Remember when you amicably parted ways with your last boyfriend and then one of his friends began verbally harrassing you via text message?
Oh, that hasn't happened to you? Ah, your ex boyfriend must have normal friends!
Two-ish weeks ago, I broke up with my boyfriend of two months...it just wasn't working out. But we didn't fight or argue about anything, and it was a fairly peaceful break-up over all. Today, I'm at work, and I get a text message from this number that looks oddly familiar.
It says, "are you coming to theos for new years?" This allows me to narrow down the list of possible senders. Theo=friend of my ex-boyfriend.
I respond, logically, with "Who is this?"
The response? "that is a yes or no question". Oh, very helpful.
I say, "no".
Then, "why not frizzle?" Ah, yes. It is you, Mike Miller. The only person who calls me Ms. Frizzle. Yes, I am an animated woman who drives a magic school bus and has a pet iguana. I do have frizzy hair though, I'll give you that.
I text back, "because i made other plans and i haven't talked to [my ex-boyfriend] for 3 days."
I'll spare you the middle portion. But he starts the text by saying that my ex still wants me to come to the party and ends it by calling my friends a series of slurs and insults that are unwarranted. As all slurs usually are.
It is at this point that I become irate. The slurs and insults continue. I mean really cruel stuff here, people. I know I have a biting personality, but I would never say things the likes of which this guy has so artfully placed in a series of text messages, complete with spelling and grammar errors that would embarrass a four year-old.
Eventually, I break. I send him a text saying, "aw mikey. i hope your parents are proud of the little bitch of a man you've become". Mean? Yes. Warranted? Yes.
I then receive this cute little message: "damn thats harsh, haha nah it dosnt matter what you say..guess u just realized how terrible ur friends are..u must be having a bad night..dont txt me dumb things i only laugh..an bitch would not describe me..look at ur past bf's and friends..there lacking on manly qualities". For those of you who don't know, my high school boyfriend is now gay. And the last time I saw him, I liked him even better than I did in high school. And no, I do not date manly men; it's true. I'm manly enough on my own.
Let's continue. You know when you're really angry with someone and you just want to scream and shake them, but you know that it would be better to just let it go? I could not bring myself to do this. As the saying goes, "Let go or be dragged."
And so I say, "yeah you're right. real men text their friend's ex-girlfriends insults about people they don't even know. you want to be a man? come to my house and say that shit to my face". At this point, I'm fantasizing about bashing his head in with a banjo. But I would never do that. I love my banjo.
And so, in one last attempt to scrape the bottom of the barrel that is his manhood, Mike Miller texts to me, "an talk about parents raising children, well lets not go that far ur news is worse than mine..everytime u txt me do u cry to [your ex] what i say bc he txts me plz dont talk to [you]..hahahaha..come to ur house? what would u do, ur a woman..u forgot to say im sexist which would also mean i think ur as useless as a poopy flavored lolly pop..if i came to ur house id shave that mop on ur head".
Let's see...that's a comment about my parents' divorce? a false accusation about telling on him when really he bragged to my ex that he texted me these things? an insult to my gender? a weird reference to some kind of candy made to taste like fecal matter? oh and an insult about my hair?! seriously? that's too easy.
So the battle ends. He thinks he has won, I think I have won. All along, while I'm receiving these texts, I'm thinking that he and my ex are together with a bunch of friends drinking and goofing around and being dumb. But no, my ex is at home in Maryland, and Mike is in Virginia, feeling some kind of urge to verbally abuse me and my friends from far away.
This puzzles me. I am thinking to myself, who does this in their free time? And I am also consumed with anger. Not because he insulted me. Frankly, I can take it. But to insult my friends that he doesn't even know? Really?
So I just want to take this moment to, 1) thank you for reading this post if you've made it this far, and 2) if you are a person in my life who has treated me kindly and never purposefully harrassed or insulted me (which is most of you), I would like to thank you. And I would like to extend a special thank you to all of the men in my life who have always respected me and always been there for me.
So if you find yourself consoling a friend who has just been dumped, don't steal their phone, retrieve their ex's number, and begin to verbally harrass said ex. Remember that text messages are saved and can be used against you and published all over the Internet.
And remember that some people are truly and genuinely insane and will come to your house and beat you with a folk instrument.
But I would never do that.
I love my banjo.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
3-D Schmee-D! (Yes, it's a rant.)
That's right, a rant.
What is with this sudden eruption of so-called "3-D" movies and television? Let me point something out to everyone: first of all, just because it looks as if Woody from Toy Story is running toward you with his spindly little legs, this doesn't mean he has been magically transported into the third dimension. If you reach out, he will not be there. He is still trapped inside your television.
More importantly, is there no imagination left in this world?! LIFE is three-dimensional! Either use your imagination when you're watching your two-dimensional show which already features three-dimensional images, or go outside and experience some real elements of the third dimension!
You think it's cool and trendy to wear glasses while watching TV? Does it make you sad when you take them off and the screen is all blurry and crappy? Try having poor vision and being forced to wear real glasses! Take off your glasses anywhere and the whole WORLD is blurry and crappy. Which, judging by the ridiculous evolution of fake three-dimensionalism, may be the best thing after all.
p.s. I would like to dedicate this post to my co-worker Andy, who pestered me constantly to write shorter blogs. Andy, if you actually read this far, I hope you're happy.
What is with this sudden eruption of so-called "3-D" movies and television? Let me point something out to everyone: first of all, just because it looks as if Woody from Toy Story is running toward you with his spindly little legs, this doesn't mean he has been magically transported into the third dimension. If you reach out, he will not be there. He is still trapped inside your television.
More importantly, is there no imagination left in this world?! LIFE is three-dimensional! Either use your imagination when you're watching your two-dimensional show which already features three-dimensional images, or go outside and experience some real elements of the third dimension!
