I have a personal problem with people speaking for me. While reading the editorials in the Des Moines Register or else where, I've seen people write "We Iowans" and "people in Iowa" and I'm bothered. Though Iowa seems to be a not so diverse state in terms of most people being old and white, there are diverse ideas here. I do NOT agree with King and his predictions about "the terrorists" celebrating Obama's election as president (if that happens). I live in Iowa, and I do not think this way and I know others who are just as appalled to find that we live in a state where a public official can be so dumb.
King (R-Iowa), you have a problem. You go out in public, without thought or evidence, and make a proclamation meant to incite misconceptions about Obama. Come on, King. Can you get past the stupid scare tactics of accusing Obama of being something he's not? He does not identify as a Muslim, and I think HE, more than you or anyone else, is the most valid source for that info. Secondly, if he did identify as Muslim, that is fine. We are in a country where people can be Muslim. Freedom to worship? Ring a bell?
More importantly, can you get educated about the Muslim faith and stop equating it with terrorism. You should be striped of your position as a state representative if you think you can speak for Iowa or even your district in such an uneducated and divisive way. You are not a credit to your party, your state, or your public position.
Ignorance, uneducated blathering to get your way, feeding on people's fears and prejudices--though you may think I'm writing about terrorists, I am really referring to your comments and your inability to admit you're wrong and that you said some really stupid things.
Don't speak for me when you speak lies and fear mongering.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Stuff White People Like
A friend sent me a link. Thank you, friend.
Stuff White People Like is a blog, and it has initiated heated debate on within its own comments and discussion on other sites, like Feministe and the LA Times. I love this.
A huge lesson I attempt to teach my students (who will someday be teachers) is that everywhere around us, there are these messages and ideas. And, though we may want to brush them off as "oh, just Disney cartoons" or "it's too uncomfortable for me to broach in a classroom," we really need to educate ourselves and become critical participants in our society in order to be good teachers. So, how does a blog like this fit into multicultural teacher education with a focus on social justice and transformation? Good question. And, a good answer is that this blog and all of the comments, debate, anger, hilarity--all of it--speak to our macro-culture. We get insights into what people think it means to be white, to be racist, to be middle class.
Then, we need to be critical, to wade through the emotions, the "evidence," our personal biases, and our own ignorance of experience and come to some conclusions. How does this fit into how we think and how we teach?
As a teacher of college students, it gives me a view into the possibilities of how people think and what they say when they are anonymous online. It provides a insight into people's language, how they define and use words like "racist". And, all of this informs my teaching and my own learning.
Stuff White People Like is a blog, and it has initiated heated debate on within its own comments and discussion on other sites, like Feministe and the LA Times. I love this.
A huge lesson I attempt to teach my students (who will someday be teachers) is that everywhere around us, there are these messages and ideas. And, though we may want to brush them off as "oh, just Disney cartoons" or "it's too uncomfortable for me to broach in a classroom," we really need to educate ourselves and become critical participants in our society in order to be good teachers. So, how does a blog like this fit into multicultural teacher education with a focus on social justice and transformation? Good question. And, a good answer is that this blog and all of the comments, debate, anger, hilarity--all of it--speak to our macro-culture. We get insights into what people think it means to be white, to be racist, to be middle class.
Then, we need to be critical, to wade through the emotions, the "evidence," our personal biases, and our own ignorance of experience and come to some conclusions. How does this fit into how we think and how we teach?
As a teacher of college students, it gives me a view into the possibilities of how people think and what they say when they are anonymous online. It provides a insight into people's language, how they define and use words like "racist". And, all of this informs my teaching and my own learning.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Marriage in Iowa
In a place that can reek of stereotypes (the smell of hogs) and assumptions about people being set in their ways, we see a stream of light emerging from the clouds. Iowa (not Idaho), yes, that caucus state where the candidates hang out before the primaries, riding tractors and kissing babies. It seems it is on the map now for more than political aggrandizing, or is it? Can we really count on this ruling or is it one more political trick to draw eyes on Iowa?
We recently had a judge rule that ruled that Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. We got the reactions that we thought we’d get. Romney jumped in and rode the wagon of defending marriage, of course specifying that it is between one man and ONE woman (in a bid to override the taint of recent polygamy/child-bride trials have on his own faith). Clinton (I refuse to call her Hillary for obvious reasons. If they are not obvious, then think about the any of the times another candidate or president has been referred to by their given names. Not a sign of respect) and Obama (again, I will not refer to him by his first name) had similar, expected reactions. The states should mire through this issue and the federal government should keep its nose out of it. Hmmm. But what do they really think?
