I don't have anything to say about the State of the Union Address because I had to work and haven't watched it yet. I may or may not watch it, ergo there may not be a post about my thoughts about it.
I will post about this article regarding some ads for Doritos that aren't going to air during the Superbowl (things that make you go bleugh) because...well I'll let you be the judge. All I know is I find them entertaining and the one with the 2 guys by the pool caused me to laugh out loud, which doesn't often happen due to a commercial.
Channeling the spirit of Carlin, I've been doing all this writing and haven't started complaining yet. The following is something that I've been noticing for a long time and finally saying something about.
A disturbing trend I've noticed in gay personal ads is that there's an increasing number of "straight" (note the quotes) guys who want to have sex with other guys. Sometimes even on a regular basis. But they're not "gay", according to them. Can I just make one thing clear? If you like to have sex with men on a regular basis at the very least you should be able to admit that you're bi. At the other end of the spectrum you're a self hating homo. At least have the self respect and stop lying about it. And another thing, there's all this "discreet" crap. I'm sorry, before I came out it was called "closeted". Discreet is just a nicer/fancier term for "being in the closet". If I'm reading a personal ad, the biggest turn off for a guy looking for another guy is to say that he is discreet or requires his sex partner to be discreet. HUGE turn off. And lastly we have the proliferation of the masculine thing. They want "masculine" guys, not "femmy" guys. Who determines what is masculine and what is "femmy", may I ask? Is there a certain way to look, talk, dress, etc that determines the difference between masculine guys and "femmy" guys? And why don't straight guys ever say they want a butch woman? Just some things to think about. Gay men come in all shapes, sizes, and such. For a community that effectively preaches about openness and tolerance we are a very judgmental and intolerant community.
On a completely different note, it occurs to me that the reason that equality can't move forward is because of numbers. We [the GLBT/LGBT/LGBTQIA] community are still looked at as a minority. And no wonder with the increase of members of our own community to indulge in the very things that define our community and sets us apart from the majority, but refuse to accept the label of the community. I wonder if it ever occurred to some people that if more people admitted and accepted that they are a member of this minority community, those in power would see that we are greater in number than anybody thinks, and equality could finally move forward for a greater number of oppressed US citizens.
On to more important issues, like censorship. Great fun this censoring of words and images to protect the impressionable young children of these "United" States from the horrors of the "Gay Agenda". Read this article, and tell me that things have not gotten out of hand. Last time I checked a photo of 2 men and a baby (of which there's a movie that isn't censored about 3 men and a baby) is not censor worthy matieral. And in no way is it "damaging". Not to mention it's outrageous to subject a family photo to the same censorship levels as Maxim and Playboy, simply because the parents are the same sex. 2 loving parents and their child is in no way damaging to anyone. (Update: the shields have been taken down, but putting them up because "some customers complained" not only is censorship, but also takes away the rights of others, and doesn't address the larger problem.)
An additional censorship issue can be read about here. Rather than fight to keep the video in an exhibit to show contributions to the world of Art by Gay artists, they caved to mounting pressure and their principles have eroded as far as artistic integrity. But this article moves us into another interesting discussion I think.
Another discussion which is illustrated in this article is that how is the LGBT community supposed to fight for equality when our opposition has the funds of the republican party to draw on? Not to mention the funds of various anti-gay churches who throw their support (and money) behind such people. Meanwhile homosexual individuals who sue or what have you and attempt to make a stand for equality must pay for things out of their own pocket with little to no financial support. Granted a few of them find help with pro gay organizations, such as the ACLU or the HRC, but still a vast number of them [gay individuals] are left with huge debt in the name of making a stand for equality. Blog posts, Facebook posts, and other such forms of protest are good, but ultimately empty if we don't stick together as a community and support one another with the same fervor and sense of community that our opposition does. Without that sense of cohesive community, is it any wonder that we can't advance the cause of equality?
