Glenn Beck has pushed my FUCK YOU Button

It's been a too long while since my last post. So many ideas have fluttered past me. But something tonight has gone too far.



Glenn Beck, please don't blame the disorganized band of free thinking atheists for the fact stupid teachers make kids sing stupid songs about Barack Obama. The idiotic idolatry of any mortal man is not the fault of disbelief in God.



Hell, I think sometimes self-proclaimed atheists do substitute tangible icons and people for a notion of God, but just because some worship Obama doesn't mean it is the fault of atheism. Rather, it is the fault of the underlying human psychological need for faith and belief in something greater than themselves. That's right, the mental desire to love Obama or bow down to Jesus are one and the same.

And, come on, there are many religious people who are also absolutely in love with the man. So, please stop blaming atheists for weak minded folks who need a shepherd to follow. In my mind, idolizing Obama, God, Vishnu, celebrities, sports players, scientists, family or trees, is all the same. It does no good, it does no harm.

And PLEASE stop saying that disapproving of mounting the 10 commandments in a court ='s thinking they are invalid ideas. If you think that it's very godless, I'll get the eight-fold path and the Islamic Prohibitions and put 'em up too. I just don't think there's room for any of them. We don't need the 10 fucking commandments, or prohibitions, or the sayings of 8-armed goddesses when we have FUCKING LAWS. LAWS, GODDAMNIT.

That's all. I think.

Simout.

Pissing Follow Up

I realized that I really want to say something about bathrooms being divided by gender. Ok. Here goes. An anecdote from my girlfriend, paraphrased, recounts of a visit to the Eiffel Tower wherein she had to piss real bad and there was a long line for the women's room. Yet the men's room was open.

It would be far more efficient just to let everyone into every bathroom. I personally don't feel any more comfortable pissing in front of men than I do in front of women.

People are just uncomfortable with the notion of shared bathrooms. Because people are retarded. Whether you question gender duality or hold very strongly to it, it shouldn't matter. I say there's nothing to lose by making bathrooms open for everyone.

We should grow up, get over the fact everyone has to pee, be sexually mature enough to see that there's nothing taboo is peeing in the same room as some one with the opposite gender, and just open up all bathrooms to everyone.

And that way, we avoid the little idea of special rights for transgendered people, because not only some guys can use the girls room, all guys can. In fact, everybody in Massachusetts (and any other state that allows choice bathroom use based on gender identity) should use the opposite restroom until no one gives a shit where you piss. Freedom for everyone!

Simout.

I Piss, You Piss, We All Piss

"BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts lawmakers are weighing a bill that would end discrimination based on transgender status.

The bill would add "gender identity and expression" to the state's discrimination and hate crime laws. "
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2292561/posts

Work place discrimination is not ok. That's obvious. For any reason. Duh. If it happens. Fight against it. More background- According to a Mercury News article, a man named Ethan St. Pierre was the target of gender-identity based discrimination back around 2001:

"Once they saw the changes that my body was making they decided that I could no longer do my job," said St. Pierre, 47, a transgender man living in Haverhill, Mass. "They started taking my responsibilities away from me one at a time until finally they told me that I was no longer welcome."

Supporters of a transgender rights bill making its way through the Massachusetts Statehouse say their goal is to give transgender people like St. Pierre legal protections at work, in public accommodations and in housing.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12836228?source=rss

I mean, that makes sense. If St. Pierre's gender-identity was the reason for him being fired, he has every right to challenge, sue, and bring disrepute to the business he was working for. The business should get in trouble. Bang. Ok.

The only thing that bothers me is that apparently it's legally necessary to specify gender-identity within the hate crime laws. It should be obvious. In a free country, an individual has every right to be whatever the heck they want. And it confuses me why it isn't already obvious, with the previous hate crime legislation, that transgendered people- and all people- should not be discriminated against.

But I guess it's impossible to have, in legal jargon, "you can't discriminate against someone for anything they cannot control or has no direct influence on you." I mean, whether someone is a gypsy, transgendered, or a fan of baseball has nothing to do with job performance, and if someone can prove that they were discriminated against for one of these reasons they should be able to bring the issue to court.

