Facebook is destroying modern relationships. Next week I'll reveal water is wet.
It's been a long, long time since I've written in this blog. I'd like to say it's due to my crazy misadventures, so I will. That is exactly why I haven't written. Last August, after spending one of the best (and heart-breaking, but that's a different story for a different day) summers I've had farming on an organic veg farm while living in a solar-powered cabin with a bluegrass fiddler, his Tom Waits loving six year-old son and my good friend and (for one night) burlesque dance partner, I packed up my 1985 Pontiac Sunbird and drove from Southwest VA to New Jersey to start my year as a government-sponsored job developer to low-income adult clients.
There are more stories from that summer to now involving turtles, mirror masks, Thanksgiving in LA and sloppy cupcake birthday but what I'm focusing on here is not the times of personal change but of my day job and it's effect on my facebooking and facebooking's effect on my perception of modern relationships.
Facebook is a ticking timebomb of insecurity. Not only has the relationship status become a benchmark of coupledom, facebook has opened the door to stroking every fearful and irrational thought that can go through a person's involving their connection to another person. To varying degrees, everybody has insecure thoughts from innocent "I wonder if she thinks he's funnier than me" to the crazy "She laughed at his joke, she's totally cheating on me!" and almost everybody has learned how to filter the natural every day insecure thoughts from the warning bells.
Almost everybody.
Now we have facebook where every move, every moment, every person you've come in contact with and every situation can be (and will) placed in view of EVERYONE. I don't care if you have privacy settings, the second someone clicks "with _____" on that photo of the two of you touching tongue tips, for at least two hours twice as many people will see it.
We all throw our balls on the table with friends and declare this deal breaker or that, state if she kisses another person, even on the cheek, it's over or if they share a bed he's a dead man. But in all honesty, we all kind of bend the rules in that aspect. I don't mean full-on, by the books cheating. A guy hugs a girl, or a girl talks about intimate subjects with a friend, or two friends watch the "couple's show". Little stuff that has no effect on a strong relationship really, it's just life... unless it all happens at once. Like say, a new album of photos plus a flurry of comments illustrating how much fun the... other... person had watching House while eating chocolate with your S.O. finishing with a wink.
A WINK. The WHORE.
That is the detrimental effect of facebook on relationships. And not just romantic. Who hasn't gotten up in the morning to see photos of their friends at a bar or show the night before and thought "What the fuck? Why wasn't I invited?" when the truth is because it wasn't an event. Right place, right time they went out. Happens all the time. But when those photos are smack in the middle of acquaintances photos out with friends, well it's easy then for a person to think they're a loser whose S.O. has whores winking at him all over facebook.
What's the solution? We become an angry mob and destroy facebook? No, it's too useful as a networking tool. We all stop taking it so seriously? Never work. We'd all be faking that we're cool when really we're seething from emoticon and red-eyed photo that goes up. In a way, pretending to not care could lead to even deeper obsession. Some people can let it go, others chase small animals with a weed whacker screaming "I'M FUCKING FINE! STOP ASKING!"
Truth, there really isn't an all-out solution. An individual will just have to figure it out on their own based on what they need (which is dime-store psychoanalytic horse of a different color). I, personally, hid every person whose escapades created a pit of insecurity in me. Ex-boyfriend I'm still on good terms with, no newsfeed for you. Acquaintance I really like but am jealous of their success, see you when I visit. Person I can't stand but need to be on good terms with, I pull you up to specifically make fun of to my co-workers you fucking bigoted bitch... I'm not proud.
Not everyone needs to hide people and honestly the best course of action would be to stop taking cues from 20 blurry photo and making assumptions based little pictures made with parenthesis and ask the person in question what's up. Maybe even develop some deeper confidence.
But let's be real, this 2012. I watched a youtube video yesterday showcasing a japanese just-add-water fast food snack, there are cupcake vending machines and Survivor is still on.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/How-Do-I-Hide-Friends-on-Facebook/120909991290612
There, you don't even have to search for it.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Monday, April 18, 2011
On Body Image or Believing What TV Says About Your Body is Stupid
I'm 24 (as of this typing) 150lbs, 5 foot 6 inches with decent skin and, like many women, I am full of self-doubt and insecurity about my appearance. It doesn't matter how many friends, members of family, significant others and random strangers at bars say I'm hot. When I'm alone in my underwear staring at my reflection as I poke and prod my "trouble spots" one sentence rolls through my mind... "When did I get so fat?"
It's ridiculous and irritating. I'm annoyed seeing it written, I mock myself when I think I'm fat, I hate saying it within earshot of anyone else. But it's there and I think I know why.
I, again like many other women, are trapped on a darkened middle ground. On one side is the real world where there are strict guidelines based on medical science and nutrition that dictate whether a woman is "fat" along with walking, running, sitting on their ass typing examples. On the other side is the media world where the guidelines shift between airbrushed photography, loose interpretations of fit in TV and film and "news" articles with no consistent definition of what is attractive and healthy.
In the real world, I am not fat. I'm not even that out of shape. There is muscle definition all over my body, my skin is clear and I have a lovely curve. But in the media world, I am a linebacker. Wide hipped, pouchy stomach and jiggly bits under both my arms.