When one thinks of traditional republican beliefs, isn’t one of them less government interference? This turn around is important to note because it is time to call into question blind following of either party. My aunt votes republican (because her husband does and because they listen to AM talk radio at all hours). Never once have I heard her argue about an issue without first qualifying that it is what someone else believes in (namely a republican). My personal political decisions are (as much as possible) based on issues. I know for a fact that even though I am registered as a democrat, I do not always agree with the party line. In fact, there have been a few times when I have agreed with President Bush (note, I did not refer to him by his given name or his middle initial).
From what I’ve read about the ruling, the judge made a decision based on an interpretation of the Constitution and one that has precedent. I don’t believe he mentioned, as he ruled, his political affiliation or his religious affiliation, and that is right in a country that is based on a constitution that speaks for "freedom" and choice. The reasons for banning gay marriage—family values, namely—are based on faith, and that has no place in a court.Oh, and is Robert Hanson running for president? I might consider giving him my vote.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Grandma’s Cookie Advice
A year ago, I lost my grandmother, and she is one who touched my soul and taught me. Her love for education guided me toward teaching and moving along with my degrees.
She always proclaimed to be a plain-spoken woman, with simple needs and wants. One of her customs was to cut out those cliche advice columns and Reader's Digest pieces to tape to her office wall or carry in her wallet. After she died, we found so many of these timeworn, yellow clippings. I read them all, trying to see what she got out of them, why she kept them when they were just common sense. And, I think that's the point.
We all make our own meanings from what we observe and read, and the common sense appealed to her sense of keeping things simple and living in the now. My grandmother's goal, according to these clippings, was to seek personal happiness through her own devices and to be conscious of this quest every day and with every action and word directed toward others. My grandmother was a country school (one-room) teacher, a farm wife (farm work partner), a mother, a 4H leader, and a newspaper columnist.
I want to share one of my grandmother's clippings, which happens to be one written about her. I hope the simple logic shines through and that her experience and knowledge continue to help people. I also include my great-grandmother's sugar cookie recipe, passed down to me from my grandmother.
Another piece of advice comes from E. H. who says she has been cooking and baking about 60 years now. She’s 72.
1 cup sugar
1 cup butter
1 egg
1/2 tsp soda
1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp vanilla
about 3 cups flour (adjusted for the larger egg)
Oven Temp 350 degrees
Combine all ingredients. Shape into rolls, slice, and bake.
Or, form into balls and use a glass creamer (or other cut glass
item) to press a shape into the balls. Dip the creamer bottom
into sugar and press gently.
Vonnegut passes, No Timequake.
F.Y.I.--The Ph.D. is going well, for any who care to know. I'm teaching a fabulous class to assist pre-service teachers in overcoming stereotypes, assumptions, and bias in their classrooms. I get to teach them about social justice and open their eyes to see that there IS racism, discrimination and separate is STILL not equal. So, I've been busy, and I've missed opportunities to write about Gonzales, Wolfie, Imus, and some of the other people who tip my boat.
There is one guy I need to write a bit about, however, and that is Mr. Kurt Vonnegut. He tipped my book (in a positive way) back when I was an undergraduate. He is the inspiration for this blog and much of my English major thinking in the past decade. I'm not an English major anymore--moved to Education--but Vonnegut holds a place in my heart. His ability to be brash and honest, while still using a sense of logic, is what I admire.
He was, above all, a human. A Humanist. He drank (a lot), he hated his former son-in-law, and he lusted after women. He also wrote like a fiend and wrote to make a statement rather than to please an audience, yet he did care about people and what they do to themselves and to others. Unlike certain people who use language carelessly (i.e. Imus), Vonnegut carried a mastery of saying or writing his point with flare and innuendo, but not with malice or ignorance.
For the summer, amidst my other reading toward Ph.D. stuff, I intend to revisit my favorite Vonnegut books.
April 11, 2007, Vonnegut died. This is also my twin brothers' birthday. So it goes.
