Ever wonder what’s wrong with American celebrities? They’re quick to criticize our own government for even the slightest misstep, but then they turn around and praise governments that are far more invasive and oppressive, like Cuba’s.

Now, as a contrast, consider Czech model Helena Houdova, who was arrested during her trip to Cuba for taking pictures that revealed Cuba as something other than a tourist paradise. Despite having the film removed from one camera, Houdova managed to smuggle out some pictures by hiding her digital camera’s memory card in her bra:

“The revolution’s watchmen rose up because I was taking pictures of something they do not like,” said the top model, referring to the fact that the Communist regime of Fidel Castro denies the existence of slums on the island.

…

Houdova said the exhibition should portray Cuba not only as a country with beautiful nature, interesting architecture and a captivating atmosphere but also as a state where people are imprisoned for their beliefs.

Houdova said her meetings with dissidents, the wives of political prisoners, as well as with ordinary Cubans during her ten-day stay in Cuba made her recollect her childhood in Communist Czechoslovakia.

“I am not an expert on the political situation in Cuba but I think some kind of change is necessary there,” she said.

Every once in a while, you’ll hear someone talk about how great an American celebrity is for being brave enough to speak out against the American government’s evil actions. When you hear that, remember Helena Houdova, then compare the consequences she faced for going against the Cuban government to those faced by the Dixie Chicks, who once told fans at a concert (in England) that they were ashamed to be Americans. Houdova was imprisoned, her personal property confiscated, and held for 11 hours. The Dixie Chicks… stopped selling CDs, because their fans (not the government) couldn’t separate their work from their politics (considering the Chicks made their statements at a concert, they apparently had the same problem).

( þ Dean’s World )

Oncee reports that the second Charleston Area Bloggers meet-up is February 1st, at 8:00 am at Taylor Books. I missed the last one because I was in Georgia when people started talking about it, so I’m going to try to make it to this one.

From The Boston Globe’s Eileen McNamara, a defense of judges who go easy on sex offenders:

Earlier this month, [Judge Edward] Cashman sentenced a man who raped a preschooler over a period of years to a life sentence with all but 60 days suspended. From the bench, the judge said he did that because he believes punishment without treatment is insufficient and sex offender treatment was not available to prison inmates. After his ruling, the Vermont Department of Corrections said it would begin providing treatment in prison immediately. Cashman has agreed to review his sentence.

I’m going to go back over the important part of this paragraph again for those who missed it. A man was, effectively, sentenced to 60 days in prison for raping a preschooler multiple times over a period of years. His life sentence was suspended to 60 days because, get this, it’s important that he gets treatment.

It’s not so important that a guy sentenced to life in prison get treatment for raping a preschooler that you should just let him out. If you keep him in prison, the issue will never arise again: there’s surprisingly very little opportunity to rape preschoolers when one is locked in a small prison cell.

That sex offender treatment is not available to prison inmates is, indeed, a problem. I can’t imagine that the solution to that problem is “let the prisoners out”. Why not, oh, make the treatment available to prisoners?!

Wednesday, [Judge Suzanne] DelVecchio sentenced a Brockton man to two years suspended and five years’ probation for statutory rape, a disposition that drew fire from the prosecutor who complained that the lack of jail time trivialized the abuse of power inherent in sexual contact between a teacher and student. Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz had asked for a prison term of at least four years.

”I understand the argument that he was a teacher, but I heard the evidence. A few weeks later and there would have been no crime,” DelVecchio said in an interview on Friday, noting that 16 is the legal age of consent in Massachusetts. ”This was consensual sex, one incident of consensual oral sex. The student was six weeks short of the age of consent. Was he mature enough to consent to sex that day? Was he going to be mature enough six weeks later? It’s an arbitrary line. I tried to do the right thing.”

“A few weeks later and there would have been no crime.” Nice. I can hear this one being used in defense of mothers who murder their babies by abandoning them in a dumpster just after they’re born. “But, if I’d done it a few weeks earlier, it wouldn’t have been a crime. You shouldn’t punish me now.”

Have you heard the phrase “activist judges”? This is the very picture of an activist judge to me. She knows the law. She knows the law was broken, and instead of following the law, she decides the law is arbitrary and wrong. In one sense, she’s right. The “age of consent” is a completely arbitrary guideline, devoid of any consideration about whether or not the “victim” was truly mature enough to give consent or not. However, age is the only determining factor we can really write into the law. If we want a law to be clear, there’s no other option than an arbitrary age cutoff.

Judge DelVecchio is in the judicial branch of the government. It is not her job to rewrite laws because she thinks they’re too abitrary. It’s not her job. (Even if we allowed some leeway in the judicial branch, I would prefer that the jury make these decisions (that is, the jury could decide that, yes, the kid was 15.90 years old, and that legally, he should’ve been 16, but he was mature enough to make the decision).)

I understand the motivation for both of these judges, but I think they were both in the wrong. Still, I think this is a cause for outspoken criticism, debate, and a refusal to vote for someone in the future, not for a cry of “off with their heads.” I guess I must not live in the same world as Eileen McNamara.

From The Video Game Law Blog:

“Wanna join our group?  Then prove you can speak English.”

 

Chinese-speaking World of Warcraft (WOW) players are complaining that they’re being discriminated because they can’t speak English.  They say other WOW players won’t let them joint their groups because they assume non-English speaking players aren’t true players–they’re gold-miners who are earning booty for their employers or themselves to auction.  Is there any potential liability here?

The Video Game Law Blog is based in Canada, but that doesn’t make this issue any less interesting, particularly if you simply consider whether this is type of discrimination is wrong in the ethical sense, rather than the legal one.

I’m hard pressed to condemn any MMORPG player for refusing to party with someone they can’t communicate with. I do this sort of discrimination all the time. Communicate with a modicum of clarity and civility, or you’re not worth my time. If you’re rude* or show a complete inability to use the letters ‘y’, ‘o’, and ‘u’ properly to spell the singular reflexive pronoun, you’ll find yourself on my “barely tolerable” list. Combine the two, and I won’t party with you. If one of my friends takes pity on you and lets you join, I’ll leave the party for a while. I put up with enough idiots in “real life.” I don’t want to do it in-game, too.

While I’m discriminating against idiocy, not simple linguistics, I can’t help but feel that, especially in a game whose appeal is largely based in its social aspects, discriminating with an eye to being able to communicate with party members is morally justifiable, at the very least.

* Well, if you’re casually rude, anyway. Rudeness, like everything else, has its uses – overusing it weakens the effect when it’s wielded against someone who truly deserves it, IMHO.

When they bought out One Valley Bank a few years ago, I was, briefly, a BB&T customer. I switched quickly, though, to be fair, many of my problems with the bank had existed long before the buyout; BB&T inherited them instead of causing them. Still, I’ve harbored a dislike of the company since.

I may have to rethink that.

It’s nice to see a private company standing up for the right thing. Granted, the possibility exists that this decision is motivated by a desire for winning customers rather than any real sense of duty, but I don’t think that matters. As Adam Smith said in The Wealth of Nations, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.” If it is BB&T’s self-interest that causes them to take the right side on this issue, then I’m no less pleased than if it were true benevolence on their part.

( Vodkapundit )