I could use this post to discuss the national election results, but I think we all know what my reaction to that is. Instead, one of the most surprising results from last night was Los Angeles County's Measure B. For my friends outside of the LA area, Measure B would require adult film productions to obtain County health permits, be trained in blood-borne pathogens, and use condoms and other safety equipment to prevent the spread of blood-borne pathogens. This seems like it would be beneficial on the surface, but Los Angeles county is going to suffer now that this has passed.
First, porn actors are tested constantly to determine their STI infection status. If this wasn't already a self-imposed policy put on by the studios, then maybe some change would be necessary. There are very few cases of STI's in the porn industry right now, and any infections that are caught are quickly isolated so they don't spread to the other performers.
Not only would this law require the use of condoms, it would require any sexual act to use proper barriers. This means gloves for any manual contact, condoms and dental dams for oral sex, and possibly protective eye wear. In addition, county inspectors would be required on each set in order to ensure that all of these safety measures are followed. These inspectors would have to go through training as well. Where would the funding for this come from? Taxpayers? The porn industry is a $1 billion to $2 billion industry, and brings a lot of money to the LA county economy. They won't stay in LA county if all of this holds up. Instead, they will move to San Bernadino county, and taking all of their business and tax money with them.
It seems like this measure is meant as a way to use pornography as a way to encourage people to use condoms. Is this what we've come to now? Using porn as a way to replace proper sexual health education? We need to stop abstinence-only education and replace it with in-depth sexual education. Maybe then we wouldn't need to rely on something that is meant to be a form of expression and entertainment as an educational tool!
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
For those who aren't aware, Bill Nye (yes, that Bill Nye, the Science Guy) was recently in a video where he said that teaching creationism and not teaching evolution is not good for children. Of course, the Creationist higher ups had to make some kind of rebuttal. Ken Ham, president/CEO of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, was one of the most public responders. He first attacks Bill Nye as a Humanist, saying that he has an agenda. Which is 100% true. He wants the children of the nation to be taught how to think critically, and wants to give all people equal human rights. Ham continues to say that Nye is confusing "historical science" with "observational science." He says that "historical" science cannot be proven by laboratory experiments, like "observational" science. He classifies evolution and natural selection as "historical" science, he says that it has never been proven in a lab setting. Which is false. I personally have seen natural selection and evolution in a lab setting. Sure, we haven't been able to demonstrate it at the scale that led to speciation, but that takes too many generations to accomplish in our lifetime. We have seen small scale natural selection in labs, however.
Ham then goes on to suggest that people who teach evolution only are actually indoctrinating their children. He says that they aren't teaching how to think, but what to think. Which is completely ironic. There is a difference between teaching a concept that is supported by more than a century of scientific research and a concept that is supported by a book translated from Hebrew to Latin to English, written by people who were generations removed from the actual events. If we are going to teach evolution and creationism as equals, why don't we teach all forms of creation? Because, of course, it would show how Christian creation is just one of an infinite number of increasingly improbable ideas for how we got here. Why don't we teach all religions to children? Is it because then children would see how the story of Jesus is really the story of Mithras? Or because all of the Christian holidays are really just Pagan holidays that were stolen in order to convince Pagans to convert (as if they would have chose death instead)? Until you teach the "controversy" when it comes to religion, life science teachers should not have to teach the "controversy" between evolution and creation.
Ham then goes on to suggest that people who teach evolution only are actually indoctrinating their children. He says that they aren't teaching how to think, but what to think. Which is completely ironic. There is a difference between teaching a concept that is supported by more than a century of scientific research and a concept that is supported by a book translated from Hebrew to Latin to English, written by people who were generations removed from the actual events. If we are going to teach evolution and creationism as equals, why don't we teach all forms of creation? Because, of course, it would show how Christian creation is just one of an infinite number of increasingly improbable ideas for how we got here. Why don't we teach all religions to children? Is it because then children would see how the story of Jesus is really the story of Mithras? Or because all of the Christian holidays are really just Pagan holidays that were stolen in order to convince Pagans to convert (as if they would have chose death instead)? Until you teach the "controversy" when it comes to religion, life science teachers should not have to teach the "controversy" between evolution and creation.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
An Open Letter to Christians
Dear Christians,
If you are truly accepting and are for same-sex marriage, this isn't for you. If you think that everyone has the right to believe anything they want, you aren't being talked about in this letter. If you don't think that the government abstaining from any religious activity is a war on Christians, then read on without worry. I would hope that all of America, or at least all of my friends, would be included in the last section, but sadly I know I am wrong.
I strongly support your right to believe and say (almost) anything you want, but at a certain point, it's just too far. I'm tired of people saying that there is a war on Judeo-Christian beliefs in America. Of the 43 men that have served as US President, 43 have identified as Christian in some way. As of 2008, 76% of adults in America identify as Christian. There obviously is no attack being made on religion. However, there are more people that want to live by the letter of the law, and have true religious freedom. It's hard to do that when one religion is allowed to advertise as much as they want, without equal opposition.
Don't take the push for the legalization of same-sex marriage as the government trying to destroy traditional Christian values. Nobody is forcing you to marry someone of your sex, or to attend any same-sex weddings. All we want is for everyone to be granted the same rights, regardless of sexuality. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal," so why not treat them equally?
For those of you that think that I am a hypocrite for ridiculing those that boycotted JC Penney's and Oreo, but yet am boycotting Chick-Fil-A need to look at this situation for a different angle. People were boycotting those companies for hiring a high profile lesbian spokesperson, and announcing their support for marriage equality, respectively. I, however, am boycotting Chick-Fil-A because profits are donated to organizations that work to prevent marriage equality. I choose not to give my money to groups that are working to deny a large percentage of the US population equal rights. I am not boycotting them because of their Christian beliefs, I still eat at In-N-Out, despite their Christian beliefs, but they don't donate to those organizations.
Sincerely,
Your friendly neighborhood pansexual atheist.
If you are truly accepting and are for same-sex marriage, this isn't for you. If you think that everyone has the right to believe anything they want, you aren't being talked about in this letter. If you don't think that the government abstaining from any religious activity is a war on Christians, then read on without worry. I would hope that all of America, or at least all of my friends, would be included in the last section, but sadly I know I am wrong.
I strongly support your right to believe and say (almost) anything you want, but at a certain point, it's just too far. I'm tired of people saying that there is a war on Judeo-Christian beliefs in America. Of the 43 men that have served as US President, 43 have identified as Christian in some way. As of 2008, 76% of adults in America identify as Christian. There obviously is no attack being made on religion. However, there are more people that want to live by the letter of the law, and have true religious freedom. It's hard to do that when one religion is allowed to advertise as much as they want, without equal opposition.
Don't take the push for the legalization of same-sex marriage as the government trying to destroy traditional Christian values. Nobody is forcing you to marry someone of your sex, or to attend any same-sex weddings. All we want is for everyone to be granted the same rights, regardless of sexuality. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal," so why not treat them equally?
For those of you that think that I am a hypocrite for ridiculing those that boycotted JC Penney's and Oreo, but yet am boycotting Chick-Fil-A need to look at this situation for a different angle. People were boycotting those companies for hiring a high profile lesbian spokesperson, and announcing their support for marriage equality, respectively. I, however, am boycotting Chick-Fil-A because profits are donated to organizations that work to prevent marriage equality. I choose not to give my money to groups that are working to deny a large percentage of the US population equal rights. I am not boycotting them because of their Christian beliefs, I still eat at In-N-Out, despite their Christian beliefs, but they don't donate to those organizations.
Sincerely,
Your friendly neighborhood pansexual atheist.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Sex revisited
It amazes me how men are still considered to be more sexual than women. There is one book that is responsible for 20% of all fiction sales currently in this country: Fifty Shades of Grey. A book that is almost exclusively about sex must be targeted at men, right? Well unless you have been living under a rock, you'll know that it's marketed to housewives. This book basically amounts to "literary" porn, and that would be using the word "literary" very liberally. I've heard excerpts from the book, and it is very poorly written. That's only one way one could tell that it isn't being read for it's literary value. Another is the spike in sales of grey ties and other sex toys that are used in the books. There's even a movie in the works, which I'm pretty sure can already be seen on a variety of porn sites.
Speaking of movies, Magic Mike is further proof that women are more sexual than they like to let on. From what I've heard, the theaters are full of women watching this movie with their friends, not same-sex attracted men. Obviously women want to go see naked men, or else Chippendale's and Thunder from Down Under wouldn't exist. However, men are ridiculed for going to strip clubs.
Finally, sex toys are designed more for women than they are for men. Most sex toys are designed for female bodies. There are very few that are designed for male bodies, and those all have a very negative stigma attached to them. However, that applies to all aspects of sex: it's okay for women to do it, but when men do it, it's just plain creepy!
