Better Than Obama (or at least snarkier)

Earlier tonight, President Obama gave an address from Afghanistan.


I only watched about half of it and have absolutely nothing to say on that topic.


I only watched about half of it because the first "real" post on Corrected Proofs had just gone up, and it was far, far more entertaining so I read that instead. I am a terrible American. Truly I am.


Corrected Proofs is a project two of my friends and I have started, and...well, I'll just let you read the About page over there. My first post is scheduled for tomorrow, but the one that's up now is genuinely hilarious--and that's an honest recommendation (not just shameless promotion of my friend/blog).


Go watch us be bitter and bask in our own cleverness.


Oh, and you know, talk about what makes high quality literature and the fact that a lot of books completely fail at achieving that standing. Something like that.

Just the Crazy Ones

"Political statuses and pictures rarely change someone's mind: often, all they accomplish is hurt. Amendment One is an important issue, but voting for it doesn't make you less intelligent, and voting against it doesn't make you less Christian. Don't get me wrong: it's fine to have an opinion. But there are ways to state it that don't harm others. 'Reckless words pierce like a sword.'" - my friend Sam's Facebook status

I follow a page on Facebook called "Being Liberal." They sometimes post political cartoons that make me laugh.

They also do a lot of Republican-bashing. This bothers me. Sure, some conservatives are self-righteous, hypocritical, and annoying. But so are some liberals. It's one thing to point out "Look, what you're saying here doesn't really match up with what you're saying over here," but it's quite another to openly disparage an entire political party just because some of its members are being dumb.

There's a lot of talk about making people be more tolerant and accepting of beliefs and lifestyle choices different from their own. Well...it works both ways, people.

I mean, with things like racism, too bad. Racial political and social equality is a thing that does and should exist. Segregation = not okay. End of story. But some beliefs are just based on what they believe the role of government should be in society, and that's a matter of opinion. I can think you're wrong. I can be infuriated by your opinion. I can think you're absolutely freaking insane. But that doesn't give me the right to be rude to you.

Let's take the insurance-covering-birth-control debate as an example. The people who want to limit access to it truly believe that using it is wrong. They aren't out on a vendetta against women. They're trying to make sure people do what they believe are good things. So even if I think they're dead wrong, and that even if they were right it isn't the government's place to be regulating something like that, I still need to understand that and treat them with the proper amount of respect.

"100 Things You Can Say To Irritate a Republican" is not terribly funny. "Math even conservatives can understand" is just offensive.

And okay, sometimes I do laugh at this type of joke. But as someone in my book club said, "We don't mean all conservative Christians. Just the crazy ones." Yeah...still feels wrong to me.

With A Blank Slate

"A being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy, is capable probably of more acute suffering...than one of an inferior type; but in spite of these liabilities, he can never really wish to sink into what he feels to be a lower grade of existence." - John Stuart Mill


"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a food satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their side of the question." - Also John Stuart Mill


I've gotten to the point in Justice--which arrives about halfway through nearly every nonfiction book I read-- at which I stop reading and begin skimming. Kant's thoughts, as described by the author, are...dense.


However, one of the sections that I did read thoroughly was the one about how to make fair laws.


John Rawls (who inhabits the chapter after Kant) discards utilitarianism and libertarianism and suggests that if people were able to forget everything about themselves--economic status, gender, religion, etc.-- for a few hours, we'd be able to make laws that really were fair for everyone--or at least fair enough that we wouldn't mind being on the losing end.


You want to have social programs just in case you wind up as one of the poor people. You want religious freedom in case you're one of the minorities. You want tolerance in case you're one of the ones not being tolerated. Self-interest doesn't involve bias anymore, because we don't know which possible self we're supposed to be interested in.


And I like that. (Psst. Congress! Come listen to Rawls!)

While It's Fun to Hate On Each Other...

“When did we see each other face-to-face? Not until you saw into my cracks and I saw into yours. Before that, we were just looking at ideas of each other, like looking at your window shade but never seeing inside. But once the vessel cracks, the light can get in. The light can get out.” - Paper Towns


Question: What exactly is the point of having a debt ceiling in the first place if Congress can raise it whenever they want?


My dad and I were sitting on the balcony of our beach house this morning discussing, as I put it "Life, the Universe, and Everything." Of course, this included the current political situation.


My dad said that if there was a Republican candidate that represented his views, he would have no problem voting for him or her--and I agree. We don't identify ourselves as Democrats because we value being Democrats. We identify ourselves as Democrats because the party's platform is better aligned with our values and views than the Republican one.


This led my dad into a bit of a rant against religious people, which I cut off because using the term "religious people" is a gross over-generalization that makes me uncomfortable. He amended his rant to regard "religiously conservative people who don't think."