Love, Circe
There is one guy I need to write a bit about, however, and that is Mr. Kurt Vonnegut. He tipped my book (in a positive way) back when I was an undergraduate. He is the inspiration for this blog and much of my English major thinking in the past decade. I'm not an English major anymore--moved to Education--but Vonnegut holds a place in my heart. His ability to be brash and honest, while still using a sense of logic, is what I admire.
He was, above all, a human. A Humanist. He drank (a lot), he hated his former son-in-law, and he lusted after women. He also wrote like a fiend and wrote to make a statement rather than to please an audience, yet he did care about people and what they do to themselves and to others. Unlike certain people who use language carelessly (i.e. Imus), Vonnegut carried a mastery of saying or writing his point with flare and innuendo, but not with malice or ignorance.
For the summer, amidst my other reading toward Ph.D. stuff, I intend to revisit my favorite Vonnegut books.
April 11, 2007, Vonnegut died. This is also my twin brothers' birthday. So it goes.
Love, Circe
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Dennis Miller--How his "rhetoric" degrades free speech
It's been a while since I've written. This fall, I started my Ph.D. program, and so I've been busy. It's too bad that what moves me to blog is Dennis Miller's insensitive, uneducated, and unruly "free speech."
Fox news gets such a bad rap, and it really deserves it. I understand commentary and editorials, but the point is to have someone intelligent who can speak up with views from all sides for the sake of "readers" who might not get the whole story. THe purpose of editorial writing is not to encourage mindless relativism or political correctness. Good editorial writing digs deep with reason, ethics, and EVIDENCE to better inform people and make them THINK before they make up their minds.
But, Fox allows Miller to sound off and blast people, bash a religion, make unintelligible analogies, and present a picture of racist "rhetoric" in the name of "free speech."
Dennis Miller, you have free speech, as do all people who live in the US (including Muslim imams). We also have freedom of religion. Please do not speak for me. You are wrong to act in such a way, and I denounce your words.
'Real Free Speech' Dennis Miller sounds off on ‘Imams on a plane’
Friday, May 19, 2006
Breaking the "Code"
Though I have not read the book (when it first came out, I thought it was like those creepy Left Behind books, so I stayed far, far away), I plan on seeing The Da Vinci Code. This is the rebel in me. I have been waiting for the movie the minute the go-Jesus people started making a fuss and when I learned that Marry M is NOT portrayed as a biblical hooker (why do the fundies like thinking she was a prostitute?).
Yes, I will read the book, eventually (I was an English major, so I can read anything). But, I can't wait to go to the theatre and see if there are people protesting. It would be so cool if one of them got so incited that he stabbed me in the side or cut up my forehead with thorns from throwing roses at me. How symbolic and ironic. It won't happen. I've never once been to a "racy" or "evil" movie where people protest.
You know, as much as people bash Harry Potter flicks or The Da Vinci Code, it still makes no sense to me. Where are they when those bad teenage horror movies come out? There's more evil and senselessness in those movies than in a kid movie that teaches moral lessons or a thriller that has never claimed to be true (too bad). I heard someone (on the radio as I woke up, so there's no chance of me remembering a name, sorry) make the point that "If their faith is so weak that this movie will turn their faith, then they had crappy faith to begin with" (or something similar to those words:)
That's right. If people are dumb enough to believe what they watch in a movie or on TV, then it is the fault of Bush and crew. (Well, probably Chenney and the "W" crew.) We worry about spying on the phone? Well, this is much more insidious. They tell us what to believe everyday (note--FOX News). So, of course, that technology could be in the hands of these Hollywood-type people, too. No, it's probably the gays again or the immigrants who want us to change how we see Jesus. You know, as a nice regular guy.
Yes, I will read the book, eventually (I was an English major, so I can read anything). But, I can't wait to go to the theatre and see if there are people protesting. It would be so cool if one of them got so incited that he stabbed me in the side or cut up my forehead with thorns from throwing roses at me. How symbolic and ironic. It won't happen. I've never once been to a "racy" or "evil" movie where people protest.