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with women being sexual, by all means have fun! All I'm saying is that they need to admit to it, and not just calling men creepy.
Speaking of movies, Magic Mike is further proof that women are more sexual than they like to let on. From what I've heard, the theaters are full of women watching this movie with their friends, not same-sex attracted men. Obviously women want to go see naked men, or else Chippendale's and Thunder from Down Under wouldn't exist. However, men are ridiculed for going to strip clubs.
Finally, sex toys are designed more for women than they are for men. Most sex toys are designed for female bodies. There are very few that are designed for male bodies, and those all have a very negative stigma attached to them. However, that applies to all aspects of sex: it's okay for women to do it, but when men do it, it's just plain creepy!
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with women being sexual, by all means have fun! All I'm saying is that they need to admit to it, and not just calling men creepy.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Body Image Vs. Health
I am amazed at the weird relationship America has with body image and health. The rest of the world (rightly so) views America as fat and unhealthy. We use such unhealthy ingredients in our food like trans fat, corn syrup, etc., and are the only ones that do so! On the other hand, we are also obsessed with "healthy" options in our food. Maybe if we used real ingredients in our food, we wouldn't need these "alternatives." Italians eat tons of food that have natural fats, but are nowhere near as obese as we are on average.
Unfortunately, this has affected everyone, regardless of their weight and health. We wrongly associate how thin somebody is with their health. Many times, extremely thin people are just as unhealthy, or more, as someone who is obese. We try to come up with fad diets to lose as much weight as possible in the shortest amount of time. The reason these work is because they force us to starve ourselves and cause us to lose water weight. The weight (and more) is lost as soon as the diet is over. Why don't we just completely overhaul the way we eat in general so we don't have to worry about these fad diets at all?
We take advice about health from people that have absolutely no scientific credibility, and are surprised when it doesn't work. We need to listen to doctors and scientists who have studied the science of our body and what we need to survive. Don't give people with "miracle drugs" and "miracle diets" equal time as a scientist and doctor who has a solution that is proven by science and evidence. Treat them like they are, con men. Instead, let's turn our attention to changing our health care system where everyone can get equal chance at health care.
Unfortunately, this has affected everyone, regardless of their weight and health. We wrongly associate how thin somebody is with their health. Many times, extremely thin people are just as unhealthy, or more, as someone who is obese. We try to come up with fad diets to lose as much weight as possible in the shortest amount of time. The reason these work is because they force us to starve ourselves and cause us to lose water weight. The weight (and more) is lost as soon as the diet is over. Why don't we just completely overhaul the way we eat in general so we don't have to worry about these fad diets at all?
We take advice about health from people that have absolutely no scientific credibility, and are surprised when it doesn't work. We need to listen to doctors and scientists who have studied the science of our body and what we need to survive. Don't give people with "miracle drugs" and "miracle diets" equal time as a scientist and doctor who has a solution that is proven by science and evidence. Treat them like they are, con men. Instead, let's turn our attention to changing our health care system where everyone can get equal chance at health care.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Politics
The reason I tend to not read the news or pay attention to politics as much as I probably should is the stupidity in most of politics. Things like Tucson Unified School District banning Mexican-American Studies from being taught in schools because they are afraid that it will inspire Latinos from forming a revolution against the white population. Why would we want to do something like that? Maybe because of things like this. The best part, though, is that African-American Studies are perfectly fine. What would cause a culture to hate Anglo-Americans than learning that your ancestors were enslaved by them; being considered 3/5 of a person (although that is a generous number, as they were treated like less); and once freed, being completely separated from the rest of the population, and having to use sub-par facilities.
What group is being attacked more by the government currently than women? Last time I checked, I wasn't a woman, but unlike other people who only care about demographic groups of which they are a part, I am concerned about some politicians' attempts to deny women their basic rights. Why do we need to revisit Roe v. Wade when there are bigger problems facing our country than some women wanting to have an abortion for whatever reason? Overpopulation is going to be a major problem soon (and it already is), so if a woman makes a choice to undergo an abortion (which I'm sure they wouldn't want to unless they absolutely had to), let her. Maybe we should look even earlier into a woman's life to see what the problem is. First, many people are still taught that abstinence is the only answer to sex. We all know that teens are going to have sex (just look at shows like 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom), so we need to stop acting like teaching them to not have sex will work. We are exposed to sex on so many fronts that this is a terrible tactic. Instead, we should teach teens that they should only have sex when they are ready, and if they decide to have sex, that they should protect themselves in some way.
I thought this was the worst of the attacks on 50% of our population, but sadly Wisconsin has proved me wrong. Almost all 50 states have some kind of law enacted that allows women (or any person) who feels they have been discriminated against in the work place to sue their employer. However, Wisconsin has decided to appeal their version of this law. I usually have problems determining the thought process of politicians, but no matter how long I think, I can't understand why anyone would sign off on this bill. Especially the FOUR WOMEN that voted in favor of this repeal.
Of course, most of this misogynistic attitude is kept under the rug for the most part. However, so many of the people in this country display an open dislike, distrust, and even hatred for another group: atheists. Of course, I could go on forever quoting Fox News viewers on their desire to kill all atheists, but that would be too easy. This is more brought on by the Gallup poll that says that only 49% of Americans would vote for an atheist. To this, the daughter of Billy Graham has said that wisdom comes from the belief and fear of a higher power. This doesn't factor in that almost all major scientists do not believe in some higher power. Who has more wisdom than a person that does not allow a religious institution to interfere with their morals and logic. In reality, these people are just afraid of an atheist becoming president and preaching (for lack of a better word) true equality.
What group is being attacked more by the government currently than women? Last time I checked, I wasn't a woman, but unlike other people who only care about demographic groups of which they are a part, I am concerned about some politicians' attempts to deny women their basic rights. Why do we need to revisit Roe v. Wade when there are bigger problems facing our country than some women wanting to have an abortion for whatever reason? Overpopulation is going to be a major problem soon (and it already is), so if a woman makes a choice to undergo an abortion (which I'm sure they wouldn't want to unless they absolutely had to), let her. Maybe we should look even earlier into a woman's life to see what the problem is. First, many people are still taught that abstinence is the only answer to sex. We all know that teens are going to have sex (just look at shows like 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom), so we need to stop acting like teaching them to not have sex will work. We are exposed to sex on so many fronts that this is a terrible tactic. Instead, we should teach teens that they should only have sex when they are ready, and if they decide to have sex, that they should protect themselves in some way.
I thought this was the worst of the attacks on 50% of our population, but sadly Wisconsin has proved me wrong. Almost all 50 states have some kind of law enacted that allows women (or any person) who feels they have been discriminated against in the work place to sue their employer. However, Wisconsin has decided to appeal their version of this law. I usually have problems determining the thought process of politicians, but no matter how long I think, I can't understand why anyone would sign off on this bill. Especially the FOUR WOMEN that voted in favor of this repeal.
Of course, most of this misogynistic attitude is kept under the rug for the most part. However, so many of the people in this country display an open dislike, distrust, and even hatred for another group: atheists. Of course, I could go on forever quoting Fox News viewers on their desire to kill all atheists, but that would be too easy. This is more brought on by the Gallup poll that says that only 49% of Americans would vote for an atheist. To this, the daughter of Billy Graham has said that wisdom comes from the belief and fear of a higher power. This doesn't factor in that almost all major scientists do not believe in some higher power. Who has more wisdom than a person that does not allow a religious institution to interfere with their morals and logic. In reality, these people are just afraid of an atheist becoming president and preaching (for lack of a better word) true equality.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Privacy
Normally my feeling is that if you share something on the internet, that you can't get mad when someone else finds it. However, this only applies when those people find it themselves. I just had a friend tell me that someone came up to him and asked if he knew who I was. When he said yes, this person then asked if he knew that I was bisexual. First, this statement in itself is wrong, as I now identify myself as pansexual, but when I first came out I identified as bi, so I'll excuse that. However, just because I am out, does not give you liberty to start outing me to everyone that knows who I am. This friend did not know, but it wasn't because I didn't want him to know, it's just that I haven't told every one of my friends individually. If this had been someone that I wasn't coming out to for fear of some kind of violence or bullying, this would be a completely different story. Because of this, I am not actively seeking this person out, but if I do happen to find out who it was, my relationship with this person will not be the same. I know that this person most likely won't read this, but if you do, try to understand the position that I am in. I'm sure there are certain things that you wouldn't like me telling random people about you, even though they are semi-factual.