You think it's cool and trendy to wear glasses while watching TV? Does it make you sad when you take them off and the screen is all blurry and crappy? Try having poor vision and being forced to wear real glasses! Take off your glasses anywhere and the whole WORLD is blurry and crappy. Which, judging by the ridiculous evolution of fake three-dimensionalism, may be the best thing after all.
p.s. I would like to dedicate this post to my co-worker Andy, who pestered me constantly to write shorter blogs. Andy, if you actually read this far, I hope you're happy.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Christmas Eve Reprieve!
So, because it's Christmas Eve, I decided to write a little poem instead of a controversial post:
It’s the night before Christmas, and everyone’s wrapping
Their last-minute gifts with some last-minute trappings.
Santa has already started his route,
With his trusty reindeer and his big ol’ red suit.
Some folks are still shopping, still at the store,
And some are in traffic for an hour—or four.
Some folks are cooking, and basting, and stuffing,
Running around and huffing and puffing.
Wishing for snow, or even a flurry,
Then taking it back because they’re in a hurry.
Forgetting to slow down and rest for a while,
To be thankful and happy and give someone a smile.
Because when you feel like this is the longest you’ve waited
In line at the mall and you’re stressed and frustrated,
When the dinner is burning, and the tape sticks together,
And you feel like this is about all you can weather,
Remember the people with loved ones at war,
Those who have lost all they had and then more.
Invite someone over who has nowhere to go,
Show them you care and that they’re not alone.
And when you’re dragging a tree from the car to the house,
And you want to give up and just throw the thing out,
Throw in some elbow grease, force on a smile,
Without a good spirit, it’s just gifts in a pile.
It’s just a sock on a mantle, just food on the table,
Just an old bearded man from a very old fable.
So Happy Holidays to all, and have a wonderful night!
Know that peace won’t be always so far from our sights.
Monday, December 20, 2010
AUTHOR OF PEDOPHILE'S GUIDE ARRESTED!
Finally, some justice.
According to this article (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BJ59120101220), Phillip Greaves, the author of The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: The Child-Lover's Code of Conduct, was arrested in Colorado. He was arrested on charges of obscenity, which is understandable, considering that he included descriptions of sexual encounters with children in his book. All in all, this is good news.
However, there is bad news. If you click on this link and read some of the comments posted by readers, it is obvious that people are not aware of the impact that a book like this can have on our society.
The top-most comment, posted by user Edward666 (Seriously?), asks, "Free Speach? what harm is a book no one is going to read?"
This guy obviously hasn't flipped open a book--let alone a newspaper--in a while, considering the fact that he can't even spell "speech" and that he didn't realize that this book was a huge hit. It was number 65 on Amazon's 100 Top-Selling Paid Kindle e-books, and after the story broke about amazon.com selling the book, sales rose 101,000%.
Another comment by daniwitz13 says, "I am 100% with you that are 100% for him. It is not ABOUT him or the contents itself but about freedom and rights. I hope rights win out."
These people obviously do not have children. I understand that the man's first amendment rights are under fire here, but he depicted sexual acts with children in his book, which according to the following information, is illegal.
This is the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
This is the definition of pornography:
According to this article (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BJ59120101220), Phillip Greaves, the author of The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: The Child-Lover's Code of Conduct, was arrested in Colorado. He was arrested on charges of obscenity, which is understandable, considering that he included descriptions of sexual encounters with children in his book. All in all, this is good news.
However, there is bad news. If you click on this link and read some of the comments posted by readers, it is obvious that people are not aware of the impact that a book like this can have on our society.
The top-most comment, posted by user Edward666 (Seriously?), asks, "Free Speach? what harm is a book no one is going to read?"
This guy obviously hasn't flipped open a book--let alone a newspaper--in a while, considering the fact that he can't even spell "speech" and that he didn't realize that this book was a huge hit. It was number 65 on Amazon's 100 Top-Selling Paid Kindle e-books, and after the story broke about amazon.com selling the book, sales rose 101,000%.
Another comment by daniwitz13 says, "I am 100% with you that are 100% for him. It is not ABOUT him or the contents itself but about freedom and rights. I hope rights win out."
These people obviously do not have children. I understand that the man's first amendment rights are under fire here, but he depicted sexual acts with children in his book, which according to the following information, is illegal.
This is the first amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html)
This is the definition of pornography:
1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement 3: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction Here's the problem: the CEOS (Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section) of the U.S. Department of Justice defines child pornography as "the visual depiction of a person under the age of 18 engaged in sexually explicit conduct." So, because Greaves doesn't actually have visual representations of children engaged in sexual acts, his book does not disobey this law. But it is technically pornography. And, according to the test developed by the Supreme Court and used to determine whether or not material is obscene, for Phillip Greaves, there is no escape. Here are the three "prongs" that make up the test: "The U.S. Supreme Court established the test that judges and juries use to determine whether material is obscene. The test was developed in three major cases: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 300-02, 309 (1977); and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987). The resulting three-pronged test to adjudicate obscenity is as follows: -Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion); and -Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and -Whether a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Any material meeting this definition may be found to violate the laws of the United States and anyone convicted of distributing such material may be prosecuted and punished by fines and a term of imprisonment. " (http://www.justice.gov/criminal/optf/guide/citizens-guide.html) So, while Greaves' work may not qualify as child pornography, it does qualify as obscene and is therefore illegal. You can't hide behind the constitution forever, Greaves. But this isn't about one man. This is about an entire culture of people (including members of NAMBLA) who believe that engaging in sexual acts with children is legal and morally just. If you visit nambla.org, you will see that members of this group actually believe that male children can be and are sexually interested in older men. They not only believe that children are sexually interested in men and make advances on them, but they believe that rejecting these so-called advances will result in a sense of rejection and abandonment in that child. You can't victimize innocent children and expect that just because they do not fight back or protest, that they are consenting to these acts. There is a reason that an age of consent has been established. It's true that some children mature faster than others, but just because you can convince 8 year-old children to have sex with you, it doesn't mean that they want to. And it certainly doesn't mean that they are attracted to you. It means that they have no concept of trust, or of what is right and wrong. It's like kicking a puppy. It's not going to kick you back. Or call the police. Or bite you. He's going to let you kick him, and that puppy is going to think that he did something wrong and that he deserves it. Pedophelia will never be eradicated. There will always be people who distribute underground child pornography and there will always be people who secretly molest children. But if we can get put away some of these people, that means fewer abused children and fewer cycles of abuse. It means that someday there will be a world where you can let your child walk to school or go to a neighbor's house without a fear that he or she won't come back just as innocent or even come back at all. |
 |
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Bring back the chain gangs!