You know, as much as people bash Harry Potter flicks or The Da Vinci Code, it still makes no sense to me. Where are they when those bad teenage horror movies come out? There's more evil and senselessness in those movies than in a kid movie that teaches moral lessons or a thriller that has never claimed to be true (too bad). I heard someone (on the radio as I woke up, so there's no chance of me remembering a name, sorry) make the point that "If their faith is so weak that this movie will turn their faith, then they had crappy faith to begin with" (or something similar to those words:)
That's right. If people are dumb enough to believe what they watch in a movie or on TV, then it is the fault of Bush and crew. (Well, probably Chenney and the "W" crew.) We worry about spying on the phone? Well, this is much more insidious. They tell us what to believe everyday (note--FOX News). So, of course, that technology could be in the hands of these Hollywood-type people, too. No, it's probably the gays again or the immigrants who want us to change how we see Jesus. You know, as a nice regular guy.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Bush loves Blair.
So, so funny. Bush/Blair love affair.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8845429906560840314&pl=true
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8845429906560840314&pl=true
"Now, George, say you're sorry"--Words Never Uttered by Barb Bush
You know, for someone with such alleged humility, Mr. Bush sure doesn't know how to accept the idea that he could be wrong (that or he thinks we're all dumb enough to believe him if he tells the same lie over and over). Mr. Bush, you went over heads to institute this wire tapping, you broke rules and custom, and you were wrong to do this. We ALL know this, even you.
You're avoiding the issue, Mr. President. Yes, you can refuse to apologize because you think you can justify your wire tapping, especially by using the terms "terrrorist" or "al-Qaida." You can refuse. But you need to understand that this refusal to admit your wrong doing and to apologize to the people for overstepping your bounds and then fibbing sends some pretty wicked messages.
So, basically, when you stand there and give this kind of speech, this is what we REALLY hear.
1. "Men in power can lie as needed. I'm a man in power. I can lie whenever I must to save my own ass."
2. "If I figure out a way to scare people, I can use that fear to justify what I do, even when I know (or later find out) that I am wrong."
3. "I'm never wrong."
4. "Presidents rule the world, especially me. I can make choices without planning ahead or getting permission."
5. " I protect my own people (his cronies, not the American people), until they get caught, and then I simply explain that I had no idea they were so bad" (Hmm. Sounds a bit like daddy Bush about Iran Contra).
6. And, I'm out of here in a couple years, so who cares if the world blows up. As long as Texas is on the map, everything goes."
You're avoiding the issue, Mr. President. Yes, you can refuse to apologize because you think you can justify your wire tapping, especially by using the terms "terrrorist" or "al-Qaida." You can refuse. But you need to understand that this refusal to admit your wrong doing and to apologize to the people for overstepping your bounds and then fibbing sends some pretty wicked messages.
So, basically, when you stand there and give this kind of speech, this is what we REALLY hear.
1. "Men in power can lie as needed. I'm a man in power. I can lie whenever I must to save my own ass."
2. "If I figure out a way to scare people, I can use that fear to justify what I do, even when I know (or later find out) that I am wrong."
3. "I'm never wrong."
4. "Presidents rule the world, especially me. I can make choices without planning ahead or getting permission."
5. " I protect my own people (his cronies, not the American people), until they get caught, and then I simply explain that I had no idea they were so bad" (Hmm. Sounds a bit like daddy Bush about Iran Contra).
6. And, I'm out of here in a couple years, so who cares if the world blows up. As long as Texas is on the map, everything goes."
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Predator Alert--Sex fiend in Homeland Security Office
Well, back in July, 2003, Homeland Security created "Operation Predator" to help combat sexual predators, removing them, and working on the tourism trade in exploited children around the world. I think I can say without too much more evidence that Operation Predator needs some work, and so does Homeland Security (HS).
Yesterday's story about Brian Doyle is the evidence. Here is a guy, pretty high up in the Homeland Security megasaurus; Google him, and he is always making statements for HS. Granted, I don't think (after a bit of research) that Doyle had much to do with Operation Predator (OP), but the OP sure didn't have much to do with this guy. Isn't it kind of ironic (and criminal) that a sheriff found this guy out and not the HS? Do they do background checks at all? For all of their spying, they sure missed the boat on this guy. He's the wolf in sheep's clothing, and this shows one of the many holes in HS.
Are they so busy poking into the lives of innocent Arab Americans, tourists from Hollland, and border issues? Set the threat advisory up a notch, HS, and let everyone know that this is internal.
Look no further than your own buidling, people. Do us all a favor and "remove" the predators from within first, and why not get a third party to do this work, like, say, the sheriff from Polk county, just because, well, we don't really trust your work.