Wow, this was a deep post. I didn't expect to get that into these issue, but oh well. Happy Wednesday.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Interesting times
So, here we are in week 2 of the NYR of blogging more. Although after talking with a friend of mine, I have amended my NYR, essentially to writing more. I just feel that if I were to focus more on writing (and I mean anything, blogging, journal-ing, writing fiction, etc...) I might feel better with that sort of creative outlet.
Anyway, on to the main event. This story I came across when going to check my email (although I heard about it earlier than this morning. I have said before and I will say it again. I firmly believe that our elected officials should be subject to the same rules that a jury is. They shouldn't let their personal views or morality (whatever the genesis of those beliefs may be) to influence public policy. They should look at the concerns of their constituents and protect the rights of the people. All people.
Next we have yet another story about bullying related suicide. And while I find bullying reprehensible in all forms, I also think that we really need to look at all the factors before we jump to conclusions. If you look at the bottom of the story, it says that the boys father received a call from the cororner about an enlarged heart and a coronary edema. A coronary edema is basically another way to say Pulmonary Edema which is also Congestive Heart Failure. More info can be found here. That link also has links for more information. I'm a proponent of ridding schools and whatnot from bullying, but let's not go tacking a suicide label on every teenage death in hopes of using it to support an agenda. Sometimes people, even young people, die. And while it's sad, it's not always due to bullying.
In an effort to help reduce the stigma and homophobia from black communities, not to mention help reduce the risk of HIV infection in the African-American communities, some communities in the NY area have been putting up billboards. Naturally with such a prominent display of gay pride, even with the good intentions behind it, there has been issues. If you read the article it claims that a city councilman thinks it sends the wrong message to children. This blog/article (I'm not sure what to label it as) goes on to say that a daycare provider has issues because she doesn't want to have that discussion with her charges. Whatever happened to telling them that they should ask their parents, and have parents actually do some parenting? And (obviously) local ministers have issue with the billboards as it "goes against God's purpose". Now I'm not going to get into a huge (and deep, and minute) theological debate, but if the purpose is supposed to be what is mentioned above, and also has the possibility of reducing violence, how is that a bad thing? The minister is quoted as saying something about a 13 year old realizing they are gay due to these billboards. Well, looking at a billboard isn't going to turn people gay. Just so you know. And how does showing guys playing basketball or standing with their families (the only two billboards shown in the articles) equate sex? Fortunately the boards are protected by the first amendment, but there's no telling how long before someone finds enough issue with them to challenge even that.
On a happier note, in the UK a blow was struck for gay rights when a gay couple was awarded damages for being denied a hotel room. Even though it happened in 2008, with the state of legal systems, it still sets precedent. You can read about it here.
So while not the deepest and most provocative blog it's something. I'm not really into blogging today, ergo shorter blog without much opinion spewing. But since I need to write more, at least I'm getting the old synapses firing.
Anyway, on to the main event. This story I came across when going to check my email (although I heard about it earlier than this morning. I have said before and I will say it again. I firmly believe that our elected officials should be subject to the same rules that a jury is. They shouldn't let their personal views or morality (whatever the genesis of those beliefs may be) to influence public policy. They should look at the concerns of their constituents and protect the rights of the people. All people.
Next we have yet another story about bullying related suicide. And while I find bullying reprehensible in all forms, I also think that we really need to look at all the factors before we jump to conclusions. If you look at the bottom of the story, it says that the boys father received a call from the cororner about an enlarged heart and a coronary edema. A coronary edema is basically another way to say Pulmonary Edema which is also Congestive Heart Failure. More info can be found here. That link also has links for more information. I'm a proponent of ridding schools and whatnot from bullying, but let's not go tacking a suicide label on every teenage death in hopes of using it to support an agenda. Sometimes people, even young people, die. And while it's sad, it's not always due to bullying.