I know, I know. You read the title of this post and you're thinking, "Wow, this girl is either a dictator or a slavedriver. She might even be racist!" But I'm not talking about chaining together people who otherwise have a right to be free, and I'm definitely not talking about chaining together only a certain type of people, and then depriving them of water, food, bathroom breaks, breaks in general, clean clothes, etc. And I'm not talking about beating or torturing people as a way of motivating them to work a little harder.
I'm talking about making prisoners do some actual labor in observance of the crimes they have committed! Now there are definitely people who are all up in arms about bringing back chain gangs. They think that because chain gangs are so easily associated with the mostly-black chain gangs of the early 1900s and therefore with slavery, that bringing back chain gangs would remind people of the denial of human rights that was the enslavement and subjugation of black people. Understandable. But, things were much different back then. Black people were treated abominably, and being on a chain gang was all too similar to being a slave on a plantation. They were beaten, whipped, starved, dehydrated, and pretty much robbed of all human rights. This is not the type of chain gang I am hoping will resurface in America.
Now, some states have actually started using chain gangs again to clean up trash, clear the road, stuff like that. In 1995, a prison in Alabama chained some of its prisoners together to do some roadside chores. Yes, there was opposition. And to be fair, it was just. The prisoners were forced to work 12-hour days in the hot Alabama sun. They received food and water and bathroom breaks, but still. That's a little bit outrageous. The chain gangs that I'm proposing would work shorter hours, especially depending on the weather. But think of the benefits! The most obvious? Free labor. Well, nothing's free, but you get the idea. Not to mention, prisoners actually having to pay for their crimes! The amount of leisure time that most minimum-security prisoners get in jail is ridiculous. Jail isn't a place where criminals are punished; it's just a way to keep them separated from the law-abiding citizens for a little while. Who do you think is going to be more likely to become a repeat offender? A drug dealer who got to watch Jeopardy and lift weights all day and even take some college classes, or a drug dealer who had to do manual labor for 5 hours a day, Monday through Friday? It's a rhetorical question.
Some of the arguments against chain gangs are based on human rights and civil liberties. We're not talking about forcing people to work in malaria-infested swamps or to wear the chains of the early 1900s that gave the inmates "chain poison." We're talking about people who broke the law having to use a little elbow grease while doing time for their crime!
If you don't want to be in a chain gang, don't commit a crime. It's as simple as that.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,982949,00.html --Article about the chain gang in Alabama
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/6045/Chain-Gangs.html --Article arguing against chain gang revival
I'm talking about making prisoners do some actual labor in observance of the crimes they have committed! Now there are definitely people who are all up in arms about bringing back chain gangs. They think that because chain gangs are so easily associated with the mostly-black chain gangs of the early 1900s and therefore with slavery, that bringing back chain gangs would remind people of the denial of human rights that was the enslavement and subjugation of black people. Understandable. But, things were much different back then. Black people were treated abominably, and being on a chain gang was all too similar to being a slave on a plantation. They were beaten, whipped, starved, dehydrated, and pretty much robbed of all human rights. This is not the type of chain gang I am hoping will resurface in America.
Now, some states have actually started using chain gangs again to clean up trash, clear the road, stuff like that. In 1995, a prison in Alabama chained some of its prisoners together to do some roadside chores. Yes, there was opposition. And to be fair, it was just. The prisoners were forced to work 12-hour days in the hot Alabama sun. They received food and water and bathroom breaks, but still. That's a little bit outrageous. The chain gangs that I'm proposing would work shorter hours, especially depending on the weather. But think of the benefits! The most obvious? Free labor. Well, nothing's free, but you get the idea. Not to mention, prisoners actually having to pay for their crimes! The amount of leisure time that most minimum-security prisoners get in jail is ridiculous. Jail isn't a place where criminals are punished; it's just a way to keep them separated from the law-abiding citizens for a little while. Who do you think is going to be more likely to become a repeat offender? A drug dealer who got to watch Jeopardy and lift weights all day and even take some college classes, or a drug dealer who had to do manual labor for 5 hours a day, Monday through Friday? It's a rhetorical question.
Some of the arguments against chain gangs are based on human rights and civil liberties. We're not talking about forcing people to work in malaria-infested swamps or to wear the chains of the early 1900s that gave the inmates "chain poison." We're talking about people who broke the law having to use a little elbow grease while doing time for their crime!
If you don't want to be in a chain gang, don't commit a crime. It's as simple as that.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,982949,00.html --Article about the chain gang in Alabama
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/6045/Chain-Gangs.html --Article arguing against chain gang revival
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Electric Cars: Are they as friendly as they look?
Most of us are pretty happy to see that the "green" initiative is becoming more and more popular. Recycling, reusable bags, Nalgene bottles...and of course, hybrid and electric cars. However, when you think about it, electric cars might not be as environmentally friendly as we hoped. At least not until we can develop some more environmentally-friendly ways of providing electricity.