Yesterday's story about Brian Doyle is the evidence. Here is a guy, pretty high up in the Homeland Security megasaurus; Google him, and he is always making statements for HS. Granted, I don't think (after a bit of research) that Doyle had much to do with Operation Predator (OP), but the OP sure didn't have much to do with this guy. Isn't it kind of ironic (and criminal) that a sheriff found this guy out and not the HS? Do they do background checks at all? For all of their spying, they sure missed the boat on this guy. He's the wolf in sheep's clothing, and this shows one of the many holes in HS.
Are they so busy poking into the lives of innocent Arab Americans, tourists from Hollland, and border issues? Set the threat advisory up a notch, HS, and let everyone know that this is internal.
Look no further than your own buidling, people. Do us all a favor and "remove" the predators from within first, and why not get a third party to do this work, like, say, the sheriff from Polk county, just because, well, we don't really trust your work.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
What? Keep the Christians off of TV?
This is what I mean (see blog about gay slippers). “TV networks reject ad from church: Say spot welcoming gays is controversial” It's okay to have gay people in television shows, especially if they are really straight actors and especially on cable, for the purpose of entertaining. But, when it comes to having rights for gays or places for them to be safe, then we can't show this on television.
The reason given for not airing the United Church of Christ ad was that these networks can't advocate social or religious issues. I don't buy it. What they don't want to do is let it be known that gays (and all the other groups portrayed) are Christians, too. Kind of hard to hate someone or condemn them to fiery hell when they go to church and have "You know Who" in their hearts, isn't it. Even more difficult to hate people who use "You Know Who's" ideas of loving everyone, not judging, and gathering in the name of God. Hmm. Yep, hard to hate that kind of person.
The networks don't air issues "of public controversy" or religious issues? Well, then get rid of the crappy McDonald's ads that advocate getting fat. That is totally controversial. Be gone! What about Barbie commercials. They advocate wacky body image and stereotypes. Take them off the air. What about all of those Christmas Hallmark make-people-cry about gathering around the tree commercials. Duh, religion. What about commercials for booze. Hello, do we need to advocate drinking? And, finally, if we can’t have this church commercial, get that L. Ron Hubbard stuff off the air, no more of the touchy-feely LDS ads, and definitely the ads that idolatrize Jessica Simpson need to go. No more worshipping on TV, sure, but that goes for all of the controversial issues.
Humph. And, people get all upset over that guy in Afghanistan. He might be executed for his change of faith, and people care, now that he is a Christian. Well, Jesus-lovers, there are fellow Christians trying to Do What Jesus Would Do, and you can’t even let them buy air time?
The reason given for not airing the United Church of Christ ad was that these networks can't advocate social or religious issues. I don't buy it. What they don't want to do is let it be known that gays (and all the other groups portrayed) are Christians, too. Kind of hard to hate someone or condemn them to fiery hell when they go to church and have "You know Who" in their hearts, isn't it. Even more difficult to hate people who use "You Know Who's" ideas of loving everyone, not judging, and gathering in the name of God. Hmm. Yep, hard to hate that kind of person.
The networks don't air issues "of public controversy" or religious issues? Well, then get rid of the crappy McDonald's ads that advocate getting fat. That is totally controversial. Be gone! What about Barbie commercials. They advocate wacky body image and stereotypes. Take them off the air. What about all of those Christmas Hallmark make-people-cry about gathering around the tree commercials. Duh, religion. What about commercials for booze. Hello, do we need to advocate drinking? And, finally, if we can’t have this church commercial, get that L. Ron Hubbard stuff off the air, no more of the touchy-feely LDS ads, and definitely the ads that idolatrize Jessica Simpson need to go. No more worshipping on TV, sure, but that goes for all of the controversial issues.
Humph. And, people get all upset over that guy in Afghanistan. He might be executed for his change of faith, and people care, now that he is a Christian. Well, Jesus-lovers, there are fellow Christians trying to Do What Jesus Would Do, and you can’t even let them buy air time?
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Mississippi--This Dildo is for You
Dan Abrams makes some excellent points, and really, the most important is the simple informative nature of his latest blog, "Mississippi outlaws sex toys".
With all of the issues out there that are so important, especially in the state of Mississippi, it is easy to see why people have their minds on sex. They are recovering from the hurricanes, sinking in sub-standard education, state debt, and they have a pesky state reputation for being poor and backward (it is illegal to have sex with or live with a non-spouse). They can't be too far behind on this latest race to make abortions illegal.