His mom, for instance, is my go-to person for proof that religion itself is not at all bad. She's one of the nicest, most all-loving people I know, and she sticks to her values like you wouldn't believe (in the event of a zombie apocalypse she would refuse to kill the zombies on principle-- yes, I asked). 


She takes her spirituality very seriously, but that doesn't mean she accepts everything blindly. She knows exactly what she thinks and where she disagrees with the doctrines, and most importantly, she knows why she thinks it.


If everyone thought about their beliefs, why they believe them; about their values, and why those things are important to them, then we wouldn't have to deal with all of this...stuff. Democrats and Republicans would still fight, of course-- we have differing values, after all--but compromise would be easier to reach.


Debt is one thing. Deficits happen, and they add up. But an uncontrolled debt is quite another, and dealing with that in an effective way should be our primary value-- not whether or not we're giving in to the opposing party.

On the other hand, we could just build a death star. The original's PR department has some good arguments. Plus, their version of the American flag is cooler.

I DO believe in wishes! I DO! I DO!

"Who but the mad would choose to keep on living?" - Libba Bray, Going Bovine


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFnul4k5hUM


Last night, after watching several episodes of Important Things With Demetri Martin with my dad, I ended up checking Twitter and found the great news about NY. (I'm actually going to be in NY next week, which means I'll get to listen to half of my relatives-who-care be glad and the other half rant about how it's the downfall of American values or whatever.)


Smiling, I said to myself "This is why today is awesome" and turned to reach for my journal so that I could write it down. I keep the journal in the drawer directly beneath my clock, so I happened to see the time:


11:11.


Laughing quietly to myself (which coincidentally is a Demetri Martin joke) at the coincidence, I made a wish: Let this happen in the rest of the 50 states as soon as possible, as well as the rest of the world. (Except in my haste to wish before the minute changed, I didn't phrase it nearly that well.)


Now while I don't really believe in wishing in the magical sense (yet I do it anyway), I do believe that if enough people want the same thing and that thing obeys the laws of time and space and physics and so on, they're going to make it happen.


I'm posting this with 11 minutes to spare (EST, that is). Wish with me?

My Shelves; Not THE Shelves

If your Internet House is situated anywhere near the sphere YA literature occupies on Twitter, you have probably seen this article published on the Wall Street Journal's website regarding the overwhelming darkness and depravity of the books written for today's teenagers.


Here are one, two, and three other blog posts written in response to it, all of which I recommend that you read. (If you can't be bothered to read all of them, go in the order that I've listed them.) The first is by Linda Holmes from NPR, and she links to the other two.


Maureen Johnson lead a Twitter-based campaign to object to the article, asking her followers to tweet with the hash tag #YAsaves what positive effects YA books have had on them. There were over 50,000 responses.


Yes, there are many dark YA books. Some of them I love to pieces. Others I have chosen to avoid. There are books that I have regretted reading. Some of these I re-read when I was older and loved (Looking For Alaska, and I expect Catcher In The Rye will be the same), and some of them I have simply tried to forget about.


Yes, there is some risk to picking up a book. I don't know which of those categories it will fall under (although I'm pretty good at guessing by now). Most protestors are saying "No! YA is amazing and I love it!" While I do think YA is amazing stuff (in general), and I do love it, I'm not going to pretend that there isn't anything "bad" about it.


But do I think that the books I read before I was ready, or even now wouldn't want to read, should be banned? No no no no no no no. Do I think that those books shouldn't even exist? No.


Just because a book isn't for me doesn't mean that it isn't for anyone. I Am J by Chris Beam, for instance, bothered me greatly when I read it a month or two ago. However, that didn't prevent me from recognizing the fact that others have, do, and will enjoy it. I don't want it off the shelves. I just want it off my shelves. And that's my personal choice.


The writer of the article says that banning books is just "guidance." It's what in parenting is called "taste." No. Guidance is saying "This is what I would recommend to you, and I would rather that you not read that." Banning is "Not only do I not want you to read this, but I'm not going to let you read it, and I'm not going to let anyone else read it, either." There is a huge difference.


In the same line as my last post, some teenagers need those books. Some teenagers are ready for some kinds of books at a given age, and others aren't. It depends on the person knowing what he or she is comfortable with. And yes, sometimes mistakes are made. 


Am I eternally scarred by my mistakes? No. Is my future, personality, and mental health totally screwed up because of them? No.


There is a big difference between a bad book and a book that I or anyone else does not want to read. Let people decide for themselves which books to read, and if you don't think your teenager is mature enough to do that for themselves, 1. You're probably wrong, and 2. Work with him or her, rather than for him or her. Because there is also a difference between what parents want their kids reading, and what they're ready to read.

