18 Apr 2006
Are you watching what your kids post?

Wow. I understand that Mr. Donovan is promoting his company here (one that provides a "safe place" for kids to keep blogs, etc.) but what I don't understand at all is his main concern about kids on the net: it's not being stalked by crazed pedophile killers, it's that kids might actually express themselves in a way that will come back to haunt them later on.

He gives an example:

Kids who get mad at a teacher and rashly publish a scathing and obscene lampoon on a site like MySpace.com aren't thinking that it could prevent them years hence from getting a scholarship to college or obtaining a job they really want. But this can and has happened. One recent law school graduate was shocked to lose out on a prestigious clerking job for a judge when a routine background check turned up something the candidate had thoughtlessly published years before.

I've not been able to verify this tale, but let's assume it's true. What's the real message he's trying to get across here?

Don't say what you think. Don't say unpopular things. If you oppose a war, don't tell anybody - you might want to work for a military contractor someday. Only talk about your friends in a positive way. Struggling with sexuality? Just shut up! Don't worry, be happy, talk alot about the weather - you never know when the authorities are going to find you out...

What a signpost for our age.

Tim Donovan of Industrious Kid cautions that digital trails can come back to haunt your children.

(link) [CNET News.com]

23:00 /Technology | 0 comments | permanent link

Teen sex reporting law defeated in court

Ya know, I'm "Dad" to three daughters. All mercifully (for me) now in their 20's. And I generally support parental notification laws regarding abortion, on the grounds that if a school nurse can't give my kid an aspirin without my consent, why should they be able to perform an abortion without it? But ...

This law was an abomination. The only ones reported under it would be girls (you can't really tell from a physical exam if a guy's been screwing, eh?) and the only purpose was an attempt to shame the sexually active teen into sexual inactivity. However, there's a lot of sex that goes on without actual penetration (which is the only thing a physical exam can discover), and I'm sure that this knowledge was not lost on the teens of Kansas. Unfortunately, disease can still be spread without penetration, but, of course, with the "abstinence only" policies advocated by the same morons that push laws like this, the kids will never know it. Until they get one. At which time they'll be "reported". Would their boyfriend/girlfriend be jailed? Will they be? Maybe we should toss Mom and Dad into the slammer, too, for "permitting" it.

Laws like this ignore human nature entirely, and abrogate the rights of parents by interfering in the most basic of all human institutions: the family. I knew my girls were going to flirt (and worse), and I tried my darnedest to insure that they'd do so safely and responsibly. It didn't entirely work - my youngest got pregnant before she left high school, but actually had the confidence to talk with us about it, and actually made the responsible decision to marry the father and keep the baby. Which resulted in a wonderful grandson for me! And a huge lesson in life and responsibility for her (and him).

If this law had been in place, would she have seen the doctor (on her own) when she suspected pregnancy, knowing she or the father could be jailed for "sexual abuse", and she could lose her baby, not to an "abortion mill" but to a foster home/forced adoption? What lesson would this have taught her?

I have a hard time believing this law ever made it onto the books, but I'm surely thankful to the court for striking it down.

In a victory for an abortion rights group, a federal judge ruled Tuesday that abortion clinic doctors and other professionals are not required under Kansas law to report underage sex between consenting youths.

(link) [CNN.com]

23:00 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link

Imaginary Friends

As you might imagine, if you've noticed the blogroll at all, I read more than a few atheist blogs, or rather, blogs written by atheists. And one particularly snarky comment I've noticed from time to time on some of them is the reference to the (usually Christian) god as "your imaginary friend". And it got me thinking.

So what? I'm sure a lot of Christians would take that as a churlish thing to say, but for me as a Heathen it's simply stating the obvious. Yes, they're my "imaginary friends", and that means ??? It's meant to imply childishness and stupidity, but which part is childish and which part is stupid - "imagination" or "friends"?

