Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Sandy Koufax

I don't think I have anything to say about this topic. I think it was not meant for me. The title throws me; G-Men Detective? Shouldn't it be G-Man Detective? Or G-Men Detectives? I know a G-Man is short for "government man." (Though there is a gay magazine called G-Men, I think.) Is he detecting government men, or is he a government man detecting other people? I don't know. This is not meant for me, because I have no imagination. I don't think the guy is in a radiation suit, since his hands are bare. Wouldn't do too much good, right? And which one is the detective? "Death on the Runways" makes me think of the obvious. It's on an airport runway. The guys in the background are shooting some strange laser weapons at something; I'd guess it's an airplane. So this is some sort of retro-futuristic thing. Not sure what's going on there. Maybe the guy is supposed to be in a radiation suit; what else would it be? Some sort of space suit? Are they from space? Maybe it's a space shuttle runway. I dunno. I also like William O'Sullivan, the guy who wrote the story, because he kept the "O" on his name (once upon a time, the "O" was attached to my last name, until it was more suitably westernized long before I was born; the "O" means "grandson of"). Also it seems to say "British Edition" in the upper left corner; what's that about? What would need to be different? Some British slang maybe.

That's really all I can think of. But on the bright side, I've set the bar suitably low for everyone else's responses.

UPDATE: Jen, you have a much better imagination than I. I don't want to say I have absolutely no imagination; I think I do sometimes. I fear I'm going to be embarrassed because this topic will be better received by everyone else, since I think everyone else here has a better imagination. I guess I could look at this picture and make something up; I took it seriously when you said to write my post first. I wasn't sure what you were looking for. And then I read your post. So I'll try again. Here goes.

The men are from space; they established a colony on Mars. They came back to take more people with them. That's why they are in space suits. The G-Man Detective is trying to stop them; he was investigating the strange disappearances of people and uncovered their plan. Maybe they are taking people back to populate their species, trying to create a more perfect human race. And leaving Earth to rot; and even draining some of their resources/money/etc. And ruling them from afar; trying to meddle in their affairs and influence Earth, especially trying to keep people from progressing/evolving and particularly from venturing outward and discovering their presence on Mars. G-Man Detective wants to uncover their plot and stop them from disappearing people and from creating a master race to rule Earth from afar. How's that? Doesn't really jibe with "Death on the Runways." Damn. Well that's as good as I got.

Discuss.

This week, this G-Men Detective cover is your inspiration. I won't tell you where I got it or anything else about it, just respond to it by saying whatever it makes you think of. In fact, this might work better if you don't read the other responses until after you've written your own-- then it will be truly yours and not a continuation of someone else's. that said, here's mine (and I promise I just found this image 2 minutes ago, so don't put an awful lot of thought into what you want to say; obviously, I'm not).


The first question that comes to my mind here is, who exactly is the g-man in this drawing? The guy in blue appears to be a cop, but then, who's dressed up in that HazMat suit? then I have to wonder, if this is Death on the Runways, where's the plane? and what's that planet-shaped thing behind the title?

Radiation is fascinating to me because the human body has absolutely no way of sensing it. Literally, you could be walking around town completely covered in radiation particles(which I always think of as little glowing green dots--thank you, TV) and have no idea. And as you're walking, you're leaving a trail of green dots, and green fingerprints and shoeprints, and other people are picking them up as they follow behind you. Yet, none of you can see, feel, taste, smell, or hear your contamination. The only thing you'll eventually feel is the sickness you may get later, if you received a serious dose. But with most radiation, you just have to change clothes and take a shower and *poof!* all safe! Other types can be treated rather easily, you just have to know you need treatment, which is the tough part. In fact, you are exposed to radiation every day, but the level you get has been deemed safe and acceptable by people who presumably know about such things and you'll just have to trust them until you hear differently.

Although radiation suits, when worn properly, can protect against radiation poisoning, they cannot protect against bullets. This is doubly bad news for our startled HazMat responder, as he's backing away from the cop's gun AND not wearing gloves. Hopefully, HazMat training in Britain has improved since the late '40s: 1.) wear gloves when responding to a dangerous situation, even if you chose to respond with pistols and lasers, and 2.) Try not to anger any local police, even American police, who may be quick to shoot and slow to understand, or 2b.) Wear bullet-proof vests under all HazMat attire.

Despite who the good guys are or why the bad guys are so bad, we have to wonder what the two fellows in the background are shooting. As in, what type of weapon is that, what is coming out of it, and what is whatever's coming out of it actually hitting.

Here's the situation as I understand it: The Russians were building a new, secret super-weapon somewhere on the outskirts of London. Our hero, G-Man Detective (who dresses like an American cop, not a Bobbie, to prove that he's just that cool), is immediately put on the case when Scotland Yard discovers a dead scientist in the general vicinity. After some careful sleuthing, G-Man finds the underground Russian lair and is able to observe the building of this super-weapon. Unfortunately, before he can get word back to Scotland Yard, he is discovered by the Russians and has to fight his way out of the lair and destroy the super-weapon single handedly. All this, of course, he does without breaking a sweat and at some point hooks up (in clean, 1940s fashion) with the hot Russian girl-scientist. Well, maybe not scientist. He hooks up with the hot Russian maid/cook who is actually being held captive by the weapon builders because her father, coincidentally the scientist found dead at the beginning of our story, was asking too many questions about the fairness, power, and implications of the super-weapon.

Why are they building in London? well, the climate is much better there, which is saying something.

Lady Marmalade

Hey Stephanie, that girl was bad, but this girl is REALLY hilarious. I fucking hate American Idol, I think it is ridiculous shit (even more so than that piece of shit 24), but when I saw a clip of this girl on a news show, my jaw hit the floor.

American Idol

Here's a clip of the crazy girl who can't sing, just in case you want to indulge in my guilty TV pleasure too.

Trumps

I have to say out of all of them, I probably have the worst TV guilty pleasure - American Idol. It's actually really embarassing to admit to anyone not a fan of the show. It's like an addiction - I wish I could stop, but I just can't help myself.

The best part of the show is the first couple of weeks. This is when they show the auditions in all of the different cities, and you get to see how awful and delusional 90% of the people who try out really are. The other night there was a girl who auditioned and she knew she was tone-deaf. Her reasoning was that they could teach her and shape her into whatever singer they wanted her to be. When they pointed out she was tone-deaf, and this was a singing competition she flipped out! WTF? Crazy.

Speaking of crazy, watching a cracked-out Paula Abdul is always fun. Not only do you have comments that make absolutely no sense, but she also dances in her chair and all sorts of other weird stuff. Last year, when Constantine got kicked off towards the end she was bawling, I mean really sobbing, and then turned around and was sitting on top of the table and cradling his mother's head "comforting" her.

I also like being really bitchy, and watching Simon Cowell do the same. Most of the time he's not really being mean, he's just being honest. I have to say that I love to watch the show with someone else, and rip apart the contestant's performances. At one point in time Lindsey, my roomate at the time, and I would try to figure out who would be in the bottom 3. Then, to make sure the right person hopefully got voted off, we would vote for the other 2 people. (See, you can't vote against anyone, just for who you want to stay on - this was our way around it).

I'm sure I have other guilty TV pleasures. I LOVE House and keep BBCAmerica on constantly, but I don't think of those as guilty pleasures the way I do American Idol. Whew! Glad I got that confession off my chest. What was the school topic really supposed to be about?

What?! Never!

I totally flaked out on this. It's been a very stressful couple of weeks here and somehow this got lost in all the fuss. I actually thought about the topic while on the metro and even started a post while at work, but I got distracted with actual work and forgot about it.

Let me be brief. I have a lot of TV addictions at the moment, but I don't think any of the crap I watch is nearly as bad as the crap I COULD be watching, so I don't consider them guilty. What I think is funny, though, are those moments when your suspension of disbelief is temporarily, well, suspended and you find your self saying "what? that would never happen!" to some show like 'Psyche.'