Enough

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must...undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - Thomas Paine


A family friend is loaning me a book entitled Enough: Why The World's Poorest Starve In An Age Of Plenty written by two Wall Street Journal(ists). When she gave me the book, said friend told me I would probably have to read it in stages, because it's just that depressing up until a bit more than halfway through when they start talking about current initiatives.


I haven't even made it to page one yet (there's a preface), and I'm already angry at the world. 


In the 70s and 80s, the Green Revolution did a lot of good for hunger in Asia, India, and Latin America. Things looked good in Ethiopia, too. Farmers brought in their biggest harvests in a long time. However, that didn't go so well for them when they took the crops to market; the huge surpluses caused an enormous drop in prices, so they didn't make much (if any) money. It might have been possible to pull themselves out of it next year, but the weather was horrible.


There's a specific man whose story is told in the preface. He sold his oxen (which pulled his plow), and then his cows, and then his goats, all to be able to buy food for his family. They ran out, and didn't have any crops to sell. That year, the man carried his five year-old son, who weighed only 25 pounds, to a humanitarian/starvation aid camp instead of carting his crops to the market. Basically, the problem was that money went into boosting the farmers, rather than into building an infrastructure that could sustain more prosperity. 14 million Ethiopians alone died from starvation in 2003.


And then there's some stupid rule that says if some of the African governments subsidize their farmers like we do in America, the U.S. and some European governments will stop loaning them money. And humanitarian aid has become an entire industry over here, so it becomes more about the people giving the money than the people getting the money. $500 million in American-grown grain was given to Ethiopians who needed it in 2003, but only $5 million went towards building aforementioned needed infrastructure.


There really is enough money in the world to feed everybody. I'm not exactly sure where all of that money is going (again, I've only read the preface so far), but I highly doubt all of it is needed wherever it currently is.


It's ridiculously inefficient to feed food (cows, for instance, eat insane amounts of corn), so even just cutting back on meat in general would free up a ton of resources, both food-wise and land-wise.


Yes, loads of projects are worthy endeavors, but...isn't starvation a more important thing to focus on? One of the "lesser" initiatives mentioned in the book is the space program. And as much as I really hate to admit it...space isn't going anywhere (well, technically space itself is expanding-- not just the matter within it). We literally have the rest of the lifetime of the human race in which to explore it.


So now I'm mad. Partially because it seems like a fixable problem, partially because I don't know how easy that would actually be, partially because people (including me) are rather ignorant about the matter, and partially because I have very little idea as to how to help at this point. 


Off to FreeRice, then.

In Which I Fight Left-Handed

The Civil Rights movement didn't solve anything-- it only hid the problem away from the public eye. The Cold War rages on-- it's just now waged through the corporate proxy known as Nabisco. What is the name of this vile villain of intolerance and the destruction of the free market? My friends, he is known as the Oreo.


The existence of the Oreo is morally wrong, since it encourages segregation (the different colors are separate). Eating Oreos, on the other hand, is morally advisable, since it desegregates the cookie. Yet buying them for the purpose of eating them is bad, because it increases demand and therefore production, ergo encouraging the immoral existence.


But what if the Oreo is swallowed whole? That would be bad for three reasons. 1. It would cause an unnecessary burden on the digestive tract of the person eating it. 2. It's a deliberate preservation of the segregation and 3. The person could choke and die.


If someone deliberately swallowed it whole to make a socio-political statement, which is more despicable: the suicide, or the statement? Suicide via unchewed Oreo is worse than the unchewedness itself, because if you're dead, you're intentionally ridding yourself of your potential to desegregate any and all future Oreos. Which is morally wrong.


It would be better, then, to confine yourself to chocolate chip cookies. The addition of chocolate chips creates diversity within the cookie, and you can even melt the chocolate beforehand to distribute it evenly. Furthermore, each baker can choose to make chocolate chip cookies in whichever way he or she wants, whereas with the Oreo, it is a corporate-mandated recipe from which there can be no deviation. Every Oreo is stuffed equal. (It's just that some *cough* Double Stuffed *cough* are more equal than others.)


In conclusion: the Oreo is evil, racist, and communist, and furthermore, it should be removed from the American home as quickly as possible.

The "Don't Say Gay" Bill

I haven't written a rant about an article in awhile, have I? Fortunately for all of you, this one is pretty short.


In case you didn't go to read it, the title should be enough: "Tennessee Senate Panel Approves School Gay Ban Bill," also known as the "Don't Say Gay" bill.
It basically prevents any discussion of any sexuality other than heterosexuality from taking place in Tennessee classrooms in which the students are 8th grade or younger. It doesn't matter whether it's in the context of sex-ed or not, and apparently not even the kids are allowed to talk about it on their own.