I know that I am probably doing exactly what this person wants in having some sort of negative reaction, but I don't care. One of my biggest pet peeves is people who talk about others behind their back in a negative manner. And apparently this person thinks that my non-hetero sexual orientation is a negative thing. Assuming that they read my previous post or my original coming out post, they misunderstood my feelings toward my sexuality. I'm not hurt by my sexuality, I'm more hurt by the fact that someone who I formerly considered a friend thought it was okay to betray my privacy like this. I guess that's what our society has come to, however. Trying to hurt people by spreading gossip behind their back, regardless of their veracity. We now live in a culture where tabloids, which were previously regarded as utter nonsense, now have their own TV show, a la TMZ. Sure sometimes they actually spout some real news, but why is it important? Can't we all live our lives in a manner that we don't care about other people's personal lives? Why should we care who is taking what drugs or who is attracted to whom? If somebody wants to share this information, by all means let them. Don't take it upon yourself to report it to everyone else though. Let them do the work and take the personal approach to make sure that whatever information is spread is correct. Not only are you potentially hurting the person, but in the process you are making yourself look bad.
I know that I am probably doing exactly what this person wants in having some sort of negative reaction, but I don't care. One of my biggest pet peeves is people who talk about others behind their back in a negative manner. And apparently this person thinks that my non-hetero sexual orientation is a negative thing. Assuming that they read my previous post or my original coming out post, they misunderstood my feelings toward my sexuality. I'm not hurt by my sexuality, I'm more hurt by the fact that someone who I formerly considered a friend thought it was okay to betray my privacy like this. I guess that's what our society has come to, however. Trying to hurt people by spreading gossip behind their back, regardless of their veracity. We now live in a culture where tabloids, which were previously regarded as utter nonsense, now have their own TV show, a la TMZ. Sure sometimes they actually spout some real news, but why is it important? Can't we all live our lives in a manner that we don't care about other people's personal lives? Why should we care who is taking what drugs or who is attracted to whom? If somebody wants to share this information, by all means let them. Don't take it upon yourself to report it to everyone else though. Let them do the work and take the personal approach to make sure that whatever information is spread is correct. Not only are you potentially hurting the person, but in the process you are making yourself look bad.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Bisexuality
Since first coming out as bi/pansexual in October, I haven't really been too open about my sexuality, but I think I might change that. It really makes me angry when people on both sides of the spectrum, heterosexual and homosexual alike, dismiss those of us that don't fit into either of these two categories. So many people say that it's just a phase, that we are just undecided and will eventually choose a side. Or that we are just confused about our sexuality. Quite the contrary is true for myself. Finally coming to terms with my bi/pansexuality has cleared up any confusion about my sexuality I've had in the past. I have found myself attracted to guys for at least the last 5 years, but I was trying to push that away to try to be "normal."
A couple of things catalyzed this post as well as me being more open in general. The first is my anger at the climate towards members of the LGBT community as a whole in this country. The second is learning that Snooki has come out as bisexual. The final catalyst was talking with a friend about this topic.
It seems like we can't go more than a week without there being some anti-LGBT statement being made by public figures. I normally don't get offended by jokes, but this is beyond jokes. This is politicians that might become president basically saying that we are not real people. This is how the person actually feels. This country has a history of trying to find some minority to blame for everything and to deny rights. Unfortunately I'm a member of 3 separate minorities (atheist, bisexual, and Mexican-American) that are the focus of the public right now. I want to be open and hopefully inspire other people that may be closeted still to join me in being open, to prove these people wrong. To show them that we do exist and that we are "normal" members of society that just happen to have a different sexual orientation.
It almost always makes me happy to see celebrities come out because it restores some of my faith in humanity. It reminds me that I'm not the only one that has had to deal with the problems of trying to understand their sexuality. The most recent of these was Todd Glass. I listened to him on WTF with Marc Maron and the entire time I was nodding because I knew almost exactly what he was dealing with. His explanation of why he finally decided to come out as gay was that he wanted to try to reduce the probability of bullying, that hopefully kids will not see being gay as something wrong. However, people like Snooki coming out doesn't help fellow bisexuals. She only reinforces the stereotype some people have of the bisexual community just wanting to hook up with anything with a pulse.
I discussed this point with a friend who was one of the first people I came out to, and decided that if more bisexual celebrities in monogamous relationships came out, it might help eliminate this stereotype. I decided to look for a list of bisexual celebrities and what I found surprised me. People on the list included Angelina Jolie, Drew Barrymore, Billie Joe Armstrong, Sammy Davis Jr., Kurt Cobain, Abraham Lincoln, and many more. Why is it that people like this aren't public representations of the bisexual community? For the most part they are or were mostly monogamous with their partner, and most people wouldn't be able to identify them as bisexual if it weren't for their own comments. The one quote that stood out the most to me was from Billie Joe Armstrong (lead singer of Green Day), who said, “I think I’ve always been bisexual… I mean, it’s something that I’ve always been interested in. I think everybody kind of fantasizes about the same sex. I think people are born bisexual, and it’s just that our parents and society kind of veer us off into this feeling of Oh, I can’t. They say it’s taboo. It’s ingrained in our heads that it’s bad, when it’s not bad at all. It’s a very beautiful thing.”
This really made me think. What if this is actually true? What if we all are actually bisexual, even if it is just a small portion of our sexuality? What if our culture is forcing people to be something they are not, just because it it says in some book written a thousand years ago that having sex with the same sex is morally wrong? (This is of course the same book that says that slavery is fine, people can't wear clothing made of two different fabrics, etc.) Regardless of whether or not this is actually true, I know that I was born bi/pansexual, that it isn't a choice, it isn't some weird phase, and for perhaps the first time in my life, I am proud to admit it, and I don't care what other people think of me.
A couple of things catalyzed this post as well as me being more open in general. The first is my anger at the climate towards members of the LGBT community as a whole in this country. The second is learning that Snooki has come out as bisexual. The final catalyst was talking with a friend about this topic.
It seems like we can't go more than a week without there being some anti-LGBT statement being made by public figures. I normally don't get offended by jokes, but this is beyond jokes. This is politicians that might become president basically saying that we are not real people. This is how the person actually feels. This country has a history of trying to find some minority to blame for everything and to deny rights. Unfortunately I'm a member of 3 separate minorities (atheist, bisexual, and Mexican-American) that are the focus of the public right now. I want to be open and hopefully inspire other people that may be closeted still to join me in being open, to prove these people wrong. To show them that we do exist and that we are "normal" members of society that just happen to have a different sexual orientation.
It almost always makes me happy to see celebrities come out because it restores some of my faith in humanity. It reminds me that I'm not the only one that has had to deal with the problems of trying to understand their sexuality. The most recent of these was Todd Glass. I listened to him on WTF with Marc Maron and the entire time I was nodding because I knew almost exactly what he was dealing with. His explanation of why he finally decided to come out as gay was that he wanted to try to reduce the probability of bullying, that hopefully kids will not see being gay as something wrong. However, people like Snooki coming out doesn't help fellow bisexuals. She only reinforces the stereotype some people have of the bisexual community just wanting to hook up with anything with a pulse.
I discussed this point with a friend who was one of the first people I came out to, and decided that if more bisexual celebrities in monogamous relationships came out, it might help eliminate this stereotype. I decided to look for a list of bisexual celebrities and what I found surprised me. People on the list included Angelina Jolie, Drew Barrymore, Billie Joe Armstrong, Sammy Davis Jr., Kurt Cobain, Abraham Lincoln, and many more. Why is it that people like this aren't public representations of the bisexual community? For the most part they are or were mostly monogamous with their partner, and most people wouldn't be able to identify them as bisexual if it weren't for their own comments. The one quote that stood out the most to me was from Billie Joe Armstrong (lead singer of Green Day), who said, “I think I’ve always been bisexual… I mean, it’s something that I’ve always been interested in. I think everybody kind of fantasizes about the same sex. I think people are born bisexual, and it’s just that our parents and society kind of veer us off into this feeling of Oh, I can’t. They say it’s taboo. It’s ingrained in our heads that it’s bad, when it’s not bad at all. It’s a very beautiful thing.”
This really made me think. What if this is actually true? What if we all are actually bisexual, even if it is just a small portion of our sexuality? What if our culture is forcing people to be something they are not, just because it it says in some book written a thousand years ago that having sex with the same sex is morally wrong? (This is of course the same book that says that slavery is fine, people can't wear clothing made of two different fabrics, etc.) Regardless of whether or not this is actually true, I know that I was born bi/pansexual, that it isn't a choice, it isn't some weird phase, and for perhaps the first time in my life, I am proud to admit it, and I don't care what other people think of me.
Monday, February 13, 2012
2012 Grammy Awards
I guess I should preface this by seeing that I did not watch the Grammy's. All of this is based on various other sources surrounding the show, so if some of the facts are wrong, that would be why.