But now for the even stupider:

Timothy Tracey, a lawyer with the conservative Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, told members of the Committee on the Judiciary that the bill infringes on the religious rights of those who believe that men and women are different.

"The First Amendment mandates that no individual should be required to affirm, in act, word, or deed, that a man is a woman, or a woman is a man, against their sincerely held religious beliefs," Tracey said. "Yet this is precisely what (the bill) will do."

This is retarded. Plain retarded. The First Amendment shouldn't protect people's feelings on gender. Just as the First Amendment doesn't protect someone's racism: if I was a part of a religion that believed all Armenians are evil and must clean the streets, letting Armenians have jobs other than cleaning streets is not against my First Amendment rights.

Tim's confusion partly comes from an upset over the bill's allowing for an individual to enter the gender-based bathroom they identify with. If someone who feels they are a woman goes into the women's rest room and is not a woman, apparently that discriminates against Timmy's ability to call that person a man. Here's my tip for Tim: chill the fuck out. Just as a transgendered man is allowed to think he is a woman, you are allowed to think he is a man. But it's confusing, I guess, since we all discover someone's gender based on which bathroom a person goes into.

There's also the strange idea that if a man goes into the women's restroom, he'll rape everyone.

"Opponents said the bill would lead to a breakdown in privacy in rest rooms, locker rooms and other single-gender facilities and would open women's bathrooms to sexual predators."

As far as I know, nothing other than the punishment for being a sexual predator has stopped sexual predators from going into women's rest rooms. Besides, if a trans-gendered person is convincing enough, you won't even know the dude pissing next to you once (or still) has a snatch.

And the broader anti-gay concern is that opening single-gendered facilities like this to non-genetically based but emotionally based credentials forces the "gay agenda" or "transgender agenda" down their throat. But isn't that what makes America great? People's stupid identities are pushed down our throats when we're in public. We can't escape people, or who they are, or what they feel while we're among them. There's no reason to be upset if a Christian were allowed to piss in the same bathroom I was, even though I could say allowing a Christian to piss with me pushes his religious identity down my throat. In fact, all this mentioning of pushing things down my throat is pushing the image of fellatio down my throat. I'm against that.

Where I go to school, most our bathrooms are "uni gendered," meaning everyone pisses in them. I prefer to say most our bathrooms are bathrooms. Because I don't give a shit what gender you are, your employer shouldn't, the person pissing next to you shouldn't, and the government shouldn't either. But, maybe the government has to in order to protect? That may end up being the unfortunate truth...

Piss off, Timmy.

Marijuana Musing

One of the proposed solutions for the California deficit theoretically kills two birds with one stone: it would decriminalize recreational marijuana use by making it legal (and thus save a lot of money and time wasted on persecuting harmless pot heads) and would raise money for the state by taxing the drug. All in all, a noble solution.

Portugal in 2001 decriminalized the use of many drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroine and methamphetamine. And so far, studies from organizations such as the CATO Institute show it hasn't caused many problems:

"The Cato report's author, Greenwald, hews to the first point: that the data shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since that is what concerns the public and policymakers most about decriminalization, he says, 'that is the central concession that will transform the debate.'"
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

To me, even though I've never used any recreational drug (other than several failed attempts to enjoy a sip of alcohol) it's always seemed obvious to me that most recreational drugs should be legal. I know very few users who I would classify as criminals, but according to the law they are. So it's strange. Of course, many people get away with it, but it's unfair to the few who are arrested and to the tax payers who want to use their money for something useful (like maybe government sponsored rehabilitation clinics or therapy) but are forced to pay coin for a pointless 'war on drugs.'

So I agree with a lot of the ideas this ad puts forth. And even though some see this as a controversial subject, it really isn't. Watching an episode of Conan today, Mr. O'Brian mentioned the decriminalization ad and most of the audience cheered. According to the white house, in 2001 41.7% of Americans reported having used marijuana in their life. And, it seems as though our last three presidents have had drug experiences themselves.

