If not for the Communist revolution in Russia and the resulting rise of it as a foreign idea, Communist ideas may have taken root in America and the Western world. Not for a revolution, since that's highly unlikely in such an individualist set of cultures, but for recognition of the flaws and gradual reform. Things such as minimum wages, safety laws, injury compensation, and the various safety nets which keep setbacks from being devastating. But instead these were all branded as Communist infiltration and for a while, and still, are attacked as such.
Revolution hurt reform and everyone ended up worse off because of it.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Friday, December 25, 2009
Why I say Merry Christmas
I say it because I mean it. I hope you have a Merry Christmas, in whatever form that takes for you. Maybe it just means a day off. That's fine.
I do not say it as a show of defiance against Happy Holidays. I don't think there's a war on Christmas, so I feel no need to defend it. I celebrate Christmas and I think it is a great holiday.
If you think Happy Holidays is better, than say that. Freedom of speech goes in many directions.
Merry Christmas!
I do not say it as a show of defiance against Happy Holidays. I don't think there's a war on Christmas, so I feel no need to defend it. I celebrate Christmas and I think it is a great holiday.
If you think Happy Holidays is better, than say that. Freedom of speech goes in many directions.
Merry Christmas!
Monday, December 21, 2009
Irony in the Senate
What's the ideally ironic way to prevent a vote on health care reform? Pray they get sick. "'What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight,' Coburn said Sunday ahead of the vote." Then backpedal and claim that no, you weren't trying to invoke the wrath of God to sicken opponents to promote your own partisan agenda.
Of course he merely wanted them to be too tired to get to the vote. Of course!
Doesn't much matter either way. Sleep, sick, it's bullshit either way. If this was a joking side comment I'd laugh. But no, it was a serious suggestion. If this nation has any sense it will run him straight out of the Senate and keep going until he drowns somewhere in the Atlantic.
Is this what politics has sunk to? Praying for God to hurt your opponents? Well I pray that every hypocrite and traitor and liar in the Senate wakes up tomorrow with a brand on their foreheads. Oh but then we'd need emergency elections as they all call in sick!
Of course he merely wanted them to be too tired to get to the vote. Of course!
Doesn't much matter either way. Sleep, sick, it's bullshit either way. If this was a joking side comment I'd laugh. But no, it was a serious suggestion. If this nation has any sense it will run him straight out of the Senate and keep going until he drowns somewhere in the Atlantic.
Is this what politics has sunk to? Praying for God to hurt your opponents? Well I pray that every hypocrite and traitor and liar in the Senate wakes up tomorrow with a brand on their foreheads. Oh but then we'd need emergency elections as they all call in sick!
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Fat is the new fag
Thesis: Hatred for fat people has the same basic reasoning as hatred for gay people.
To start out, let's ignore the argument that hatred is derived from some sort of natural xenophobia or other arguments of that sort. I'm not saying they're not true, but in this case, they're boring. They cover all hatred. I'm more interested in these two particular forms because they're 'fashionable.'
So let's get to the fun stuff: how they are alike. By they I mean the targets. In the minds of those who hate, how would gay people and fat people be the same? Please remember when I set these up that I am giving stereotypes and perceptions. Some of what I say will be objectively true, some is true but rare, and some is 99% in the mind of the beholder (hater). If I say something blatantly wrong, I probably know it, but wouldn't it ruin the fun if I pointed out every specific flaw?
They look funny
Fat people often have a sort of waddle and generally slow movements. They may have difficulty moving both due to weight and size, depending on the situation. They're easy to identify, easy to point and say: "That person's fat."
Gay people, at least by stereotypes, are much the same. Over the years they've varied, but limp wrists and certain styles of dress, or perhaps more accurately, any style, are stereotypical. They may more with a bit of a flourish, an expression of energy that you won't usually find in everyday interaction.
In short, they're identifiable, noticeable for not looking right.
Science says they're wrong
Fat people are a burden on all of us. They get sick and wreck our healthcare system. They're not natural they way they eat and eat and eat and never exercise. They're a disease.
Gay people spread AIDs. They spread disease with their unrestricted and unnatural sex practices. They're unnatural because no species can survive without having sex with the opposite sex.