In an effort to help reduce the stigma and homophobia from black communities, not to mention help reduce the risk of HIV infection in the African-American communities, some communities in the NY area have been putting up billboards. Naturally with such a prominent display of gay pride, even with the good intentions behind it, there has been issues. If you read the article it claims that a city councilman thinks it sends the wrong message to children. This blog/article (I'm not sure what to label it as) goes on to say that a daycare provider has issues because she doesn't want to have that discussion with her charges. Whatever happened to telling them that they should ask their parents, and have parents actually do some parenting? And (obviously) local ministers have issue with the billboards as it "goes against God's purpose". Now I'm not going to get into a huge (and deep, and minute) theological debate, but if the purpose is supposed to be what is mentioned above, and also has the possibility of reducing violence, how is that a bad thing? The minister is quoted as saying something about a 13 year old realizing they are gay due to these billboards. Well, looking at a billboard isn't going to turn people gay. Just so you know. And how does showing guys playing basketball or standing with their families (the only two billboards shown in the articles) equate sex? Fortunately the boards are protected by the first amendment, but there's no telling how long before someone finds enough issue with them to challenge even that.
On a happier note, in the UK a blow was struck for gay rights when a gay couple was awarded damages for being denied a hotel room. Even though it happened in 2008, with the state of legal systems, it still sets precedent. You can read about it here.
So while not the deepest and most provocative blog it's something. I'm not really into blogging today, ergo shorter blog without much opinion spewing. But since I need to write more, at least I'm getting the old synapses firing.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The return...
Well, it's been awhile since I've been here it seems. *cough* There's quite a bit of cleaning to do apparently *wipes away the cobwebs around the blog, sending dust flying* Although it hasn't been as long as I thought. But apparently the holidays makes 2 months seem really really long. The only thing that makes me remotely depressed is thinking about where to start with my commentary on life in the new year. Things have been good and bad all at once it seems. Well, we'll do what I do when someone says I have good news and bad news. I always take the bad news first, that way the good news seems better/makes the bad news not seem so bad. I think.
A couple of days ago a seriously disturbed young man opened fire with a handgun at a grocery store in Arizona, seriously injuring and killing some people. Among those seriously injured was Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona) and others on her congressional staff. Among those killed was 9 year old Christina Taylor Green.
Now a lot of things have been said regarding this whole issue, among them that the young man responsible (and I believe he is and should be held responsible.) is evil. I think that is a poor choice of words. I would stay disturbed more correctly illustrates why he did what he did. And I think that also shines the light into an issue that we have been ignoring as the political rhetoric and debate gets slightly out of hand around here.
Whether we like it or not, there will always be people in power who are in the spotlight. Whether these people are movie stars, rock stars, politicians, or what have you. The fact of the matter is that these people hold enormous influence by virtue of their publicity and the reach of that publicity. With the advent of twitter, skype, facebook, and 24 hour news, anything that is said, even if it is off the cuff or supposed to be private, is nearly instantaneously transmitted around the world for all to read. This fact holds in itself immense power, whether those subjected to it want to see it that way or not. Blessings and curses all around.
Now, whether anyone wants to admit fault for the whole extreme rhetoric thing is not my point. Just as the young man should be held accountable for his actions in the shooting, so too should politicians and others in the spotlight be held accountable (and politicians even to a higher standard because they are representatives in public office) for what they say. Because while words are powerful (again whether you want to admit that or not) a person in the public forum saying things or expressing their opinions have to realize that with the exposure given to those words and ideas it is possible that those ideas could find their way to the ears of those who might take them out of context and such things. So while the criminals should be held accountable for the crimes that they commit, looking for the contributing factors as to why they committed such crimes could help us to keep such things from happening in the future.
