DISQUS

Look closer. That's a Nintendo DS.

I don't know what the deal is with that website

The website of the MN Secretary of State has everything you need to register yourself to vote:

http://www.sos.state.mn.us/home/index.asp?page=204

You have to print out the PDF, fill it out and mail it in. That should do the trick. You should receive a card confirming that you are indeed registered.

Definitely. Go to http://ryansutter.net/podcast in your web browser or http://feeds.feedburner.com/RyanSutterPodcast with an RSS reader.

Enjoy!

I think that a realistic appraisal of the Iraq situation, a sound plan, and the cooperation of the international community would have created a very different situation in Iraq. That said, I still don't believe it was a necessary war. Saddam was a broken man. He had no money, no real power, given time the Iragi people could have solved the problem themselves with a coup or something. Yeah, Saddam was an evil son of a bitch, but so are a lot of other petty despots. If the Iraqi people had deposed him (something they would have likely done eventually) there would be a million Iraqis still alive today. War is just such a blunt instrument. Why kill a million people to get rid of one? This is the kind of thing that always happens in wars like this and the cost is far too high for the result attained. The ironic thing is that Bush Sr. knew this, he understood the ethnic situation in Iraq, so he didn't do this. His son was too simplistic in his thinking and used the big, ugly, blunt tool to try to solve the problem rather than the complex but more effective options available.

Tell ya what Andy. I hate when big topics wind up buried in comment threads. How about you just hold on till Thursday and I'll do my big weekly post on all this. I'll focus on substance, not rhetoric. OK? Tune in Thursday night or Friday morning at the latest.

Andy, Andy, Andy.

If you still believe in the Republicans, still trust that there is anything good they can do for you or the country or the troops or our standing in the world or the national debt or the economy or anything else, well, I'm sorry for you. I really am. You can't look at the world right in front of your face, the lies they are telling you, the destruction of our economy, our constitution, the big government, the tax breaks for the rich, the illegal wars... If you can't see what 8 years of this style of government has done to our country, there is little or nothing I can say to convince you. Go therefore, vote against your own best interests, vote against the constitution, vote against freedom, vote against reason, vote Republican. Knock yourself out and when Obama wins and your life improves, well, if you're the kind of person you seem to be, I'm sure you'll still vote against him the next time, so, whatever.

It is traditional in reporting to use Mr. and Mrs. so it never occurred to me that it would be anything disrespectful. Governer would no longer apply, as she would have left that office behind. I suppose I could have used Ms but I'm not sure that is the choice she would make for herself because of her backwards conservatism. She is a married woman and that is an appropriate title. I'm confused why that would be a problem for her.

Be patient, I have only just begun to discuss the topic. No, from what I've written here there is nothing conclusive to draw on other than "we don't have eyewitnesses". That's far from the whole story, however, so just hold on for parts 2, 3 and (probably) 4.

I'd like to say thanks to all of you who left comments on this post. I don't really feel totally comfortable saying much more than that, I mean, who wants to be one of those "they like me! they really like me!" people? But, I really appreciate the fact that I'm not alone and I have true genuine friends. When I get irrational about my connections to other people, it truly helps me put those negative emotions into their proper place as confused relics from my subconscious, not present realities.

So, again, thanks.

Heh. You're tellin' me...

You play your first gig out there yet?

I'm a multi-faceted guy, what can I say?

Here I am with a pipe:

<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/215/491402366_4d1b4e3b6f.jpg?v=0">

Here I am with a fish:

</img><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1264/549256969_df47355c7c.jpg?v=0">

Here I am with a guitar:

</img><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1002/799535326_6c82ea9bcd.jpg?v=0">

Here I am in a river:

</img><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1327/860709515_e4513789eb.jpg?v=0">

And in New York City:

</img><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1301/1093473898_7e8927e415.jpg?v=0">

See? Many facets! :-)</img>

I agree with you on pretty much everything you said. I think that 16 is a much more reasonable age of consent in most cases, for example. Although, if you looked at the map I linked to you would have noticed the following:

Throughout the United States, the age of consent varies from 16-18, with 16 being the most common. This would indicate that for the most part your views are inline with the majority of the culture you live in. However, in South America, 14 years old is the most common with some areas as young as 13 or (in the case of Mexico) 12. This would seem to indicate that cultural norms are different in South America where sex is concerned. The majority of European countries follow the South American trend with 14 being the norm, with a few countries on the 13 or 15 side. The most common age of consent globally seems to be 16, but it ranges from 9 to 20.

If nothing else, this indicates that there is only partial consensus on this subject.

One thing I want to clarify. When I use the term "sexual maturity" I mean it in the strictly biological sense of being capable of reproduction. I don't mean being OPTIMALLY capable of reproduction (yes, a wider hipped, fuller breasted more matured woman is more capable of successfully birthing a child than a 12 year old who just started menstruating, but evolution rewards reproductive success, suboptimal or no), and I certainly don't mean it in the sense of being psychologically sexually mature. I don't believe that anybody can be psychologically defined as "mature" until they are at least 25, as this is the point at which our initial neural development completes.