That being said, the main reason that I didn't watch it is because the Grammy's usually showcase what is wrong with music. The "music" that usually wins most major awards shows almost no musical talent. It is heavily synthesized sound that is paired with vocal tracks that are so auto-tuned that they cannot be performed live because the vocalist cannot mimic the original sound of the recording. This year saw a departure from that, though. For once, someone who actually has musical talent won the most awards. Although I admit, I am getting a bit tired of hearing Adele's "Rolling in the Deep," it is an amazing song. It makes me a bit sad that there are people that are getting angry because [insert hip-hop/R&B artist here] didn't beat her for awards. She is perhaps one of the best pure singer of recent times. Sure she doesn't fit the visual archetype of a pop singer (wafer thin and plastic) and she doesn't have the "performance art" that some other acts use, but this just lets her voice shine through.
What performances I did see cemented one thing in my mind: a truly great musician doesn't need to have some gimmick in order to enhance their performance. This could be seen with Adele; the Foo Fighters; and the closing ensemble of Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, Dave Grohl, Joe Walsh, et al. They stopped on stage without any fancy costumes or huge performance enhancement techniques like stockades, a screen showing what I assume passes through the brain of someone on a mix of LSD and cocaine, or 30 backup dancers. Instead they did what music should actually be about. They played their instruments and sang live and let the music be the focus of their performance. Too many performers (Nicki Minaj, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, et al) rely on some grand stage show and image in order to gain fans. In the past, acts like Marilyn Manson, Kiss, and Alice Cooper were criticized for this kind of behavior. Why is it now acceptable?
And please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, don't call lip-synching to pre-recorded synthetic noise "live music." You aren't faking any intelligent people out by lip-synching. When your lips are moving and an auto-tuned voice is heard, we know what's actually going on. That goes for Adam Levine, too. I don't hate Maroon 5 necessarily, but Levine being a judge on The Voice and critiquing people for their live singing voice is a bit hypocritical after tonight. He was basically making out with the mic so we couldn't tell whether or not he was synced with his pre-recorded vocals. This just made it look like he never opened his mouth during the entire song.
Also, are the Grammy's trying to appeal to hipsters to get them to watch? Last year it was The Arcade Fire, and this year it's Bon Iver. The best part is that nobody wins when this happens, except for people who like true irony. Non-hipster viewers are mad because they have no idea who the artist is. Hipsters don't watch the Grammy's because they are too cool. The Grammy's lose viewers because the hipsters don't watch, and non-hipsters might stop watching. And the artists lose their audience because now that they are "mainstream," hipsters stop listening.
TL;DR: Fuck the Grammy's.
That being said, the main reason that I didn't watch it is because the Grammy's usually showcase what is wrong with music. The "music" that usually wins most major awards shows almost no musical talent. It is heavily synthesized sound that is paired with vocal tracks that are so auto-tuned that they cannot be performed live because the vocalist cannot mimic the original sound of the recording. This year saw a departure from that, though. For once, someone who actually has musical talent won the most awards. Although I admit, I am getting a bit tired of hearing Adele's "Rolling in the Deep," it is an amazing song. It makes me a bit sad that there are people that are getting angry because [insert hip-hop/R&B artist here] didn't beat her for awards. She is perhaps one of the best pure singer of recent times. Sure she doesn't fit the visual archetype of a pop singer (wafer thin and plastic) and she doesn't have the "performance art" that some other acts use, but this just lets her voice shine through.
What performances I did see cemented one thing in my mind: a truly great musician doesn't need to have some gimmick in order to enhance their performance. This could be seen with Adele; the Foo Fighters; and the closing ensemble of Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, Dave Grohl, Joe Walsh, et al. They stopped on stage without any fancy costumes or huge performance enhancement techniques like stockades, a screen showing what I assume passes through the brain of someone on a mix of LSD and cocaine, or 30 backup dancers. Instead they did what music should actually be about. They played their instruments and sang live and let the music be the focus of their performance. Too many performers (Nicki Minaj, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, et al) rely on some grand stage show and image in order to gain fans. In the past, acts like Marilyn Manson, Kiss, and Alice Cooper were criticized for this kind of behavior. Why is it now acceptable?
And please, for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, don't call lip-synching to pre-recorded synthetic noise "live music." You aren't faking any intelligent people out by lip-synching. When your lips are moving and an auto-tuned voice is heard, we know what's actually going on. That goes for Adam Levine, too. I don't hate Maroon 5 necessarily, but Levine being a judge on The Voice and critiquing people for their live singing voice is a bit hypocritical after tonight. He was basically making out with the mic so we couldn't tell whether or not he was synced with his pre-recorded vocals. This just made it look like he never opened his mouth during the entire song.
Also, are the Grammy's trying to appeal to hipsters to get them to watch? Last year it was The Arcade Fire, and this year it's Bon Iver. The best part is that nobody wins when this happens, except for people who like true irony. Non-hipster viewers are mad because they have no idea who the artist is. Hipsters don't watch the Grammy's because they are too cool. The Grammy's lose viewers because the hipsters don't watch, and non-hipsters might stop watching. And the artists lose their audience because now that they are "mainstream," hipsters stop listening.
TL;DR: Fuck the Grammy's.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
IT'S SCIENCE!
As much as I hate to rant unprovoked against religion, I saw a fake Facebook status from Galileo that made me feel like doing so. For those who don't know, I used to identify as an Atheist, but as of late have begun to identify as a Naturalist. Naturalism is "The view that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws (Is Belief in God Good, Bad or Irrelevant?)." Basically, it is what some people may think atheism is, but defined in what their views are, rather than what they are not.
One of the things that people tell me should drive me to religion is "faith." They say that I should have faith in something that I have no evidence for. My thought is that if there were a higher power, wouldn't it be pleased more by somebody that has the mental prowess to think for himself, rather than blindly follow those in power? If I were a robotics engineer, I would feel more accomplished if I had created artificial intelligence more than if I had created a robot that follows a set program.
Also, there are people that argue against evolution because they say it is only a "theory." This argument shows me that they truly do not understand basic science. They think that the words "theory" and "hypothesis" can be used interchangeably. A hypothesis is a possible explanation for a phenomena that does not yet have empirical evidence to support it. On the other hand, a theory does have empirical evidence, and is widely accepted as truth. The difference between the way scientists think and the way outsiders believe scientists think is that scientists can never prove something. Scientists can only disprove things. Scientists can only offer up empirical evidence in order to support a theory. This is why evolution will always be called a theory.
Evolution is probably the scientific theory that divides this country the most, even though the evidence is staring us all in the face. We domesticated dogs from wolves thousands of years ago, we caused MRSA to evolve from Staphylococcus within the last century, I myself have seen small scale evolution in the lab, but yet as recent as 2009, 60% of Americans still do not believe in evolution. They point to gaps in the fossil record, but yet beg for all to have faith in an invisible man up in the sky. They point to all of the mistakes that have been made by scientists as a reason to doubt their work.
Today is a perfect idea to point out why that last argument holds no weight. Five years ago today, the IAU realized that they had made a mistake in the classification of Pluto as a planet, and changed their stance. They accepted that they had been wrong, and pointed out their mistake. Science is always correcting itself when new evidence comes to light. While some people use this as a way to discredit controversial theories, many realize that this actually gives them more credibility. Which is why I do give the Catholic Church some credibility when they came out 5 years ago and said that intelligent design is a fallacy. They at least showed some intelligence when they did that. Even if nobody that attends Catholic services heard about it. Religion has a history of killing all those that go against their beliefs: Pagans, Galileo, et al. So why should we believe that they are right over a group that will do the proper research when presented with an opposing opinion?
One of the things that people tell me should drive me to religion is "faith." They say that I should have faith in something that I have no evidence for. My thought is that if there were a higher power, wouldn't it be pleased more by somebody that has the mental prowess to think for himself, rather than blindly follow those in power? If I were a robotics engineer, I would feel more accomplished if I had created artificial intelligence more than if I had created a robot that follows a set program.
Also, there are people that argue against evolution because they say it is only a "theory." This argument shows me that they truly do not understand basic science. They think that the words "theory" and "hypothesis" can be used interchangeably. A hypothesis is a possible explanation for a phenomena that does not yet have empirical evidence to support it. On the other hand, a theory does have empirical evidence, and is widely accepted as truth. The difference between the way scientists think and the way outsiders believe scientists think is that scientists can never prove something. Scientists can only disprove things. Scientists can only offer up empirical evidence in order to support a theory. This is why evolution will always be called a theory.