For example, in Law & Order (all of them) whenever the detectives are questioning someone in any place but the interragation room, the people always have something better to do. They answer one or two questions (which undoubtedly provide an invaluable nugget of information) and then say something like, "look, I'd love to help you out, but I have dinner reservations in 2 hours and I need to vacuum the floor before I go." What?! I think if I was ever approached with the phrase, "Excuse me, ma'am. We're from NYPD and we're investigating a homicide. Can we ask you a couple questions?" I would block off the entire rest of my day and tell them anything they wanted to know. Then again, I'm not a murderer. Along this line, how well funded must the Las Vegas crime lab be if they can use all that techno-magic and solve crimes solely with evidence (as in, without the need of many witnesses) in a single night?! And yet, I watch these shows every single time I catch them on.

In Jericho, the best show that no one's watching, I totally believe all the science-y stuff and the government responses to the bomb. It even fits pretty well with what little I know about emergency response, radiological devises and fallout, and the preparedness level expected by DHS of a place like Jericho, Kansas. And yet, for all the effort the writers apparently put into getting that believable, they don't feel it necessary to bother with questions that arise like, "Hey! How come no one in this show ever showers, or shaves, or changes clothes, but they all look so pretty and clean?" or "Hey! What kind of alternate-reality Kansas is this where no one is shouting about the End Times, or God's wrath, or even praying very much?" And yet, I'm downloading this show (and getting copies that my boyfriend downloaded) to watch it because I think it's great.

I guess it just comes down to a few key elements required for any TV show to work. For Jane, it helps to have well choreographed hand-to-hand combat. I, apparently, like to watch from a safe distance situations that would scare me to ever actually be in and that involve characters I can care about. Do we just have low expectations of TV shows? Or is that really all it takes to entertain us and keep us coming back for more?

No, I'm not a lesbian.

Well, Glenn seems to have brought discussion to a standstill over here this week. I'm not sure that my take on guilty pleasure television will do too much to revive things, but here you go:

I *love* Xena: Warrior Princess. I first started watching Xena when I was living in Russia back in 2000. At that time it was on TV five nights a week, and I watched it every chance I got. I'm not sure why I started watching it in the first place, but I was immediately hooked. For one thing, I am a huge fan of films and TV shows which feature well choreographed hand to hand combat. I totally eat that stuff up. And episodes of XWP are packed with fantastic fighting sequences (especially in the later seasons, as Gabrielle evolves into a kickass warrior). Okay, so the plots can get pretty hokey, and the special effects (other than the fight scenes) were pretty bad, but I loved it any way. It was fantastic to watch a TV show starring two kickass women who traveled the globe having adventures... definitely an inspiration to a young woman a long way from home, traveling the world and having adventures herself.

I shaved my head while I was in Russia. This had nothing to do with XWP; it was simply something I'd wanted to do for a long time. I was inspired by one of those, "I'm in Russia, I might as well" bits of illogic. I don't have any pics of my hair at its shortest (which is probably a good thing; it did not look particularly good) as my camera was stolen around the same week as my haircut. The earliest picture I have for you is from about two months later when a friend of mine from the States - and his camera - came to visit.

This was me seven years ago!

The same friend who took the above picture was also the person who brought the whole Are Xena and Gabrielle lesbians? question to my attention. Honestly, I had been watching the show religiously for months and it had NEVER occurred to me. There are scores of movies and TV shows wherein dudes travel about and have adventures and no one goes on at length about the homosexual subtext, but change the heroes to heroines - especially ones who don't fit into the traditional feminine role - and suddenly they must be lesbians. Bah!

Anyway, I returned to the US, and to my tiny, conservative university campus, sporting short hair and an addiction to Xena. Suddenly there were rumors that Jane was indeed a lesbian. Um, no. Later, when my hair was still short, people would assume that Melissa and I were a lesbian couple. Yes, she is very tall. Yes, I am very short. Yes, we have a tendency to travel the world together having adventures. No, we are neither lesbians nor a couple. (Melissa, do you remember that time the Burger King cashier told us we were a cute couple?)

Anyway, I have recently discovered that some enterprising people have gone and put EVERY episode of Xena on YouTube (in 10 minute increments), and I have been working my way through them - and enjoying them just as much as I did back in 2000. And if you're interested, there are tons of TV shows online that you can watch, not just Xena. So click here.

Jesus

Sorry I killed Blog Supergroup. I thought it was a good dual topic. Whoops.

Guilty Pleasure Television/School is for Fools

I'm really sorry that it's technically only Monday for twenty-two minutes and I'm just now posting, and it's not even that good. This week's topic is a dual one, so if one thing doesn't work for you, then go for the other. The topics are guilty pleasure television shows, and the very general topic of school. Just any school related story.

Anyway, as some of you know, I have for a few years been into the greatest show ever made, 24. Yes, it's completely ridiculous. Yes, it's basically a voicebox for right wing propaganda. But Jack Bauer is a total badass, and once I watch one episode in a season, I can't stop. Now, obviously, the ridiculous factor is easily dismissed in my case, because I am a huge fan of Star Trek. In the original series of Star Trek, there is an episode where a colony of women take out spock's brain and use it to power their computer. Then for some reason, they keep Spock's body alive and walking around. So McCoy has to put Spock's brain back in. I can't remember the name of the episode. "The Crazy, Mixed-up Computer Women," I think. It's Nick's favorite episode. Anyway, the point is that since Star Trek is one of my favorite shows, the suspension of disbelief is not something I have a huge problem with in 24. However, much of the philosophy of the show is in direct opposition with my actual, real life philosophies. For instance, frequently the terrorists are Middle Eastern, and when characters on the show complain about how they can't just arrest all Middle Easterners, I say "Hell yes you can! Listen to Jack Bauer!" Or a very specific episode where the main bad guy terrorist calls in a "PC Lawyer" to slow down the government's interrogation of one of his men. The PC Lawyer basically stops them from torturing the guy, and I was like "Fuck that shit! Get that PC Lawyer out of there and let Jack Bauer break his fingers!" But in real life, I am very much a fan of PC Lawyers and not torturing people. This is why 24 is such a guilty pleasure to me, because I absolutely do not agree with it's politics, but love watching Jack Bauer kick people's asses times a billionty.

Of course, then I can shut the show off and go back to believing the things I believed beforehand. I don't know if a lot of people can do that. According to Tickle.com, a reliable source, I'm one of the smarter 20% or so in the nation. Probably many stupid people watch 24 and use the scenarios depicted to reinforce their staunch political beliefs. The show, broadcast by a pretty right wing network (Fox), is probably doing a lot of political harm to the lefties, whom I support. I mean, last season *SPOIlER* the president was the conniving villain *END SPOILER*, but the show still regularly reinforces the belief that Arabs and Muslims are the bad guys, and we must do something about them before it's too late for god's (Christian) America.

Not that I'm going to stop watching it or anything.

So what is everybody else's guilty pleasure show? No pulling out the lame "I don't watch television" cards.

Also, as far as school goes, I need to write a poem in the next hour. I've procrastinated until the last minute again. My bad. School stories? I'll think of one later this week. I only have a couple minutes while it's still Monday.

Fear, Bravery, Social Anxiety, and that grey area we call Life

Over the years I’ve had a lot of people tell me, “You must be really brave!” or ask me, “But weren’t you scared?” when I mention various things I’ve done over the course of my short life. What have I done to elicit such reactions? Well, the following are the most conspicuous offenders:

• When I was 16, my 15 year old friend Melissa and I joined her 21 year old sister for a month long, unsupervised jaunt around Costa Rica. During this trip I boarded a “bus” that was little more than a covered pick-up crammed full of people – one of whom had a gun strapped to his hip.
• When I was 20, I went to Russia for six weeks. At the time, the US State Department was issuing warnings to American citizens, advising them to avoid Russia due to a ten-year high in anti-American sentiment.
• When I was 21, I went to Russia for seven months, during which time I frequently hitchhiked home alone in the middle of the night after clubbing.
• When I was 22, Melissa and I moved to South Korea to teach English.

