Complacence is not acceptance
Just as a smile is not happiness.
Similar symptoms, different causes
Is happiness common flow
Or complete ecstasy?
Do you have to be overrun?
I have no idea,
No thought,
No stone to write in.
Vacation over, back to writing.
Let's see.... I've got nothing.
Let's throw some stuff out there for us, shall we?
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
VACATION TIME!!!!
Manda and Will are going on vacation!
Err.. Well, Manda in the literal "vacation" sense and Will in the "no writing for a month ahhhh" sense.
This is brought on by a mixture of writing burn out, Manda going out of town, and the general need for some time off.
So for the month of July, this blog will not be updated. Feel free to read or reread the past 100-some posts and leave comments or critiques...
Hopefully we'll be back next month refreshed and ready to crack some more writing out.
See you August first!
-Manda and Will
Err.. Well, Manda in the literal "vacation" sense and Will in the "no writing for a month ahhhh" sense.
This is brought on by a mixture of writing burn out, Manda going out of town, and the general need for some time off.
So for the month of July, this blog will not be updated. Feel free to read or reread the past 100-some posts and leave comments or critiques...
Hopefully we'll be back next month refreshed and ready to crack some more writing out.
See you August first!
-Manda and Will
Monday, June 28, 2010
Under Who?
So in North Carolina there's this billboard, well there's five Billboards but we're only talking about the one along the Graham Parkway in Charlotte. This Billboard displays a backdrop of the American flag, and in large silver letters "One Nation Indivisible". Now on it's own there's really not much to say about it, until you realize that it Graham Parkway was named after an evangelical, and the Billboard has been vandalized.
In blue graffiti the words "Under god" appears under the wording of the billboard, with an arrow pointing up to where the words would be in the Pledge. Now I'm not about to talk about the pledge, as much as you may think I am. We've all heard the debate, we all know the Pledge never started out with 'Under God' in it, despite a Baptist Preacher writing it. We all know those two words that cause some sort of controversy in a school every few months was a result of the Cold War, and our great leaders trying to distance itself from it's Atheistic enemy by buddying up with god, despite it going against the Constitution.
So now that I've lied and have in fact put out my two cents in on the Pledge, lets get back on with my real issue. The fact that someone would even do this just boggles the mind. The Billboard rose very high from the ground, and the ladder leading up to the sign did not come all the way down, the only way this was at all possible was if the vandals brought along a ladder with them, or were circus giants. They climbed high into the air, risked their lives, to what? Deface a sign that will be fixed before the 4th? And here's the thing, this sign was not put up to offend, nor to start any debate or argument over the pledge. The five Billboards were put up for two reasons, to attract fellow Atheists to the various organizations and clubs in North Carolina, and to state proudly that Atheists can be patriots too.
The story is just puzzling, as I can sort of relate. When leaving my town for work there is a small billboard like sign posted in the lot across the street from the church. It's a sign I really hate, as it says "Babies are a gift from God" with a photo of a baby with a bow on it. It's a pro-life sign, and every time I find myself passing it I can't help but spout out 'Yeah, but God doesn't give gift receipts.' The other side of this posting has a sign of a hand painted baby with bold laters proclamating "Mother behold your son!" And while that was doesn't offend me as much, mainly because it's harder to make fun of, it's still pushing a message I very much disagree with.
But I would never vandalize these signs, I would never walk up and deface these signs, even though they portray a message that's much more direct and volatile than the Atheist's, that being that Abortions are bad. And if someone against these signs did vandalize them, you can be assured the fury storm would topple the one of the Atheists, as both articles I read on this topic stated in the title that these billboards were controversial. This confused me because none of the other four billboards were vandalized or put anywhere remotely tied to religion, and the one that was was only placed there because the only other locations open were too expensive or had low viability, as stated by the head of the organization that bought them.
Aside from this one sign the campaign has been a success, pulling in nearly sixty new members to Charlotte Atheists & Agnostics. This one incident of strange efforts of a few going out of their way to battle against a benign enemy. This harmless message opening a window for like minded folks, and telling the world that Atheists are Americans as well. It's sad though, because the only reason this message is needed is because some have seem to forgotten that while God has a place in America, he doesn't have a place as America.
No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.” George H. W. Bush - Used again because it's still relevant.
In blue graffiti the words "Under god" appears under the wording of the billboard, with an arrow pointing up to where the words would be in the Pledge. Now I'm not about to talk about the pledge, as much as you may think I am. We've all heard the debate, we all know the Pledge never started out with 'Under God' in it, despite a Baptist Preacher writing it. We all know those two words that cause some sort of controversy in a school every few months was a result of the Cold War, and our great leaders trying to distance itself from it's Atheistic enemy by buddying up with god, despite it going against the Constitution.
So now that I've lied and have in fact put out my two cents in on the Pledge, lets get back on with my real issue. The fact that someone would even do this just boggles the mind. The Billboard rose very high from the ground, and the ladder leading up to the sign did not come all the way down, the only way this was at all possible was if the vandals brought along a ladder with them, or were circus giants. They climbed high into the air, risked their lives, to what? Deface a sign that will be fixed before the 4th? And here's the thing, this sign was not put up to offend, nor to start any debate or argument over the pledge. The five Billboards were put up for two reasons, to attract fellow Atheists to the various organizations and clubs in North Carolina, and to state proudly that Atheists can be patriots too.
The story is just puzzling, as I can sort of relate. When leaving my town for work there is a small billboard like sign posted in the lot across the street from the church. It's a sign I really hate, as it says "Babies are a gift from God" with a photo of a baby with a bow on it. It's a pro-life sign, and every time I find myself passing it I can't help but spout out 'Yeah, but God doesn't give gift receipts.' The other side of this posting has a sign of a hand painted baby with bold laters proclamating "Mother behold your son!" And while that was doesn't offend me as much, mainly because it's harder to make fun of, it's still pushing a message I very much disagree with.
But I would never vandalize these signs, I would never walk up and deface these signs, even though they portray a message that's much more direct and volatile than the Atheist's, that being that Abortions are bad. And if someone against these signs did vandalize them, you can be assured the fury storm would topple the one of the Atheists, as both articles I read on this topic stated in the title that these billboards were controversial. This confused me because none of the other four billboards were vandalized or put anywhere remotely tied to religion, and the one that was was only placed there because the only other locations open were too expensive or had low viability, as stated by the head of the organization that bought them.
Aside from this one sign the campaign has been a success, pulling in nearly sixty new members to Charlotte Atheists & Agnostics. This one incident of strange efforts of a few going out of their way to battle against a benign enemy. This harmless message opening a window for like minded folks, and telling the world that Atheists are Americans as well. It's sad though, because the only reason this message is needed is because some have seem to forgotten that while God has a place in America, he doesn't have a place as America.
No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.” George H. W. Bush - Used again because it's still relevant.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Throw in the Towel
A little while ago I talked about how the company I worked for was going under. I talked about the cut backs I saw occurring, the desperate attempt to bring in money by pushing high gross items and changing store policies, and generally making all our lives hell. In that article I mentioned that I was mad at the people up top, corporate, for our current predicament, but I can't say I'm mad anymore. I can't say I'm mad anymore because it just doesn't convey the message anymore, I am now utterly furious with these people, and it's because they haven't given up yet.
There's something noble about going against the current, about fighting against the odds, about not giving up even when everyone says there's no chance. These are the stories that make up our fiction, the lone hero standing against the impossible. It's these stories that inspire us, these stories that make us smile and remind us that we can do anything if we have the will. But this is not that story, this is a company long since overdue of it's death, actively hurting it's employees in attempt to stay open a few feeble months longer. This is a company that hemorrhages money every day and refuses to simply cut it's losses and care for it's own. This is a company that isn't fighting a hopeless battle, the battles done, it's lost, and is now milking it's tragic and tiresome death scene for all it's worth.
This company is stomping on it's employees. It's our responsibility, they say, to keep the company afloat. We are held accountable for the companies success or failure, not it's archaic business practices. They cut our labor hours more and more as the months go by, I was once battling to get sales so that I may have the favor of gaining hours, now with this recent cut I will be battling to get sales so that I may have the favor of not losing hours. Put simply, I was once selling for a bonus, now I am selling to avoid punishment. My manager is being driven to madness, forced to work extra shifts if we do not meet goals, being berated over and over for the smallest transgression, watching in horror as every week a new and worse idea comes down the corporate pipeline on how to sell, what to sell, how the store should look.
The customers become worse and worse as the honest and good customers leave the company that is failing, leaving behind only the belligerent and wild, those who seek to scam or undercut us. Oh and they'll succeed, the company cannot afford to lose them after all. Every day I work I stare at the walls in the closing hours in disbelief. Strewn about, out of order, intentional messes. I stare and I feel my anger growing, because I know there is an impossible choice. We can stay late and clean up the disaster that is the store and be yelled at for going over hours, or we can leave on time as we're supposed to and be yelled at for the state we left the store in. With closing an hour earlier than we used to, and CSR shifts being rearranged to start at 6pm instead of 5pm, we are given a seven hour work load to be done in five hours.