Mississippi, don't you see that sex toys are the least of your problems. In fact, why don't you pass them out to tax payers.
Mississippi, sex toys provide the comfort of a an STI FREE (it is no longer STD, people) "friend" who CAN'T get you pregnant. And, if people are having this REALLY safe sex with themselves, then they AREN'T getting sick, making babies they can't afford, or seeking abortions to end unwanted pregancies. When you take away this safe sex, then what the heck are people to do? Oh, yes, get married. Silly me.
Come on. Get out of people's bedrooms and mind your own business. You are not the marriage police. Nor do you have the right to moralize people in this manner. People stimulate themselves: in the womb, in childhood, and in adulthood. It's normal and okay, and it's a heck of a lot safer. Find something else to work on. Spend time and money where it can help people. Leave sex toys alone (unless you use it for good).
Besides, we all know that the people who decry the toys with the loudest voices are the people with the really kinky collections, hidden in the basement.
With all of the issues out there that are so important, especially in the state of Mississippi, it is easy to see why people have their minds on sex. They are recovering from the hurricanes, sinking in sub-standard education, state debt, and they have a pesky state reputation for being poor and backward (it is illegal to have sex with or live with a non-spouse). They can't be too far behind on this latest race to make abortions illegal.
Mississippi, don't you see that sex toys are the least of your problems. In fact, why don't you pass them out to tax payers.
Mississippi, sex toys provide the comfort of a an STI FREE (it is no longer STD, people) "friend" who CAN'T get you pregnant. And, if people are having this REALLY safe sex with themselves, then they AREN'T getting sick, making babies they can't afford, or seeking abortions to end unwanted pregancies. When you take away this safe sex, then what the heck are people to do? Oh, yes, get married. Silly me.
Come on. Get out of people's bedrooms and mind your own business. You are not the marriage police. Nor do you have the right to moralize people in this manner. People stimulate themselves: in the womb, in childhood, and in adulthood. It's normal and okay, and it's a heck of a lot safer. Find something else to work on. Spend time and money where it can help people. Leave sex toys alone (unless you use it for good).
Besides, we all know that the people who decry the toys with the loudest voices are the people with the really kinky collections, hidden in the basement.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Gay Slippers on the HBO Slope
You know, I love how being gay is okay on HBO. People were even, mostly, okay with the cowboy-on-cowboy sex in Brokeback Mountain. What happens on the mountain stays on the mountain, right? Same with all of the other trendy sexy stuff. It’s okay, on TV.
This double standard really sucks. On one side we get this message that gay sex and one night stands (all available on HBO and even on TBS with reruns of Sex and the City) are okay for entertainment. We get this sneak peek into the exciting, titillating (had to use this word) sex lives of these people (who aren’t really gay). It might even make some people feel better about their political correctness, kind of like when people say, “Yeah, there’s this black guy at work that I talk to when we’re in the elevator.”
Then, we have the real world where people who ARE really gay want to commit to marriage vows can’t because some people think that a gay marriage will destroy the whole concept of man-woman marriage. If people aren’t gay, then they don’t have to be bothered by gay marriage. Hey , they could even respect it for what it is, two people in love who want to be together with benefits. People get married for such different reasons, like money, for the sake of children, pressure from family (like a shot gun in the back, you know), for prestige, and for health insurance. Okay, and these reasons make marriage between a man and a woman sacred? More sacred than the true love and commitment between two woman? Hmmm. Does not compute.
Well, the whole deal of calling homosexuality a sin is a slippery slope, and the whole problem lies in trying to moralize according to fundie faith in a country with religious freedom. There’s your slope, people. And, we will never be able to climb the slope (with all people reaching the idea that either side is right). There will always be tricky spots according to someone else’s faith. One way to make this slope disappear is to take away religious freedom and make everything else punishable. No gays. No multiple partners. No Muslims. No more good TV. No more privacy. And, nobody to question authority.
Wait a minute. I saw that movie!!!!
The other way to make the slope disappear is to see everyone as people and to leave acting like God to God.
