I'm thinking about getting into serious blogging, as a segue to maybe a little freelancing for...anyone who'll let me freelance for them. I'm one opinionated dude and feel I have a good enough grasp of my native language to express myself in a pretty entertaining way.

I dunno. Just playing with the idea...done! :-)
  • Current Music
    L7 - Wargasm

Laura Bush comes out...SO WHAT?

I got a hold this video from the Facebook community Being Liberal:

Like Cindy McCain did before her, Laura Bush came out on Larry King Live in favor of gay marriage and reproductive choice. My immediate reaction was, "Cool! Another conservative's wife has come over to the Dark Side." That is until I found out she has always had this stance. cris_nicewelts (I love you, dear) made a good point about this...WHERE WERE FOLKS LIKE LAURA BUSH AND CINDY MCCAIN WHEN THEIR HUSBANDS WERE IN THE SPOTLIGHT????

As you've probably surmised, this post has nothing to do with gay marriage or reproductive choice. It has to do with a human being's right to her own goddamn opinion.

I used to disparagingly refer to Laura Bush as Doormat In Chief due to her conspicuous silence on almost all issues during her husband's tenure in the Oval Office as compared to her predecessors - Hillary Clinton and Eleanor Roosevelt come to mind. Laura Bush isn't alone, though. I have a couple of theories as to why the inevitable, even if only occasional, disagreements that all married couples have to face are conspicuously absent from the President/First Lady dynamic - or that of any prominent man and his spouse.

First of all, society is uncomfortable with their leaders and idols being too connected with reality. We hold our prominent politicians, celebrities, and other public figures to a ridiculous standard, as if they're superhuman. Reality TV and tabloid shows are so popular because we have an obsession with watching those figures fall from grace and show a human side - as if there is some shock value to seeing a human being behave like her/is own species. It's a fascinating dichotomy. Still, the most idealistic part of us is disappointed to see the fall. That's probably why so many people who are in the spotlight are so private. I don't know how well we could handle knowing that Barack and Michelle got into a marital spat, but we all know damn will it happens to any couple that stays together long enough. There will invariably be disagreements and mis-communications between two human beings living close to each other. We need to accept that and apply it universally - and stop being so shocked by it - because it really isn't that big of a deal. We'll save ourselves a lot of disappointment in the long run, and we'll put the purveyors of reality TV out of business.

Secondly, our patriarchal society cannot cope with women having their own opinions in the first place, let alone the wife of as prominent a politician as a U.S. President having opinions that are not in lockstep with her husband's. Something tells me that the First Husband wouldn't have to deal with bullshit like this. I mean, it is 2011 and all. When do we stop pretending that women don't have minds of their own? Think about how much grief did Hillary Clinton get when she presented her health plan back in the early 1990's. She was vilified and presented as this ball-buster wife with whom Dirty Willy just couldn't cope in the wake of the Lewinsky scandal. All this for daring to have an opinion. The reality is nothing was wrong with the now very dashing and Presidential Secretary of State. She wasn't a ball-busting nag. She was, and still is, a competent adult (link). Many of her male counterparts find that threatening. I say if their manhood and egos are that fragile, perhaps they should spend less time criticizing Clinton and more time looking in the mirror.

While it's good that Laura Bush and Cindy McCain are speaking out now - it's too little, too late. Society needs to get a damn grip and accept that women have their own opinions and ideas and that sometimes...*GASP* they may not only differ from those of their husbands but may even be completely independent of them. We need to accept that couples, even those in the spotlight, will not always agree.

F&^%$NG Neo-Confederates.

I'm gonna post some quotes here. Apparently, a southern transplant here in Nevada took issue with a seasoned newscaster talking about the Civil War and ad-libbing a reminder that the North won.

That's right. The North won. Your detestable cause lost. Shut the fuck up, put your big boy pants on, and deal with it. On with the post...

MY comment reads:
"I'm southern - Georgian, to be exact. I don't subscribe to the god concept, but I'M GLAD THE NORTH WON. It acted as a catalyst to free millions of human beings from bondage.

