So while I'm sitting at home, watching the unyielding inevitable snowstorm of doom come to an end, and supposed frigid temperatures on the way (go frozen slush!) I feel the need to at least let my loyal readers (whoever you are, if you're still hanging around) that I haven't forgotten this blog, I just haven't had the ambition to write.
As the subject of this entry notes, activity begets activity. Being that I remain unemployed and have little to do aside from hang around between hunting for a job that will allow me some form of comfortable living, this lends itself to a lack of ambition/creativity in some other areas of my life.
However, I'm hopeful that in the next few months I'll be able to secure gainful employment, and my desire to report on some little known and not very widely read news stories (and my commentary thereof) will return with full force.
Until then, consider my lack of inspiration/motivation/ambition for this blog much like winter in Alaska. It lasts a long time, and it's very dark. So grab a bottle of hard liquor, hunker down, and pray for daylight.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Extended Hiatus that doth continue...or...My muse is MIA
So right before the trip to NYC [read: the day before I left] I found out that I no longer had a job. Needless to say that had significant impacts upon creativity. [read: I think my muse was murdered while I was there]
That and the relationship with the boyfriend ended. It was mutual. Breakups are often sad, but we're still friends. We actually have plans to go to a few community theater shows in the next week. Should be a good time!
I wish I had more to say, except that I don't...which is the problem. Apparently not being at work totally kills any ambition I have/had/will have to write about my opinions regarding the world outside the house in which I reside. (If anybody gets a musical reference to this, I'll give you an e-cookie!)
So, all I can say/request is that you hang in there, loyal readers, I'll be back once I hire a new muse, or I find the one that was beaten and left for dead in an alley in Manhattan somewhere...
P.S. if anybody who reads this blog can tell me how the blazes the blockquote tool works, I'd be grateful. Every time I attempt to use it, it throws my formatting all to hell. Thanks!
That and the relationship with the boyfriend ended. It was mutual. Breakups are often sad, but we're still friends. We actually have plans to go to a few community theater shows in the next week. Should be a good time!
I wish I had more to say, except that I don't...which is the problem. Apparently not being at work totally kills any ambition I have/had/will have to write about my opinions regarding the world outside the house in which I reside. (If anybody gets a musical reference to this, I'll give you an e-cookie!)
So, all I can say/request is that you hang in there, loyal readers, I'll be back once I hire a new muse, or I find the one that was beaten and left for dead in an alley in Manhattan somewhere...
P.S. if anybody who reads this blog can tell me how the blazes the blockquote tool works, I'd be grateful. Every time I attempt to use it, it throws my formatting all to hell. Thanks!
Thursday, June 18, 2009
True Blood, "Gay Issues", and Good Christian People
Alright so this week’s blog is late because I’m busy trying to tie up loose ends before I head to NYC on Saturday with the BF. We’ll be there for 9 (count ‘em NINE) days, so next week’s blog will come to you all the way from the Big Apple. Since I’ve never been east of Indiana (unless you count those trips to FL, but since we didn’t leave the state…) it promises to be one of those life changing experiences. So we’ll see.
I’ve been looking around for some interesting news stories and things to comment about and I found a lot if disparate issues in very small news stories. I also would like to write a small review on the beginning of Season 1 of True Blood.
I managed to procure a legitimate copy of the first season of this new vampire series which is being produced/aired or whatever on HBO. I figured since I wasn’t going to be getting into Twilight anytime soon I should at least get some sort of vampy thing to slake my thirst. (I have a feeling bad puns are going to be floating around this post a lot). I’m unsure if you’d want to read the review, because there are going to be some spoilers, so you’ve been forewarned.
Granted I’ve only had the time to see the first 3 episodes, and I already thing that the whole show has a really good feel to it. I especially like the fact that the vampires have severe weaknesses, which could actually kill them. Most notably, they never go out in the sun. Another thing which I think is very interesting is that in the beginning they show one of those signs that are in front of churches where you can customize the letters, and the sign reads “God Hates Fangs”. One of the more overarching issues of the show is the issue of vampire equality, now that vampires have “come out of the coffin” and wanted to become a part of society. This mirrors in a huge way the struggles facing the gay community at this point in history. Even more poignantly the fact that a sign that reads “God Hates Fangs” is only one letter away from letting people know that God also hates cigarettes from the UK. But overall, after 3 episodes, I like it. I think its going to be a decent show, especially with all the vampire hype. The only thing that I wish was explained more was how that damn waitress got to be telepathic in the first place… I also am tickled to say that I love the whole feel of the show, from the attitude of some of the characters to the fact that there’s even a black gay character. One con, I suppose would have to be the preoccupation with sex, as that seems to be the favorite pastime in the little imaginary town of Bon Temps, LA. You can’t go 5 minutes in the show without seeing someone banging someone else. Kinda irritating, but the boys are good to look at so I suppose that makes it okay…sort of.
In the same vein (there’s those puns again) as talking about True Blood, I discovered this story about the author of the Sookie Stackhouse novels, which are what the television series True Blood is based on. I like the fact that she seems like she’s just a (forgive the expression) “down home” southern lady, who’s just a writer of fictions. But I also think that if those books are as good as they seem to be (I have yet to have the pleasure of reading them, but HBO made a series out of them!) then she’s a literary genius. Okay, well maybe not a literary genius, but at least she has some good sense to write about something of which there is already a huge hype about.
Moving away from True Blood, (which I’ll say again, is amazing. Makes me want to get HBO since they also did Six Feet Under, which I didn’t find out about until after it was over, so that I can watch these shows. Which annoyed me) there are a few interesting, and very small stories that I’d would like to comment on.
I’m wondering if the bigger issue with this article should be more about the rights of business owners to turn away customers or about sexuality. On the one hand, I can see how this is just a huge ploy for some major gay publicity, but at the same time I can see where the one owner, Zaharakis, is coming from. Speaking as a gay man who goes out clubbing (probably more that I would like to admit) I don’t want to go out and see a bunch of women partying it up. I go out because I like to people watch and I like the eye candy, and a bunch of women who are celebrating heteronuptuals and feel like they can get totally plastered because there’s no chance that they’re going to be taken advantage of in a gay bar, are not my idea of a good time. But, and I’m glad the article mentions the other side of the issue, in that some business owners may want to tap that market such as Binninger, who then started offering a whole night for women who want to do that. I suppose that’s the wonders of the Capitalist society of the US. Notice this is also happening in Chicago, pretty close to where I live.
Even closer is this story, which I cannot believe. Not only am I infuriated about this issue because it’s an issue that is essentially a “gay” issue, and in my home state no less. It’s also against everything I believe as a bibliophile because it’s a total throwback to the middle ages. I would like to think that we as a society and a culture, and an intelligent race have moved beyond the need to destroy literature simply because we don’t like what it says. Not only that, but it’s also a censorship issue, which I’m also against, because books are written to be read. If you don’t like the subject matter, don’t read the book. Problem solved. If you read the article take note of this passage (Please note that this is a direct quotation from the source, and not in any way altered by me, nor does it reflect my views or ideas):
So a few questions that I have about this are what are elderly people doing in the young adult section of the library anyway? And provided they were there with grandchildren, why are they calling attention to this instead of just ignoring it? I’ve been in libraries before, if you ignore something (a book) it’ll get lost and ignored in the depths of the stacks. Not only that, but they claim that “their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book…” What did they do, read it? Again, if you don’t like the subject matter, why read the book? They also claim that it’s anti-Christian. Having never read the book, I can’t say that for sure. But I can infer from the language used that they are attacking it on those grounds due to the added clout/publicity that it gives the suit and also because the book deals with homosexuality. In regards to the N-word that the book uses, I have yet to see a group of elderly people want to change the language in Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn, which I have read, and also contain that word in a derogatory term. As far as people’s lives being in jeopardy, I can only say that the only way people’s lives will be in jeopardy is if we allow this sort of censorship to occur and keep knowledge away from the masses. It is ignorance that causes violence, not knowledge, at least in the wider sense.
An addendum to this, which is more of a story than anything else: I remember when I was younger, my mother was very into watching the television show The Waltons and there was one episode that really stuck out in my mind. It was an episode that was set during WWII and the hype surrounding the Nazi’s and their regime. These good Christian folks living on the mountain got wrapped up in a hate filled mob and decided to go out and find all the German books they could and burn them. Well one of the Walton kids, who also discovered a woman living nearby that could read/speak German, was very upset about the book burning, and got this woman to read from a book and translate. What she was reading was the Bible, in German, which these Christian people were horrified to discover they were about to burn.
Another issue we have with good Christian people, and homosexuality is this story. I think this is a sham, and totally uncalled for. I agree with what James Cole says about this opening a can of worms that cannot easily be closed about how therepists and counselors deal with clients. Not only that, but it was my understanding that as someone who provides such services, you have a duty and are ethically bound to help the people who come to you. And if you can’t help them, due to whatever issue you are unable to help them, you’re ethically bound to refer them to someone who can help them. This crap about not having to even refer someone based on the fact that their sexual orientation or some other issue somehow causes problems due to the religious beliefs of the therapist is crap. I’ll have to keep an eye on this story to see what happens.