• Five months later, we snuck out of the country in the middle of the night.
• When I was 23, Melissa (she’s often my partner in crime, huh?) and I spent two months in Costa Rica, subsidized by our on-the-fly web design business.
• When I was 24, I drove from Florida to California by myself.
• In California, I worked as a Special Agent for twenty-seven months. (No, that is *not* a lie.)
• My government job sent me back to South Korea when I was 25, during which time I visited the DMZ and straddled the 38th parallel in the treaty room at Panmunjom.
• When I was 26, I moved to Russia for a year to teach English.
• When I was 27, I rode a motorcycle across the melting ice of the world’s deepest lake, Lake Baikal (located in Siberia).
• I am currently living in South Korea, Kim Jong Il detonating nukes north of the border not withstanding.

I don’t consider any of the above acts of bravery – they’re just part of my life, how I live. (Okay, some of them – namely the 3am solitary hitchhiking and the motorcycling across Lake Baikal – were definitely less bravery and more lapses in common sense. And that solo drive across the US? That was simply done out of necessity; I couldn’t very well have started a new job from the wrong side of the continent, now could I?)

Looking back over the 28 years of my life, there’s very little that I’ve done that I consider *brave*. To me, bravery implies facing a fear and conquering it. And I don’t mean going bungee jumping because the idea scares you – that’s just stupidity. I mean facing down a fear that you might very well encounter in everyday life. That being said, I doubt that those individuals who expressed awe over my so-called “bravery” would be too impressed by the handful of times I’ve successfully removed spiders from my living space. (I’m sure my mom – who loves spiders, by the way – can vouch for the times I’ve had her do the spider-removal for me, even as an adult.) Yes ladies and gentlemen, spiders give me the willies, and I do my best to avoid them at all times. As I mentioned in my reply to Stephanie’s original reference to arachnophobia, I believe there’s a direct relationship here to my exposure at a young age to Tolkien’s spiders of Mirkwood and their ginormous relative, Shelob. Thank you, Peter Jackson for so vividly bringing that nightmare to life for me. Seriously, a shiver just ran through my entire body.

But other than returning spiders to their native habitat (i.e., anywhere where I am not), I can think of only one thing I have done in 28 years that I view as having been an act of bravery: When I was 25, I asked a guy out. And it even worked out pretty well for a time too. So yeah, in 28 years, during over half of which I have been quite interested in dating, I have asked a sum total of ONE guy out. I don’t think I’d ever been quite so nerve-wrackingly terrified in all my life. And don’t even get me started on making new friends. It’s just not something I do. I have no idea how one goes about successfully meeting people outside of school or work. The thought of going to a bar or club alone is petrifying. (And I did actually try my hand at online dating when I first moved to CA, and let’s just say I’m never doing *that* again!) I haven’t made any new friends since moving to Korea, and I’ve been here nearly six months. I don’t mind; I’m fantastically self-sufficient, and I’ve been having a blast since I’ve been here (and I did already have one friend living in Korea when I arrived, so it’s not like I’m all alone or anything). I would like to have more people in my life, but the thought of trying to go out and round up new friends is, honestly, frightening to me.

I don't roll on Shabbos

I have had a rough week; I got sick, work has been horrible, my iPod keeps crashing but I don't want to spend money to get a new one (now that I actually have some money in my savings); etc. I just sat down after a long day and long week, so I'm not going to take long to post. I will say that I can't think of too much that I am afraid of, at least things that would be interesting to post. Other people here, they have strange phobias or interesting fears, or at least interesting stories about their fears and phobias.

The thing that I am probably most scared of is death; but not in any abnormal sense, I don't think. And I think I'm more scared of what comes after (I haven't decided whether I like the idea of a heaven/afterlife/eternity or not- not that it matters) and of the way that it will happen. Related to that, I'm also scared of losing my mind; meaning, getting a disease that involves dementia, or loss of memories. That scares me pretty bad; mostly that stuff happening when I am young (when I'm old, I can just kill myself).

As far as everyday stuff, I am afraid of heights; mostly, I'm scared of flying. I have never been on a plane, and I'm pretty terrified to get on one. Whenever I'm up very high looking over a rail or something, I am flustered at first; like when I went to a football game at Dolphin Stadium, and we were quite high up, when I looked down it took me a few minutes to get used to it. But I got over it pretty quickly. So I think that I will probably get over it whenever I get on a plane. I don't like spiders, but I am not scared of them; I will kill them, as opposed to what I usually do with bugs (I take them outside). But that's because some spiders bite, and I don't know which ones do and which ones don't. Can't think of any real strange fears or phobias really.

When I was little, I was obsessively afraid of the Christian version of the end of the world. Growing up in Lake City, everyone went to church, except (it seemed) my family (which I am now in retrospect very thankful for), so I wasn't exposed to the fire and brimstone shit, nor was I exposed to the wonderful little gems in the Book of Revelations. I remember staying at a friends house, who was very Christian and whose family went to Church every Sunday (and who also had pornography in the house and swore like a sailor- I didn't see the irony in that situation at the time), and they were very into the end times; I ended up watching one of these "news" shows with the Hal Lindsey-esque end of the world prophesy watch, and descriptions of how the end of the world would be and the fact that with all of the crap happening in the world (this was probably like 1990 or something) we were on the cusp of the rapture. Then there is this movie that I saw some of, called Thief in the Night if I remember correctly, and it scared me shitless. And then I remember having nightmares for quite a while about the end of the world. Now, I find it very interesting, and completely ridiculous, and I join the Christians in waiting for the end to happen; I'd like to see if they are right. Better to find out that way than after I die, right?

With that, I'm off to rest.

our fears define us. or not.

Sorry, I missed my day and don't have a lot of time right now to post either, since I'm at work. But I like this topic, and I'll throw my hat into the ring.

Most of my fears don't affect my daily life, and the ones that do I've learned to live with. Except spiders. Several weekends ago I started crying when my boyfriend wanted me to help him kill the biggest, ugliest, most gut-filled, killer spider in the history of humankind and spiderkind. it took him, a broom, a bucket, and a pile of junk mail to get the job done while I stayed frozen in place near the door, too afraid to go out to help him and too afraid to leave him out there alone. Horrible.

I don't think my fears are very unique, but here are some in no particular order:

--Spiders
--Death
--Eating bugs
--George W. Bush
--People who crawl out of the TV to get me (like in Ringu)
--Sometimes, my TV
--Stray bullets
--A certain type of face: white, male, around 40 years old, prematurely aged from drugs/drink/homelessness, lined and quite hopeless
--Fake sugar
--Male doctors
--Religious zealots from any religion
--Failure
--Powerful governments
--Vampires
--Bombs
--Hopelessness and despair
--Foie Gras
--Mel Gibson's most recent avatar
--Death of people I love
--Home invaders
--Mediocrity
--People who won’t say what they mean
--Terrorists (in the pure sense of the word)

When they torture me in Guantanamo, I hope they use the foie gras.

Fear is what quickens me

Hey, everybody. Sorry about posting this so late in the night. Today was our first day back at school, and it was a long day. Also, it's freezing rain here right now. That doesn't really have anything to do with why my post is late, but I thought I'd add it as a fun fact.

There used to be a time when I wouldn't tell anybody my fear because I thought if Nineteen Eighty-Four ever came true then I would be in a lot of trouble whenever they threw me into room 101. But now since everybody in the world knows my main two fears because of MySpace, I guess big brother's already won anyway.

