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.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Monday, January 15, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
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)
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)
Monday, January 08, 2007
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.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, January 01, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, December 29, 2006
More Stamp History
Well, I decided that I would also post a little bit of history about stamps. Mine, I think, is more factually accurate than Stephanie's, but who knows? I'm no stampologist.
Well, back in the late 1700s, in a little ole country called America, some real cool dudes (aka the founding fathers) were sitting around the table drinking Hennessey or some other top shit. Anyway, George Washington, the duke of America A#1, was out of town doing some models or something, and Benjamin Franklin, who it's apparently all about, was like "Man, I need to tell George something before he gets back, but not immediately." So there was no need to invent the telephone. Not until years later, when some dude wanted to breathe heavily in a girl's ear, but her ear was with the rest of her body three blocks away and he couldn't wait until the next fortnight's makeout party to do it. That man's name was John Telephone, inventor of the telephone, and later, mustard gas. That's a real crazy story, though, and I'll save it for when the week's topic is mustard gas (hint hint). Anyway, John Hancock had the brilliant idea that they should invent a service that would carry Benny F's note to Georgio, and give that note to him, maybe even telling him who it was from or something so he didn't get all crazy banging those models and contemplating who must have sent him the note. They called this invention the "United States Postal Service," not to be confused with the two man band of a similar name that would be invented by Franklin's descendant two hundred and some odd years later and have a pretty decent album. But there was one problem. People started using the mail for all sorts of bad stuff, because it was free, and whenever something's free, motherfuckers always abuse it. Like when those machines at the grocery store spit out coupons, people always pull a million out and let them fall on the floor, because they think it's funny. Well, how funny would you think it was if I came to your house and dumped all your spoons on the floor? Somebody's got to clean that shit up. Buck up. Anyway, people were mailing porno pics of Betsy Ross (well, naked stick figures and embroideries of Betsy Ross, since photography wasn't invented either), and they were mailing practical jokes, like "Is your ice box running? Then thouth better go catch it!" I don't really know if ice boxes were invented. What am I, a professor of such garbage? Anyway, to remedy these problems, they decided that mailing crap should cost money, and that stamps needed to be invented. So many year passed and people would mail each other letters like "Dear Mabel, World War I has started," or "Dear Lyndon B. Johnson, JFK was just killed, so now guess who's the president? (Flip over for answer)". Also, in the 60s some lothario named Thomas Pynchon wrote a book about a post office conspiracy. Sounds boring? Well, it was really po-mo, as the literature and writing students say, but fuck those dudes. Pynchon later faded into obscurity. Then, in the 90s the Internets was invented. I know it wasn't really invented in the 90s, but the 90s is when I first got it, so that's when it became important. So people no longer needed the post office and stamps, and all the postal employees started whining and moaning and shooting people and crying. Wah wah, motherfuckers. Sorry technology happens and shit. You should use John Telephone's other invention, the Shutthefuckupatron. That oughtta keep you quiet. Also, all the people mentioned in this story are now dead. The End.
Well, back in the late 1700s, in a little ole country called America, some real cool dudes (aka the founding fathers) were sitting around the table drinking Hennessey or some other top shit. Anyway, George Washington, the duke of America A#1, was out of town doing some models or something, and Benjamin Franklin, who it's apparently all about, was like "Man, I need to tell George something before he gets back, but not immediately." So there was no need to invent the telephone. Not until years later, when some dude wanted to breathe heavily in a girl's ear, but her ear was with the rest of her body three blocks away and he couldn't wait until the next fortnight's makeout party to do it. That man's name was John Telephone, inventor of the telephone, and later, mustard gas. That's a real crazy story, though, and I'll save it for when the week's topic is mustard gas (hint hint). Anyway, John Hancock had the brilliant idea that they should invent a service that would carry Benny F's note to Georgio, and give that note to him, maybe even telling him who it was from or something so he didn't get all crazy banging those models and contemplating who must have sent him the note. They called this invention the "United States Postal Service," not to be confused with the two man band of a similar name that would be invented by Franklin's descendant two hundred and some odd years later and have a pretty decent album. But there was one problem. People started using the mail for all sorts of bad stuff, because it was free, and whenever something's free, motherfuckers always abuse it. Like when those machines at the grocery store spit out coupons, people always pull a million out and let them fall on the floor, because they think it's funny. Well, how funny would you think it was if I came to your house and dumped all your spoons on the floor? Somebody's got to clean that shit up. Buck up. Anyway, people were mailing porno pics of Betsy Ross (well, naked stick figures and embroideries of Betsy Ross, since photography wasn't invented either), and they were mailing practical jokes, like "Is your ice box running? Then thouth better go catch it!" I don't really know if ice boxes were invented. What am I, a professor of such garbage? Anyway, to remedy these problems, they decided that mailing crap should cost money, and that stamps needed to be invented. So many year passed and people would mail each other letters like "Dear Mabel, World War I has started," or "Dear Lyndon B. Johnson, JFK was just killed, so now guess who's the president? (Flip over for answer)". Also, in the 60s some lothario named Thomas Pynchon wrote a book about a post office conspiracy. Sounds boring? Well, it was really po-mo, as the literature and writing students say, but fuck those dudes. Pynchon later faded into obscurity. Then, in the 90s the Internets was invented. I know it wasn't really invented in the 90s, but the 90s is when I first got it, so that's when it became important. So people no longer needed the post office and stamps, and all the postal employees started whining and moaning and shooting people and crying. Wah wah, motherfuckers. Sorry technology happens and shit. You should use John Telephone's other invention, the Shutthefuckupatron. That oughtta keep you quiet. Also, all the people mentioned in this story are now dead. The End.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Lick It -N- Stick It
WARNING!: You may learn something from this post, and yes, it will hurt.
Saddled with the ever-so-interesting task of blogging about stamps, (C'mon Jen, stamps?) I decided to do a little research into the history of stamps.
The first stamp was issued May 6, 1840 in Britain. Before then, it was up to the receiver of the letter to pay, but as postal service was expensive, many refused letters. Many people actually developed codes to put on the outside of the letter, so that the reciever could just scan the code and refuse the letter, but still get the message.
Other important dates in stamp history:
1857 - First perforated U.S. stamps appear (had to cut them apart before that)
1869 - First U.S. pictorial stamps (something depicted other than a dead person)
1893 - First U.S. commemorative stamps are issued (Columbus' voyage to America)
1940 - Booker T. Washington first African-American honored on a stamp
1962 - First U.S. Christmas stamp
1974 - First U.S self-adhesive stamp issued
1992 - (18 yrs later!) Full-scale production of self-adhesive stamps
1998 - U.S. issues first semi-postal (postage stamps used to raise funds for charity)
In case you're wondering how they pick images used on stamps (like the silver coffeepot), never fear - I have a brief explanation about that too.
Originally the Postmaster General decided what should go on stamps. Then Congress had to stick their nose in, and started passing legislation REQUIRING certain subjects be honored. In 1957 the PG created a committee to review the ideas of the entire public. The Citizen's Stamp Advisory Committee (a group of 12 to 15 appointed people) considers about 50,000 ideas each year. (Does that seem like a ridiculously high number to anyone else?) The Committee then recommends 35 new subjects, and the PG makes the final decision and blah, blah blah.
There are rules however, such as:
1. No living person can be depicted on a U.S stamp except former presidents.
2. An individual cannot be commemorated until 10 years after their death. (This is supposedly to allow the person's accomplishments to be viewed in the appropriate historical perspective. So if you invented a pill that saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and then you die, if in 9.75 years we're fucked economically because of said pill - no stamp for you!)