The bill makes me angry, of course, as does some of the phrasing in the article itself (teachers can't teach anything that's not in the Board of Education's "family life curriculum."), but when I think about it...
We never discussed non-heterosexuality in class up until high school. I don't think there's any laws preventing it, but it didn't happen. And even in high school, it wasn't in health class. It was always in English, either in the context of a speech on a controversial topic or that of current events, when there was the series of suicides last year.
Then again, heterosexuality was never really discussed in health class either. It was all "yay abstinence! Oh, and there's this thing called birth control, but we don't need to tell you much about that, since you should all BE ABSTINENT!!!!"


The article itself is pretty impartial, which is a relief. However, I have to disagree when the head of the office who created the bill claims that it's "neutral. We should leave it to families to decide when it is appropriate to talk with children about sexuality – specifically before the eighth grade."


Then they should ban all discussion of sexuality in school before the eighth grade if they really want to be neutral.


Here's how my schools did it: 5th grade was "There's this thing called puberty. Here is what happens during it. Here are some diagrams." Not much sexuality there, really. It was all focused on understanding what is/was about to be happening to the individual students-- not how it relates to others.
For middle school, see my summary of abstinence-oriented education above, which is also basically "sexuality is bad," which in my opinion isn't the best message to be giving.


My schools' policies on the matter are flawed, yes, but that bill is even more so. Sex-ed (or any other type of discussion regarding sexuality) shouldn't be a matter of heterosexuality vs. other. It should be a matter of sexuality in general. More like "Hey kids, you're sexual beings. It's a very complicated issue, but here are some healthy, safe, and respectful ways to handle it."


I don't care whether a kid is gay or straight or anywhere in-between: sexuality is difficult enough to cope with regardless of the kind, and each and every student needs to be able to have the information, acceptance, and emotional support that he or she deserves (and each student deserves an equal amount.)


I'm not saying "hey, being straight is tough too so stop focusing on everyone else so much." I'm saying "sexuality of any/every kind is something that needs to be given its due in school (or at the very least the opportunity to be discussed, even if it isn't a mandatory part of the curriculum), because the point of school is to educate kids in a safe, supportive environment."

Trends in Political Party

Today (or rather yesterday, since I'm going to queue this up to post tomorrow) in Civics I was sitting at my desk working on some stuff for chemistry (yes, I see the discontinuity. It's true.) and these two people who sit near me (one of whom I have known for nearly five years and the other I've just known of) were mock-arguing and saying they were going to have a fight and such.
So the girl (the one I've known of) says "Olivia'd back me up, right?" and the guy says "No. I've known her for ages. She wouldn't fight. Right, Olivia?"
And I smiled and said "Mhm."
And the girl said "Why not?"
And the guy said "Because she's a pacifist." (at which point some conversation of which I don't remember the exact words happened with someone else who basically also said she wouldn't fight)
And then they guy said "It's because you're both Democrats."
And I smiled again and said "Yep."
And he, being the Republican that he is, laughed.


(I also wanted to say "Just remember that I've been grading your papers for five years. I might not want to fight you, but I'm boss at non-violent protest." Except I didn't.)


Which of course made me think "there is a blog post in this."


Now most of my friends have very liberal political views, and most of my friends are generally pacifists, but is there such a strong connection to really say that Democrat = Pacifist? (and Democrat and liberal aren't even always the same, since Democrat is a party and liberal is a perspective.) I don't actually know.


The joke, of course, is that "liberal" is synonymous with "awesome." But while that's fun to say with your liberal friends, we all know there are plenty of exceptions on both ends (and if you're a non-liberal, the people that fit this rule ARE the exceptions- ha).


So I guess what I'm wondering if how much of the correlations we joke about are actually true. Like my best friend once observed "People who are Team Edward tend to be Republicans, and people who are Team Jacob tend to be Democrats." (guess where she falls when she bothers to care either way.)


What does being a Democrat or having liberal views actually mean? I can give you an issue and you can tell me what the people of each side tend to think about that issue.


But how much of all the other similarities is coincidence, and how much actually comes with the description?
Like how most nerdfighters are Harry Potter fans. It's not required to like Harry Potter. It's just that the vast, vast majority of us do.


So, More-Politically-Knowledgeable-Than-I-Am Readers Of Mine, discuss.

In Which I Administer Some Medicine

Dear Joss Whedon,


I love you.


Sincerely,


Elf Army


There's my emotion-driven Random Thought. Now on to the actual post.