And finally, this story illustrates just how crazy school administrators and things can be. While there are children being bullied for even appearing/seeming to be gay by the perceptions of others, and committing suicide, school officials would rather keep a student from graduating for a little showboating at a graduation ceremony. I think this is a total waste of time and resources, and it effectively illustrates the skewed priorities of our educational administrators and those in charge of school policy. Stop worrying about little things like this and start worrying about the lives of the children in your care!
Next week: Blog from NYC!
I’ve been looking around for some interesting news stories and things to comment about and I found a lot if disparate issues in very small news stories. I also would like to write a small review on the beginning of Season 1 of True Blood.
I managed to procure a legitimate copy of the first season of this new vampire series which is being produced/aired or whatever on HBO. I figured since I wasn’t going to be getting into Twilight anytime soon I should at least get some sort of vampy thing to slake my thirst. (I have a feeling bad puns are going to be floating around this post a lot). I’m unsure if you’d want to read the review, because there are going to be some spoilers, so you’ve been forewarned.
Granted I’ve only had the time to see the first 3 episodes, and I already thing that the whole show has a really good feel to it. I especially like the fact that the vampires have severe weaknesses, which could actually kill them. Most notably, they never go out in the sun. Another thing which I think is very interesting is that in the beginning they show one of those signs that are in front of churches where you can customize the letters, and the sign reads “God Hates Fangs”. One of the more overarching issues of the show is the issue of vampire equality, now that vampires have “come out of the coffin” and wanted to become a part of society. This mirrors in a huge way the struggles facing the gay community at this point in history. Even more poignantly the fact that a sign that reads “God Hates Fangs” is only one letter away from letting people know that God also hates cigarettes from the UK. But overall, after 3 episodes, I like it. I think its going to be a decent show, especially with all the vampire hype. The only thing that I wish was explained more was how that damn waitress got to be telepathic in the first place… I also am tickled to say that I love the whole feel of the show, from the attitude of some of the characters to the fact that there’s even a black gay character. One con, I suppose would have to be the preoccupation with sex, as that seems to be the favorite pastime in the little imaginary town of Bon Temps, LA. You can’t go 5 minutes in the show without seeing someone banging someone else. Kinda irritating, but the boys are good to look at so I suppose that makes it okay…sort of.
In the same vein (there’s those puns again) as talking about True Blood, I discovered this story about the author of the Sookie Stackhouse novels, which are what the television series True Blood is based on. I like the fact that she seems like she’s just a (forgive the expression) “down home” southern lady, who’s just a writer of fictions. But I also think that if those books are as good as they seem to be (I have yet to have the pleasure of reading them, but HBO made a series out of them!) then she’s a literary genius. Okay, well maybe not a literary genius, but at least she has some good sense to write about something of which there is already a huge hype about.
Moving away from True Blood, (which I’ll say again, is amazing. Makes me want to get HBO since they also did Six Feet Under, which I didn’t find out about until after it was over, so that I can watch these shows. Which annoyed me) there are a few interesting, and very small stories that I’d would like to comment on.
I’m wondering if the bigger issue with this article should be more about the rights of business owners to turn away customers or about sexuality. On the one hand, I can see how this is just a huge ploy for some major gay publicity, but at the same time I can see where the one owner, Zaharakis, is coming from. Speaking as a gay man who goes out clubbing (probably more that I would like to admit) I don’t want to go out and see a bunch of women partying it up. I go out because I like to people watch and I like the eye candy, and a bunch of women who are celebrating heteronuptuals and feel like they can get totally plastered because there’s no chance that they’re going to be taken advantage of in a gay bar, are not my idea of a good time. But, and I’m glad the article mentions the other side of the issue, in that some business owners may want to tap that market such as Binninger, who then started offering a whole night for women who want to do that. I suppose that’s the wonders of the Capitalist society of the US. Notice this is also happening in Chicago, pretty close to where I live.
Even closer is this story, which I cannot believe. Not only am I infuriated about this issue because it’s an issue that is essentially a “gay” issue, and in my home state no less. It’s also against everything I believe as a bibliophile because it’s a total throwback to the middle ages. I would like to think that we as a society and a culture, and an intelligent race have moved beyond the need to destroy literature simply because we don’t like what it says. Not only that, but it’s also a censorship issue, which I’m also against, because books are written to be read. If you don’t like the subject matter, don’t read the book. Problem solved. If you read the article take note of this passage (Please note that this is a direct quotation from the source, and not in any way altered by me, nor does it reflect my views or ideas):
“The CCLU claim describes Baby Be-Bop as “explicitly vulgar, racial, and
anti-Christian,” and charges that the four plaintiffs, “all of whom are elderly,
claim their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book at the
library” because the book contains the word "nigger" and derogatory sexual and
political epithets that can incite violence and “put one’s life in possible
jeopardy, adults and children alike.”
So a few questions that I have about this are what are elderly people doing in the young adult section of the library anyway? And provided they were there with grandchildren, why are they calling attention to this instead of just ignoring it? I’ve been in libraries before, if you ignore something (a book) it’ll get lost and ignored in the depths of the stacks. Not only that, but they claim that “their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book…” What did they do, read it? Again, if you don’t like the subject matter, why read the book? They also claim that it’s anti-Christian. Having never read the book, I can’t say that for sure. But I can infer from the language used that they are attacking it on those grounds due to the added clout/publicity that it gives the suit and also because the book deals with homosexuality. In regards to the N-word that the book uses, I have yet to see a group of elderly people want to change the language in Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn, which I have read, and also contain that word in a derogatory term. As far as people’s lives being in jeopardy, I can only say that the only way people’s lives will be in jeopardy is if we allow this sort of censorship to occur and keep knowledge away from the masses. It is ignorance that causes violence, not knowledge, at least in the wider sense.
An addendum to this, which is more of a story than anything else: I remember when I was younger, my mother was very into watching the television show The Waltons and there was one episode that really stuck out in my mind. It was an episode that was set during WWII and the hype surrounding the Nazi’s and their regime. These good Christian folks living on the mountain got wrapped up in a hate filled mob and decided to go out and find all the German books they could and burn them. Well one of the Walton kids, who also discovered a woman living nearby that could read/speak German, was very upset about the book burning, and got this woman to read from a book and translate. What she was reading was the Bible, in German, which these Christian people were horrified to discover they were about to burn.
Another issue we have with good Christian people, and homosexuality is this story. I think this is a sham, and totally uncalled for. I agree with what James Cole says about this opening a can of worms that cannot easily be closed about how therepists and counselors deal with clients. Not only that, but it was my understanding that as someone who provides such services, you have a duty and are ethically bound to help the people who come to you. And if you can’t help them, due to whatever issue you are unable to help them, you’re ethically bound to refer them to someone who can help them. This crap about not having to even refer someone based on the fact that their sexual orientation or some other issue somehow causes problems due to the religious beliefs of the therapist is crap. I’ll have to keep an eye on this story to see what happens.
And finally, this story illustrates just how crazy school administrators and things can be. While there are children being bullied for even appearing/seeming to be gay by the perceptions of others, and committing suicide, school officials would rather keep a student from graduating for a little showboating at a graduation ceremony. I think this is a total waste of time and resources, and it effectively illustrates the skewed priorities of our educational administrators and those in charge of school policy. Stop worrying about little things like this and start worrying about the lives of the children in your care!
Next week: Blog from NYC!
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
A few things that have been bothering me
Alright, so there are a few things that have been bothering me which, since there aren't any decent things in the over publicized news and the over political arena of the USA.
Ok, so first. I know that there are untold numbers of people that would like to believe and have poured a lot of money, time, and resources into proving that being gay is not in any way a choice (consciously or otherwise) which leaves only a biological element to the issue of homosexuality. Which is fine. I'm not going to get into my personal views about what makes a person gay or not, but I will tell you that I'm vehemently against any definitive proof that there is such a thing as a gay gene.
I mean I understand the desire to have the whole issue explained and to shift the blame of the state of being homosexual from the person to some obscure biological entity (however small it may be). But if you move beyond that blame idea, and move forward with it a couple of decades into the future there's a really scary possibility out there. Which would be screening for the so-called 'gay gene' and possibly (further down the line enough) a gay cure. I'm not saying that it would ever happen in my lifetime, but if it ends up being a purely biological thing rather than a socio-biological thing with many different factors, it could be said that, given enough time and scientific experimentation, these things could come to pass. Which is a very scary thought, at least to me.
Another thing that has been bugging me lately is the double standard of the sexes in the workplace. I'm not against women in the workplace, at all. But what I am against is the double standard of what is acceptable behavior between the sexes in the workplace. I work in an office comprised of 98% women. I was also raised by a lot of them, and shockingly birthed by one. And I am constantly reminded (at least one week a month) that I am incapable of doing anything right. Usually I am reminded of this rather harshly and pointedly in the middle of some sort of reprimand for something very tedious. Normally I wouldn't have a problem with this sort of behavior, because that's the nature of the employer/employee relationship. But to have my job threatened and be given the cold shoulder due to emotional issues is greatly unfair. If a man were to do that sort of thing in the workplace, he'd be fired without a second thought, but women are constantly given leeway. Which is crap because I've known a lot of women who manage their emotional turmoil and still achieve normal workplace decorum. There are drugs one can take to help deal with this sort of behavior, as well as strength of will. As my mother and recently deceased grandmother would always tell me (and my female cousins) "If you don't mind, it don't matter". I mean women have fought for equal treatment in the workplace, equal pay, and to prove that they are just as capable as men in the workplace to be taken seriously. So why then do some women want special treatment, aka leeway, for dealing with their emotional issues, especially in the workplace. If you can't learn to separate your emotions/personal life from the workplace, I'm sorry, but that's not fair to your subordinates, co-workers, or boss. I'm not saying women with this difficulty should be fired, but it should be made clear that this is not acceptable in the workplace. That's all I'm saying.
