Why Bush Isn't Impeached Yet

Salon.com explains the situation much better than I can:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/05/22/impeachment/?source=rss

A Nobel Peace Prize Will Not Earn the Respect of the GOP

The Washington Post just broke an article (see title link) quoting former President Jimmy Carter as saying Bush was "the worst in history" when it came to fostering international relations.

The Post article quotes Carter's interview with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, in which Carter generally rips Dubya a new one on most of standout actions of his presidency. The War in Iraq, environmental initiatives, the dubious "faith based initiatives" program, and the failure to continue with peace talks in Israel.

The Post contacted Amber Wilkerson,the spokesperson for the Republican National Committee, who responded:

"Apparently, Sunday mornings in Plains for former President Carter includes hurling reckless accusations at your fellow man," said Amber Wilkerson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman. She said that it was hard to take Carter seriously because he also "challenged Ronald Reagan's strategy for the Cold War."

It appears that Republicans are working really hard to ignore all facts in the case of the Presidency. Bush fucked up. Seriously. On multiple initiatives. With the 2008 elections staring us in the face, when are Republicans going to wake up and realize that their credibility is being flushed down the toilet? Undying loyalty in the face of failure is a noble thing, but it is also foolish - it ruins the reputation of all involved.

What this says to me, a vocal voter, is that Republicans refuse to take responsibility for their actions in office. That they are willing to sink with the ship, that they are willing to squander all the positive gains their party made in 2000. It is sad. And disheartening.

To the Democrats: the Republicans are handing you the 2008 elections on a silver platter. Please do not squander this opportunity.

New Ways of Thinking About the Pro-Choice, Prolife Debate

A toddler aged 3-4 years has been left at a Japanese "baby hatch" aimed at mothers wanting to put their newborns up for adoption, reports say.
The child was said to be old enough to tell medics at the hospital in southern Japan that his father had left him.

The drop-off at Jikei Hospital, which opened last week, has been criticised by some, including the government.

The Catholic-run hospital has said it is aimed at helping new mothers who would otherwise resort to abortion.

Abortion rates are relatively high in Japan, while adoptions have traditionally been rare.

--BCC Morning News Feed

I read this this morning (full article linked in post title) and pondered it for a few minutes.

First of all, Japan does not have the religious foundations that we have in the US. This does not mean that Japan is atheistic - they are just founded in a different belief system.

It is also interesting to find that abortion rates are so high in Japan, but adoption rates are so low. I have to admit, the pro-choicer in me rejoices to know that women in Japan excercise their right to choose. However, it appears from the tone of the article that adoption is somewhat stigmatized. The article quotes Japan's Prime Minister, saying:

But the plans were heavily criticised by government officials, including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe who said parents must bring up children themselves.

Secondly, I also find it sad that a TODDLER was dropped off into the adoption hutch, when the intention is for newborn children.

The child was old enough to talk and identify himself.

I like the idea of the adoption hutch, particularly considering how many young women try to abandon their children away after birth. Still, it seems like one small solution to much larger problems.

The Gaming World Vs. The Real World

Regina Lynn, the Sex Drive columnist for Wired Magazine, put forth an interesting editorial on the idea and execution of sex crimes in the online gaming world. (The article is linked within the title).

Titled "Virtual Rape is Traumatic, but Is It a Crime," Lynn examines the recent allegations of a rape occurance in Second Life, reported in Brussels, Belgium.

She writes:

Our laws say that an adult subjecting a teenager or child to sexual words, images or suggestions on the internet is preying on their mental and emotional state in a sexual way. Even if you never try to meet the minor in person, and even if you never touch them or expose your naked self to them, it is a crime to attempt to engage sexually with a minor.

If it is a criminal offense to sexually abuse a child on the internet, how can we say it is not possible to rape an adult online?

Lynn the points out that while virtual rape is quite traumatic (and points out a few examples of the argument, it still does not compare to the physical and psychological trauma of actual, physical rape.

She ends the piece by saying:

The truth is, anywhere people gather, we bring all of our potential with us -- for love, for sex, for community and creation, and for violence and destruction, too. That's why we still enjoy pondering whether cybersex is real sex and whether an online affair is more or less damaging to a relationship than a physical affair. It's a tacit acknowledgement that while the time-space continuum may change, people don't.

Rape is the ultimate perversion of sexual intimacy. Like sex, rape has mental and emotional elements that go beyond the body and the damage to the mind and spirit generally takes much longer to heal than the body.

But that doesn't make the psychological upheaval of virtual rape anywhere near the trauma of real rape. And I can't see us making virtual rape a matter for the real-life police.

It's a shitty thing to do to someone. But it's not a crime.

As I was mulling over the concept of rape in online gaming a few days later, I came across an article from BBC world news discussing a German investigation into a group on Second Life that was dealing in child pornography.

Obviously, this is not looking good for second life.

However, it is also a blow to everyone who lives, works, and plays online. The virtual world has done so much for so many - and yet, there is a very dark undercurrent taking root.

The fact that the virtual world provides so much anonynmity allows people to open up as they could not do so in the real world...however, the other edge of the sword happens to people like Kathy Sierra (note, link takes a while to load) and others who have found themselves on the business end of threating images and messages.

In an age where I can GoogleMap the exact location of someone's home, and get an aerial view of the surrounding area, it becomes harder and harder to laugh off crude remarks or semi-veiled threats. Even in the area of gaming, in which trash talking has been elevated to a high art, we need to take a moment to re-examine why we allow such abusive language to continue unchecked.

I'm not talking about normal jokes that come out in competition - phrases like "that ass is mine bitch!" are relatively begnin compared to people who make threats against a person's health or well being outside of the game. Or spewing misogynistic/homophobic comments simply because they are cloaked in anonymity.

We, the online community, have got to step up and start policing ourselves. If we do not, we may find that the real world will try to do it for us.