Now the easy solution is to take media representations with a grain of salt. EVERYBODY (well, most everybody) knows the way celebrities are portrayed is not accurate to real life. There are a slew of females living in the public view who start out at a normal weight and suddenly appear emaciated.
Kiera Knightly,
Scarlett Johansson,
Angelina Jolie (I chose this pic specifically because of the baggy clothing hiding the rest of her body),
Christina Ricci,
The late Brittany Murphy
Hell even Janeane Garofalo suddenly reappeared missing half her body weight and she on a Larry Sander's Show commentary told a story where she had bleached her hair leaving long dark roots (as was the trend at the time) and Sharon Stone told her "I know someone who can fix that" as though Garafalo hadn't INTENDED to do that to her hair.
Then.
Now.
You do a google search on these women and even I look at the photos and think "wow, maybe I don't have a leg to stand on. They all look ok, really. Some even hot," Do the same search but add their names with "thin" and the photos change dramatically. It seems there are two camps in the public eye. The super skinny actresses in glamour shots or placed in perfectly draped clothing and the "fat" people or fat people. I recently read a few articles that hollywood was going fat and isn't that great?! Well, no, because the shows cited were shows geared specifically to the overweight not people at a normal weight. Shows like "The Biggest Loser" and "Mike and Molly and More to Love" aren't as much about empowering people to love their body but either encouraging them to a healthy lifestyle (I'm not making waves against The Biggest Loser) or spinning some bullshit that twenty minutes of making fun of a fat person followed by five minutes of love your body whining is empowering and catering to the "average" person.
And here's a problem... rarely past the first episode is Molly's lifestyle (what the whole damn show is based off of, they met in a freaking weight loss support group) addressed. It's just swept under the rug to make way for her cooing over "I love you"s and getting extravagant gifts. For God's sake the other characters are listed as Molly's slim, drug-addicted sister and her nymphomaniac mother. They paint these people as pathetic. How is this empowering?
But that's all there is. Either you're fat and sad, slim and a wreck or skinny and fabulous. Where do girls like me fit in? Where's my body type? Where's my role model?
She's playing the best friend to one or more of the three types listed. I can't even think of actresses with my body type off the top of my head other than Liza Snyder who played the best friend to Christina Applegate in "Jesse" waaaaaaay back in the 90's. And even she appeared one season having lost half her weight. COMPARE.
Liza Snyder then...
Liza now... ish
Or they have a starring role where they're STILL playing the awkward one.
America Ferrera starred in the movie that empowered me to embrace my body (though I wasn't that into the film) Real Women Have Curves.
What is she best known for currently? Ugly Betty.
Two birds one stone, the same damn pattern. First she was in a movie where her weight was the central point instead of her just existing then she's in a tv show where she plays an awkward young adult. Skinny actresses play awkward as in they're oh so damn cute and then at some point the glasses come off, the hair comes down and everybody realizes GASP she's BEAUTIFUL.
There needs to be a wider representation of women in the media. Less attention on the yo-yo dieting and exercise crazes. You can't even out representation by putting overweight women on the same pedestal as emaciated women. I still feel ugly in the face of media.
BTW disclaimer: The most important part of any woman (and any human for that matter) is what's inside. As a show of faith here is a picture of me.
It's ridiculous and irritating. I'm annoyed seeing it written, I mock myself when I think I'm fat, I hate saying it within earshot of anyone else. But it's there and I think I know why.
I, again like many other women, are trapped on a darkened middle ground. On one side is the real world where there are strict guidelines based on medical science and nutrition that dictate whether a woman is "fat" along with walking, running, sitting on their ass typing examples. On the other side is the media world where the guidelines shift between airbrushed photography, loose interpretations of fit in TV and film and "news" articles with no consistent definition of what is attractive and healthy.
In the real world, I am not fat. I'm not even that out of shape. There is muscle definition all over my body, my skin is clear and I have a lovely curve. But in the media world, I am a linebacker. Wide hipped, pouchy stomach and jiggly bits under both my arms.
Now the easy solution is to take media representations with a grain of salt. EVERYBODY (well, most everybody) knows the way celebrities are portrayed is not accurate to real life. There are a slew of females living in the public view who start out at a normal weight and suddenly appear emaciated.
Kiera Knightly,
Scarlett Johansson,
Angelina Jolie (I chose this pic specifically because of the baggy clothing hiding the rest of her body),
Christina Ricci,
The late Brittany Murphy
Hell even Janeane Garofalo suddenly reappeared missing half her body weight and she on a Larry Sander's Show commentary told a story where she had bleached her hair leaving long dark roots (as was the trend at the time) and Sharon Stone told her "I know someone who can fix that" as though Garafalo hadn't INTENDED to do that to her hair.
Then.
Now.
You do a google search on these women and even I look at the photos and think "wow, maybe I don't have a leg to stand on. They all look ok, really. Some even hot," Do the same search but add their names with "thin" and the photos change dramatically. It seems there are two camps in the public eye. The super skinny actresses in glamour shots or placed in perfectly draped clothing and the "fat" people or fat people. I recently read a few articles that hollywood was going fat and isn't that great?! Well, no, because the shows cited were shows geared specifically to the overweight not people at a normal weight. Shows like "The Biggest Loser" and "Mike and Molly and More to Love" aren't as much about empowering people to love their body but either encouraging them to a healthy lifestyle (I'm not making waves against The Biggest Loser) or spinning some bullshit that twenty minutes of making fun of a fat person followed by five minutes of love your body whining is empowering and catering to the "average" person.