First, my main fear is my fear of flying. That's the one that causes me the most problems. But that's also the one that's the most boring, because everybody's already heard all my good scared of flying stories. Plus I haven't been on a plane in six years. It's pretty easy to avoid flying, when you just drive everywhere or take the train.

Second, cockroaches. It's not pretty easy to avoid cockroaches if you live in the south. In fact, despite the fact that today it hasn't been above 38 degrees Fahrenheit all day long, there was a roach in Ginny's apartment earlier. I hate those dudes. First off, it sucks that they're gross. Second off, it sucks that they're big. That's enough to be a big problem right there. But no! There's a third off. Those motherfuckers can fly! You should get two out of the previous three options, max. I wish I was calling those shots.

Even dead roaches are terrifying to me, because roaches have a really mean sense of humor. For example, you may see a dead roach and say to yourself "My, there's a dead roach. I better pick it up and dispose of it forthwith." But then when you pick it up, it yells "Surprise motherfucker!" and runs down your throat.

So that's why when I was in high school I paid my 10 year old sister to throw away a big dead roach for me. And why when my good friend Jane visited me once in Tallahassee, I begged her to get rid of a big dead roach. I'm a bad host/big brother.

Also, roaches are mean. Did I mention that? Anyway, when I first moved in with Laurie and Martin back in our disgusting house, there was a gigantic roach on my bed. I tried to get my cat Ophelia to eat it, but it hissed at her (I swear). So suddenly, I decided that I would be kind hearted, and I got it out of the house alive. Come three nights later, when I walked into our kitchen, the same fucking gigantic fucking roach is on the ceiling above me. It drops down, yells "Hiya, pally!" and starts flying at me. This time I got Xerxes on the case and he ate it.

An earlier incidence of cockroach dickery was in high school. (PS - I know there's no linearity in this post. I'm really tired). I was transferring some medical records at my dad's office in the big medical records room. I noticed a roach on the far wall, but I decided not to go kill it. After all, it was on the far wall. So I get to work, and fifteen minutes later that six-legged motherfucker drops down on the papers in front of me. If it had just dropped onto my face a couple of inches away I would have instantly died. The brain would have said "There's no longer any point to live now that there's a roach on my face. The end."

So in conclusion, roaches really suck, and do it to Julia.

The Only Thing To Fear...

Inspired by the book I'm currently reading Buried Alive: The Terrifying History of Our Most Primal Fear, I've decided this week's topic is fear/phobias.

Though it's an interesting book, I can't say that I really have a fear of being buried alive. With medical practices and embalming being what they are now, I doubt such an accident could happen. That's not to say that someone wouldn't do it on purpose, but as of right now I can't name anyone who would want to do that to me. However, I suppose you could be embalmed or autopsied alive (for a rather frightening story about that read Autopsy Room 4 in Everything's Eventual by Stephen King).

I started to think about fears and phobias and how powerful they are, along with what some of mine are. Some of the scariest characters in books and movies to me, are the ones that turn into or prey off their victims' fears. Even though the movie was pretty bad, It still scares me a little. I even sometimes have nightmares about Pennywise the clown, but I still watch it, and still read books that terrify me.

Fears and phobias dictate our behavior. For example I have a fear of heights - not necessarily of being up high, but of falling from them. It's so extreme that I can't get near the edge of a dropoff, even if there's a railing. My dad has the same phobia, and we were talking about it the other night. However mine can be extreme, for example: I didn't like being on the walkways at the Virgin Megastore in Orlando. The railings were maybe waist-high and had mostly glass with a metal bar on top, and I was convinced if I accidentally tripped and fell (not far-fetched if you know me) that I would smash through the glass and break my back when I fell on the Cd racks below. Completely irrational. That's not to say that I didn't go up to the second floor, but it always made me nervous.

I also have a fear of spiders. I can't say that I've ever been bitten by one, but they creep me out. When I was in 10th grade Glenn and I were filming a movie, and we had to run through the woods. After the take, we were walking back and I ran into a spiders web. Gross, but after I freaked out and I didn't see a spider on me, I kept walking. So we were standing around while Matt or someone put up the camera, when Jeremy says "Don't move - there's a huge banana spider on your back". So what do I do? Immediately rip off my jacket (luckily I was wearing one) and threw it to the ground. The guys got it off for me, and though I didn't see it (I was told it was as big as my hand), it left a nasty neon green/yellow web behind.

Just a few years ago, I had another incident. I was taking a shower, when I looked up and saw this giant black, hairy spider above the doorway to the bathroom. My first reaction was to jump out of the shower and leave (there were thankfully 2 doors), but I had already started shampooing, so I stayed - never taking my eyes off the spider. I decided that if he moved I was getting out ASAP, breaking the door down if I had to. Thankfully he didn't move, and after I got out my mom called my grandpa over. Being the faithful entomologist he is, he killed it with bug spray and then put it in a solution in a jar so he could look up what it was. Obviously I wasn't hurt in either case, but I could have been bitten (although I don't think either was poisonous), so I don't think the fear completely irrational. I can be near spiders without killing them too - if they're small and not near me. If they're hanging out anywhere near or above someplace I have to walk by - goodbye Boris.

An interesting fear to me is the fear of technology taking over. It's the premise of the Terminator movies, and others like Maximum Overdrive. I found this article on BBC not too long ago. For anyone not willing to read it, or wanting a short synopsis, a study done by the British government said that in the next 20- 50 years, robots could be granted rights equal to humans. It also said that if granted, the government would have to provide social benefits including housing, and even "robo-healthcare" - of course they would have to pay taxes too. Are we living in a scifi novel? Is Isaac Asimov advising the British government? I read this and laugh, but you know there are people out there - the extreme techno-phobes like Ted Kaczynski, who would read that and be terrified (or start their plans to take out all robots).

Going with the theme of the week I thought I'd include a link to The Pop-up Book of Phobias. There's also The Pop-up Book of Nightmares. I bought that one for my friend Java as a wedding present, with the stipulation that she keep it on the bedside table in her guest bedroom. Last time I talked to her, she does, and it creeps her mother out when she stays over.

I love Bill Moyers... Hooray for Net Neutrality!

Klingons

I can get you a toe by 3 o'clock this afternoon... with nail polish

I have nothing much to say on this subject. I don't think too much about feminism; I think it's great. And I don't care about a girl version of Wikipedia. If they want it, that's fine. I will say that I can't imagine how Wikipedia discriminates; I have edited several pages from a few different computers (and IP addresses) and have never registered or signed in to anything. Therefore, I can't see how it would discriminate; I surely haven't seen much gender discrimination in the articles (and in such a case, that could be fixed). Just looking at some statistic only tells you so much; as I said in one comments thread, I think it's plausible to think that maybe women would prefer to do things anonymously as opposed to registering and entering any information; women may be more careful in that way. But if they want to make a female Wikipedia, I don't care. (Though the rules governing who gets to edit, as posted by Jen, are ridiculous). As far as feminism goes, I'm pro-feminism, of course. As one very interested in politics, I always love to see women in Congress, state legislatures, etc., and vehemently support any women candidates; I tend to think very strongly that women are just as effective in leadership positions as men, and we have a serious lack of women in these positions. Though I don't care if someone considers me a "feminist" or not; these labels are unimportant.

As far as Wikipedia, I use it because I find it a very useful resource for quick and easily accessible information; however, I would never use it as my terminal resource, and find it most useful as a jumping off point and the collection of cited links on each page are very useful. I don't blame teachers or professors who ban its use as a resource.

