Oy, These Kids Today!

CNN.com has a video all about a group of middle school kids who were expelled after having some sort of sexual activity with each other while on a field trip. The report was vague on what activity, but it probably doesn’t matter. Either way, the kids were kicked out of school for it.

Guess where I’m going to side on this issue?

Well, you guessed wrong.

Yes, believe it or not, I’m siding more or less with the school on this issue. While my initial reaction was one of disagreeing with them, I’ve changed my mind after watching the video. Why?

Well, it says the kids were expected to abide by the same rules on a field trip as they would be if they were on school grounds. Presumably on school grounds, if you’re caught screwing another student, you get expelled. Therefore, they’re being consistent, the kids knew what the possible penalties were, and so there you go.

I do think expulsion is a tad extreme. A suspension of a few weeks might be more appropriate. After all, everyone consented, and I’d think expelling them to be extreme even if they were having an orgy in the locker room; this is their future we’re talking about, after all. Still, some sort of punishment is certainly reasonable.

There? See? I don’t always take the extreme-left position!

McCain Gets Something Right!

I’m not overly impressed with John McCain. Sure, war-hero, maverick, etc, but he’s far too right wing for me. That said, he’s put forth a proposal recently that calls for something I’ve wanted for quite a while now: Question Time for the President.

Question Time is best known to Americans through C-SPAN’s broadcast of the UK version, currently starring Gordon Brown as the Labour PM. Basically the Prime Minister gets up, makes a few remarks, and then spends a set time answering questions from various MPs. This can get quite entertaining sometimes, and if you haven’t ever watched the coverage of one of these, I highly recommend it.

We don’t have this in the USA, but if McCain is elected, and lives up to his promise, we would. I think this is something that is long overdue, and I hope that no matter who gets into office, they’ll push for it. It would be wonderful to see the President actually have to defend his/her policies, rather than just sitting in an Ivory Tower/White House dispensing wisdom like Solomon. True, the President’s actions do get slammed by various political types, but imagine how much better it would be if the President was being directly questioned about his/her policies?

One of my friends was talking with me about this issue. He raised the possibly valid point that there could be Constitutional issues with this concept. He said it basically would make the Executive branch answerable to the Legislative branch. I see what he means, but I don’t think it quite works in this case. Having members of Congress or the Senate standing up and asking questions means that, yes, the President would be answerable to them in the sense that she or he is “answering” questions, but of course she/he could also refuse. She/he presumably wouldn’t be under oath during these sessions, and could flat-out refuse to answer any questions asked. Of course, this would look bad, but I don’t think it would be a problem Constitutionally.

A commentator on the website for the Times weighed in with his thoughts on this. He actually used to work on the PMQs (as they call them), and made several interesting points (most notable of which is “be prepared”). I think there would be some issues with implimenting this here in the USA, but nothing we can’t overcome, and I think doing so would be worthwhile.

Aliens Among Us? No.

A Vatican astronomer has announced that alien life cannot be ruled out, and it wouldn’t disprove the existence of God. Well, that’s good to know.

Of course aliens, if they exist, and they probably do, could do a lot for religion on this planet. I mean, if they turn up and say they were coming here because of Jesus, having heard about him from God on their own world, well, that’d go a long way to proving the existence of God!

On the other hand, since they probably won’t believe in the same Gods we claim to, it would further muddy the waters of theology, whch is fine by me. Plus, hey, what if they have records going back farther than 6000 years? That would certainly do no favors to the “Young Earth” crowd.

Of course, there’s all sorts of other theological questions, too. Like do the aliens experience Original Sin? Do they go to the same Heaven as humanity? Does Jesus dying on the cross grant them forgiveness of their sins? Why did God choose to not reveal himself to them, but to us instead?

Hopefully when we finally contact other intelligent life in the universe, I’ll be around for it! In the meantime, I can just watch the latest Star Wars movie and dream.

Running Out

We’re running out. No, not out of oil. We’re running out of troops.

You know, the situation going in Iraq right now is absolutely riddiculous. We should have never let it get to this point. We’ve lost the peace there, and as a direct result of our bungling there we stand a good chance of losing the progress we’ve made in Afghanistan.

It sucks that we’ve run out of troops to send overseas. It sucks that those who are over there have had their tours extended beyond all sanity. It sucks that our President doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing.

The irony of this is that I’m convinced we don’t need a military that’s as big as it is. If we exclude offensive opperations and occupations like Iraq, we can get by with a much smaller military. Why not? Who is going to attack us? The Russians? No. Venenzuela? Not likely. The Chinese? They need us to buy things from them. The terrorists? Terrorism won’t be stopped by military force. Stopping it requires boring, dull police work.

But since we are burning the candle at both ends, we’ve run out of soldiers. Time to start bringing them home cause really, what other choice do we have?

Two Down, 48 (Plus One District and Five Territories), to Go!

The California Supreme Court has ruled that gay marriage bans in California should be overturned. With the number of gay couples now likely to flock there to live, or at least to get married, it could wind up bringing all new meaning to the nickname “The Bear Republic”.

This is, in my opinion, long overdue. Anything less than marriage, like civil unions, for example, aren’t enough. As tax-paying American citizens we deserve the same rights as everyone else.

I’m sure the GOP will use this ruling as an excuse to beat the drums, yet again, about “activist judges” (which is, of couse, any judge who rules in a way you don’t like). These are the sorts of judges who, it seems, make silly rulings allowing “dangerous” and “liberal” ideas like equal rights for blacks. Apparently the conservatives don’t grasp the concept that you want judges who haven’t made up their minds one way or another about the issues and will look at them in a Constitutional context, which it sounds like is what happened in California. It’s also worth noting that according to CNN, six the seven justices on the court in California were appointed by Republican governors.

All in all, I’m happy with this ruling. It’s been a long time coming. Let’s keep at it, and get this legalized in every state, cause it seems silly that you can marry your love in California, but not be married when you cross the border into, say, Nevada.

*** UPDATE ***

Here’s a quote from the ruling itself, which I think sums things up nicely.

“In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.

“We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

Damn right.