And here's a problem... rarely past the first episode is Molly's lifestyle (what the whole damn show is based off of, they met in a freaking weight loss support group) addressed. It's just swept under the rug to make way for her cooing over "I love you"s and getting extravagant gifts. For God's sake the other characters are listed as Molly's slim, drug-addicted sister and her nymphomaniac mother. They paint these people as pathetic. How is this empowering?
But that's all there is. Either you're fat and sad, slim and a wreck or skinny and fabulous. Where do girls like me fit in? Where's my body type? Where's my role model?
She's playing the best friend to one or more of the three types listed. I can't even think of actresses with my body type off the top of my head other than Liza Snyder who played the best friend to Christina Applegate in "Jesse" waaaaaaay back in the 90's. And even she appeared one season having lost half her weight. COMPARE.
Liza Snyder then...
Liza now... ish
Or they have a starring role where they're STILL playing the awkward one.
America Ferrera starred in the movie that empowered me to embrace my body (though I wasn't that into the film) Real Women Have Curves.
What is she best known for currently? Ugly Betty.
Two birds one stone, the same damn pattern. First she was in a movie where her weight was the central point instead of her just existing then she's in a tv show where she plays an awkward young adult. Skinny actresses play awkward as in they're oh so damn cute and then at some point the glasses come off, the hair comes down and everybody realizes GASP she's BEAUTIFUL.
There needs to be a wider representation of women in the media. Less attention on the yo-yo dieting and exercise crazes. You can't even out representation by putting overweight women on the same pedestal as emaciated women. I still feel ugly in the face of media.
BTW disclaimer: The most important part of any woman (and any human for that matter) is what's inside. As a show of faith here is a picture of me.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
America and it's Guns or Blood Libel is a stupid term to throw around
It's been awhile since I've posted. I've written several entries but haven't posted them for various reasons but after reading the information spilling out following the Tucson shootings I felt inspired to my keyboard.
I'm not unfamiliar with gun violence and it's affect on a community. My junior year was the year of what became known as the Virginia Tech Massacre an event four years ago where one lone student (known now as only Cho) entered a building and, before blowing his head off, killed 32 people. What followed was an outpouring of love and affection to the community and a reentering into the old gun debate that has been shaping political platforms for years.
I remember that time well. My work at the time had been desk attendant at the student center art gallery and as a server for a catering company. Prior to April 16th, my duties had been answering phones and serving overpriced chicken to VT loving alumni following their wedding set somewhere on campus. After, I spent months sorting through every card, every poster, every craft sent to tech with well-wishes as simple as "we're here for you" to as heart-wrenching as the young neighbor of one the victims asking that her sentiments be added to the poster boards provided on campus while serving dinners for the victims families and hotdog lunches for the students who, like me, had made the town their home. It's was an emotionally exhausting experience made worse by constant media coverage and contact from home letting me know that uninformed students at my high school came to school with hand-made "Cho, and american hero" t-shirts.
And this is an obvious major lapse in our media-saturated, political world. A group of people die, and suddenly every politician and media figure chimes in with how awful they know it is and what the problem is... the other guy.
6 people die in Tucson, and along with the term "Blood Libel" being thrown around information about the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, is pumped into every media outlet. Just like Cho. After the Tech Massacre, Cho's manifesto of being bullied came out turning him into a martyr for bullied kids everywhere. But the truth was, bare bones, he was mentally unstable. He had no connection to the people he killed. He didn't kill the people that hurt him. He killed people because he was hurt. Had Loughner not been successful, had be been stopped before anyone took a bullet, there wouldn't be scores of articles about how obviously he was deranged, how in high school he exhibited unhinged behavior, people wouldn't be coming out the wood work saying how they ALWAYS knew he had issues. He was mentally unstable. This is obvious in that he opened fire with no provocation. But throwing information from his past only serves to paint a changing unclear picture of who he was and misleads the public to denouncing him as some sort of fucked up demon.
Just look at this picture.
Now look at this one.
Doesn't one look like the guy you saw at the grocery store? And one of those photos was a lot easier to find than the other.
Why is that dangerous? Because it doesn't serve to prevent anything. It separates Loughner from being a member of society and morphs him into something that people don't understand and thus cannot recognize the patterns for the future. The fact is, anyone who is mentally unstable with a gun can open fire. There is evidence of this all over from school shootings, to serial killers, to gang wars, to the old "postal worker going postal" of yore. It hits the media, elements of their personal life are passed around and twisted to become the list of why and the final result becomes "this was a crazy person who slipped through the cracks". Here's the real, scary truth. You've probably passed someone just like these legendary crazy people today on the street. You've probably asked them the time or pet their dog. Because they're people. Even Hitler was an art school drop out.
The media twists and turns with who the person was and then the politicians jump in with why it happened.
To have guns or to not?