When I walk over to my grandma's after school, I usually get her mail for her. Today that mail contained a newsletter thingy from the church I technically belong to (notice the technically-- if you've been around here long enough, you know what that means, and if you haven't, you're probably smart enough to figure it out). 
The back of this newsletter read something like "This Sunday, Dr. (Name) will be coming with his presentation Understanding Islam: What Makes Muslims Tick." Dr. Name has apparently published a couple books detailing the best ways to "administer Christ to Muslims."


There are a number of things I find wrong with that, and I find them to be very, very wrong. Seriously, the more I think about it, the angrier I get.


So this guy's job, basically, is to show the church members exactly why Muslims are evil/bad/wrong? Nice. Very nice.


Thing That Is Wrong Number One: Inter-faith education should be about similarities in theology, not differences. Teaching the differences only increases prejudice and ill-feeling, while most religions have way more in common than their followers tend to believe, and this misconception only fuels the emphasis on differences.


Thing That Is Wrong Number Two: "What makes Muslims tick" ? Really? Last I checked, any given Muslim is first and foremost a human being. I highly doubt what makes them tick is terribly different from what makes any other person tick. Implying that there's some Secret Muslim Motivator once again only fosters suspicion and prejudice. Also, it's rude.


Thing That Is Wrong Number Three: "administer Christ to Muslims"? That...that makes it sound like a disease. Angerangerangeranger. This is not helping anything.


Thing That Is Wrong Number Four: I'm generally against religious evangelism (I won't tell you your theology is objectively wrong-- only that I disagree, and that your intolerance most certainly is wrong), so the idea of writing entire books on tactics seriously rubs me the wrong way.


I'm sure there are other things to be added to the list, but those are the ones sticking out to me right now. Like my dad said regarding rock4ever95's post that I linked to, there are many much-more serious problems to be dealing with in the world than intolerance. If people would get over their differences, we could focus on the more pressing issues. Plus, intolerance is something that needs to be addressed in and of itself. Intolerance, not Islam, is the disease that needs curing. (And blogging is an actual helpful tool by which to do that, Teacher Of Mine Who Thinks Blogging Is Useless, thank you.)


(Also: feedback on the interview? Were the questions good? Do you want to see more interviews on here in the future? I seriously wasn't just fishing for views, despite what I may joke about. I may stalk my stats page obsessively, but I'm like Alan in that I only post/sell what I myself would want to read/buy. Or at least that's what I try to do.)


Random Personal Tidbit For Those Of You Who Are Remotely Interested: our band is headed off to Festival tomorrow, and one of our pieces is the final movement of a Lord of the Rings symphony, entitled "Hobbits." Party to follow. Should be fun.

Rant Under Guise of Fiction

Today in Civics my teacher was still out sick, so we watched a movie about how horrible Walmart is for America. This after watching one that may as well have been called How Bush Screwed Up The Country yesterday (ha-- this one particularly vocal Republican guy in my class was not happy).
One woman in the video said "I may as well have my social security check mailed directly to Walmart, since I buy everything there anyway." This bothered me significantly more than it should have, and I was bored, so I wrote a rant poorly-disguised as a dystopian monologue. I don't share much of my fiction on here-- despite talking about it constantly-- so I figured I'd let you read it.

"Rant Under Guise of Fiction"


By Me (or possibly indirectly by rock4ever95- you'll have to ask him if he's perfected his Jedi mind tricks yet.)


Someone once told me that people used to pay taxes to the government.
You'd have to file them and report them, and if you didn't, they could lock you up.
I don't know if I believe that, though. I mean, what would be the point? And how would they enforce it? It's not like anyone actually listens to the politicians anymore. It's the Center that makes all of the decisions; it's the Center that gets all of our money.
You'd think that some corrupt higher-ups decided one day, "Hey, let's take over the world and plunge everyone else into poverty so that if they leave us, they die." No one would want to put their very lives into the banks of one huge company that was faceless but for that grinning yellow mask, right?
Except they did.
One day, some brilliant citizen said "Hey, why don't we send our paychecks directly to the Center, since we buy everything there anyway?"
Yeah, that sounds like a fantastic idea.
But people lapped it up. "Wow," they said, "That's a great idea! We don't want to be responsible for our own money anymore!"
Petitions were signed. Meetings were held behind closed doors. Pep rallies were held behind open doors.
There was singing.
There was chanting.
There were T-shirts.
All in the name of efficiency and simplicity, the American worker ceased to have a say in his own finances-- as long as he was forced to do what he would have done anyway, what was the problem?
The Center got paid for the work I did, and I and everyone else were rewarded with various forms of free mass-produced plastic-- in the color of our choice!
So maybe I do believe we used to pay taxes to the government, but only because there's no way that people this stupid could have made it this far without someone else to spend their money for them.