3. The exception to rule #2 are presidents, who have a stamp issued on the first anniversary of their death.
What if you don't like the crap the PG and CSAC pick out? You can make your own online! Here's a couple links:
Zazzle.com
Cafepress.com
And in case you need guidance as to what images to pus on your own stamps, here's a little good idea/bad idea.
Good Idea: Make stamps portraying Dexter, the new fictional serial killer series on Showtime. ( I get to read the book it was based on, Darkly Dreaming Dexter, tomorrow!)
Bad Idea: Make stamps portraying real serial killers. (Unless they're for hate mail, then it might be ok)
Good Idea: Make stamps of famous (tasteful) classical nude paintings.
Bad Idea : Make stamps from pictures you took of your girlfriend/boyfriend nude.
Good Idea: Making stamps of groups/causes you support i.e. American Cancer Society, PETA, etc.
Bad Idea: Making stamps of hate groups/terrorrist organizations you support. (The Nazis got enough attention 60 years ago -they don't need any help from you.) Also under this category - any stamps depicting anything to do with biohazards, bio warfare, and anthrax.
Saddled with the ever-so-interesting task of blogging about stamps, (C'mon Jen, stamps?) I decided to do a little research into the history of stamps.
The first stamp was issued May 6, 1840 in Britain. Before then, it was up to the receiver of the letter to pay, but as postal service was expensive, many refused letters. Many people actually developed codes to put on the outside of the letter, so that the reciever could just scan the code and refuse the letter, but still get the message.
Other important dates in stamp history:
1857 - First perforated U.S. stamps appear (had to cut them apart before that)
1869 - First U.S. pictorial stamps (something depicted other than a dead person)
1893 - First U.S. commemorative stamps are issued (Columbus' voyage to America)
1940 - Booker T. Washington first African-American honored on a stamp
1962 - First U.S. Christmas stamp
1974 - First U.S self-adhesive stamp issued
1992 - (18 yrs later!) Full-scale production of self-adhesive stamps
1998 - U.S. issues first semi-postal (postage stamps used to raise funds for charity)
In case you're wondering how they pick images used on stamps (like the silver coffeepot), never fear - I have a brief explanation about that too.
Originally the Postmaster General decided what should go on stamps. Then Congress had to stick their nose in, and started passing legislation REQUIRING certain subjects be honored. In 1957 the PG created a committee to review the ideas of the entire public. The Citizen's Stamp Advisory Committee (a group of 12 to 15 appointed people) considers about 50,000 ideas each year. (Does that seem like a ridiculously high number to anyone else?) The Committee then recommends 35 new subjects, and the PG makes the final decision and blah, blah blah.
There are rules however, such as:
1. No living person can be depicted on a U.S stamp except former presidents.
2. An individual cannot be commemorated until 10 years after their death. (This is supposedly to allow the person's accomplishments to be viewed in the appropriate historical perspective. So if you invented a pill that saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and then you die, if in 9.75 years we're fucked economically because of said pill - no stamp for you!)
3. The exception to rule #2 are presidents, who have a stamp issued on the first anniversary of their death.
What if you don't like the crap the PG and CSAC pick out? You can make your own online! Here's a couple links:
Zazzle.com
Cafepress.com
And in case you need guidance as to what images to pus on your own stamps, here's a little good idea/bad idea.
Good Idea: Make stamps portraying Dexter, the new fictional serial killer series on Showtime. ( I get to read the book it was based on, Darkly Dreaming Dexter, tomorrow!)
Bad Idea: Make stamps portraying real serial killers. (Unless they're for hate mail, then it might be ok)
Good Idea: Make stamps of famous (tasteful) classical nude paintings.
Bad Idea : Make stamps from pictures you took of your girlfriend/boyfriend nude.
Good Idea: Making stamps of groups/causes you support i.e. American Cancer Society, PETA, etc.
Bad Idea: Making stamps of hate groups/terrorrist organizations you support. (The Nazis got enough attention 60 years ago -they don't need any help from you.) Also under this category - any stamps depicting anything to do with biohazards, bio warfare, and anthrax.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
I have to write about stamps?
Hmmm…. It would appear that Nick forgot that he was Mr. Tuesday this week. Well, never fear, Jane is here to give all of you her well-formulated opinions on stamps. Er, wait. Slight problem. See, I don’t really have any opinions one way or the other when it comes to stamps. In my world, postage exists in order to enable various items to get from point A to point B. I don’t care what my postage looks like, so long as my items make it to their destination. Periodically I see people in the post office back home, pouring over the stamp choices as though they were trying to come up with a name for their first child or something. Granted, if at all possible I will avoid religious stamps around Christmastime, but that choice usually takes about three seconds.
“Madonna with child, or Frosty the Snowman?” “Frosty.”
Now, being that I’m a creative type, I can expand this topic just a wee bit for you to have something worth reading. You might think that since I’m living in South Korea and all, I would take this opportunity to expound somewhat on South Korean postage, or the Korean postal system, but unfortunately I can do no such thing. See, despite the fact that I’ve been here for nearly five months (has it been that long?), I have yet to visit a post office even once. When I first arrived back in August I requested mailing addresses from friends. I bought gifts for some of you. I have even gone so far as to tell some of you to be on the lookout for a little something-something in the mail. Well, I guess this is your wake-up call: stop holding your breath, people. And to those of you who might be under some sort of mistaken belief that your Christmas presents are in the process of crossing the Pacific right now, well that goes for you too. Exhale, people; packages aren’t coming.
I wish I had a decent excuse for the fact that I haven’t been to the post office since coming to Korea, but the truth is, I love sleeping. Because of the location of the nearest Post Office, I’d have to shave about an hour off my nightly rest in order to make it there before work. Let’s just say that I am NOT a morning person. There have been a few days when I have planned to get up early and send these various items on their way… but alas, it simply hasn’t happened. The way I’m going, you may all have to wait until I get back in the States.
I can, however, tell you about the last time I was in a Russian post office (last May or June). I was inside the Central Post Office of the city of Vladimir. Had I desired to do so, I could have purchased laundry detergent. I could have purchased cigarettes. I could have purchased a lot of random things of the sort which one would not expect to find in a Post Office. I could not, however, have purchased stamps. They were out.
Okay, so this post is totally random, and I’m going to stop writing now.
“Madonna with child, or Frosty the Snowman?” “Frosty.”
Now, being that I’m a creative type, I can expand this topic just a wee bit for you to have something worth reading. You might think that since I’m living in South Korea and all, I would take this opportunity to expound somewhat on South Korean postage, or the Korean postal system, but unfortunately I can do no such thing. See, despite the fact that I’ve been here for nearly five months (has it been that long?), I have yet to visit a post office even once. When I first arrived back in August I requested mailing addresses from friends. I bought gifts for some of you. I have even gone so far as to tell some of you to be on the lookout for a little something-something in the mail. Well, I guess this is your wake-up call: stop holding your breath, people. And to those of you who might be under some sort of mistaken belief that your Christmas presents are in the process of crossing the Pacific right now, well that goes for you too. Exhale, people; packages aren’t coming.
I wish I had a decent excuse for the fact that I haven’t been to the post office since coming to Korea, but the truth is, I love sleeping. Because of the location of the nearest Post Office, I’d have to shave about an hour off my nightly rest in order to make it there before work. Let’s just say that I am NOT a morning person. There have been a few days when I have planned to get up early and send these various items on their way… but alas, it simply hasn’t happened. The way I’m going, you may all have to wait until I get back in the States.
I can, however, tell you about the last time I was in a Russian post office (last May or June). I was inside the Central Post Office of the city of Vladimir. Had I desired to do so, I could have purchased laundry detergent. I could have purchased cigarettes. I could have purchased a lot of random things of the sort which one would not expect to find in a Post Office. I could not, however, have purchased stamps. They were out.