Evolution is probably the scientific theory that divides this country the most, even though the evidence is staring us all in the face. We domesticated dogs from wolves thousands of years ago, we caused MRSA to evolve from Staphylococcus within the last century, I myself have seen small scale evolution in the lab, but yet as recent as 2009, 60% of Americans still do not believe in evolution. They point to gaps in the fossil record, but yet beg for all to have faith in an invisible man up in the sky. They point to all of the mistakes that have been made by scientists as a reason to doubt their work.
Today is a perfect idea to point out why that last argument holds no weight. Five years ago today, the IAU realized that they had made a mistake in the classification of Pluto as a planet, and changed their stance. They accepted that they had been wrong, and pointed out their mistake. Science is always correcting itself when new evidence comes to light. While some people use this as a way to discredit controversial theories, many realize that this actually gives them more credibility. Which is why I do give the Catholic Church some credibility when they came out 5 years ago and said that intelligent design is a fallacy. They at least showed some intelligence when they did that. Even if nobody that attends Catholic services heard about it. Religion has a history of killing all those that go against their beliefs: Pagans, Galileo, et al. So why should we believe that they are right over a group that will do the proper research when presented with an opposing opinion?
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Can you take a joke?
Americans are hypocrites. It has never been more obvious than right now. For those who have not heard, Tracy Morgan recently said at one of his shows that his son "better talk to me like a man and not in a gay voice or I'll pull out a knife and stab that little n**ger to death." While I agree that is a bad thing to say, he is a professional comedian! His job is to say ridiculous things in order to be funny. Nobody knows if the Tracy Morgan that we see on stage is even his own personality. He is so outrageous, that I wouldn't be surprised if it is just a character. He could be the same as Larry the Cable Guy, who is a caricature of people from the South and Midwest. It's no different than the offensive things that "Stephen Colbert" says 4 nights a week on national television. There are a few major problems in this story. The first is that there is no tape of this show, and there are many reports that he is misquoted out of context. How do we know exactly what he said? A single person is the one reporting this. The CNN story even says that he "reportedly" said these things because there is no proof. Although we can probably figure it out, as I have heard that he has said almost the exact same joke before on his HBO special. Why didn't anybody have a problem with it then?
Also, why is he being the one singled out for what he said? What about Jo Koy? A man in the audience at his show, only a week after the Tracy Morgan incident, pointed out that his zipper was down, to which he responded "Why are you looking, faggot?" When word got out, he was immediately fired from the Chelsea Handler TV show that is in development. How many people know about that story though? How many people still remember/care about what Kobe Bryant said? Nobody in the media called for him to be fired, even though that is much worse than what either of the other two said. Tracy Morgan and Jo Koy made their remarks in a stand-up comedy show, where they are expected to be offensive, and knew that more than one person was watching. Kobe Bryant said it to demean a person, and thought nobody would see. I think that is much worse and uncalled for. Especially when you look at all three of their apologies. While Koy and Morgan apologized almost immediately, Bryant refused to give an apology, which shows that he found nothing wrong with what he said.
By now you may be wondering what all of this has to do with American hypocrisy. While people were up in arms over Koy's and Morgan's comments, New York Democrats were struggling to pass a bill to legalize same sex marriage. In a country where we have to struggle to give equal rights to people of all sexual orientations, why are we surprised that comedians make "homophobic" jokes? Conservative politicians are much more homophobic than those two. I am fairly certain that Tracy Morgan would not actually stab his son if he was gay. However, if one of Sarah Palin's children was gay, she would instantly disown them, and there would be no chance of her being president. As a bisexual, I am much more offended by the people that say that homosexuality is morally wrong, than I am by Koy's and Morgan's jokes.
So until all members of the LGBTQ community get the same rights as heterosexuals, Americans can't be surprised and enraged by things that comedians say, because they merely are pointing out how terrible it is to not give them these rights.
Also, why is he being the one singled out for what he said? What about Jo Koy? A man in the audience at his show, only a week after the Tracy Morgan incident, pointed out that his zipper was down, to which he responded "Why are you looking, faggot?" When word got out, he was immediately fired from the Chelsea Handler TV show that is in development. How many people know about that story though? How many people still remember/care about what Kobe Bryant said? Nobody in the media called for him to be fired, even though that is much worse than what either of the other two said. Tracy Morgan and Jo Koy made their remarks in a stand-up comedy show, where they are expected to be offensive, and knew that more than one person was watching. Kobe Bryant said it to demean a person, and thought nobody would see. I think that is much worse and uncalled for. Especially when you look at all three of their apologies. While Koy and Morgan apologized almost immediately, Bryant refused to give an apology, which shows that he found nothing wrong with what he said.
By now you may be wondering what all of this has to do with American hypocrisy. While people were up in arms over Koy's and Morgan's comments, New York Democrats were struggling to pass a bill to legalize same sex marriage. In a country where we have to struggle to give equal rights to people of all sexual orientations, why are we surprised that comedians make "homophobic" jokes? Conservative politicians are much more homophobic than those two. I am fairly certain that Tracy Morgan would not actually stab his son if he was gay. However, if one of Sarah Palin's children was gay, she would instantly disown them, and there would be no chance of her being president. As a bisexual, I am much more offended by the people that say that homosexuality is morally wrong, than I am by Koy's and Morgan's jokes.
So until all members of the LGBTQ community get the same rights as heterosexuals, Americans can't be surprised and enraged by things that comedians say, because they merely are pointing out how terrible it is to not give them these rights.
Friday, May 13, 2011
TSA Baby
Not sure who all saw this story, but this week there was outrage as a TSA agent searched a baby's diaper in Kansas City. The reason given was that the baby's stroller tested positive for an explosive substance. So why is there a problem? Sure, the TSA can cross the line at times, but this was not one of those instances. I would be more outraged if they hadn't checked to be safe. It was almost a year and a half ago that the "underwear bomber" incident happened. It is obviously plausible that terrorists would stoop that low to accomplish their goal. We can't just say that there is no way that a baby could have explosives in their diaper. Imagine the outrage if someone had brought explosives on a plane in a baby's diaper. For once we actually may have prevented a new type of attack. We are one step ahead of terrorists now, for the first time that I can remember.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Osama
Hot off the presses! Osama Bin Laden is dead!
We killed an innocent man. That's right, innocent. "Innocent until proven guilty" has been the basis of our government since its inception. So, technically, by that, Osama was an innocent man. We sought out and killed him. We did not try to detain him. The intent was to kill him. Does that not make us as bad as him? Had we tried to capture him, he tried to shoot at our soldiers, and then they killed him, then there would have been no problem as it would have been considered self defense. This is no different than police going in and killing a mass murder unprovoked. Hell, we even gave Saddam Hussein a trial!
The description of what happens just doesn't seem right. There was a firefight, but no Americans were hurt. Who are we fighting, Storm Troopers? How do guys who are protecting the most wanted man in the world such terrible shots?
Just heard someone on CNN saying that this ends the war on terror. So either one of two things needs to happen: either we pull out every single troop out of every other country, or he needs to shut the hell up. Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization in the world. And even if they were, Hitler's death didn't get rid of every Nazi in the world did it? We are probably at more risk now than ever.
The true winners in all this: the Westboro Baptist Church. Americans have become enraged with them protesting funerals of soldiers. The reason they protest is because they believe that these soldiers are rebels in God's eyes. Now, we as a nation are celebrating the death of a rebel. How are we any better than them?
We killed an innocent man. That's right, innocent. "Innocent until proven guilty" has been the basis of our government since its inception. So, technically, by that, Osama was an innocent man. We sought out and killed him. We did not try to detain him. The intent was to kill him. Does that not make us as bad as him? Had we tried to capture him, he tried to shoot at our soldiers, and then they killed him, then there would have been no problem as it would have been considered self defense. This is no different than police going in and killing a mass murder unprovoked. Hell, we even gave Saddam Hussein a trial!
The description of what happens just doesn't seem right. There was a firefight, but no Americans were hurt. Who are we fighting, Storm Troopers? How do guys who are protecting the most wanted man in the world such terrible shots?
Just heard someone on CNN saying that this ends the war on terror. So either one of two things needs to happen: either we pull out every single troop out of every other country, or he needs to shut the hell up. Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorist organization in the world. And even if they were, Hitler's death didn't get rid of every Nazi in the world did it? We are probably at more risk now than ever.
The true winners in all this: the Westboro Baptist Church. Americans have become enraged with them protesting funerals of soldiers. The reason they protest is because they believe that these soldiers are rebels in God's eyes. Now, we as a nation are celebrating the death of a rebel. How are we any better than them?
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Money
The NFL Draft is in full swing, and we now know that there will probably be a full season now that the lockout is over. For some reason though, everyone wanted to place the blame on the players. However, the owners wanted to pay the players less, while increasing their own cut of the profit. Let's think about something: one group puts their lives on the line in almost any weather, while the other sits up in a climate-controlled booth while this happens. Who deserves more money? People need to think about it in terms of their own job. If their boss tried to pull that over on them, there's no way they would stand for it!