Except that's not really what's it about. Come on, no matter what politicians are saying they know the truth. There is absolutely no way to abolish guns in the US. It's just too late. Even IF there were enough people in the government to actually put that through, with the number of people in the US in support and willing to fight for their gun rights, do you really think every single person would all willingly throw their guns into a furnace? Look at drug laws. Ignoring the marijuana tug-a-war, is there anyone who doesn't have ONE acquaintance who has had cocaine in their possession? Or tried ecstasy? Hell, PROHIBITION. So knowing that there's no way that guns will disappear the next fight is control. Should everyone be allowed a concealed carry? Would someone attempt to gun down a meeting if there was chance at least half of the people there had a weapon on their person? FUCK YEAH. They might hesitate but more likely they'll plan better, use the element of surprise. Beyond possible mental issues, something all these people have in common when attempting a mass murder is planning. Cho planned. Loughner planned. Kazmierczak planned. Harris and Klebold planned.
It doesn't take very long to fire wildly either. Take another look at the Kent State shootings in 1970 where the Ohio National Guard fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds wounding nine and killing four students. 13 seconds. That's all the time it took for four students to die. And that's the NATIONAL GUARD. Or look at Charles Whitman the gunman from the University of Texas clocktower shooting where 16 people were killed. So imagine if you will, everyone has a gun on their person. However the shots are coming from above. Concealed carry covers handguns. Whitman used a Remington 700 and .35 caliber rifle respectively from a barricaded position on the 27th floor.
Do the math.
It's a never ending debate with facts and supporting research on both sides. Maybe wider concealed carry laws would help, maybe they wouldn't. The biggest issue I'm seeing is this blood libel crap. It all started when a new, hip independent group called the Tea Party began gaining ground in the political spectrum under platforms such as a more a strict interpretation of the constitution, adopting a simpler single-rate tax system no longer than 4,543 words (the length of the constitution), repealing the health care legislation passed March 23, 2010, and, of course, lowering taxes (because the rich are always for tax breaks... sorry couldn't resist a little non-partisan). They ruffled feathers and were known for "speaking for true americans" (except those who disagreed I suppose) and respecting the constitution (though how anyone could know the true intent of the founding fathers without a time machine is beyond me) going as far as reading the constitution aloud when the House turned mostly repub. Some members of the Tea Party are famous for hilarious vocal blunders such as O'Donnell criticizing Darwin's Theory of Evolution as "a myth" and Trent Franks quote “He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity,” in relation to Obama which of course reminds me of the billboard comparing Obama to Hitler and Lenin in Iowa.
But that was all fun and games, another addition to politicians say the darndest things. What began the blood libel debate was this quote from the now infamous Sarah Palin:
Along with:
One of those crosshairs was right on US Representative Gabrielle Giffords who was critically injured after being shot in the head. Whoops.
Then came the so called blood libel. One side said her posts (and similar posts from other candidates) incited violence. The other side said the whole shebang was being spun to defame Palin and the movement as a whole.
Frankly I don't agree that Palin's crosshairs led to the Loughner shooting. But if anything needs more attention it's the casual nature these politicians take to gun control. If part of your platform is increased gun freedom it is completely irresponsible to use gun terminology when campaigning against of other members of the government. Since there is no way to completely abolish guns, then more care needs to be taken with the laws, further clear restrictions and deeper education. How does it make sense to propose freedom of firearms while suggesting US citizens should be "armed" against laws they don't agree with? Are we suggesting that gun laws should be less restrictive so everyday people can use more force to get what they want? That we should be able to live as constant possible threats to one another to prevent being threatened? They teach you in school to compromise otherwise what is the point of anti-bullying in schools? Be nice to each other until you're old enough to vote then use force to get what you want? Is that what the constitution stands for? In-fighting?
And where is the education about the horrors of being shot? Does everyone pushing for the right to carry have an idea of what it feels like to have a bullet tear through their digestive track?
I'm just a 24 year old with a bachelor's. I'm not qualified to make those sort of decisions. But my opinion is, with the US being a country that allows guns, we should be taking more care to fully understand the consequences of using a firearm not just owning one, we should be more respectful in public of those consequences and we should truly focus on what has happened when the "wrong" person has come into ownership of a firearm.
There are millions of situations where something can go wrong with a gun. With those odds, EVERYBODY runs the chance of being the "wrong" person.
I'm not unfamiliar with gun violence and it's affect on a community. My junior year was the year of what became known as the Virginia Tech Massacre an event four years ago where one lone student (known now as only Cho) entered a building and, before blowing his head off, killed 32 people. What followed was an outpouring of love and affection to the community and a reentering into the old gun debate that has been shaping political platforms for years.
I remember that time well. My work at the time had been desk attendant at the student center art gallery and as a server for a catering company. Prior to April 16th, my duties had been answering phones and serving overpriced chicken to VT loving alumni following their wedding set somewhere on campus. After, I spent months sorting through every card, every poster, every craft sent to tech with well-wishes as simple as "we're here for you" to as heart-wrenching as the young neighbor of one the victims asking that her sentiments be added to the poster boards provided on campus while serving dinners for the victims families and hotdog lunches for the students who, like me, had made the town their home. It's was an emotionally exhausting experience made worse by constant media coverage and contact from home letting me know that uninformed students at my high school came to school with hand-made "Cho, and american hero" t-shirts.