And the sad thing is, there really were pep rallies and singing and chanting and T-shirts in the video. About Walmart. I wish I could take credit for that part, since I think it's particularly funny, but I'm not making it up.

The Feminism Post

"Mystery makes the heart go bonkers." - Craig Benzine, aka Wheezy Waiter (This quote, while seemingly only humorous, is actually supported by several studies.)

In my last post, I linked to something Aly wrote about feminism, but stated that I didn't have anything to add. Kenny expressed disappointment that the post was about something else, and I replied saying that I should have said I didn't have anything to add at the present time.

Well, now I do.

I was behind on watching YouTube videos, so this afternoon I've been catching up on them. Most of these videos were TED talks.

Now, the majority of the videos I watch have a viewership that is on the whole intelligent, conscientious, and positive. When it comes to TED videos, however, I am literally scared to comment because I know the Giant Squids of Anger will descend and attempt to pick me to pieces, and I just don't feel like dealing with that. It is those sorts of comments I will be dealing with in this post.

The video I was watching before I stopped to write this was "Jacqueline Novogratz: Inspiring a life of immersion," which is about immersing yourself in a cause (such as global poverty) and working great positive change. 

Here are the top voted comments:

"Every woman that talks at TED keeps talking about "Women this, women that".  Inequality was truly real 20-30 years ago. It's been diminishing and it will be gone within the next 10 years as the generations change."

"men and women are not equal. we never will be. that's how nature works. "

And those are actually very tame, considering they're at the top. Just check the comments of any other TED video with a female speaker.

Here are some from the "most recent" list: 

"I'm so cool, bla bla women bla bla women bla bla"

"Notre Dame, the Great Wall, the Forbidden City, the Statue of Liberty, Big Ben, Taj Mahal

Law, Equality, Freedom

Napoleon, Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne

Men have done more than woman did, as napoleon puts it:

Women are nothing but machines for producing children."

So women should shut up and stop complaining because we're equal to men now, but we're also inherently inferior. That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Also, the last line of the final quote translates pretty well to "women are objects for me to have sex with." Yes, feminism is definitely out-dated in 21st Century America, much less in the rest of the world.


Aly's post dealt mainly with eliminating stereotypes surrounding women. This is more about social vs. political equality.


On paper, American (because I'm unfamiliar with other countries--sorry foreign people. Please leave a comment and tell me about your country) women are pretty much equal to men. We have full legal and economic rights. Everything's good. 


But social equality is an entirely different story. One needs only read the comments of a TEDWoman video to see that there is plenty of prejudice against both any woman and any woman who chooses to point out these inequalities. As I said: I don't leave comments on those videos anymore.


The women changed the political rules, but it's falls more (read: "not entirely, but more than political rules") to men like these to change the social issues. It's their attitudes that are the problem, and if they shoot down any woman who tries to reason with them, it's rather difficult for us to make any progress.


"You play like a girl," is still a common insult, isn't it? I recommend that you watch this video, although I think I've already posted it on here.


The majority of men, of course, would never write the kinds of comments I've shared with you. This post isn't about how men are evil. This post is about how there's still room for growth.


Also: of course they're going to talk about women at a conference specifically for women.

Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage

Thoughts on Life is divided into three sections: Poetry, Short Stories, and Non-Fiction.
In the third section (although it's not listed in the Table of Contents for some reason), there is a speech that I wrote last year for my English class. I would like to share it with you.


For more really good articles on the subject, check out here and here.

Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage: Which is the Better Option?

     “Good morning, Hank. It’s Sunday, June 28, 2009, and I’m angry!” That is how Printz Award winning author of young adult literature and prominent video blogger John Green began his video entitled “Gay is Not an Insult." He then went on to explain that in order to insult someone, you must “paint them with character traits or identities that are bad," and therefore “gay” is not an insult because being gay is not a bad thing, and neither are the two other popular YouTube insults of "nerd" and "virgin" (“Gay”). However, some people disagree with this statement, saying that homosexuality is indeed bad, and that such people can't stay commited to a relationship. They believe the institution of marriage should be reserved for straight couples only, and therefore have created a "separate but equal" institution known as a civil union as a perfectly acceptable alternative for them to be joined in. This commonly held belief is incorrect, as civil unions are not equal to marriage, and gays deserve the right to marriage even if civil unions did give the same benefits.

     The point of whether or not homosexuality is a sin, when it comes to the issue of gay marriage versus civil unions, is completely moot. Even convicted felons are not denied the right of marriage, so the moral status of it has nothing to do with the legal matters of allowing it.