This company does not give me any reason to work for it. It does not respect me, it does not care for me, it does not benefit me. There is no reward for doing especially well at my job and it does not give me enough hours I need to support my rather meager needs. The people up top are cutting costs to save themselves, they are cutting costs to keep their own status quot without even considering their employee's. They should have ended it by now, put up the going out of business sign and turned whatever money they had left to make sure the people who served them were taken care of. Instead they continue on and hurt their employees. I feel myself almost grateful for the little I work at this company, despite my need and pleads for more hours. I find myself happy knowing that I don't have to go back there for four more days because I'm just so filled with rage after every shift. I'm no slouch, I have been the top seller in my store for three straight weeks now, but they give me nothing to show for it, they give me no money, benefits, no perks. They simply give me no respect.
Now excuse me, I need to go fill out a few applications.
There's something noble about going against the current, about fighting against the odds, about not giving up even when everyone says there's no chance. These are the stories that make up our fiction, the lone hero standing against the impossible. It's these stories that inspire us, these stories that make us smile and remind us that we can do anything if we have the will. But this is not that story, this is a company long since overdue of it's death, actively hurting it's employees in attempt to stay open a few feeble months longer. This is a company that hemorrhages money every day and refuses to simply cut it's losses and care for it's own. This is a company that isn't fighting a hopeless battle, the battles done, it's lost, and is now milking it's tragic and tiresome death scene for all it's worth.
This company is stomping on it's employees. It's our responsibility, they say, to keep the company afloat. We are held accountable for the companies success or failure, not it's archaic business practices. They cut our labor hours more and more as the months go by, I was once battling to get sales so that I may have the favor of gaining hours, now with this recent cut I will be battling to get sales so that I may have the favor of not losing hours. Put simply, I was once selling for a bonus, now I am selling to avoid punishment. My manager is being driven to madness, forced to work extra shifts if we do not meet goals, being berated over and over for the smallest transgression, watching in horror as every week a new and worse idea comes down the corporate pipeline on how to sell, what to sell, how the store should look.
The customers become worse and worse as the honest and good customers leave the company that is failing, leaving behind only the belligerent and wild, those who seek to scam or undercut us. Oh and they'll succeed, the company cannot afford to lose them after all. Every day I work I stare at the walls in the closing hours in disbelief. Strewn about, out of order, intentional messes. I stare and I feel my anger growing, because I know there is an impossible choice. We can stay late and clean up the disaster that is the store and be yelled at for going over hours, or we can leave on time as we're supposed to and be yelled at for the state we left the store in. With closing an hour earlier than we used to, and CSR shifts being rearranged to start at 6pm instead of 5pm, we are given a seven hour work load to be done in five hours.
This company does not give me any reason to work for it. It does not respect me, it does not care for me, it does not benefit me. There is no reward for doing especially well at my job and it does not give me enough hours I need to support my rather meager needs. The people up top are cutting costs to save themselves, they are cutting costs to keep their own status quot without even considering their employee's. They should have ended it by now, put up the going out of business sign and turned whatever money they had left to make sure the people who served them were taken care of. Instead they continue on and hurt their employees. I feel myself almost grateful for the little I work at this company, despite my need and pleads for more hours. I find myself happy knowing that I don't have to go back there for four more days because I'm just so filled with rage after every shift. I'm no slouch, I have been the top seller in my store for three straight weeks now, but they give me nothing to show for it, they give me no money, benefits, no perks. They simply give me no respect.
Now excuse me, I need to go fill out a few applications.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
XXXcuse me
So a while back you may remember some legislation coming around with making a new suffix for the internet, .XXX. This new domain suffix would be made solely for sites that deal with pornographic material, obviously. The idea was that making passing this would 'clean up' the internet, and make it easier to block and keep the material out of the hands of kids. The websites would still be available for any who wanted to see it, and all sides would be happy. It seems that this motion, after already being rejected in 2007, was overturned and may be implemented shortly. This is good, right? Well, no it's not.
You see most adult websites don't want this change to occur, and have been fighting against it. Also fighting this move is religious organizations, oddly enough, feeling that this will in fact cause pornographic sites to spread out and become even more prevalent on the internet. And of course, as any dad with a nudie mag collection will tell you, no matter how well you hide it, putting all the 'bad stuff' in one place does not make it more difficult to discover, it actually makes it much easier.
But the real issue here, the issue most of the adult websites fighting this are worried about, is possible censorship. The way it works now is pornographic sites are governed by the same rules as every other site with a .com or .net suffix. So whether you want to visit Hustler's website to look at naked women, or the Martha Stewart website to find a recipe for apple pies, it's all generally run the same way. With the addition of the .XXX brings possible new rulings which could hamper or outright censor the sites on any number of reasons. If the board set to run this new domain decide they don't like something, they can simply remove it, and the company will have no choice but to accept it.
All in all this just seems like a bad idea. The internet doesn't need a 'red light district', what makes this crazy thing we call the web so great is the mass accumulation of information, media, and services. It's all in one place with no limits, it's all accessible without jumping through hoops. Sectioning off the internet will limit it's freedom, it will tier off the mass, it will give prevalence to one type of information, and subjugate another. This whole issue just smacks of the same kind of logic that brought on the idea that Net Neutrality is bad. The internet is not something that needs to be separately governed and controlled, it's not something that can be governed and controlled. The internet is a bastion of knowledge, and you can't control that.
And seriously, .XXX? You couldn't come up with something less silly?
You see most adult websites don't want this change to occur, and have been fighting against it. Also fighting this move is religious organizations, oddly enough, feeling that this will in fact cause pornographic sites to spread out and become even more prevalent on the internet. And of course, as any dad with a nudie mag collection will tell you, no matter how well you hide it, putting all the 'bad stuff' in one place does not make it more difficult to discover, it actually makes it much easier.
But the real issue here, the issue most of the adult websites fighting this are worried about, is possible censorship. The way it works now is pornographic sites are governed by the same rules as every other site with a .com or .net suffix. So whether you want to visit Hustler's website to look at naked women, or the Martha Stewart website to find a recipe for apple pies, it's all generally run the same way. With the addition of the .XXX brings possible new rulings which could hamper or outright censor the sites on any number of reasons. If the board set to run this new domain decide they don't like something, they can simply remove it, and the company will have no choice but to accept it.
All in all this just seems like a bad idea. The internet doesn't need a 'red light district', what makes this crazy thing we call the web so great is the mass accumulation of information, media, and services. It's all in one place with no limits, it's all accessible without jumping through hoops. Sectioning off the internet will limit it's freedom, it will tier off the mass, it will give prevalence to one type of information, and subjugate another. This whole issue just smacks of the same kind of logic that brought on the idea that Net Neutrality is bad. The internet is not something that needs to be separately governed and controlled, it's not something that can be governed and controlled. The internet is a bastion of knowledge, and you can't control that.
And seriously, .XXX? You couldn't come up with something less silly?
Friday, June 25, 2010
Battle of the Sexists
I am not a Feminist, and in fact generally try to avoid people who self identify themselves as such. Now the reason for this is not because I'm a chauvinist pig who do not believe in a woman's rights, nor is it the taint that some hardcore Feminists have drawn in the sand against men. The simple fact is that in my mind defining yourself as a Feminist, no matter how sensible or well minded on the issues you may be, you still bring on a separation that has negative connotations. As a Feminist you fight for a woman's right, as opposed to just for rights.
I bring this all up because I read an article dealing with a little... Hypocrisy. Here we have a woman who states quite boldly, that if the World Cup featured female athletes and a site came up for men to ogle the beautiful women it would be awful. But the site that exists now for women to drool over men is not only perfectly acceptable, but just the women's way of appreciating the athletes, since the men there certainly aren't simply sex objects, and being adorned by these women just because they look good. The site the article links to right now has fourteen photos up, eight of which the men are in some form of undress, and only four of which there's even a ball present.
This woman writing the article tries desperately to keep her integrity as a gender defender Feminist while still allowing herself to indulge in a little man meat. The problem with this and with Feminists in general is there's nothing wrong with this. The woman here has every right in the world to stare at these men, to be attracted to these very fit and appealing men. She doesn't have to care about the sport, she doesn't have to justify herself as she enjoys watching their shirts being taken off, or compiling a list of 'Thighlight' photos for other women to look at and feel funny about.
We're all hard wired to do it, some more than others yes, but we're all attracted to bodies. It's not something to be ashamed of, it's simple genetics. We're bred to be attracted to people who are aesthetically pleasing. This is 2010, a woman is no longer hired solely on the basis of her looks, unless the job is centered around looking good, and in those cases men are just as subject to those vain rulings, sometimes more so.