They're immoral
The Bible speaks against gluttony. It's one of the seven deadly sins. They're slothful and gluttonous and selfish with no self-control.
The Bible tells us that homosexuality is an abomination and God specifically made a man and a woman and told them to go forth and multiply. Gay people don't multiply well.
That's all, folks
Using everything from misuse of science to misuse of religion, an army of hateful people are spreading their message across the world. They want you to think what they think, they want you to hate who they hate, and they're too small-minded to even think of new and interesting ways and reasons to hate, so they dig up the same reason they used last year and slap a new picture on their ads.
To start out, let's ignore the argument that hatred is derived from some sort of natural xenophobia or other arguments of that sort. I'm not saying they're not true, but in this case, they're boring. They cover all hatred. I'm more interested in these two particular forms because they're 'fashionable.'
So let's get to the fun stuff: how they are alike. By they I mean the targets. In the minds of those who hate, how would gay people and fat people be the same? Please remember when I set these up that I am giving stereotypes and perceptions. Some of what I say will be objectively true, some is true but rare, and some is 99% in the mind of the beholder (hater). If I say something blatantly wrong, I probably know it, but wouldn't it ruin the fun if I pointed out every specific flaw?
They look funny
Fat people often have a sort of waddle and generally slow movements. They may have difficulty moving both due to weight and size, depending on the situation. They're easy to identify, easy to point and say: "That person's fat."
Gay people, at least by stereotypes, are much the same. Over the years they've varied, but limp wrists and certain styles of dress, or perhaps more accurately, any style, are stereotypical. They may more with a bit of a flourish, an expression of energy that you won't usually find in everyday interaction.
In short, they're identifiable, noticeable for not looking right.
Science says they're wrong
Fat people are a burden on all of us. They get sick and wreck our healthcare system. They're not natural they way they eat and eat and eat and never exercise. They're a disease.
Gay people spread AIDs. They spread disease with their unrestricted and unnatural sex practices. They're unnatural because no species can survive without having sex with the opposite sex.
They're immoral
The Bible speaks against gluttony. It's one of the seven deadly sins. They're slothful and gluttonous and selfish with no self-control.
The Bible tells us that homosexuality is an abomination and God specifically made a man and a woman and told them to go forth and multiply. Gay people don't multiply well.
That's all, folks
Using everything from misuse of science to misuse of religion, an army of hateful people are spreading their message across the world. They want you to think what they think, they want you to hate who they hate, and they're too small-minded to even think of new and interesting ways and reasons to hate, so they dig up the same reason they used last year and slap a new picture on their ads.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Pro-choice, anti-abortion
A classmate of mine founded a pro-life group a year or so ago. She's friendly and willing to put up with my habit of saying whatever I disagree with. It's gotten so bad that the first thing to come to mind is almost the exact opposite of what I truly believe. But that's not the point.
I asked her if she's heard of a "pro-choice, anti-abortion" group before. She had not, observing that groups tend to be at the extremes. This saddened me.
I would like to see a group which respects choice, but tries to make the choice easier. They'd work to prevent abortion rather than banning it. So they'd promote contraceptives, and abstinence.
No those are not exclusive! I bet you're not having sex right now and I bet you have at some point used a condom or birth control, so they are clearly not exclusive. Abstinence has been found to be pretty useless for sex ed. Not only does it fail to stop sex, it also tends to leave the students woefully undereducated, so then when they do have sex, it's is incredibly stupid sex, so unwanted pregnancy rates go up. Perhaps abstinence wasn't the right word; more careful sex?
Mothers-to-be would be better informed about adoption options as well.
The overall goal is to make it so no one wants an abortion. Imagine if no woman had an unwanted pregnancy. Even aside from abortion, that would be great, because it would mean they would have control; to choose to not get pregnant and also to only make the choice to get pregnant when it is absolutely what they want. If a few babies slip through (to put it lightly: stuff happens), adoption could take over.
This group would avoid moralistic language. That gets nowhere. Instead it would focus on practical solutions and treatments instead of Bible-waving and screaming.
I asked her if she's heard of a "pro-choice, anti-abortion" group before. She had not, observing that groups tend to be at the extremes. This saddened me.
I would like to see a group which respects choice, but tries to make the choice easier. They'd work to prevent abortion rather than banning it. So they'd promote contraceptives, and abstinence.
