A Response to ... No One

I have a bone to pick. I picked the bone up over at Broadsheet (yep - I can't get enough of those writers over there). This article, posted on 9/27, was about a convention outside of Chicago entitled "Contraception is Not the Answer." Here's my bone:

"As the Chicago Tribune reports, 'Experts at the gathering assailed contraception on the grounds that it devalues children, harms relationships between men and women, promotes sexual promiscuity and leads to falling birth rates, among social ills.' (Who says we can't have it all?)."
Also, "according to Joseph Scheidler, head of conference sponsor the Pro-Life Action
League: 'Contraception is more the root cause of abortion than anything
else.'"

Alright, let me hit all the points. I'll skip the big one.
Birth Control:
-devalues children; I'm assuming the argument is that, in using contraception, a woman (or man) is killing a potential life. This argument is entirely based on a set of beliefs that I don't have, namely, that all potential life is sacred, that an unborn, un-thought-of, unfertilized 'child' should come before a living, breathing, rational being. In this argument, the woman's eggs and the man's sperm cease to become private property and the person who 'owns' the eggs/sperm does not have any say in their use.

-harms relationships; I have no idea what this argument means. Does it harm relationships because there are no kids for whom the couple feels obligated to stay together? Does anyone understand?

-skipping-

-leads to falling birth rates; maybe, or falling abortion rates - a good thing on all sides. This argument is beginning to be utilized by pro-life organizations. They are becoming pro-contraception (or, as Scheidler calls them, "contraception buffs") because they believe (accurately) that greater contraception usage will lead to less unwanted pregnancies, which will lead to a decrease in the number of abortions. And everyone (no matter what people who call us 'pro-abortion' might think) would love a decrease in abortions. It isn't pleasant for anyone to have to go through. Falling birth rates would also lead to less poverty, decreased population, and less unwanted children waiting to be adopted. Because guess what? People who use contraception DON'T WANT TO GET PREGNANT!!!

-contraception is largely the root cause of abortion; I don't think even merits discussion. What was he thinking?

Okay, back to the promiscuity argument. This is the big bone (yeah, yeah - ha ha) I've been waiting to pick at. This argument is used for contraception, Plan B, RU-486(the abortion pill), and abortion itself. These will all, according to some, lead to sexual promiscuity!!! No! Please! Think of the children!

This assumes that women are unable to control themselves, waiting for anything that will allow them to take anything they can get. Women are sexual creatures, unable to check their desires. They think: "If I won't get pregnant, that means I should have sex whenever and wherever I can! Yahoo!" And while this may be a nice fantasy for some of the men who run these 'organizations' it is not the truth.

Women come in all different types and contain all levels of intelligence, just like men. I know! It's crazy, right? Some women make bad decisions, others make impulsive decisions. Still others wait too long and never grab the chance to make a decision.

If women make a (in my opinion) bad decision to sleep with someone they don't know or don't trust, they are also capable of making the decision to have sex *without* birth control. There are many women who are scared to ask guys to use a condom. While this is RIDICULOUSLY stupid, as it puts women at risk for countless sexual diseases, wouldn't it be better if this woman, who makes bad decisions, to NOT have a child? Why don't we throw her a bone and give her a little birth control so that the next time she has unprotected sex and contracts HIV, she won't give the infection to the fertilized egg cropping up a week later. Again, let her bad decision be HERS. Wouldn't it be better if her bad decisions affected only herself?

I went on a tangent, I know. Please, ladies, use condoms AND birth control.

My point? Birth control does not change a woman's choice. A woman who is prone to bad decisions will continue to make them, and it would be better if those decisions (and the effects of them) were not passed to a child.

My main problem with this argument is the assumption mentioned above. Women cannot take care of themselves, cannot be trusted to take control of their own bodies, their own existence. So why do they want these poor, helpless, wimpy women to have babies? If we can't make decisions for ourselves, how can we raise a child?

Shotgun Abortions

According to SaveRoe.com, "yesterday, by a vote of 264-153, the House passed the Child Interstate Abortion Act (CIANA), a bill that would make it a federal crime for anyone other than a young woman’s parent to help her cross state lines to get abortion services."

Though the pro-choice argument was sappy and one-sided (an aunt or grandmother can't help her poor, abused neice/granddaughter), the other side's argument struck me as ridiculous. Save Roe details one argument:

On the anti-choice side, some lawmakers made the absurd argument that if we allow minors to have abortions without parental notification in cases of rape or incest, we would "end up hiding the crimes of rape and incest."

Yeah! We need some evidence in the form of a child! That'll show the rapists, fathers (in this case, we're forcing girls to notify their rapist of the abortion, in which case this whole argument falls apart), and brothers! A report on NPR included a related argument: that an abusive boyfriend or a rapist might force a woman under the age of 18 to cross state lines and get an abortion.

I'm not naive. I know that there are men out there who really would try to force their girlfriends to get an abortion (I sincerely doubt there are rapists out there who would). And again, the incest part of the argument doesn't play out - a father raping his daughter would have no problem forcing abortion on her. But what pro-lifers refuse to see is that clinics are not handing out abortions like those poor people with flyers on the street. Clinics are there for the woman. They sit with a woman - alone - and counsel her to make the decision that's right for her. There would be no way to force an abortion on a woman, because a qualified counselor would see if it's not the choice she wants to make. This argument assumes that clinics place little value on a woman's opinion. Having worked at a Planned Parenthood clinic, I can say with complete conviction - this is a ridiculous assumption.

So, here we are again. One step forward (Plan B over the counter! Yay). Five leaps back. I'm scared.

It's a Movie...No! It's a Musical!...No! It's a Movie Again!

I am pissed. Not about anything of any real consequence. I'm just pissed. Why the hell do people want to turn wonderful movies into mediocre musicals? I'm talking Beauty and the Beast, Mary Poppins, Finding Nemo, The Producers. Yes, I realize it's for the money, but these musicals are ruining my childhood memories. (Finding Nemo - not really a CHILDHOOD memory, though many people think I still look 12 years old.)

The last movie-to-musical I mentioned brings in a new category that I absolutely despise. It's the movie that's been changed into a musical, which is then delivered again in movie form. Possibly, I'm so irate about this matter because The Producers was one of my favorite movies. Gene Wilder is ridiculous and hysterical. Zero Mostel is dirty and over-the-top. Everything about the movie holds that Mel Brooks humor, laced with both satire and innocence.

But then, they come along and make a musical out of it. Brooks writes more songs, but he's not really a songwriter. The songs turn out to be poor imitations of Cole Porter and Jerry Herman. The script comes from the movie, which is funny. But on the stage, everything needs to be bigger, right? So the script, the acting, the general tone of the show gets amped to the nth degree. Everything is loud and "wacky"(the 'wocka-wocka' kind of wacky). Not my bag at all.

But that's not enough. They have to make MORE money off of this ridiculous enterprise. Do they worry at all about what quality may come out of a story that's been raped and pillaged?(movie!musical!movie! who am I, what am I?) Nope. Ostensibly, nobody cares. The movie is shitty as a result. Though admittedly, I haven't seen the film (I think I'll cry), from what I hear, the performances are to broad and campy. They've lost the heart of the first film, the humanity in the two losers who star in this ...thing. Movie? Musical? Movie-musical? Thing formerly known as good?

This is not the only instance of this, and we should expect more to come in the future. Hairspray is the next one up. Though I hold no attachment to the ORIGINAL movie, my problem is still the same. I don't want to lose these movies that were apparently so inspiring that people were moved to make a musical out of them. The next generation (yes, I'm doing it, I'm playing the child card) is going to miss some wonderful movies. Instead of the subtly subtlety (a phrase I just made up for a work that is over-the-top with quiet strains of pathos and empathy) of the original The Producers, people will see a cotton ball fluff of a movie. No one will have the context we have, of my generation and older. No one will have seen the process of bastardization that we have witnessed. They'll just see a bunch of crappy, campy movies that do not interest them. This will then begin the ultimate turn away from movies with any substance. The nation will then be over-run with violent, sex-filled gang movies (rated PG unless they are either gay gangsters or straight gangsters who show their penises).

There I go, ranting again. Oh well. I know that the 'art' of the remake is nothing new, but these things get to me. I see no other reason to remake something unless you will change it somehow for the better. Whether that improvement comes because of an update for a generation's mindset (Baz Luhrmann, I'm NOT looking at you), because of a new, updated "look" for the film that would have fit with the director's original vision, or for some other artistic, interesting reason. But these movie-musical-movies seem to be solely cash cows. There is no other purpose in making these movies except to cash in on people's bad taste in musicals.

That's it for me.

An Army of One...Straight...Man

The Daily Show presents me with: things that make you go...hmmm...

It was a quite absurd interview from Jason Jones that did it this time. Jones interviewed a former military officer who was serving as an Arabic translator. The 'former' is present because he was kicked out for being gay. Openly gay, that is. He told. And we are suffering.