The interesting fact is that as a species we have removed our behaviours further and further away from our animal biology, but our animal biology and culture are still far from in sync. Because some girls are physically capable of reproduction at the age of 12 while others are not until the age of 14 or 15 but nearly all are by the age of 16, we have something of a consensus that it's somewhere around 16 for girls. A similar window exists for boys, with some being early bloomers and some late. Our societal definition of "adult" as 18 years old is one based on the idea that the majority are fairly certain to have reached physical adulthood by that age, although again there will be stragglers and those who were well ahead of the curve.

The point is that Mexico, with their 12 year old age of consent, seems to be basing their decision on the early bloomers biologically. Interestingly, Spain is close behind them at 13.

It's tough to know what to make of all of this beyond the fact that our culture and biology are both in flux, shaping each other, and that the attitudes about right and wrong here are all over the map.

For my money, I would never want to be involved, sexually or otherwise, with anybody under 25, because I don't feel that you are truly an adult until at least that age.

What I'm saying is that there are cases where kids are sexualized by other kids. Adults should never take the role of sexualizing kids, that's wrong and it's an adults job to reign in those kinds of impulses. However, in terms of understanding pedophiles, I think that yes, child sexuality is part of understanding it.

In the case of Humbert Humbert, his first love was a 12 year old girl when he himself was that age. As he aged, his sexual preference stayed stuck where it was. From this perspective, his 12-year-old sexuality is absolutely the key to understanding his lifelong obsession for girls of that age. It is stunted growth.

From an evolutionary perspective, we are the only species that does not start procreating as soon as we reach sexual maturity. Waiting until a socially appropriate age to begin sexual activity is a very recent invention in our species, only a few thousand years old in the parts of the world where it is the case at all. This is to be weighed against millions of years of biologically driven behavior. If a 12 year old boy wants to have sex with a 35 year old woman, he might be acting on a biological imperative. It is not necessarily a one-sided situation.

Now, I want to be very clear that I'm an NOT saying that this excuses adults in this situation or in any way justifies their behavior. Just because something stems from natural or evolutionary causes does not make it OK. That is the naturalistic fallacy. However, youthful sexuality does help in comprehending why such events and relationships take place.

Attitude is everything. Things that are out of our control are always happening. For example, we might be out on a walk and a storm might come up and start dumping rain on us. We can decide that being wet like that is something we categorize as suffering and run for shelter, swearing and cursing or we can decide to adjust ourselves to the new sensation and decide to enjoy the rain, even revel in it.

Christianity tells us that the world is inherently flawed and that we should spend our lives waiting for God to fix it. Buddhism says that nothing is broken, it is just how things are and good and bad are a matter of how we choose to perceive the world around us. We can either fight reality and try to keep everything the same, spending our lives bemoaning our "imperfection" and waiting for our "real life" or we can accept that things are constantly in flux and that the only way to minimize (not eliminate, but minimize) our suffering is to embrace change, embrace impermanence, and adjust ourselves to the changes that happen.

Sometimes, I admit, there are changes that can and should be resisted. If your spouse just decides one day she wants to leave you and you still love her and you think there is still a chance for your relationship, you may choose to resist that change. In so doing, you will also likely suffer. You may elect to have the suffering to try to hold on to what you have. However, there are some who would see such a situation as an opportunity to look out for the greater happiness of the other person and would wish them well and be at peace. I'm not sure that many of us are that enlightened, but if we were we wouldn't suffer nearly as much as we do in attempting to maintain our status quo.

Pain, well, pain and suffering often go hand in hand but physical pain, psychological trauma (PTSD, things like that), these things are not what I'm talking about here. When you break your arm you can't just change your perspective and be OK with it. But suffering, of the existential sort, of the sort that arises from relationships and self-doubts and things out of our control that we wish we could change, suffering that arises from loss, can only have one solution, a change in our perspective, because by definition it can't be controlled any other way.

Good comment. :-)

Punk.

I have no idea what the set list will be. Do you have any other requests?

And air that is devoid of people is empty from a performer's perspective. I didn't say "play to a vacuum" you silly person....

MyHowThingsChange is a known troll here at RyanSutter.net. Unfortunately. He/She is anonymous, apparently lacks the ability to comprehend what they read, and likes to act as if they know me or understand my character. Ignore anything they post is my advice.

This isn't a matter of letting somebody else think for me. I have quoted the ACLU stuff because it summarizes the effects that all the analysts I can find say that the bill will have. I can find no analysis of the legislation anywhere that does not reach these conclusions. I am not personally (and I don't believe you are either) well-versed in the law to the point where I can read a bill like this and work out what all of it's repercussions are likely to be. It can look completely innocuous unless you understand the network effects. For example, the article I linked to about a journalist who discusses how he will not be able to convince dissidents in repressive foreign governments to share their stories with him because he will not be able to guarantee them that their communications will not be intercepted by the government, stored and even shared with their own governments. This is a concrete example of a specific effect that this bill will have.

