Ms magazine recently ran an article about a girl who refused to cheer one particular player. Her reason: the guy in question had raped her. The school responded by relieving her from the squad.
Atrocious! Right? The article ends with a petition for the school officials and their contact information.
However, a careful read of the facts laid out in that very article paints a different picture.
Every society grapples with the question of what is the scope of government in the functioning of the society in general and economy in particular. Questions about what is the right size of government are mostly a moral question about what kind of society we ought to have. As a result, discussion on this issue tends to be very passionate. About half the US electorate subscribes to the theory of small government and claims to exercise their vote at least loosely along those principles.
One could have a “big” government, that has high tax rates and spends a lot on various socio-economic programs. Or one could have a “small” government, which taxes little and does little. Depending on one’s ideal vision of society, one alternative can be better that the other. However, most folks would agree that it doesn’t make sense to have a government that is small in terms of its tax collection, but big in terms of its spending. Unfortunately, in the US, the political reality is that the only part of government that one can cut is the tax collection. So let us, for now, concentrate only on the right way to cut tax revenue.
A thought provoking post by Intel’s Andy Grove. He correctly points out that we seem to think that inventing products and manufacturing them are two entirely separate competencies. What he points out nicely, is that today’s manufacturing expertise will lead to tomorrow’s inventions; therefore by outsourcing manufacturing expertise almost entirely, we are running our much vaunted invention engine on borrowed time. Or, as the saying goes, genius is 90% perspiration and 10% inspiration. As a society, we seem to be saying: let the Chinese and Indians do the perspiration; we’ll step in for the last 10% and put in the creative genius that really matters.
However, his solution of trade wars and protectionism in not as impressive as his diagnosis of the problem. Here’s a rebuttal.
Today is international women’s day, and feminists deserve a large part of the credit for getting some semblance of equality for women and attention to their voice and needs. Kudos to them for building themselves into a necessary and formidable political force. However, no political force, no matter how necessary, deserves to go unexamined by a responsible society. Hence, with all due respect, I would like to use this very opinionated forum to bring up a topic that has been bothering the feminists (among others) for a long time.
Estimates of the size of the porn industry vary widely. But really, does size matter? The mere existence of the porn industry, or any form of porn for that matter, is evidence of social malaise to some. Different folks attribute different diagnoses to the phenomenon — from moral depravity to gender exploitation.
Of course, I have my own opinions on this. But I’d like to get your collective opinions instead. I’ll gather the interesting comments from down below and thread them into a coherent conversation on this main space. Any and all comments are welcome, anonymously posted or otherwise. You can feel as free to offer an opinion as a studied thesis (of course, the thesis carries more weight with me 
).
I know that the registered bloggers on this site are mostly male. I’m hoping the lurking ladies will make up for any gender imbalance in perspective.
Here is an incomplete list to get you started:
Type away.
Today, the 5th of December, marks a landmark in the struggle for human rights. This is the day the 21st Ammendment, which ended prohibition, was added to the US Constitution.
We often overlook the deep debt of gratitude we owe the brave men and women of the mafia, many of whom laid down their lives so we could have a drink. It is due to the tireless efforts of civil rights icons like Al Capone that we can now get wasted.
We need to thank these heroes for free beer (”free” as in free speech, not “free” as in free be.. … wait a minute! who came up with this metaphor?). But that’s not all. The bootleggers are responsible for the existence of NASCAR.
So whether you’re are a fan of drinking like crazy, or driving like crazy (but hopefully not both at the same time), raise a glass tonight to these role models. Or, why fight yesterday’s battles today? Raise a bong.
Every now and then, rantlust takes some time off trivial stuff and tackles the really hard questions in life. On these hallowed pages, the seeker may find resolution to such profound mysteries as: who would win a fight between a python and an alligator; exactly how great is Chuck Norris; what is proper shitiquette, and so on. All this, however, has merely been a build-up to tackle the most important mystery of all: why are men so fascinated by tits?
Fellows who know me, know me as the most religiously tolerant of all creatures. Tolerance and understanding practically ooze out of my pores and orifices — even when concerning intolerant, immature religions that don’t understand the concept of free speech, constructive criticism and humor. It is with this paternalistic wisdom that I approach the great religion of Global Warming, which I look on as a child of humanity. A child that shows great promise in how it provides the essential psychological elements that make the classical religions so compelling. Yet one that needs guidance to overcome its shortcomings.
If you haven’t been living in a third-world country (other than Kazakhstan) for the last few days, you’ve certainly heard of Borat. The guy and movie have almost universally been acclaimed as funny, witty, and even insightful. Although I do think the movie is funny, I disagree with the comments some professional reviewers seem to have about it (e.g. comparisions with Mark Twain, on the Boston Globe)
When failing to grasp a supposedly poignant social commentary, one risks being described as dense. So please allow me to explain. Those planning to watch the movie, and desiring to do so uninfluenced by others’ comments are advised to skip this.
Borat is silly. Not that there’s anything wrong or non-funny or simplistic about that. There are different funny ways of being silly. One way is to just be silly and not attempt to have a point. Seinfeld is a good example of this. Or, one can be silly and use the silliness to make a point. If done right this is funny and poignant. Steven Colbert is a good example of this.
(Read more…)
![[Print This Post]](http://www.rantlust.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.gif "[Print This Post]")
Comments(3)