Although I have no actual statistics to back myself up, there seems to be a severe shortage of Arabic translators at a time when they are desperately needed (I'm obviously not the only one who believes this - click on the comic strip to the left). As Jones said (I'm paraphrasing): we'd rather be attacked by terrorists than have gays in our military.

Jones also pointed out that the military has opened their ranks to "the old, delinquent, and severely retarded," but has neglected to revise their ridiculous 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.

For the other perspective, Jones interviewed Dr. Paul Cameron, chairman of the Family Research Institute. This man was obviously chosen for his tendency to make extremely ridiculous and inflammatory remarks. However, his reasoning for dismissing gays from the military makes as much sense to me as any other.

Why else would people have a problem with gays unless they thought, like Cameron, that gay men are constantly on the prowl, distracting other men, making other men uncomfortable, all the while neglecting to get any work done. People assume that their presence will affect the environment. Cameron mentioned rape and 'intromiss'ing. Who the hell is this guy?

My point, though, is that this is all actually a realistic version of what women in the military face every day. There are many stories of male-female rape in the military. Are there ANY stories of male-male rape? If there are, I'm sure the numbers are nowhere near equal. This is the same argument people used to keep women out of the military, only swapped. STRAIGHT men were the ones constantly on the prowl, unable to control themselves. But it was women who were forced to suffer for it. If the argument stayed the same - we should keep gay men out because they harm and distract the straight-ies - then we should have no straight men in the military either.

An army of women. Interesting. But now that we only have women in the military, let's get some homosexuals in there! No one would want anything to do with the other sexually, and they can all set their minds to war and nothing but war. Mindless machines. That's what we're after, right?

I know. Now I'm getting inflammatory. I won't impose my ideas about the military without getting there through rational argument. That's for another day. Anyway, just some ideas. I'm going to go finish watching The Daily Show.

Book Club of One, Part 4 - Marquez-lite

I finished Of Love and Other Demons a couple of days ago, but couldn't find time to write about it until now.

Can anyone tell this is my night off?

I don't have much to say about the book. It just didn't strike me as deeply as some of Marquez's other novels (namely One Hundred Years of Solitude). I felt it could have been more fleshed out. I guess I just wanted more.

Obviously, I have little to say about it. If anyone has another opinion, please let me know. Truthfully, I found Marquez' 2 page introduction on the inspiration for the novel much more riveting than the novel itself. I wanted more hair, more magic, more broken faith. Instead I get a rabid, demonic little girl and the righteous holy man who falls for her. Sounds great, right? But that's all we get. There is a lot left up to the imagination in this 150 page book.

I know. I'm sure I'm missing something. But honestly, it's hard for me to see the Marquez I've come to adore, in this novel. That isn't to say I didn't 'enjoy' the novel. I'm just a bit disappointed. This feels a lot like Marquez' latest 'novel'
Memoirs of My Melancholy Whores. Maybe it's a name thing. The books with the best titles are the least beautiful. Hmmm...

I know. I'm probably dense and ridiculous, missing the best side of this novel and all its intricacies. Enlighten me, please.

Oh, Boy

If anyone's interested in a better, more succinct analysis of the game I discussed below, please see JWL's comment on said discussion. He is completely right.

What I forgot in my discussion was a very apropos news story. It turns out we Americans are not the only ones obsessed with the babies and baby bumps (don't even get me started on that one) of our stars. The Japanese people are shouting in triumph after Princess Kiko gave birth. (Interestingly enough, a quick internet search revealed no photos of the Japanese baby. There's a HUGE cultural difference for you.) Nope, this was not just any run-of-the-mill proudly painful and completely silent Scientology birth. This baby was ... a boy! The first boy, in fact, to be born into Japan's royal family in more than four decades, according to the BBC. His birth effectively puts an end to the debate about whether the law should be changed to allow a female heir to the throne. Yahoo...

But this debate did reveal a sign that the general public of Japan could...maybe...sort of...be sliding to a more moderate social structure...perhaps. The current Prime Minister, Junichiro Koizumi, was advocating the change in law. And there were signs that the general public agreed with him. That's great. So the public was CONSIDERING allowing a woman into an inconsequential, cardboard position. It would have been a small step, but a step nonetheless.

This news story simply backs up what JLW said and puts the game into more of a perspective. Japanese culture is truly hard for someone like me to understand, much less respect. Though there are small signs things are getting better out there for women, they are not nearly enough to satisfy someone like me. Again, that's ME coming from MY viewpoint referring to things through MY frame of reference. Ahhh...the plight of (as religious people call me) the relativist. (italics are to denote the fact that this word is considered dirty by many of said religious people).

Hmmm...

Alright. Here we go. Come with me now (Buffy fans, take note of my Andrew impersonation) as we follow Amanda on another journey through her brain.

I recently had a birthday. My family, being the crazy, generous people they are, bought me a PS2. I have recently been embracing my inner geekdom and needed a console to complete the process. I love it, though Jason has gotten more time on it, the bastard. Anyway, though I received some great games from my family, I have, of course, been looking at other games that are out there. Beware, my Amazon wishlist will soon be three times as large. Of course, I use it for myself - a way to remember the things that I want so that I can make smart decisions about what to buy for myself. Yep, you guys didn't need to know that.

I'm getting there, my point is near. We're rounding the curve...yeah. Here we are.

While browsing PS2 games, I came across a game calledThe Daughter Simulation: Together with Father. I'm not sure why I clicked on the title to get more information about the game, but I did. Here's what I saw:

A first-person adventure that puts the player in the role of a loving father who can raise his daughter to be 20 different kinds of women. Begin at childhood and watch her grow-up into an adult. Japan only.

It wasn't until the end of this blurb that I realized exactly what kind of game this was. It was the "Japan only" part of the blurb. This is a game that completely distorts and idealizes gender issues. I mean, what could this game possibly accomplish? What does it mean?

So yes, we have "a loving father." A loving father who chooses between "20 different kinds of women." I'd really be curious to see the choices. Are they all Japanese? Does the player see what his 'daughter' will look like when she grows up? Do they have different personality traits? What are the objects and goals of this game? I wonder if I'd be less conflicted about it if some of the goals were: get her to college, make sure she's independent and kind? What if the goals are: get her married, fed, and pregnant? If anyone out there can help me, I'd be really grateful.

I obviously don't know enough about the game to form an opinion. The blurb and the title just struck me as...odd. And potentially dangerous. I mean - The Daughter SIMULATION?

And, as I discussed with a good friend the other day (in a two minute conversation that is still obviously making me think), I have always had a little voice in my head. It tells me when I'm looking at something through my own frame of reference and judging it before I can see/hear the other viewpoint. Is this a cultural thing I just don't understand? I hope so. Someone Japanese! Help!

Is this so different from the popular American simulation game The Sims? There is a small difference - we are playing god when we're playing the sims. In The Daughter Simulation, the player is only playing dad. Is ours better because it bears so little resemblance to our own reality (none of us are, in fact, gods)? Or is the Japanese game better because it is involved in preparation for and "love" of a daughter? I think the questions and fears that come with these games warrants a different post, so I'll stop here.

I know my lack of knowledge and understanding of the game may strike some of you as annoying, and I'm sorry. But I'm really asking for help here. I want to know where I stand with this game.

Yikes! + Book Club of One, Part 3 - Crime and Punishment

Well, now we know what happens when my computer breaks down, I open a show, and feel uninspired in the course of a week or two: no posts. No writing actually. I need to fix that. Here goes, from Jason's computer.

I finished Crime and Punishment a couple days ago. I really don't think I have anything to say that hasn't been said many many times before me. It is an incredible book. I enjoyed it immensely. More than I thought I would, actually.

The book follows Raskolnikov as he plans, carries out, and meditates on a murder of two women. One victim is an old woman, "a foul, noxious louse! An old pawnbroker woman no good to anybody, who sucked the life juices of the poor . . ." in Raskolnikov's words. She is Raskolnikov's intended victim. The one he owes money too, the one he justifies killing. The second is a young woman, Lizaveta, the old woman's sister, who happens upon the murderer just after he has committed the crime. The bloody axe and the dead woman are two good indications to Lizaveta that the man standing in front of her (Raskolnikov) is the murderer. Thus, she is R's second victim.

For this second swing of the axe, Raskolnikov does feel a twinge of regret (please correct me if I'm wrong). But R never feels remorse for the old woman's death. In fact, at times he feels justified.

We spend most of the novel inside R's head, which Dostoevsky uses to great effect. First, we see the psychology of murder, the reasoning of the murderer, and the effects the murder has on the murderer. Secondly, and more importantly, we identify with him. We see how he came to the murder. We see how he got there and a chance that he could come back. The book ends with Raskolnikov in jail and the prospect of a new, possibly heroic Raskolnikov (altered by love - another main character saved by love? what is this?)

