittsburgh. Among kids who listened to low amounts of such music, 29 percent initiated sex by the call in 2002.
So, basically, they called a bunch of kids, and took it as fact if they said either they listened to a lot of "sexually charged" music and/or then went on to have/not have a lot of sex. Aside from this being totally stupid (and also totally unavoidable, because there's no way to make sure they're telling the truth or do it another way that wouldn't be just as skewed for being observed), this whole study is being run like a moralizing circus. At The Washington Post, this "science" is being treated as a little bit of nothing (which it is). It's not nothing.
It's chock-ful of something. Are rap songs fucking degrading 99% of the time towards women? Are the songs predominantly about getting ass? Abso-fucking-lutely. Does that mean women listening to it need to be offended? Depends on the woman. I don't listen to rap because I don't like the style of music first, and loathe the content second, easy as that. But I know I listen to other music that is easily just as sexually charged (Hello, Trent Reznor, may I have sex with you now?), and it's not an excuse to go out and fuck a person blind (were we already knocking boots, hey, turn on the Nails bay-bee).
But there's all this bullshit about "Radio stations bear responsibility" (yes, to make money playing what kids want to hear, and they do). Parents have to disapprove of listening to "sexualized" music or else their kids will make babies right under their noses. Then there's the pure "we liked our women when we had to do the (non-aggressive!) pursuing bits":
When children don’t have adults to balance strong sexual messages from television and music, they wrongly interpret them on their own, said Curtis Gossett, 47, a father of five.
"You can ride down the street and see 5- and 6-year-old girls shaking their butts, and that’s not cute to me," said Gossett, of the East Side.
I am all for not sexualizing minors, I really am, but you are pushing it pal. This was a study of teenagers, and you are exaggerating and thus undermining the case of people like me who really do find sexualizing pre-pubescents repugnant. I have not seen (and I live in the Reggaeton capital of New York City right now) a single girl under 10 wiggling her ass except when she's running through the opened fire hydrants. Fucking relax.
And those teenagers and women who want to shake their rumps? Go right ahead. If someone tries anything untoward, smack their ass and let them know that "the sexualized music made me do it" doesn't fly as a legit defense in court.
This guy does, to be fair, have a good strategy for making sure his kids are educated:
So Gossett, a contractor, listens to edited versions of music with his youngest children, Sheniece, 13, and Curuan, 11, and explains what the lyrics means.
"You have to teach them how to have their own boundaries," he said. "They can listen to it and dance to it, but not run out and do it."
That's great. His kids are too young to be going out and fucking, and he's doing the right thing. He sets the right tone by saying this may be fun to sing or to dance to, but doing the things mentioned is a whole other story. Now, if only the people making this inflammatory study had thought their "method" through even half so well...
-Dude, chiiiiiiiill. It's Madonna. Doing this shit is just what she DOES.
“It is disrespectful, in bad taste and provocative. Being raised on a cross with a crown of thorns like a modern Christ is absurd. Doing it in the cradle of Christianity comes close to blasphemy,” said Father Manfredo Leone of the Santa Maria Liberatrice church in Rome. “This is a blasphemous challenge to the faith and a profanation of the Cross. She should be excommunicated. To crucify herself in the city of Popes and martyrs is an act of open hostility,” said Vatican Cardinal Ersilio Tonino.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe in one land being holier than another. I'm not one for religious mysticism that associates a stronger connection to the power of God/Allah with a place (and if I were to pick? Italy: so not the Holy Land). I believe this world went through dramatic changes to make the place suitable for life, and life took about 2 billion years to get to evolution's worst mistake (us, duh). Us associating some sort of holy power concentrated in the cradle of civilization is redonkulous. We came from Mesopotamia, so it's sort of precious to us, I get it. Doesn't mean your prayers go farther or, Allah forbid, it's worth killing people over (though clearly the events of the past weeks prove I am not in the majority in thinking this).
-And, lastly, a bit of happier news. They're damned right: the Federal government will never figure out a way to make health care more affordable. Congress has been delegating power to the states on everything to avoid contentious issues hurting entrenched elected officials (like equal rights for homosexual couples, the continued right for a woman to have an abortion, you know, those things we're told "will never change" but that the fundie-driven GOP was trying its damnedest to?), so why not on health care?
Know what most cheered me in that? The emphasis on prevention with health care. Punish people who don't keep doctors' appointments, yes. Push through legislation to encourage (ugh, much as I hate it) exercise and eating right to avoid the complications we know are linked to obesity and diabetes (which are so vast and definitely contribute to our health care work-load). Get people healthy to start, get them comfortable with using health care so they will use it before a problem passes the manageable stage into the serious, heavy-bill, long-term care stage (if possible).
Now, if only we could convince the Red Staters that applying the same philosophy toward Sex Ed would result in fewer unwanted pregnancies and cases of STD infection, we'd probably have an even more robust health care nation still.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-07 03:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-07 03:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-07 04:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-07 04:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-07 07:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-07 08:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-08 12:45 pm (UTC)Oh, and there's the confidence thing, but hell, that's almost like magic.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-08 03:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-07 03:32 pm (UTC)While that SOUNDS good, I would be afraid if that came into action. I mean, How much more control over your life are you willing to give up? Yes, it's not and actual LAW, but honestly, would it not be the same as an economical law? I can just see it now, an anorexic screaming, "I can't afford to be fat, my parents pay enough for health insurance as it is!!!" Like the population at large doesn't have enough stress, it must now worry that it falls into the proper weight in order to avoid losing money? What if I LIKE being fat? What if the weight is not detrimental, only a little ugly and I can deal with it? Why is it then any business of the government (local or otherwise) what I choose to do with my health? Yes, I can understand the need to bring health care costs down. Yes, I can see how it would make sense for the god-only-knows-how-many multitude. But is it a freedom you'd want to give up? Do you want to take that small step to relinquishing even more control to Big Brother?
no subject
Date: 2006-08-07 03:46 pm (UTC)As for those who like being overweight, I dunno what to tell you. I enjoy my lifestyle now, and I'm overweight, and I wouldn't want to change. But I'm privileged because I get health insurance through work. Were I not able to do so? I'd (begrudgingly, I admit) start walking for a mile a day or forgoing Wendy's every week if it meant that when I got gobsmacked by strep (which used to happen to me all the time) I could go in and get amoxicillin for it (and the drugs besides amoxicillin to keep me from having the allergic reaction to it).
no subject
Date: 2006-08-07 04:21 pm (UTC)Another side of this that I'm not all that comfortable with is the degree to which the government would be given the power to track you activities. Just in a medical context (yeah I remember about the unsecured medical documentation) that's giving them a lot of power. Add to that the tracking of your movements to and from various doctors... Starts sounding a tad scary no?
Ok, I have no answers for how to make it work though. If I did, I'd going into politics and ride that idea to the White House. People are going to do what they feel like since that's the kind of culture we're in. Forcing people to do what they don't want to do is a bad political move since it's likely to cause people to say "He's the one who is making me do that which I don't like!". I would be surprise if any law like that has staying power (though free medical insurance for those who don't have it will keep it around for a while).