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.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
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!
Friday, October 17, 2008
This weeks blog
Alright, so there are a few things I'd like to blog about, simply because they're there.
One of them being the television show, Heroes. I love this show, and have followed it pseudo religiously since the day it started. And while I'm a huge fan of the show, I'm also a huge fan of something else. CONTINUITY! I'm a good enough fan to go with the flow and just assume that it all gets worked out in the end. But some things I'd like to know are worked out. For instance, when Peter lost his memory and accidentally transported (then girlfriend) Caitlyn (with her adorable irish accent and everything) to the virus ridden future, what happened when he came back and left her there? I know since he destroyed the virus and all that she's probably back in Ireland or wherever dealing with her mob-ish brother and goon-ish friends. But it would be nice if he sought her out since she helped him during that lack-of-memory period.
Also I think we need to consolidate storylines. I'm all a fan for having a huge cast and intricate plots and sub-plots and plots to my sub-plots plots but I think the show is taking it to ridiculous lengths. I've been reading on the web, and lest we forget about Niki's abusive father and her sister Jessica who was also one of her alternate personalities that was killed by said father. (and this is not one of her other two twin sisters who were injected with power inducing formulae (or whatever the plural of formula is)).
All I'm asking for right now is a little more continuity and a little less assumption that we viewers are just gonna stick with it. Tie up some loose ends Kring, before you loose viewers like we've been infected with the shanti virus.
One other thing I'm relatively pleased with is the continued success of Cloris Leachman on DwtS. I think that despite the fact that the judges don't seem to know what they want from their dancers, and are either high, drunk, or both, when watching people perform that the dancers are doing a wonderful job. Lance and Lacey are doing the best they can with what the judges are telling them. Cloris is trying to find a way to balance her dancing skills and her far better skills as a show-woman. She is an entertainer after all.
Lets see, I know there's other things in the news that bother me. Oh. Here's something interesting. Apparently after getting bailed out with a large portion of 700 BILLION dollars and after spending approx. 440,000 more dollars on a retreat and spa thingy, the executives at the prestigious AIG decided to do a little hunting....IN EUROPE. After reading this I am more adamant than ever that that company just needs to go under.
Not once, but twice did they use funds, after the bailout of their company which staved off financial ruin of their top executives, did those same executives who begged for money go off and spend it frivolously. If anyone that I know did that, the money would be gone faster than we could blink, and we'd be thrown in a federal prison and the key would be melted down for something else. Now is the time that we need to step up and tell the rich that simply because they have money, doesn't mean that their (excuse the language) shit don't stink.
Interestingly enough, there's another minority out there that is seeking to get full protection under the law and failing. After reading the article, I couldn't imagine why. And before you jump down my throat about bashing minorities, read the article
Personally I think that its a crock. If you're an "ex-gay" then you're not homosexual. Which means you're also not bisexual. So unless you're something really out there like a...necrosexual or something (any anything beyond hetero, homo, and bi is probably illegal), the only thing left is heterosexual. Ergo, you're straight and have full rights, protections, and privileges under the law. So where's the problem.
If the issue comes from having once been considered homosexual, and the things that happened during that period, (assuming that being homosexual is a choice (which is not my viewpoint, FYI)) then you have nobody to blame but yourself. You made the choice to be gay, and you made the choice to back out of that lifestyle. You also made the choice to open your big ol mouth about having been gay too you idiots.
Alright, well I think that concludes another resounding issue of things that I find annoying. As always I welcome discussion on anything I blog about here. And for those interesting in reading my treaties on how being gay and Lutheran works....I haven't started it yet, its still purely in mental form. Maybe once snow flies I'll start putting it on paper.
Oh, before I forget I finally got my copy of Pastor, I am Gay the book that Sarah Palin purportedly wanted banned/removed from a library up in Alaska. Its an AMAZING book. I only wish I had this book when I was in college. I would have told EVERYONE to read it. As it is I'm going to recommend my old professors read it and discuss it with their students, or at the very least add it to the reading lists or something for their classes. It would come in as such a good useful book for a Youth Ministry course or a good discussion in a religious course nonetheless. I highly recommend it if you're going to be dealing with GLBT people in your religious career at all.