I don't have much else to say regarding this topic; it does not offend or concern me in the slightest if women want their own Wikipedia or their own whatever. I will mention, though, I do seem to be unique among many of my male brethren as I get greatly offended when I'm in a conversation with women and, as frequently gets said, "All men are _________ ." (Insert word: unfaithful, pigs, dogs, assholes, etc.) The biggest arguments I've been in with women, or possibly anyone (outside of political arguments), have been when this is said. I suppose the way men usually react is how they are expected to react, by just ignoring it or chuckling. For some reason, it really makes me mad, these sorts of generalizations. (Where did that come from? I've always worked mostly with women, and I have to say, among women they seem to generalize much more about men; men do, in groups especially, generalize about women, but it's done in a different way, and not nearly as much or as venomous as the way women do it. Why is this?) Sure, many men are assholes; but, women really have little room to complain about men until they start showing better taste in them. Trust me, if women stopped liking certain kinds of men, namely the "bad boy" types, or other generally assholic types, men would stop being that way. And, if I were to ever make a generalization or negative comment about women (which I wouldn't do), I'd be a raging sexist and my name would be mud. Just sayin'. Anyways, I've got lots of homework to do; I'm in a hurry, so sorry for any incoherence in this post.

Dewdrop-Lollipop not feminist enough

[Full disclosure: I am not only a woman, but was also a Women's Studies minor in college (majors were not available), so I tend to have pre-disposed but not inflexible opinions on this sort of thing.]

I’ll admit that reading Jane’s entry on Monday did not make me run to the Wikichix site to see what it was all about. However, it did interest me enough to mention it to my boyfriend, and he jumped all over it. He immediately began to send them an email to request an account with his own contact information and the name “Grace” (I suggested Wilma). After a google search revealing no hits for that name and realizing that they would ‘confirm his femininity’ through his school email address, he sort of chickened out and used my email instead. I wouldn’t let him use my name, so he used Jane Smither (actually my grandmother’s name, I think), and the username “dewdroplollipop.” “Jane’s” email was appropriately full of smiley faces and exclamation points, asserted her female-ness, and asked for registration. One ‘Submit’ button and a google search later, he discovered that Jane Smither is part of the Women and Gender Differences Research Group of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Now, if anything could get you in, it should be credentials like that, right? But alas, I have yet to receive any communication whatsoever from the Goddesses of Wikichix and am beginning to lose interest in their whole schick.

I feel nearly the same way here as I did the first time I read bell hooks. That is, perhaps there is a bias that exists here; does further subdivision fix it? If, contrary to all logic, Wikipedia, a faceless and anonymous Internet site, does somehow discriminate against women editors and oppresses women’s ideas of what everything in the world is, shouldn’t this be fixed from the inside? Won’t a better product emerge if everyone works together on one thing to make it better instead of throwing down their toys and retreating to the “_____-only” clubhouse? Instead of discriminating ourselves further, shouldn’t we simply issue a call to encourage women to post on Wikipedia and other Wikisites? Self-segregation, especially with specific rules banning spectators and participants who are Others, does nothing but encourage stereotypes, prejudices, and distrust.

By the way, in a google search for bell hooks, the first entry is her Wikipedia article, which begins like this:

bell hooks (born Gloria Jean Watkins on September 25, 1952) is an American intellectual, feminist, and social activist. hooks focuses on the interconnectivity of race, class, and gender and their ability to produce and perpetuate systems of oppression and domination. She has published over thirty books and numerous scholarly and mainstream articles, appeared in several documentary films, and participated in various public lectures. Primarily through an African American female perspective, hooks addresses race, class, and gender in education, art, history, sexuality, mass media, and feminism.

Please, Wikichix, point out to me the glaring “systemic gender bias in Wikipedia” that apparently makes “it clear that a number of women [are] not comfortable contributing to the conversation.” Obviously, I’m too repressed to see it myself.

In related news, said boyfriend just called and pointed out that when you rearange the letters in "feminist" you get "i fist men." heh.

Weed Time

I've tried posting this several times, but here it goes again. Hopefully it won't mess up this time. As I mentioned earlier this week in response to Jane or Stephanie, I can recall several moments in time when I've had to argue with somebody after asserting that I'm a feminist. These arguments are usually, and this is strange to me, with women, who claim that they want nothing to do with feminism. I'm like, wha? You want nothing to do with becoming an equal to man? But these people often have some kind of idea in their minds that feminists are the crazy things the comedy shows and or movies make them out to be: rhetoric spewing, man hating lesbians. So for the approval of people here, I submit a little transcript from a movie I made a long time ago, Weed Time with George and Carlos. It tells the story of two potheads, George (played by Mike Dauro) and Carlos (played by me) who are on a quest for weed. Anyway, they decide to visit some friends of Carlos, but George is wary.

EXT. MULVA’S APARTMENT - AFTERNOON

Carlos and George are once again on a doorstep awaiting an answer.

GEORGE
You sure about this, C?

CARLOS
I know she smokes. We’re running out of options.

GEORGE
Yeah, but she’s such a feminist.

CARLOS
So? I’m a feminist.

GEORGE
(laughing)
What? No you’re not.

CARLOS
Yeah I am, and what’s so fucking funny?

GEORGE
You can’t be a feminist because you’re not a
woman!


CARLOS
What? Are you a fucking moron? I am a
feminist because I believe in equal rights
for women!

GEORGE
So do I, but I ain’t no feminist.

CARLOS
Yes you are.

GEORGE
No, I’m not a feminist because I’m not a
women and I’m not a fucking queer.

CARLOS
Fucking queer? That’s great. Why don’t you
just go join the Ku Klux Klan while you’re on
a roll?

The door opens to reveal MULVA LORRAY, a butchily dressed young woman. The door opens as George is in the middle of his next line.

GEORGE
Maybe I will join the Ku Klux... Klan...

Mulva looks angry.

CARLOS
Mulva! How are you?

MULVA
Carlos, good to see you. Come in.

She welcomes Carlos in, then simply nods at George when he passes.

MULVA
George.

GEORGE
Mulva.


See? A transcript of the very problems I've had with people when I tell them I'm a feminist. Of course, the next scene is George and Carlos in Laura's apartment, surrounded by the sort of stereotypical feminists that you might see in a comedy show and/or movie. I don't know what I was trying to teach the public with Weed Time. Probably don't do drugs. If anybody knows how to put the transcribed scene above onto youtube, feel free to do it, and I'll just link it.

And I do wonder if Stephanie is onto something about the internet setting feminist causes back. On the one hand, it allows anyone with an internet connection the same level of freedom pretty much. But on the other hand, most of this freedom is spent looking at Paris Hilton's vagina. Or vagnia, if you will. Or vagani. I'm just trying to spell that wrong so we get more search engine hits. Forsooth! I didn't say very good things this week.

Stacey's Mom Has Got It Goin' On

Hmmm... feminism and the internet. Well if there's one thing I can say about this group, it's that you have all been keeping me on my toes as far as creativity and writing is concerned.

Right, well I don't know much about wikichix or wikipedia, and besides, who wants a rehashing of yesterday's post anyways? I'm sure the internet has done wonders for feminism, insofar as it has been able to get information to the masses in ways we didn't have before - single mothers can take classes or have jobs from home and battered or disadvantaged women can find resources to help (hopefully) get them out of their situation. Unfortunately, I think the internet has also done a lot to set back the strides we have taken to gain women the image they deserve.

Of course you've probably guessed that I'm talking about porn. Now honestly, I'm not dumping on the porn industry here. Acutally, it being online now may have given some of the women in the industry even more power over their own careers. I'm actually referring to all the sites that your average person has put up depicting his girlfriend, or some other random girl he slept with in some, um, compromising positions. With the power given to the people (a common theme when talking about the internet), there's also probably been a rise in the "Girls Gone Wild" type of sites. Any person with a cell phone now can take a pic of some stupid girl flashing her tits, and then post it online if they wish. I can only imagine the horror one might have if you stumbled upon pictures like that of your sister.