People think that if they plug their car into the wall in their garage and then stealthily drive to work in their silent and aerodynamic car, they are saving the earth. But think about our most common sources for electrical power! According to the US Energy Information Administration, the number one resource used to create electricty is coal, followed closely by petroleum, natural gas, and other gases (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html).
Granted, there are renewable resources that can be used to create electricity, but I'm pretty sure that most people who own electric cars aren't sporting a wind mill or a solar panel in their backyard. In fact, if every family in America bought an electric car, that would mean a much greater demand for electricity. This would require not only more resources (both renewable and nonrenewable) to produce electricity, but also more plants to store it. (http://www.npr.org/2010/12/14/132030155/the-charging-conundrum-how-to-feed-electric-cars) So while it may be cost-effective, is it really more environmentally friendly than a gas-powered car? And, are we even ready to supply that volume of electricity?
Don't get me wrong--I'm not against alternatives to gas- and diesel-powered vehicles. But if we're creating electricity with fossil fuels, how is driving an electric car any more "green"? Besides, most electric cars can't sustain enough power to drive around all day--they have to convert to gasoline power just to make it through a daily commute. And while efforts to create more sustainable energy sources are happening, according to this article on windfarms in the southwest (http://www.npr.org/2010/12/13/132026666/golden-eagles-keep-windfarm-projects-grounded), construction of windmills on federal land has been halted to save golden eagles. Which makes sense, but I mean, eagles aren't stupid. They avoid power lines, cell phone towers, and skyscrapers. Can't they fly around a windmill?
The point is, the electric car may seem friendly because it's powered by electricity, but we need to consider how electricity is created. If your electrical power comes from coal, your electric car is powered by coal too.
But, at least it's progress.
People think that if they plug their car into the wall in their garage and then stealthily drive to work in their silent and aerodynamic car, they are saving the earth. But think about our most common sources for electrical power! According to the US Energy Information Administration, the number one resource used to create electricty is coal, followed closely by petroleum, natural gas, and other gases (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html).
Granted, there are renewable resources that can be used to create electricity, but I'm pretty sure that most people who own electric cars aren't sporting a wind mill or a solar panel in their backyard. In fact, if every family in America bought an electric car, that would mean a much greater demand for electricity. This would require not only more resources (both renewable and nonrenewable) to produce electricity, but also more plants to store it. (http://www.npr.org/2010/12/14/132030155/the-charging-conundrum-how-to-feed-electric-cars) So while it may be cost-effective, is it really more environmentally friendly than a gas-powered car? And, are we even ready to supply that volume of electricity?
Don't get me wrong--I'm not against alternatives to gas- and diesel-powered vehicles. But if we're creating electricity with fossil fuels, how is driving an electric car any more "green"? Besides, most electric cars can't sustain enough power to drive around all day--they have to convert to gasoline power just to make it through a daily commute. And while efforts to create more sustainable energy sources are happening, according to this article on windfarms in the southwest (http://www.npr.org/2010/12/13/132026666/golden-eagles-keep-windfarm-projects-grounded), construction of windmills on federal land has been halted to save golden eagles. Which makes sense, but I mean, eagles aren't stupid. They avoid power lines, cell phone towers, and skyscrapers. Can't they fly around a windmill?
The point is, the electric car may seem friendly because it's powered by electricity, but we need to consider how electricity is created. If your electrical power comes from coal, your electric car is powered by coal too.
But, at least it's progress.
Monday, December 13, 2010
I'm just a bill, and I'm sittin' here on Capitol Hill...
Remember when government was just an abstraction conveyed to us in a 30-minute episode of Schoolhouse Rock?
Then you grew up, went to college, started voting, got a job, started paying 4 or 5 different taxes, and found yourself undergoing a weekly barrage of news stories about the corruption of politicians all over the world, particularly in America?
For those of you who voted for Obama in your first presidential election:
Remember when you voted for a president who you thought would change the world, but then you found out that he wasn't really going to be able to do any of the things he promised, that he couldn't speak publicly without the help of a teleprompter, and that he still managed to win a Nobel Peace Prize for...what was it again? Not being George W. Bush?
Now, to be fair, I'm not here just to hate on President Obama. I do think that the fact that we as Americans were finally able to elect a black president is a huge leap, considering that less than a century ago, segregation was still a prominent practice in society. However, I think electing an effective president would have been even more amazing, and maybe if the media hadn't spent so much time covering what designer label Michelle Obama was wearing, where the Obama couple was going on date night, and the long process of the first family choosing what breed of dog to buy, our votes would have appeared a little more deeply-rooted in the ground of political issues.
Which brings me to the real topic of this blog post: Should voters have to justify their choices when it comes to filling out the ballot? Now I'm not just talking about the general voting public (aka the electoral college, but that's a subject for another blog post) but about congresspeople as well.
The fact is, there are a lot of campaigns encouraging people to vote each year (Rock the Vote, etc.), particularly during the presidential elections. America wants Americans to contribute and to make themselves heard so that we can elect the best (most popular) politician possible for each office. However, encouraging people to vote isn't enough. People need to be encouraged to make educated decisions. Because voting for someone merely because they belong to your political party or because their name is at the top of the ballot is worse than not voting at all.
As someone who does not belong to a political party, I was forced to actually resesarch each political office and each political candidate before voting in this year's gubernatorial election. Had I been a Republican or a Democrat, I could have easily voted for the candidate that represented my party without knowing anything about them or their plans for running my state. I could have voted for Mickey Mouse if I wanted to.