I think I'll stop there, before I turn this into a Lit paper. I've started a Gabriel Garcia Marquez novel (I think it's the only full-length novel of his that I haven't read), Of Love and Other Demons. Marquez is one of my favorite authors, and the premise promises an enjoyable, thought provoking read. It focuses on the love affair between a priest and a young girl.

Hopefully, I'll find more time now that the show is open. Though we're starting another one tomorrow. Oh well. I'll write whenever I can. Wish me luck with MY computer.

Now it Can Actually WORK as a "Plan B"

This is it! Plan B has been approved for over the counter sales! . . . sort of.

No. It's good. As these things go, however, there are a couple of caveats.

First - the customer must be over 18. I'm not sure how vehemently I disagree with this. I'm not ready to weigh in just yet. Comments? Opinions?

Second - Plan B will be located behind the Pharmacy counter. This means that the pharmacy has to be open in any given store (not great, seeing as the name 'emergency contraception' is very apropos). This also means that the customer must ask the pharmacist for the medicine, opening the door for many more news stories (and, in a perfect world, some court cases which would make the practice illegal) focusing on pharmacist refusal on religious or moral grounds.

[Quick tangent: the pharmacist should not be a pharmacist if they object to selling ANY kind of drug. The pharmacist is simply the dispenser. Do vending machines refuse chips to larger people? Do mailmen have the right to destroy porn rather than DELIVER the mail? Yes, I realize pharmacists go to school. They are knowledgeable about measurements and doses of medicine. They know stuff about medicine. But a large part of their job is to read a perscription and fill it. Just as a mailman reads an address and delivers. The question of morals or religion should never come in to play. If it does, you should choose a different profession. Would the same pharmacist refuse penicillin for a customer afflicted with an STD? And if there is such a moral issue, how come no one has refused viagra?]

Plan B, for those who don't know, is a pill taken up to 72 hours after intercourse to reduce the chance of pregnancy by 89% (according to the Plan B website). Another pill is then taken 12 hrs after the first dose. And that's it. Plan B is not RU-486 (aka "the abortion pill") which is taken after pregnancy. Plan B is simply around for the woman who misses a pill or (like an idiot) has unprotected sex. The drug will not protect the woman from STDs or AIDS. It is simply a precaution to prevent a woman's life from changing without her consent. Plan B will help (at least a little) reduce unwanted children, abortions, and over-population. Not to mention, it will help women live their lives the way they wish. Everyone wins!

Book Club of One, Part 2 - Emerging from the Cave

I figured it would be good to get my thoughts down about The Second Coming, by Walker Percy now, just minutes after I turned the final page.

The book was a completely new experience for me. I felt, at times, as if I had detached from everything, the words on the page included, and the ideas and language were just flowing over me. But let's put the weird stuff aside for the moment.

The book is, essentially a love story. It involves Will Barrett, from Percy's The Last Gentleman and an escaped mental patient, Allison. Barrett, living a "death in life" after his father's suicide and to take Will with him, goes on a quest to figure out if there is a god. His sign comes in the form of Allison, an almost fairy-like girl with a strong connection to the earth. She is almost other-worldly in her healing powers, yet lacks the ability to communicate well with other people. Will, however, understands her unique way of speaking. Thus, Barrett finds life in life through Allison. Further, he finds an overwhelming sense of something larger through his relationship and happiness with Allison.

That is far from all. The book is much more in depth. The happiness Barrett finds comes at the end of a long, arduous journey through the depths of his inauthentic existence. Dialogue is the exception in this introspective novel, but Percy manages to explore even the most minor characters in depth through his language.

Some revealing quotes:

"Men love death because real death is better than the living death. That's why men like wars, of course. Bad as wars are and maybe because they are so bad, thinking of peace during war is better than peace. War is what makes peace desirable. But peace without war is intolerable. Why do men settle so easily for lives which are living deaths? Men either kill each other in war, or in peace walk as docilely into living death as sheep into a slaughter house."

"The room seemed to have an emotion of its own. Was it the feeling of someone present or someone absent? He frowned again and turned quickly toward the bathroom. No, rooms do not have emotions. Rooms are only rooms. How he hated the fake sadness of things. As he turned, he fell."

"Oh my God, how can a simple thing like a hot bath be this good, and since it is, is happiness no more than having something you've done without for a long time and aaah does it matter?"

"He was backing away. He had to find her. His need of her was as simple and urgent as drawing the next breath."

I would love to quote some of Allison and Will's conversations, but they seem silly out of context. Now, I just want to revel in my joy of good book-dom. Not sure yet what's next. Maybe it's time for Crime and Punishment. We shall see.

Past Obsessions

As I drove home yesterday, I was hit with a one-two punch from the past. First I was caught behind a buggy. Yes, that kind of buggy - the one that should have had horses pulling it. Only there weren't horses because we live in 2006. So there was a motor. A decidedly non-fast motor. Needless to say, it made me pissy. I was stuck behind some jerk who ... what? Was he so lost that he needed something general to connect to? Was he flaunting his supposed wealth? Was he insane? What?

Then I pulled into my driveway and saw the modern VW bug. Does the desire for this item stem from the same desire to own an old-fashioned horse-and-buggy-without-horse? Or is it a different animal?

I have always loved vintage clothes. For a while I was strictly 60s, then I moved on to the 70s. I liked the clothes better than the jeans full of holes. But I also had a desire to live in that time. Is that all it is? Are people unsatisfied with the time we are living now?

Possible. I read a scientific-yet-nostalgic book a couple of years ago, called Coming Home to the Pleistocene, by Paul Shepard that made a flawed argument for peeling society back to its barest bones. He argues that human nature is a part of our genetic heritage. Historically, Shepard argues, society and technology have bastardized that nature. In order to get back to our roots, Shepard recommends (essentially) moving backwards in time. He challenges us to get rid of all the comforts and technology we have become accustomed to. He argues for a neo-prehistoric way of life.[I'm using the word 'nostalgic' to indicate a longing for a particular culture's history, not a nostalgia for personal history]

Through this extreme argument, we can see the attraction of all things past. No matter how far back we go, it always seems like a simpler time. Is that what appeals to us? Somewhere deep inside, do we feel safer, less complicated while we're driving in a PT Cruiser? Does the new style of 'skinny jeans' make young girls feel like they live in the "less complicated" 80s?

This is also possible. 'Vintage' clothes are rarely worn by their original acolytes. There's a reason my mother willingly gave me her Coca-Cola bellbottoms to wear. People living in the time period that vintage clothes-wearers ostensibly desire know for a FACT that it wasn't a simpler time. The clothes and cars bring back memories of social unrest, oppression, and poverty (regardless of the time period).

I don't see a problem with it, this little quirk in our country. As long as someone as nostalgic as Paul Shepard doesn't gain power, I think its okay to find comfort in a seemingly less-complicated era.

I'd be interested to know if this phenomenon occurs within other cultures. I'm sure it does.

Stephen Colbert's Balls . . . for Kidz!

I'm not sure how I feel about Stephen Colbert's new call to arms. He is fucking with internet democracy. Join me, on a journey through my head as I try to reason this out. Don't be scared. The cobwebs are harmless.

First of all, yes. I think I just coined a term: internet democracy. I'm talking about the relatively new phenomenon of user input on the internet. Colbert is exploiting the fact that this new idea has many uses, many of them counter-productive.

He has asked his viewers to go to a Hungarian website where voting is taking place in order to name a bridge. As of Tuesday night, the Stephen Colbert Bridge had around 2,400 votes. After mentioning it on the show Tuesday (along with detailed instructions navigating around the confusion of another language), the count on Wednesday night was around 438,000. These are rough numbers, I'm just trying to get into the debate (with my "formidable opponent"). For a little more detail, click here.

First - the good stuff, which bleeds into the bad stuff:

1. Colbert is simply bringing to light a completely flawed process. The voting caught the eyes of the people at the Report because votes for the Chuck Norris Bridge were climbing into the 300,000 range. Ridiculous and interesting=perfect for the Report.
2. After such a huge response, Colbert is now urging viewers to go to another site to vote on a name for a sports team's mascot which happens to be . . . an eagle. He wants us to name it the Colbeagle. I think they could have found a funnier name, but the concept, the connections - all funny.
3. But where is this going to stop? The real reason I'm so wary is the way Colbert started. First, he saw his power when a huge fansite was started for him(see above link). He mentions the website on his show frequently and at the beginning he was (or seemed to me, at least) to be genuinly grateful and surprised at the amount of time and hard work people were willing to spend on him.
4. Colbert next used his power on Wikipedia. In what became a pretty big story, Colbert changed the online encyclopedia whose content can be written or edited by anyone on the site. Here's a good summary of the events from Slashdot.org:
   "The champion of 'truthiness' couldn't resist making fun of a website where facts, it seems, are endlessly malleable. But after making fun of Wikipedia on Monday night's "Colbert Report," Colbert learned some hard truths about Wikipedia's strength in resisting vandalism. Here's how the segment started: 'Colbert logs on to the Wikipedia article about his show to find out whether he usually refers to Oregon as "California's Canada or Washington's Mexico." Upon learning that he has referred to Oregon as both, he demonstrates how easy it is to disregard both references and put in a completely new one (Oregon is Idaho's Portugal), declaring it "the opinion I've always held, you can look it up."' Colbert then called on users to go to the site and falsify the entry on elephants. But Wikipedia's volunteer administrators were among those watching Colbert, and they responded swiftly to correct the entry, block further mischievous editing, and ban user StephenColbert from the website."
   