No offense, but I don't trust your ability to analyze and interpret the effects of this bill. Every analysis I've read says that the effects of the bill are retroactive immunity and dragnet surveillance, so I suspect that's the case even if you can't see it in the text. Find me an in-depth analysis by a trained legal scholar that explains that this is all much ado about nothing and I'll happily post it and retract everything I've said.

Oh, and apparently your boy Bob Barr is a moron who can't read as well:

http://2008central.net/2008/07/05/libertarian-candidate-bob-barr-hits-obama-on-fisa/

Well, how about you let the legal team at the ACLU who have been studying this legislation for months now in on the amazing legal insights of your formidable mind because clearly they're morons who don't understand how to read.

A law can say things that make it sound like "oh yeah, only the bad guys are targeted here, really" while simultaneously weakening enforcement or oversight. This creates a real-world situation in which there is no way to do anything to curtail abuses. This bill basically puts the U.S. intelligence apparatus on the honor system where domestic spying is concerned. That's the fundamental problem with this law and why the ACLU is suing.

And one more from the PDF of the ACLU's legal challenge to the FISA law:

As amended, FISA allows the executive branch sweeping and virtually unregulated authority to monitor the international communications - and in some cases the purely domestic communications - of law-abiding U.S. citizens and residents.

...and...

The amended law (the "challenged law") eviscerates the "[c]lear legal standards and effective oversight and controls" that the Senate Church Committee concluded in 1978 were necessary to ensure that government surveillance did "not itself undermine the democratic system it [was] intended to protect."

So, finer legal minds than mine or yours have read this law and concluded that this is, indeed, a big damn deal.

Just for a refresher, ladies and gentlemen, the late, great, Fourth Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

You person, your house, your papers, your effects used to be yours. They could not be searched or taken from you without reason. The government needed to have probable cause to search you or your effects. These days they can confiscate your laptop at the airport, subject you to searches, scan your email and wiretap your phone, all perfectly legally, but quite unconstitutionally.

Yeah, I saw that too, but what difference does it make if the bill pays lip service to the fourth amendment while removing court oversight of who is being wiretapped? This system is already being abused and now they've opened the door to even further abuse with less oversight. Saying that a program that is inherently inconsistent with the fourth amendment "shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment" is pretty laughable.

According to the ACLU, the bill:

<ol>
<li>"nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance by allowing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to review only general procedures for spying rather than individual warrants. The FISC will not be told any specifics about who will actually be wiretapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful role for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure."</li>
<li>"trivializes court review by authorizing the government to continue a surveillance program even after the government’s general spying procedures are found insufficient or unconstitutional by the FISC. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever information was gathered in the meantime."</li>
<li>"grants absolute retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies that facilitated the president’s warrantless wiretapping program over the last seven years by ensuring the dismissal of court cases pending against those companies"</li>
<li>"what [Americans] say on international phone calls or emails is no longer private. The government can listen in without having a specific reason to do so"</li>
</ol>

This bill legalizes dragnet government surveillance of the electronic communications of American citizens, while weakening judicial oversight of the process. That is precisely what I would call "de facto endorsement and establishment of a legalized surveillance state in which no electronic communications are private from the government". Admittedly this currently only applies to international communications, but now that the precedent has been established, if it stands, it will eventually entail all communications, domestic or international. I never said this bill said anything about the rest of the developing police state.

Obama not only voted for the bill, he voted for cloture on the bill. It is not technically possible to get further from a filibuster than to vote for cloture and the bill itself.

This bill expands the powers to wiretap, makes what was previously illegal legal, removes the end date for these powers, and magically retroactively grants immunity to lawbreakers. This bill is a de facto endorsement and establishment of a legalized surveillance state in which no electronic communications are private from the government. This is the bill that George Bush has been dreaming of to get himself off the hook for his wiretapping felonies. Where is the outrage? The Constitution no longer matters at all to the Republicans or the Democrats, we live under the governments constant 24-hour surveillance even if we do nothing, laws that are broken by companies can be unbroken by giving campaign contributions and lobbying, and everybody says, "meh. we need to give up our liberties to stop those terrorists."

This is how fascist police states start. The airports already feel like that. REAL ID, legal unwarranted electronic surveillance, DHS, TSA... At some point this erosion has to stop or there will be nothing left to erode and this was a major deal. Obama voted for it. He could have withheld his vote. He could have filibustered and protected our privacy. He voted for it. He fucking voted for it.

He's no fascist, but remember, he can only serve two terms max. These laws, this infrastructure, these precedents, will outlast his term. When the Republicans get another Bush/Cheney in power they'll be even more well equipped to rape this country. Unless these things are repealed, unless our constitutional government is restored, you won't be able to travel from state to state without showing papers, people will be detained without charges indefinitely or "disappeared", everything you say and do will be potentially cause for detention or persecution, this is happening in Britain, it happened in Nazi Germany, it has happened over and over and over whenever these kinds of laws are enacted. Why would this country be any different? We're not magic. We're not special. If we strip people of their rights and privacy and disrupt the balance of power within the government, we will fall just like every other government that has made these mistakes.