This double standard really sucks. On one side we get this message that gay sex and one night stands (all available on HBO and even on TBS with reruns of Sex and the City) are okay for entertainment. We get this sneak peek into the exciting, titillating (had to use this word) sex lives of these people (who aren’t really gay). It might even make some people feel better about their political correctness, kind of like when people say, “Yeah, there’s this black guy at work that I talk to when we’re in the elevator.”
Then, we have the real world where people who ARE really gay want to commit to marriage vows can’t because some people think that a gay marriage will destroy the whole concept of man-woman marriage. If people aren’t gay, then they don’t have to be bothered by gay marriage. Hey , they could even respect it for what it is, two people in love who want to be together with benefits. People get married for such different reasons, like money, for the sake of children, pressure from family (like a shot gun in the back, you know), for prestige, and for health insurance. Okay, and these reasons make marriage between a man and a woman sacred? More sacred than the true love and commitment between two woman? Hmmm. Does not compute.
Well, the whole deal of calling homosexuality a sin is a slippery slope, and the whole problem lies in trying to moralize according to fundie faith in a country with religious freedom. There’s your slope, people. And, we will never be able to climb the slope (with all people reaching the idea that either side is right). There will always be tricky spots according to someone else’s faith. One way to make this slope disappear is to take away religious freedom and make everything else punishable. No gays. No multiple partners. No Muslims. No more good TV. No more privacy. And, nobody to question authority.
Wait a minute. I saw that movie!!!!
The other way to make the slope disappear is to see everyone as people and to leave acting like God to God.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Tennessee and "Choose Life"--Step up to the plates
Another dose of certain people in certain state governments pushing their personal, faith-based agenda. Tennessee allows pro-life plates only and puts church before state.
You can make the laws, state governments, and we abide by them. Overall, you represent us--ALL of us, and not just one faction of society. And, you, state governments, are obligated to follow constitutional law, first and foremost. Allowing state license plates with the message “Choose Life” and not allowing any other views is not legal, and it sends the message that the state is willing to override the separation of church and state. Sorry, I had to use that phrase, but we have it for a reason.
Oops, Tennessee, you messed up. Well, you can fix it. And, until it is legal for states to support only one side of faith-based issues, then you better step up and right your wrong. Take back the plates or allow every other view to be represented.
You can make the laws, state governments, and we abide by them. Overall, you represent us--ALL of us, and not just one faction of society. And, you, state governments, are obligated to follow constitutional law, first and foremost. Allowing state license plates with the message “Choose Life” and not allowing any other views is not legal, and it sends the message that the state is willing to override the separation of church and state. Sorry, I had to use that phrase, but we have it for a reason.
Oops, Tennessee, you messed up. Well, you can fix it. And, until it is legal for states to support only one side of faith-based issues, then you better step up and right your wrong. Take back the plates or allow every other view to be represented.
Grand Old Party--It's Party Time!
The latest news over the GOP (and, really, why do they get such a title?) is that they are mad at Bush.
According to Jim VandeHei, of the Washington Post, "For years, the Bush White House and its allies on Capitol Hill seemed like one of the most unified teams Washington had ever seen, passing most of Bush's agenda with little dissent. Privately, however, many lawmakers felt underappreciated, ignored and sometimes bullied [the red is mine to point out this really good part] by what they regarded as a White House intent on running government with little input from them. Often it was to pass items -- an expanded federal role in education under the No Child Left Behind law and an expensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare -- that left conservatives deeply uneasy."
Welcome to the REAL club, you grand boys and girls. Bush is a meany, a bully. Just like that bully you remember from the play ground, he has an innate ability to find and exploit people's weaknesses (he knows that Republicans want to stick together and make a front). He also knows how to befriend people and then stab them in the back and make it seem like their own fault. Finally, he has his "pack," the loyalists who follow him anywhere and do his bidding. Now, how many people has he abandoned and turned on in his need to save his own skin? Many, many.
Bush is NOT a good republican, no matter what he and his buddies try to tell you. He does not care about small government--look at how many fingers he has in how many pies (No Child Left Behind, Dubai ports, etc). He is not at all fiscally conservative--how much are we in debt? He is a business man who is looking out for himself and for his buddies (DeLay, Cheney, etc) with tax cuts for the wealthy. And, he treats EVERYONE like they are too stupid to see what he's doing. This is NOT a rant, and the part about him treating people like idiots is very true. Listen to his tone, his repetition, his lack of background knowledge when he begins his latest campaign.