Okay, so this post is totally random, and I’m going to stop writing now.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Topic 2!
After stuffing myself with turkey, ham, potatoes, corn, gravy, biscuits, pie, crackers, and lord even knows what else, I’m hardly mentally agile enough to complete a decent blog today. I should be on the couch dozing through Pirates of the Caribbean right now. But! I said I would find a topic for this week, so I shall.
Obviously, I should pick a topic dealing something with the new year, especially after the preceding posts from Nick. Resolutions or predictions or a look back on last year or something. But I’m not going to do that, mostly because I didn’t think of that last week when I was deciding on a topic. We can do that next week.
This week’s topic (which I admittedly stole from my friend David's blog) is stamps.
Here is a list of the expected commemorative stamps for 2007 as announced by the US Postal Service. I think USPS stamps should celebrate things truly American (and that includes honoring other cultures/countries since we all came from somewhere else) as well as things benign enough for people all over this diverse country to buy and use. Here are some highlights from the extensive list:
Ella Fitzgerald
International Polar Year
James Stewart
Marvel Comic Book Heroes
Louis Comfort Tiffany
The Art of Disney: Magic
Jury Duty
Silver Coffeepot
Silly as it sounds, I’m all for having entertainers represent our country, especially since politicians do such a terrible job. Sure, Ella was probably on coke or heroine, and I don’t know of any Jimmy Stewart scandals, but I’m sure there must be one or two. But c’mon… even Bing Crosby beat his wife and kids, but we still hear his voice and think of Christmas. What's more Christmas-y than listening to White Christmas while remembering why you moved away from home? Let Angelina Jolie and Shirley Temple represent me—not anyone in the current administration please. I hold superheroes in this same regard.
I did a quick google search on International Polar Year (IPY for those in the know) and found this. This seems to be a project for researchers to gather more information about global warming! It’s official: global warming has become common sense enough for the post office to print a stamp about it. Now we just need those idiots in the GOP (who, for whatever bullshit reason, pretend that this isn’t happening or is no big deal) to simply mail a letter overseas and realize that the rest of the world, including most Americans, see this as a major problem.
A silver coffeepot? This is the one that really threw me off. I mean, that’s really non-offensive, but… why? I’m going to have to see this one to voice an opinion.
Obviously, I should pick a topic dealing something with the new year, especially after the preceding posts from Nick. Resolutions or predictions or a look back on last year or something. But I’m not going to do that, mostly because I didn’t think of that last week when I was deciding on a topic. We can do that next week.
This week’s topic (which I admittedly stole from my friend David's blog) is stamps.
Here is a list of the expected commemorative stamps for 2007 as announced by the US Postal Service. I think USPS stamps should celebrate things truly American (and that includes honoring other cultures/countries since we all came from somewhere else) as well as things benign enough for people all over this diverse country to buy and use. Here are some highlights from the extensive list:
Ella Fitzgerald
International Polar Year
James Stewart
Marvel Comic Book Heroes
Louis Comfort Tiffany
The Art of Disney: Magic
Jury Duty
Silver Coffeepot
Silly as it sounds, I’m all for having entertainers represent our country, especially since politicians do such a terrible job. Sure, Ella was probably on coke or heroine, and I don’t know of any Jimmy Stewart scandals, but I’m sure there must be one or two. But c’mon… even Bing Crosby beat his wife and kids, but we still hear his voice and think of Christmas. What's more Christmas-y than listening to White Christmas while remembering why you moved away from home? Let Angelina Jolie and Shirley Temple represent me—not anyone in the current administration please. I hold superheroes in this same regard.
I did a quick google search on International Polar Year (IPY for those in the know) and found this. This seems to be a project for researchers to gather more information about global warming! It’s official: global warming has become common sense enough for the post office to print a stamp about it. Now we just need those idiots in the GOP (who, for whatever bullshit reason, pretend that this isn’t happening or is no big deal) to simply mail a letter overseas and realize that the rest of the world, including most Americans, see this as a major problem.
A silver coffeepot? This is the one that really threw me off. I mean, that’s really non-offensive, but… why? I’m going to have to see this one to voice an opinion.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Twenty-Oh-Eight
2006 saw the death knell of the Reagan conservative movement. Though most news sources and blogs are trying to concentrate only on 2007 and the new Democratic 110th Congress and claiming that it's too early to talk about 2008, I am looking forward to 2008. As much as 2006 was an historic midterm election, 2008 will be an equally or possibly even more historic election. The GOP will be defending about twice as many senate seats than the Democrats, which means the Dems will more than likely see their hold on the Senate strengthen greatly. The 2008 presidential election will see the first totally wide-open election since the 50s, as there is no incumbent (president or vice president) running on the ticket. Though most pundits and bloggers etc. are claiming they have no list of favorites yet for 2008, I would bet that they actually do. I certainly do. Though most likely my list of favorites will change as the potential candidates campaign or decide not to run, and with all of the news that will be made, as of now here is my list of favorite Democratic candidates for president in 2008.
Al Gore: My #1 dream candidate. Though he claims he will not run, I still harbor hope that he will decide to do so. It's possible, as the other candidates will begin running early and will already be getting attacked, a strong enough Draft Al Gore movement and the pull of being able to do more good might be enough to pull him in. Though he "lost" in 2000, he doesn't have the stigma of a loser since he did in fact win the popular vote, and many if not most in this country think he actually won the election. Gore has also become extremely popular, and has been giving amazing speeches and showing up on all of the late night talk shows; not the almost robotic candidate we saw in 2000. And here is where Al Gore could totally rip the Democratic field wide open: He has done a great job of making it known he will not likely be running; he hasn't been lining up staff, he hasn't been making the trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, he hasn't been putting money into a possibly campaign war chest (though he obviously has no shortage of money). So the spotlight is on the other candidates who are doing those things and likely lining up to run, most notably Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. These three (and likely even more) will announce one way or another probably in January, and will then become even larger targets than they already are now. However, a candidate does not have to announce that early; they do so to line up money, delegates, etc. Al Gore could wait another year and let the press and the pundits tear into these candidates, and even more, let these candidates tear into each other. Al Gore could enter the field in late '07 and, having been untouched and likely continuing to be popular (not to mention probably with an Academy Award on his nightstand) would tear the field wide open. I will be keeping Al Gore in my number one spot until it would be too late for him to enter the game; I might like other candidates, but I'm holding out for him.
Obama: I like Obama. I would tend to think he is inexperienced, and that he sometimes does seem like someone who just has great charisma and makes great speeches, but I think he has something to offer. Though we haven't elected someone from the Senate since Kennedy, Obama is being compared to a Kennedy, and has about as much experience as Lincoln did when he was elected president from the same state. I definitely like him, and I definitely think he is electable. I am hoping he doesn't fall into the Harold Ford trap of campaigning too much on his religious beliefs; other than that, I think he's a solid favorite.
Clinton: I like Hillary, and I think she would be a good president. I would love to have a woman president and a woman Speaker of the House; that would be an amazing sight at the State of the Union. Obama has a leg up on Hillary for one of the hottest issues right now, Iraq: Obama was against the unpopular war from the start, while Hillary voted for it and hasn't really ever shown any regret for that vote. She's also married to arguably the most talented politician alive right now, and many (including myself) would not mind having him back in the White House. Though she is not my favorite, I would have no problem voting for her, and she is definitely in the top tier.
John Edwards: Very charming, smart, and has some great views on economics, the middle class, and labor. Already has experience with campaigning for vice president in 2004, and didn't get nearly as touched as Kerry did (though he did give arguably a poor showing at the vice presidential debates in '04, these were not memorable, and I personally thought he did just fine). I would say that Edwards is tied for my second place spot with Obama and Hillary. I do lean for Edwards lately, though. I think he will be a great candidate and I would happily vote for him.