One of them being the television show, Heroes. I love this show, and have followed it pseudo religiously since the day it started. And while I'm a huge fan of the show, I'm also a huge fan of something else. CONTINUITY! I'm a good enough fan to go with the flow and just assume that it all gets worked out in the end. But some things I'd like to know are worked out. For instance, when Peter lost his memory and accidentally transported (then girlfriend) Caitlyn (with her adorable irish accent and everything) to the virus ridden future, what happened when he came back and left her there? I know since he destroyed the virus and all that she's probably back in Ireland or wherever dealing with her mob-ish brother and goon-ish friends. But it would be nice if he sought her out since she helped him during that lack-of-memory period.
Also I think we need to consolidate storylines. I'm all a fan for having a huge cast and intricate plots and sub-plots and plots to my sub-plots plots but I think the show is taking it to ridiculous lengths. I've been reading on the web, and lest we forget about Niki's abusive father and her sister Jessica who was also one of her alternate personalities that was killed by said father. (and this is not one of her other two twin sisters who were injected with power inducing formulae (or whatever the plural of formula is)).
All I'm asking for right now is a little more continuity and a little less assumption that we viewers are just gonna stick with it. Tie up some loose ends Kring, before you loose viewers like we've been infected with the shanti virus.
One other thing I'm relatively pleased with is the continued success of Cloris Leachman on DwtS. I think that despite the fact that the judges don't seem to know what they want from their dancers, and are either high, drunk, or both, when watching people perform that the dancers are doing a wonderful job. Lance and Lacey are doing the best they can with what the judges are telling them. Cloris is trying to find a way to balance her dancing skills and her far better skills as a show-woman. She is an entertainer after all.
Lets see, I know there's other things in the news that bother me. Oh. Here's something interesting. Apparently after getting bailed out with a large portion of 700 BILLION dollars and after spending approx. 440,000 more dollars on a retreat and spa thingy, the executives at the prestigious AIG decided to do a little hunting....IN EUROPE. After reading this I am more adamant than ever that that company just needs to go under.
Not once, but twice did they use funds, after the bailout of their company which staved off financial ruin of their top executives, did those same executives who begged for money go off and spend it frivolously. If anyone that I know did that, the money would be gone faster than we could blink, and we'd be thrown in a federal prison and the key would be melted down for something else. Now is the time that we need to step up and tell the rich that simply because they have money, doesn't mean that their (excuse the language) shit don't stink.
Interestingly enough, there's another minority out there that is seeking to get full protection under the law and failing. After reading the article, I couldn't imagine why. And before you jump down my throat about bashing minorities, read the article
Personally I think that its a crock. If you're an "ex-gay" then you're not homosexual. Which means you're also not bisexual. So unless you're something really out there like a...necrosexual or something (any anything beyond hetero, homo, and bi is probably illegal), the only thing left is heterosexual. Ergo, you're straight and have full rights, protections, and privileges under the law. So where's the problem.
If the issue comes from having once been considered homosexual, and the things that happened during that period, (assuming that being homosexual is a choice (which is not my viewpoint, FYI)) then you have nobody to blame but yourself. You made the choice to be gay, and you made the choice to back out of that lifestyle. You also made the choice to open your big ol mouth about having been gay too you idiots.
Alright, well I think that concludes another resounding issue of things that I find annoying. As always I welcome discussion on anything I blog about here. And for those interesting in reading my treaties on how being gay and Lutheran works....I haven't started it yet, its still purely in mental form. Maybe once snow flies I'll start putting it on paper.
Oh, before I forget I finally got my copy of Pastor, I am Gay the book that Sarah Palin purportedly wanted banned/removed from a library up in Alaska. Its an AMAZING book. I only wish I had this book when I was in college. I would have told EVERYONE to read it. As it is I'm going to recommend my old professors read it and discuss it with their students, or at the very least add it to the reading lists or something for their classes. It would come in as such a good useful book for a Youth Ministry course or a good discussion in a religious course nonetheless. I highly recommend it if you're going to be dealing with GLBT people in your religious career at all.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Current Events? [edit]
Alright, so I initially thought that I would blog on a semi-regular basis. But that idea didn’t go so well when I realized that you all probably don’t want to listen to me gripe about what my boss has put me through on any given day. So I’ll probably only be blogging, or something akin to it, whenever I have time and come across things that I feel are worth spending time writing about.
So I actually heard this story on the Jane & Kidd morning show on 99.1 here in Milwaukee, and I was kinda pissed about it. Apparently the top executives of the huge insurance company AIG, went on a HUGE [read 440,000.00 dollars worth] spa retreat only days/hours/rather small amount of time after accepting their portion of the 700 Billion dollar bailout from the Fed/taxpayers.