     Some people insist that gay couples can’t uphold the same standards of commitment and legitimacy to the marriage that straight couples can, and use that as an excuse to deny them their right to marriage. This mantra, in addition to being a falsehood, has no grounds in relevancy. These individuals do not take into account the statistically higher rates of illegitimacy present in certain racial populations: marriage is not denied to them either (Sullivan). In fact, lesbian couples have one of the highest commitment rates (Gannon) because of the naturally higher and stable levels of the hormone oxytocin in the brain. Oxytocin promotes emotional love and strengthens such bonds between people, while also creating the desire to “nest” and settle down. Men, on the other hand, have very low and tempermental levels of this hormone compared to women and therefore are more likely to break the commitment of marriage (Grundy). This fact, degrading to the cause for equality as it is, is tossed out the window when it is considered that due to their long, draining, and dedicated fight to gain the right of marriage, when the sun dawns on a new day in the history of gay rights, those couples will treat their new option with a respect and seriousness far greater than that given to it by their straight counterparts who take it for granted.

     Now let us explore exactly why civil unions are not an acceptable alternative to marriage. According to Yale Law School, there are 1138 federal protections granted to married couples, but not to spouses joined in a civil union. In addition, employers are not required to give benefits such as insurance to such people, whereas married spouses automatically receive them (Ayres). This shunts unmarried couples joined in a civil union into an unfair and disadvantaged situation. They can legally be kept out of hospital rooms while their spouse is on his or her deathbed, and suffer many other kinds of pain due to this lack of protection. Public officials, such as judges, have the right to refuse to officiate a civil union between people of the same gender, while they are required to marry heterosexual couples if asked (Ayres). This is a gross injustice, as now not only has equality been removed from the marital system, but so has security. There is no garuntee any given official will consent to facilitate, since his personal views may interfere with his decision. Should gay judges be allowed to deny marriage to straight couples because of their views? Furthermore, lesbian and gay couples can only choose to be in a civil union, or settle for nothing at all, while straight couples can choose either (Lambda). This restraint on options begs for discrimination by implying inferiority where none exists.

     Our country’s Declaration of Independence declares that “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, [and] that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (U.S. Declaration of Ind.). Being martially joined with the person you love certainly falls under “the pursuit of happiness”, as well as liberty. By creating an alternative to anything for a minority (in this case, gays and lesbians), the government violates this constitutional promise of equality.

     Other than strictly legal matters, there are social effects from being in a civil union that are rather undesirable. “Without the word ‘marriage’, other people ‘have to wonder what kind of a relationship it is, or how to refer to it, or how much to respect it’…Those couples lose the respect and dignity they deserve for their commitment to be responsible for each other” (Lambda). Respect is a commodity in the world, and it is one many people fail to give to those who deserve it. Why should gays lose what little they do receive over a meaningless squabble of terminology and religious versus legal definitions?

     Some may say that marriage isn’t at all important, so why bother fighting for equality within it? The answer is simple, and Lambda Legal puts it very nicely: “if access to marriage weren’t a big deal, there would be no effort to restrict it in the first place” (Lambda). Regardless of whether or not homosexuality is “sinful,” people falling under that banner are humans just like the rest of us and deserve equal rights, as promised by our country, ironically known as a “land of equal opportunity”.

     All of you may be thinking something to the tune of "I'm straight: this doesn't affect me. Why should I bother to help?" The same thought once traveled the synapses of my brain. It was then that I realized that that was exactly the sort of thing going through the Germans' brains as they watched Jews march past them to their deaths. It was then that I took my stand. It is estimated that around 10% of the global population is at some level (conscious or unconscious) of homo- or bisexuality, and 1% have some sort of intersex condition (Green “Sex”). This means that the outcome of this battle could have a significant impact on as many as three people in this room right now. Even if you're not one of those potential three, how would you like it if you weren't allowed to religiously or legally be joined to the person you loved? This isn't a personal matter; it's a matter of principle. If we compromise our belief in equality in just one instance, what's to stop us from doing it again and again?

     In conclusion, gays deserve the same rights as straights based on the equality supposedly ensured by U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. All arguments against this are proven worthless by either other groups sharing similar traits yet receiving the same rights as everyone else or by the separation of church and state. Civil unions do not provide a suitable alternative for marriage, due to both legal inequalities and social disadvantages. One day, homosexuality and gay marriage will be taken in stride just like a person’s possession of dyed hair or tattoos—that is, it will be recognized as not the majority, but perfectly normal. Until this day comes, I will continue fight alongside John and Hank Green and the Harry Potter Alliance, as I have been actively doing for the past few months, in favor of marriage for all. After learning about these disgusting acts of discrimination, I hope you will too. In the words of John Green, "Ultimately, gay will never work as an insult because gay is not bad. So you want to call me a gay nerd virgin? That's fine."

