Wednesday, April 23, 2003

No comment.

Senator Santorum so effectively digs his own grave in this interview that the only thing I can contribute to the burying of this idiot is to push it out further and wider.

Dave Winer had said that a measure of weblogging's success will be when a politician is corrected as a result of the blogiverse keeping something alive that has passed off of mainstream media's radar.

This appears to be such an opportunity as this is starting to fall out of mainstream media. Sad-- I would hate to see Santorum continue to "contribute" effort to defining the laws of this country.

Sen. Rick Santorum's comments on homosexuality in an AP interview

(04-22) 15:51 PDT (AP) --

An unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. Words that couldn't be heard clearly on the tape are marked (unintelligible).


AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?

SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. ...

AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?

SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.

AP: What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: ... We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

AP: Well, what would you do?

SANTORUM: What would I do with what?

AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe _

AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?

SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.


1:24:17 PM  pontificate    

As I ranted yesterday, the Java Collection APIs are broken. The List and Map interfaces are fundamentally incompatible-- you can't create a class that implements both List and Map.

Someone pointed out that the problem is actually worse than that. Let us review the ways we can remove objects from the various interfaces found in java.util. The source comes from src.jar that ships with the OS X dev environment; basic 1.4.1 stuff, here.

grep -slH 'public interface' * | xargs grep -H 'remove.*;' | grep -v removeAll | sort --key=2 Object remove(Object key); Object remove(int index); boolean remove(Object o); boolean remove(Object o); boolean remove(Object o); void remove(); void remove();

So -- Collection, List and Set are all compatible (makes sense). But Map is incompatible with Collection, List and Set.

I'm not the only one who has been frustrated by this problem.

My problem with add() yesterday was of my own creation; I implemented it with yet a different signature than the JDK. So -- somebody missed an opportunity to call me a dumbass...

(Yes, Red on That '70's show amuses me)
12:56:12 PM  pontificate