Yes. Wikipedia blocked him. Yes. This event was hilarious. And Yes: again, Colbert exploited a flawed internet tool.

Okay . . . so why am I not voting? Why am I not interested in helping Colbert show how ridiculous internet democracy is?

So, the bad stuff (for me, personally):

1. I've never been one to follow a leader blindly.
2. I've never enjoyed being one of the crowd.
3. I don't like seeing humble people get cocky. Yes, I realize Colbert's character is cocky, but it's funny because it's false.

Is he being cocky?

That's it. That's my main problem with this. Colbert is testing his power. He was shocked at the huge overnight increase in his numbers for the Hungarian bridge or "hid." It floored him. But after awhile, it stops being funny and ends up depressing and sad. Sad for our country (we're seriously looking things up through a resource which was written by people like me?), sad for the world (if Hungary's bridge is named after someone who has nothing to do with their culture, what does that mean? Yes, I realize the Chuck Norris vote was there first. So what does that mean?), and sad for Colbert (I don't want to see that head grow. I fear it would be bad for everyone).

Please feel free to add your ideas, criticism, and comments. Though I've pinpointed my main problem, I'd love your input.

In other news, from Broadsheet at Salon.com:

1. Pharmacists are now refusing to refill birth control presecriptions. REFILLS, people.
2. Gel bras can be used to trigger an explosion. I knew they were good for something. Kidding! Don't come arrest me.
3. An abstinence-only education program in Canton, Ohio goes 'belly-up' when the results came in: 13% of the Timken High School population became pregnant last year. After 65 of the 490 female students at Timken turned up preggers, the board decided to include safe-sex education in their schools. Is this what it takes?
   

Playing Defense

Am I the only one who has a problem with this?

Bill Gates, who has contributed lots of money to AIDS research says that women are the "key to fighting AIDS." Great. Wow. A cure?

Nope. This is a prevention tactic. Following the example of scared African women, Gates believes women should have to take a pill or insert some foreign substance into their vagina (every day?) 'just in case' they're raped by someone with AIDS. Pills, gels, and creams are being researched for AIDS prevention.

"A woman could use one quietly, without having to ask her husband or partner to use a condom or to abstain from sex." says Reuters.

Should the research really move in this direction? Should the only resource for women be a 'quiet' use of gel inside of themselves so they don't have to stand up to the men they're with? I know. In sub-Saharan Africa, the female condom (which some women wear ALL THE TIME) has saved many from infection. But this is such a defensive reaction. And the fact that RESEARCH money is spent on this is astounding. Shouldn't we look for a cure?

Maybe I don't know enough about it. Maybe the money should be spent on other forms of RAPE prevention. Maybe we should get African women out of abusive relationships. I think the money could be spent on any of these things. Women should not have to be quiet about infection. We should help them and ourselves in other ways. And, as always, I believe it starts with education.

As Melinda Gates says in the article, "the ABC approach -- which stands for Abstinence, Be faithful and use Condoms -- does not always work." Obviously. Don't even get me started on ABC idiocy. But though a gel or cream would be great for prostitutes, I do not think unhappily married or otherwise victimized women should have to add this stuff to their daily regimen.

Don't get me wrong. I'm happy we're on the road to prevention. But I don't think this is the answer. Find a cure, help correct the social situation in third world countries. Teach these women self-defense. There are tons of other options when there's Gates money to be had.

Pretty Women 2: Plastic Surgery Bugaloo

Magazines, men, women, the media, they all work together to make people feel inadequate. Women are dieting and having surgery before they've finished growing. They are changing themselves before they become themselves. Make-up (it's CALLED make-up for christ sakes!) can now be permanently drawn on your face. And abortion should be illegal for rational adults? I think this should be illegal. No surgery until you're old enough to know who you are (and does anyone ever completely know themselves?). We're not talking about 'killing' something that isn't alive in the first place(abortion). With plastic surgery, you can kill your chance at being who you are.

This stuff hits pretty close to home, so I'm sorry if I get too emotional. I do not condemn all plastic surgery. I think it has its place. I think women should feel good about themselves and be able to be proud of who they are and, yes, how they look. But all the roadblocks the government continues to throw up against abortion - anywhere from 24 hr to 5 day waiting periods, required viewings of graphic videos showing the procedure, parental consent, parental notification, illegal border crossings for the procedure - I think should be applied to something that does real harm to women and men. Plastic surgery.

A person should be required to wait a period of at least three days before they go through any procedure - from botox to liposuction. They should sit through a video detailing the gruesome details of the procedure. They should be warned of all the risks, shown pictures of surgery gone bad (much like the pictures some women are shown of aborted babies). They should meet protestors who make them feel like criminals. They should walk into places claiming to be plastic surgery centers and be met with a barrage of literature and people telling them how wrong they are to want plastic surgery (there are many false clinics claiming to perform abortions which turn out to be run by anti-abortion organizations). Plastic surgery seekers should be forced to obtain parental consent even when his or her abusive father or mother cut off the ear he or she wants replaced. In what is likely a very emotional time, they should be forced to search through their state for a place to go for help, only to find that the one plastic surgery center that operates within the state is too full of patients, protesters, and bomb threats to help him or her. Can he or she go to the neighboring state? Nope. It's illegal.

Of course, I don't think this should really be the case, but hopefully I've made my point. I think plastic surgery is much more evil than abortion. And if it were treated as such, maybe less people would make a hasty decision. Let me re-state that I do think plastic surgery has its place. But I think that place should be in the hospital not "plastic surgery centers." I do not think men (which the majority of plastic surgeons are) should make tons of money off of the insecurity of women. I don't think any doctor should be allowed to specialize in cosmetic surgery. Unnecessary surgery. I think its a crime and should be treated as such.

Women and men should not be forced to wear a mask for their entire life. If I see one more ad for plastic surgery offering to help you become 'the real you' I think I'm going to rip my face off. How's that for the real me? No skin at all! Is this the next trend?

Pretty Women

Okay, we all knew it was coming. This is one of many (I'm sure) posts about women and the current ideals surrouding women.

In modern American culture, women are supposed to be (alternately or concurrently) skinny, sexy, innocent, strong, beautiful, cute, childlike, and/or Amazonian. Young women are forced to compare themselves to these ideals and it is almost impossible for them to measure up.

I have never lived up to any of these ideals, and I'm over it. Of course, I wanted to be everything I've listed above. I still have issues with how I look, but I don't let those issues affect how I feel about myself. How I look is not related to how I live or who I am. And, living in this culture, that's as far as I've been able to come.

I do realize that men are suffering from increased expectations and male ideals. But this is rather new and has not permeated every facet of our society.

There are many topics to be explored on this subject, and I realize many (much more accomplished and talented) writers have articles and books relating to different expectations and goals for women in American society. But this is my blog and I want to talk about it.

In this post: Magazines
When I was a pre-teen, I wanted to look like the "normal" girls in YM. Yes, I was a subscriber. A brief visit to their website (I refuse to put a link) reveals the sections in the magazine: Beauty, Body, Stars, Style, and Private Life. Scrolling down, there is a poll asking: "Are you following the current war in the Middle East? " The choices are: "Yes, it's scary! I watch the news or read about the situation to try to understand what is happening between Israel and Lebanon." or "No, I really have no idea what is going on there. "

Okay, so I guess it could be worse. At least they are addressing the fact that there's something going on in the world outside of 'body' 'style' and 'stars'. But "yes, it's scary" and "try to understand?" What kind of language is that? Perhaps an article about the crisis (minus the flowery, condescending language) could address the situation more fully. Is there a reason this POLL doesn't ask people what they think of the crisis? Who they think is right? If anyone is right? Yes. They assume these girls can't UNDERSTAND the concept of the war. The issues behind the war. The history is complicated, yes. But I think we should give young girls more credit. Maybe then they'd try to live up to it.