If you want to argue for equal rights, that's one thing, but pressing this idea that attraction based on looks is bad is complete lunacy. We're hard wired to want to see the opposite sex and it's after that we start to build upon it into a relationship. But our models, our actresses, and our female athletes are not likely to be hanging out at a singles bar for us to approach and get to know the real them. So we look, and you know what, so do women. We all look and there's nothing wrong with that. We're all people and yes, if we look good, sometimes we're all sexualized.
I'd just like to see the Feminist argue for equal wages for male porn stars.
I bring this all up because I read an article dealing with a little... Hypocrisy. Here we have a woman who states quite boldly, that if the World Cup featured female athletes and a site came up for men to ogle the beautiful women it would be awful. But the site that exists now for women to drool over men is not only perfectly acceptable, but just the women's way of appreciating the athletes, since the men there certainly aren't simply sex objects, and being adorned by these women just because they look good. The site the article links to right now has fourteen photos up, eight of which the men are in some form of undress, and only four of which there's even a ball present.
This woman writing the article tries desperately to keep her integrity as a gender defender Feminist while still allowing herself to indulge in a little man meat. The problem with this and with Feminists in general is there's nothing wrong with this. The woman here has every right in the world to stare at these men, to be attracted to these very fit and appealing men. She doesn't have to care about the sport, she doesn't have to justify herself as she enjoys watching their shirts being taken off, or compiling a list of 'Thighlight' photos for other women to look at and feel funny about.
We're all hard wired to do it, some more than others yes, but we're all attracted to bodies. It's not something to be ashamed of, it's simple genetics. We're bred to be attracted to people who are aesthetically pleasing. This is 2010, a woman is no longer hired solely on the basis of her looks, unless the job is centered around looking good, and in those cases men are just as subject to those vain rulings, sometimes more so.
If you want to argue for equal rights, that's one thing, but pressing this idea that attraction based on looks is bad is complete lunacy. We're hard wired to want to see the opposite sex and it's after that we start to build upon it into a relationship. But our models, our actresses, and our female athletes are not likely to be hanging out at a singles bar for us to approach and get to know the real them. So we look, and you know what, so do women. We all look and there's nothing wrong with that. We're all people and yes, if we look good, sometimes we're all sexualized.
I'd just like to see the Feminist argue for equal wages for male porn stars.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Alternative Age
There is nothing, and I mean nothing, to talk about today. Most articles I found were about the antenna problem regarding the new iPhone, and that's not exactly a big talking point. So I'm gonna discuss something that's not in the news, but more something that's close to my heart, and something I was working over my head yesterday. I was working over the idea of New Age and Alternative medicine, I was working over the sadness I feel for the patients, and the anger I feel towards the practitioners.
Let's get the easy one out of the way first, New Age medicine. Now I really shouldn't have to go on how three thousand year old eastern medical practices based on spiritual healing and, well, nothing else could possibly thrive in a world with modern medicine. Unfortunately I have to do just that, because it just won't go away. The New Age Medical practices are based off the old Eastern philosophy of healing spiritual energy, add that with Hippies minus the tie dye, and you've got yourself a nice placebo that will not only earn you cash, but get you the appreciation of your fellow man. Unearned, and unwarranted. New Age Medicine, incense therapy, and any other spiritual nonsense are nothing more than placebos. They put the patient in a relaxed state, they're calm, they're at ease, and worse off, they believe it will work. They end up saying they feel great! And continue to go for treatment while the real problem continues.
Now Alternative Medicine is a bit trickier as there's no aspect of spirituality in these... most of the time. They try and sound scientific, while in essence have no scientific backing to their methods. You're likely to see a lot of alternative medicine on late night infomercials promising to heal that back, ankle, wrist, neck, and weight problem you have. Things like Reflexology, Magnet Therapy, Herbology, and Homeopathic medicine provide the same placebo effect for those who don't critical thinkers who don't want spiritual healers, and don't want to think critically enough. These practices mostly seem to be elaborate massages, or using devices that have little to no actual effect on the human body, or just really bad science like diluting medicine with water somehow making the medicinal value stronger?
So how do these practices continue to thrive? I could easily say that people are gullible and knock off for the day, but I don't think that's truly the case. In my experience, every person I've known that prefers alternative or new age medicine had some tragedy in the family caused by modern medicine. These people watched a family member suffer and die due to a mistake by a doctor, or an adverse reaction to a medical procedure. It's heartbreaking watching these people, who aren't stupid, they're not dim witted or lack any sense of sense, they're angry and spiteful. So here comes a practice that promises to make you feel great with no risk. And hey, it works, you do feel great and there was no risk.
But while feeling great, real sickness and illness can take hold and these people just can't fix that. There is no getting better without some risk, we're talking about altering the state of our bodies, and our bodies can be temperamental bitches. Being angry at Medicine because your doctor was a fuck up, or because one time a medication had a side effect just doesn't justify endangering your own life, and possibly your families. Realize that Medicine is not a practice that can ever be one hundred percent, and for practitioners is an ever learning experience. Realize that Modern Medicine has completely eradicated thousands of diseases and illnesses through cures and treatments, and that New age and Alternative Medicine has completely cured absolutely nothing.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, or it does nothing at all.
Let's get the easy one out of the way first, New Age medicine. Now I really shouldn't have to go on how three thousand year old eastern medical practices based on spiritual healing and, well, nothing else could possibly thrive in a world with modern medicine. Unfortunately I have to do just that, because it just won't go away. The New Age Medical practices are based off the old Eastern philosophy of healing spiritual energy, add that with Hippies minus the tie dye, and you've got yourself a nice placebo that will not only earn you cash, but get you the appreciation of your fellow man. Unearned, and unwarranted. New Age Medicine, incense therapy, and any other spiritual nonsense are nothing more than placebos. They put the patient in a relaxed state, they're calm, they're at ease, and worse off, they believe it will work. They end up saying they feel great! And continue to go for treatment while the real problem continues.
Now Alternative Medicine is a bit trickier as there's no aspect of spirituality in these... most of the time. They try and sound scientific, while in essence have no scientific backing to their methods. You're likely to see a lot of alternative medicine on late night infomercials promising to heal that back, ankle, wrist, neck, and weight problem you have. Things like Reflexology, Magnet Therapy, Herbology, and Homeopathic medicine provide the same placebo effect for those who don't critical thinkers who don't want spiritual healers, and don't want to think critically enough. These practices mostly seem to be elaborate massages, or using devices that have little to no actual effect on the human body, or just really bad science like diluting medicine with water somehow making the medicinal value stronger?
So how do these practices continue to thrive? I could easily say that people are gullible and knock off for the day, but I don't think that's truly the case. In my experience, every person I've known that prefers alternative or new age medicine had some tragedy in the family caused by modern medicine. These people watched a family member suffer and die due to a mistake by a doctor, or an adverse reaction to a medical procedure. It's heartbreaking watching these people, who aren't stupid, they're not dim witted or lack any sense of sense, they're angry and spiteful. So here comes a practice that promises to make you feel great with no risk. And hey, it works, you do feel great and there was no risk.
But while feeling great, real sickness and illness can take hold and these people just can't fix that. There is no getting better without some risk, we're talking about altering the state of our bodies, and our bodies can be temperamental bitches. Being angry at Medicine because your doctor was a fuck up, or because one time a medication had a side effect just doesn't justify endangering your own life, and possibly your families. Realize that Medicine is not a practice that can ever be one hundred percent, and for practitioners is an ever learning experience. Realize that Modern Medicine has completely eradicated thousands of diseases and illnesses through cures and treatments, and that New age and Alternative Medicine has completely cured absolutely nothing.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, or it does nothing at all.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Broadcast Someone Else
I've talked in the past about piracy, bringing up the point that though those against piracy on the internet are right, their methods of enforcement quickly turn public opinions against them. No greater case can be listed than Viacom's nearly two billion dollar lawsuit against Google in regards to their property YouTube. The ruling has finally come, and the Judge stated that YouTube was doing everything in it's power to remove copyrighted material from it's site, IE someone flags a video as copyrighted and YouTube removes it. Therefore YouTube was acting in accordance to all laws regarding Internet Media. Viacom states openly that they're sure they will win in appeal, and continues it's effort in making itself the enemy of this situation.
Now this is a little different from the last article I did on Piracy, where the individual person was stealing and distributing media, now we have a middle man, a company, YouTube. Viacom's case is that YouTube's methods of removing material from their site is inadequate and therefore the mega-giant that is Viacom is losing money from people watching their shows on the site. They go on to point out that YouTube actually encourages the posting of copyrighted material and are making money off of it. As ludicrous as this is, it becomes even sillier when the fact that Viacom itself has posted it's own material on the site to spark a viral interest in the material, and have asked YouTube to put it back up when it was taken down...
The simple fact is that YouTube has a EULA, an End-User License Agreement, which states quite clearly that the posting of videos that you do not exclusively own without permission is prohibited. When someone ignores this, the video can then be flagged by any user, and will then be viewed by a moderator, and removed if the video goes against the User Agreement. Case closed. YouTube has always made it clear that videos you do not have permission to show are not allowed, and it is the individual users that ignore this agreement that cause the problem, and with a user base numbering in the thousands of people who use YouTube regularly, not even mentioning the casual users, it creates a pile that can be difficult to manage.