That's not to say that the people who take the pictures are entirely to blame. Unfortunately, as long as there are girls willing to lift their shirts for a pair of cheap, plastic beads, there will be more than enough men (and probably some women) willing to look, throw beads, and take pictures. The problem I have is that all girls, all women now look like sluts. We may be well-respected most of the time, but dangle some beads in front of us and apparently we'll be out of our clothes so fast you'd think they were on fire.

Some people might argue that porn already portrayed us in that fashion, and you'd be right, but we could still distance ourselves from it. Those women get paid lots of money to do that. Those are movies - fiction, but now that we have pics of your average girl-next-door doing the same types of things the porn stars do, what does that do to our image? Do guys look at all women as secretly being sluts now?

I actually have a story I posted awhile back on my blog about something related. Might as well retell it here, eh? I was sitting in my car at a traffic light back in mid -Feb 2006. A guy in the car ahead of mine and to the left leaned out of his car and started shaking a set of beads back in my direction. Automatically I thought he was doing that for some bimbo in the car behind me, so I ignored him. After awhile though, he was still doing it, so I turned around to see the girl. To my dismay it was a guy, and as I looked at all the cars around me I came to the realization that he probably meant it for me. This was in Lake City, at 2:30 in the afternoon, at least a week AFTER Mardi Gras.

Unfortunately the only solution is for other girls, other women to stop being such idiots, and as I have no faith in the human race, I'm afraid this will be an ongoing problem. (Also, I'm sure this post all about porn and flashing will do nothing to help the hits that we've gotten from such bizarre searches as Britney Spears' vagina or Paris Hilton with no underwear)

Feminism and the Internet

So today it’s my turn to start the week off with a new topic. Sad to say I am currently exhausted after a twelve hour workday, so I hope I can put my thoughts together coherently. I’ve chosen two topics which are close to my heart. I am a self-professed internet addict, and a self-identified feminist. There are far too many things that can be written about each of these topics individually to be compressed into a one-week-long conversation; however, I think that the point where feminism and the internet intersect makes for a good starting place.

As discussed somewhat during our inaugural week, the internet has completely changed the way we as humans relate to one another. We can communicate instantaneously over large distances, connect with like-minded individuals whom we never would have met otherwise, and voice our opinions on any topic online for all to see. Kinda like I’m doing now. Those of us who are avid users of the internet have sites we visit religiously. One of my absolute favorite spots online is wikipedia. I’ve found that if I’m on the hunt for information, I check wikipedia first – before Google even. It’s an incredible resource.

I have never edited wikipedia; I am simply a user, albeit a frequent and happy one. [For those of you who for some reason are unaware, anyone can edit any article on wikipedia.] Why have I never edited an article on wikipedia? Well, I haven’t stumbled upon any articles concerning subjects about which I am knowledgeable that I feel require editing. If I ever do run across such a subject, there’s a high probability that I would indeed edit it; however, as I use wikipedia in order to learn about new things, what are the chances?

I bring all this up because I didn’t want you to think I’ve never done any editing because I “have a low self-perception of [my] expertise level” or because I’m “unwilling to become a target of sexist criticisms” – two of the reasons cited for the creation of wikichix, a wiki-site dedicated providing a place “for female wiki editors to discuss issues of gender bias in wikis, to promote wikis to potential female editors, and for general discussion of wikis in a friendly female only environment.” Kind of like a women’s issues/feminism focused version of wikipedia. Only women can view the content of wikichix, and only women can edit said content. In order to become a member, you must email them requesting membership and specifying that you are indeed female.

I, for one, see some major flaws in this concept:

Wikipedia is a vast and wonderful repository of information, and you don’t have to register in order to edit it, much less to gain access to said information. If I’m searching for information, which am I more likely to use: a site that requires me to send an email requesting membership before I can even use its search function, or a site which allows me automatic access to its wealth of information? The information found in wikichix might very well be more accurate, but is the average user going to jump through the extra hoops to gain access to it? I would also argue that the “average user” is the person who would benefit the most from easy access to accurate information. (I say this because I would expect that individuals willing to jump through aforementioned hoops probably already have a good base of knowledge when it comes to things such as feminism and gender bias in wikis.)

The creators of wikichix mentioned that there are fewer females than males registered as editors on wikipedia… and yet they seem to be exacerbating this problem. While they might wish to “promote wikis [in general] to potential female editors” it seems to me that starting a closed, female-only wiki community instead of encouraging women to edit the democratic virtual metropolis that is wikipedia is counter-productive. Thoughts?

Okay... must crash... off to bed.

Late-comer offers her two cents

Oops, sorry I'm late. I think whoever I steal my home Internet connection from is still out of town for the holidays, and I've been too busy at work to respond. Now I’ve relocated to a coffee shop where wireless is easier to steal.
I think, fundamentally, we all agree on these issues. Obviously, no one wants the government to have more control over our personal lives and decisions, but none of us want to live next to the militia man who hoards rocket launchers he gets at gun shows and has a weird, nervous tic whenever you greet him from across your front lawn. How are you going to tell a guy like that to keep his dog from shitting in your yard? I think that if any of us were “into” guns (collecting, using for protection, hunting, whatever), we would have stronger and more clear-cut opinions on what the government can tell us and what is a reasonable limit. I don't know how much better my chances of surviving would be if I was mowed down with a machine gun or if I simply had a pistol unloaded into me, but then, if someone really wanted to kill/maim/rob/violate me, they could just club me over the head with a tree branch. Wherever you draw the line, if you draw a line at all, it's going to seem arbitrary to some people. Personally, I have a problem with limiting any type of previously allowed freedom. For example, although I'm a non-smoker, I have consistently voted against any type of smoking bans, but I’m thrilled when they pass without me. I hate inhaling other people's cancer and stinking like an ashtray, but it doesn't seem like a good solution to take away the legal right to smoke. (I would, however, have supported providing incentives to businesses for choosing to install better air conditioning and circulation systems or to ban smoking on their own premises. That way, it's the choice of individual businesses and not a requirement passed down from the Powers That Be.) I don't see a nationwide weapons ban happening anytime soon, and I'm not sure I would support it if it did. Actually, I think something like Florida's 10-20-Life rule makes more sense. I'm not totally familiar with this, but I believe that they add time to your normal sentence if your crime was committed with a gun, depending on how many offenses you've had. That punishes people who use guns to bad ends, but not people who simply own them for whatever reason.
Also, super-kudos to Glenn for bringing up the responsibility of a people to revolt against an oppressive government as a last resort. Citizens are responsible for keeping their government in line. Additionally, no one is ever too poor to move, even to another country. Poverty-stricken people have been immigrating (legally or illegally) to America and other countries for centuries. You may not be able to enjoy the level of comfort you’ve become accustomed to, but that’s certainly no excuse.
Gay marriage? Of course I think gay people should be able to get married and have the same rights and responsibilities as married straight couples, including the title of marriage. The law doesn’t discriminate if people were married in the church or the courthouse, or even if they were common-law married after living together, as long as they have a valid marriage license. So why should it matter if that couple is the “traditional” one-person-who-defines-herself-as-a-female and one-person-who-defines-himself-as-a-male? There are something like 5 different factors that determine the sex of an individual, and you can’t always tell from looking at him or her what (if either) sex he or she is (I also think we need a gender-neutral 3rd person singular pronoun in English, like the French “on”). So the only argument that can be made against this is one about the gender of a person; and who freaking cares what gender another person defines him or herself as? As long as the partner understands, accepts, loves, and can tolerate marriage with that person, let’s allow it. After all, what the world needs now is love, sweet love. Let’s not squelch that. I don’t believe, however, that churches should be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies by the government. I strongly support all separation of church and state and, just as I would like someone else’s church to stay out of my government, I would not impose my government on someone’s church. That decision should be up to each denomination, decided through whatever committees make those decisions. However, our civil servants who can perform non-religious marriage ceremonies should be required to perform gay marriages if asked because their power comes directly from the government. I believe personal freedoms, especially of this nature, promote peace and well being. To quote the T-shirt worn by one of the singing bartenders at the gay cowboy bar I went to last month, “Make awkward sexual advances, not war.” I would quote the other bartender’s shirt, but he wasn’t wearing one.
What was the other issue? Ah, assisted suicide. Along with the personal freedoms theme I’ve tried to promote thus far, I obviously am fine with this. However, here I actually have anecdotal experience that led me to support this before I thought too much about government interference in individual lives. In high school, I dated a guy who had cancer when we were in middle school. He went through chemo and the whole nine yards and hit his 5-years-in-remission milestone while we were dating. Overall, the guy was an ass, but he did teach me a little about the importance of attitude and how it affects quality of life. While he was in the hospital, he said, he never once prayed to a God he didn’t believe in, but instead he simply decided he was going to live through it, no matter what. He joked with the nurses, got sick out of car windows, made friends with a lot of peers in the cancer ward, and lost all his hair, but made it through everything (and even got a computer from the Make a Wish Foundation). On the other hand, some of those friends he made didn’t live through it. He said, though, that you could tell by people’s attitude when they had given up and had decided they were ready to die. And, after they made that personal decision, there wasn’t much else to be done. You could keep giving them treatments or praying over them or whatever else, but once that decision was made, that was the end. He never made that decision, kept fighting, and made it through extraordinarily well. Because of this experience, he said, he believed in the right of suicide, not just for old people, but for young people, children even, who had lost the hope they needed to survive. And I certainly cannot argue with that.