Now, according to these statistics, four out of ten Americans (including three presidents, presumably) could get in trouble with the law for having used marijuana. Something that most likely never directly harmed someone else. Does this make any sense? Are all these Americans bad people? Is 41.7% of America totally messed up in the head cause of the reefer? Of course not. And, between you and me, I bet the statistic is actually higher. Hehe. Get it? Higher?

But I don't want to just pile on evidence for marijuana use. You can find that yourself. However, I did want to point out something weird about this ad...

The lady interviewed points out that she and other marijuana users want to pay taxes for weed. Want to. WANT to. As if all stoners were actually planning to bail out California, if only marijuana were taxed! Why must you stand in the way of them giving money to the State, guys!

And marijuana is difficult to tax. Because you can grow it. At least I think you can. And how long after these hippies manage to legalize it and tax it will another group of hippies start getting angry at the Government taxing something the Earth has given us?

But I'm getting ahead of myself. You don't have to be a pot head to know that pot should be legal. And it could be taxed... for a while. But I'll give California some time- maybe if pot's legal, more people will want to legalize same sex marriage.

Kill two birds with one stone...r.

The McCain Partisanship Hubub

Something happened recently that reminded me of something that really grinds my gears. Really rips out my eyes. It has to do with partisan fuckery.

John McCain (disgruntled old man who, after losing a recent political election, flew away to South America in a house attached to balloons) has come out and said that his former opponent has "done well" in office:

"Sen. John McCain says his opponent in last year's presidential campaign, Barack Obama, has 'done well' in his first five months in the White House."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090621/ap_on_go_co/us_mccain_obama

Here's a video.

Now, I don't really care what McCain thinks. Or what many people think. I'm still holding my judgment of Obama for myself. The funny thing isn't the news itself, because this isn't really news, but rather people's anonymous reactions as embodied in comments on articles about this, because it seems that John has dug a little hole for himself. Meaning, everyone now hates McCain. Left wing comments included calling John McCain a "mental midget compared to the genius of Obama."
Whereas, on the right, people are calling McCain a turncoat of sorts.

"That's exactly why McCain lost the election. He's almost as liberal as the radical liberals. Cub got it right... there were TWO Democrats running for the Presidency. McCain is a RINO and I wish he'd just go away or STFU."
from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/21/mccain-obama-has-done-well/comments/

Isn't it just silly? Reading these has just reminded me of my main frustration with the presentation of certain candidates. To some people, John McCain is too liberal and will be socialist evil man taking away our guns or some stupid shit like that. To others, he will be a war mongering conservative dick only interested in making money.

So everyone's hated him for a while, for opposite reasons. Like, since the election. Here's an old post:

"In many states it now rings popular to call oneself a conservative, even if one truly resembles a liberal. As with any popular movement, dilution occurs, opportunists blow with the wind, and pretenders abound. John McCain is one of these pretenders. He is a leftist in disguise, using his popularity and charisma to masque his liberal leanings. In reality, McCain resides as far to the Left as John Kerry. Anyone who thinks otherwise deludes himself."
http://gunowners.org/mcdisguise.htm

And from the other side, leftist celebrities like Susan Serandon and Seal had threatened to leave the country if McCain won.

With so many... different reactions to the man, it's hard to really know what to think. Maybe, because everyone hated him, he would've been a good choice? Nah. I'll stick with the vote I made. But still... some on the left said he'd be like George Bush, some on the right compare him to John Kerry. People have stopped judging candidates on their merits, and on an individual basis, but rather on which party or candidate they resemble. What the fuck does it mean to be "too liberal"? Or "too conservative"? Nothing in the end. Unfortunately, with this... duality... and two-party system we have... it's going to be very difficult to just vote for the candidate we think is the best. There is no real possibility for middle ground, and people are going to want to live in extremes.

Oh well.

Pride and Prejudice

Oh, truth and truth and truth... George Carlin hits it on the head. Too bad he's dead. But I feel this video is fitting three days before Happy America Day.