Speaking of the employer/employee relationship, can I just mention that I think it's incredibly horrible that an employees job/position/whatever is solely dependent on the whims of the employer. There's no job security, and what job security that does exist is directly proportional to how happy you can manage to keep your employer, or how much ass you kiss, or how far you can bend over backwards to get things done. I think that it's a huge abuse of power for employers to base your employment solely on personality. While I think that it plays a part, I would have to say that ones performance should play a much bigger part in determining your employment rather than how much your boss likes you.
I've been listening to a lot of progressive talk radio. I have to say that I noticed something very interesting. I've been listening to Ed Shultz. But as I grew up my stepdad attempted to indoctrinate me to the far right point of view by telling me how amazing Rush Limbaugh is. I'm now politically apathetic so all attempts have pretty much failed. But my position allows me to make interesting connections like this: I think Ed and Rush look very similar, and sound very similar. Which leads me to believe that the spokes people for our two most dominant political parties are both fat, rich, white, businessmen. Funny that...
Speaking of politics, can I just say that I'm very fed up with the infighting of the Democrats and the Republicans. I was listening to Ed Shultz this afternoon and he said something about one not being able to be an "Ed-Head" unless you have the desire to crush the Rebublican party entirely. Can you imagine how much more we could accomplish in this country if both sides would stop trying to destroy each other, and fighting with each other, and stop attempting to deal with their little agendas, and actually focus on the welfare and the betterment of this country? Instead of trying to crush each other, why don't they use their incredible powers of discourse and attempt to communicate in an effective way that will benefit the nation and the people? Why, because politicians, like all people, are fallable and not really capable of thinking about anything other than themselves.
Okay, I think I'm thoroughly spent. I know that I said initially that I would try to keep this blog more about commentary about what's going on in the world, but there's a LOT of publicity and coverage about a very small amount of issues. So this weeks' blog is dedicated to my opinions and thoughts on a myriad of things. Take it with a grain of salt because its my opinion(s). Hopefully, regular posts about various other issues will resume next week.
Ok, so first. I know that there are untold numbers of people that would like to believe and have poured a lot of money, time, and resources into proving that being gay is not in any way a choice (consciously or otherwise) which leaves only a biological element to the issue of homosexuality. Which is fine. I'm not going to get into my personal views about what makes a person gay or not, but I will tell you that I'm vehemently against any definitive proof that there is such a thing as a gay gene.
I mean I understand the desire to have the whole issue explained and to shift the blame of the state of being homosexual from the person to some obscure biological entity (however small it may be). But if you move beyond that blame idea, and move forward with it a couple of decades into the future there's a really scary possibility out there. Which would be screening for the so-called 'gay gene' and possibly (further down the line enough) a gay cure. I'm not saying that it would ever happen in my lifetime, but if it ends up being a purely biological thing rather than a socio-biological thing with many different factors, it could be said that, given enough time and scientific experimentation, these things could come to pass. Which is a very scary thought, at least to me.
Another thing that has been bugging me lately is the double standard of the sexes in the workplace. I'm not against women in the workplace, at all. But what I am against is the double standard of what is acceptable behavior between the sexes in the workplace. I work in an office comprised of 98% women. I was also raised by a lot of them, and shockingly birthed by one. And I am constantly reminded (at least one week a month) that I am incapable of doing anything right. Usually I am reminded of this rather harshly and pointedly in the middle of some sort of reprimand for something very tedious. Normally I wouldn't have a problem with this sort of behavior, because that's the nature of the employer/employee relationship. But to have my job threatened and be given the cold shoulder due to emotional issues is greatly unfair. If a man were to do that sort of thing in the workplace, he'd be fired without a second thought, but women are constantly given leeway. Which is crap because I've known a lot of women who manage their emotional turmoil and still achieve normal workplace decorum. There are drugs one can take to help deal with this sort of behavior, as well as strength of will. As my mother and recently deceased grandmother would always tell me (and my female cousins) "If you don't mind, it don't matter". I mean women have fought for equal treatment in the workplace, equal pay, and to prove that they are just as capable as men in the workplace to be taken seriously. So why then do some women want special treatment, aka leeway, for dealing with their emotional issues, especially in the workplace. If you can't learn to separate your emotions/personal life from the workplace, I'm sorry, but that's not fair to your subordinates, co-workers, or boss. I'm not saying women with this difficulty should be fired, but it should be made clear that this is not acceptable in the workplace. That's all I'm saying.
Speaking of the employer/employee relationship, can I just mention that I think it's incredibly horrible that an employees job/position/whatever is solely dependent on the whims of the employer. There's no job security, and what job security that does exist is directly proportional to how happy you can manage to keep your employer, or how much ass you kiss, or how far you can bend over backwards to get things done. I think that it's a huge abuse of power for employers to base your employment solely on personality. While I think that it plays a part, I would have to say that ones performance should play a much bigger part in determining your employment rather than how much your boss likes you.
I've been listening to a lot of progressive talk radio. I have to say that I noticed something very interesting. I've been listening to Ed Shultz. But as I grew up my stepdad attempted to indoctrinate me to the far right point of view by telling me how amazing Rush Limbaugh is. I'm now politically apathetic so all attempts have pretty much failed. But my position allows me to make interesting connections like this: I think Ed and Rush look very similar, and sound very similar. Which leads me to believe that the spokes people for our two most dominant political parties are both fat, rich, white, businessmen. Funny that...
Speaking of politics, can I just say that I'm very fed up with the infighting of the Democrats and the Republicans. I was listening to Ed Shultz this afternoon and he said something about one not being able to be an "Ed-Head" unless you have the desire to crush the Rebublican party entirely. Can you imagine how much more we could accomplish in this country if both sides would stop trying to destroy each other, and fighting with each other, and stop attempting to deal with their little agendas, and actually focus on the welfare and the betterment of this country? Instead of trying to crush each other, why don't they use their incredible powers of discourse and attempt to communicate in an effective way that will benefit the nation and the people? Why, because politicians, like all people, are fallable and not really capable of thinking about anything other than themselves.
Moving into a different direction, can I just say that I'm totally against the little device known as a Kindle? Why would you have an electronic device that allows you to read, but is dependant on batteries, or other power sources, and is also yet another screen for you to look at. I have to say that in my opinion, books are so much better, and, I will go so far as to say that books are among the most perfect forms of entertainment. They are self contained, require no batteries, cords, or assembly, and they're incredibly durable. So why would you, under the guise of advancement, go backwards. It boggles the mind.
Okay, I think I'm thoroughly spent. I know that I said initially that I would try to keep this blog more about commentary about what's going on in the world, but there's a LOT of publicity and coverage about a very small amount of issues. So this weeks' blog is dedicated to my opinions and thoughts on a myriad of things. Take it with a grain of salt because its my opinion(s). Hopefully, regular posts about various other issues will resume next week.
Friday, June 5, 2009
It's been a busy week
Alright, so it’s not really Wednesday, but I had a really rough week with the unexpected death and subsequent funeral of a close family member. That'll put a crimp in anyone’s week and plans for blogging. But, all is not lost as I have managed to accumulate a whole slew of interesting tidbits that I found as I've been poking around.
So in reference to my disdain for Adam Lambert who we all knew was gay, but managed to keep his fame alive by not actually saying the words "Dude, I'm gay" or some other trashy Lambert-esqe equivalent, I came across this which I was going to use to make my point. Unfortunately as keeping news around doesn't seem to be a big deal for interweb archiving, it's gone. But you can see my point by the "keep guessing" part of the headline. (Another post will be devoted to the idiocy of keeping historical records on something as fleeting as computers, and the utter stupidity of the Kindle thingy).
Now for a repeat issue, (even though I feel like I'm beating a dead horse) this really irritates me. Not the whole anti-bullying legislation (which has been a LONG time in coming) but the reaction to this from the Christian groups and the Catholic Church that is mentioned. I find it reprehensible that the bishop in question would compare a legislation that would protect children from being bullied by their peers and offer sanctions to those who would continue to bully others using homophobic language with the gay marriage debate. That's like comparing apples and pineapples. There's absolutely no correlation. And to say that this legislation is a prelude to allowing gay marriage, is just plain ridiculous.
Not only that, if you read the article the one faith based group is afraid that "...if the bill passed it would lead to the expansion of the state’s hate crime law and anti-discrimination laws to cover gays." I'm sorry, is that such a bad thing? Perhaps in your eyes, at this point in time, it may be so. However, I cannot believe that if one of your children was beaten to death for being perceived to be gay, you'd be in the front lines of trying to get a hate crime legislation passed in your state, if only so you could see justice done for your child. Even if that's not the case, hate crimes are very real, and I for one believe that they are under-punished (or whatever the term is).