I wasn’t totally livid, but I believe my first thought was “So, we can take that back, right?” Because, come on, if we bail you out and you go on a spa weekend, I think that what you’re basically telling us (those who bailed you out) that you think we’re dupes. Think about it this way, if you borrowed, oh say 700 dollars from a friend/neighbor/relative as a loan, to bail you out when things were looking pretty bleak for you, and then you take a trip to the Bahamas right after accepting that loan from your friend…I imagine whoever supplied that loan would probably bang your door down and beat you senseless. Or at least demand their money back, right now.
And that’s basically what I see happened here. We (the American people) bailed out a company to stave off huge economic catastrophe (notice the use of loaded language to describe the current market situation) and then were basically given the finger as the executives got into their limos to make a quick getaway. That’s awful, and according to the fed “despicable”. So my question is, what are we going to do about it.
While we can’t beat them senseless, I think we should at least prove to these blustering, pompous, egomaniacal, windbags of businessmen that we will not stand for that. Take the money back, and let the company take the fall, and let them deal with the fallout of the investors and customers. Or fire them, and take away any sort of pension/401K plans and such that they may have. I don’t know, I’m not all that business-y but something should be done to communicate to them that we will not stand for this type of behavior.
Also, later on in the article they talk about laying blame on why the company and the economic crisis is so bad. This is pointless. Its not a matter of who’s fault it is that this happened, although it needs to be addressed so it doesn’t happen in the future. But rather than spending time to point fingers at every possible executive aside from yourself, why not take a pay cut and figure out how to help the economy instead of whining that its all falling apart.
As a child I was not allowed to whine about things, because I was told that whining didn’t accomplish anything. Neither does blaming everything in sight for a problem that is most likely partly your fault. But picking yourself up and fixing the damn problem is a way of dealing with it. So to all those executives who are earning millions of dollars in salaries a year, and who own 6 or so homes around the world. Suck it up and fix it, and stop effing whining!
On another note, I came across this story and was rather intrigued. So I read up on it. I even, as a religious person with a degree for such, decided that the book would be a decent read (if I could ever find it, and I’m working on it. I get to call Alaska at 1pm today). But I also looked up the book on Amazon, and read some reviews. This is just further reason why I will not vote for McCain/Palin.
McCain is aged, and will probably die under the pressures of presidency. Which leaves us with Palin who is a Christian Fundamentalist as the first female president, and a fundamentalist in charge of the most [albeit declining] powerful country in the world. And while I’m religious and all that jazz, I refuse to support fundamentalists in their crusade of viewing the world as strictly black and white. Not to mention that as an avid reader I would never support anyone who wanted to ban books for any reason.
So after reading the reviews and trying to procure a copy for myself, I thought that I should at least mention that this book isn’t a religious way of forcing homosexuality onto the religious community. As I understand it, the book is simply one pastors way of dealing with the increasing number of parishioners who are gay, and the issues that a pastor faces with sexuality. I think this book would be an excellent read, hence the wanting a copy. But I don’t think it should stop there.
I graduated from a conservative (LCMS) Lutheran college, who’s official policy regarding homosexuality is that they do not allow openly gay students to live on campus in the dorms, as it does not keep with the universities policy of living an upright Christian life, or some such drivel. Nevermind that all your jocks are drinking on a dry campus, smoking pot and who knows what, and that everyone is having more sex than you can shake a stick at. But those fags….let me tell ya…
Having graduated from the Lay Ministry Program, with a focus on Youth Ministry, I really think that this book should be read by those entering that field. Mostly because the issue isn’t going away anytime soon. And the age old response to the issue of sexuality by the church to ignore it, hide it, or excommunicate it, just isn’t cutting it anymore.
I believe pastors (aside from those few who research this issue on their own, or have dealt with it in their parishes or what have you) are ill equipped to handle it when a parishioner comes to them expressing issues with sexuality. This book and a number of others would be a hugely beneficial tool to at least open the door and get the church and it’s workers to think about how to address this issue in the best way possible.