Gun Crazy!? Yowza!

As left-winged and socialist as I usually am, I even surprise myself when the issue of gun control comes up. Being from Canada, and being terrified of even being near a gun, one would think that I would want the government to immediately ban all guns all the time. While I do think that obviously people shouldn't be able to just walk into the drug store and pick up Tylenol and a .45, I think the ownership of guns is an essential right in America.

Of course, here's where I start sounding crazy. Now unlike most people, I don't think that the ownership of guns is important to protect one's family against the roving bands of criminals ruling our streets (sarcasm). I'm also not one of those people who thinks teachers should be armed to stopped school shootings (stupid). I believe that the ownership of guns is essential because I am a firm believer in John Locke's assertion of the right of a people to revolt against their government in the instance that the government stops representing the people's best interest. Now obviously I don't mean if the government sends more troops to Iraq or raises taxes a dollar then we should take those motherfuckers down. But if the government were to abandon the theories of democracy and strip the people of their rights without the consent of the people then I think the people have a right and a duty to revolt. That might seem like a crazy possibility to us right now (hopefully crazy), but it could happen.

Nick has mentioned that obviously Joe Militia in Montana wouldn't be able to take down the United States Army with his stockpile of grenade launchers and surplus Soviet AK-47s, but if the situation ever deteriorated that much, it would only take a handful of people revolting to convince some people in the military to revolt as well. It's not like we're so separated from people in the armed forces that if there was open revolt they would blindly follow a government overstepping its boundaries. And that people can own weapons, and any home in America might possess at least a revolver would inject some level of fear in a totalitarian government.

There was actually an instance in the early 90s of two street gangs in Los Angeles (well armed militias, which I think the 2nd amendment also protects) uniting and making political demands of the local government to clean up the poor areas of town and to cease overly racist police practices. I doubt any of this did any good, but I think it is an interesting thing to cite.

I was going to cut this next paragraph because nobody will agree with me, but I decided to keep it for the sake of argument. I mentioned the word "duty" earlier, too, in speaking of a people revolting. I believe (and this will definitely get people angry) that the people of a country are complicit in the actions of their government. Sure, we may have voted against Bush in the last election (well, not me, because I can't vote), but by continuing to live in America we all share some responsibility for the actions of his administration. Protesting or writing against government policy absolves some guilt, but not all of it. Likewise, those people in dictatorships are responsible for the actions of their government, if they were not rising against the government. People in Nazi Germany, for example, were responsible for their government's actions. If they did not speak out against their government because they feared death, then they decided that life under that regime was acceptable. Therefore, if our government ever deteriorated into aggressive totalitarianism, then we would have a duty to revolt, or we would be guilty for whatever actions were made by the government.

As for assault weapons, they are dangerous weapons that do no good besides deal in death. But part of living in a free society is living in a dangerous society. Sure, by getting rid of these weapons (or all guns) on the market you might make this country safer. And by getting rid of guns in general you might make this country safer. But that rationale is also used by people who want to implement wiretapping on innocent civilians. By listening in to all of our phone calls, you might make America a safer place, but it would come at the cost of an element of freedom that I don't think is worth it.

To Live, Love, or Own Guns

So many topics to talk about - so little time on the computer at the library!

I'm all for assisted suicide, but as I think it's been stated, there needs to be guidelines. Candidates should have to go through a psychological screening and maybe physical screening, so that anyone on a whim can't go in and kill themselves (of course they might just go out and find another means - but the denial would slow them down a bit). I think it should be the terminally ill, who would rather end their life on a positive note, rather than waste away in misery for the next few months, or people with Alzheimer's or those in a vegetative state. That's not to say perfectly healthy people should be restricted, but if they want to commit suicide, are they healthy mentally?

As for gun control, sigh, there are so many things to consider. Do you really help anything by putting up restrictions? If someone really wants an assault rifle they're going to do everything in their power to get it - especially if it's a criminal - do you think they're going to think twice about breaking a couple of gun laws to get what they want, especially if they have something much more sinister in mind for it? However petty criminals may not have that drive, and so yes, it may cut down on some crime. Like Jane, I know people who collect guns, but since they don't really use them, I doubt they would mind any kind of long term wait to get one, if a new law entailed such. In summation? I guess I'm for gun control, as long as it doesn't end up harming the people it's intended to protect.

For my final act - gay marriage. To help me illustrate my argument let me put in in terms of the civil rights movement. Say that blacks had all the same rights as whites (this wasn't the case, but hypothetically, indulge me), but it wasn't called the same thing because of the color of their skin - no one would stand for it. In essence you're still calling them less than because of something they can't help - because of the way God (if you believe in God) made them. To me it's the same thing with gay marriage. I think homosexuality is something ingrained - you're either born gay or you're not. (Here is an interesting article about something similar). To say that they can't have the word "marriage", simply because they are gay (something they can't help) is ridiculous. (Can you help the fact that you're heterosexual?). That being said, I don't think you can force churches to perform gay marriages - you probably won't have to, as there will be plenty willing to do it. However, I think that all states should recognize it (none of this crap where you can get married in Maryland, but you live in Florida, and Florida won't acknowledge it).

As for the institution of marriage, that to me has been destroyed. When a man can marry a woman and then senselessly beat her to death, but homosexuals can't marry? Please. Technically even divorce destroys the institution of marriage. It doesn't mean 'til death do you part anymore - it just means 'til I can't stand you and I find someone else to inflict myself upon. I don't think people even try to stay together anymore. With 1 in 3 couples getting divorced, it doesn't have the same stigma that it did long ago, and so people don't try as hard, don't go to counselling. (Is this enough of a conversation for you Nick?) So to say that gay marriage would go against the institution of marriage is a bit of a joke to me.

I think I've ranted enough for one day.

When Guns and Jane Intersect

Yesterday Nick wrote about three topics: assisted suicide, gay marriage and gun control. I wholeheartedly support assisted suicide for the terminally ill and for those in the early stages of Alzheimer’s who wish to leave their lives in dignity. I believe that gay couples should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples. But I can’t view gun control in black and white like I can assisted suicide and gay marriage. For that reason, I have elected to write about my experiences with guns over the course of my life. Then perhaps you will understand why I can’t formulate a specific answer to the question of gun control.

My mother owns two guns: a shotgun and a revolver. I’m not sure if she’s even fired either of them; I know for certain that she has never been in a position where she felt she had to use them. However, my mom lives alone, and having these guns makes her feel safe.