Now let's take voting to an even higher level, where Congress members are voting to pass bills (or to veto them) and can easily vote along party lines without justifying why they are voting this way. Because let's face it, there are a plethora of political opinions that compose each political party. All Republicans aren't necessarily against abortion and gay marriage, and all Democrats aren't necessarily against tax cuts for the wealthy, for example. So when my congress is voting on whether or not to repeal something like the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military, I want to know that they're making their making their decisions based on the right reasons, not on what the rest of their party is doing.
I don't want a Republican congressman voting against the repeal because that's how all of the other Republicans are voting. I want him to justify his vote, which is why I think that all voters should be required to support their vote with a written statement. If this congressman is voting against the repeal because he is homophobic or because he thinks that the Bible says being gay is wrong and he doesn't want to go against the Bible, he needs to write that down. And then his vote needs to be thrown out.
Because let's face it, people, the reason gay marriage hasn't been made legal all over the country isn't just because people are homophobic--it's because a great deal of religious people think that God doesn't like gays. And as you may recall, Church and State were long ago separated. At least they were on paper. But our money still says "IN GOD WE TRUST" and our political candidates are still getting campaign funds from religious groups that have an agenda and our presidents are still finding it appropriate to declare their religious beliefs to their voters.
Here's an article where Obama blabbers on about his Christian faith and how he will incorporate it into his presidency:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/09/28/130194136/president-obama-talks-christianity-and-more-in-nm-backyard
How is that even legal? In another article, when asked for his position on gay marriage, he responded, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." (http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm)
When asked a political question, and the first words out of your mouth are, "I'm a Christian.", THERE'S A PROBLEM.
Hence my belief that all voters and politicians should be required to justify their votes. Because I have a feeling that some of the reasons behind these votes are highly unconstitutional.
Then you grew up, went to college, started voting, got a job, started paying 4 or 5 different taxes, and found yourself undergoing a weekly barrage of news stories about the corruption of politicians all over the world, particularly in America?
For those of you who voted for Obama in your first presidential election:
Remember when you voted for a president who you thought would change the world, but then you found out that he wasn't really going to be able to do any of the things he promised, that he couldn't speak publicly without the help of a teleprompter, and that he still managed to win a Nobel Peace Prize for...what was it again? Not being George W. Bush?
Now, to be fair, I'm not here just to hate on President Obama. I do think that the fact that we as Americans were finally able to elect a black president is a huge leap, considering that less than a century ago, segregation was still a prominent practice in society. However, I think electing an effective president would have been even more amazing, and maybe if the media hadn't spent so much time covering what designer label Michelle Obama was wearing, where the Obama couple was going on date night, and the long process of the first family choosing what breed of dog to buy, our votes would have appeared a little more deeply-rooted in the ground of political issues.
Which brings me to the real topic of this blog post: Should voters have to justify their choices when it comes to filling out the ballot? Now I'm not just talking about the general voting public (aka the electoral college, but that's a subject for another blog post) but about congresspeople as well.
The fact is, there are a lot of campaigns encouraging people to vote each year (Rock the Vote, etc.), particularly during the presidential elections. America wants Americans to contribute and to make themselves heard so that we can elect the best (most popular) politician possible for each office. However, encouraging people to vote isn't enough. People need to be encouraged to make educated decisions. Because voting for someone merely because they belong to your political party or because their name is at the top of the ballot is worse than not voting at all.
As someone who does not belong to a political party, I was forced to actually resesarch each political office and each political candidate before voting in this year's gubernatorial election. Had I been a Republican or a Democrat, I could have easily voted for the candidate that represented my party without knowing anything about them or their plans for running my state. I could have voted for Mickey Mouse if I wanted to.
Now let's take voting to an even higher level, where Congress members are voting to pass bills (or to veto them) and can easily vote along party lines without justifying why they are voting this way. Because let's face it, there are a plethora of political opinions that compose each political party. All Republicans aren't necessarily against abortion and gay marriage, and all Democrats aren't necessarily against tax cuts for the wealthy, for example. So when my congress is voting on whether or not to repeal something like the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military, I want to know that they're making their making their decisions based on the right reasons, not on what the rest of their party is doing.
I don't want a Republican congressman voting against the repeal because that's how all of the other Republicans are voting. I want him to justify his vote, which is why I think that all voters should be required to support their vote with a written statement. If this congressman is voting against the repeal because he is homophobic or because he thinks that the Bible says being gay is wrong and he doesn't want to go against the Bible, he needs to write that down. And then his vote needs to be thrown out.
Because let's face it, people, the reason gay marriage hasn't been made legal all over the country isn't just because people are homophobic--it's because a great deal of religious people think that God doesn't like gays. And as you may recall, Church and State were long ago separated. At least they were on paper. But our money still says "IN GOD WE TRUST" and our political candidates are still getting campaign funds from religious groups that have an agenda and our presidents are still finding it appropriate to declare their religious beliefs to their voters.
Here's an article where Obama blabbers on about his Christian faith and how he will incorporate it into his presidency:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/09/28/130194136/president-obama-talks-christianity-and-more-in-nm-backyard
How is that even legal? In another article, when asked for his position on gay marriage, he responded, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." (http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm)
When asked a political question, and the first words out of your mouth are, "I'm a Christian.", THERE'S A PROBLEM.
Hence my belief that all voters and politicians should be required to justify their votes. Because I have a feeling that some of the reasons behind these votes are highly unconstitutional.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Santa, are you there? It's me, Courtney.
So as you may have noticed, there have been a lot of Christmas movies on television lately. But have you ever realized how many movies contain the same exact theme? Let me lay out the plot for you:
A man is convinced he is Santa Claus. He either already possesses a big fat belly and a fluffy white beard, or he grows one overnight (Tim Allen in The Santa Claus). Everyone else (except a few devoted followers) thinks he is insane. He then is either ridiculed, persecuted, or even arrested for his beliefs. Christmas spirit then begins to rapidly decline, things go badly overall, and people's faith in Santa Claus must be restored in order to save Christmas. Oftentimes, "Santa" must perform some kind of Christmas miracle (knowing what random people want for Christmas, making reindeer fly) in order to get a few key people to believe.