And this is an obvious major lapse in our media-saturated, political world. A group of people die, and suddenly every politician and media figure chimes in with how awful they know it is and what the problem is... the other guy.
6 people die in Tucson, and along with the term "Blood Libel" being thrown around information about the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, is pumped into every media outlet. Just like Cho. After the Tech Massacre, Cho's manifesto of being bullied came out turning him into a martyr for bullied kids everywhere. But the truth was, bare bones, he was mentally unstable. He had no connection to the people he killed. He didn't kill the people that hurt him. He killed people because he was hurt. Had Loughner not been successful, had be been stopped before anyone took a bullet, there wouldn't be scores of articles about how obviously he was deranged, how in high school he exhibited unhinged behavior, people wouldn't be coming out the wood work saying how they ALWAYS knew he had issues. He was mentally unstable. This is obvious in that he opened fire with no provocation. But throwing information from his past only serves to paint a changing unclear picture of who he was and misleads the public to denouncing him as some sort of fucked up demon.
Just look at this picture.
Now look at this one.
Doesn't one look like the guy you saw at the grocery store? And one of those photos was a lot easier to find than the other.
Why is that dangerous? Because it doesn't serve to prevent anything. It separates Loughner from being a member of society and morphs him into something that people don't understand and thus cannot recognize the patterns for the future. The fact is, anyone who is mentally unstable with a gun can open fire. There is evidence of this all over from school shootings, to serial killers, to gang wars, to the old "postal worker going postal" of yore. It hits the media, elements of their personal life are passed around and twisted to become the list of why and the final result becomes "this was a crazy person who slipped through the cracks". Here's the real, scary truth. You've probably passed someone just like these legendary crazy people today on the street. You've probably asked them the time or pet their dog. Because they're people. Even Hitler was an art school drop out.
The media twists and turns with who the person was and then the politicians jump in with why it happened.
To have guns or to not?
Except that's not really what's it about. Come on, no matter what politicians are saying they know the truth. There is absolutely no way to abolish guns in the US. It's just too late. Even IF there were enough people in the government to actually put that through, with the number of people in the US in support and willing to fight for their gun rights, do you really think every single person would all willingly throw their guns into a furnace? Look at drug laws. Ignoring the marijuana tug-a-war, is there anyone who doesn't have ONE acquaintance who has had cocaine in their possession? Or tried ecstasy? Hell, PROHIBITION. So knowing that there's no way that guns will disappear the next fight is control. Should everyone be allowed a concealed carry? Would someone attempt to gun down a meeting if there was chance at least half of the people there had a weapon on their person? FUCK YEAH. They might hesitate but more likely they'll plan better, use the element of surprise. Beyond possible mental issues, something all these people have in common when attempting a mass murder is planning. Cho planned. Loughner planned. Kazmierczak planned. Harris and Klebold planned.
It doesn't take very long to fire wildly either. Take another look at the Kent State shootings in 1970 where the Ohio National Guard fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds wounding nine and killing four students. 13 seconds. That's all the time it took for four students to die. And that's the NATIONAL GUARD. Or look at Charles Whitman the gunman from the University of Texas clocktower shooting where 16 people were killed. So imagine if you will, everyone has a gun on their person. However the shots are coming from above. Concealed carry covers handguns. Whitman used a Remington 700 and .35 caliber rifle respectively from a barricaded position on the 27th floor.
Do the math.
It's a never ending debate with facts and supporting research on both sides. Maybe wider concealed carry laws would help, maybe they wouldn't. The biggest issue I'm seeing is this blood libel crap. It all started when a new, hip independent group called the Tea Party began gaining ground in the political spectrum under platforms such as a more a strict interpretation of the constitution, adopting a simpler single-rate tax system no longer than 4,543 words (the length of the constitution), repealing the health care legislation passed March 23, 2010, and, of course, lowering taxes (because the rich are always for tax breaks... sorry couldn't resist a little non-partisan). They ruffled feathers and were known for "speaking for true americans" (except those who disagreed I suppose) and respecting the constitution (though how anyone could know the true intent of the founding fathers without a time machine is beyond me) going as far as reading the constitution aloud when the House turned mostly repub. Some members of the Tea Party are famous for hilarious vocal blunders such as O'Donnell criticizing Darwin's Theory of Evolution as "a myth" and Trent Franks quote “He has no place in any station of government and we need to realize that he is an enemy of humanity,” in relation to Obama which of course reminds me of the billboard comparing Obama to Hitler and Lenin in Iowa.
But that was all fun and games, another addition to politicians say the darndest things. What began the blood libel debate was this quote from the now infamous Sarah Palin:
Along with:
One of those crosshairs was right on US Representative Gabrielle Giffords who was critically injured after being shot in the head. Whoops.
Then came the so called blood libel. One side said her posts (and similar posts from other candidates) incited violence. The other side said the whole shebang was being spun to defame Palin and the movement as a whole.