Another company that makes way too much money is Occidental Petroleum. This past year, their profits increased 46%, to $1.55 billion, a company record. The reason? Increases prices. Gas prices are insanely high because of the turmoil in the Middle East. That should mean that their costs and prices should increase fairly similarly and profit should remain fairly steady. There obviously is some disconnect there.
But that is our country: we are moving into the hands of big business. Yet somehow both parties still claim to be out for the common citizen. One party supports unionizing to maintain workers' rights, while the other wants to ban unions in government workplaces. If we all were really out for the common citizen, we wouldn't be trying to get rid of unions. And we definitely wouldn't be allowing big businesses to exploit loopholes in tax laws so they pay less taxes than individual people do. Our government gives more money in tax returns than it receives in taxes. But yet, some people want to still lower taxes. Lowering taxes decreases the amount of money that our government has. Yet people wonder why we are so far in debt as a nation. Maybe instead of lowering taxes, we should lower our spending. And instead of cutting something as small as Planned Parenthood, maybe we should start cutting back on our defense budget. The largest air force in the world is the United States Air Force. The second largest air force is a part of the U.S. Navy. It seems like we have room to cut.
As if all this wasn't bad enough, now big business is attempting to get into the White House. Donald Trump has a realistic shot of being the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. Why does he deserve a realistic chance? He has no past experience in politics. Look at California and what happened when a celebrity decided to run for office. He's banking on being a recognizable name, and having business success. People are going to vote for him because they think of all of his successful businesses, but what about his unsuccessful businesses? He had multiple businesses go bankrupt. How does a casino go bankrupt?! How is he supposed to handle running an entire country? Looks like it's time for me to get my dual citizenship just to be safe!
Another company that makes way too much money is Occidental Petroleum. This past year, their profits increased 46%, to $1.55 billion, a company record. The reason? Increases prices. Gas prices are insanely high because of the turmoil in the Middle East. That should mean that their costs and prices should increase fairly similarly and profit should remain fairly steady. There obviously is some disconnect there.
But that is our country: we are moving into the hands of big business. Yet somehow both parties still claim to be out for the common citizen. One party supports unionizing to maintain workers' rights, while the other wants to ban unions in government workplaces. If we all were really out for the common citizen, we wouldn't be trying to get rid of unions. And we definitely wouldn't be allowing big businesses to exploit loopholes in tax laws so they pay less taxes than individual people do. Our government gives more money in tax returns than it receives in taxes. But yet, some people want to still lower taxes. Lowering taxes decreases the amount of money that our government has. Yet people wonder why we are so far in debt as a nation. Maybe instead of lowering taxes, we should lower our spending. And instead of cutting something as small as Planned Parenthood, maybe we should start cutting back on our defense budget. The largest air force in the world is the United States Air Force. The second largest air force is a part of the U.S. Navy. It seems like we have room to cut.
As if all this wasn't bad enough, now big business is attempting to get into the White House. Donald Trump has a realistic shot of being the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. Why does he deserve a realistic chance? He has no past experience in politics. Look at California and what happened when a celebrity decided to run for office. He's banking on being a recognizable name, and having business success. People are going to vote for him because they think of all of his successful businesses, but what about his unsuccessful businesses? He had multiple businesses go bankrupt. How does a casino go bankrupt?! How is he supposed to handle running an entire country? Looks like it's time for me to get my dual citizenship just to be safe!
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
SEX!
Now that I have your attention.
Listening to the news lately, which is a big mistake, I've heard some interesting facts about pregnancy. The main one is that there are 400,000 teen pregnancies each year. If only there were some way to prevent pregnancy while having sex! Although that is obviously a joke, it is sadly what many teenagers learn in school, to not have sex. It's obvious that abstinence only sex education does not work. Teens are having sex, obviously, so why do we still teach abstinence only? Sure, the number of teen pregnancies is decreasing, but it is still 9 times higher than other first world countries. If we actually taught all high school students about birth control, this number would be much lower. Instead of getting rid of Planned Parenthood we should support it. They work to prevent unwanted pregnancies. They aren't just an abortion clinic like some people like to think, but they are too set in their hatred to look at this fact.
But that is the way it is in our society, sex doesn't exist! We can't talk about it in the media. We can't even say the word uterus in state senate. Other countries don't have a problem discussing sex. The BBC even shows simulated sex on some programs. So why are we so censored? The movie Clerks was originally an NC-17 rating for language. If you haven't seen the movie, there is no nudity, no actual sex, and no violence in the movie. However, movies with violence and gore that make many people sicken are given an R rating no problem. Just this month, Rolling Stone showed a real severed head in its pages, while it blurred out a FAKE penis that Nicki Minaj was wearing in a harness in the same issue. Why are the priorities so backward?
Speaking of the media, why are homosexual men mainly portrayed as stereotypes in TV shows and movies? These characters highlight the comedic differences between those of various sexual orientation, like those in Glee and Modern Family. In reality, these differences are not as blatant. I feel bad for saying this so much, but we could really learn something from the UK. Once again, on BBC there is a show, Torchwood, that handles it well. The main character, Captain Jack Harkness, is omnisexual, but with the exception of having romantic and sexual relationships with men, women, and aliens, he does not fulfill the "usual" stereotype.
On a completely unrelated note: For fellow Pastafarians, we are in the middle of Pastover. I hope you all have been touched by His noodly appendage. RAmen.
Listening to the news lately, which is a big mistake, I've heard some interesting facts about pregnancy. The main one is that there are 400,000 teen pregnancies each year. If only there were some way to prevent pregnancy while having sex! Although that is obviously a joke, it is sadly what many teenagers learn in school, to not have sex. It's obvious that abstinence only sex education does not work. Teens are having sex, obviously, so why do we still teach abstinence only? Sure, the number of teen pregnancies is decreasing, but it is still 9 times higher than other first world countries. If we actually taught all high school students about birth control, this number would be much lower. Instead of getting rid of Planned Parenthood we should support it. They work to prevent unwanted pregnancies. They aren't just an abortion clinic like some people like to think, but they are too set in their hatred to look at this fact.
But that is the way it is in our society, sex doesn't exist! We can't talk about it in the media. We can't even say the word uterus in state senate. Other countries don't have a problem discussing sex. The BBC even shows simulated sex on some programs. So why are we so censored? The movie Clerks was originally an NC-17 rating for language. If you haven't seen the movie, there is no nudity, no actual sex, and no violence in the movie. However, movies with violence and gore that make many people sicken are given an R rating no problem. Just this month, Rolling Stone showed a real severed head in its pages, while it blurred out a FAKE penis that Nicki Minaj was wearing in a harness in the same issue. Why are the priorities so backward?
Speaking of the media, why are homosexual men mainly portrayed as stereotypes in TV shows and movies? These characters highlight the comedic differences between those of various sexual orientation, like those in Glee and Modern Family. In reality, these differences are not as blatant. I feel bad for saying this so much, but we could really learn something from the UK. Once again, on BBC there is a show, Torchwood, that handles it well. The main character, Captain Jack Harkness, is omnisexual, but with the exception of having romantic and sexual relationships with men, women, and aliens, he does not fulfill the "usual" stereotype.
On a completely unrelated note: For fellow Pastafarians, we are in the middle of Pastover. I hope you all have been touched by His noodly appendage. RAmen.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Words, Words, Words
Over the last couple weeks I've been thinking about the power of words in our society. The first amendment to our Constitution includes the protection of freedom of speech, but each person is all over the board on this. Most people in this country, whether they like to admit it or not, would like there to be some sort of limit on free speech.
One of the major things people want to limit is the use of slurs. I agree that the "n-word" should be wiped from our current vocabulary. It was a word created centuries ago solely to demean an entire race of people in this country, who were already being enslaved and/or killed. However, that does not mean that we should take it out of books written during this time period. The reason Tom Sawyer used this word in his writing was not to demean African-American slaves, but rather to demonstrate the horrible times in which he was living.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, however, is the word "retard." The word was originally used to mean "to hold back." Then, in the late 19th century it was used as an umbrella term for anyone who suffers from one of any developmental disabilities. Now, there are a number of people trying to get rid of the "r-word" as they say, comparing to the "n-word." That's where I believe they are blowing things out of proportion. "Retard" was not created as a word to put down any person. However, if people really want to get rid of it, then let's do it. And then, start using the words that were originally used: idiot, moron, and imbecile. Those are words that were created to demean a large group of people, but are no longer used because "retarded" is not as politically incorrect. And even if we do stop using "retarded," where do we go from there? Mentally handicapped? Isn't there a group trying to get rid of the word "handicapped" as well?