I’m also writing something that I don’t know what to call about how Christianity and homosexuality can co-exist. And while it’s not perfect (as a great many things aren’t) these conclusions have helped me find a measure of peace in my own life. So I’m hoping that once they get worked out on paper, they can do the same thing. If you wanna read it or prod me to get it done, or offer comments, I’d be more than happy to accommodate. ^_^
[Edit: So I called Alaska and was able to order the book. I learned two things from that. They will only sell the book to people out of state, and it takes an extra day to ship things from Alaska. For those of you who care to look further into getting a copy of the book in question this is their web address: http://www.goodbooksbadcoffee.com/NASApp/store/IndexJsp
Their phone number is on the site and keep in mind their hours are 10am-7pm Monday through Saturday and that's 1pm-10pm Central time. The book itself is about $15 but you pay for shipping. I did the 2-day shipping and it cost me about 40$ to get it here on Monday. Just fyi.]
So I actually heard this story on the Jane & Kidd morning show on 99.1 here in Milwaukee, and I was kinda pissed about it. Apparently the top executives of the huge insurance company AIG, went on a HUGE [read 440,000.00 dollars worth] spa retreat only days/hours/rather small amount of time after accepting their portion of the 700 Billion dollar bailout from the Fed/taxpayers.
I wasn’t totally livid, but I believe my first thought was “So, we can take that back, right?” Because, come on, if we bail you out and you go on a spa weekend, I think that what you’re basically telling us (those who bailed you out) that you think we’re dupes. Think about it this way, if you borrowed, oh say 700 dollars from a friend/neighbor/relative as a loan, to bail you out when things were looking pretty bleak for you, and then you take a trip to the Bahamas right after accepting that loan from your friend…I imagine whoever supplied that loan would probably bang your door down and beat you senseless. Or at least demand their money back, right now.
And that’s basically what I see happened here. We (the American people) bailed out a company to stave off huge economic catastrophe (notice the use of loaded language to describe the current market situation) and then were basically given the finger as the executives got into their limos to make a quick getaway. That’s awful, and according to the fed “despicable”. So my question is, what are we going to do about it.
While we can’t beat them senseless, I think we should at least prove to these blustering, pompous, egomaniacal, windbags of businessmen that we will not stand for that. Take the money back, and let the company take the fall, and let them deal with the fallout of the investors and customers. Or fire them, and take away any sort of pension/401K plans and such that they may have. I don’t know, I’m not all that business-y but something should be done to communicate to them that we will not stand for this type of behavior.
Also, later on in the article they talk about laying blame on why the company and the economic crisis is so bad. This is pointless. Its not a matter of who’s fault it is that this happened, although it needs to be addressed so it doesn’t happen in the future. But rather than spending time to point fingers at every possible executive aside from yourself, why not take a pay cut and figure out how to help the economy instead of whining that its all falling apart.
As a child I was not allowed to whine about things, because I was told that whining didn’t accomplish anything. Neither does blaming everything in sight for a problem that is most likely partly your fault. But picking yourself up and fixing the damn problem is a way of dealing with it. So to all those executives who are earning millions of dollars in salaries a year, and who own 6 or so homes around the world. Suck it up and fix it, and stop effing whining!
On another note, I came across this story and was rather intrigued. So I read up on it. I even, as a religious person with a degree for such, decided that the book would be a decent read (if I could ever find it, and I’m working on it. I get to call Alaska at 1pm today). But I also looked up the book on Amazon, and read some reviews. This is just further reason why I will not vote for McCain/Palin.
McCain is aged, and will probably die under the pressures of presidency. Which leaves us with Palin who is a Christian Fundamentalist as the first female president, and a fundamentalist in charge of the most [albeit declining] powerful country in the world. And while I’m religious and all that jazz, I refuse to support fundamentalists in their crusade of viewing the world as strictly black and white. Not to mention that as an avid reader I would never support anyone who wanted to ban books for any reason.
So after reading the reviews and trying to procure a copy for myself, I thought that I should at least mention that this book isn’t a religious way of forcing homosexuality onto the religious community. As I understand it, the book is simply one pastors way of dealing with the increasing number of parishioners who are gay, and the issues that a pastor faces with sexuality. I think this book would be an excellent read, hence the wanting a copy. But I don’t think it should stop there.
I graduated from a conservative (LCMS) Lutheran college, who’s official policy regarding homosexuality is that they do not allow openly gay students to live on campus in the dorms, as it does not keep with the universities policy of living an upright Christian life, or some such drivel. Nevermind that all your jocks are drinking on a dry campus, smoking pot and who knows what, and that everyone is having more sex than you can shake a stick at. But those fags….let me tell ya…
Having graduated from the Lay Ministry Program, with a focus on Youth Ministry, I really think that this book should be read by those entering that field. Mostly because the issue isn’t going away anytime soon. And the age old response to the issue of sexuality by the church to ignore it, hide it, or excommunicate it, just isn’t cutting it anymore.
