*stares*

Name of God!

( Article inside )

I'm not going to pretend I agree with the practice of threatening hostages to make a political statement. That's bullshit. And I suppose I can understand why you might risk somebody's life rather than abandon your principles - but let's take a step back from the drama of the situation to examine these principles:

"It is democracy that is attacked and the laws of the Republic that are targeted."

Lovely words. Democracy. The terrorists, as we all know, hate democracy, and democratic laws, and religious freedom.

Wait. The law in question... what was that?

The law, which also applies to Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses, says that in public elementary and high schools the "wearing of insignia or clothes by which pupils conspicuously display their religious affiliation is prohibited." It also calls for "dialogue" with any student that violates the ban before disciplinary action is taken.

That law may have been made in a very democratic fashion, but there is such a thing as the "tyranny of the majority". You can't wear a "non-conspicuous" head-scarf like a "non-conspicuous" cross! And, while I don't know of any Christians who believe they are required to wear crosses, I do know Muslims who believe they are required, by their religion, to wear scarves.

But now, of course, instead of looking at the problem rationally, it's going to be all about "don't give in to terrorists, they're just big bullies". Stupid, on all sides.

Taken from a comment in mock_the_stupid

A squirl, a deer, monkies...

DO NOT PASS THIS BY. CLICK THE LINK.

Seriously, you'll regret it if you don't.

More people who confuse "normal" with "right"

Unfortunately, in this country, it's not normal for one year olds to still be nursing. Tabloids are infamous for lying, of course, and should be commended for this rare occasion of truth.

"How could something natural be not normal?"

Very simply. Clothing? Unnatural. But going naked is not normal. Shoes? Unnatural. Being barefoot is better for (most people's) feet anyway. But it's also, in most cases, not normal. Our infant mortality rate? A VERY GOOD THING. Normal. But not natural at all. The natural infant mortality rate was much higher.

*sighs*

English, people, if it's your native language, please treat it with respect.

*grins* Reminds me of a book I read when I was younger... One More River. Remember that? Girl emigrates to Israel, lives on a kibbutz? Yeah. At one point, another girl calls a guy "just not normal" to mean that she thinks he's hot.

You know what I don't like?

People who say "don't use this or that construction because it's not a word".

If it's not a word, you'd better damn well be prepared to tell me what, exactly, it is. Because the people saying that don't ever say it for real non-words (like gosht for ghost, or wahooni), only for neologisms that they, personally, don't like. Don't argue. Just smile and nod unless you have a decent rebuttal. Thank you.

*sits and waits*

Is it just me, or is there a real problem in fantasy/sci-fi books with believable kids?

It seems that people don't write kids well. Kids in sci-fi and fantasy can't just be kids, they always have to be precocious, and usually friendless. You don't ever have kids who just sit and play video games, you have kids like Ender, who play video games that kill real aliens, and are better at it than any of the adults. Or Tiffany Aching, who knows more words than the adults around her and, again, can do what adults can't do. Or Kit and Nita, who end up giving a lecture to Nita's parents on responsibility (though they're less of a dramatic example than the other two). Wesley Crusher is always saving the Enterprise. I can go on, but I really don't want to have to search up books for references. I want answers. IS this real, and if so, why? And does this problem exist in other genres?