Then somewhere in the middle, we have the LGBT community. I will preface this by saying I completely support equal rights for everybody, and right now the main group that is not given these equal rights are the LGBT community. And I agree that the "f-word" should not be used as it is, because it has been used in so many hate crimes. However, I was recently scolded for defining genetic sex as a binary term. I agree that gender is a social construct and should be treated as a continuum, but sex is mainly binary. However, it is a very loose binary system. Sure it is possible for any variety of intersex individuals, but there is also a possibility for polydactyly in humans as well. Yet, we still classify the number of fingers and toes per limb as 5. So until we change our classification for this number, I stand strong in my binary definition of sex.
Then there is the straw that broke the camel's back. Apparently overnight, a girl supposedly attending UCLA posted a video blog on Youtube about the "Asians in the Library" who are always talking on their phone, saying "ching chong ling long ting tong." While I agree that this is reprehensible, I'm really not that surprised. I saw a video response in which a guy summed up my thoughts exactly. We sweep our discrimination under the rug for all but 2 groups: LGBT community and Muslims. However, there are public figures that still buy into discrimination. Unfortunately for many rational conservatives, a large majority of them happen to be conservatives. One major event on the scale of this event was Rush Limbaugh speaking about Hu Jintao's speech in America in January, and trying to replicate his speech in gibberish that he said was Chinese. Even before that, though, there was a huge outrage when it was thought that then presidential candidate Obama was Muslim. So what if he is? Even if he is Muslim, that does not make him a terrorist just because there are Muslim extremists in the world. These extremists are not much different than the Westboro Baptist Church. We don't associate all Christian faiths with the WBC, so why do we associate all Muslims with the extremists that launch terror attacks? So why are so many people surprised that this girl thought it was okay to say what she did?
Stop it, America!
One of the major things people want to limit is the use of slurs. I agree that the "n-word" should be wiped from our current vocabulary. It was a word created centuries ago solely to demean an entire race of people in this country, who were already being enslaved and/or killed. However, that does not mean that we should take it out of books written during this time period. The reason Tom Sawyer used this word in his writing was not to demean African-American slaves, but rather to demonstrate the horrible times in which he was living.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, however, is the word "retard." The word was originally used to mean "to hold back." Then, in the late 19th century it was used as an umbrella term for anyone who suffers from one of any developmental disabilities. Now, there are a number of people trying to get rid of the "r-word" as they say, comparing to the "n-word." That's where I believe they are blowing things out of proportion. "Retard" was not created as a word to put down any person. However, if people really want to get rid of it, then let's do it. And then, start using the words that were originally used: idiot, moron, and imbecile. Those are words that were created to demean a large group of people, but are no longer used because "retarded" is not as politically incorrect. And even if we do stop using "retarded," where do we go from there? Mentally handicapped? Isn't there a group trying to get rid of the word "handicapped" as well?
Then somewhere in the middle, we have the LGBT community. I will preface this by saying I completely support equal rights for everybody, and right now the main group that is not given these equal rights are the LGBT community. And I agree that the "f-word" should not be used as it is, because it has been used in so many hate crimes. However, I was recently scolded for defining genetic sex as a binary term. I agree that gender is a social construct and should be treated as a continuum, but sex is mainly binary. However, it is a very loose binary system. Sure it is possible for any variety of intersex individuals, but there is also a possibility for polydactyly in humans as well. Yet, we still classify the number of fingers and toes per limb as 5. So until we change our classification for this number, I stand strong in my binary definition of sex.
Then there is the straw that broke the camel's back. Apparently overnight, a girl supposedly attending UCLA posted a video blog on Youtube about the "Asians in the Library" who are always talking on their phone, saying "ching chong ling long ting tong." While I agree that this is reprehensible, I'm really not that surprised. I saw a video response in which a guy summed up my thoughts exactly. We sweep our discrimination under the rug for all but 2 groups: LGBT community and Muslims. However, there are public figures that still buy into discrimination. Unfortunately for many rational conservatives, a large majority of them happen to be conservatives. One major event on the scale of this event was Rush Limbaugh speaking about Hu Jintao's speech in America in January, and trying to replicate his speech in gibberish that he said was Chinese. Even before that, though, there was a huge outrage when it was thought that then presidential candidate Obama was Muslim. So what if he is? Even if he is Muslim, that does not make him a terrorist just because there are Muslim extremists in the world. These extremists are not much different than the Westboro Baptist Church. We don't associate all Christian faiths with the WBC, so why do we associate all Muslims with the extremists that launch terror attacks? So why are so many people surprised that this girl thought it was okay to say what she did?
Stop it, America!
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Showbiz
Charlie Sheen. I think that is enough by now. We all know that he is a punchline and we can just move on with our lives and not waste our breaths on this idiot.
Speaking of stupidity in Hollywood, Kobe Bryant last week was immortalized at the Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. I totally support their decision to do this based on Kobe's great film career... wait that's not right. As Jimmy Kimmel said, "The closest Kobe's come to acting is pretending he's going to pass the ball to Luke Walton." In other news, famous film director Kevin Smith will be inducted into the basketball hall of fame this summer. Sure that might be sarcastic, but if Kobe is given undeserving honors, why not spread the wealth. Grauman's is supposed to be a place to celebrate the history of film. Not a place to thank rapists who were coerced to stay in the city of Los Angeles (allegedly).
Last night, the roster for the upcoming season of Dancing with the Stars was announced. I'm usually not interested in this show unless somebody I like is on it (like Chuck Liddell or Steve-O in the past). The one problem people have had in the past with the show is that there is always a "nobody" that they say doesn't fit in or deserve to be on the show. This year the one person that is considered to be the "nobody" is Michael "Psycho Mike" Catherwood. However, I hate to burst their bubbles, but he is just as famous as most people that have been on the show before. Just a sampling on the "professions" of previous and current contestants: wife of Elvis Presley, Broadway actress, charity campaigner/ex-wife of a Beatle, voice actor, reality TV star, etc. So classifying a man who is the host of a nationally syndicated radio show, assistant producer of a nationally recognized radio show, and occasional TV host as a star is not so far-fetched. Let's take a look at the rest of the cast: Kendra Wilkinson, who is famous for being the girlfriend of Hugh Hefner and wife of a journeyman NFL player; Kirstie Alley, who was famous for being in Cheers in the late 80s; Chris Jericho, a professional "wrestler"; Chelsea Kane, an actress on the Disney Channel; Sugar Ray Leonard, one of the greatest boxers in history, whose last match was in '97; Ralph Macchio, who played the original Karate Kid in '84; Petra Nemcova, a model whose claim to fame is her husband's tragic death; Romeo, who got his career because of his dad; Hines Ward, an NFL player; and Wendy Williams, a BET talk show host. I guess they are right, he doesn't fit in with these HUGE stars.
And once again, I will finish with Americans ignoring great things from another country. I recently started watching the reboot of Doctor Who. For those who don't know, Doctor Who is a British sci-fi show that was started in 1963 and was rebooted in 2005. It is considered to be one of the greatest shows in British history. However, in America, it is deemed "nerdy" to watch it. Why? Just a few years ago, Lost was one of the biggest shows on TV, even though it was a confusing sci-fi show. On the other hand, even though Doctor Who is sci-fi show, it is still fairly easy to understand on multiple levels. Sure there are the huge Doctor Geeks who know the entire timeline, but it can also be enjoyed by the layperson. So much so that in 2008 9 out of 10 British children could correctly identify a Dalek (an alien species in the Whoniverse). While in America our children can recognize Ronald McDonald. Even the Queen is a huge fan of the show. So if watching Doctor Who is a "nerdy" thing, then the entire United Kingdom must be nerdy.
Stop it America!
Speaking of stupidity in Hollywood, Kobe Bryant last week was immortalized at the Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood. I totally support their decision to do this based on Kobe's great film career... wait that's not right. As Jimmy Kimmel said, "The closest Kobe's come to acting is pretending he's going to pass the ball to Luke Walton." In other news, famous film director Kevin Smith will be inducted into the basketball hall of fame this summer. Sure that might be sarcastic, but if Kobe is given undeserving honors, why not spread the wealth. Grauman's is supposed to be a place to celebrate the history of film. Not a place to thank rapists who were coerced to stay in the city of Los Angeles (allegedly).