Another interesting story caught my eye, and I just couldn't resist making a really interesting comparison. We have fought over keeping religion out of public schools and other institutions that have ties to the state for, well, for most of my lifetime of (nearly) 24 years. And from what I can see we've been incredibly successful. This is fine, if you’re going to go all the way and completely separate church and state. But isn't it interesting that we don't want religion in public schools, but religion and religious institutions have a great deal of influence when it comes to marriage which grants all sorts of civil benefits and rights?
Along that same line this article by Time Magazine illustrates just what I've been saying ever since I started paying attention to the gay marriage debate. If you don't believe me, just find a previous post about gay marriage on this blog, I'm fairly certain that it's around here somewhere. But it’s about time that someone with a touch more clout than I have finally decided to take the idea and run with it. Good for you!
I'm pleased to see that someone else also dislikes the bad boy/pretty boy combination vampires (that break all vampire rules) that Twilight has introduced to mainstream society. Although I'm intrigued by his new book about vampires and the interesting take that he's bringing to them, I have to say, as I've said before, I'm a vampire purist and that's what I look for in a vampire tale. Ok, enough with the vampire proselytizing.
I discovered something interesting about blogger.com, which is that you can post your blogs by email. This is a nice idea should it actually work. So needless to say I tried it and if failed. No worries, there will always be more time to blog. Also, if anyone out there who reads this darn thing knows anything about formatting block quotes in blogger, let me know, because your skills are in demand. At least from me.
Regular Wednesday updates will resume next week, provided that nobody else in my life keels over and/or the world doesn't end
So in reference to my disdain for Adam Lambert who we all knew was gay, but managed to keep his fame alive by not actually saying the words "Dude, I'm gay" or some other trashy Lambert-esqe equivalent, I came across this which I was going to use to make my point. Unfortunately as keeping news around doesn't seem to be a big deal for interweb archiving, it's gone. But you can see my point by the "keep guessing" part of the headline. (Another post will be devoted to the idiocy of keeping historical records on something as fleeting as computers, and the utter stupidity of the Kindle thingy).
Now for a repeat issue, (even though I feel like I'm beating a dead horse) this really irritates me. Not the whole anti-bullying legislation (which has been a LONG time in coming) but the reaction to this from the Christian groups and the Catholic Church that is mentioned. I find it reprehensible that the bishop in question would compare a legislation that would protect children from being bullied by their peers and offer sanctions to those who would continue to bully others using homophobic language with the gay marriage debate. That's like comparing apples and pineapples. There's absolutely no correlation. And to say that this legislation is a prelude to allowing gay marriage, is just plain ridiculous.
Not only that, if you read the article the one faith based group is afraid that "...if the bill passed it would lead to the expansion of the state’s hate crime law and anti-discrimination laws to cover gays." I'm sorry, is that such a bad thing? Perhaps in your eyes, at this point in time, it may be so. However, I cannot believe that if one of your children was beaten to death for being perceived to be gay, you'd be in the front lines of trying to get a hate crime legislation passed in your state, if only so you could see justice done for your child. Even if that's not the case, hate crimes are very real, and I for one believe that they are under-punished (or whatever the term is).
Another interesting story caught my eye, and I just couldn't resist making a really interesting comparison. We have fought over keeping religion out of public schools and other institutions that have ties to the state for, well, for most of my lifetime of (nearly) 24 years. And from what I can see we've been incredibly successful. This is fine, if you’re going to go all the way and completely separate church and state. But isn't it interesting that we don't want religion in public schools, but religion and religious institutions have a great deal of influence when it comes to marriage which grants all sorts of civil benefits and rights?
Along that same line this article by Time Magazine illustrates just what I've been saying ever since I started paying attention to the gay marriage debate. If you don't believe me, just find a previous post about gay marriage on this blog, I'm fairly certain that it's around here somewhere. But it’s about time that someone with a touch more clout than I have finally decided to take the idea and run with it. Good for you!
I'm pleased to see that someone else also dislikes the bad boy/pretty boy combination vampires (that break all vampire rules) that Twilight has introduced to mainstream society. Although I'm intrigued by his new book about vampires and the interesting take that he's bringing to them, I have to say, as I've said before, I'm a vampire purist and that's what I look for in a vampire tale. Ok, enough with the vampire proselytizing.
I discovered something interesting about blogger.com, which is that you can post your blogs by email. This is a nice idea should it actually work. So needless to say I tried it and if failed. No worries, there will always be more time to blog. Also, if anyone out there who reads this darn thing knows anything about formatting block quotes in blogger, let me know, because your skills are in demand. At least from me.
Regular Wednesday updates will resume next week, provided that nobody else in my life keels over and/or the world doesn't end
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
A whole week of nothing but AI, Prop 8, and Twilight
So here I am, sitting at work realizing that it's Wednesday and I need to update. All while dealing with being buried under a buttload of work at work. Not that I'm complaining. Having lots of things to do while at work is job security. This is a good thing.
I also realized that I haven't been able to/interested in reading much of the news, because my experience with the news lately has been nothing outside of listening to things about American Idol,Prop 8 stuff, and listening to my mother and my sister tell me how amazing Twilight is. And while I'm an avid Anti-Idolater (cute huh?), an empathize-r to my people regarding the whole gay marriage issue in CA and a die-hard vampire purist, I have to say, when am I going to stop hearing about it?
Before I get off on a tangent, let me just say that I think this is a horrible thing. Something like this would be akin to a school not allowing a report to be presented on...oh...I don't know...Martin Luther King Jr. because he upset the social norm. Well yeah...that's the idea of civil reform...at least that's how I work with it. Even better would be the prohibition of a report on George Washington because he was a rebel against his sovereign government. To deny a student who but in the work to come up with a report/presentation on a political figure that has been brought to light by recent movies and whatnot is just horrible and goes lengths to destroy a child's creative and autonomous spirit. I'm very happy that she made a big deal out of it, because it is a big deal.
Moving on...
American Idol is one thing that just really gets me. I've been polite up until now, listening to the whole of Idol stars and their mostly horrible voices become music phenomena that have taken the world by storm. Goody for you. I still think that Kelly Clarkson has the most horrible voice ever. And while I'm pleased that Kris Allen (I think that's how you spell his name) won AI, because I thought he was the cuter of the two finalists, once he won I had hoped that would be the last that I heard about it.
But, of course, that could not be. Adam Lambert who was purportedly gay, and did nothing to dispel or confirm rumors of his sexuality was very popular. Now let me say that I dislike Adam Lambert because he used his sexuality and the ambiguity surrounding it (not to mention the pictures of him kissing other boys) to sort of clinch the gay vote (which I assume is not small considering AI). It was sort of a shitty marketing ploy to get people to think that he was gay, without actually coming out to say it. While I applaud people who actually say and think that their sexuality is nobody else's business but their own, I cannot abide by being purposefully ambiguous about it in order to become popular. BAD move Adam. And of course now, people are saying that the whole final voting thing was rigged. Uh...DUH? Hello? American Idol uses telephone votes...and it just occurred to you people now that the whole thing could be rigged? Hrm, the collective intelligence of AI supporters and fans is suspicious...
Of course no blog this week would be complete without me mentioning the failed Prop 8 ruling in CA. While I'm not a huge fan of gay marriage (see previous posts about my stance, since there aren't that many of them) I still empathize. Even I can see that this is a huge step backwards in the fight for equality. But, like a great many people, Dan Savage among them, I would think that patience would be a much better reaction than some other militants who would claim that marching all over the place and burning and killing people/things would solve anything. As Dan points out, its slow (agonizingly) but we're gaining ground. I've no doubt that we'll see a vast majority of rulings in the favor of equality in my lifetime. Which is good, but like all civil rights battles it takes time. Patience is a virtue that in regards to our rights as out and proud homosexuals we will afford.
Alright. Now this issue might be a bit touchy, but probably less so than the whole AI issue. My mother and my sister are devout Twilight readers and supporters, etc... They have also managed to corrupt my roommate into this literary fad. I myself, refuse to have anything at all to do with this drivel. Not only does the fact that it was even published show the degradation of American Literature, but it's also a bastardization of centuries of vampire lore! Most notably, vampires out in the sun without immolation? WTF?! NO, NO, and NO! From conception of the vampire monster, sunlight has been fatal for a vampire. They are creatures of the night, whether they are sensual or feral, beautiful of beastly, sunlight has always been a HUGE no no for vamps. While I'll agree that interpretations of the whole sunlight thing are okay [read: Buffy, Angel, Underworld, etc...] the fact remains that any significant amount of sunlight exposure causes vampires to become barbecue. To have them glisten or sparkle or whatever the hell she has them doing in sunlight other than become bonfires is to spit in the face of centuries of vampire myth, legend, and lore and does nothing but cause avid vampire enthusiasts to boycott your book.
Now it was recently pointed out to me by a friend that it's all make believe anyway, so why get up in arms. The problem comes when somebody decides to change centuries of lore. That would be like somebody rewriting the Bible. It just doesn't work. And there should be rules governing who can change these things about myth and legend. Of course that leads us to a free speech and censorship argument, but I'm not talking of banning rule changes, but presenting reasons why you want to change them, especially with centuries of lore saying the opposite! Not to mention that I liked vampires before they became the cool thing to like. Kinda like this webcomic indicates. That's my sentiment...the lawsuit notwithstanding.