Now, along with personal responsibility, I could mention something about the recent comments regarding a Blood Libel by a person who holds considerable sway in the conservative political arena here in the US. Now, I think it shows enormous lack of forethought and horrible judgement to use such a phrase when talking about taking personal responsibility for the things that we say and do. A blood liable is defined as (an actual definition not touched by these comments was not readily available, illustrating the instantaneous-ness of the transmission of information via the internet) an anti-Semitic lie regarding the killing of christian children for the purposes of using their blood for their religious rituals. (It was the best "definition" I could find, if I'm incorrect please let me know and I'll correct it immediately.) After looking up the actual definition of the term, I think that this particular person should exercise a great deal more forethought before she lets loose her comments, thoughts, and opinions into the public arena.
In other news, a massive fish kill and bird kill in Arkansas happened in recent weeks. (I know I'm a little behind in the news, we'll get there in a minute). But what you don't know is that come Christian leaders are claiming that the deaths of the wildlife are directly related to the repeal of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell". Cindy Jacobs appears on a YouTube video claiming that the deaths are directly related to the repeal of "DADT" because the nation is going against scripture and going against God. You can see the video here. (I'm not posing that vitriol on my blog). And yes, I will take responsibly for referring to her video as vitriol. =P
Now, despite her appeal about biblical principles, which I could. But it would take a lot of time and such things. Anyway, suffice it to say that need I remind people that this is not an exclusively Christian nation. Our founding fathers created a nation with a freedom of religion. Which means that our nation is home to thousands if not millions of different faiths, all of which, according to the Constitution, have a place here. To claim anything else, at least politically, would be false and not at all what was supposed to be. Ergo, I believe that just like we ask juries on criminal trials to set aside personal, religious, and other beliefs, so too should we ask our politicians to do the same and cast votes based on the majority opinion of their constituents.
Additionally, Arizona passed emergency legislation prohibiting the protesting of *that group*, at the funerals of those who died in the aforementioned shooting. To which I say, about time. I think it's interesting that nobody made a huge stink about *that group* when they were protesting at the funerals of AIDS victims or the funeral of dead soldiers. The claim was that members of *that group* have the right of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But, again I ask, when do the rights of the grieving trump the right for religious or political posturing? Apparently at the funeral of a murdered 9 year old. I just think it is sad that it took the death of a child for people to realize the horror of what *that group* does, despite the fact that the gay community has been dealing with their awfulness for years.
So, on a lighter note, a friend of mine inspired me to set some New Years Resolutions (NYRs) and stick to them. I have 4 total, which while not a lot are all things that needed to be dealt with. 1. Personal (but completed), 2 - Stop actively looking for a boyfriend. I figure this is less negative than it needs to be in that I think of it not as a stopping of looking but a redirection of my energies. 3 - Stop doing stupid stuff (and yes this is a euphemism, and anyone who knows me knows what it means) and I've been relatively successful regarding it, but it's only day 12 of 365. Let's see how it unfolds. 4 - Blog more. I figure I've got Wednesdays off, I can spend them doing something productive and creative, which is researching some news stories and indulging in a little journalistic foray.
Needless to say, here's to a new year and may it be better than the last. In all aspects. As always, I welcome comments and such things provided they are in the spirit of ongoing discourse about issues.
A couple of days ago a seriously disturbed young man opened fire with a handgun at a grocery store in Arizona, seriously injuring and killing some people. Among those seriously injured was Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona) and others on her congressional staff. Among those killed was 9 year old Christina Taylor Green.
Now a lot of things have been said regarding this whole issue, among them that the young man responsible (and I believe he is and should be held responsible.) is evil. I think that is a poor choice of words. I would stay disturbed more correctly illustrates why he did what he did. And I think that also shines the light into an issue that we have been ignoring as the political rhetoric and debate gets slightly out of hand around here.
Whether we like it or not, there will always be people in power who are in the spotlight. Whether these people are movie stars, rock stars, politicians, or what have you. The fact of the matter is that these people hold enormous influence by virtue of their publicity and the reach of that publicity. With the advent of twitter, skype, facebook, and 24 hour news, anything that is said, even if it is off the cuff or supposed to be private, is nearly instantaneously transmitted around the world for all to read. This fact holds in itself immense power, whether those subjected to it want to see it that way or not. Blessings and curses all around.
