?

Log in

No account? Create an account

t3knomanser's Fustian Deposits

Travel for Work and the World Goes to Shit

How Random Babbling Becomes Corporate Policy

run the fuck away

Mad science gone horribly, horribly wrong(or right).

Travel for Work and the World Goes to Shit

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Retarded
I am no longer allowed to travel for work. Every time I do, it seems the world goes to shit. Where to begin- well, let's start with old news, but the first thing I saw on the Internet after arriving at my hotel room, a radio DJ getting primates to prove that National Socialism and ethnic cleansing are alive and well in the United States.

Speaking of primates, religious nutzo's in Kenya are trying to get some of the most valuable fossils for understanding human evolution put in a back room. God forbid we offend their sensibilities.

Speaking of idiotic sensibilities, Michigan is prying into personal lives and making it illegal to leave a pregnant spouse or co-habitating partner (if you're a man). No word on how this applies if it's not your baby, or if you're a lesbian.

And finally, NBC is going to ruin one of the pure pleasures of television for me. Just RE-RUN THE BRIT VERSION YOU ASSHATS.

*Ahem*
  • Gah, the IT Crowd. "Geeks are socially inept and women like shoes", dragged out over six screamingly tortuous episodes (I gave up, finally, after the third). I wonder if the US version will be any better, like The Office.
  • Michigan is *not* making it illegal to leave a pregnant partner. They're making it illegal to threaten a pregnant partner to try to force her into getting an abortion. This includes "... willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of the pregnant female that would cause her to reasonably feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, or harassed."

    I think it's touchy legal area. But, I think it misrepresents the bill to say it makes it illegal to leave a pregnant partner.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/billanalysis/House/htm/2005-HLA-5879-3.htm
    • I think it's an accurate representation of the wording of the bill, if not the intent.

      Laws with good intentions but poorly written are bad laws.
      • I disagree about the wording. It *does* say that it can't be an isolated statement or incident. Still, I think it could be better worded. I'd rather see it broadly written as to what constitutes threatening, than trying to pin examples that may be perfectly reasonable, depending on circumstances.
        • Well that's the issue- is a guy who says, "I don't want to deal with a kid, so I'm gone," is that a threat? Would an abortion be required? How do we enforce this? What if he suggests an abortion as an alternative? Is that a threat?

          I agree that this hypothetical guy would be an utter douchebag in any of those cases (unless it weren't his kid).

          I think it's a solution that's worse than the problem. To be fair, I'd generally say that about most laws, but especially about these sorts of intensely personal issues.
          • Agreed, it's a grey area. But... date rape laws have similar grey area. If she says no and he "talks her into it" -- is it coersion or not? If she reads it as threatening, but, he didn't intend to be threatening... then what?

            Unfortunately, it's the same kind of grey area. These are very complicated, personal matters that can not be easily legislated.

            (I'd argue that bringing up the option of an abortion is only a sign of douchebag, if she's already clearly stated that she doesn't want one. Otherwise, it's simply trying to discuss options. Also... there's one other case where a guy isn't necessarily a complete ass. If a woman lies about her BC, in order to get pregnant. Motivations may vary, but, I've known one guy find out about this much later.)
Powered by LiveJournal.com