Blah. I'm done. I promise I'll have something more productive next week.
I also realized that I haven't been able to/interested in reading much of the news, because my experience with the news lately has been nothing outside of listening to things about American Idol,Prop 8 stuff, and listening to my mother and my sister tell me how amazing Twilight is. And while I'm an avid Anti-Idolater (cute huh?), an empathize-r to my people regarding the whole gay marriage issue in CA and a die-hard vampire purist, I have to say, when am I going to stop hearing about it?
Before I get off on a tangent, let me just say that I think this is a horrible thing. Something like this would be akin to a school not allowing a report to be presented on...oh...I don't know...Martin Luther King Jr. because he upset the social norm. Well yeah...that's the idea of civil reform...at least that's how I work with it. Even better would be the prohibition of a report on George Washington because he was a rebel against his sovereign government. To deny a student who but in the work to come up with a report/presentation on a political figure that has been brought to light by recent movies and whatnot is just horrible and goes lengths to destroy a child's creative and autonomous spirit. I'm very happy that she made a big deal out of it, because it is a big deal.
Moving on...
American Idol is one thing that just really gets me. I've been polite up until now, listening to the whole of Idol stars and their mostly horrible voices become music phenomena that have taken the world by storm. Goody for you. I still think that Kelly Clarkson has the most horrible voice ever. And while I'm pleased that Kris Allen (I think that's how you spell his name) won AI, because I thought he was the cuter of the two finalists, once he won I had hoped that would be the last that I heard about it.
But, of course, that could not be. Adam Lambert who was purportedly gay, and did nothing to dispel or confirm rumors of his sexuality was very popular. Now let me say that I dislike Adam Lambert because he used his sexuality and the ambiguity surrounding it (not to mention the pictures of him kissing other boys) to sort of clinch the gay vote (which I assume is not small considering AI). It was sort of a shitty marketing ploy to get people to think that he was gay, without actually coming out to say it. While I applaud people who actually say and think that their sexuality is nobody else's business but their own, I cannot abide by being purposefully ambiguous about it in order to become popular. BAD move Adam. And of course now, people are saying that the whole final voting thing was rigged. Uh...DUH? Hello? American Idol uses telephone votes...and it just occurred to you people now that the whole thing could be rigged? Hrm, the collective intelligence of AI supporters and fans is suspicious...
Of course no blog this week would be complete without me mentioning the failed Prop 8 ruling in CA. While I'm not a huge fan of gay marriage (see previous posts about my stance, since there aren't that many of them) I still empathize. Even I can see that this is a huge step backwards in the fight for equality. But, like a great many people, Dan Savage among them, I would think that patience would be a much better reaction than some other militants who would claim that marching all over the place and burning and killing people/things would solve anything. As Dan points out, its slow (agonizingly) but we're gaining ground. I've no doubt that we'll see a vast majority of rulings in the favor of equality in my lifetime. Which is good, but like all civil rights battles it takes time. Patience is a virtue that in regards to our rights as out and proud homosexuals we will afford.
Alright. Now this issue might be a bit touchy, but probably less so than the whole AI issue. My mother and my sister are devout Twilight readers and supporters, etc... They have also managed to corrupt my roommate into this literary fad. I myself, refuse to have anything at all to do with this drivel. Not only does the fact that it was even published show the degradation of American Literature, but it's also a bastardization of centuries of vampire lore! Most notably, vampires out in the sun without immolation? WTF?! NO, NO, and NO! From conception of the vampire monster, sunlight has been fatal for a vampire. They are creatures of the night, whether they are sensual or feral, beautiful of beastly, sunlight has always been a HUGE no no for vamps. While I'll agree that interpretations of the whole sunlight thing are okay [read: Buffy, Angel, Underworld, etc...] the fact remains that any significant amount of sunlight exposure causes vampires to become barbecue. To have them glisten or sparkle or whatever the hell she has them doing in sunlight other than become bonfires is to spit in the face of centuries of vampire myth, legend, and lore and does nothing but cause avid vampire enthusiasts to boycott your book.
Now it was recently pointed out to me by a friend that it's all make believe anyway, so why get up in arms. The problem comes when somebody decides to change centuries of lore. That would be like somebody rewriting the Bible. It just doesn't work. And there should be rules governing who can change these things about myth and legend. Of course that leads us to a free speech and censorship argument, but I'm not talking of banning rule changes, but presenting reasons why you want to change them, especially with centuries of lore saying the opposite! Not to mention that I liked vampires before they became the cool thing to like. Kinda like this webcomic indicates. That's my sentiment...the lawsuit notwithstanding.
Blah. I'm done. I promise I'll have something more productive next week.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Student Debt and protecting children from domestic violence all while coexisting!
So another week, another round of various issues to tackle and comment on. And we all know that I'm full of commentary of various kinds. =P
I thought I'd start out talking about this article since I used to be a student not so long ago, and I'm still reeling from the fact that I haven't paid one cent back for my schooling. Why, you ask? Because of the lack of work in the American job market. That and because the cost of getting a Bachelors Degree is far more than the amount of money that you'll be making in any job you get post college in order to pay for that job. And they wonder why student credit is so high? Because there's no other way to pay for school.
Not only that, but I have to agree that college is a racket akin to gangs forcing protection money out of people or organized crime. First you have to pay to even set foot on the campus, then you have to pay for each class, then the food (which is horrible anyway), then the room/furniture, then anything else they want to tack on to your tuition (building new dorms, environmental projects, renovation fees, etc...). And after all of that, after draining you dry and sucking the marrow out of your financial skeleton, they expect you to cough up more money (up to additional thousands of dollars) for books for the classes that you've already paid for!
How do college administrators expect students to keep up with those costs. Not only that but how do they expect to remain in business and continue running their school when all but a fraction of the students who want a higher education can afford it. But then again this goes back to what I think is the problem with the American job market.
Problem is, I think, we have let ourselves believe that we, as Americans, are too good for menial labor. Those jobs as trash collectors, utility workers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, mechanics, pretty much anything that could be considered a trade (which you'll note, also require a modicum of hard work) Americans think they're too good for. We've allowed ourselves to think that we're beyond that because we have bought into this notion that you go to college, get an office job, and do what people do on TV who have office jobs. Boy, no wonder we're hosed economically.
Speaking of economics, have you heard this ridiculous idea of charging students a head tax at private universities? What the heck is up with that? As if (as I stated before) your [should be considered criminal] practices of screwing students out of all the money they will probably ever see isn't bad enough, now you want to tax them for your city so that you can attempt to wipe out the deficit? Have you no idea, Mr. Mayor exactly what college students bring to large cities such as yours?
I also think that its horribly unfair to slap such a tax on students, to
While we're still talking about students, let's shift a bit from economic woes to something a little different. This article which illustrates the token gay issue that I'll be blogging about, really gets me. Now I can't say for certain what the actual statistics are for heterosexual and homosexual domestic violence among adults and teens, etc... (even though 82% of all statistics are made up on the spot, or something like that). But I'd think that it would be a concern of lawmakers to protect the children who are victims of domestic/relationship violence no matter what.
The concern that allowing that protection would force the Dept. of Education to teach children about same-sex relationships is absurd. Not only that, but I think its telling about the blatant homophobia of the state, that even the notion that, as Rep. Joan Brady said "...excluding gay relationships is fine and declared that, “Traditional domestic violence occurs in a man-woman, boy-girl situation.”" I'm sorry, can I just ask how blind and stupid Rep. Brady is? Are you so wrapped up in your own hatred of those who don't agree with you that you're willing to ignore the dangers faced by the children who will one day be the voters who will vote for you or against you? Not only that, but sticking your head in the sand by denying that violence doesn't happen in same-sex relationships is pretty much saying "if I can't see it then it doesn't exist". Well let me illustrate the ostrich who sticks his head in ground in the middle of a dirt road because he's scared of the 18-wheeler that's barrelling toward him. You get the idea...
On a far more positive note, this article illustrates an issue that I've been talking about with people for the last 3 years at least. The issue that even though most Christians hold the belief that if one doesn't believe in/that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, they don't have to be jerks about it. There is a way to express your religious beliefs in such a way that it doesn't offend. Not only that, but if you attempt to show by example the love for others that Christianity espouses all the time, it may make a larger impact than browbeating people into believing what you believe.
Take me for example. I'm hopelessly Lutheran. But if you'll notice, one of my favorite symbols is the Yin Yang. I love that it symbolizes positive, and negative/good and bad. But the two dots mean that there's just a little evil in every good, and a little good in every evil. It symbolizes balance and harmony, which is something that I strive for in myself. And I think its a great symbol. I also believe in metaphysical things, which is not to say that I'm a believer in any sort of new age religion. I just know that there are forces in the world that we can't see, and that's ok. I also believe in the power of balance and the movement of positive/negative energy by means of meditation. Call me crazy, but it works, at least for me a whole mess of other people, so there's gotta be some truth to it.
See you next week!
I thought I'd start out talking about this article since I used to be a student not so long ago, and I'm still reeling from the fact that I haven't paid one cent back for my schooling. Why, you ask? Because of the lack of work in the American job market. That and because the cost of getting a Bachelors Degree is far more than the amount of money that you'll be making in any job you get post college in order to pay for that job. And they wonder why student credit is so high? Because there's no other way to pay for school.