I believe pastors (aside from those few who research this issue on their own, or have dealt with it in their parishes or what have you) are ill equipped to handle it when a parishioner comes to them expressing issues with sexuality. This book and a number of others would be a hugely beneficial tool to at least open the door and get the church and it’s workers to think about how to address this issue in the best way possible.
I’m also writing something that I don’t know what to call about how Christianity and homosexuality can co-exist. And while it’s not perfect (as a great many things aren’t) these conclusions have helped me find a measure of peace in my own life. So I’m hoping that once they get worked out on paper, they can do the same thing. If you wanna read it or prod me to get it done, or offer comments, I’d be more than happy to accommodate. ^_^
[Edit: So I called Alaska and was able to order the book. I learned two things from that. They will only sell the book to people out of state, and it takes an extra day to ship things from Alaska. For those of you who care to look further into getting a copy of the book in question this is their web address: http://www.goodbooksbadcoffee.com/NASApp/store/IndexJsp
Their phone number is on the site and keep in mind their hours are 10am-7pm Monday through Saturday and that's 1pm-10pm Central time. The book itself is about $15 but you pay for shipping. I did the 2-day shipping and it cost me about 40$ to get it here on Monday. Just fyi.]
Friday, September 26, 2008
Danger: Politics Within!
Note: This will probably be the only think political I will ever post.
I would like to preface all of this blog with the a few things. One: I’m very politically apathetic, mostly for reasons that will be explained as I go along here. 2: My level of understanding regarding political issues is (very) limited because I have no desire to listen to any sort of propaganda regarding political issues. 3: I’m not trying to step on anyone’s toes, or offend anyone, but simply explain where I’m at in this whole debacle as an average young American, who doesn’t really have a burning interest in our nations mudpit that we call politics.
So after being sent some stuff regarding the Wall Street Bailout (WSB) which can be found here:
Story 1
Story 2
I really have to wonder what the heck is going on with the economy. The only thing I know, being a lowly peon, is that a grossly obscene amount of money is going to be put somewhere (I suppose Wall Street, the nebulous entity that it is) which is supposedly going to fix the economy…or so we’re led to believe.
Now, there are a few things that I would like to say, some of which have things to do with the WSB, some about the economy in general, and finally some things about politics in general (although I will warn you probably with a *little* bit of a slant to the left)
One would be that even though this outrageous amount of money is going to be used to bail out W.S/the economy, I have to wonder what is going to happen to the National Deficit that people have been complaining about for decades, and has only gotten worse in recent years. I remember about 5-6 years ago, maybe more, when the national deficit was all anyone could talk about. With this impending 700 BILLION-1 TRILLION dollar WSB, I have to wonder what sort of national deficit are we looking at for the next gazillion years?
Two, I’ve listened to various viewpoints on the economy. I’ve been told by many people who favor a conservative/republican POV (Point of View) that the economy is actually a lot stronger than the media portrays it to be. The only reason that the media is saying that the economy is weak is due to the fact that this is an election year.
While that may be the case, I have to say that from where I stand the economy’s going to shit. I look around and I see a lot of people in their 20s having a very hard time trying to find a job that will allow them to pay bills and such. People are loosing their houses and their jobs at record numbers and all sorts of other things.
Looking at some of those huge glaring issues, how could anyone say that the American economy is doing well to any degree considering the people that actually reside within the American economy sphere of influence are losing their shirts because they can’t make enough money to live?
Finally something I’d like to address about politics in general, and this applies to all people involved in politics without regard to political party choices or liberal or conservative leanings. When something happens in the economical/political sphere, how many average everyday Americans actually understand what is being talked about. Maybe it’s because we don’t care enough to know about our own system of governance and economy. Or maybe it has to do with the fact that if one dresses up issues (such as the WSB) with enough obscure economic-political terms, bad rhetoric, and political double speak, you could get average people to agree to anything, because they have no idea what is actually happening in the political world.
