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.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
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)