Sound familiar?
Who else tried to convince everyone that he was a miraculous figure, was turned away by everyone but a few key people, persecuted, and then came back in the biggest miracle of all to prove to everyone who he really was?
I doubt I even have to say it, but...
Jesus!
Originally, I thought this was pretty bizarre. But then it occurred to me that Santa is in fact a figure of Christmas, which is of course a Christian holiday...so I guess a connection to Christ isn't all that strange.
On the other hand, there are plenty of people on this earth who celebrate Christmas merely because it is a yearly tradition and not because they are actually Christian. I myself am one of these people! After all, some of the best things about Christmas aren't religious at all--being with family, decorating an evergreen tree, giving and receiving gifts, eating, drinking, being merry, and wearing ugly sweaters and pins.
It occurred to me that perhaps the movie studios who make these Santa movies are trying to disguise a religious message in their holiday movies, but then wouldn't using Santa as a metaphorical substitute for Christ be idolatrous?
I suppose it shall remain a Christmas mystery.
Happy Holidays!
A man is convinced he is Santa Claus. He either already possesses a big fat belly and a fluffy white beard, or he grows one overnight (Tim Allen in The Santa Claus). Everyone else (except a few devoted followers) thinks he is insane. He then is either ridiculed, persecuted, or even arrested for his beliefs. Christmas spirit then begins to rapidly decline, things go badly overall, and people's faith in Santa Claus must be restored in order to save Christmas. Oftentimes, "Santa" must perform some kind of Christmas miracle (knowing what random people want for Christmas, making reindeer fly) in order to get a few key people to believe.
Sound familiar?
Who else tried to convince everyone that he was a miraculous figure, was turned away by everyone but a few key people, persecuted, and then came back in the biggest miracle of all to prove to everyone who he really was?
I doubt I even have to say it, but...
Jesus!
Originally, I thought this was pretty bizarre. But then it occurred to me that Santa is in fact a figure of Christmas, which is of course a Christian holiday...so I guess a connection to Christ isn't all that strange.
On the other hand, there are plenty of people on this earth who celebrate Christmas merely because it is a yearly tradition and not because they are actually Christian. I myself am one of these people! After all, some of the best things about Christmas aren't religious at all--being with family, decorating an evergreen tree, giving and receiving gifts, eating, drinking, being merry, and wearing ugly sweaters and pins.
It occurred to me that perhaps the movie studios who make these Santa movies are trying to disguise a religious message in their holiday movies, but then wouldn't using Santa as a metaphorical substitute for Christ be idolatrous?
I suppose it shall remain a Christmas mystery.
Happy Holidays!
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Lil Wayne: Turning Bad Puns into Chart-topping Hits
As promised, it's time to move away from amazon.com's blatant disregard for morality to a more light-hearted subject: the famous and drug-induced rapper Lil' Wayne and his ability to turn absolutely awful puns (think of the one-liners your dad tells that embarrass you the most) into amazingly popular rap songs.
Let's start with the most obvious:
"Call me Mr. Flintstone, I can make your bedrock." Oy.
Hanna and Barbera are rolling in their graves over that one.
Up next, a lyric that made eating lollipops outrageously inappropriate overnight:
"I said he's so sweet/Make her wanna lick the rapper." Good one, Wayne.
Suddenly that owl on the Tootsie Pop commercials that takes two licks and then chomps down doesn't look so friendly.
Well, I hate to say it, but after reading through a bunch of Lil' Wayne lyrics, I realized he's about on the same moral level as amazon.com. I listen mostly to radio edits, so it's easy to forget how awful his original lyrics are.
Oh well, you probably needed a break from reading yesterday's long-winded post anyway.
Up next, surprise post!
Let's start with the most obvious:
"Call me Mr. Flintstone, I can make your bedrock." Oy.
Hanna and Barbera are rolling in their graves over that one.
Up next, a lyric that made eating lollipops outrageously inappropriate overnight:
"I said he's so sweet/Make her wanna lick the rapper." Good one, Wayne.
Suddenly that owl on the Tootsie Pop commercials that takes two licks and then chomps down doesn't look so friendly.
Well, I hate to say it, but after reading through a bunch of Lil' Wayne lyrics, I realized he's about on the same moral level as amazon.com. I listen mostly to radio edits, so it's easy to forget how awful his original lyrics are.
Oh well, you probably needed a break from reading yesterday's long-winded post anyway.
Up next, surprise post!
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Down with amazon.com!
As promised, today's blog is about my ongoing boycott of amazon.com. And no, it's not because I don't like buying things tax-free and at a cheaper price than I find in the store. It's because of the content that Amazon has chosen to sell on their site in the past--things like a guide to pedophilia and a video game where raping women is the main objective. You know, things like that.
*Note: Links for all of the news articles that I reference in this post can be found at the bottom of the page.*
If you're as shocked as I was at finding out this news for the first time, don't be ashamed that you didn't know about it before. It wasn't exactly breaking news. I first came across it while I was reading the news headlines on google while on a break at my office. The first article was from msnbc.com, and the headline "'Pedophile's Guide' gone from Amazon" caught my eye. According to the article, amazon.com had been offering a book entitled The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct. In case you aren't already aware, Amazon will sell self-published books on its website and provide the author with a portion of the proceeds. This guide to pedophilia was one of those self-published books. Obviously there was an uproar. This isn't an informational book about what pedophilia is or how to avoid it--it's a book actually giving pedophiles "tips for 'safe sex' with a child". To me, the fact that amazon even considered selling this book is awful enough, but the fact that they actually provided it to their customers, on the website as well as the Kindle, is outrageous.