Not only that, but I have to agree that college is a racket akin to gangs forcing protection money out of people or organized crime. First you have to pay to even set foot on the campus, then you have to pay for each class, then the food (which is horrible anyway), then the room/furniture, then anything else they want to tack on to your tuition (building new dorms, environmental projects, renovation fees, etc...). And after all of that, after draining you dry and sucking the marrow out of your financial skeleton, they expect you to cough up more money (up to additional thousands of dollars) for books for the classes that you've already paid for!
How do college administrators expect students to keep up with those costs. Not only that but how do they expect to remain in business and continue running their school when all but a fraction of the students who want a higher education can afford it. But then again this goes back to what I think is the problem with the American job market.
Problem is, I think, we have let ourselves believe that we, as Americans, are too good for menial labor. Those jobs as trash collectors, utility workers, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, mechanics, pretty much anything that could be considered a trade (which you'll note, also require a modicum of hard work) Americans think they're too good for. We've allowed ourselves to think that we're beyond that because we have bought into this notion that you go to college, get an office job, and do what people do on TV who have office jobs. Boy, no wonder we're hosed economically.
Speaking of economics, have you heard this ridiculous idea of charging students a head tax at private universities? What the heck is up with that? As if (as I stated before) your [should be considered criminal] practices of screwing students out of all the money they will probably ever see isn't bad enough, now you want to tax them for your city so that you can attempt to wipe out the deficit? Have you no idea, Mr. Mayor exactly what college students bring to large cities such as yours?
I also think that its horribly unfair to slap such a tax on students, to
"help ease the burden on struggling taxpayers."Uhm...last I checked, when I was in college, I was paying taxes. Which would make me a [really] struggling taxpayer, technically. So your solution to this whole problem is to take the taxpayers who are only in your city for the vast majority of the year, paying multiple thousands of dollars in tuition to be there, and other multiple thousands of dollars supporting the economy of your city by buying, selling, and otherwise using the services of your city, and slap more taxes on them. Why don't you just say what you really mean, and that is that you'd sacrifice the economic boost that the private colleges give your city for the sake of lowering taxes of your constituents so that you can be re-elected. Which is what you're going for anyway, isn't it Mr. Mayor? Like all politicians you're not concerned about the people who elected you, you're concerned about keeping your status position (and the nice fat salary and benefits that your taxpayers pay for, that I notice you're not ready to relinquish to help ease the burden on struggling taxpayers) so that you can remain on top and in the spotlight. Wonderful [/sarcasm]
While we're still talking about students, let's shift a bit from economic woes to something a little different. This article which illustrates the token gay issue that I'll be blogging about, really gets me. Now I can't say for certain what the actual statistics are for heterosexual and homosexual domestic violence among adults and teens, etc... (even though 82% of all statistics are made up on the spot, or something like that). But I'd think that it would be a concern of lawmakers to protect the children who are victims of domestic/relationship violence no matter what.
The concern that allowing that protection would force the Dept. of Education to teach children about same-sex relationships is absurd. Not only that, but I think its telling about the blatant homophobia of the state, that even the notion that, as Rep. Joan Brady said "...excluding gay relationships is fine and declared that, “Traditional domestic violence occurs in a man-woman, boy-girl situation.”" I'm sorry, can I just ask how blind and stupid Rep. Brady is? Are you so wrapped up in your own hatred of those who don't agree with you that you're willing to ignore the dangers faced by the children who will one day be the voters who will vote for you or against you? Not only that, but sticking your head in the sand by denying that violence doesn't happen in same-sex relationships is pretty much saying "if I can't see it then it doesn't exist". Well let me illustrate the ostrich who sticks his head in ground in the middle of a dirt road because he's scared of the 18-wheeler that's barrelling toward him. You get the idea...
On a far more positive note, this article illustrates an issue that I've been talking about with people for the last 3 years at least. The issue that even though most Christians hold the belief that if one doesn't believe in/that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, they don't have to be jerks about it. There is a way to express your religious beliefs in such a way that it doesn't offend. Not only that, but if you attempt to show by example the love for others that Christianity espouses all the time, it may make a larger impact than browbeating people into believing what you believe.
Take me for example. I'm hopelessly Lutheran. But if you'll notice, one of my favorite symbols is the Yin Yang. I love that it symbolizes positive, and negative/good and bad. But the two dots mean that there's just a little evil in every good, and a little good in every evil. It symbolizes balance and harmony, which is something that I strive for in myself. And I think its a great symbol. I also believe in metaphysical things, which is not to say that I'm a believer in any sort of new age religion. I just know that there are forces in the world that we can't see, and that's ok. I also believe in the power of balance and the movement of positive/negative energy by means of meditation. Call me crazy, but it works, at least for me a whole mess of other people, so there's gotta be some truth to it.
See you next week!
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
laissez-faire homosexualilty, gay marriage, and children
Well this weeks blog should be interesting. I've been able to do a lot of reading of news sites/stories and I came across some interesting articles and opinion pieces and my brain, in the zany way that it does stuff like this, found connections and started connecting dots that even I was shocked about. So, without further ado, lets get this party started...
So I came across this article and I had an interesting thought. First of all, let me just put it out there that Joe: The Plumber is the epitome of the thoughts/notions/feelings and general attitude of middle America. [/sarcasm] But I have a question about the laissez-faire homosexual. Are they next on our list of opponents to attack? What about the people who are homosexual but don't really have an opinion about gay rights or gay marriage? They just want to live their life without causing trouble and do the best they can. Which is not to say that when something finally ignites their passion, that they won't support the issues that they're passionate about, but on the whole gay issues don't seem to matter much to them in the face of living their everyday life. I only mention this because I'm sort of one of those kind of people. I'm gay, but I don't really have an opinion on most gay issues. I can see both sides, and I agree that there is injustice in the world, but I don't know if what we're currently doing to gain that equality is the right way to do it.
Let me explain, before I dig my hole too deeply. For example, lets take a look at gay marriage. I'm not opposed to gay marriage in and of itself, let me be clear. I think people should be able to be "married" to whomever they want. However, I am of the opinion that the gay marriage debate and all the protests surrounding it have more to do with the semantics of the word "marriage" than anything. Think about it: "marriage" is an institution of the Church (various churches, but I digress) which has long condemned homosexuality as sinful. Ok, fine. Which meant that it was exclusively a heterosexual thing. Also fine. But then marriage ended up granting both parties a whole bunch of benefits with the government that had absolutely nothing to do with the church (taxes, property, inheriting things, the ability to make medical decisions, etc...). Hypothetically this would be fine, if everyone in the world was heterosexual. The problem comes when you have a church body of some sort with their fingers in something that grants all sorts of civic/secular benefits. (Not to mention that in the Catholic Church, if I recall correctly Marriage is considered a sacrament, hence all the opposition)
So why would gay people want any part of the hetero/churchly "marriage" pie? Since the beginning of our culture, we have always sought to have our own community, our own bars, our own places were we could be accepted by our peers and others who supported us. They were our places, "gay" places if you will. And while I'll be the first to admit that some of the history surrounding these places is far from laudable, they were still ours. So the question then becomes, why not have something that grants all the civil/secular benefits, without having to involve the Church, which has condemned us for so long? Why don't we fight for something that we can call our own? (Again, I'm not against gay marriage, just to be clear. These are just my thoughts on the matter.) While my opinions aren't the answer, I think that it might be a step in the right direction in resolving this long grueling battle.
*Whew* Now I wonder how I went from talking about laissez-faire homosexuality all the way to gay marriage. Ah the wonders of my thought process.
So as I was combing through things, I read this article about something that I've been talking about with my friends and family for years. Mostly because I'm appalled at the way children act, speak, etc... It saddens me to think that the problem has gotten so bad that there are now news stories about the bad behavior that children have. This article goes on to talk about the parenting style that has resulted in this behavior of today's children, and I have to say that I couldn't agree more. Every time I hear a story or something regarding the horrible behavior of a child or children, my question is "Where are the Parents/Adults in this child's life?"
But then of course that doesn't work, because as the article states, parents of today are trying to deal with their own issues by giving their children all the attention or some crap, that they felt they never got. And then you have parents that would stand up to their little monsters, but fear the repercussions of the law and its agents. But, to sort of mirror the gay marriage battle, if parents really want to be able to take the power back into their hands, then they have to be willing to fight for it. They have to be willing to show that they are capable of disciplining their children appropriately, and to hell with the "consequences".
Now I'm absolutely NOT advocating abuse. But there's a difference between discipline and abuse. And while I'm not advocating any one sort of disciplinary practice (because I understand that discipline is subjective based on the circumstances) I'm all for there being consequences for actions that are of equal severity to the undesirable action. I can vividly remember mouthing off to my mother as a child, and getting slapped for it. (and I deserved it, because children should not speak to their mothers that way) and I threatened to call the police on her. She looked me dead in the face and told me to tell them to send an ambulance as well, because if she was going to jail for hitting me, she was going to make it worth it. (I never did call).
Now, while I think that's a VERY extreme example, I think it illustrates my point effectively. Parents need to stop being their child's friend, and take the responsibility of being a parent. And if the child doesn't like it, well too bad, they're not supposed to like it, that's why its called discipline.