What strikes me is Viacom's assertion that YouTube makes it's money off this material. This is a lie, and one I cannot fathom anyone buying. The core premise of YouTube is the ability to share an individual's videos with the world, and that's generally how it's used. From funny accident videos to vloggers, the people who do actually bring most of YouTube's money, the site is about self expression for anyone and everyone.
Right now I'm looking at YouTube's front page and you know what I see? In the Featured Videos I see Tiny Bubbles; a bearded man talking to his camera about explosions, Understanding GIRLS!!!; a video of an Asian girl talking about, well, women. In the 'Videos being watched now' section I see Marvel vs. Capcom 3 Gameplay Footage posted by IGN, and Ken's Dating Tips, a comedy skit promoting Toy Story 3 posted by Pixar. Wait a minute, you mean legitimate companies are using YouTube to distribute their content so they can make money?
This is where Viacom should be, they should be using YouTube, not trying to milk it for two billion dollars. The simple and instant access to media is what makes sites like YouTube so popular, people can instantly find something they want to watch. Whether it's Movie Trailers posted by the Studios, reports directly from the floors of E3 posted by G4, or news reports put up by CNN. YouTube is not hurting media distribution, it's giving it a new tool to provide us entertainment on our schedule, and putting it in a place we're all gonna be able to find it. Here we have yet again a company that doesn't want to see the world of technology evolve, they just want to keep everything the way it was...
Knock it off Viacom, and upload a video.
Now this is a little different from the last article I did on Piracy, where the individual person was stealing and distributing media, now we have a middle man, a company, YouTube. Viacom's case is that YouTube's methods of removing material from their site is inadequate and therefore the mega-giant that is Viacom is losing money from people watching their shows on the site. They go on to point out that YouTube actually encourages the posting of copyrighted material and are making money off of it. As ludicrous as this is, it becomes even sillier when the fact that Viacom itself has posted it's own material on the site to spark a viral interest in the material, and have asked YouTube to put it back up when it was taken down...
The simple fact is that YouTube has a EULA, an End-User License Agreement, which states quite clearly that the posting of videos that you do not exclusively own without permission is prohibited. When someone ignores this, the video can then be flagged by any user, and will then be viewed by a moderator, and removed if the video goes against the User Agreement. Case closed. YouTube has always made it clear that videos you do not have permission to show are not allowed, and it is the individual users that ignore this agreement that cause the problem, and with a user base numbering in the thousands of people who use YouTube regularly, not even mentioning the casual users, it creates a pile that can be difficult to manage.
What strikes me is Viacom's assertion that YouTube makes it's money off this material. This is a lie, and one I cannot fathom anyone buying. The core premise of YouTube is the ability to share an individual's videos with the world, and that's generally how it's used. From funny accident videos to vloggers, the people who do actually bring most of YouTube's money, the site is about self expression for anyone and everyone.
Right now I'm looking at YouTube's front page and you know what I see? In the Featured Videos I see Tiny Bubbles; a bearded man talking to his camera about explosions, Understanding GIRLS!!!; a video of an Asian girl talking about, well, women. In the 'Videos being watched now' section I see Marvel vs. Capcom 3 Gameplay Footage posted by IGN, and Ken's Dating Tips, a comedy skit promoting Toy Story 3 posted by Pixar. Wait a minute, you mean legitimate companies are using YouTube to distribute their content so they can make money?
This is where Viacom should be, they should be using YouTube, not trying to milk it for two billion dollars. The simple and instant access to media is what makes sites like YouTube so popular, people can instantly find something they want to watch. Whether it's Movie Trailers posted by the Studios, reports directly from the floors of E3 posted by G4, or news reports put up by CNN. YouTube is not hurting media distribution, it's giving it a new tool to provide us entertainment on our schedule, and putting it in a place we're all gonna be able to find it. Here we have yet again a company that doesn't want to see the world of technology evolve, they just want to keep everything the way it was...
Knock it off Viacom, and upload a video.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Bad Blood
Let's say that you, spurred on by the recent tragedies of the past few years, want to give something back. You wanna help out, do something right, but you have a problem. You see, you're broke and really can't give any money to the relief funds and you're too busy to go down and volunteer, so what do you do? Well why not donate some blood? Yeah, that's something you can do. It doesn't cost you anything, you only have to give up about an hour of your day at most, and you get a cookie and some OJ for your troubles. That, and you'll know that you're helping people who truly need it... What's that? You're a gay man? Sorry, never mind.
Since 1985 the FDA has put a ban on any male donor who has had even one sexual encounter with another man since the year 1977. Though there have been several attempts to remove this ban, as far as I can read, it is still in effect. The reasoning for this is because it is seen that homosexual relations is a high risk for transmitting diseases. Basically, it's easier and more prevalent for gay men to have HIV.
Now I could blow that away as really bad science and forced statistics. I could point at the level of disease on race lines, how any man and woman who preform anal sex are just as likely, or that it's actually shared needle use that is the higher transference of blood born diseases. But I won't, cause it's not the point. You can't just lop off a litany of perfectly viable volunteers just because the odds are higher that they might be diseased compared to another according to your bad math. The FDA is in essentially saying that one group of people can participate, and another can't. That's right, they're discriminating against male homosexuals.
They're not doing it intentionally, no, they're only doing it because they're looking at the data they gathered, and came to the wrong conclusion. In 1985 when this ban was passed HIV and AIDS was new and scary. They didn't know a lot about it at the time, they didn't know many ways to prevent it, and it seemed like it was located solely in the Homosexual population. The disease was referred to as the Gay Cancer, it was wide spread, it was terrifying. In they're haste to keep this deadly disease out of the population at large, one could argue that the ban was needed.
But it's not anymore, it's just not. They argue that the tests aren't one hundred percent, that there's human error, and that it's just too much of a risk still. But it's 2010, HIV and AIDS are not the gay cancer anymore, just as many straight people suffer from the disease as well. It's no longer so very wide spread among the gay community with the increased use of protection and testing. Every gay man walking the street is not diseased, and they're blood is just as 'high risk' as the woman who last year banged three guys in one night with no condom... Right now all this bad does is discriminate, it keeps a part of the population from helping with the massive needs blood donation. If you need to live in your small minded world, test the blood more strictly, but don't disallow good blood.
You need it more than they do.
Since 1985 the FDA has put a ban on any male donor who has had even one sexual encounter with another man since the year 1977. Though there have been several attempts to remove this ban, as far as I can read, it is still in effect. The reasoning for this is because it is seen that homosexual relations is a high risk for transmitting diseases. Basically, it's easier and more prevalent for gay men to have HIV.
Now I could blow that away as really bad science and forced statistics. I could point at the level of disease on race lines, how any man and woman who preform anal sex are just as likely, or that it's actually shared needle use that is the higher transference of blood born diseases. But I won't, cause it's not the point. You can't just lop off a litany of perfectly viable volunteers just because the odds are higher that they might be diseased compared to another according to your bad math. The FDA is in essentially saying that one group of people can participate, and another can't. That's right, they're discriminating against male homosexuals.
They're not doing it intentionally, no, they're only doing it because they're looking at the data they gathered, and came to the wrong conclusion. In 1985 when this ban was passed HIV and AIDS was new and scary. They didn't know a lot about it at the time, they didn't know many ways to prevent it, and it seemed like it was located solely in the Homosexual population. The disease was referred to as the Gay Cancer, it was wide spread, it was terrifying. In they're haste to keep this deadly disease out of the population at large, one could argue that the ban was needed.
But it's not anymore, it's just not. They argue that the tests aren't one hundred percent, that there's human error, and that it's just too much of a risk still. But it's 2010, HIV and AIDS are not the gay cancer anymore, just as many straight people suffer from the disease as well. It's no longer so very wide spread among the gay community with the increased use of protection and testing. Every gay man walking the street is not diseased, and they're blood is just as 'high risk' as the woman who last year banged three guys in one night with no condom... Right now all this bad does is discriminate, it keeps a part of the population from helping with the massive needs blood donation. If you need to live in your small minded world, test the blood more strictly, but don't disallow good blood.
You need it more than they do.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
[Insert Title Here] Day
So it's Father's Day, a day in which we celebrate dad, and despite my issues of distance and unfamiliarity with the man, I called my father to wish him a happy Father's Day. We talked for some time about this and that, and all was well. However I may feel about him as a person, he is my father and he deserves love and respect for what parts he did have in raising me, and that is my problem with Father's Day. In fact, it's my problem with any 'holiday' that puts some arbitrary importance on any one subject more-so than any other day of the year.
