Sticks and stones may break my bones
But words will never hurt me.

- Traditional

Silly bitch, your weapons cannot harm me!

- The Juggernaut

Everyone keeps dithering over precisely how much we should condemn a girl for babbling something racist on YouTube. But what she did is, in a strange way, actually good for her as a person: this is a great opportunity for her to examine her views and decide whether or not she wants to change them, while she's still young.

On the whole, it's hardly a meritorious act, but how many skinheads wind up with a criminal record, or have to see friends die, before they ever reconsider their hatred? She's getting this chance rather cheaply.

The tragic events in Sendai, Japan have left us with a glut of information as everyone focuses on the crisis. In particular, the nuclear reactor at Fukushima was in danger of meltdown, something that understandably attracted a lot of interest. One part of the discussion and presentation of these events has been a little frustrating for me.

On the one hand, I only have myself to blame. I didn't want to take the extra time to dig through all the details of the Fukushima Daiichi reactor and report them. This was partly because I didn't have the time and partly because re-learning the precise details on how many grays will kill a man, etc. seemed like a lot of work (and was beyond the scope of a summary article anyhow.)

On the other hand, I have actually taken Nuclear Physics, and I had to write papers about the safety of reactors and what can go wrong. I went inside a live reactor, I studied Chernobyl case history, and so forth. Perhaps because of the work I put in, it irks me when there is wild speculation by people who patently don't remember their science classes very well. More precisely, it irks me when unfounded speculation is presented alongside verified and well-thought out scientific assessment and given roughly the same weight.

I know this problem is universal. People get excited in a time of crisis, and rumors fly. Even proper statements get distorted, chopped off, and reworded in unfortunate ways until they no longer convey the same truth as the original. Still, it troubles me. It's bad enough to deal with the possibility of a nuclear incident; misinformation and hysteria on top of that is not going to help anyone.

Anyway, have some donation links: Global Giving | World Vision | International Medical Corps

EDIT: It turns out that the Boing Boing science editor had the same thought, but instead of bitching about it, actually went and did some research, then cranked out an article. Kudos to her.

Getting back to the Brigham Young controversy, there's another angle that hasn't been very well explored. We all accept that BYU has the power to suspend Davies. They seem to be using this power to make an example, an assertion that they will stick to their ideals no matter what. On the surface of it, that is principled.

But is it really just?

Justice, as we understand it, involves not harming innocents. To consider what is just, we need to consider who is being harmed by a judgment. There are at least three entities involved in this decision: the player, the team, and the university itself. We may dispense with the university (as the entity making the judgment, it can make a decision that harms itself) and the player (as the one who broke the rules and made the judgment possible.) But what of the teammates?

If you were a hard-working athlete on the way to a championship, how would you feel about getting your legs cut out from under you because of something a teammate did in his spare time? More to the point, how would you feel about it if that act at virtually any other university would not warrant the same punishment?

Certainly if we want to be Biblical about it, we can respond that life is not fair: in Biblical stories, the latecomers to a day of work get paid the same wages as those who started early, and neither are supposed to complain. Davies may have signed up for more difficult terms than other athletes, but he should not complain, and by extension, neither should the other athletes, who also signed up for BYU's terms. Even if the terms didn't include anything like "your career could be jeopardized by someone else on the team not following our code of conduct," one supposes it was possible to work out the details from the general attitude of the institution.

But athletics depends on fairness. Athletics asserts that two teams will enter the field, bringing their best competitors and their best game, and that in the end the truth of which team is better at the sport will shine through. In the end, Brigham Young University can make whatever decision it wishes, but harming Davies' teammates just to make a point isn't justice.

It's making an example.

Brigham Young was not averse to getting it on. According to his Wikipedia entry, the man had 55 wives, resulting in 56 children.

Thus it is with considerable irony we read that the school bearing his name has suspended one of its star athletes for having consensual sex with his girlfriend. The Boston Globe editorial column notes that this suspension will most likely wreck BYU's run at a championship, making this a poor decision in three realms: personal freedom, politics, and efficacy.

But I would argue that Brandon Davies didn't make his decision about whether premarital sex would affect his honor when he signed up to attend an academic institution. At at time like that, the terms before him on the form were just words on a piece of paper. They lacked reality and immediacy. Rather, he made a choice on the night when he decided he and his girlfriend should act like a man and a woman in love. The argument that his prior commitment to an impersonal institution is the most important consideration in defining his honor - and settling his deep questions of love and faith - is legalistic and shallow.

The Biblical punishment for consensual, premarital sex between a young man and woman already in a relationship isn't really punitive, by the way. It just requires the couple to get married, to tie up any loose ends and ensure continuity and stability in the community.

We were at a party; she was complaining vociferously about her life and career. She had the too-thin limbs of heroin chic and the sunken eyes of one who had seen the sun rise from the wrong side many a time. She chatted with a girl to my left, who had been peppering me with random questions about various scientific methods, but who had broken off her line of inquiry upon seeing her old friend approach.

"Sociology sucks. I want to do journalism," Thin Girl declared grandly.

Knowing it was unlikely I would be taken fully seriously, but feeling oddly compelled to comment, I stepped into their conversation. "Journalism, eh?"

She laughed, and eyed me. "You look like you know all about it - steepling your hands like that."

"Well," I said, and ran down my brief experiences with journalism. "It's not really a healthy field," I concluded, "but it's interesting, and as a sociology major you certainly have an angle on it. Ever hear of Barbara Ehrenreich?"