Frankly I don't agree that Palin's crosshairs led to the Loughner shooting. But if anything needs more attention it's the casual nature these politicians take to gun control. If part of your platform is increased gun freedom it is completely irresponsible to use gun terminology when campaigning against of other members of the government. Since there is no way to completely abolish guns, then more care needs to be taken with the laws, further clear restrictions and deeper education. How does it make sense to propose freedom of firearms while suggesting US citizens should be "armed" against laws they don't agree with? Are we suggesting that gun laws should be less restrictive so everyday people can use more force to get what they want? That we should be able to live as constant possible threats to one another to prevent being threatened? They teach you in school to compromise otherwise what is the point of anti-bullying in schools? Be nice to each other until you're old enough to vote then use force to get what you want? Is that what the constitution stands for? In-fighting?
And where is the education about the horrors of being shot? Does everyone pushing for the right to carry have an idea of what it feels like to have a bullet tear through their digestive track?
I'm just a 24 year old with a bachelor's. I'm not qualified to make those sort of decisions. But my opinion is, with the US being a country that allows guns, we should be taking more care to fully understand the consequences of using a firearm not just owning one, we should be more respectful in public of those consequences and we should truly focus on what has happened when the "wrong" person has come into ownership of a firearm.
There are millions of situations where something can go wrong with a gun. With those odds, EVERYBODY runs the chance of being the "wrong" person.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Is There Ever a Right Time for Physical Actions or Hitting a Child is Always Stupid
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38739441/ns/travel-news/
That article is a about a flight attendant on a Southwest flight who intervened when a mother slapped her 13-month old baby in the face.
The mother says she lightly popped the baby because the child had kicked her and wouldn't stop crying.
The flight attendant says other passengers complained and witnessed the slap and so she took the baby from the parents to the back of the plane where the father joined them and held the baby until it fell asleep.
Once the plane landed the police interviewed the parents and the flight attendant where the mother demonstrated that the slap hadn't been hard and explained that when the child cries she cannot hear the mother say 'no'.
Now... I do think this mother sounds like a redneck piece of shit. However this got me thinking about raising kids and, of course, how I was raised.
The fact is, having a child does not guarantee that you will have a well-behaved angel. You can look at hereditary factors and developmental theory but really it's a bit of a crap shoot on what kind of temperament a child will have. The closest example I have is my half sister from my dad who will be 8 in december and myself. For the purpose of clarity, my dad was the main parent during my formative years, almost all discipline came from my dad while my sister has the tag team approach of my dad and stepmom. Growing up, I was an absolute terror. I once slapped a nurse in the face when I was three trying to escape a shot and had to be dragged screaming from the McDonald's playland. On several occasions I was spanked and I remember very vividly the night my dad popped me on the hand when I kept reaching to touch the million degree kerosene space heater. My stepmom came from an abusive family and absolutely abhorred any physical action towards my little sister. My sister, however, is an incredibly intelligent and stubborn young lady and during a period where she began hitting my dad and stepmom just to get a reaction my dad finally popped her on the hand and explained to her that hitting hurts, that's what it feels like, this is why we don't hit. She never hit either parent again and I never touched the kerosene space heater (except the night I sat on it not realizing it was on and gave myself second-degree burns on my hands... not smart).
Now with how connected our world has become, a lot of attention was placed on physical abuse of children. For a period of time, spanking was considered going to far and there's no reason to hit your child. This is a generalization. I was spanked as a kid and I don't think back to those days as where everything went wrong. I wasn't traumatized and, frankly, I had it coming. When a young child who hasn't aged far enough to learn that all actions have consequences and how they affect other people and they go into a tantrum that involves throwing their little fists and objects around them... well... spanking will happen. With my sister, she gets time outs in her room which to her is torture (despite all the pink and her four beta fish) and this has worked wonderfully to the point that she comes out and apologizes for her outburst (I'm not kidding, it honestly freaks me out when she speaks like a small adult). I, on the other hand, couldn't be kept in one spot for longer than a minute. It was either locking me in (which never happened otherwise I'd go through the window) or I got a spanking. When I got older I calmed down and it wasn't necessary to use physical actions with me. Besides I respected and loved my dad so much and he, in turn, was very open and fair with me that by the time I was ten I rarely dared to disobey.
Corralling kids is hard. I don't know what my dad would have done if he'd had more than one kid when I was four or what he and my stepmom would do now if they had more than one little girl running around the house. I don't think less of my dad for spanking me or think he failed as a parent in those moments. It's just what happened and he didn't spank to hurt, he spanked to shock.
And that's the important difference. If a parent's going to spank or pop the kid the kid has to be old enough to know it's the result of their actions. Otherwise it is abuse and a failure. A 13 month old baby who is slapped isn't going to think "oh my God this is what happens when I scream and throw glass angel figurines (me again). They're going to scream harder now because the person who is supposed to love and care for them and who they depend on is striking them.
Spanking and popping is a last resort. Not the first thing you do. Stressed out or not, you have a responsibility to teach your child proper actions and hitting them with no explanation and no leading reason other than crying is base awful and only setting up issues later. My dad spanked me for a reason I was aware of. When I was much older my mom hit me for less clear reasons. Usually something about how she was upset that I was leaving the house or didn't call her on birthday because I was coming over anyway. Now that I carried and that affected me later in life.