On a sub-tangent, if you will, I read this article and I was almost moved to tears. Mostly because I was a bullied child in school, to the point that I often thought about suicide, but I never went through with it, because there was always little bright spots to focus on. I couldn't imagine going through school without seeing any of those little glimpses of the goodness that some people can show. After being moved I then got angry.
I know that bullying has changed since I was growing up. Now instead of being physically pushed into the girls' restroom, or upended into a garbage can (thankfully it was mostly empty at the time, and filled with paper) nowadays you're likely to end up in the hospital or dead or assaulted or something worse. And this goes back to adults in the lives of children taking back the power. We need to get something in place to prevent things like this from happening. Even if it's only some sort of incentive for school officials and administrators to begin acknowledging that this behavior happens, and a "boys will be boys" sort of policy is not acceptable, in any way, not anymore.
It even says in the article that his mom tried to get something done by going to the school officials. Obviously nothing was done, because in the end the boy ended up hanging himself. Going back to the whole issue of adults taking back their disciplinary power, can I just say that I think it's totally unfair to expect teachers to be raising children. They are not there to raise/babysit other people's children. Nor are they there to make sure that the moral/ethical/and religious values of the parents are instilled in the children. Teachers exists solely to teach children basic facts and an curriculum that is agreed to by politicians and other teachers (or so I'm led to believe). But they have no power to enforce the rules of the school. There are no consequences for children who misbehave, because there can't be. The only thing they do is remove them from school via suspensions and expulsions. But that's what the ill mannered ones want, to NOT be in school. So giving them what they want, when they engage in malicious and hurtful behavior does what again...?
I was also a touch perturbed with the gay community, which is known (even if stereotypically so) to be the most aware of this sort of thing. While we were busy fighting for equality, and gay marriage, this sort of issue slipped through the cracks of our attention. Children, the future of all cultures, gay, straight, and everything else are killing themselves because there isn't anyone there to help them or save them, or teach them what is acceptable behavior. And this isn't high school aged children, this concerns children of middle school ages who aren't even fully aware of their own sexuality. Their peers aren't either, and they're simply targeting children who are different, and calling them gay, queer, and fag. This behavior is simply a parroting of what they hear in other places.
I was so glad that those commercials have come out where stars (among them Hillary Duff and Wanda Sykes) have said basically that the word gay is not synonymous with stupid. A fabulous effort to get young people to change their expression "that's so gay". Also this article which is exactly what I think we need in schools. I also think that we need something in place to make certain that it is enforced, because too often as we have seen with things like the "No Child Left Behind Act" that we can't rely on the reports of the administrators about things like this. We have to have something in place where this sort of thing can be actually monitored, so we don't have to rely on reports generated by administrators who's sole concern is the money and funding, not the children. Sweeping reforms of policy is probably the best way to deal with this right now, but how long before even that fails to protect the children of today from hatred and intolerance.
Ok, so now that I've thoroughly exhausted my creativity and inspiration for awhile, I'll leave you with that, and I'll be back next week.
So I came across this article and I had an interesting thought. First of all, let me just put it out there that Joe: The Plumber is the epitome of the thoughts/notions/feelings and general attitude of middle America. [/sarcasm] But I have a question about the laissez-faire homosexual. Are they next on our list of opponents to attack? What about the people who are homosexual but don't really have an opinion about gay rights or gay marriage? They just want to live their life without causing trouble and do the best they can. Which is not to say that when something finally ignites their passion, that they won't support the issues that they're passionate about, but on the whole gay issues don't seem to matter much to them in the face of living their everyday life. I only mention this because I'm sort of one of those kind of people. I'm gay, but I don't really have an opinion on most gay issues. I can see both sides, and I agree that there is injustice in the world, but I don't know if what we're currently doing to gain that equality is the right way to do it.
Let me explain, before I dig my hole too deeply. For example, lets take a look at gay marriage. I'm not opposed to gay marriage in and of itself, let me be clear. I think people should be able to be "married" to whomever they want. However, I am of the opinion that the gay marriage debate and all the protests surrounding it have more to do with the semantics of the word "marriage" than anything. Think about it: "marriage" is an institution of the Church (various churches, but I digress) which has long condemned homosexuality as sinful. Ok, fine. Which meant that it was exclusively a heterosexual thing. Also fine. But then marriage ended up granting both parties a whole bunch of benefits with the government that had absolutely nothing to do with the church (taxes, property, inheriting things, the ability to make medical decisions, etc...). Hypothetically this would be fine, if everyone in the world was heterosexual. The problem comes when you have a church body of some sort with their fingers in something that grants all sorts of civic/secular benefits. (Not to mention that in the Catholic Church, if I recall correctly Marriage is considered a sacrament, hence all the opposition)
So why would gay people want any part of the hetero/churchly "marriage" pie? Since the beginning of our culture, we have always sought to have our own community, our own bars, our own places were we could be accepted by our peers and others who supported us. They were our places, "gay" places if you will. And while I'll be the first to admit that some of the history surrounding these places is far from laudable, they were still ours. So the question then becomes, why not have something that grants all the civil/secular benefits, without having to involve the Church, which has condemned us for so long? Why don't we fight for something that we can call our own? (Again, I'm not against gay marriage, just to be clear. These are just my thoughts on the matter.) While my opinions aren't the answer, I think that it might be a step in the right direction in resolving this long grueling battle.
*Whew* Now I wonder how I went from talking about laissez-faire homosexuality all the way to gay marriage. Ah the wonders of my thought process.
So as I was combing through things, I read this article about something that I've been talking about with my friends and family for years. Mostly because I'm appalled at the way children act, speak, etc... It saddens me to think that the problem has gotten so bad that there are now news stories about the bad behavior that children have. This article goes on to talk about the parenting style that has resulted in this behavior of today's children, and I have to say that I couldn't agree more. Every time I hear a story or something regarding the horrible behavior of a child or children, my question is "Where are the Parents/Adults in this child's life?"
But then of course that doesn't work, because as the article states, parents of today are trying to deal with their own issues by giving their children all the attention or some crap, that they felt they never got. And then you have parents that would stand up to their little monsters, but fear the repercussions of the law and its agents. But, to sort of mirror the gay marriage battle, if parents really want to be able to take the power back into their hands, then they have to be willing to fight for it. They have to be willing to show that they are capable of disciplining their children appropriately, and to hell with the "consequences".
Now I'm absolutely NOT advocating abuse. But there's a difference between discipline and abuse. And while I'm not advocating any one sort of disciplinary practice (because I understand that discipline is subjective based on the circumstances) I'm all for there being consequences for actions that are of equal severity to the undesirable action. I can vividly remember mouthing off to my mother as a child, and getting slapped for it. (and I deserved it, because children should not speak to their mothers that way) and I threatened to call the police on her. She looked me dead in the face and told me to tell them to send an ambulance as well, because if she was going to jail for hitting me, she was going to make it worth it. (I never did call).
Now, while I think that's a VERY extreme example, I think it illustrates my point effectively. Parents need to stop being their child's friend, and take the responsibility of being a parent. And if the child doesn't like it, well too bad, they're not supposed to like it, that's why its called discipline.
On a sub-tangent, if you will, I read this article and I was almost moved to tears. Mostly because I was a bullied child in school, to the point that I often thought about suicide, but I never went through with it, because there was always little bright spots to focus on. I couldn't imagine going through school without seeing any of those little glimpses of the goodness that some people can show. After being moved I then got angry.
I know that bullying has changed since I was growing up. Now instead of being physically pushed into the girls' restroom, or upended into a garbage can (thankfully it was mostly empty at the time, and filled with paper) nowadays you're likely to end up in the hospital or dead or assaulted or something worse. And this goes back to adults in the lives of children taking back the power. We need to get something in place to prevent things like this from happening. Even if it's only some sort of incentive for school officials and administrators to begin acknowledging that this behavior happens, and a "boys will be boys" sort of policy is not acceptable, in any way, not anymore.
It even says in the article that his mom tried to get something done by going to the school officials. Obviously nothing was done, because in the end the boy ended up hanging himself. Going back to the whole issue of adults taking back their disciplinary power, can I just say that I think it's totally unfair to expect teachers to be raising children. They are not there to raise/babysit other people's children. Nor are they there to make sure that the moral/ethical/and religious values of the parents are instilled in the children. Teachers exists solely to teach children basic facts and an curriculum that is agreed to by politicians and other teachers (or so I'm led to believe). But they have no power to enforce the rules of the school. There are no consequences for children who misbehave, because there can't be. The only thing they do is remove them from school via suspensions and expulsions. But that's what the ill mannered ones want, to NOT be in school. So giving them what they want, when they engage in malicious and hurtful behavior does what again...?
I was also a touch perturbed with the gay community, which is known (even if stereotypically so) to be the most aware of this sort of thing. While we were busy fighting for equality, and gay marriage, this sort of issue slipped through the cracks of our attention. Children, the future of all cultures, gay, straight, and everything else are killing themselves because there isn't anyone there to help them or save them, or teach them what is acceptable behavior. And this isn't high school aged children, this concerns children of middle school ages who aren't even fully aware of their own sexuality. Their peers aren't either, and they're simply targeting children who are different, and calling them gay, queer, and fag. This behavior is simply a parroting of what they hear in other places.