That would likely be the top tier, with some other candidates emerging. Should John Warner (former governor of Virginia) enter the race, I'd immediately put him in the top tier; I personally wish he hadn't have bowed out, though there are rumors that he may change his mind. Vilsack, though no one outside of Iowa has heard of him, would be at the top of my list in the second tier; I hadn't heard of him either, but have watched some of his speeches and TV appearances and looked at some of his stances, and he could be a dark horse candidate- it might not be a bad year for dark horses, since Obama and Hillary may end up cancelling each other out; this is why I think Edwards might end up on top. Rounding up the list would be Richardson of NM and possibly John Kerry, who I personally like but think he has no chance. Kucinich and the rest are not serious threats to those in the top tier.
I think that, if the Dems can prove in the next year or so that they can get things done, the 2008 election will be theirs to lose. If the GOP is smart, they will run either McCain or Rudy; those are their most formidable candidates. I think Rudy might be too far to the left for the GOP base, and I think McCain is running right fast enough to get the nomination. We would be lucky if they end up running psychopaths like Brownback, Huckabee or Romney. I think 2007 will be a great year, and I think the Dems will prove themselves worthy of the power they have been given. I only hope that they don't take too much of the responsibility for the Iraq War: the President still has the final say, and if the Dems get too involved, they will get tarnished with the unpopular war. Also, the Democrats need to stop trying to court the white southern redneck vote. They aren't going to vote Democrat. The GOP is now a southern party; they took over the South, and now the South has taken over the GOP. I say we let them have it; you can't be all things to all people, and the South isn't giving it to the Dems no matter what. We have the Northeast, which is impenetrably blue, the midwest is quickly trending blue, and the west is pretty solidly blue. We can get the 270 electoral votes we need from those areas. I'm all for a 50-state strategy where we are ready for the pick-ups we might get from scandals etc., but if you look at the numbers, we aren't winning in the South. Let the GOP have the South, I say, and we'll win without them; our policies will still do them good regardless.
Al Gore: My #1 dream candidate. Though he claims he will not run, I still harbor hope that he will decide to do so. It's possible, as the other candidates will begin running early and will already be getting attacked, a strong enough Draft Al Gore movement and the pull of being able to do more good might be enough to pull him in. Though he "lost" in 2000, he doesn't have the stigma of a loser since he did in fact win the popular vote, and many if not most in this country think he actually won the election. Gore has also become extremely popular, and has been giving amazing speeches and showing up on all of the late night talk shows; not the almost robotic candidate we saw in 2000. And here is where Al Gore could totally rip the Democratic field wide open: He has done a great job of making it known he will not likely be running; he hasn't been lining up staff, he hasn't been making the trips to Iowa and New Hampshire, he hasn't been putting money into a possibly campaign war chest (though he obviously has no shortage of money). So the spotlight is on the other candidates who are doing those things and likely lining up to run, most notably Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. These three (and likely even more) will announce one way or another probably in January, and will then become even larger targets than they already are now. However, a candidate does not have to announce that early; they do so to line up money, delegates, etc. Al Gore could wait another year and let the press and the pundits tear into these candidates, and even more, let these candidates tear into each other. Al Gore could enter the field in late '07 and, having been untouched and likely continuing to be popular (not to mention probably with an Academy Award on his nightstand) would tear the field wide open. I will be keeping Al Gore in my number one spot until it would be too late for him to enter the game; I might like other candidates, but I'm holding out for him.
Obama: I like Obama. I would tend to think he is inexperienced, and that he sometimes does seem like someone who just has great charisma and makes great speeches, but I think he has something to offer. Though we haven't elected someone from the Senate since Kennedy, Obama is being compared to a Kennedy, and has about as much experience as Lincoln did when he was elected president from the same state. I definitely like him, and I definitely think he is electable. I am hoping he doesn't fall into the Harold Ford trap of campaigning too much on his religious beliefs; other than that, I think he's a solid favorite.
Clinton: I like Hillary, and I think she would be a good president. I would love to have a woman president and a woman Speaker of the House; that would be an amazing sight at the State of the Union. Obama has a leg up on Hillary for one of the hottest issues right now, Iraq: Obama was against the unpopular war from the start, while Hillary voted for it and hasn't really ever shown any regret for that vote. She's also married to arguably the most talented politician alive right now, and many (including myself) would not mind having him back in the White House. Though she is not my favorite, I would have no problem voting for her, and she is definitely in the top tier.
John Edwards: Very charming, smart, and has some great views on economics, the middle class, and labor. Already has experience with campaigning for vice president in 2004, and didn't get nearly as touched as Kerry did (though he did give arguably a poor showing at the vice presidential debates in '04, these were not memorable, and I personally thought he did just fine). I would say that Edwards is tied for my second place spot with Obama and Hillary. I do lean for Edwards lately, though. I think he will be a great candidate and I would happily vote for him.
That would likely be the top tier, with some other candidates emerging. Should John Warner (former governor of Virginia) enter the race, I'd immediately put him in the top tier; I personally wish he hadn't have bowed out, though there are rumors that he may change his mind. Vilsack, though no one outside of Iowa has heard of him, would be at the top of my list in the second tier; I hadn't heard of him either, but have watched some of his speeches and TV appearances and looked at some of his stances, and he could be a dark horse candidate- it might not be a bad year for dark horses, since Obama and Hillary may end up cancelling each other out; this is why I think Edwards might end up on top. Rounding up the list would be Richardson of NM and possibly John Kerry, who I personally like but think he has no chance. Kucinich and the rest are not serious threats to those in the top tier.
I think that, if the Dems can prove in the next year or so that they can get things done, the 2008 election will be theirs to lose. If the GOP is smart, they will run either McCain or Rudy; those are their most formidable candidates. I think Rudy might be too far to the left for the GOP base, and I think McCain is running right fast enough to get the nomination. We would be lucky if they end up running psychopaths like Brownback, Huckabee or Romney. I think 2007 will be a great year, and I think the Dems will prove themselves worthy of the power they have been given. I only hope that they don't take too much of the responsibility for the Iraq War: the President still has the final say, and if the Dems get too involved, they will get tarnished with the unpopular war. Also, the Democrats need to stop trying to court the white southern redneck vote. They aren't going to vote Democrat. The GOP is now a southern party; they took over the South, and now the South has taken over the GOP. I say we let them have it; you can't be all things to all people, and the South isn't giving it to the Dems no matter what. We have the Northeast, which is impenetrably blue, the midwest is quickly trending blue, and the west is pretty solidly blue. We can get the 270 electoral votes we need from those areas. I'm all for a 50-state strategy where we are ready for the pick-ups we might get from scandals etc., but if you look at the numbers, we aren't winning in the South. Let the GOP have the South, I say, and we'll win without them; our policies will still do them good regardless.
Twenty-Oh-Six
2006 is about to come to a close; I am inclined to say good riddance. I guess 2006 was not a totally terrible year for me personally, but I am most definintely looking forward to 2007 with hopes that it will be a better year. 2006 saw the conservative/Republican "revolution" in its last moments, which is what gives me hope for this country in 2007. As we all do our requisite looking back at the close of a year, I thought I might pick a few of my favorite things of 2006, with hopes that you all will join in with yours.