Last night, the roster for the upcoming season of Dancing with the Stars was announced. I'm usually not interested in this show unless somebody I like is on it (like Chuck Liddell or Steve-O in the past). The one problem people have had in the past with the show is that there is always a "nobody" that they say doesn't fit in or deserve to be on the show. This year the one person that is considered to be the "nobody" is Michael "Psycho Mike" Catherwood. However, I hate to burst their bubbles, but he is just as famous as most people that have been on the show before. Just a sampling on the "professions" of previous and current contestants: wife of Elvis Presley, Broadway actress, charity campaigner/ex-wife of a Beatle, voice actor, reality TV star, etc. So classifying a man who is the host of a nationally syndicated radio show, assistant producer of a nationally recognized radio show, and occasional TV host as a star is not so far-fetched. Let's take a look at the rest of the cast: Kendra Wilkinson, who is famous for being the girlfriend of Hugh Hefner and wife of a journeyman NFL player; Kirstie Alley, who was famous for being in Cheers in the late 80s; Chris Jericho, a professional "wrestler"; Chelsea Kane, an actress on the Disney Channel; Sugar Ray Leonard, one of the greatest boxers in history, whose last match was in '97; Ralph Macchio, who played the original Karate Kid in '84; Petra Nemcova, a model whose claim to fame is her husband's tragic death; Romeo, who got his career because of his dad; Hines Ward, an NFL player; and Wendy Williams, a BET talk show host. I guess they are right, he doesn't fit in with these HUGE stars.
And once again, I will finish with Americans ignoring great things from another country. I recently started watching the reboot of Doctor Who. For those who don't know, Doctor Who is a British sci-fi show that was started in 1963 and was rebooted in 2005. It is considered to be one of the greatest shows in British history. However, in America, it is deemed "nerdy" to watch it. Why? Just a few years ago, Lost was one of the biggest shows on TV, even though it was a confusing sci-fi show. On the other hand, even though Doctor Who is sci-fi show, it is still fairly easy to understand on multiple levels. Sure there are the huge Doctor Geeks who know the entire timeline, but it can also be enjoyed by the layperson. So much so that in 2008 9 out of 10 British children could correctly identify a Dalek (an alien species in the Whoniverse). While in America our children can recognize Ronald McDonald. Even the Queen is a huge fan of the show. So if watching Doctor Who is a "nerdy" thing, then the entire United Kingdom must be nerdy.
Stop it America!
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
South Dakota
When did it become our MO to make stupid laws because we don't agree with other laws? Over the past 24 hours I have seen two separate articles detailing two separate bills that are currently on the docket in South Dakota. Although, honestly, you could mistake it for Texas in this instance.
First, state representatives have proposed a bill that would make it mandatory for all residents over the age of 21 to purchase firearms. The reason they are doing this is to prove that the federal government cannot make it mandatory for citizens to purchase health insurance. However, they do not have any problem with auto insurance being compulsory. So they don't have a problem with the premise of the law as much as they have a problem with who is passing the law. If they are really against socialism, then they should not have access to any socialized services in our society. When they retire, they can't collect social security. Then, if they go bankrupt, they should not be able to access welfare, Medicare, or Medicaid. If they are the victim of a crime, or if their property were to catch on fire, they cannot call the police or fire departments. Their children cannot go to public school and cannot check out books from the public library. And finally, they have to sit in their house all day, because they will be unable to use roads and highways. Politicians need to realize that free market and communism are not binary definitions. It is a continuum, and we just happen to be on the free market side of said continuum. Also, the health care reform bill isn't even socialized health care. We still have to pay for health insurance. Only a portion will be subsidized for people who need it.
To summarize my view of their thought process: why should we try to get people to buy health insurance to help them survive? Instead, let's make everyone get an implement to kill people with whom they disagree.
Speaking of which, some South Dakota lawmakers are trying to pass a bill to make it justifiable to murder abortion doctors. The exact language of the law is: "Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is." To me, it seems as though it was specifically worded to be misleading. They wanted people to think that it supposed to allow for self-defense. The terrible wording aside, this is possibly one of the worst bills ever to be taken seriously in America. Abortion has been ruled legal by the Supreme Court before. So why should doctors who perform a legal medical service be grouped together with murderers and felons? Especially a few weeks after a member of congress was almost assassinated because of her beliefs. The beliefs of Voltaire, one of the catalysts of modern democracy, can be summed up as this: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." What happened to the days of democracy when this was still held true? Now, if somebody doesn't agree with another person, they try to kill them.
One argument against the health care reform is that it will put doctors out of jobs. Isn't one of the leading causes of unemployment death? So why should we decrease the number of doctors in this country?
Stop it America!
First, state representatives have proposed a bill that would make it mandatory for all residents over the age of 21 to purchase firearms. The reason they are doing this is to prove that the federal government cannot make it mandatory for citizens to purchase health insurance. However, they do not have any problem with auto insurance being compulsory. So they don't have a problem with the premise of the law as much as they have a problem with who is passing the law. If they are really against socialism, then they should not have access to any socialized services in our society. When they retire, they can't collect social security. Then, if they go bankrupt, they should not be able to access welfare, Medicare, or Medicaid. If they are the victim of a crime, or if their property were to catch on fire, they cannot call the police or fire departments. Their children cannot go to public school and cannot check out books from the public library. And finally, they have to sit in their house all day, because they will be unable to use roads and highways. Politicians need to realize that free market and communism are not binary definitions. It is a continuum, and we just happen to be on the free market side of said continuum. Also, the health care reform bill isn't even socialized health care. We still have to pay for health insurance. Only a portion will be subsidized for people who need it.
To summarize my view of their thought process: why should we try to get people to buy health insurance to help them survive? Instead, let's make everyone get an implement to kill people with whom they disagree.
Speaking of which, some South Dakota lawmakers are trying to pass a bill to make it justifiable to murder abortion doctors. The exact language of the law is: "Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is." To me, it seems as though it was specifically worded to be misleading. They wanted people to think that it supposed to allow for self-defense. The terrible wording aside, this is possibly one of the worst bills ever to be taken seriously in America. Abortion has been ruled legal by the Supreme Court before. So why should doctors who perform a legal medical service be grouped together with murderers and felons? Especially a few weeks after a member of congress was almost assassinated because of her beliefs. The beliefs of Voltaire, one of the catalysts of modern democracy, can be summed up as this: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." What happened to the days of democracy when this was still held true? Now, if somebody doesn't agree with another person, they try to kill them.
One argument against the health care reform is that it will put doctors out of jobs. Isn't one of the leading causes of unemployment death? So why should we decrease the number of doctors in this country?
Stop it America!
Monday, February 14, 2011
Valentime's Day
This weekend marked one of the worst awards shows, the Grammys. For 53 years, the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences have given away awards to the "best" "musicians" of the preceding year. I use those two words very liberally in this sense. Just to give a reference point, Mick Jagger, the lead singer of what some people could argue is one of the greatest rock bands, just performed at the Grammys for the first time. 39 years after the Rolling Stones formed. Lady Gaga has performed more times than Mick Jagger. Speaking of Lady Gaga, she is probably one of the most overrated performers at this point in time. The only reason she is famous is her shock value. The only thing that separates her from, say, Marilyn Manson, is that she is more socially accepted. So when people say that she got screwed for album of the year because nobody knows who Arcade Fire are is idiotic. This sadly represents what is wrong with the music industry. Good musicians get pushed to the side, while people who make pop music become more famous and get more recognition. What's worse, the bane of the music industry, is Justin Bieber. Millions of little girls are going to raise hell because he didn't win best new artist over Esperanza Spalding. Sadly, there are adults that agree. Unlike Justin Bieber she is a talented musician. She obviously has to be if she is winning a mainstream Grammy despite being a jazz musician.
Today is Valentine's Day, one of the most pointless days of the year. If you have to wait for a special day once a year to show your admiration for your significant other, there is something wrong with your relationship. Like many holidays in America, it is only a way for companies to make money off of people.
Speaking of things that are wrong with America, why do Americans only like sports that we create? One of the greatest annual sports events is happening this month, the RBS 6 Nations tournaments. However, because most Americans are too stupid/lazy/self-centered to learn about rugby, we get to watch one game a week. It doesn't even get coverage on ESPN, while poker and bowling both get time. Even worse, next summer marks the beginning of the Rugby World Cup, and I'm willing to bet that the only time it will get time on TV in America is whatever games BBC televises.
Stop it America!
Today is Valentine's Day, one of the most pointless days of the year. If you have to wait for a special day once a year to show your admiration for your significant other, there is something wrong with your relationship. Like many holidays in America, it is only a way for companies to make money off of people.
Speaking of things that are wrong with America, why do Americans only like sports that we create? One of the greatest annual sports events is happening this month, the RBS 6 Nations tournaments. However, because most Americans are too stupid/lazy/self-centered to learn about rugby, we get to watch one game a week. It doesn't even get coverage on ESPN, while poker and bowling both get time. Even worse, next summer marks the beginning of the Rugby World Cup, and I'm willing to bet that the only time it will get time on TV in America is whatever games BBC televises.
Stop it America!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)