I was so glad that those commercials have come out where stars (among them Hillary Duff and Wanda Sykes) have said basically that the word gay is not synonymous with stupid. A fabulous effort to get young people to change their expression "that's so gay". Also this article which is exactly what I think we need in schools. I also think that we need something in place to make certain that it is enforced, because too often as we have seen with things like the "No Child Left Behind Act" that we can't rely on the reports of the administrators about things like this. We have to have something in place where this sort of thing can be actually monitored, so we don't have to rely on reports generated by administrators who's sole concern is the money and funding, not the children. Sweeping reforms of policy is probably the best way to deal with this right now, but how long before even that fails to protect the children of today from hatred and intolerance.
Ok, so now that I've thoroughly exhausted my creativity and inspiration for awhile, I'll leave you with that, and I'll be back next week.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
New Blog Resolutions...
So I've been thinking for some time that I need to blog more. But as I say in my description I would like to blog about things that actually matter. (Now whether they only matter to me or not, has nothing to do with this at all) But at least that way I'm letting my thoughts be heard and I can just babble on about stuff that only I and my few select readers will care about.
I realize its been quite awhile since my last post. Lots of things have happened. Lost a job, and gained a job. Lost an apartment, gained a house with a roommate. Lost Dubya and gained Obama. Gained a significant other. Wow, lots of sweeping life changes in a few short months. All good, seemingly. I'm also optimistic that more goodness is on it's way down the pike.
In other news, have you come across this article? This is an article that I read, and couldn't believe. Now, while I'm not horribly surprised to see that this incident happened in Kentucky of all places, I'm also shocked to noted that this little firestorm happened over two girls kissing in the bathroom. One would think that such an extreme reaction could only occur when the complaint surrounded seeing two boys kissing. And while we're on the subject, notice in the first paragraph of the story it says that the missive from the VP was to "bar gay students from leaving class to use the restroom." But later in the same article, in reference the website of the school regarding the directive it says "that students have not been singled out".
I'm sorry, when you send a memo to your staff advising them to not let "gay students" leave to use the restroom during class, you're singling people out. Not only that, but you're also opening the door for the interpretation of sexual orientation by the teacher's standards. Which basically means that a teacher could refuse to allow a student to use the facilities simply because he/she may think that particular student is gay. And what would that assumption/thought be based on, I ask you?
In keeping with my interest in churchly things however, I came across this article and thought it was an interesting read. Now, I'm not hoping to get into a debate about whether or not gay clergy is good, bad, christian, godly or what have you. Also, I'm not trying to get into a debate regarding progress or lack of it regarding gay clergy. My point is, in regards to the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) is that if you're going to vote to accept and ordain gay clergy, why lay such restrictions on them such as celibacy.
In my mind, if you're going to accept gay clergy, and then put restrictions on them that you wouldn't put on heterosexual clergy members, then you're not really accepting gay clergy. If the requirement for hetero clergy is to be single and celibate, or in a committed monogamous relationship with your significant other, then why wouldn't that requirement also be acceptable and the norm for your homo clergy as well? Double standards abound.
So awhile ago, my roommate and I were returning home from Easter travels to my grandparents land in central/north central WI. My roommate was pulled over for having fuzzy dice hanging from her rearview mirror. When she asked what the issue with the dice was, she was told that it was a "visual obstruction" While she didn't get a ticket or anything, and it was just really stupid and annoying, I didn't think anything of it. Until yesterday.
I was being driven home from a dinner date, and I looked out the side window as we passed a car on the highway. And there, affixed to the windshield of the car, was a small GPS screen gadget, right about the same place as fuzzy dice would hang. (Can you see where this is going yet?) I am appalled at this. Why would you allow such technology to be less of an issue(because let's face it, a small screen with map that shows you where you are, that you have to interact with as you're hurtling down the road at 70 mph in a large metal box on wheels is a MUCH bigger distraction than a pair of fuzzy ol' dice) than dice. So I'm going on a quest to petition the state to change the law. Or at least enforce the law to the hilt. If fuzzy dice are a visual distraction/obstruction, then so should the GPS devices that mount onto your windshield under your rearview mirror. There should be no picking and choosing which counts as a visual obstruction and which doesn't.
On a totally different note, I'm mad at Disney. I was looking for a copy of The Little Mermaid on DVD last night, and was informed by the staff at Best Buy that the movie in question was back in "the vault". Now I understand the marketing ploy, and I think that its pure genius, but it's still a huge inconvenience to me as a fan because I'm now to the point where I'm capable of buying all the DVDs to replace my VHS (does anyone even know what they are anymore?) and I want copies. And now they're in "the vault" which severly hampers my ability to aquire these movies. Not to mention that it's horrible for the income of places like Target, and Wal-Mart. I was able to find copies of things that I wanted, on Amazon.com (which is wonderful for shopping) for a decent price. Just my two cents.
Alright, I think I've complained enough and given just enough real thoughtful commentary on things to make this blog worthwhile. Also, I'm thinking that a once a week blog would be a smart idea. I reserve the right to blog more, but I'm thinking that if I can manage once a week to blog about something creative or in response to some news story or other sort of thing, we'll be good. So look for a new blog next week sometime. Ta!
I realize its been quite awhile since my last post. Lots of things have happened. Lost a job, and gained a job. Lost an apartment, gained a house with a roommate. Lost Dubya and gained Obama. Gained a significant other. Wow, lots of sweeping life changes in a few short months. All good, seemingly. I'm also optimistic that more goodness is on it's way down the pike.
In other news, have you come across this article? This is an article that I read, and couldn't believe. Now, while I'm not horribly surprised to see that this incident happened in Kentucky of all places, I'm also shocked to noted that this little firestorm happened over two girls kissing in the bathroom. One would think that such an extreme reaction could only occur when the complaint surrounded seeing two boys kissing. And while we're on the subject, notice in the first paragraph of the story it says that the missive from the VP was to "bar gay students from leaving class to use the restroom." But later in the same article, in reference the website of the school regarding the directive it says "that students have not been singled out".
I'm sorry, when you send a memo to your staff advising them to not let "gay students" leave to use the restroom during class, you're singling people out. Not only that, but you're also opening the door for the interpretation of sexual orientation by the teacher's standards. Which basically means that a teacher could refuse to allow a student to use the facilities simply because he/she may think that particular student is gay. And what would that assumption/thought be based on, I ask you?
In keeping with my interest in churchly things however, I came across this article and thought it was an interesting read. Now, I'm not hoping to get into a debate about whether or not gay clergy is good, bad, christian, godly or what have you. Also, I'm not trying to get into a debate regarding progress or lack of it regarding gay clergy. My point is, in regards to the ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) is that if you're going to vote to accept and ordain gay clergy, why lay such restrictions on them such as celibacy.
In my mind, if you're going to accept gay clergy, and then put restrictions on them that you wouldn't put on heterosexual clergy members, then you're not really accepting gay clergy. If the requirement for hetero clergy is to be single and celibate, or in a committed monogamous relationship with your significant other, then why wouldn't that requirement also be acceptable and the norm for your homo clergy as well? Double standards abound.
So awhile ago, my roommate and I were returning home from Easter travels to my grandparents land in central/north central WI. My roommate was pulled over for having fuzzy dice hanging from her rearview mirror. When she asked what the issue with the dice was, she was told that it was a "visual obstruction" While she didn't get a ticket or anything, and it was just really stupid and annoying, I didn't think anything of it. Until yesterday.
I was being driven home from a dinner date, and I looked out the side window as we passed a car on the highway. And there, affixed to the windshield of the car, was a small GPS screen gadget, right about the same place as fuzzy dice would hang. (Can you see where this is going yet?) I am appalled at this. Why would you allow such technology to be less of an issue(because let's face it, a small screen with map that shows you where you are, that you have to interact with as you're hurtling down the road at 70 mph in a large metal box on wheels is a MUCH bigger distraction than a pair of fuzzy ol' dice) than dice. So I'm going on a quest to petition the state to change the law. Or at least enforce the law to the hilt. If fuzzy dice are a visual distraction/obstruction, then so should the GPS devices that mount onto your windshield under your rearview mirror. There should be no picking and choosing which counts as a visual obstruction and which doesn't.
On a totally different note, I'm mad at Disney. I was looking for a copy of The Little Mermaid on DVD last night, and was informed by the staff at Best Buy that the movie in question was back in "the vault". Now I understand the marketing ploy, and I think that its pure genius, but it's still a huge inconvenience to me as a fan because I'm now to the point where I'm capable of buying all the DVDs to replace my VHS (does anyone even know what they are anymore?) and I want copies. And now they're in "the vault" which severly hampers my ability to aquire these movies. Not to mention that it's horrible for the income of places like Target, and Wal-Mart. I was able to find copies of things that I wanted, on Amazon.com (which is wonderful for shopping) for a decent price. Just my two cents.
Alright, I think I've complained enough and given just enough real thoughtful commentary on things to make this blog worthwhile. Also, I'm thinking that a once a week blog would be a smart idea. I reserve the right to blog more, but I'm thinking that if I can manage once a week to blog about something creative or in response to some news story or other sort of thing, we'll be good. So look for a new blog next week sometime. Ta!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