No those are not exclusive! I bet you're not having sex right now and I bet you have at some point used a condom or birth control, so they are clearly not exclusive. Abstinence has been found to be pretty useless for sex ed. Not only does it fail to stop sex, it also tends to leave the students woefully undereducated, so then when they do have sex, it's is incredibly stupid sex, so unwanted pregnancy rates go up. Perhaps abstinence wasn't the right word; more careful sex?
Mothers-to-be would be better informed about adoption options as well.
The overall goal is to make it so no one wants an abortion. Imagine if no woman had an unwanted pregnancy. Even aside from abortion, that would be great, because it would mean they would have control; to choose to not get pregnant and also to only make the choice to get pregnant when it is absolutely what they want. If a few babies slip through (to put it lightly: stuff happens), adoption could take over.
This group would avoid moralistic language. That gets nowhere. Instead it would focus on practical solutions and treatments instead of Bible-waving and screaming.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
The problem witha science education
I keep wanting proof.
This isn't so bad when I'm trying to prove someone wrong. But it's terribly inconvenient when I want to open my mouth. I get an idea and am about to say it when my brain kicks in "Do you have any evidence for that?" Shit. Well maybe, but certainly nothing statistically valid.
It is unfortunate that those who have the greatest inhibition on speech are those who try to avoid making shit up.
This isn't so bad when I'm trying to prove someone wrong. But it's terribly inconvenient when I want to open my mouth. I get an idea and am about to say it when my brain kicks in "Do you have any evidence for that?" Shit. Well maybe, but certainly nothing statistically valid.
It is unfortunate that those who have the greatest inhibition on speech are those who try to avoid making shit up.
Monday, November 30, 2009
I'm glad I'm not gay
"What a fag."
When was the last time you heard this or some variation? If I had to guess: too recently. Language is in a transition period and it's one which I don'timagine does much good for the self-esteem of gays.
Fag, gay, queer, etc: these used to mean stick, happy, and strange. Somehow they became words to refer to gay people. I suppose queer makes sense. Gay is a stretch. Fag doesn't make much sense, but that's beside the point. They all refer to homosexuality.
Now they're becoming multipurpose synonyms for "bad." People you don't like are fags. Events you don't like are gay. Items you don't like are gay. This makes some sense if you consider that homophobia is the new racism: taken for granted and unquestioned by most people. It's just part of the language and it makes sense that a word for a type of bad person would become a word for a general bad person.
The transition would not seem to be fun for gay people. Their words are being throw around as generic negatives. What other meaning can be drawn besides: "Everyone thinks you're bad." Or even worse: "You are indistinguishable from bad people."
I'm noticing this as a trend, more and more words don't mean anything special anymore. A few days ago I saw someone use the n word in WoW to refer to a Horde ganker. It made no sense. What does ganking have to do with a word which historically referred to black people in an extremely negative manner and to this day is even used in a strange dichotomy as a word of brotherhood between but also a disparaging word for someone who acts badly.
When was the last time you heard this or some variation? If I had to guess: too recently. Language is in a transition period and it's one which I don'timagine does much good for the self-esteem of gays.
Fag, gay, queer, etc: these used to mean stick, happy, and strange. Somehow they became words to refer to gay people. I suppose queer makes sense. Gay is a stretch. Fag doesn't make much sense, but that's beside the point. They all refer to homosexuality.
Now they're becoming multipurpose synonyms for "bad." People you don't like are fags. Events you don't like are gay. Items you don't like are gay. This makes some sense if you consider that homophobia is the new racism: taken for granted and unquestioned by most people. It's just part of the language and it makes sense that a word for a type of bad person would become a word for a general bad person.
The transition would not seem to be fun for gay people. Their words are being throw around as generic negatives. What other meaning can be drawn besides: "Everyone thinks you're bad." Or even worse: "You are indistinguishable from bad people."
I'm noticing this as a trend, more and more words don't mean anything special anymore. A few days ago I saw someone use the n word in WoW to refer to a Horde ganker. It made no sense. What does ganking have to do with a word which historically referred to black people in an extremely negative manner and to this day is even used in a strange dichotomy as a word of brotherhood between but also a disparaging word for someone who acts badly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