I haven't been able to find out if the book was removed by Amazon or by the author himself, Philip Greaves, but the defense that Amazon provided was as follows: "Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."
Let me tell you a story. As someone with a degree in English Literature, I am usually against censorship of books, but that's in the case of books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Harry Potter, not in the case of instruction manuals for people who sexually victimize children. A guide to pedophilia is more than just "objectionable", it's disgusting. Granted, due to the first amendment, writing about pedophilia isn't illegal, but this book clearly promotes a criminal act, which Amazon claims is something it doesn't support. Well, maybe they should have their spokesperson read their website's content guidelines before speaking out on their behalf. Under the pornography headline is the stipulation that materials "that depict graphic sexual acts" are prohibited on their website.
Now, most people would say that because Greaves' guide does not contain actual pictures, that it does not qualify as pornography. Well, breaking news, folks. The word "depict" doesn't just mean illustrating something visually; it also means "to represent or characterize in words; describe." Since Greaves' book actually describes sexual encounters with children (unbelievable, isn't it?), it can be defined as "depicting" graphic sexual acts. So technically, by having the book available for purchase on their website, Amazon was violating their own legal guidelines. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Amazon.
The book has since been removed from the website, which of course brought on a firestorm of criticism about the other products they had for sale on their site. Sex toys and books about cockfighting are now the subject of great debate in terms of whether or not they should be available on amazon.com. But I have bigger things to worry about. While reading another article about Amazon's sale of the guide to pedophiles, I found that in 2009, they were selling a video game called Rapelay. After finding out what the game entailed, I was outraged. The objective of the game is to rape a family of women in a crowded train station. Amazon no longer sells the game, but they do sell some sort of book that describes a series of games created by the Japanese creator of Rapelay. The following is a description of the game that I found on amazon.com. Warning: It's very graphic, so keep that in mind before you read the next paragraph.
"RapeLay is played from the perspective of a chikan named Kimura Masaya, who stalks and subsequently rapes the Kiryuu family (a mother and her two young daughters). The player can choose from a variety of sexual positions, and controls the action by making movements with the mouse or by scrolling the mouse wheel. It features a realistic sexual simulator which allows the player to grope and undress the characters on a crowded train. Later, the player may have forced intercourse with all three women at his leisure. The player has a variety of sexual positions to choose from such as reverse cowgirl, forced blowjobs (irrumatio), and threesomes. RapeLay also has a "nakadashi" (internal ejaculation) counter, which carries a danger of pregnancy. After completing the storyline and "breaking" the girls, there are six modes of gameplay."
That Amazon would even consider selling a game like this is appalling. I don't even want to get started on the idea of people actually wanting to play this game. Amazon did remove it from their site in 2009, but for me, that's not enough. A game where you sexually force yourself on women? How is that entertaining? It pains me to think that there are people out there who actually have fun playing these games, and that there are people who feel the desire to design such a game. Imagine young boys who have never experienced real female interaction playing this game and thinking that these actions they are performing are what sex actually is. There's already enough controversy about games where people kill each other, but a game where a man victimizes unsuspecting women? To me, that is much more realistic and sickeningly violent than a game like Halo or Call of Duty. But that's another conversation. The point is, after finding out the type of content that amazon.com has sold on their website in the past, I decided that I could no longer patronize a site like that.
I'm not trying to promote a boycott of amazon.com with this blog post. As someone who once turned to Amazon for pretty much every item I didn't want to pay full price for, I know how hard it is to give up on a website that offers such awesome bargains. But the fact that they even considered selling these products and then actually offered them for purchase is something I can't accept. So I wrote them an e-mail, stating that I could no longer patronize their site. Their response? "The items you referenced in your e-mail are no longer for sale on our site."
That's not what it's about, Amazon.
As for tomorrow' post, it will contain some much lighter reading: Have you ever noticed that Lil' Wayne's best raps are also really bad puns?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/40129858/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_rel_topic?ie=UTF8&nodeId=15015801
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/depict
http://www.amazon.com/3d-Eroge-Rapelay-Requiem-Reversible/dp/1156975859/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1291854433&sr=8-2
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/4611161/Rapelay-virtual-rape-game-banned-by-Amazon.html
*Note: Links for all of the news articles that I reference in this post can be found at the bottom of the page.*
If you're as shocked as I was at finding out this news for the first time, don't be ashamed that you didn't know about it before. It wasn't exactly breaking news. I first came across it while I was reading the news headlines on google while on a break at my office. The first article was from msnbc.com, and the headline "'Pedophile's Guide' gone from Amazon" caught my eye. According to the article, amazon.com had been offering a book entitled The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct. In case you aren't already aware, Amazon will sell self-published books on its website and provide the author with a portion of the proceeds. This guide to pedophilia was one of those self-published books. Obviously there was an uproar. This isn't an informational book about what pedophilia is or how to avoid it--it's a book actually giving pedophiles "tips for 'safe sex' with a child". To me, the fact that amazon even considered selling this book is awful enough, but the fact that they actually provided it to their customers, on the website as well as the Kindle, is outrageous.
I haven't been able to find out if the book was removed by Amazon or by the author himself, Philip Greaves, but the defense that Amazon provided was as follows: "Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions."
Let me tell you a story. As someone with a degree in English Literature, I am usually against censorship of books, but that's in the case of books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Harry Potter, not in the case of instruction manuals for people who sexually victimize children. A guide to pedophilia is more than just "objectionable", it's disgusting. Granted, due to the first amendment, writing about pedophilia isn't illegal, but this book clearly promotes a criminal act, which Amazon claims is something it doesn't support. Well, maybe they should have their spokesperson read their website's content guidelines before speaking out on their behalf. Under the pornography headline is the stipulation that materials "that depict graphic sexual acts" are prohibited on their website.