More importantly, I'm American. The South fought for a detestable cause, plain and simple. Spin the facts all you want. Call it 'heritage not hate.' We're not buying it. The CSA is a former enemy of the United States. As a former United States Marine, I TAKE OFFENSE TO SEEING THE FLAG OF A DISSOLVED ENEMY NATION FLOWN OVER MY OWN FATHER'S HOUSE. I feel about the Confederacy similarly to how your average German feels about the Third Reich. It is a shameful part of our history, as southerners, and should NOT be celebrated.

Also, how dare YOU tell another adult, not to mention a LEGEND in local journalism, they need any kind of "training?" Who the hell died and left you in charge?"

The Civil War ended nearly 140 years ago. The CSA lost. Get over it.

The Myth of Militant Atheism | Psychology Today - StumbleUpon (via shareaholic)

Nine bullets fired from close range ended the life of Salman Taseer last month, making the Pakistani governor the latest high-profile victim of religious violence. Taseer had the audacity to publicly question Pakistan's blasphemy laws, and for this transgression he paid with his life.

Taseer joins a list of numerous other high-profile victims of militant religion, such as Dr. George Tiller, the Kansas abortion doctor killed by a devout Christian assassin in 2009, and Theo Van Gogh, the Dutch filmaker whose provocative movie about Islam resulted in his being brutally murdered in 2004.

With this background, it is especially puzzling that the American media and public still perpetuate the cliché of so-called "militant atheism." We hear the disparaging term "militant atheist" used frequently, the unquestioned assumption being that militant atheists are of course roaming the streets of America.

In fact, however, while millions of atheists are indeed walking our streets, it would be difficult to find even one who could accurately be described as militant. In all of American history, it is doubtful that any person has ever been killed in the name of atheism. In fact, it would be difficult to find evidence that any American has ever even been harmed in the name of atheism. It just does not happen, because the notion of "militant atheism" is entirely fantasy.

When the media and others refer to a "militant atheist," the object of that slander is usually an atheist who had the nerve to openly question religious authority or vocally express his or her views about the existence of God. Conventional wisdom quickly tells us that such conduct is shameful or, at the very least, distasteful, and therefore the brazen atheist is labeled "militant."

But this reflects a double standard, because it seems to apply only to atheists. Religious individuals and groups frequently declare, sometimes subtly and sometimes not, that you are a sinner and that you will suffer in hell for eternity if you do not adopt their supernatural beliefs, but they will almost never be labeled "militant" by the media or the public. Instead, such individuals are called "devout" and such churches are called "evangelical."

The lesson here is clear. If you're an atheist, shut up about it. If you are open or vocal about your atheist worldview, you are a "militant atheist." Be silent, even though that same standard does not apply to those who passionately disagree with you.

This, to be sure, explains why so few Americans openly identify as atheist. The American Religious Identification Survey conducted by Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, indicates that only about 81 percent of Americans affirmatively believe in a god (about 69 percent believe in a personal God, while about 12 percent believe in some kind of "higher power"), meaning about 19 percent do not. Yet despite the fact that almost one in five Americans don't affirmatively believe, only a tiny fraction of those dare to identify openly as atheist.

Analyze those numbers all you want, but the inescapable conclusion is that millions of Americans are in the closet about their religious skepticism. This, in turn, only serves to validate and legitimize the religious right, because it suggests that there is something wrong with a secular worldview. By keeping atheists closeted, the religious right can claim the moral high ground and influence public policy more than it should.

Therefore, maybe it's time to end the myth of militant atheism?
  • Current Music
    Danzig - How The Gods Kill

About "Skins," Pr0n culture, and good old-fashioned American stupidity...