These magazines, along with magazines for older women, not only perpetuate but create ideals. Going back to YM (my only first hand experience with a magazine of this ilk), I was affected for years by one of the more 'serious' articles in the magazine. It was an article (probably from the 'Body' section) about a girl who had different sized breasts. Everyone does. Hers was particularly severe. The story was about how she had plastic surgery and now lives a 'normal' life. (This kind of plastic surgery is necessary because of the type of society we live in. I don't blame the girl. I would've done it had I been in her position.) Naturally, for a couple of years, as I watched my breasts grow, I feared I would turn out like the girl in the article. That was time spent worrying about something I had never thought of before. The article (if I'm remembering correctly) served as a warning to girls. Don't just assume you're normal. Make sure you ask your doctor about plastic surgery. It may be right for you.

Teenagers are impressionable. They are figuring out who they are and who they want to be. Hell, so are adults. Women's magazines show women who they SHOULD be. Who they should WANT to be. It derails younger and older women alike. It takes away their creativity, their uniqueness.

Yes, that is melodramatic. I was able to hold onto myself and I'm happy with who I am today. But can I really say that? I'm happy with myself inside, but I doubt I'll ever overcome the ideals surrounding the way I should look. I wear certain clothes and dress a certain way so that I can function, so I don't have to worry about the quirks my body throws at me. I would choose different clothes if I felt more comfortable with my body. But EVERY normal person has something weird or different about their body. Why can't we all just decide to be okay with those differences? Why do we all have to look the same?

Leave it to Canada to get it right. Check out Shameless Magazine for the right kind of teen magazine.

Confessions of a TV Junkie

I admit it. I'm completely hooked. As much as I love to read, listen to music, write. As much as I need to exercise. TV usually wins. I love losing myself in other people's lives. ("What luxury, to be so happy / that we can grieve / over imaginary lives.")

So, since summer is wrapping up, I thought I'd write about a couple of shows that I'm really enjoying. Check them out. First, two reality shows (yikes!).

• 30 Days - Morgan Spurlock of Super Size Me fame is co-executive producer and narrator of this reality show. Each week, it takes a person with strong beliefs and places them out of their element for a month (30 days). For example, a homophobe lives in San Francisco with a gay couple for thirty days, an evangelical Christian lives with a Muslim family for 30 days, a mother binge drinks (imitating her daughter), a minuteman lives with illegal immigrants. Each person has to immerse themselves completely in the new culture or lifestyle. The focus is not on "drama" (typical of many reality crap shows). Rather, the show asks the question (and seeks to answer it) "Can someone really change (in thirty days)?" So far, most of the people have changed at least a little bit. This is not about humiliation. This is about people, emotions, and paradigm shifts. It's great television. I've cried during more than one episode.
• Who Wants to Be a Superhero? - This is a little more along the lines of a typical reality show. The contestants are given challenges which they have to complete, and two people are eliminated by the end of the show. The prize? A comic book featuring the superhero they invented and a movie on FX. Both prizes feature the winner him/herself. Here's the reason I watch: the challenges test personality traits, not strength or endurance (though one recent test did show us a contestant with TREMENDOUS endurance). Instead, the show focuses on so-called "super-humans." The winner will have the heart and 'soul' of a superhero. I know. It sounds cheesy. Maybe it is. But I enjoy it thoroughly.

And now for the fictional side of things:

• Eureka - It's the same old story: small town, po-dunk people with problems. The problems, however, are fueled by the secret government side of the town (covered by a mystical barrier). This area is a mecca of brains and talent. The highest functioning humans in America are located here. And this show proves that they are still only human. Though the town has many anomalies, the people are pretty normal. They make mistakes. Experiments go bad. Wackiness ensues. This show requires about three viewings to really grab you. But it gets there, I promise. The actors are not the best in the world, but they're interesting. It's a fresh idea (as far as I know) with many opportunities for unique episodes.

Jason and I also caught up on some shows we missed the boat on:

• Battlestar Galactica - the show that brings sci-fi nerds, cinematographers (and people interested in camera work), actors, and general lovers of story and drama together. It surpasses the brand name everyone knows. This is a political drama. Aside from some crappy acting (which is well-balanced by some of the best actors on television), I can see no flaws in this updated version of the campy 70s show.
• Lost - I'm on it. The bandwagon. This show is extremely well-written and well-acted. I can't wait for the new season
• Smallville - this is my guilty pleasure. I'm gradually becoming okay with the fact that the main reason I watch this show is that I get to watch a lot of pretty people (and some not-so-much) do . . . stuff. I have fallen in love with some of these characters. And Tom Welling . . . there's just not much to say. Sigh.
• Alias - I'm still on the fence. I'm not sure I love this show. I'm at the end of the first season and it's getting a little too "mystical" for me. I'm a tad hooked though. I really like the characters, and they're what keep me coming back.

Shows I can't wait for/stand-bys I love:

• Scrubs- I have to wait until January!
• The Office - It's rare that television can make me laugh out loud at all, not to mention during every episode.
• Veronica Mars - A Whedon-esque show.
• Bones - another guilty pleasure - I'm not sure why. I think it has to do with my love for Angel and the Joss Whedon-less TV universe right now.
• How I Met Your Mother - Jason and I started this one, then stopped, and came back to it. His love for Alison Hannigan brought us to the show in the first place. It's not one of my favorites, but I do like to lose myself in trivial lives every now and then.
• Big Love - gotta love HBO: a polygamous, Mormon family lives in "the real world."
• Arrested Development - I know. I don't care that it's canceled. I will be watching repeats on Mondays, pretending it's still on. Delusional? Yes. But perfect television doesn't come around that often.
  
• and, of course, a steady stream of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report to keep me grounded and sane.

I think that's it. Wow. I'm sad. Oh well. Now you know. This is why I never talk to anyone.

Book Club of One: BEE SEASON

When I finished The World According to Garp, by John Irving, I wasn't sure what I was using this blog for. I didn't know if people would be interested in my comments about the book. Now, I guess I've decided it doesn't really matter. I'd like to get my thoughts down for myself. My memory is really bad.

I guess I'm also more interested in commenting on Bee Season (written by Myla Goldberg) because I won't be gushing over it. Irving's book was really wonderful and I didn't have too many bad things to say about it.

While we're here though, I will mention a couple things about Irving's novel. I adored the unpredictable, tormented, beautiful characters present in the book. That's what I look for in literature. I love character. Plot is secondary, though obviously still important.

I also loved the fact that, though the narrator seemed omniscient at times, we were always centered in Garp's world. Though the narrator commented on things Garp might not have been aware of, he/she/it (the narrator) always threw in qualifiers when identifying the emotions and thoughts of other characters.

My one problem was with the motifs throughout the novel. That was the problem, actually, there seemed to be a lot of new repeating images and ideas in the last 1/3 of the book. As I have a terrible memory, I can think of no examples at the moment. But it seemed a little forced. Of course, the novel covered so much time and so many events that it would have been impossible to keep motifs consistent throughout. And I can see how motifs can lead to a theme simply by changing. But the one in particular I'm thinking of took place in a flashback and should have come into the story long ago.

But this post is supposed to be about Bee Season.

Bee Season was Goldberg's first novel and I think it reads like one. It is the story of a little girl stuck in the remedial fifth grade class. She wins the school spelling bee, to everyone's surprise and goes on to win the state. She gets very far in the National spelling bee, but loses. This is the first 1/3 of the book.

The rest of the book is about her (Jewish) family and how exactly it falls apart. The daughter, Eliza, studies the teachings of a Jewish mystic with her father, attempting to achieve transcendance through her connection with letters. The father (Saul) realizes how badly he's been hiding his disappointment in his daughter's intelligence when suddenly he spends all his free time studying with her; the son (Aaron) feels neglected by the loss of his father's time and seeks a new religion; the mother (Miriam), who had always been a non-participant in the family, slowly reveals exactly how nuts she is when she is arrested for breaking into a stranger's house and stealing a vase. Throughout the book, the reader sees that she believes she is gathering pieces of herself. By the end, her real home is revealed, to Saul and to the reader. It is a neatly organized house made of stolen objects located in a storage facility. She ends up in a "hospital," refusing to see anyone in her family. Aaron ends up with the Hare Krishnas, Eliza ends up achieving transcendance (by first losing all bodily function) without her father's help (she also loses the school spelling bee the next year on purpose), and the father ends up with no one and nothing.

Though the story is surprising and interesting, Goldberg switches point of view unnecessarily and often. Though this gives the reader an understanding of each character (I think we would be lost otherwise - why is Miriam stealing a shoe? a bowl?, why is Aaron wearing an orange robe and chanting), it was distracting for me as a reader. I think I would have preferred to feel the cracks in the family through one person's eyes. It would have been a nice tension builder and would have given me (the reader) a nice sense of what each character was feeling - a disconnect. I think I felt too connected.

I really like Goldberg's sense of character, though. And I her depiction of the two younger members of the family was perfect. I love a writer who can get into a child's head.

So that's it for me. Sorry it was so long. I'm very excited about my next book. I've been interested in Walker Percy for a while now. He's been called an existentialist (interested in the alienation of the individual and the search for a more "authentic" existence), a philosophical novelist, a Catholic, an MD (with interests in pathology and psychology), and a Southern writer. Woohoo!