They both nodded. "Of course," murmured Inquisitive Girl. "Who hasn't?"

"Because the general public doesn't think to examine problems from a sociological angle, Ehrenreich got a lot of mileage out of doing so. You can do the same thing, of course, as you are trained to do it. Get a column somewhere, work your way up, build an audience . . . "

"Ah," said a smiling man, joining our circle. "But that's already been done, then, hasn't it?"

"There can be only one Ehrenreich," agreed the girls. "No point in copying her."

I didn't really think so, but I spread my hands in acquiescence. "Mmm. Well then, your other angle for standing out is to take risks no one else will. Embed yourself in a military unit, or cover disasters like Haiti, or something. Write about unusual things no one will be able to ignore."

Her eyes flickered away. "Risk my life? I think I'd rather not." She half-turned.

I shrugged at her back.

Five minutes later, I heard her declare to a man that she was looking into journalism as a career option, as her present job sucked.

I'm 23,was once detained for a couple of years for failing in B.E. course semester and therefore/ever since been socially off as people have a bad image of me as a failure.

I want to have a GF...just like friends...to hang out with me and stuff but no.Ok,I'm shy and not good looking but not even one girl would approach me in my entire effing life?
My self esteem is rockbottom because of all these and i'm inturn shy and reserved because of low self esteem and it's a chain.
Hey! I'm alive too ...willing to make friends...****! I'm wasted man!

My friend, you do not GET a break in dating. You must TAKE it.

Have you repeatedly risked public humiliation, embarrassment, and developing crippling social phobias in your headlong pursuit of women?

No? Then what makes you think you should be a part of the dating scene?

You can always get a new image and meet new people. Just go to concerts, clubs, or hobby activities. If you lack the confidence or determination to do that, then you aren't going to appeal to most girls even if you do meet them.

Was it wrong for me to say this? (about a guy !!)?
my friend thinks my crush likes me and all, so a month ago, she brought ME up saying that i was awesome, funny, and really pretty. she said he got red, flush in the face and looked almost embarrassed and was smiling and didnt even look at her and instead looked at his register (we work in a grocery store).

and then a couple of days ago, my friend again is working with him and she kept on bringing ME up in conversation..like "aww. shes so cute" stuff like that. and i guess she said that he kept smiling really big, got really shy about it, got all smiley and stuff, and was pink (blushing).
so why would he react this way? does he like me? a couple of montths ago, when we were all alone outside at work, he hugged me and was smiling so big and then he wouldnt let go of one of our hugs and he smiled down at me and kissed me on the cheek.

so just yesterday, he walked me out to my car in the freezning cold during his break and we chilled in my car and talked a bit. and he asked me for a hug and as we separated, he kissed me and we made out for a bit and then we stopped and he had this smile on his face when he said "im warm noww" and then he said he had to go so he like stood up in the car and leaned to kiss me again which we did and we separated but i could tell he still wanted to kiss me so with a smile/laugh i was like "thats enough". he didnt seem bothered by it and just smiled and left.

so was it wrong for me to say that? and also, do u think he geniuely likes me?
thankss.

The answer to your first question is always no.

In school, there is a very clear and impersonal "wrong" or "right" answer for many topics. But in dating, what matters is not simple mathematical truth like 2+2=4, but rather, what is right and best for you. It is your own meaning and your own happiness that matter most. (Later, it may be your partner's happiness, but we are discussing how to identify a partner.) As such, as long as you feel what you say - no matter if it might seem hurtful, vile, or shallow - you should not feel bad about expressing it. If the other person reacts badly, then you are not a good match, and it is far better to find this out sooner rather than later.

Honesty may wound some people, but it is far better than lies in the long run. Never apologize for being honest in matters of personal romance. If you have to let someone down, do not change what you say to spare their feelings - that will only drag things out and make it more painful. I have seen far too many girls who were "too nice" to tell a guy they would never be interested in him early on, turning a minor letdown now into an explosion years later, with the guys feeling hurt and deceived when they finally found out, and the girls not understanding why a guy can't be cool about it.

If you are interested in someone, and they feel the same way, a lack of honesty will only confuse things. Do they proceed? Do they not proceed? What do your signals mean?

As to the rest of your question, I believe you have yourself a man, as long as you take steps to claim him.

In this society, we are raised on a steady diet of lies.

Just a general observation for all of you concerned with relationships - it is really not a great idea to start judging your significant other unless you are prepared for it to lead to some very ugly places.

Relationships, fundamentally, are based on acceptance of the other person - that unconditional acceptance we call love. If we start judging our significant others, that says that we are no longer prepared to accept them uncritically and require them to prove themselves. Now, certainly, there are all sorts of behaviors that we may personally decide we can't tolerate. That's fine, even healthy, and need not be a basis of judgment. But when you say, "My lover should have X, Y, and Z qualities, and they must always be true," then you are setting up your relationship for failure. People are consistent only in their inconsistency.

Again, if you say, "It bothers me when you do X," that is fine - your lover should be attempting to fit into your preferences, after all. But if you find yourself saying, "categorically, people who do X are inferior, and if you don't shape up, you do not meet my criteria," that is pretty much saying that you care about the person only inasmuch as they fit the categories in your head. That is a very bad sign for a relationship.

One photo sums this up rather well: the lone protestor, ridiculous yet defiant, throwing an impossibly small stone against a mass of uniformed thugs.

Photo by Victoria Hazou