I for one would love to see a politician who presents things in a manner than everyone can possibly understand. For seasoned political veterans, that may be infuriating because they already know about what’s going on. But for the average person it would be a wonderful change of pace. Since America is supposed to be a “democracy” I think that a politician who takes the time to address issues in ways that the average American can understand would have my vote at the very least...
I would like to preface all of this blog with the a few things. One: I’m very politically apathetic, mostly for reasons that will be explained as I go along here. 2: My level of understanding regarding political issues is (very) limited because I have no desire to listen to any sort of propaganda regarding political issues. 3: I’m not trying to step on anyone’s toes, or offend anyone, but simply explain where I’m at in this whole debacle as an average young American, who doesn’t really have a burning interest in our nations mudpit that we call politics.
So after being sent some stuff regarding the Wall Street Bailout (WSB) which can be found here:
Story 1
Story 2
I really have to wonder what the heck is going on with the economy. The only thing I know, being a lowly peon, is that a grossly obscene amount of money is going to be put somewhere (I suppose Wall Street, the nebulous entity that it is) which is supposedly going to fix the economy…or so we’re led to believe.
Now, there are a few things that I would like to say, some of which have things to do with the WSB, some about the economy in general, and finally some things about politics in general (although I will warn you probably with a *little* bit of a slant to the left)
One would be that even though this outrageous amount of money is going to be used to bail out W.S/the economy, I have to wonder what is going to happen to the National Deficit that people have been complaining about for decades, and has only gotten worse in recent years. I remember about 5-6 years ago, maybe more, when the national deficit was all anyone could talk about. With this impending 700 BILLION-1 TRILLION dollar WSB, I have to wonder what sort of national deficit are we looking at for the next gazillion years?
Two, I’ve listened to various viewpoints on the economy. I’ve been told by many people who favor a conservative/republican POV (Point of View) that the economy is actually a lot stronger than the media portrays it to be. The only reason that the media is saying that the economy is weak is due to the fact that this is an election year.
While that may be the case, I have to say that from where I stand the economy’s going to shit. I look around and I see a lot of people in their 20s having a very hard time trying to find a job that will allow them to pay bills and such. People are loosing their houses and their jobs at record numbers and all sorts of other things.
Looking at some of those huge glaring issues, how could anyone say that the American economy is doing well to any degree considering the people that actually reside within the American economy sphere of influence are losing their shirts because they can’t make enough money to live?
Finally something I’d like to address about politics in general, and this applies to all people involved in politics without regard to political party choices or liberal or conservative leanings. When something happens in the economical/political sphere, how many average everyday Americans actually understand what is being talked about. Maybe it’s because we don’t care enough to know about our own system of governance and economy. Or maybe it has to do with the fact that if one dresses up issues (such as the WSB) with enough obscure economic-political terms, bad rhetoric, and political double speak, you could get average people to agree to anything, because they have no idea what is actually happening in the political world.
I for one would love to see a politician who presents things in a manner than everyone can possibly understand. For seasoned political veterans, that may be infuriating because they already know about what’s going on. But for the average person it would be a wonderful change of pace. Since America is supposed to be a “democracy” I think that a politician who takes the time to address issues in ways that the average American can understand would have my vote at the very least...
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Self-Expression vs Workplace Appearance
So I was at work today, pondering different things, when a lady walked by my window talking on a cell phone. She wasn’t remarkable in any way, nor did she do anything that was particularly interesting, aside from walk down the street and talk (loudly) into her phone. But I did notice that she had her lip pierced. And then I started thinking…
A couple of days ago, I came into work and I hadn’t shaved in a couple of days, but it wasn’t all that bad (I thought) and I figured I could get by that day without too much trouble. Needless to say I was incorrect. I was asked (and I use the term loosely) to come in to work the next day clean shaven.
So now I wonder. I come from a generation that prides itself on many things. Ipods (of which I do not own), the internet (which we all know Al Gore created), and a whole plethora of other things. One of the more prominent things is our self-expression.
Pick a way my generation engages in the need for self-expression, which is something that has been ingrained in most of us since birth. Some people talk/debate/argue, others pierce things, others wear outlandish or unpopular clothes, some hairdos, some people tattoo the hell out of themselves. All of which is fine by itself.
But then you have other things that play a role in how self-expression wars with other ideals like…oh…say, appearance in the workplace.
I have come to understand that in certain settings it isn’t appropriate for people to get visible tattoos and have visible piercings. In some instances I can see where this is appropriate. Such as having piercings (aside from ears, I suppose) when working with food? Or when you enter the corporate world?