Oh! Teens have sex! The HUMANITY!(via shareaholic)

But, why sell a show about it? It's just sex. It's like farting, only a lot more fun.
Okay... hold on a second:

The media does not educate my kids about sex before I get to them first. Cris and me are responsible parents in this respect. Our fifth and third graders can both explain, in precise anatomical terms, the mechanics of reproduction. They have a bullshit filter on at school when they hear kids whose parents haven't told them much of jack shit yammering on about every porn-based misconception known to humanity when it comes to sex. See, the problem is not so much teens having sex, is the inaccurate depiction of sex and all the responsibilities that come with it by the media - the wholesale misinformation of an entire culture. What's the result? Men who have no idea what a woman's clitoris is, how her anatomy works, and one who expects that every woman will fall to her knees on command and let him defile her face with his semen. Women who think their first and foremost contribution to humanity is their ability to incite erections. Scores of teens and young adults who know more about Call Of Duty or Gossip Girl than they know personal sexual protection. It's teens having sex who haven't the foggiest fuckin' idea what they're doing, how it works, or what responsibilities are attached to it. These are problems perpetuated by the media and the parents' lack of action in response to it - in case you've been living under a rock the last twenty years.

The headline is right to an extent: Sex is not as big a deal as the media makes it out to be. My argument is not so much that OMG THIS SHOW IS PERVERSE AND SHOULD NOT BE ON TV but that making a TV show, even remotely, about sex is akin to making a TV show, even remotely, about bowel movements. Why bother? Why waste the money and resources? Human beings reproduce's a goddamned bodily function which is why it amuses me that we are so obsessed with it. Sure, it's fun. So what? It's just as natural as farting. What's the big deal? Teach kids about reproduction in health class, let them know to protect themselves from the risks if they insist on fucking, and get on with your life. It's a simple solution, were it not for puritanical morons who are under the delusion that evolutionarily programmed creatures are going to wait until they're under the auspices of a socially-constructed institution to do what they are evolutionarily programmed to do. Fuck it. Teach it anyway. The puritans will get over it, and their kids will be prepared rather than ignorant. It's programmed in our DNA to further the species, marriage or no marriage.

Furthermore, sex is something that is spiritual, intimate, delightfully satisfying and a very personal thing to me. I'm not cool with it being commodified like a pair of socks or the latest crop of Tupperware. Sex sells. What does that say about us as a species?

Evidence of right-wing violence and insurrective rhetoric.

Following is a list of evidence of right-wing rhetoric concerning armed-overthrow, killing of political opponents, and ACTUAL ACTS thereof.

I'm sick of seeing people I care about living in denial. The threat is real:

**#The rising tide of right-wing threats and insurrections -

** 10/22/2010 GOP congressional candidate states violent overthrow of government is on the table

** 3/24/2010 - Palin joins in a chant to "reload" Do you really think she's referring to ballot boxes?</a>


** A blogger implicates, WITH LINKS TO THEIR WORDS AND DEEDS, several right-wing figures in the Arizona massacre

The blogger goes on to list specific examples of violence fueled by said rhetoric. Go on, goddamn it! Read it! Read it all. Then come back and tell me right wing paranoia and violent rhetoric...and the very acts that follow them... are no threat. Try to tell me that I'm crazy to hold the Tea Party and their ilk responsible for the deadly and seditious rhetoric. Tell me I'm wrong for calling a spade a goddamned spade.

...and FINALLY, read this genius piece by a U.S. Navy Petty Officer about how we don't live in a vacuum, and tell me the shooter, and the shooter alone, is responsible for the violence. Tell me that he couldn't have *possibly* been encouraged by the Limbaughs and the Becks of the world.

Tell me all you want. Back-peddle, rationalize, get angry with me. One thing I assure you you'll never do is convince me that this isn't an issue that should be dealt with. You have the freedom to say what you wish, granted. I, likewise, have the freedom to hold your ass responsible for it. It's called discourse. Put on you big boy/girl pants and deal with it, because none of us are beyond reproach. The First Amendment has never - and will never - guarantee that.

So, rest assured, if you threaten to kill me - even metaphorically - I'm calling the fucking cops. Period.