And aside from definitions of abuse and the difficulty of raising children... WHY do parents bring BABIES on FLIGHTS. I have the urge to throw a tantrum on a plane and I'm an adult. Is it really necessary? Turbulence, trapped in a small space for hours, pressure changes. You are ASKING for a miserable baby. To me, there are only a few reasons to bring a baby on a damn plane. Funeral you can't miss. Family dinner across the country with a family member who may not see another holiday. Moving. Sure, you needed to bring the baby. But family vacation with a creature that won't form coherent memories until they're three and even then it's still pretty muddy? You didn't want to leave the baby with a sitter? You HAVE to go home for Christmas just because it's what you've always done? Stop being so goddamned selfish and think of the kid. You had a kid and things fucking change. You can't always do what you want because you NEED to do for them. And one of the last things a baby needs is a flight to Idaho.
And don't think I've forgotten you idiots who take your 6 month old baby to Disney World. It's not for them, it's for you. They won't remember it and they'll spend the day taking heat stroke naps in their stroller while being periodically woken up into a nightmare of flashing lights and giant mouse heads floating in front of them. Ever seen photos of babies crying on Santa's lap? Now imagine Santa is actually a huge rodent.
But I digress.
That article is a about a flight attendant on a Southwest flight who intervened when a mother slapped her 13-month old baby in the face.
The mother says she lightly popped the baby because the child had kicked her and wouldn't stop crying.
The flight attendant says other passengers complained and witnessed the slap and so she took the baby from the parents to the back of the plane where the father joined them and held the baby until it fell asleep.
Once the plane landed the police interviewed the parents and the flight attendant where the mother demonstrated that the slap hadn't been hard and explained that when the child cries she cannot hear the mother say 'no'.
Now... I do think this mother sounds like a redneck piece of shit. However this got me thinking about raising kids and, of course, how I was raised.
The fact is, having a child does not guarantee that you will have a well-behaved angel. You can look at hereditary factors and developmental theory but really it's a bit of a crap shoot on what kind of temperament a child will have. The closest example I have is my half sister from my dad who will be 8 in december and myself. For the purpose of clarity, my dad was the main parent during my formative years, almost all discipline came from my dad while my sister has the tag team approach of my dad and stepmom. Growing up, I was an absolute terror. I once slapped a nurse in the face when I was three trying to escape a shot and had to be dragged screaming from the McDonald's playland. On several occasions I was spanked and I remember very vividly the night my dad popped me on the hand when I kept reaching to touch the million degree kerosene space heater. My stepmom came from an abusive family and absolutely abhorred any physical action towards my little sister. My sister, however, is an incredibly intelligent and stubborn young lady and during a period where she began hitting my dad and stepmom just to get a reaction my dad finally popped her on the hand and explained to her that hitting hurts, that's what it feels like, this is why we don't hit. She never hit either parent again and I never touched the kerosene space heater (except the night I sat on it not realizing it was on and gave myself second-degree burns on my hands... not smart).
Now with how connected our world has become, a lot of attention was placed on physical abuse of children. For a period of time, spanking was considered going to far and there's no reason to hit your child. This is a generalization. I was spanked as a kid and I don't think back to those days as where everything went wrong. I wasn't traumatized and, frankly, I had it coming. When a young child who hasn't aged far enough to learn that all actions have consequences and how they affect other people and they go into a tantrum that involves throwing their little fists and objects around them... well... spanking will happen. With my sister, she gets time outs in her room which to her is torture (despite all the pink and her four beta fish) and this has worked wonderfully to the point that she comes out and apologizes for her outburst (I'm not kidding, it honestly freaks me out when she speaks like a small adult). I, on the other hand, couldn't be kept in one spot for longer than a minute. It was either locking me in (which never happened otherwise I'd go through the window) or I got a spanking. When I got older I calmed down and it wasn't necessary to use physical actions with me. Besides I respected and loved my dad so much and he, in turn, was very open and fair with me that by the time I was ten I rarely dared to disobey.
Corralling kids is hard. I don't know what my dad would have done if he'd had more than one kid when I was four or what he and my stepmom would do now if they had more than one little girl running around the house. I don't think less of my dad for spanking me or think he failed as a parent in those moments. It's just what happened and he didn't spank to hurt, he spanked to shock.
And that's the important difference. If a parent's going to spank or pop the kid the kid has to be old enough to know it's the result of their actions. Otherwise it is abuse and a failure. A 13 month old baby who is slapped isn't going to think "oh my God this is what happens when I scream and throw glass angel figurines (me again). They're going to scream harder now because the person who is supposed to love and care for them and who they depend on is striking them.
Spanking and popping is a last resort. Not the first thing you do. Stressed out or not, you have a responsibility to teach your child proper actions and hitting them with no explanation and no leading reason other than crying is base awful and only setting up issues later. My dad spanked me for a reason I was aware of. When I was much older my mom hit me for less clear reasons. Usually something about how she was upset that I was leaving the house or didn't call her on birthday because I was coming over anyway. Now that I carried and that affected me later in life.