But how much of those expectations are holdovers from the “Leave it to Beaver” and other past concepts of what the working world is suppose to be? I mean I understand the need for self expression, and as long as those options are available, people (especially younger people) are going to take advantage of them when it suits their needs/desires.
But now you have a contradiction. For my generation’s entire lives they’ve been told to express themselves and a whole plethora of other self-esteem building garbage. But when they enter the workplace, they’re expected to do a complete 180 and be the epitome of conformity, because that’s the image of the working world/corporate world. And if they don’t conform, they’re doomed to not get any jobs better than working at fast food places or places like Hot Topic where those issues apparently don’t matter as much.
Now I realize that this has been a little unorganized in the way it’s been presented here, as its just sort of falling out of my head. But the two real issues here I suppose are, where do you draw the line between working world image and self expression, and two: how are we going to correct the disparity between the two.
I could write pages and pages (probably a thesis length work) on the different sides of the issue, but that’s not going to help anything, and it would be parroting the dozens of viewpoints that have already been said. And I certainly don’t have any answers, and would welcome discussion on the issue. But it was something that bothered me, and probably a lot of other people, so I figured it was worth putting here.
A couple of days ago, I came into work and I hadn’t shaved in a couple of days, but it wasn’t all that bad (I thought) and I figured I could get by that day without too much trouble. Needless to say I was incorrect. I was asked (and I use the term loosely) to come in to work the next day clean shaven.
So now I wonder. I come from a generation that prides itself on many things. Ipods (of which I do not own), the internet (which we all know Al Gore created), and a whole plethora of other things. One of the more prominent things is our self-expression.
Pick a way my generation engages in the need for self-expression, which is something that has been ingrained in most of us since birth. Some people talk/debate/argue, others pierce things, others wear outlandish or unpopular clothes, some hairdos, some people tattoo the hell out of themselves. All of which is fine by itself.
But then you have other things that play a role in how self-expression wars with other ideals like…oh…say, appearance in the workplace.
I have come to understand that in certain settings it isn’t appropriate for people to get visible tattoos and have visible piercings. In some instances I can see where this is appropriate. Such as having piercings (aside from ears, I suppose) when working with food? Or when you enter the corporate world?
But how much of those expectations are holdovers from the “Leave it to Beaver” and other past concepts of what the working world is suppose to be? I mean I understand the need for self expression, and as long as those options are available, people (especially younger people) are going to take advantage of them when it suits their needs/desires.
But now you have a contradiction. For my generation’s entire lives they’ve been told to express themselves and a whole plethora of other self-esteem building garbage. But when they enter the workplace, they’re expected to do a complete 180 and be the epitome of conformity, because that’s the image of the working world/corporate world. And if they don’t conform, they’re doomed to not get any jobs better than working at fast food places or places like Hot Topic where those issues apparently don’t matter as much.
Now I realize that this has been a little unorganized in the way it’s been presented here, as its just sort of falling out of my head. But the two real issues here I suppose are, where do you draw the line between working world image and self expression, and two: how are we going to correct the disparity between the two.
I could write pages and pages (probably a thesis length work) on the different sides of the issue, but that’s not going to help anything, and it would be parroting the dozens of viewpoints that have already been said. And I certainly don’t have any answers, and would welcome discussion on the issue. But it was something that bothered me, and probably a lot of other people, so I figured it was worth putting here.
Monday, September 22, 2008
A couple of issues...
While anticipating the impending premier of Heroes, I watched the season premier of House M.D. last week. And I love this show. I think it’s fantastic. Probably for various reasons (not the least of which is comparisons between me and the main character). But then something occurred to me:
There are a lot of people who love that show. And not only do they love the show they adore the main character. Now it could be said that they like the main character because he has the cojonés to say and do things that they only wish they could do, or whatever.
But it seems to me that that’s where the adoration of this character ends. As long as he stays in the little box with a big screen. But if they meet this archetype of character in reality, they despise him. And my question is why?! What is so different from watching a character like House because you like him, but hating him once you come face to face with him? It just makes me wonder…
Let’s see…I’m trying to think of anything else that’s bothering me at this point. OH! Duh, how stupid of me to forget, its an election year. And we’re in the proverbial 9th inning stretch, which means mudslinging abounds and false promises are whats falling from the wagging tongues of all politicians EVERYWHERE! Isn’t America grand?