My Prophet

Okay, so I'm not religious. I call myself agnostic because it is a quick way to say who I am. I'm not sure what/who is out there and I'll never be sure. I'm not taken in by charismatic people who seem to know what they're talking about. (It's important to note that I am not saying most religious people are taken in by just anyone. I'm simply making the point that it is a big deal for me to think so highly of one person based on his beliefs and actions - not on first-hand knowledge.)

This is why, if I had to choose someone to respect and admire unabashedly; someone who, if I were ever to see him, I would probably detect some sort of gold-ish haze around him, it would be Utah Phillips. The link connects to a wikipedia article about him, which, if you're interested will give you the details on the man I might actually call my hero.

I've never been one for heroes. I don't like words that I can't define. What is a hero? Is it someone we admire? There are many people I admire. That can't be it. There has to be more. Let's look at examples of heroes. Phillips speaks about the fact that children today have heroes who are made-up people. Spider-Man, Barbie (kill me now). Whatever happened, he asks, to grandparents, Babe Ruth, actual people?

Okay, so Utah is guiding me through the hero conundrum. Should heroes be people we aspire to be? People we respect and admire so much that we model our lives on that person? I think I may have just answered my own question. Thanks Utah.

Here's another shard of glass. I don't have heroes because I don't model myself after anyone. I have always tried to be my own person (often to an extreme extent). I don't wear crazy outfits or die my hair different colors, but I always try to be the most honest version of myself. As I've grown I've realized this isn't always possible. But in any given situation, I can shift to the most honest version that particular situation can hold. I'm malleable. Yay me.

At least that's what I aim for. Okay, sorry about the tangent. So I wouldn't call Utah a hero. I don't aspire to be a labor reformer. I don't want to get people riled up and make a scene. I don't like to embarrass people. But I admire people who do.

Utah does it in my favorite way. He is an unassuming activist. He is modest and thoughtful. He is joyful and likes to laugh. He sees the beauty in the world and in people. He is brimming with stories and music. He has unthinkable amounts to share with this world.

I'm going to include the two quotes that led to this post. I hope you'll go buy some of his stuff.

"Following the path of least resistance is what makes the river crooked."

And, the one that calmed me after a rough day:

"Little kids are . . . assholes. But they're their own assholes. When you grow up, you're someone else's asshole . . ."

Check out UtahPhillips.org

This Could Shock (and Awe) You

If the 2008 election was upon us and McCain was running against Hillary, I would vote for John McCain. Please, hold your gasps.

But wait! She's a "feminist," you say. She should jump at the chance for a woman president! First of all, that's ridiculous. If a qualified minority ran for president (like Shirley Chisolm), I would expect him or her to get a fair shot at office. But she or he should never be judged on the basis of their minority status (positively or negatively).

So let's look at Hillary and John. She's a "Democrat," he's a "Republican."
Both voted to invade Iraq in 2003.

Both support different kinds of guest worker programs for illegal immigrants (though Hillary's position is a little wobbly).

BOTH are self-proclaimed "anti-abortionists." Hillary believes that criminalizing the process would not abolish abortions, McCain has said he would have signed the South Dakota legislation banning all abortions but, unlike South Dakota's law, McCain believes pregnancies resulting from rape or incest should be legal. As for Hillary, she is again wobbly: "Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this — and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do. But we should also recognize what works and what doesn't work, and to be fair, the jury is still out on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs. I don't think this debate should be about ideology, it should be about facts..." Yes. Ultimately she admits there may be a problem with abstinence-only education. But to give it any credit at all is criminal in my eyes.

Both expressed opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. Hillary, however, does not believe in (?) same-sex marriages. She supports civil unions but also supports the Defense of Marriage Act.

Hillary supports making flag burning illegal *without* an actual amendment.

She PROPOSED the Family Entertainment Protection Act, a bill that would prohibit the sale of violent video games to anyone under 18. She has called Grand Theft Auto a "major threat" to morality. More on that in another post.

Do I feel betrayed by Clinton? A little. Okay, a lot. Maybe she's justdesperatee to get elected. But I don't think so. I think she's finally showing her true colors. And I would take a "Republican" over a "Democrat" any day. At least McCain journeys over to the light. Hillary is being dragged over to the dark side. It's taking over. I don't want to see her in office. I think she would disappoint a lot of people.

In Response

...to Jason's comment on the last post. First of all, yes, I mis-wrote about the exfoliated cells. Thanks for clarifying.

The other comment though (about the conservatives' outrage over embryo destruction) deserves a second look.

Many stem cells go to research because there is a surplus of embryos from the new and "exciting" ways to get pregnant. Some women donate their eggs for science, some use them for themselves (in vitro fertilization). The point is, this surplus either sit in a freezer (those poor, cold non-things!) or they are thrown away. A donation center cannot keep the embryos forever. When women begin the process of trying to get pregnant this way/donating eggs, they have a lot of paperwork to fill out. One of the questions invlolves the use of her surplus eggs. They can choose to throw them away, donate them, or freeze them "indefinitely." Wow! Look at that freedom of choice!

The irony (and I'm not using it the way Bush did. What do we think he meant? Irony= the weird thing is...?) is that Bush has two daughters who were created through "unnatural" means. Laura took fertility drugs. Though Laura did not have to go through the petri-dish process, would she have? Does Bush believe that playing god is okay when it comes to creating babies?

I wish Bush would address this discrepancy. How can you be outraged about donations of eggs for science (which may cure some diseases that affect actual children), but not even address donations for fertilization? These donations are creating the surplus. It's the fertility clinics that are running out of space. They are the ones that need to throw the eggs away.

Thus, it seems to me that Bush would rather throw away "potential life" than use it for research.

Another clarification: the bill would have increased government funding of stem cell research, which may not seem like that big a deal (private funding, right?). The truth is, however, that no lab can do this kind of research without assistance from the government.

Just Say No

We should be so proud. Our little president just vetoed his first bill! Though the number of vetoes varies with each new president (Cleveland had 414, Adams and Jefferson, none), for a two-term president in modern-day America, Bush's record is ridiculous. It's reasonable, however, when you look at the House and the Senate.

Anyway, this is not my point. The bill the president vetoed? It was a bill expanding stem cell research. I know. He thinks they are all little babies, even though you can't see them without a microscope. They're potential humans. But so are the cells that come off in the shower. Should we remain unclean to suit Bush's ideal? Should Bush's beliefs keep the US from advancing science? I wonder if he's thought of the competition angle. China's got no problem with using stem cells. They'll clone first! They'll cure countless diseases first! Oh no! Doesn't Bush love the US? Maybe we should argue nationalistically.

The best point here is that these stem cells are not human. They will never become human. The majority of them, due to the fact that they can be used for NOTHING will be destroyed. Who benefits from that? A non-life is now in the trash. We're back to zero.

So congrats, Mr. Prez. You took a baby step. You stood up to your back-scratching yes-men in Congress. Wow. You're such a big boy. But what happens when you get Alzheimer's?

Oh, and if you ever touch the German Chancellor again, she'll use the other moves she learned in rape prevention class. Why don't you stick to massaging Tony Blair? Oh, sorry. Probably too gay for you.

Too Much

Is it something in the weather? People all over the world are angry, nothing new there. This week, they decided to do something about it. Iraq, Pakistan, Israel, Lebanon. You'd think they planned ahead.

I'm not trying to make this all into cotton candy, though the texture of the events is the same. I'm simply baffled.

On the homefront, some interesting stories I've read this week:

• Republicans in Congress are, indeed, trying to find a way around the Supreme Court ruling on prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. They are interpreting the decision in a way that forces Bush to get approval from Congress before he unfairly tries the inmates. Others claim the decision means that Bush must give the inmates a fair trial. Let's hope the latter wins this one. If we're out there spreading democracy, what gives us the right to act like a military state? Just another thing to add to the ever-growing list of American hypocrisy.

• Valerie Plame is suing Cheney and Rove for ruining her career. Finally. I'm not optimistic that she'll win, but anything is possible.

• The Senate voted against a minimum wage increase (it's still $5.15/hr). (They voted to give themselves a wage increase. Surprised?) Though this happened awhile ago, I was just indignant until I heard a recent Slate podcast called The Gabfest. They talked economics which, admittedly, is not my forte. Apparently, the reason it's stayed so low for so long is, ostensibly, a fear that job opportunities will decrease, especially for young people. If minimum wage goes up, it devalues the people making higher wage and will even (gasp) manage to poke the rich. Though this may be true, it is also true that inflation provides for at least some sort of increase. Though, as Emily Basilon on The Gabfest mentioned, minimum wage is meant to give less educated, younger people a place to start their careers (McDonald's, here I come), it's also a fact that many, many (a majority?) of minimum wage earners are 30 and above. You cannot live on $5.15 an hour.