Now, whether anyone wants to admit fault for the whole extreme rhetoric thing is not my point. Just as the young man should be held accountable for his actions in the shooting, so too should politicians and others in the spotlight be held accountable (and politicians even to a higher standard because they are representatives in public office) for what they say. Because while words are powerful (again whether you want to admit that or not) a person in the public forum saying things or expressing their opinions have to realize that with the exposure given to those words and ideas it is possible that those ideas could find their way to the ears of those who might take them out of context and such things. So while the criminals should be held accountable for the crimes that they commit, looking for the contributing factors as to why they committed such crimes could help us to keep such things from happening in the future.
Now, along with personal responsibility, I could mention something about the recent comments regarding a Blood Libel by a person who holds considerable sway in the conservative political arena here in the US. Now, I think it shows enormous lack of forethought and horrible judgement to use such a phrase when talking about taking personal responsibility for the things that we say and do. A blood liable is defined as (an actual definition not touched by these comments was not readily available, illustrating the instantaneous-ness of the transmission of information via the internet) an anti-Semitic lie regarding the killing of christian children for the purposes of using their blood for their religious rituals. (It was the best "definition" I could find, if I'm incorrect please let me know and I'll correct it immediately.) After looking up the actual definition of the term, I think that this particular person should exercise a great deal more forethought before she lets loose her comments, thoughts, and opinions into the public arena.
In other news, a massive fish kill and bird kill in Arkansas happened in recent weeks. (I know I'm a little behind in the news, we'll get there in a minute). But what you don't know is that come Christian leaders are claiming that the deaths of the wildlife are directly related to the repeal of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell". Cindy Jacobs appears on a YouTube video claiming that the deaths are directly related to the repeal of "DADT" because the nation is going against scripture and going against God. You can see the video here. (I'm not posing that vitriol on my blog). And yes, I will take responsibly for referring to her video as vitriol. =P
Now, despite her appeal about biblical principles, which I could. But it would take a lot of time and such things. Anyway, suffice it to say that need I remind people that this is not an exclusively Christian nation. Our founding fathers created a nation with a freedom of religion. Which means that our nation is home to thousands if not millions of different faiths, all of which, according to the Constitution, have a place here. To claim anything else, at least politically, would be false and not at all what was supposed to be. Ergo, I believe that just like we ask juries on criminal trials to set aside personal, religious, and other beliefs, so too should we ask our politicians to do the same and cast votes based on the majority opinion of their constituents.
Additionally, Arizona passed emergency legislation prohibiting the protesting of *that group*, at the funerals of those who died in the aforementioned shooting. To which I say, about time. I think it's interesting that nobody made a huge stink about *that group* when they were protesting at the funerals of AIDS victims or the funeral of dead soldiers. The claim was that members of *that group* have the right of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But, again I ask, when do the rights of the grieving trump the right for religious or political posturing? Apparently at the funeral of a murdered 9 year old. I just think it is sad that it took the death of a child for people to realize the horror of what *that group* does, despite the fact that the gay community has been dealing with their awfulness for years.
So, on a lighter note, a friend of mine inspired me to set some New Years Resolutions (NYRs) and stick to them. I have 4 total, which while not a lot are all things that needed to be dealt with. 1. Personal (but completed), 2 - Stop actively looking for a boyfriend. I figure this is less negative than it needs to be in that I think of it not as a stopping of looking but a redirection of my energies. 3 - Stop doing stupid stuff (and yes this is a euphemism, and anyone who knows me knows what it means) and I've been relatively successful regarding it, but it's only day 12 of 365. Let's see how it unfolds. 4 - Blog more. I figure I've got Wednesdays off, I can spend them doing something productive and creative, which is researching some news stories and indulging in a little journalistic foray.
Needless to say, here's to a new year and may it be better than the last. In all aspects. As always, I welcome comments and such things provided they are in the spirit of ongoing discourse about issues.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