One of the biggest problems in the world (at least, according to me, and I'm writing so fuck you) is what I like to call "Pride in the Irrelevant." This includes racial, ethnic, national, gender-based, and sexual pride. Familial pride. Pride in anything one does not achieve. Now, in a perfect world everyone would be judged by their merits, their accomplishments, their kindness, their ability to love, forgive, etc., etc. and none of those respectable things is influenced by descent, sexuality, or gender. Maybe the content of an accomplishment or feat is dictated by one's "culture," but the feat itself is created only by the individual. Not their culture, their family, their heritage. Influenced by, maybe. But not created by.

However, the world ain't perfect. People are tread upon. So, people who are oppressed band together in groups, call for awareness and fairness, and all that is fine and dandy. Until there's pride.

Now, pride may seem like an obvious reaction to counter disapproval, hate, or lack of understanding But, in the end, it alienates more than it connects. It does not bridge gaps, it reinforces differences. The oppressors in this world ended up causing most of the problems that are out there because of their pride: a sense of Western superiority in colonialism, racial pride in Nazi Germany, the KKK, and many other genocide-riden countries.

Pride in the irrelevant will always alienate. That's why over patriotic people seem like assholes. That's why "Death to America" people seem like assholes.

I just hope that those who are out their fighting for equality and justice realize how flawed fighting pride with pride is before it's too late. Because there are radical people who, because of pride begot oppression, start generalizing the enemy as "white people" or "men":

"All men are rapists and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes."
Marilyn French

And in turn, some radicals respond to that with more pride. It seems like a never ending cycle. Because people are unable to separate individuals from groups. Because our descent and family and other irrelevant things are, to many people, very relevant. Oppression begets pride, pride begets oppression, and it goes on and on. Hate, alienation, segregation, pointless squabbling.

If anything, that makes me NOT proud to be human. But, I guess that's irrelevant too... it just needs to stop. We need compassion, empathy, and understanding. No more pride of the irrelevant.

The Difference is Intent

This is kind of a followup to my last post. Kind of.

Couple of days ago I defended Betsy Perry for the unlawful and out of proportion hate she was getting for simply saying things about Mexico in her blog. Strangely enough, something similar actually happened in Boston recently with talk radio personality Jay Severin, who "said things about Mexico" during a broadcast and is getting in a little bit of trouble. But the two cases are very different. Perry used sarcasm, exaggeration, and other humorous techniques in her post and was labeled ignorant for it. Jay Severin has also gotten hate for simply saying things, and has been suspended from WTKK-FM radio for his comments. He's also been called racist, and ignorant, and all in all bad person. Here's a bit of what he said:

"So now, in addition to venereal disease and the other leading exports of Mexico - women with mustaches and VD - now we have swine flu."

"It's millions of leeches from a primitive country come here to leech off you and, with it, they are ruining the schools, the hospitals, and a lot of life in America."

Now here comes the dilemma. I support freedom of speech in all of it's forms, whether or not it is the most hateful bullshit ever uttered. I will defend hateful speech. That's bad, I know, but it's necessary. But in the case of Jay over here, I understand why he's been suspended. I understand why people are angry.

People could then say to me, well, dude, why don't you understand why people are angry at Betsy Perry? If you read her blog post (linked in my previous post) you'll get why. The difference is intent. I will not empathize with people who are upset because they've misinterpreted a rather insignificant rant. One that came to no heart-felt conclusions and pushed no agenda.

I understand anger at deliberate hate. At intentional generalization, and close minded words that actually represent the speaker's point of view. What Jay said is what he thought, he can think what he thinks, but he better understand why people are angry. The man can say what he wants, but in the context of his radio program he was showing a great deal of ignorance. He wasn't mocking the hate, he wasn't being satirical, he was simply saying mean things about an entire country.

Now, whether you agree with Mr. Severin or not doesn't really matter. There is nothing wrong with being very anti-illegal immigration, or even anti-Mexico, that is simply Jay's opinion. Where the issue arises is in how he dealt with the presentation of his opinion. He could stand on a soap box, be very preachy and use scary, angry words like "leeches" or "primitives" but he did it on someone's radio station. He shouldn've thought twice. Granted, he had balls, he risked saying something that could be interpreted as very inappropriate, but what he said wasn't entirely necessary. If he had thought twice he would've realized "you know, if I make my claims like that I'll come off as kind of ignorant and dumb and maybe racist. I honestly am very upset at illegal immigrants, and since I'm passionate about this I will be very serious and deliberate in my commentary on the issue."