• The House Appropriations Committee did not recommend a funding increase for abstinence-only education. Yeehaw! The fact that we're even wasting money on this worthless and harmful program is ridiculous. Kids are going to do it. Let's teach them to be safe and smart. I'm trying not to even get into American sex education overseas. It's too horrid and naive to fit into a bullet point.

• From AlterNet.org: Women soldiers are being raped by their co-workers in Iraq. No solution has been found. Once women are raped, if they come forward, they are seen by doctors without Plan B or appropriate tools to test for disease. Then, (if they're lucky) they're taken to a different location. Women are being raped out of combat. We've come so very far.

• In local news, here in Tampa, Veterans for Peace were finally granted access to public schools. Army recruiters have been allowed the lunchroom and other key places in schools for years now. After appeals to the fair and balanced, both points of view, claims of the school board were denied, Veterans for Peace chose a different tactic. They claimed they would provide alternate career opportunities for kids. The school board couldn't pass that one up, but made V for P promise they would not distribute and/or talk to kids negatively about the war or the military (they have to "steer the conversation" the "correct" way). For the past few years, V for P have set up outside of schools, to reach kids as they exited schools. A spokesman for the organization said that they would simply continue on the outside, even as they gained access to the inside. In this way, students will finally get both sides of the story. Ain't Florida grand?

• And, finally, Ted Stevens is an idiot. Not really news, but... in an effort to promote a hierarchy of internet speed, Stevens called the internet "a series of tubes." The Daily Show quoted this and other ridiculous parts of Stevens' speech in front of the Senate beside a picture of Grampa Simpson. Wow.

Those were just a few things that caught me this week. There's so much going on, it would be impossible to bullet everything.

Oh, and another note on my previous post. My ultimate issue is not with the show, but with Salon's article. My pain was augmented by the fact that the commercial I was forced to watch was for Project Runway. My question is: how do those commercials work? Was that commercial targeted to readers of Broadsheet? That would be the ultimate irony: on my way to read a (choppy) article complaining about another article stereotyping feminists as closet Project Runway fans, I watched an ad for Project Runway, which was targeted toward the feminist readers of Broadsheet.

Oh, Salon

You have failed me for the first time. In a half-hearted article on Broadsheet,"Women Rabid Over 'Runway?'" Salon.com indulged in a little wit. Maybe not wit, maybe it was a little foreplay, or even a simple accident. I'm not sure what it was. I went to the site, using a link to the article which, I assumed, was about the ridiculous nature of Project Runway. I was prompted (of course) to watch an advertisement to enter Salon (their way of generating revenue). I was shocked and a bit amused to note that the ad was for . . . what else? Project Runway. The article turned out to be a childish reaction to an article from Columbia Daily Tribune columnist Pete Bland, "Stay Away From Women and their Runway." Bland's article talked about all his 'feminist' friends who were obsessed with the show. Rebecca Traister's article on Broadsheet quoted heavily from the article and wrapped it up with this: "Put succinctly: this column was dumb." I was thoroughly disappointed and confused (if amused) at the coincidental (?) marketing ploy.

I think the show is ridiculous, though I have friends that watch it. I'm not sure what people get out of other people being catty and stupid. I find it embarrassing. But my hope would be that Broadsheet could dig a little deeper into the appeal. I don't understand why they think a simple dismissal is enough.

Dead Man's Plot

I saw Pirates of the Caribbean 2 last night. The action sequences were incredibly creative and original, the overall tone was whimsical and fun, but the plot was stilted and convoluted. In a 2 hr and 30 minute movie, there were too many things left unexplained and too many unnecessary scenes. There are four writers credited on IMDB, and I'm sure there were more who worked on it. It felt slapped together and cut up and edited. As I sat there, jolted from one scene to the next, I spent most of my time trying to catch up. I finally just sat back and released the plot from my brain, knowing it was no use.

Ah, trying to wax poetic. I'll stop. I enjoyed the movie, but I wouldn't see it again. I feel cheated by the ending and, really, by the movie in general. The action sequences were enough to keep me going, though, and that's saying a lot. I hate action sequences.

No doubt some will disagree with this pseudo-review. Sorry I'm not more specific, but I don't want to ruin it for those who haven't seen it. I guess I'll wrap it up with this pretentious, ugly bow: the writers wrapped the plot in a very pretty box, then cut the bottom out of the box. There were still pieces, glimmers, of story, but it was drowned in voodoo and superfluous "mis-haps."

But Orlando Bloom is still ridiculously gorgeous.

Working . . . With Children

Why do interviews with working mothers usually involve questions about their children?

A particularly annoying, self-aggrandizing Slate podcast brought this to my attention. The new Washington Post radio station (really? do we need this?), did an hour-long program about Slate writers, featuring interviews with several columnists and editors (the Washington Post owns Slate). After an interview with a male writer, who is also a father, in which his children were not mentioned, a female writer was questioned repeatedly about being a working mother. How does she do it? What happens to her kids when she works? The bulk of the interview was about the trials and tribulations of balancing motherhood and work. To be fair, my aggravation was augmented by the fact that the interviewer was ridiculously energetic and a horrible speaker. She mis-pronounced names and mixed up facts on more than several occasions.

Alright, so one interview. Annoying, but no big deal. But the next day, I listened to another interview with a female writer. Almost half of the interview was about her children and (yet again) the "balance" required. Both interviewers were women as well.

I know mothers and fathers have different roles in their childrens' lives, but this is ridiculous. Though some people still do not accept that women can work with kids at home just as well as ment can, it has been a fact of life for more than three decades. I wonder if, during World War II (when the government wanted and needed women to work, thank you Rosie), there was such a big fascination with a working mother. Sure, it was a novelty at first, but women were expected to work, to serve their country. Now, it comes across as a choice.

Though it may come from admiration, by asking these accomplished women about their children and the "balance," these interviewers are perpetuating the idea that this working mother thing is still a novelty. It's been going on for awhile now. I think they know what they're doing. It is a decision, but it's a decision fathers make as well.

Maybe even more importantly, the answers these women give to questions like, "What's it like being a working mother? How do you balance your work and your family?" are pretty boring. There's nothing interesting about a regular, modern woman doing her job and loving her family. Just as there's nothing interesting about a regular, modern man doing his job and loving his family.

The Little Guy Plays With the Big Boys

I just read a short synopsis of today's papers on Slate. A story on the New York Times front page caught my eye.

Apparently, schools, fire departments, and other public entities are "hiring lobbyists to make funding appeals to Congress on their behalf."

They are reportedly seeing a return on the tax money spent on this venture, and it is proving to be a lucrative process.

I am all for this. We need to learn to play their game, so we can reap the benefits. I think we should all hire lobbyists. Hell, we should all become lobbyists. Maybe we'll force a change in the system.

I know a lobbyist who is tremendously influential in Florida law (he's even written some of them). Lobbyists are becoming the ghost writers, the Karl Rove's. They are the ones who get things done. Let's all take a page out of the "Florida town," which gets 285.83 dollars for every dollar spent in taxes. Can you imagine what we could do with that kind of money?

I think it is a very good use of our taxes. If this is how the system is going to work, we need to learn to play along. Of course, it gets a lot more depressing when you think about the money it takes to hire a lobbyist to fight for you. LOBBYISTS: teach free classes, set up a pro-bono system like lawyers (is there one?), help this cause!

Of course, that will never happen. Lobbyists are hired to fight for causes. How many ideals can these people have? (My friend and his recent actions are excluded from that nasty comment.)

One Vote?

I don't know why it's so hard for me to believe. The people in the Senate have repeatedly proven themselves to be idiots. I'm just having trouble with the fact only one vote kept the Flag Desecration Amendment from passing. I know, I should just be happy it didn't pass. But I would've expected something akin to the Defense of Marriage bullshit. A Senatorial version of throwing tomatoes. But no. We were one vote away from having our rights curtailed by the constitution. I'm not going out and burning flags. But I should be able to, if I want to. As should any American. Freedom. It's a good word. Maybe some of those senators should go look it up.

In other news, the Supreme Court voted against Rumsfeld. Here's an excerpt from an e-mail I received from People for the American Way:

Today brought a major victory for the rule of law –and a stunning defeat for the Bush Administration. Ruling 5-3 in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court overturned an appeals court’s determination that military detainees are not entitled to fundamental due process rights including the right to be present at their trials and the right to confront witnesses against them. The hallmark of American justice and that of most civilized nations is that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and today’s ruling sends a strong signal to the president that his administration cannot continue to ignore the rule of law.

At least something's working. However, I heard a report on All Things Considered this morning about the legislation changes this is going to require. Our right-wing government will surely find a way to do what it wants.

Well, I feel manipulated, scared, and depressed. Have a good day!

Here We Go

Prompted by this article (excerpted here):

--------------------------------------------------
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Tennessee's embattled anti-abortion license plates could hit the streets within three months.The U.S. Supreme Court this week declined to consider an appeal challenging such plates.

• Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

As well as a vague memory of a great 88.5 report on the Florida license plates sporting the same slogan, I looked up a little more about the issue. Here's a great article from Slate, titled Poetic Licenses:

--------------------------------------------------

"The legal issue isn't complicated, and it helps to separate it from your feelings about abortion. It's a free speech question: Can state governments endorse speech representing only one side of an issue as controversial as abortion? Has the state, by opening up license plates as a forum for private speech, incurred a constitutional obligation to allow speakers of every viewpoint equal access to that forum?"

"Most of the courts that have considered the issue have wussed out on the First Amendment question altogether, finding the plaintiffs in those cases lacked legal "standing" to file suit, since they had never endeavored to sponsor "Choose Abortion" or "Choose Choice" license plates themselves. Another court decided last month that the "Choose Life" plates in South Carolina were unconstitutional, in that the state was promoting only one side in the debate. Immediately, a South Carolina legislator introduced a "Choose Death" license plate, which he insists fairly expresses the other side in the debate. Newspapers recently noted that the "Choose Death" plate may still prove popular with death-penalty enthusiasts (and perhaps with hunters, werewolves, and NRA members as well). Less clear is whether it will satisfy the plaintiffs from Planned Parenthood.
License plates became a constitutional issue in 1977 when the Supreme Court decided Wooley v. Maynard, a case involving a family of Jehovah's Witnesses who had taped over the "Live Free or Die" part of their New Hampshire license plate. The Maynards claimed that New Hampshire violated their free speech rights by forcing them to broadcast a political sentiment with which they disagreed. The high court ruled that states could not force individuals to be "mobile billboards" for messages they loathed. The "Choose Life" cases don't involve this sort of compelled speech, however, since no one in any state is forced to purchase the specialty plates—people buy them voluntarily.
Specialty plates were virtually unheard-of in most states until 1987, when Florida issued a plate commemorating the space shuttle Challenger. That plate alone raised more than $30 million for space-related programs, and today Florida issues more than 50 specialty plates. Forty other states have specialty-plate programs, and for the most part they celebrate non-controversial organizations: sports teams, schools, veterans, NASCAR, or saving the whales, with the additional fees benefiting that cause. The "Choose Life" plates in Florida feature the words "Choose Life" in childlike crayon, along with a beaming boy and girl—presumably of the happily adopted variety—also rendered in the key of crayon. Most of states with "Choose Life" programs provide, as does Florida, that the proceeds of these sales go exclusively to organizations that counsel women with unwanted pregnancies to choose adoption. In fact, the legislation in most states expressly provides that any program offering referrals or even discussing the option of abortion is barred from funding.
When the first "Choose Life" legislation passed in Florida in 1998, then-Gov. Lawton Chiles vetoed it, stating that license plates were not necessarily the best forum for exploring the complex nuances of the abortion debate. But Gov. Jeb Bush signed the bill when he was elected in 1999, and the Louisiana legislature adopted similar legislation shortly thereafter. South Carolina followed in 2001. All have resulted in lawsuits, with the first two states' suits going to the Choose Lifers and the third going to the plaintiffs. So far. "

"It's not at all clear how the "Choose Life" lawsuits will shake out. But it seems obvious that if a "Choose Life" tag is constitutional in Virginia, a "Honk If You Love al-Qaida" plate should be constitutional in New Hampshire, as well. Which would probably give a whole new meaning to "Live Free or Die.""

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leave it to Florida to start this slippery trend. Just thought it was worth some time on the page. Though this article was written in 2003, we still haven't resolved the issue. Check out the rest of the article here: http://www.slate.com/id/2078247/

My Hero

In other news: Stephen Colbert is awesome. On a recent episode of The Colbert Report, he played a clip of a Fox News anchor discussing the horrors of those "liberal tree-huggers" who "want to tell us what to do with our trash." (quotes are not exact). Colbert went on to agree that our trash is a private matter. "No one can tell me to separate my green glass from my clear glass!" He then made sure we realized our bodies and genitals are the property of big government. These things are public domain. The government needs to tell us exactly what to do with them.

No one else but a Catholic liberal pretending to be an evangelical right-winger (calls O'Reilly "papa bear") could make this point so well. Gotta love it.

Those Crazy Cameroon-ians

I just read an article on Broadsheet, which comments on the horrors of "breast ironing" in Cameroon, West Africa. According to Broadsheet, "wooden tools, heated bananas and coconut shells are often used to iron and beat away at young girls' budding breasts in an attempt to stunt development. All this to deter sexual advances from men and boys."

Although this practice is horrifying and disgusting, it seems a logical extension of the African practice of Female Genital Mutilation (a controversial label). FGM involves clipping or cutting the clitoris to stunt the woman's sexual pleasure. American's have been outraged about this practice for years.

Here is my problem. Are we completely blind? True, any practice that leads to a discussion of "over-ironing" should be discussed and condemned. Of course I believe that. But how could an article talk about how harmful this practice is to the breast tissue without mentioning the American practice of breast enhancement (which can severely damage breast tissue, rendering the nerve endings completely numb). Why didn't the article mention plastic surgery in general? We are complete hypocrites.

True, Tracy Clark-Forey writes that these women are forced to undergo "breast ironing" against their will. Most women choose plastic surgery. But here we come to the big question, which many people have asked before me. Do women really "choose" plastic surgery? Doesn't society tell them what to look like? How to feel about their natural bodies? Is plastic surgery really a matter of free will?

Above all, I was just surprised plastic surgery went unmentioned. Although the practices are done for different reasons, they are both extremely dangerous, demeaning, and unnecessary procedures. Clark-Forey ends the article with: "But how insurmountable must cultural taboos surrounding women, family honor, and sex seem to Cameroonians for this to be practiced on 26 percent of young girls in the country?" How insurmountable must cultural, familial, and sexual expectations surrounding women seem to Americans for plastic surgery to be practiced on 10.2 million patients (82% women) in the country?

See American Society of Plastic Surgeons for more statistics

A Prarie Home Companion

I don't want this blog to be a complete bitch/moan fest. I saw A Prarie Home Companion a couple weeks ago and thought I'd share my sheer joy.

Though it's not my favorite NPR program, I do listen to the show on occasion. It's a little too simple for me, which I know is the point. I love Garrison Keillor's The Writer's Almanac, though, and I think he is a brilliant, talented man.

Prarie Home Companion just reaffirmed this belief. It was really nice to just sit back and enjoy these actors loving life. They clearly reveled in these characters (especially Meryl Streep and Lily Tomlin) and their joy came across the screen.

The music was fun and exciting. I'm pretty sure a smile was plastered to my face the entire time.

That said, I don't know why there was an angel in the movie. I understand what they were going for and it did add another layer to the story. I just didn't like or buy that layer. And Lindsey Lohan. Yikes. She's really disappointing. I loved her in Mean Girls. I still don't understand that choice. Her voice is horrible and her acting was not enjoyable.

Oops! Bitching again. Sorry. The movie was wonderful.

When did it become okay?

When did it become alright to kill someone we don't like? I will gladly stand up and agree that I think Al-Zarqawi was a maniac and a killer. Does that make it right to drop two 500 pound bombs on top of his "un-safe" house (as Fox so cleverly called it)? I can't believe I haven't heard more of an outcry against this. Am I missing something?

I do not believe that life is sacred. But I also don't believe that we have the right to rub out anyone who does something we don't agree with. Yes, I understand that this man has done horrible and unspeakable things. He was the leader of a terrorist organization. But why isn't it alright to kill Kim Jong-il? Hell, serial killers get a (ostensibly) fair trial before we put them to death. I disagree completely with the death penalty, but at least there is a process, an attempt to make the killing "humane." We dropped two 500 pound BOMBS on a house, killing insurgents and 19 people. Wounding 40 more. What gives us the right to KILL this man? These people?

Another part of my astonishment is that Americans are willing to stand by and look at exactly the extent of the damage we did in this one case. Do we really need CLOSE-UPS of a dead man (in what looks like a gilded frame)? Descriptions of his autopsy? Does anyone care that we're reveling in the death of a man? A person? Nevermind that he was a horrible person.

All anyone can talk about (other than pure rejoicing) is the "mystery." How did he stay alive so long? Why isn't he more pulverized? What the hell is wrong with everyone?

If anyone can shed any light, make any argument for our joyous celebration of this death and/or a justification for the bombs, I'd love to hear it. Maybe I'm just not informed enough. I just can't believe I haven't heard anyone else speaking up about this. Where do we draw the line? I hate the slippery slope argument, but when the shoe fits... When is it okay to kill someone? To target someone? When do we become the terrorists?

Just some quick thoughts. I have no computer right now, which explains the lack of updates. Well, that and the addition of a full-time job to my life. Keep your eye out, though. When I have something to I need to say, I'll find the time to kick my partner off of his computer.