I hate Father's Day, I hate Mother's Day, and like any single person I hate Valentine's day. Secretary Day, Nurse Appreciation day, every year it seems a new day comes up we're expected to respect a person or persons we should already respect on any given day. I can go on to tell you how it's all pushed by Hallmark and other such companies to keep themselves relevant the other ninety percent of the year people aren't buying three dollar pieces of cardboard paper with some sappy words on them, and as true as it is, I won't. Instead I'll simply talk about how these companies, the ones who push these Holidays in the first place, end up destroying the true sentiment behind them.
Mother's Day, Father's Day, Valentines Day, all these holidays are in spirit a celebration of love and cherishment of a person. These days of respect and admiration to people we care about are instead turned into mini-Christmases where we're more concerned about the guilt of buying something nice for the person instead of giving them our love and respect. Love and cherish your Father, but also buy him a cool toy from Radio Shack. Show your utmost desire for your lover on Valentines day... by purchasing them a gold ring. Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but sometimes it just feels like the gift overshadows the intent behind the gift.
These holidays are ridiculous, they push on to you an obligation to feel for someone as you should every day without the need for a date on a Calendar. The celebration of love should not be exaggerated on one specific day in the year, it should be honest and heartfelt every single day. The only days that should be any different are personal milestones, hallmark moments, and annual achievements like Birthdays and Anniversaries. These days have actual meaning to the people being celebrated, they're not arbitrary third Mondays of a month you're expected to care a little more. They're special not cause it's the day you need to buy a card, but because they mark a moment in time that matters whether it be a birth, falling in love, or a marriage.
Even with all that I've said, do call your Father if you can, tell him you love him, spend some time on the phone with him. If you're able to a dinner with the man won't hurt, and yeah, a gift that shows you appreciate what he's done for you would be nice. Just don't do it because of what today happens to be, do it because he deserves it. Do it because you love him.
Putting so much love into one day, just means there's less to give all year round.
I hate Father's Day, I hate Mother's Day, and like any single person I hate Valentine's day. Secretary Day, Nurse Appreciation day, every year it seems a new day comes up we're expected to respect a person or persons we should already respect on any given day. I can go on to tell you how it's all pushed by Hallmark and other such companies to keep themselves relevant the other ninety percent of the year people aren't buying three dollar pieces of cardboard paper with some sappy words on them, and as true as it is, I won't. Instead I'll simply talk about how these companies, the ones who push these Holidays in the first place, end up destroying the true sentiment behind them.
Mother's Day, Father's Day, Valentines Day, all these holidays are in spirit a celebration of love and cherishment of a person. These days of respect and admiration to people we care about are instead turned into mini-Christmases where we're more concerned about the guilt of buying something nice for the person instead of giving them our love and respect. Love and cherish your Father, but also buy him a cool toy from Radio Shack. Show your utmost desire for your lover on Valentines day... by purchasing them a gold ring. Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but sometimes it just feels like the gift overshadows the intent behind the gift.
These holidays are ridiculous, they push on to you an obligation to feel for someone as you should every day without the need for a date on a Calendar. The celebration of love should not be exaggerated on one specific day in the year, it should be honest and heartfelt every single day. The only days that should be any different are personal milestones, hallmark moments, and annual achievements like Birthdays and Anniversaries. These days have actual meaning to the people being celebrated, they're not arbitrary third Mondays of a month you're expected to care a little more. They're special not cause it's the day you need to buy a card, but because they mark a moment in time that matters whether it be a birth, falling in love, or a marriage.
Even with all that I've said, do call your Father if you can, tell him you love him, spend some time on the phone with him. If you're able to a dinner with the man won't hurt, and yeah, a gift that shows you appreciate what he's done for you would be nice. Just don't do it because of what today happens to be, do it because he deserves it. Do it because you love him.
Putting so much love into one day, just means there's less to give all year round.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
When is a law the law?
Last Wednesday Aline Wright had a stroke, but was luckily enough to feel it coming along early. Her husband of four days Jesse, was quick to put her in the car and rush her to the hospital. On their way there Jesse ran two red lights, he was not reckless though, he in fact stopped at the light and made sure there was no oncoming traffic before moving on, treating the lights as stop signs. On the second light a cop spotted them and gave chase, being only a block away from the hospital, Jesse decided not to stop thinking the cop would realize why he had done what he did. The cop caught up with them at the entrance of the emergency room and actually stopped them from entering, Aline actually being carried in Jesse's arms. The cop did eventually let them through, but followed them in intent on arresting Jesse. The Hospital, though, turned him away as Arline could not speak, and Jesse was needed to answer questions.
The following days progressed oddly, when on Thursday Jesse was told there was a warrant out for his arrest, upon turning himself in though he was told no such warrant existed. Returning to his wife, he was awoken on Friday morning to find that he was being arrested. The couple already have a lawyer ready to fight this, and intend to lodge a complaint against the police department. The only comment the department would make on the issue was that the officer was "just doing his job." And you know what? He was.
Yeah he was being a dick about it, and went about this whole issue the completely wrong way, but this officer saw a man run a red light, and when giving pursuit, the driver did not pull over. Here's a simple truth that many do not know, it's not a cop's job to protect you, a cop's job is to enforce the law. The question of this story to me is when does the law become supplemental. I'm sure we've all heard a story of a frantic man driving a pregnant woman to the hospital as she enters labor, the man is pulled over for speeding, and the cop then gives the two an escort to the hospital. But Jesse didn't stop, he didn't have a police car ahead of him clearing traffic for him, and despite being only a few blocks to the Hospital, a cop could interpret this as endangering others, and the man did not stop when caught.
Even with this I'm going to be siding with the Wrights here. Once the cop realized what was going on, he should have let them go, possibly with a warning. The man stopped these two right outside the entrance to the ER while Jesse was literally carrying Aline because she was unable to walk. This man followed these two into the hospital with intents to arrest Jesse for the crime of carefully running a red light with no traffic, and a wife experiencing a stroke. The law or not, it takes someone very cold to not understand that going after a guy for that is wrong. And that's the thing with this story to me, there's a legitimate complaint for both sides, but the Cop tops it for not realizing that while Jesse did break the law, he didn't do anything wrong.
“Laws control the lesser man... Right conduct controls the greater one.” Mark Twain
The following days progressed oddly, when on Thursday Jesse was told there was a warrant out for his arrest, upon turning himself in though he was told no such warrant existed. Returning to his wife, he was awoken on Friday morning to find that he was being arrested. The couple already have a lawyer ready to fight this, and intend to lodge a complaint against the police department. The only comment the department would make on the issue was that the officer was "just doing his job." And you know what? He was.
Yeah he was being a dick about it, and went about this whole issue the completely wrong way, but this officer saw a man run a red light, and when giving pursuit, the driver did not pull over. Here's a simple truth that many do not know, it's not a cop's job to protect you, a cop's job is to enforce the law. The question of this story to me is when does the law become supplemental. I'm sure we've all heard a story of a frantic man driving a pregnant woman to the hospital as she enters labor, the man is pulled over for speeding, and the cop then gives the two an escort to the hospital. But Jesse didn't stop, he didn't have a police car ahead of him clearing traffic for him, and despite being only a few blocks to the Hospital, a cop could interpret this as endangering others, and the man did not stop when caught.
Even with this I'm going to be siding with the Wrights here. Once the cop realized what was going on, he should have let them go, possibly with a warning. The man stopped these two right outside the entrance to the ER while Jesse was literally carrying Aline because she was unable to walk. This man followed these two into the hospital with intents to arrest Jesse for the crime of carefully running a red light with no traffic, and a wife experiencing a stroke. The law or not, it takes someone very cold to not understand that going after a guy for that is wrong. And that's the thing with this story to me, there's a legitimate complaint for both sides, but the Cop tops it for not realizing that while Jesse did break the law, he didn't do anything wrong.
“Laws control the lesser man... Right conduct controls the greater one.” Mark Twain
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Time To Grow Up
There's something strange,
Taking care of someone else,
Hearing the call of help
Or the whine of unhappiness.
You wonder,
How did I get to this place?
I'm in charge of someone else.
I can barely take care of myself!
How... frustrating.
Dizzying.
Exciting.
Endearing
Taking care of someone else,
Hearing the call of help
Or the whine of unhappiness.
You wonder,
How did I get to this place?
I'm in charge of someone else.
I can barely take care of myself!
How... frustrating.
Dizzying.
Exciting.
Endearing
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Your Own Man
In September of 2007 I found out that my father was dying. At that point he had been living in North Carolina for some time, and I hadn't seen him in years. We were told he didn't have much time left, so me and my family got on a plane to go see him, we spent a few days there, visited my father, and discussed what was to be done. It was decided he be moved up to Jersey where his family and friends could be close, and the medical care would be infinitely better, since on the day of our departure to see him, the hospital had lost him for a day. Nearly three years later and he's fine, the two week time-line his doctors in North Carolina gave him was a bit of a miss. He had been living with my sister, and I still had little contact with him. Today I found out he's in the hospital again, and will be going into surgery tomorrow. And like when I heard of his imminent death... I didn't really feel anything.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't want my father to die. But the man has not been a part of my life in a very long time, and I've actually made efforts to distance myself from him. My father has a genius level IQ, he was a Marine, a brilliant mechanic, and at heart a cowboy and a biker. He also may have schizophrenia, was kicked out of the Marines for punching a superior officer, could never hold down a job, and was an alcoholic which lead to the cirrhosis of the liver. In his life he did some bad things, he was in and out of jail for drunk driving and fighting, and I remember him being arrested once for punching an undercover cop. This is the man who taught me how to ride a bike, how to throw a baseball and a football, he taught me how to fish, and for that I defended him for years.