Best Movie: The Departed
Best TV Show: Lost (Though not a show that is new in 2006, the last half of the second season and the first half of the third were amazing, and no new show in 2006 has come close to topping it in my opinion)
Best Album: Morph the Cat by Donald Fagen
Favorite Book: tie: FUBAR by Sam Seder & Steve Sherrill and Crashing the Gate by Moulitsas and Armstrong
Best Moment: Election night and the day after
Best Personal Moment: My big promotion
Worst Personal Moment: Getting screwed at the car dealership (though I did get them back)
My Choice for Person(s) of the Year: Howard Dean, Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer
These choices, of course, are my favorites and not objective judgments of what is actually "the best" of 2006. I'm sure there are more categories that I am not thinking of right now; all in all, I think 2006 was a good year, with possibly not the best start but with a promising ending. And as far as "resolutions" for the next year, I have only a few: save up enough money in the next year to make moving out of Florida in early 2008 possible; lose 10 pounds; and start exercising again three times a week.
Best Movie: The Departed
Best TV Show: Lost (Though not a show that is new in 2006, the last half of the second season and the first half of the third were amazing, and no new show in 2006 has come close to topping it in my opinion)
Best Album: Morph the Cat by Donald Fagen
Favorite Book: tie: FUBAR by Sam Seder & Steve Sherrill and Crashing the Gate by Moulitsas and Armstrong
Best Moment: Election night and the day after
Best Personal Moment: My big promotion
Worst Personal Moment: Getting screwed at the car dealership (though I did get them back)
My Choice for Person(s) of the Year: Howard Dean, Rahm Emanuel and Chuck Schumer
These choices, of course, are my favorites and not objective judgments of what is actually "the best" of 2006. I'm sure there are more categories that I am not thinking of right now; all in all, I think 2006 was a good year, with possibly not the best start but with a promising ending. And as far as "resolutions" for the next year, I have only a few: save up enough money in the next year to make moving out of Florida in early 2008 possible; lose 10 pounds; and start exercising again three times a week.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
You're So Vain
You probably think Time Magazine's Person of the Year is you... oh wait. But what can I say that hasn't been done in the other 4 posts? We're really going to have to rotate days we post because I don't think I can pull something like this out of my ass every week (if I could I'm sure there's a club in Tijuana that would pay for an act like that). Or we just need to make the topic a little more broad.
I agree, it's a complete cop-out. I can only imagine the scenario (and in this scenario both characters work for Time, and DB 1 and 2 stand for Douchebag 1 and 2, respectively):
DB 1: "Damn...there's absoulutely NO ONE that has done anything extraordinary this year!"
DB2: "What in the hell are we going to do?"
DB1: "Ha ha ha - why don't we make you Person of the Year!"
DB2: "Hee hee hee - why don't we make YOU Person of the Year!"
DB1: (ding! {lightblub})
Stupid. But they did it, and rather than continue to point out the sheer buffoonery (yes, buffoonery) in making such a decision, I've decided to embrace it. So, as all of us are Person of the Year, and they usually do some type of bio, I thought I'd let you know a little bit more about us.
Actually this is first part is just an excuse to use this library book I found. It surveyed 10 billion people to see what they thought of when they heard people's names (So really this is a getting to know what other people think of us). Here are the results for ours:
Glenn - is described as either a friendly, simple, down-to-earth middle class guy or a bold, innovative, wealthy intellectual. (Not too bad - neither description fits exactly, but take something from each, and it's pretty good.)
Jen (Im assuming Jennifer, but if not this is the closest one) - people think Jennifer is a perfect name for a cute, blonde cheerleader who is popular and sweet. (Jen, you'll have to defend yourself on this one, since I don't know you)
Nick - most people picture Nick as a strong, swarthy gangster. Some, though, see Nick as a clever , suave good guy. (Strong, swarthy gangster huh? Right...)
Jane - people think of Jane as plain. The name calls to mind the common, dependable, garden-variety girl-next-door. (Nothing could be further from the truth! Jane being plain that is - she's anything but.)
Stephanie - most people think Stephanie is a thin, pretty, feminine woman who is sophisticated and self-centered - a model perhaps. Some think Stephanie is very kind. (Ummm...where do people come up with this stuff?)
Ok now for the real stuff. I was reading another blog, paintingchef.com, and she did Six Weird Things You Don't Know About Me. They were really good and really psychotic. I can't think of 6 things right now, so I'll just post one, and hopefully my co-bloggers will post weird things about themselves as well. I figure this is way more interesting than telling you my favorite color, food, or way to serve potatoes.
So here it goes: I don't know why, but I count all the buttons on whatever remote control I'm holding. It's this crazy obsessive-compulsive thing, I'm sure, but I touch every single button and count them - and I'll do it over and over until I force myself to put it down. It's not something that really distracts from whatever I'm watching, it's more like a nervous tic or something for my hands to do. It's weird, but I can't help it.
I'm absolutely exhausted and I have a long day of moving tomorrow, er well I guess later today now. I'm sure I've skewed the topic way off, but give me a break - I'm the last to post this week.
I agree, it's a complete cop-out. I can only imagine the scenario (and in this scenario both characters work for Time, and DB 1 and 2 stand for Douchebag 1 and 2, respectively):
DB 1: "Damn...there's absoulutely NO ONE that has done anything extraordinary this year!"
DB2: "What in the hell are we going to do?"
DB1: "Ha ha ha - why don't we make you Person of the Year!"
DB2: "Hee hee hee - why don't we make YOU Person of the Year!"
DB1: (ding! {lightblub})
Stupid. But they did it, and rather than continue to point out the sheer buffoonery (yes, buffoonery) in making such a decision, I've decided to embrace it. So, as all of us are Person of the Year, and they usually do some type of bio, I thought I'd let you know a little bit more about us.
Actually this is first part is just an excuse to use this library book I found. It surveyed 10 billion people to see what they thought of when they heard people's names (So really this is a getting to know what other people think of us). Here are the results for ours:
Glenn - is described as either a friendly, simple, down-to-earth middle class guy or a bold, innovative, wealthy intellectual. (Not too bad - neither description fits exactly, but take something from each, and it's pretty good.)
Jen (Im assuming Jennifer, but if not this is the closest one) - people think Jennifer is a perfect name for a cute, blonde cheerleader who is popular and sweet. (Jen, you'll have to defend yourself on this one, since I don't know you)
Nick - most people picture Nick as a strong, swarthy gangster. Some, though, see Nick as a clever , suave good guy. (Strong, swarthy gangster huh? Right...)
Jane - people think of Jane as plain. The name calls to mind the common, dependable, garden-variety girl-next-door. (Nothing could be further from the truth! Jane being plain that is - she's anything but.)
Stephanie - most people think Stephanie is a thin, pretty, feminine woman who is sophisticated and self-centered - a model perhaps. Some think Stephanie is very kind. (Ummm...where do people come up with this stuff?)
Ok now for the real stuff. I was reading another blog, paintingchef.com, and she did Six Weird Things You Don't Know About Me. They were really good and really psychotic. I can't think of 6 things right now, so I'll just post one, and hopefully my co-bloggers will post weird things about themselves as well. I figure this is way more interesting than telling you my favorite color, food, or way to serve potatoes.
So here it goes: I don't know why, but I count all the buttons on whatever remote control I'm holding. It's this crazy obsessive-compulsive thing, I'm sure, but I touch every single button and count them - and I'll do it over and over until I force myself to put it down. It's not something that really distracts from whatever I'm watching, it's more like a nervous tic or something for my hands to do. It's weird, but I can't help it.
I'm absolutely exhausted and I have a long day of moving tomorrow, er well I guess later today now. I'm sure I've skewed the topic way off, but give me a break - I'm the last to post this week.
You're not worthy.
Now, it’s not like I particularly need TIME to tell me who to worship as the most important person of the past 365 days, although the magazine’s yearly foray into this who’s who nonsense is usually somewhat interesting. But their choice of “You”? Please.
