Another article or two (closing links before I leave today!)

[conuly]

Uncompromising Photos Expose Juvenile Detention in America

A video of the Google glasses thing, which somehow manages to look more cool than evil, although it plainly is evil.

The first part of a series on walking in America which I haven't read!

An incredibly offensive comment about Trayvon Martin and his parents. He's defending himself with the first amendment, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to public officials. Does it? At any rate, what I don't understand is why racists think it's okay to be so public about it. Seriously, free speech doesn't mean other people aren't going to care.

And finally, a little piece on better flossing that's not as informative as it thinks

Comments

[redbird]

Without clicking through, because I've had a somewhat tiring day and don't want to be pointlessly angry*: the First Amendment just means that people can't be fined or imprisoned for being that sort of asshole. It doesn't mean we can't call them out for it. It doesn't mean they can't be fired from most jobs (unless there are specific other protections in a contract or such), or that we can't vote them out of office. (Any protections for a public official are probably in civil service regulations, along with it being illegal to fire a civil servant for being of the wrong political party.) And it certainly doesn't mean that obnoxious and hateful lies are virtuous.

*I am sort of assuming this isn't someone I'm going to get the chance to vote for/against.

I clicked through and I agree.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Personal freedom, including freedom of speech, is not just freedom to act, it includes the freedom to reap the results of those actions.

Which means that everyone who disagrees with Beckmann is free to firestorm his Facebook account, send him nasty emails, or post video rants on Youtube about how he's a real asshole who makes them pointlessly angry. ;)

Of course, Beckmann did end his post with "They're just misunderstood little church going angels and the ghetto hoodie look doesn't have anything to do with why people wonder if they're about to get jacked by a thug."

Come to think on it, hasn't the dressing-like-something-you're-not been touted as a First Amendment freedom?

Re: I clicked through and I agree.

[conuly]

Come to think on it, hasn't the dressing-like-something-you're-not been touted as a First Amendment freedom?

Even if he had been a, uh, "ghetto thug" he didn't deserve to be shot just for that. Let him commit an actual crime first!

And honestly, as somebody else I read pointed out, everybody wears hoodies nowadays. Sure, criminals wear them to hide their faces from cameras, but only because, due to the fact that everybody wears them they're a heck of a lot less conspicuous than ski masks. (In the right context you can trust that everybody wearing ski masks is a rich person and probably white. What of it?)

Re: I clicked through and I agree.

[marveen.livejournal.com]

Now, now, nobody said anybody deserved to be shot, not even Beckmann.

I must also take issue with "everybody" in your second statement. You mean, the unzipped-cardiganlike-hooded-sweatshirt-with-the-hood-thrown-back? Or the hood-pulled-up-in-warm-sunny-weather type?

The first type, yeah, you can see (roughly) a dozen out of a hundred people in Walmart wearing them. A lot less prevalent than jeans, but I admit I own one myself as of last winter. I have put the hood up when it was raining.

The second type? People will turn and look. I've seen ONE guy wearing his hood up (again, at Walmart: prime social-observation territory), and people were doing doubletakes. If his aim was to avoid notice, he was failing miserably.