Years of my life I remember becoming angry when people spoke ill of my father. I always tried to point out his good when the bad came out. This is the man who raised me, the man I'm named after, I hated to hear him put down, even when it was justified. In my early twenties though, something changed. I started to realize that I was defending a man in his late 40s, a man who would regularly get into brawls at bars, and who would drink while his family was in the car with him, a man who everyone told me I was just like.
That was the driving point, I look like my father, I'm named after my father, but I don't want to be my father. My fathers life is not something to strive for. I put distance between us, determined not to be him, and the unfortunate side effect is a apathy when I hear he might be dying. Like I said I don't want my father to die, but there's so much distance between us now, I don't know how to feel bad for him.
When you're a child your dad is a super hero, as you grow up though you realize he's not, he's just a man. He makes mistakes, and my father has made many. My father is not the greatest man in the world, but he has shown me and my brother nothing but love. We are the two things he is most proud of in his life, but we're not his little boys anymore. I've changed so much in the past few years, and maybe that's why I feel the way I do about my father. Maybe it's not because I've tried so hard not to be him, but because I was successful in not being him. I'm my own man, and I'm not sure my father would like the man I've become.
Maybe I'm just afraid that if he gets to know the man I am, I'll stop being my father's son.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't want my father to die. But the man has not been a part of my life in a very long time, and I've actually made efforts to distance myself from him. My father has a genius level IQ, he was a Marine, a brilliant mechanic, and at heart a cowboy and a biker. He also may have schizophrenia, was kicked out of the Marines for punching a superior officer, could never hold down a job, and was an alcoholic which lead to the cirrhosis of the liver. In his life he did some bad things, he was in and out of jail for drunk driving and fighting, and I remember him being arrested once for punching an undercover cop. This is the man who taught me how to ride a bike, how to throw a baseball and a football, he taught me how to fish, and for that I defended him for years.
Years of my life I remember becoming angry when people spoke ill of my father. I always tried to point out his good when the bad came out. This is the man who raised me, the man I'm named after, I hated to hear him put down, even when it was justified. In my early twenties though, something changed. I started to realize that I was defending a man in his late 40s, a man who would regularly get into brawls at bars, and who would drink while his family was in the car with him, a man who everyone told me I was just like.
That was the driving point, I look like my father, I'm named after my father, but I don't want to be my father. My fathers life is not something to strive for. I put distance between us, determined not to be him, and the unfortunate side effect is a apathy when I hear he might be dying. Like I said I don't want my father to die, but there's so much distance between us now, I don't know how to feel bad for him.
When you're a child your dad is a super hero, as you grow up though you realize he's not, he's just a man. He makes mistakes, and my father has made many. My father is not the greatest man in the world, but he has shown me and my brother nothing but love. We are the two things he is most proud of in his life, but we're not his little boys anymore. I've changed so much in the past few years, and maybe that's why I feel the way I do about my father. Maybe it's not because I've tried so hard not to be him, but because I was successful in not being him. I'm my own man, and I'm not sure my father would like the man I've become.
Maybe I'm just afraid that if he gets to know the man I am, I'll stop being my father's son.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Pretentious Poem That Has No Sense
The mimicry of insolence,
Calling on one untruth, one horror,
And recalling, resending, revealing;
It's terrifying and persuasive.
So why listen to it
In all it's shaking terrors
And unseen prospects of unending sadness?
Are you so lost?
If you walk away,
Toward the light of unannounced bliss,
Maybe you won't be charmed
Into the falsehood of despair.
Calling on one untruth, one horror,
And recalling, resending, revealing;
It's terrifying and persuasive.
So why listen to it
In all it's shaking terrors
And unseen prospects of unending sadness?
Are you so lost?
If you walk away,
Toward the light of unannounced bliss,
Maybe you won't be charmed
Into the falsehood of despair.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Crossing Boarders
You know, Arizona, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I stated quite firm that while your anti-illegal immigration tactics were on the borders of morality, they were not inherently evil. One of my commenters even pointed out that I had the early draft of the bill and the legislation was much more reasonable than people were saying. Now what do I hear, Arizona? You're trying to push in a bill that would refuse a birth certificate to children of illegal immigrants born here in the states... I just can't can't find the words to understand that, it's beyond me.
Illegal Immigration has been a topic of discussion over the past couple years, and though it seems to have died down, the good people in charge of Arizona are here to keep the issue hot it seems. You hear it all the time, you hear the term Undocumented Workers from those against harsh immigration laws, you hear the words racist for those for. You hear that they're stealing jobs from Americans, and you hear the counter that it's jobs American's don't want. It confuses me sometimes cause when it gets right down to it... It's illegal.
Now I'm not about to go all hard headed conservative on you here. I'm not going to forget that at some point in the past my own family came blinking into the sunlight off some boat, just looking for a new life. I have nothing but compassion for those who come to this country for the reason of helping their family, they're good people and hard workers. But the problem is my family did it all by the books, and every cent they made they paid taxes. And that's the issue, that's the 'problem' with Undocumented Workers, they don't pay taxes despite living in this country.
Most illegal immigrants, and hear me when I say most not all, come to this country to work and then send money back to their family in their native country. These people take cash, and then do not put it back into our economy. Their dollar doesn't go to funding everything that's needed to make the world around us run, now I'm trying very hard not to come off as some ignorant prig, but it just seems so very wrong to take money you gained from working in one country and not helping the country run through taxes or aiding the economy.
Now I'm not about to be all one sided, I'm not here to generalize, there are many illegal immigrants who do come here and spend the money they make here in America, they still don't pay income tax, but they do put that money back into the economy. But you know what? It's not all that fair to them... These people are paid pittance, they're paid pennies on the dollar for backbreaking labor. They gain no benefits, no health insurance, they have no workman's comp, union protection, or even job security. There is no regulating something that is illegal, and the men hiring these immigrants under the table are taking an unjust profit from it all.
Now I know what many people will say, if we only hire legally, locally processed goods and services will be more expensive, and I can tell you as a man who makes very little money that I'm willing to pony up the dough. Yeah it's nice that those strawberries are so cheap, but what you don't realize is that it's only cheap because a man was slaved away for a 14 hour day picking them and probably only made fifty bucks for it.
Illegal Immigration is illegal, it's illegal for a reason. I know it sounds cruel, I know it sounds elitist. I know that families that come to this country only seek the chance to thrive, and I want them to be able to, but I don't think they should be doing it illegally. Compassion is one thing, but letting it make you blind to a system that hurts the immigrants just as much as it hurts everyone else is not something you should let happen. Whether you think all current illegal immigrants should be made legal or not, something needs to be done to help these people make a fair wage, and help them from breaking the law just to pay for a small home. I'm willing to pay the difference, are you?
Cotton was really cheap back in the day too.
Illegal Immigration has been a topic of discussion over the past couple years, and though it seems to have died down, the good people in charge of Arizona are here to keep the issue hot it seems. You hear it all the time, you hear the term Undocumented Workers from those against harsh immigration laws, you hear the words racist for those for. You hear that they're stealing jobs from Americans, and you hear the counter that it's jobs American's don't want. It confuses me sometimes cause when it gets right down to it... It's illegal.
Now I'm not about to go all hard headed conservative on you here. I'm not going to forget that at some point in the past my own family came blinking into the sunlight off some boat, just looking for a new life. I have nothing but compassion for those who come to this country for the reason of helping their family, they're good people and hard workers. But the problem is my family did it all by the books, and every cent they made they paid taxes. And that's the issue, that's the 'problem' with Undocumented Workers, they don't pay taxes despite living in this country.
Most illegal immigrants, and hear me when I say most not all, come to this country to work and then send money back to their family in their native country. These people take cash, and then do not put it back into our economy. Their dollar doesn't go to funding everything that's needed to make the world around us run, now I'm trying very hard not to come off as some ignorant prig, but it just seems so very wrong to take money you gained from working in one country and not helping the country run through taxes or aiding the economy.
Now I'm not about to be all one sided, I'm not here to generalize, there are many illegal immigrants who do come here and spend the money they make here in America, they still don't pay income tax, but they do put that money back into the economy. But you know what? It's not all that fair to them... These people are paid pittance, they're paid pennies on the dollar for backbreaking labor. They gain no benefits, no health insurance, they have no workman's comp, union protection, or even job security. There is no regulating something that is illegal, and the men hiring these immigrants under the table are taking an unjust profit from it all.