No offense, but You are a bunch of blithering morons. I have extremely little faith in the intelligence of the masses, and TIME goes and awards them (er, You) with the title of Person of the Year? While that utterly fatuous article in TIME did gain a few meager points in my book by referring to Kim Jong Il as a tin-pot dictator (I do, after all, live in South Korea) the rest of the article was fairly asinine. Take this for example: Some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, they included that gem in the article explaining why we (You) were chosen. Thank you, TIME, for honoring those who not only can’t spell, but who haven’t yet mastered spell-check. Thank you for honoring the obscene hatemongers of the world. And above all, TIME, thank you for lumping me in with them, with You.
The internet has truly changed the world, but so did radio, and television. The difference with the internet is that in recent years, interactive sites have become more user-friendly, making it simple for the most dim-witted among You to gain access to that medium. Think of the incredibly moronic things which You have seen and heard on television and radio. Now think about the fact that getting on TV/radio is difficult. Yes, the most horrific things which You have seen and heard on those media were moderated. In theory, we have been shielded from the worst.
No offense, but You are a bunch of blithering morons. I have extremely little faith in the intelligence of the masses, and TIME goes and awards them (er, You) with the title of Person of the Year? While that utterly fatuous article in TIME did gain a few meager points in my book by referring to Kim Jong Il as a tin-pot dictator (I do, after all, live in South Korea) the rest of the article was fairly asinine. Take this for example: Some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, they included that gem in the article explaining why we (You) were chosen. Thank you, TIME, for honoring those who not only can’t spell, but who haven’t yet mastered spell-check. Thank you for honoring the obscene hatemongers of the world. And above all, TIME, thank you for lumping me in with them, with You.
The internet has truly changed the world, but so did radio, and television. The difference with the internet is that in recent years, interactive sites have become more user-friendly, making it simple for the most dim-witted among You to gain access to that medium. Think of the incredibly moronic things which You have seen and heard on television and radio. Now think about the fact that getting on TV/radio is difficult. Yes, the most horrific things which You have seen and heard on those media were moderated. In theory, we have been shielded from the worst.
Now, the glorious thing about the internet is that there is no moderation. Granted, this lack of moderation means that the lowest of the low have the ability to contribute. But I have free will and common sense, and I can avoid the lowest of the low in the virtual word, just as I do in the real one. I love the unmoderated virtual world of the internet. I love the fact that I can broadcast anything I want... and I’ve been taking advantage of this ability since 1997, when I first acquired a computer with a modem. I have my own website (and have since 1997, actually), I can code HTML and Java (although to be honest, I’m lazy and usually use Dreamweaver), I’ve done web design for businesses, I blog on three separate blogs (including this one), and I run two online stores. And yes, TIME, I do in fact have the obligatory MySpace and YouTube accounts, which apparently make me cool in Your book. I freely admit that I consider myself superior to the vast majority of internet users with their tackily glittery PimpMySpace profiles and their inability to produce anything of substance. But even those of us who use the internet to create are hardly worthy of the designation of Person of the Year. At the very least, TIME, you could have honored those who have created sites such as YouTube and MySpace, if you truly felt they were worthy. (Although just imagine Tom standing alone as Person of the Year...) But this selection of You? Why bother? You’re obviously not worthy.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Freestyle Dumping
Time's Person of the Year is You (Me, whatever). I'm lucky; I had a subscription to Time because it was given to me extremely cheap (under $10) and am most fortunate that it ran out right before this issue came out. Over the 12 months that I received Time, I grew to hate it. Sure, this cover was so obviously a cop out. So I guess the question we're supposed to consider here is, why? To me, the obvious choices would have been The Democrats (or at least the leaders of the DNC, DCCC & DSCC), or maybe even Baker & Hamilton (though it's pretty obvious by now that the Iraq Study Group Report is going to do very little; the lead-up to it got a lot of press). I mean, isn't the Person of the Year supposed to be someone who got a lot of attention or someone who made a huge difference? Sure, "You" do things to make a difference in the internet (like using Google to search for porn, or by demanding newer and stranger role-playing situations for said porn) but with that "You" means a lot of shitty people who either made no difference or who actually worked the take the country backwards get in the door. I heard a whole lot about Suri Cruise this year, why wasn't she/he/it person of the year? Or how about K-Fed? Paris Hilton? Brittney Spears' exposed vagina?
Honestly, the small conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Time didn't want to pick the Democrats or any one Democrat, or maybe even Baker/Hamilton (who the Bushies and neocons aren't hugely fond of apparently). Or maybe just a total lack of imagination. Why am I person of the year? The internet? YouTube? Listen, I am all for YouTube; I think it is the next step in the democratization of the internet and it could possibly serve to keep those in public life more accountable for what they say (though it is just as likely to spawn new generations of better liars), but has anyone actually just browsed YouTube? For every single one video of something like the "macaca incident" that makes a difference, there's millions of videos of people just playing video games, or running around naked, or taking a dump, or any other number of shithead things. At any rate, the internet has been around for quite a while; it has always been powered by "people." Is Time just now catching on to this? Obviously they are referring to massively distributed collaboation, and the fact that people with cell phone cameras are catching very important video, or posting very important information on blogs (not blogs like this one) that then sometimes make their way into the evening shout shows, but those are relatively few enterprising and activist people. The internet is full of millions more people who only want to see those Brittney Spears vagnia pictures, or pictures of Suri Cruise, or of Pauly Shore being punched by a redneck, or whatever.
I have very little to say that wasn't already covered; great job with this topic, Glenn. But obviously the Time choice was a cop out. But what do we care? Time is like that. Compare the two post-election covers from 1992 and 2006. In 1992, the Republicans had their "revolution," and took over the Congress from the Democrats, who had held on to power for about 40 years. On the cover of Time, we see an elephant running over and stomping a little donkey whose (if I remember correctly) eyes are popping out for extra special effect. In 2006, when Democrats took the Republicans out of office after only 12 years, and won more seats than the GOP had in 1992, Time showcased a sedate cover that shows a big red dot and a big blue dot slightly converging with the overlapping parts colored purple, with a headline saying "The Center is the New Place to Be," repeating the bullshit meme that the Dems only won because their candidates were so conservative (don't get me started on that; almost nothing makes me more mad than that total bullshit claim). That says all you need to know about Time Magazine.
I would write more, but I must wrap Christmas presents, and I want to leave enough room for those who must post after me to actually have something to say. Or totally abandon the subject at hand and just write about whatever.
Honestly, the small conspiracy theorist in me thinks that Time didn't want to pick the Democrats or any one Democrat, or maybe even Baker/Hamilton (who the Bushies and neocons aren't hugely fond of apparently). Or maybe just a total lack of imagination. Why am I person of the year? The internet? YouTube? Listen, I am all for YouTube; I think it is the next step in the democratization of the internet and it could possibly serve to keep those in public life more accountable for what they say (though it is just as likely to spawn new generations of better liars), but has anyone actually just browsed YouTube? For every single one video of something like the "macaca incident" that makes a difference, there's millions of videos of people just playing video games, or running around naked, or taking a dump, or any other number of shithead things. At any rate, the internet has been around for quite a while; it has always been powered by "people." Is Time just now catching on to this? Obviously they are referring to massively distributed collaboation, and the fact that people with cell phone cameras are catching very important video, or posting very important information on blogs (not blogs like this one) that then sometimes make their way into the evening shout shows, but those are relatively few enterprising and activist people. The internet is full of millions more people who only want to see those Brittney Spears vagnia pictures, or pictures of Suri Cruise, or of Pauly Shore being punched by a redneck, or whatever.