So, defending Severin has nothing to do with his ideas. Rather, it's his methodology, and WTKK doesn't seem to be forced by some oppressive censoring agenda to get rid of him. He's being punished because WTKK wants to uphold it's image. The company has it's own agenda. If Severin wants to comment on the issues in his own special way, he might have to go to another radio station because obviously WTKK didn't approve of that methodology.

But words are fine, depending on intent. Depending on the anger that's behind them. I don't feel bad by saying "All my Mexican lady friends have moustaches and VD." Because I don't believe it. It's an unreasonable thing to believe. But it's funny to say, because it makes little sense. Severin could probably be really funny, if he wasn't serious. So sorry you got in trouble, Jay, but that's WTKK's choice, and by not being sophisticated enough in your approach it's kinda your bad.

So the difference is intent, right? The difference between Jay and Betsy in their comments about Mexico.

Well, now let's look at the difference between this and this. Recently some Gay-rights activists have expressed concern about the content of the upcoming film by Sacha Baron Cohen, Bruno:

"Several liberal groups claimed this week that Bruno's behaviour and image – he has bleached hair, wears copious amounts of make-up, and appears to strip-wax his legs, buttocks and chest – will actually end up promoting rather than undermining homophobia."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-gay-lobby-doesnt-get-the-bruno-joke-1704817.html

In the movie Cohen embodies the character of a gay Austrian fashion reporter, and through interactions with Americans exposes ignorance and idiocy in the funniest of ways. But apparently some groups think this means people might see Cohen's gay character as a bad person and begin to believe the stereotypes he portrays. With this claim comes the request that the movie should get some kind of warning label:

"Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay lobbying organisation in the US, has even called for filmgoers to be instructed about the "message" they should draw from the film."

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Comedy, art, literature, creativity does not require a warning label. They're not cigarettes. Simply seeing an individual character embody a stereotype does not generate hate. Intelligent people do not base their interpretations of people on the exaggerated images they see in the media. Obviously, what these activist groups are doing is calling most of America stupid. Alright. They can do that. And maybe all these movie goers are dumb. But if someone doesn't understand Bruno it's not Sacha Baron Cohen's fault.

And of all things, he is not encouraging homophobia! He is not saying gay people are evil and are hurting our freedoms! Considering the fact that one of the main opposing arguments against gay marriage (a stupid argument, honestly) is that legalizing same-sex marriage will infringe on the religious freedoms of citizens, and thus their freedom of speech, an over-zealous gay-rights group moderating film content is more likely to encourage homophobia than Bruno is.

The difference is intent. And the intent can speak for itself. Bruno is not an undercover movement against gay-rights, it has no intention of hurting gay people. Nobody put a warning label on Huckleberry Finn saying "though Twain may appear to fall short in his humanization of Jim and black Americans, this book is trying to attack racism." And banning Huckleberry Finn is so 1885.

"The Concord (Mass.) Public Library committee has decided to exclude Mark Twain's latest book from the library. One member of the committee says that, while he does not wish to call it immoral, he thinks it contains but little humor, and that of a very coarse type. He regards it as the veriest trash. The library and the other members of the committee entertain similar views, characterizing it as rough, coarse, and inelegant, dealing with a series of experiences not elevating, the whole book being more suited to the slums than to intelligent, respectable people." - 1885
http://books.google.com/books?id=fdrBtpSSCisC&pg=RA1-PA116&lpg=RA1-PA116&dq=hemingway+%22huckleberry+finn%22+%22green+hills%22&source=web&ots=BIzUvlS8O2&sig=tFc7B8esmZs6DT0gLwx-0uxRgxY#PRA1-PA119-IA5,M1

Wait, what? Huckleberry Finn was the fifth most frequently challenged book in the 90's? The 1990's? Well. I guess we haven't learned anything.

Most importantly, Bruno hasn't even been released, and people should hold judgment until it actually comes out.

That is all. Simout!