Now I know what many people will say, if we only hire legally, locally processed goods and services will be more expensive, and I can tell you as a man who makes very little money that I'm willing to pony up the dough. Yeah it's nice that those strawberries are so cheap, but what you don't realize is that it's only cheap because a man was slaved away for a 14 hour day picking them and probably only made fifty bucks for it.
Illegal Immigration is illegal, it's illegal for a reason. I know it sounds cruel, I know it sounds elitist. I know that families that come to this country only seek the chance to thrive, and I want them to be able to, but I don't think they should be doing it illegally. Compassion is one thing, but letting it make you blind to a system that hurts the immigrants just as much as it hurts everyone else is not something you should let happen. Whether you think all current illegal immigrants should be made legal or not, something needs to be done to help these people make a fair wage, and help them from breaking the law just to pay for a small home. I'm willing to pay the difference, are you?
Cotton was really cheap back in the day too.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
It Fits
I was going to write an article today but instead this poured out.... Also none of you left suggestions cause you're too busy being awed by the sheer awesomeness of William.
I find myself believing
In what I never did.
The kinds of things I never thought,
Never began conceiving.
I'm stronger now than ever before,
Not that lost little girl.
I'm not afraid of losing them,
Not afraid of myself anymore.
I will wonder this way,
Head high and proud.
I will guide and mold,
Comfort and cherish day by day.
Everything is falling in place,
Shaping just quite right.
And tomorrow is no longer blank,
I can even see her face.
I find myself believing
In what I never did.
The kinds of things I never thought,
Never began conceiving.
I'm stronger now than ever before,
Not that lost little girl.
I'm not afraid of losing them,
Not afraid of myself anymore.
I will wonder this way,
Head high and proud.
I will guide and mold,
Comfort and cherish day by day.
Everything is falling in place,
Shaping just quite right.
And tomorrow is no longer blank,
I can even see her face.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Angry Atheists
I am an Atheist, and am not shy to say it. I do not believe in the existence of a higher power, god, or spiritual force. I don't believe in ghosts, ESP, psychics, or any book written by a man who believed the words in his head were god. Now what I don't often talk about is how I, when first coming to confirmation of my beliefs, did not want to associate myself as an Atheist. The reason for this is that I didn't really think that a non-belief could be labeled and that most Atheists generally got a bad rap for being loud and boisterous. The reason I bring this up is because I was reading an article written by a Minister who, quite correctly, called out a lot of Atheists for being hypocrites.
The closest thing Atheists have to a figurehead is Richard Dawkins, a brilliant man who I tend to find myself agreeing with many times. He's often seen arguing against any and all organized religion, and believes the abolishment of it would be beneficial to humanity as a whole. He's well spoken, puts reason behind his arguments, and generally seems like a well rounded guy when it comes to his belief. He's not some raging lunatic spewing out half truths he read on some disreputable news source, so whats the problem with him? Well, he's loud. He's very loud, and him shouting how he knows that God cannot exist comes about as well received as the Pope saying condoms should not be used to prevent HIV in Africa because he knows God disapproves. It's two people who know something that cannot truly be known, and while I may side with Dawkins, I'm not about to refute that he does the same thing that any other zealots do.
That was my original problem with Atheism, the zealousy I hated in organized religion being thrown out from the very people I was supposed to identify with. Another came from the people I call the Angry Atheists... These are the people that aren't truly Atheist, they're not people who came to the very personal belief that God doesn't exist through personal exploration and study of the world around them, they came to it because they are angry for some reason. A personal travesty, the atrocities that happen by man or nature, the glaring conflicts from scripture to practice. In essence, these are people who do believe in god, but are upset with him and reject him out of spite. And these are the people who are truly damaging to other non-believers. These are the ones who hoot and howl out at anything even remotely religious, and a reason for a lot of people to just not confirm their beliefs as Atheist, like me.
But I did come around, and realized that a spade is a spade, and I am an Atheist. I'm a man of logic before faith, I need to know there's evidence of something before simply accepting it. And I am not a zealot, I have many times stated that if true proof of the existence of a higher power were to emerge, I'd accept it. When an issue of religion comes up in the news in America, like God in the Pledge or the Ten Commandment's in front of a court house, I don't argue against religion, I argue for the Constitution stating that the Government will show no preference to any faith. I don't hate religious people, I hate zealots, even when they're part of my own group.
But sometimes, and this is only sometimes, I can't blame them. A study from the University of Minnesota found that Atheists are the least trusted minority in America, and adult Atheists make up only 2% of the population in America and is on a steady rise. This is a fairly new phenomena as more people flock to a group that is not truly understood by the majority. When the loudmouthed Atheist flies off the handle after being told he's going to hell for the fiftieth time, can you blame him? I don't condone it, but this is a group of people united by a lack of something trying to get their message out just like anyone else. And with any group of people the loudest and most controversial are the ones who get the spot light, and we level headed many have to shake our head at it. All in all, some people's fist reaction to being poked is to poke back.
“No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.” George H. W. Bush
The closest thing Atheists have to a figurehead is Richard Dawkins, a brilliant man who I tend to find myself agreeing with many times. He's often seen arguing against any and all organized religion, and believes the abolishment of it would be beneficial to humanity as a whole. He's well spoken, puts reason behind his arguments, and generally seems like a well rounded guy when it comes to his belief. He's not some raging lunatic spewing out half truths he read on some disreputable news source, so whats the problem with him? Well, he's loud. He's very loud, and him shouting how he knows that God cannot exist comes about as well received as the Pope saying condoms should not be used to prevent HIV in Africa because he knows God disapproves. It's two people who know something that cannot truly be known, and while I may side with Dawkins, I'm not about to refute that he does the same thing that any other zealots do.
That was my original problem with Atheism, the zealousy I hated in organized religion being thrown out from the very people I was supposed to identify with. Another came from the people I call the Angry Atheists... These are the people that aren't truly Atheist, they're not people who came to the very personal belief that God doesn't exist through personal exploration and study of the world around them, they came to it because they are angry for some reason. A personal travesty, the atrocities that happen by man or nature, the glaring conflicts from scripture to practice. In essence, these are people who do believe in god, but are upset with him and reject him out of spite. And these are the people who are truly damaging to other non-believers. These are the ones who hoot and howl out at anything even remotely religious, and a reason for a lot of people to just not confirm their beliefs as Atheist, like me.
But I did come around, and realized that a spade is a spade, and I am an Atheist. I'm a man of logic before faith, I need to know there's evidence of something before simply accepting it. And I am not a zealot, I have many times stated that if true proof of the existence of a higher power were to emerge, I'd accept it. When an issue of religion comes up in the news in America, like God in the Pledge or the Ten Commandment's in front of a court house, I don't argue against religion, I argue for the Constitution stating that the Government will show no preference to any faith. I don't hate religious people, I hate zealots, even when they're part of my own group.
But sometimes, and this is only sometimes, I can't blame them. A study from the University of Minnesota found that Atheists are the least trusted minority in America, and adult Atheists make up only 2% of the population in America and is on a steady rise. This is a fairly new phenomena as more people flock to a group that is not truly understood by the majority. When the loudmouthed Atheist flies off the handle after being told he's going to hell for the fiftieth time, can you blame him? I don't condone it, but this is a group of people united by a lack of something trying to get their message out just like anyone else. And with any group of people the loudest and most controversial are the ones who get the spot light, and we level headed many have to shake our head at it. All in all, some people's fist reaction to being poked is to poke back.
“No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.” George H. W. Bush
Friday, June 11, 2010
Some Lines and Questions
It's out of control, this spinning wheel of life.
You try to slow it down, dig your heels in, cling to the foundations.
You can't. You won't. You shouldn't, in all honesty.
Why try control something so beautiful, so wild?
Let it go, watch it fly. And follow.
That's all the artsy I have in my system right now.
Will's been writing a lot of great articles lately, important articles....
And I've been.... bleh.
I'm burnt out.
Maybe it's being sick.
Maybe it's actually having a life and a child to look after.
Who knows. I'm tired and I have nothing useful to add to this blog right now.
So maybe I'll try my hand in some articles.
Write about important things, important people, important ideas...
Leave me some suggestions of topics you'd like to hear about.
Or, if none of you do that, I'll just be forced to analyze some philosophy until I get my mojo back.
Here's a parting thought;
The more I learn about this country, this government, these laws and people; the more cynical I seem to get.
Individually, I tend to hope for the best. And when I hear thoughts on black people being inferior, gays going to hell or women being second class citizens; my heart tends to break.
When I thought of intolerance, I never thought I'd think so close to home.
Now here's a question for anyone reading this, Will included:
Is there a place for homophobic thoughts, racist beliefs and sexist ideals in our modern society?
I'm not talking about the people who force these ideas onto others, I'm talking about general beliefs.
Is there room to be tolerant of fear?