I have very little to say that wasn't already covered; great job with this topic, Glenn. But obviously the Time choice was a cop out. But what do we care? Time is like that. Compare the two post-election covers from 1992 and 2006. In 1992, the Republicans had their "revolution," and took over the Congress from the Democrats, who had held on to power for about 40 years. On the cover of Time, we see an elephant running over and stomping a little donkey whose (if I remember correctly) eyes are popping out for extra special effect. In 2006, when Democrats took the Republicans out of office after only 12 years, and won more seats than the GOP had in 1992, Time showcased a sedate cover that shows a big red dot and a big blue dot slightly converging with the overlapping parts colored purple, with a headline saying "The Center is the New Place to Be," repeating the bullshit meme that the Dems only won because their candidates were so conservative (don't get me started on that; almost nothing makes me more mad than that total bullshit claim). That says all you need to know about Time Magazine.
I would write more, but I must wrap Christmas presents, and I want to leave enough room for those who must post after me to actually have something to say. Or totally abandon the subject at hand and just write about whatever.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Person of the Year wasn't Me.
Before I begin, let me give myself 2 justifications. 1. I'm new to the whole blogger thing. I'm a MySpace gal so far, and I'm just hoping there's a spellcheck on Blogger. 2. I had yet another happy hour this evening after work, at which I told my self I would only stay for 1 drink. After 3, I'm home, quite buzzed and watching Without a Trace while I blog. I'm a multi-tasker.
Thanks to some extra Delta SkyMiles (that were still not enough to actually travel anywhere), I've been getting Time magazine for several months now. Not that I've read many of them; I also get the Atlantic Monthly and the Economist from the same offer and hardly look at either. However, I keep hearing about this Time cover-- I'm the person of the Year?!-- but, no, I did not receive this issue. Are they trying to tell me something? I'm probably taking that too personally. A local friend blamed it on the "corrupt DC postal service, someone probably stole it," which is what I was thinking anyway since my mail is very sporadic. Once, they didn't pick up my departing mail for 3 or 4 days and when I called to complain the distribution manager who answered the phone told me, "Look, if you don't got any mail comin' in, he ain't gonna check it." "oh?" I responded, "I guess that's just the way you do things?" "yep." And how do you argue with that? So I'm going to read the article right now. Give me a second... I'm also eating dinner.
Ok, so, I haven't started reading yet, but it's awesome that the chrysler ad before the article begins, "You may not be the person of the year..." Oops. that was a waste of a couple gazillion dollars.
Who will leave a happy hour early after 3 drinks on a Tuesday to go home and fulfill her obligation to her brand new Blogsupergroup!? Me! I'm a winner! According to Time anyway.
Time? Are you listening? Good. Because that was a total cop-out. As the monstery-guy in 'Avenue Q' explains in song, "The internet is for porn." Also, I've been copyediting at work for 2 days now (I have other work, but this had been higher priority) and caught a typo in the last paragraph. There may be more, but I only caught the one. Can You?
So, I agree that the internet is fucking awesome. I can easily keep in touch with my non-DC friends who I love dearly, and that would be a lot harder if I only had to rely on free long-distance through cell phones. I can share photos and random thoughts and read about other people all over the world. and I email constantly. Also, it makes my job easier. in fact, it provides me with a job, since the project I work on within my company is a Web site (http://www.llis.gov/... you can't see it, you're not a member. And, no, I cannot give you membership, you're not an emergency responder).
Also, I participate in groups like Planned Parenthood, MoveOn, and NARAL-ProChoice, which I don't think would do very well without the internet. So I get emails about 3 times a day in my 'fake' email account asking for money from these groups. I don't mind-- I contribute about once a year. I just read what's gong on the rest of the year. If there's a petition or something, I'll sign that.
Democracy? At least the illusion of democracy, which, after voting for several years in Florida, I’ve learned to appreciate. When I sign an online petition I have full faith (not confidence) that it is delivered to and taken seriously by whatever Congress-person matters for that issue. I do understand, though, that I voted for none of them, because this year my highest profile election participation was DC School Board President. So maybe that’s what the internet provides—a voice for those of us who don’t legally have one (even though we pay the highest taxes in the country, thanks to Congress having full control of our city financials). And it probably works out to more of a voice than I had in Red-State-Florida, home of Jeb Bush, Mark Foley, Katherine Harris and the 2000 “Hanging Chads” election.
Clearly more important than some vague, faith-based concept of ‘democracy,’ though, is the vast capitalist orgy the internet provides. Catch the baby and win a Razor? Catch the baby and give Rupert whats-his-douche 50 more dollars. Shop for jewelry (click here to win free!), for music (get 5 songs for $5!), for entertainment systems (PS3’s on eBay!), for books (people still read?), for vibrators (who needs books?), for bigger penises (be a better man!), for hair implants (be a better man!), for hair removal (be a better woman!), for weight loss (be less of a person!), for anything your little mind could imagine. And, since the terrorists win when America is unable to sell penis pills and overpriced airline tickets, ergo the internet obviously promotes world peace. Ergo.
That and porn. there’s something for everyone. And what’s more democratic than that?
Also, shockingly, they found the pretty missing girl at the end of Without a Trace. And watch My Boys on TBS because it's freaking hilarious.
BLOG SUPERGROUP! Yeah!
Thanks to some extra Delta SkyMiles (that were still not enough to actually travel anywhere), I've been getting Time magazine for several months now. Not that I've read many of them; I also get the Atlantic Monthly and the Economist from the same offer and hardly look at either. However, I keep hearing about this Time cover-- I'm the person of the Year?!-- but, no, I did not receive this issue. Are they trying to tell me something? I'm probably taking that too personally. A local friend blamed it on the "corrupt DC postal service, someone probably stole it," which is what I was thinking anyway since my mail is very sporadic. Once, they didn't pick up my departing mail for 3 or 4 days and when I called to complain the distribution manager who answered the phone told me, "Look, if you don't got any mail comin' in, he ain't gonna check it." "oh?" I responded, "I guess that's just the way you do things?" "yep." And how do you argue with that? So I'm going to read the article right now. Give me a second... I'm also eating dinner.
Ok, so, I haven't started reading yet, but it's awesome that the chrysler ad before the article begins, "You may not be the person of the year..." Oops. that was a waste of a couple gazillion dollars.
Who will leave a happy hour early after 3 drinks on a Tuesday to go home and fulfill her obligation to her brand new Blogsupergroup!? Me! I'm a winner! According to Time anyway.
Time? Are you listening? Good. Because that was a total cop-out. As the monstery-guy in 'Avenue Q' explains in song, "The internet is for porn." Also, I've been copyediting at work for 2 days now (I have other work, but this had been higher priority) and caught a typo in the last paragraph. There may be more, but I only caught the one. Can You?
So, I agree that the internet is fucking awesome. I can easily keep in touch with my non-DC friends who I love dearly, and that would be a lot harder if I only had to rely on free long-distance through cell phones. I can share photos and random thoughts and read about other people all over the world. and I email constantly. Also, it makes my job easier. in fact, it provides me with a job, since the project I work on within my company is a Web site (http://www.llis.gov/... you can't see it, you're not a member. And, no, I cannot give you membership, you're not an emergency responder).
Also, I participate in groups like Planned Parenthood, MoveOn, and NARAL-ProChoice, which I don't think would do very well without the internet. So I get emails about 3 times a day in my 'fake' email account asking for money from these groups. I don't mind-- I contribute about once a year. I just read what's gong on the rest of the year. If there's a petition or something, I'll sign that.