Of course, to a large extent this depends on exactly what is meant by "imagination", and I'm sure that I view these kinds of "imaginary friends" (aka gods and goddesses) not as the sole product of my imagination, but as the product of our imagination - the collective imagination of a culture or a people. They are the seeds of visions, planted in the World at the Beginning, coursing though it and setting it's cycles. They are the Powers That Be, reflected in the lore of their people.

These Holy Beings have been expressing themselves in our folklore, our language and our culture since we climbed down from the trees. They are our deepest ancestral memories - the Jungian "collective unconscious". Which is precisely what makes them "holy", not sanctified or purified, but in the sense of venerated, respected, and often admired: our Elder Kin.

Now, does this mean I'm an atheist myself? Do I believe that gods actually exist? Of course - how can they not exist? They're the cultural expression of the World, and as the World exists, so they too exist. Did they create the world? No, or rather, not necessarily. I view the "creator" vs "the created" dichotomy as a type of "chicken or egg" problem - insoluble, and largely irrelevant. They're here, I'm here, we can deal with it.

Many Heathens develop quite close personal relationships with the gods and goddesses. I'm pretty fond of my imaginary friends - I stand with Thor when the sky roils and lightening splits the clouds, I stand with Freyr in the midst of my pastures as my herds frolic in the spring rain. Frigga holds the spindle when I shear the wool.

And when asked what I've been doing late at night, when the glow of the terminals are all that light the room, it's not for nothing that I often quip "Codin' for Odin..."

Do you kneel before your friends? Most Heathens won't kneel to pray or give worship - we stand beside the Shining Gods and Goddesses, not beneath them. This is the essence of friendship - equality and respect.

Heathenry is a way to maintain your rationality (and thereby your sanity) while still celebrating the spiritual exuberance of the natural world.

This is a way of viewing reality that fits perfectly with your soul - because it is your soul. Heathenry is a surrender to yourself, the essence of humanism, the pragmatic heart of the Stoics.

Why are the gods many and not one? How many things in this World do you know of which there is but one? Every living being on this planet except identical twins and clones has an absolutely unique genetic sequence - every single living thing is utterly unique. There's only one of everything! So is everything God? That way lies pantheism...

But how many kinds of living being are unique? In other words, which species has exactly one member, and has never had more? None, zilch, zero, nada.

As below, so above. Since the gods are in the World and of the World, why should I expect that there is but one?

Is this schizophrenia? It gets worse - my fields teem with wights and pixies, each with his or her particular rock, tree or patch of Earth. Nixies playfully splash through the drainage ditch and hide beneath the roots of the cottonwood tree. And I'm imagining them all.

And so are you. Right now. If you have any imagination whatsoever.

There is wisdom here if we can find it. There's a home here, if we'll but make it.

23:00 /Asatru | 1 comment | permanent link

43-year-old fruitcake found in attic

It's most likely still edible ... if you can get your teeth into it! But that was a problem back in 1962 as well!

In 1962, Lance Nesta did what many people do when receiving a fruitcake: He set it aside.

(link) [CNN.com - Offbeat]

23:00 /Humor | 0 comments | permanent link

Middle-aged 'still enjoying sex'

Well I should certainly hope so! I wonder how much they spent to discover that people of all ages actually enjoy making the beast with two backs?

Good grief!

A global study suggests middle-aged couples enjoy better sex lives than their children might imagine.

(link) [BBC News | News Front Page | World Edition]

23:00 /Humor | 0 comments | permanent link

Some dare call it . . .

So it's "treason" to reveal government crimes nowadays! I wonder if the Administration ever considered breaking into the reporters psychiatrist's offices? I'll bet Mr. Johnson would've defended that decision on "national security" grounds, too!

How quickly we forget our history.

Treason. That's what Scott Johnson of Power Line says the New York Times's James Risen and Eric Lichtblau got their Pulitzer Prize for. I wouldn't go that far, though I did raise the issue of whether the government could prosecute them and the Times under the Espionage Act for revealing the National Security Agency surveillance of conversations between suspected terrorists abroad and persons in the United States. Johnson gives a good example of the incoherence of the Times these days, as follows:

(link) [U.S. News & World Report]

23:00 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link