And aside from definitions of abuse and the difficulty of raising children... WHY do parents bring BABIES on FLIGHTS. I have the urge to throw a tantrum on a plane and I'm an adult. Is it really necessary? Turbulence, trapped in a small space for hours, pressure changes. You are ASKING for a miserable baby. To me, there are only a few reasons to bring a baby on a damn plane. Funeral you can't miss. Family dinner across the country with a family member who may not see another holiday. Moving. Sure, you needed to bring the baby. But family vacation with a creature that won't form coherent memories until they're three and even then it's still pretty muddy? You didn't want to leave the baby with a sitter? You HAVE to go home for Christmas just because it's what you've always done? Stop being so goddamned selfish and think of the kid. You had a kid and things fucking change. You can't always do what you want because you NEED to do for them. And one of the last things a baby needs is a flight to Idaho.
And don't think I've forgotten you idiots who take your 6 month old baby to Disney World. It's not for them, it's for you. They won't remember it and they'll spend the day taking heat stroke naps in their stroller while being periodically woken up into a nightmare of flashing lights and giant mouse heads floating in front of them. Ever seen photos of babies crying on Santa's lap? Now imagine Santa is actually a huge rodent.
But I digress.
Monday, August 2, 2010
People Who Choose to Be Obese are Stupid
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Alone in my house: Summer Edition Finale
Ok... so alone in the house time was restructured into alone in the house but very busy outside the house. Dinner, dancing, 10 hours in the record store. I envied no man.
However I did have ONE night out of the original five where I was alone... in the house. Last night.
I left work at the hookah lounge around 2am having stayed late to talk and enjoy a hookah like everyone gets to. Upon arrival at home I engaged in many boring activities, feeding the cat, washing my face, eating my roommates hummus on my other roommates tortilla standing by the sink like a 35 year old bachelor who's become to accustomed to not going out he's completely forgotten the comforts of sitting at a table in a chair with either conversation or at least a book to keep him company.
Then I finally took advantage of having an entire house to myself. I played my cello for hours as loud as I possibly could. And this is what I discovered.
Covering Billy Idol's White Wedding as a slow jazz number is a either recipe for awesome or disaster.
I need another week of practice before debuting Canon in D at Joanna's wedding.
If I attempt fast slides after a week of not playing... I will cut open my pinky on my D string.
But now my roommates have returned from Bonnaroo and things are back to normal.
OH MY FUCKING GOD I GET KICKED OUT OF THIS HOUSE IN JULY!! WHY HAVEN'T I PACKED?!
However I did have ONE night out of the original five where I was alone... in the house. Last night.
I left work at the hookah lounge around 2am having stayed late to talk and enjoy a hookah like everyone gets to. Upon arrival at home I engaged in many boring activities, feeding the cat, washing my face, eating my roommates hummus on my other roommates tortilla standing by the sink like a 35 year old bachelor who's become to accustomed to not going out he's completely forgotten the comforts of sitting at a table in a chair with either conversation or at least a book to keep him company.
Then I finally took advantage of having an entire house to myself. I played my cello for hours as loud as I possibly could. And this is what I discovered.
Covering Billy Idol's White Wedding as a slow jazz number is a either recipe for awesome or disaster.
I need another week of practice before debuting Canon in D at Joanna's wedding.
If I attempt fast slides after a week of not playing... I will cut open my pinky on my D string.
But now my roommates have returned from Bonnaroo and things are back to normal.
OH MY FUCKING GOD I GET KICKED OUT OF THIS HOUSE IN JULY!! WHY HAVEN'T I PACKED?!
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Alone in my house: Summer Edition part 1/2
I swear to no one and nothing I will chronicle my whole time alone in this house.
It's summer and with summer comes sun, swimming and music festivals. In particular (at least as far as I know) Bonnaroo. I've never been to Bonnaroo (as much as I'd like to) and this year I put all my spare money into Comicon in July. However, all my roommates bought tickets and Stingray is filming out of town for the same amount time which leaves me... alone... IN THE HOUSE. This has happened before over Christmas and with so much time on my hands, I tried to blog each day to see what I ended coming up with and how I spent my time... alone... IN THE HOUSE.
I think I got two posts in 5 days.
But I'm going to do it this time. I don't promise.
Day 1/2: The First Night
Really alone time began at midnight when I got home and realized it was just me in the house. I promptly removed my pants and stole food from my roommates to make fried rice. Then I meditated on how to spend all this time deciding on composing some music and drawing some sample pieces... then I watched hulu for two hours and started updating my blog.
Good night!
It's summer and with summer comes sun, swimming and music festivals. In particular (at least as far as I know) Bonnaroo. I've never been to Bonnaroo (as much as I'd like to) and this year I put all my spare money into Comicon in July. However, all my roommates bought tickets and Stingray is filming out of town for the same amount time which leaves me... alone... IN THE HOUSE. This has happened before over Christmas and with so much time on my hands, I tried to blog each day to see what I ended coming up with and how I spent my time... alone... IN THE HOUSE.
I think I got two posts in 5 days.
But I'm going to do it this time. I don't promise.
Day 1/2: The First Night
Really alone time began at midnight when I got home and realized it was just me in the house. I promptly removed my pants and stole food from my roommates to make fried rice. Then I meditated on how to spend all this time deciding on composing some music and drawing some sample pieces... then I watched hulu for two hours and started updating my blog.
Good night!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