Democracy? At least the illusion of democracy, which, after voting for several years in Florida, I’ve learned to appreciate. When I sign an online petition I have full faith (not confidence) that it is delivered to and taken seriously by whatever Congress-person matters for that issue. I do understand, though, that I voted for none of them, because this year my highest profile election participation was DC School Board President. So maybe that’s what the internet provides—a voice for those of us who don’t legally have one (even though we pay the highest taxes in the country, thanks to Congress having full control of our city financials). And it probably works out to more of a voice than I had in Red-State-Florida, home of Jeb Bush, Mark Foley, Katherine Harris and the 2000 “Hanging Chads” election.
Clearly more important than some vague, faith-based concept of ‘democracy,’ though, is the vast capitalist orgy the internet provides. Catch the baby and win a Razor? Catch the baby and give Rupert whats-his-douche 50 more dollars. Shop for jewelry (click here to win free!), for music (get 5 songs for $5!), for entertainment systems (PS3’s on eBay!), for books (people still read?), for vibrators (who needs books?), for bigger penises (be a better man!), for hair implants (be a better man!), for hair removal (be a better woman!), for weight loss (be less of a person!), for anything your little mind could imagine. And, since the terrorists win when America is unable to sell penis pills and overpriced airline tickets, ergo the internet obviously promotes world peace. Ergo.
That and porn. there’s something for everyone. And what’s more democratic than that?
Also, shockingly, they found the pretty missing girl at the end of Without a Trace. And watch My Boys on TBS because it's freaking hilarious.
BLOG SUPERGROUP! Yeah!
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Topic For The Week 1
Welcome to the inaugural week of Blog Supergroup! Basically, each week there will be a new topic, on which each of the five members will write a post. Everybody on this blog has a different writing style, so it should be interesting. For instance, my writing style is "dumb."
So I just got done driving 14 hours to Illinois, and was thinking a good topic for the week would be "Road Trips." It would be funny, or maybe somebody could write an intelligent post about America and cars. But then yesterday Time Magazine picked "you" as person of the year, so I couldn't pass that up. So this week's topic is Time Magazine's person of the year for 2006.
I guess I should explain. Time Magazine (http://www.time.com) picked "you" as person of the year for 2006 because with massive online communities such as myspace (sucks), youtube (sucks unless you want streaming video of shut in playing Halo or cat walking on ceiling [ok, doesn't suck after all]), and the ever present blogosphere (word sucks, I guess blogs are awesome), you have created a worldwide digital democracy. And then they say some newage crap like "welcome to your world" or something. I don't know. I got bored summarizing the article. You can read it by clicking the fancy pants link I put up there.
But do all of these things really add up to some kind of great worldwide "digital democracy" as the article claims? Even though we have the spectre of net neutrality's abolition hanging over us, and even though I can't visit any website without a banner ads telling me to catch the baby and win a razor phone, I sort of think it is some kind of zany, terrible democracy. Here's some reasons why I think that, told in non-serious joke format, because I drove for fourteen hours today and can't think seriously. Though I guess that applies when I haven't driven fourteen hours, also.
1 - 7 million percent of the internet is still porn - Most people in the world, according to a recent survey, like looking at pictures of naked people. Now this is a very vague and general sort of taste that doesn't really demonstrate democracy at its most digitalness, but when you break down the numbers further, you'll find that 6 million percent of the porn is divided into crazy fetish subdivisions. I have never visited a porn site in my life, but reliable sources have told me that on said sites are advertisements for all sorts of zany porn sites, like people who dress up in big Casper the Ghost outfits and have sex with each other, or people who cover themselves in mustard and have sex with each other, or people who talk about having sex with each other while eating ham sandwiches. They never actually have sex, but they're in their underwear, and they take the bread off the sandwiches in the end, so that's like the sandwich is naked. Anyway, if this isn't a sign of democracy in action, I don't know what is.
2 - Equal Representation of All Issues - For instance, the liberals have political blogs that dismantle the actions of the Bush administration and Republican party, and the conservatives have the Ku Klux Klan website or godhatesfags.com or something.
3 - Wikipedia - Ahh, finally! All these stuffy fascist encyclopedias have dedicated so much time to "facts" and "science." Well, that's not what people want, and finally there's an open source encyclopedia that allows the people to pick what's important. And according to length, "Sonic the Hedgehog" is more important than the "Moon Landing." Well, the people have spoken. Also, it's great to read an article on say, "whales," and then come to a line like "Whales appeared in the motion picture Star Trek IV." Fuck that hoity toity academic bullshit! Democracy! Also, "Star Trek" is more important than "Democracy."
Well, three is all I got right now. I'm pretty tired. I'll try to think of more throughout the week, and comment on everybody else's posts, or add some throughout the week. So keep checking back! Jen is posting next, on Tuesday.
BLOG SUPERGROUP, YEAH!
So I just got done driving 14 hours to Illinois, and was thinking a good topic for the week would be "Road Trips." It would be funny, or maybe somebody could write an intelligent post about America and cars. But then yesterday Time Magazine picked "you" as person of the year, so I couldn't pass that up. So this week's topic is Time Magazine's person of the year for 2006.
I guess I should explain. Time Magazine (http://www.time.com) picked "you" as person of the year for 2006 because with massive online communities such as myspace (sucks), youtube (sucks unless you want streaming video of shut in playing Halo or cat walking on ceiling [ok, doesn't suck after all]), and the ever present blogosphere (word sucks, I guess blogs are awesome), you have created a worldwide digital democracy. And then they say some newage crap like "welcome to your world" or something. I don't know. I got bored summarizing the article. You can read it by clicking the fancy pants link I put up there.
But do all of these things really add up to some kind of great worldwide "digital democracy" as the article claims? Even though we have the spectre of net neutrality's abolition hanging over us, and even though I can't visit any website without a banner ads telling me to catch the baby and win a razor phone, I sort of think it is some kind of zany, terrible democracy. Here's some reasons why I think that, told in non-serious joke format, because I drove for fourteen hours today and can't think seriously. Though I guess that applies when I haven't driven fourteen hours, also.
1 - 7 million percent of the internet is still porn - Most people in the world, according to a recent survey, like looking at pictures of naked people. Now this is a very vague and general sort of taste that doesn't really demonstrate democracy at its most digitalness, but when you break down the numbers further, you'll find that 6 million percent of the porn is divided into crazy fetish subdivisions. I have never visited a porn site in my life, but reliable sources have told me that on said sites are advertisements for all sorts of zany porn sites, like people who dress up in big Casper the Ghost outfits and have sex with each other, or people who cover themselves in mustard and have sex with each other, or people who talk about having sex with each other while eating ham sandwiches. They never actually have sex, but they're in their underwear, and they take the bread off the sandwiches in the end, so that's like the sandwich is naked. Anyway, if this isn't a sign of democracy in action, I don't know what is.
2 - Equal Representation of All Issues - For instance, the liberals have political blogs that dismantle the actions of the Bush administration and Republican party, and the conservatives have the Ku Klux Klan website or godhatesfags.com or something.
3 - Wikipedia - Ahh, finally! All these stuffy fascist encyclopedias have dedicated so much time to "facts" and "science." Well, that's not what people want, and finally there's an open source encyclopedia that allows the people to pick what's important. And according to length, "Sonic the Hedgehog" is more important than the "Moon Landing." Well, the people have spoken. Also, it's great to read an article on say, "whales," and then come to a line like "Whales appeared in the motion picture Star Trek IV." Fuck that hoity toity academic bullshit! Democracy! Also, "Star Trek" is more important than "Democracy."
Well, three is all I got right now. I'm pretty tired. I'll try to think of more throughout the week, and comment on everybody else's posts, or add some throughout the week. So keep checking back! Jen is posting next, on Tuesday.
BLOG SUPERGROUP, YEAH!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