Works Cited

Ayres, Ian. “Separate, Unequal: How Civil Unions Fall Short of Marriage”. 2005. 17 Nov. 2009

Gannon, Heather Ann. “Same-Sex Marriage Should Be Allowed.” 2008. 28 Nov. 2009 .

“GAY is NOT an INSULT” (video recording). 29 June 2009. Indianapolis, IN. John Green. 28 Nov. 2009 .

Grundy, Benjamin. “Episode 209—Mysterious Universe.” Mysterious Universe. 31 Oct. 2009. 8 Nov. 2009 .

Lambda Legal. “Civil Unions are not Enough”. 18 Nov. 2009 .

“Sex, Sports, and Caster Semenya” (video recording). 13 Sept. 2009. Indianapolis, IN. John Green. 19 Nov. 2009 .

Sullivan, Andrew. “Marriage or Bust: Civil Unions are not Enough.” 15 Oct. 2008. 18 Nov. 2009 .

Libraries Recommending "Inappropriate" Books

"The ultimate aim of the ego is not to see something, but to be something." - 
Muhammed Iqbal

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.safelibraries.org/pushers.htm


I was wandering around the nerdfighter forums today and found the above article. It's quite long, though, so I don't expect you to go read it.


I wrote an entire post about that article, and then found something on a different blog that summed up my thoughts very well: http://asifnews.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-to-do-about-sexually-explicit.html

I would like to add to that, however, that in the case of some mature teens, the teens in question should make the decisions for themselves-- even if their parents disagree.


Then again, I'm both biased and generally only exposed to teens who are definitely mature enough to know what they do and do not want to read.


Sometimes it's hard to put forth impartial commentary from such a non-average position, and for that I am sorry. I am who I am, and I'm friends with my friends. 

Pro-lifers Re-defining Rape

"The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell


Take that, Giant Squids of Anger lurking in the comments of YouTube videos everywhere.


http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion


Well. That sounds like a problem, doesn't it? 
That should sound like a problem even for pro-life people. This isn't about abortion anymore. It's about what's defined as rape.

Re-Segregation in Schools

"Wherever you are - be all there." - Jim Elliot


"Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested." - Francis Bacon, 1625 


Children, I want you all to put on your clean dresses and freshly-pressed suits, because we're going to have a very important visitor arriving here on this blog rather soon. I will be going away for a little bit so that I won't be cluttering up the house while she is here. I want you all to be on your very best behavior. If you do as I ask, I will bake you a special treat.


Who is this visitor, you ask? She is an agent who has expressed interest in The Clockwork Experiment. I may or may not actually stop posting (most likely not-- I could never leave you dear ones for very long, could I? I mean, take a look at the archives on the right). However, the special treat is not a lie, unlike the cake. (Portal reference, anyone?) At least, it's solid truth for those of you in my writing group-- assuming I remember to bake it, that is.


Now, I could write a post in all capital letters about how exciting that is (and believe me, it's easily exciting enough to write one in THE LARGEST FONT SIZE), but I have more interesting things to be discussing, so let us move on to those.


Wow, this is coming out really formal other than the parenthesized parts, isn't it? I'll have to make up for it some other time.


As some of you may or may not know, my county's school system was mocked on the Colbert Report last night.  
I was not offended.
On the contrary, I was thoroughly amused, in a "Oh God, that's so true. Our school board sucks" kind of way.
As a friend of mine posted on Facebook, "When your county is the on the Colbert Report, you feel a mixture of pride and deep, deep shame."


It's heart-breaking to know that the school board is essentially re-segregating our schools with full knowledge of their actions. Worse yet is to see the parents, teachers, students, and even non-parent people who care pleading with them to keep the current policies at the open hearings. 
They claim that they're doing it to make it easier on parents-- so they don't have to drive their kids as far in the mornings-- and so that certain students won't have to sit on the bus for close to an hour twice a day.
However, many students with long transportation times clearly stated that they didn't mind. They understood the importance of socio-economic (and for the most part, therefore racial) diversity, and they were willing to give up a few hours of sleep each week in favor of that.


Let's see... "democracy." Literal definition: ruled by the people.
We elect those we wish to make the decisions for us, because we believe them to represent our values. They're supposed to do what we want, even if it's only so we'll elect them for another term.
I don't see the school board representing our values. I'm sure there are those who agree with them, but where are they? Not at that hearing. If they aren't making themselves heard, why should the school board do what they might want?


Hey...wasn't there that thing back when hippies were around called the Civil Rights Something-or-other? What was that thing about, again? I don't seem to recall.