Is there room to be tolerant of intolerance?
Leave your thoughts, please. I'd honestly like to know.
You try to slow it down, dig your heels in, cling to the foundations.
You can't. You won't. You shouldn't, in all honesty.
Why try control something so beautiful, so wild?
Let it go, watch it fly. And follow.
That's all the artsy I have in my system right now.
Will's been writing a lot of great articles lately, important articles....
And I've been.... bleh.
I'm burnt out.
Maybe it's being sick.
Maybe it's actually having a life and a child to look after.
Who knows. I'm tired and I have nothing useful to add to this blog right now.
So maybe I'll try my hand in some articles.
Write about important things, important people, important ideas...
Leave me some suggestions of topics you'd like to hear about.
Or, if none of you do that, I'll just be forced to analyze some philosophy until I get my mojo back.
Here's a parting thought;
The more I learn about this country, this government, these laws and people; the more cynical I seem to get.
Individually, I tend to hope for the best. And when I hear thoughts on black people being inferior, gays going to hell or women being second class citizens; my heart tends to break.
When I thought of intolerance, I never thought I'd think so close to home.
Now here's a question for anyone reading this, Will included:
Is there a place for homophobic thoughts, racist beliefs and sexist ideals in our modern society?
I'm not talking about the people who force these ideas onto others, I'm talking about general beliefs.
Is there room to be tolerant of fear?
Is there room to be tolerant of intolerance?
Leave your thoughts, please. I'd honestly like to know.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Right to Discriminate?
It's post number one hundred on this little site here and I found myself looking for something really good to talk about. Unfortunately nothing came up in my search, BP continued to pop up, German millionaires volunteering to a Rich Tax, sixteen year old lost at sea... Many interesting topics, but none that jumped out at me, none I felt I could really discuss. Then I found an article, it's topic one I've discussed a few times before, and interestingly enough... I may find myself on the other side.
You see I still don't know how I feel about this story. Up in British Columbia an elderly couple is under fire and being taken to court for discrimination. It seems that they run a Bed and Breakfast, and refused to allow a gay couple to stay in their home. They're Christian and feel that allowing the two men to share a bed in their house would conflict with their personal religious beliefs. It seems at first glance that this is barely an issue, these people are clearly in the wrong, right? Well, I don't know.
We can easily see the counter argument here, that the fact that the two men are gay really shouldn't effect the couple's beliefs in any way, this is a business relationship, and the two men are customers. By refusing to serve them they are in fact pushing their beliefs onto other people, which is generally a bad business practice. I have to wonder to myself if they would allow someone of a different faith into their home, someone Jewish, Muslim, or perhaps a belief system that works with Witchcraft like Wicca. Would these things, that cannot be told about a person without asking, be something the couple wouldn't allow into their home?
I don't think this is really about discrimination, because if it is there's no argument, the couple is blatantly discriminating. I'm more along the lines on whether or not they should be penalized for it. I know, you're thinking I've gone mad, but here me out. Here in the States, a private organization or business can refuse service to anyone as long as it goes against the bylines of that business practice or organization. It's this reason that the Boy Scouts of America can refuse membership to gay, Jewish, or Atheist boys. They're personal bylines state that they feel these attributes do not go along with their own beliefs, and the government cannot force them to accept those people. They should be forced to on the fact they they accept government money and land, but that's a different story.
But how far does this go I wonder? I remember reading a story years ago about a woman of strong faith working at a pharmacy that refused to give out any form of birth control. Now due to her religion, she felt that selling this product would be along the same lines of supporting it... Now this is where the line seems to blur slightly doesn't it? This is a woman of faith, a faith that must be respected, if not agreed with. Wouldn't forcing her to sell Birth Control be intolerant of her beliefs? But she works in a Pharmacy, this is her job... She is being paid by a company to sell their product. Where does the line fall?
Should these people be forced to accept business from a Lifestyle they do not morally agree with, or should they be allowed to run their private business as they please? It's an issue I find myself on the fence with, for as much as I think the couple is wrong for believing what they do, I'm not about to ask the government to force them to think the way I do. But where do the rights of the customers take hold then? They're being refused service based on something they cannot control, which is flat out unfair. Though even if they were able to stay there, they'd be staying at a Bed and Breakfast where the hosts are quite obviously uncomfortable with them, which I think would ruin any real enjoyment of a vacation.
This issue has me waning on my own thoughts, I see the civil rights issue, but I also see the private business issue. I feel myself leaning more towards the civil rights, as I do see business as something that should be static and free of personal beliefs, especially when offering a service to many people, some who will undoubtedly be people you do not find fit with your personal beliefs. But as of now, the B&B is closed, and there seems to be some legal precedent for both sides of this case, and I'm not sure I'll be happy with either side winning.
What do you believe?
You see I still don't know how I feel about this story. Up in British Columbia an elderly couple is under fire and being taken to court for discrimination. It seems that they run a Bed and Breakfast, and refused to allow a gay couple to stay in their home. They're Christian and feel that allowing the two men to share a bed in their house would conflict with their personal religious beliefs. It seems at first glance that this is barely an issue, these people are clearly in the wrong, right? Well, I don't know.
We can easily see the counter argument here, that the fact that the two men are gay really shouldn't effect the couple's beliefs in any way, this is a business relationship, and the two men are customers. By refusing to serve them they are in fact pushing their beliefs onto other people, which is generally a bad business practice. I have to wonder to myself if they would allow someone of a different faith into their home, someone Jewish, Muslim, or perhaps a belief system that works with Witchcraft like Wicca. Would these things, that cannot be told about a person without asking, be something the couple wouldn't allow into their home?
I don't think this is really about discrimination, because if it is there's no argument, the couple is blatantly discriminating. I'm more along the lines on whether or not they should be penalized for it. I know, you're thinking I've gone mad, but here me out. Here in the States, a private organization or business can refuse service to anyone as long as it goes against the bylines of that business practice or organization. It's this reason that the Boy Scouts of America can refuse membership to gay, Jewish, or Atheist boys. They're personal bylines state that they feel these attributes do not go along with their own beliefs, and the government cannot force them to accept those people. They should be forced to on the fact they they accept government money and land, but that's a different story.
But how far does this go I wonder? I remember reading a story years ago about a woman of strong faith working at a pharmacy that refused to give out any form of birth control. Now due to her religion, she felt that selling this product would be along the same lines of supporting it... Now this is where the line seems to blur slightly doesn't it? This is a woman of faith, a faith that must be respected, if not agreed with. Wouldn't forcing her to sell Birth Control be intolerant of her beliefs? But she works in a Pharmacy, this is her job... She is being paid by a company to sell their product. Where does the line fall?
Should these people be forced to accept business from a Lifestyle they do not morally agree with, or should they be allowed to run their private business as they please? It's an issue I find myself on the fence with, for as much as I think the couple is wrong for believing what they do, I'm not about to ask the government to force them to think the way I do. But where do the rights of the customers take hold then? They're being refused service based on something they cannot control, which is flat out unfair. Though even if they were able to stay there, they'd be staying at a Bed and Breakfast where the hosts are quite obviously uncomfortable with them, which I think would ruin any real enjoyment of a vacation.
This issue has me waning on my own thoughts, I see the civil rights issue, but I also see the private business issue. I feel myself leaning more towards the civil rights, as I do see business as something that should be static and free of personal beliefs, especially when offering a service to many people, some who will undoubtedly be people you do not find fit with your personal beliefs. But as of now, the B&B is closed, and there seems to be some legal precedent for both sides of this case, and I'm not sure I'll be happy with either side winning.
What do you believe?
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The Chance I Waited For
My love, I saw it all!
Dancing around my head,
The scenes of what will be,
The scenes of what we are,
The scenes of what will come;
They are beautiful.
Small gestures of kindness;
Smiles where there are none,
Grateful sighs and slow kisses,
Embracing for no other reason than to feel,
The small moments that I've craved so long...
From the time I was small,
I dreamed of rain and kissing,
Cold noses and warm cheeks,
Sweet fingers brushing away wet tracks,
Broken words to form such strength.
And now, my love,
I've seen it all,
I've wanted it all,
I've yearned it all,
I've lost it all.
And now, my love,
And now it's there.
In my reach,
In my grasp.
You're offering it to me again.
And now I'll live my dreams, my love.
Dancing around my head,
The scenes of what will be,
The scenes of what we are,
The scenes of what will come;
They are beautiful.
Small gestures of kindness;
Smiles where there are none,
Grateful sighs and slow kisses,
Embracing for no other reason than to feel,
The small moments that I've craved so long...
From the time I was small,
I dreamed of rain and kissing,
Cold noses and warm cheeks,
Sweet fingers brushing away wet tracks,
Broken words to form such strength.
And now, my love,
I've seen it all,
I've wanted it all,
I've yearned it all,
I've lost it all.
And now, my love,
And now it's there.
In my reach,
In my grasp.
You're offering it to me again.
And now I'll live my dreams, my love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)