So now I’m watching D.w.t.S. and I’m very excited. Probably not for reasons that you think though. ^_^ I’m all over Cloris. But the thing I’d like to mention is that I’m also watching it because of Mr. Bass. Who, remains cute despite an abysmal haircut, is openly gay. (can you see where this is going yet). Awhile back, when Lance was announced as a contestant there were jokes/rumors/innuendo that he would dance with another guy. Now most people laughed and shrugged it off as just that…a joke.
But after reading this link
I realized that it shouldn’t be such a joke anymore. Despite the rules for ballroom dancing and the very traditional nature of the sport/hobby, which I respect immensely, I think that two men dancing together shouldn’t be anymore out of the ordinary than two women dancing together, which is very commonplace and very socially acceptable, especially in ballroom dance circles. I can recall numerous (too numerous to count) times when at the local moose lodge in the town that I grew up in, there were always a few couples of women dancing together for whatever reason. And nobody said anything.
Now, maybe this touched a nerve because I’m gay or because I’m a ballroom dancer (which is a hobby at least, and a possible job at best). I love to swing dance, but also a number of other dances. And while I respect the tradition of couples being man/woman, there are times I wish I could walk up to a cute boy who also dances and ask if he’d like to dance. (obviously there are a few problems with this, and I’ll let you, dear reader, puzzle them out).
And while I know that it probably wouldn’t cause too much of an uproar where I live and in the places that I dance, I can’t help but feel that nagging fear that most gay people feel that one step out of line and you could be asked to leave…or worse. Having to deal and live with that kind of fear and uncertainty is grossly unfair, and I would just implore my readers to stop and consider the little things like this.
Alright, at the risk of sounding like I’m pontificating or pushing some agenda, I’ll leave you with this. I’m never going to tell you what to think, but I will tell you to think, and hope that you do. But not too much, =P
There are a lot of people who love that show. And not only do they love the show they adore the main character. Now it could be said that they like the main character because he has the cojonés to say and do things that they only wish they could do, or whatever.
But it seems to me that that’s where the adoration of this character ends. As long as he stays in the little box with a big screen. But if they meet this archetype of character in reality, they despise him. And my question is why?! What is so different from watching a character like House because you like him, but hating him once you come face to face with him? It just makes me wonder…
Let’s see…I’m trying to think of anything else that’s bothering me at this point. OH! Duh, how stupid of me to forget, its an election year. And we’re in the proverbial 9th inning stretch, which means mudslinging abounds and false promises are whats falling from the wagging tongues of all politicians EVERYWHERE! Isn’t America grand?
So now I’m watching D.w.t.S. and I’m very excited. Probably not for reasons that you think though. ^_^ I’m all over Cloris. But the thing I’d like to mention is that I’m also watching it because of Mr. Bass. Who, remains cute despite an abysmal haircut, is openly gay. (can you see where this is going yet). Awhile back, when Lance was announced as a contestant there were jokes/rumors/innuendo that he would dance with another guy. Now most people laughed and shrugged it off as just that…a joke.
But after reading this link
I realized that it shouldn’t be such a joke anymore. Despite the rules for ballroom dancing and the very traditional nature of the sport/hobby, which I respect immensely, I think that two men dancing together shouldn’t be anymore out of the ordinary than two women dancing together, which is very commonplace and very socially acceptable, especially in ballroom dance circles. I can recall numerous (too numerous to count) times when at the local moose lodge in the town that I grew up in, there were always a few couples of women dancing together for whatever reason. And nobody said anything.Now, maybe this touched a nerve because I’m gay or because I’m a ballroom dancer (which is a hobby at least, and a possible job at best). I love to swing dance, but also a number of other dances. And while I respect the tradition of couples being man/woman, there are times I wish I could walk up to a cute boy who also dances and ask if he’d like to dance. (obviously there are a few problems with this, and I’ll let you, dear reader, puzzle them out).
And while I know that it probably wouldn’t cause too much of an uproar where I live and in the places that I dance, I can’t help but feel that nagging fear that most gay people feel that one step out of line and you could be asked to leave…or worse. Having to deal and live with that kind of fear and uncertainty is grossly unfair, and I would just implore my readers to stop and consider the little things like this.
Alright, at the risk of sounding like I’m pontificating or pushing some agenda, I’ll leave you with this. I’m never going to tell you what to think, but I will tell you to think, and hope that you do. But not too much, =P
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