Now, most people would say that because Greaves' guide does not contain actual pictures, that it does not qualify as pornography. Well, breaking news, folks. The word "depict" doesn't just mean illustrating something visually; it also means "to represent or characterize in words; describe." Since Greaves' book actually describes sexual encounters with children (unbelievable, isn't it?), it can be defined as "depicting" graphic sexual acts. So technically, by having the book available for purchase on their website, Amazon was violating their own legal guidelines. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Amazon.
The book has since been removed from the website, which of course brought on a firestorm of criticism about the other products they had for sale on their site. Sex toys and books about cockfighting are now the subject of great debate in terms of whether or not they should be available on amazon.com. But I have bigger things to worry about. While reading another article about Amazon's sale of the guide to pedophiles, I found that in 2009, they were selling a video game called Rapelay. After finding out what the game entailed, I was outraged. The objective of the game is to rape a family of women in a crowded train station. Amazon no longer sells the game, but they do sell some sort of book that describes a series of games created by the Japanese creator of Rapelay. The following is a description of the game that I found on amazon.com. Warning: It's very graphic, so keep that in mind before you read the next paragraph.
"RapeLay is played from the perspective of a chikan named Kimura Masaya, who stalks and subsequently rapes the Kiryuu family (a mother and her two young daughters). The player can choose from a variety of sexual positions, and controls the action by making movements with the mouse or by scrolling the mouse wheel. It features a realistic sexual simulator which allows the player to grope and undress the characters on a crowded train. Later, the player may have forced intercourse with all three women at his leisure. The player has a variety of sexual positions to choose from such as reverse cowgirl, forced blowjobs (irrumatio), and threesomes. RapeLay also has a "nakadashi" (internal ejaculation) counter, which carries a danger of pregnancy. After completing the storyline and "breaking" the girls, there are six modes of gameplay."
That Amazon would even consider selling a game like this is appalling. I don't even want to get started on the idea of people actually wanting to play this game. Amazon did remove it from their site in 2009, but for me, that's not enough. A game where you sexually force yourself on women? How is that entertaining? It pains me to think that there are people out there who actually have fun playing these games, and that there are people who feel the desire to design such a game. Imagine young boys who have never experienced real female interaction playing this game and thinking that these actions they are performing are what sex actually is. There's already enough controversy about games where people kill each other, but a game where a man victimizes unsuspecting women? To me, that is much more realistic and sickeningly violent than a game like Halo or Call of Duty. But that's another conversation. The point is, after finding out the type of content that amazon.com has sold on their website in the past, I decided that I could no longer patronize a site like that.
I'm not trying to promote a boycott of amazon.com with this blog post. As someone who once turned to Amazon for pretty much every item I didn't want to pay full price for, I know how hard it is to give up on a website that offers such awesome bargains. But the fact that they even considered selling these products and then actually offered them for purchase is something I can't accept. So I wrote them an e-mail, stating that I could no longer patronize their site. Their response? "The items you referenced in your e-mail are no longer for sale on our site."
That's not what it's about, Amazon.
As for tomorrow' post, it will contain some much lighter reading: Have you ever noticed that Lil' Wayne's best raps are also really bad puns?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/40129858/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_rel_topic?ie=UTF8&nodeId=15015801
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/depict
http://www.amazon.com/3d-Eroge-Rapelay-Requiem-Reversible/dp/1156975859/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1291854433&sr=8-2
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/4611161/Rapelay-virtual-rape-game-banned-by-Amazon.html
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
"People are crazy."
When I was trying to think of a good title for this blog, I kept coming up with dumb things that I thought were clever like "Speak Easy" and "No Holds Barred". These were phrases that I thought would catch the eye of people surfing the web but also start to describe the type of blog this would be--one where I write on topics that would most likely light a fire under a normal conversation and turn it into a controversial debate. Finally I decided that maybe I should name it after something that I'm known to say a lot, and the first statement that popped into my head was, "People are crazy."
Whenever I'm having a conversation about something with someone and I can't think of any possible way to justify the behavior of the person or persons that are the subject of the talk, I sometimes give up and simply say, "I don't know. People are crazy." It's a very hasty conclusion and a general one at that, but let's face it--sometimes insanity is the best explanation.
So that's my blog title for now. Why have I waited so long to create a platform where I can talk about the issues that I really care about? Well, up until today, I've had dial-up internet. That's right, people. Dial-up is still out there. Finally, I've been blessed with a high-speed connection and so now is the time to make my thoughts known! What's lies ahead for the PAC blog? My justification for boycotting amazon.com, of course! If you're thinking that it's because I don't like bargains, then you haven't been reading the news.
It's more about my die-hard opposition to pedophilia and rape.
Intrigued? More on that tomorrow.
Whenever I'm having a conversation about something with someone and I can't think of any possible way to justify the behavior of the person or persons that are the subject of the talk, I sometimes give up and simply say, "I don't know. People are crazy." It's a very hasty conclusion and a general one at that, but let's face it--sometimes insanity is the best explanation.
So that's my blog title for now. Why have I waited so long to create a platform where I can talk about the issues that I really care about? Well, up until today, I've had dial-up internet. That's right, people. Dial-up is still out there. Finally, I've been blessed with a high-speed connection and so now is the time to make my thoughts known! What's lies ahead for the PAC blog? My justification for boycotting amazon.com, of course! If you're thinking that it's because I don't like bargains, then you haven't been reading the news.
It's more about my die-hard opposition to pedophilia and rape.
Intrigued? More on that tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)