I was home this summer when my mom got the revolver. She wanted me to keep it in my house for protection, but I declined. Aside from the fact that I cannot hit a damn thing outside of point-blank range, when it came down to it, I personally didn’t want to have to deal with the risks and responsibilities of having a gun in my house. And if someone really did break in, could I actually shoot them? I don’t know. I don’t really want to find out.

While I was home this summer, I had to call 911 because the people living in the house next door were having an argument with someone. I called 911 at the point when that someone showed up with a gun and was standing on my neighbors’ front porch, screaming and waving said gun around.

An ex-boyfriend of mine pointed a gun (his father’s .45) at me on two different occasions, way back in the day. (If you know my dating history, I bet you won’t have any trouble guessing which ex this was! What *was* I thinking?)

A friend of mine is a gun buff. He has numerous weapons, ranging from handguns to rifles to an AK-47. Guns are one of his hobbies. He’s not using these weapons to kill people or to commit criminal acts. He is not a member of any sort of militia. This fellow is married; he has a great job and a large family. Not to worry, he keeps the guns locked away when he is not using them. I have gone shooting with him, and have personally witnessed how careful he is when it comes to safety.

Four years ago I worked for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (used to be called Florida Game and Fish) during hunting season. At the time I was otherwise unemployed and very much in need of a job. My job was to record data pertaining to all kills made by hunters in the Osceola National Forest during the 2002-2003 hunting season. This meant weighing and measuring dead deer (and the occasional wild hog) recording information on the hunter and the location of the kill, and cutting the jawbone out of the deer. I worked in ten hour shifts, and on most days not one single deer was brought in. I chalked that up to the fact that so many of the hunters who stopped in to chat on their way in or out of the forest were inebriated. Obviously the fact that hunting while intoxicated did little to stop the good ol’ boys of north-central Florida from doing that very thing.

According to wikipedia, the murder rate in the US (including murders not involving handguns) was 5.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2005.

I have spent a LOT of time in Russia. Gun ownership is illegal there. Of course, if you pay attention to the news, you must know that the murder rate in Russia is incredibly high. According to Guns and Ammo magazine:

Guns are effectively outlawed in Russia. Private handgun ownership is totally prohibited. A permit is required to purchase a long gun. All guns are registered with authorities. When transporting a long gun, it must be disassembled. Long guns may only be used for self-defense when the gun owner is on his own property. By the way, Russia's murder rate is a staggering 30.6 [per 100,000 people]. (According to Wikipedia it’s actually 19.8 murders per 100,000 people as of 2000; Guns and Ammo doesn’t cite their source.)

Obviously, outlawing personal ownership of firearms has done little to reduce violence in Russia.

Some of my favorite memories from my most recent trip to Russia are of the days when my friends and I went out into the countryside, barbecued lunch, got rather inebriated and spent hours shooting BB guns at various targets. We did this a LOT. I imagine these guys would have LOVED to have had the opportunity to shoot real guns. I also imagine that they would not have reduced their consumption of alcohol just because their weapons were real.

Back in 2000 I rather accidentally ended up at a mafia-run club in Moscow. My friend and I were allowed entrance (for free even) once the bouncers learned that we were Americans. However, before we could enter we were felt-up (er, “searched”) by a very burly Russian security guard holding an AK-47. I would prefer to never experience that again!

I currently live in South Korea, another country where private firearm ownership is illegal. According to wikipedia, the murder rate in South Korea for 2004 was 2.18 per 100,000 people.

Here in South Korea, you can buy incredibly realistic toy guns. Back home, toy makers are restricted to producing only toy guns which are obviously toys. This makes sense, as no one wants to be robbed at gunpoint only to later learn they were robbed by a toy fun. And of course, you don’t want to get shot by a cop who thought you were pointing a *real* gun. It definitely gave me a shock the first time I saw one of my first graders holding an incredibly realistic looking handgun, although I’ve certainly since gotten used to the sight of them.

So there you go. The above are the points in time when guns and my life have intersected. As to whether or not there should be restrictions or bans on gun ownership… well, perhaps you can see why I don’t know.

No Donnie, These Men Are Nihilists

I will apologize in advance for today's post; since I'm tasked with being the first this week, and it just so happens that today is New Year's Day, and I'm very tired from being out late last night and not getting much sleep. I had a topic in mind, but after my conversation with Glenn last night, I thought I'd try something that might inspire some disagreements.

I think we'd all for the most part agree on many important issues of the day, issues that are important to me, such as raising the minimum wage, ending corporate welfare, etc. (I'd list more but I'm too lazy right now). But there are some that are not such easy calls. These issues are, admittedly, not of as much importance to me as others, but they are ones that get touted in the media as being so important and moral and whatnot. Here is my "stand" on a few controversial issues.

I'm pro-suicide. I think that people should have control of their lives, and this includes the taking of their own life. Now, obviously I think that if someone is attempting suicide and needs help, obviously they should be given help. But if someone is terminally ill, or losing their mind, they should have the choice to end their own life. I've never understood why prolonging one's life to the last possible second, no matter what pain (physical or mental) might be ahead, is of such importance. There are, after all, things much worse than death. I'm pretty terrified of death, but if I was faced with losing my mind and memories, or a painful degenerate death, I would choose not to go through with it. But we live in a society where even when someone is in a vegetative state, we want to prolong their life.

I'm pro gun control. I wrestle with this one; I think that obviously people should be allowed to have a gun, for whatever reason: hunting, self-defense, or even just because they like guns. That's fine. And obviously the second amendment establishes the right to bear arms. I would argue, though, that the framers of our Constitution obviously couldn't anticipate the AK-47, or cop-killer bullets, and the other assorted weapons that obviously aren't used for hunting or any rational self-defense. I wouldn't take away someone's hunting gun, or the gun that's under the bed just in case someone breaks into the house, or whatever, but I think that some gun control laws are necessary. The fact that this issue isn't much in the public debate anymore shows how effective the Right Wing has been in making his issue non-negotiable; though some argue that the Left has at least won some gun control laws under Clinton, and the NRA no longer fights against these laws that are on the books- these laws, of course, don't have much teeth to them, and I will always hope that, if the Democrats can hold some power for several years, we can shift the debate back in our direction.

The last issue I'll bring up is gay marriage. I'm somewhat torn on this issue. Now, obviously I don't personally care what gay people do. I'm not gay. It has no impact on me. And I strongly believe that it is a civil rights issue and anyone, especially regardless of their sexual orientations, should have the same rights. To me, that's not even an issue, and I don't understand why anyone would even think twice. I mean, how can heterosexuals, some of which do some pretty morally reprehensible things in their heterosexuality, say anything about anyone else's sexuality (I also find it ironic that those on the Right will legislate people's personal lives, what goes on in one's bedrooms and homes, but cry about government intervention if anyone on the Left mentions any sort of gun control). It's also my view that those who are so vehement about homosexuals are likely closeted homosexuals, for why else would they be so threatened about it? However, I'm torn on the issue of whether gays should be married in the same way as heterosexuals. Obviously I am for civil unions, and I am for homosexuals having every single identical right that anyone else has, and get the same treatment that any other couples get. But I think that, in a way, I might still prefer the word and "institution" of traditional marriage stay the way it is. I'm of the understanding that gays want to have the same rights as those that are married, and I'm for that. Does it make a difference if it's exactly done in the same way as marriage has traditionally been done? Which one will be husband and which one will be wife? (I must note here, before anyone unleashes any sort of wrath on me, that I'm being somewhat of a devil's advocate here; I don't feel very strongly about this issue- except, of course, that everyone should have the same rights, including two people in love regardless of the individuals. I'm only hoping to spark some conversation).

Now, I'm back to lying around doing nothing and watching my Twilight Zone marathon.