Jim VandeHei quotes a republican recently awakened to Bush's bully ways, " 'Members felt they were willing to take a lot of tough votes and did not get much in return,' said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), an early critic of the port deal."
That's right. And, here is lesson number two, GOP (lesson one was that Bush is a bully and a bad republican), when you are an elected official, it is not a game of tradeoffs you are playing. When you run the government according to favors, you are wrong and of course it isn't fair; it's not fair to the US American people who have to live with it. So, lesson number two. Go to your constituents and find out how to vote. Talk to them and ask questions, let them know you ACTAULLY represent the people who voted you into office. THAT is who you vote for; you should not be voting in exchange for political favor or favors.
Lesson three. Get back to those wonderful republican ideals. Uphold them, especially the fiscal conservatism. We ALL need you to come back and help balance the government. Just as you count on the democrats to shake things up and bring in new ideas, they count on you to bring in the wise counsel about the costs and the change to tradition. (I'm NOT being sarcastic here, people. I love republicans, the real ones). Just like we need the Supreme Court to balance out issues and let us know we are, indeed, following the constitution, we need the bicameral system to balance out each other and double check the evidence before something is made into a law. Yes, there is debate, and that is how it should be. But, the thing is that we are missing one third of the debate lately. The president is doing HIS business, and he's avoiding the checks and balances of the Supreme Court, the Congress, and most importantly, from his party. He has let all of us down, and we need to be reminded that republicans are not selfish people.
Almost finished. Lesson Four. Being registered "republican" does not mean you have to vote like other republicans. Here's an analogy to show my point. Lemmings, cliffs, crashing surf, certain death, following the others--bad idea.
We need to see some republicans who DON'T need to be hand-held by Bush. We need to see that they can stand alone on issues according to what they think is RIGHT, according to the people they represent and their values (in that order). We need to see that republicans are honest and that their party membership is a benefit, not an albatross or a pair of cement shoes. We need to see that republicans care about people--all people--and that they will not force their faith or their personal beliefs on the people. Take back your party and make it stronger. Find a candidate who can stand up for those classic republican ideals, and I might even vote for her or for him.
According to Jim VandeHei, of the Washington Post, "For years, the Bush White House and its allies on Capitol Hill seemed like one of the most unified teams Washington had ever seen, passing most of Bush's agenda with little dissent. Privately, however, many lawmakers felt underappreciated, ignored and sometimes bullied [the red is mine to point out this really good part] by what they regarded as a White House intent on running government with little input from them. Often it was to pass items -- an expanded federal role in education under the No Child Left Behind law and an expensive prescription drug benefit under Medicare -- that left conservatives deeply uneasy."
Welcome to the REAL club, you grand boys and girls. Bush is a meany, a bully. Just like that bully you remember from the play ground, he has an innate ability to find and exploit people's weaknesses (he knows that Republicans want to stick together and make a front). He also knows how to befriend people and then stab them in the back and make it seem like their own fault. Finally, he has his "pack," the loyalists who follow him anywhere and do his bidding. Now, how many people has he abandoned and turned on in his need to save his own skin? Many, many.
Bush is NOT a good republican, no matter what he and his buddies try to tell you. He does not care about small government--look at how many fingers he has in how many pies (No Child Left Behind, Dubai ports, etc). He is not at all fiscally conservative--how much are we in debt? He is a business man who is looking out for himself and for his buddies (DeLay, Cheney, etc) with tax cuts for the wealthy. And, he treats EVERYONE like they are too stupid to see what he's doing. This is NOT a rant, and the part about him treating people like idiots is very true. Listen to his tone, his repetition, his lack of background knowledge when he begins his latest campaign.
Jim VandeHei quotes a republican recently awakened to Bush's bully ways, " 'Members felt they were willing to take a lot of tough votes and did not get much in return,' said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), an early critic of the port deal."
That's right. And, here is lesson number two, GOP (lesson one was that Bush is a bully and a bad republican), when you are an elected official, it is not a game of tradeoffs you are playing. When you run the government according to favors, you are wrong and of course it isn't fair; it's not fair to the US American people who have to live with it. So, lesson number two. Go to your constituents and find out how to vote. Talk to them and ask questions, let them know you ACTAULLY represent the people who voted you into office. THAT is who you vote for; you should not be voting in exchange for political favor or favors.
Lesson three. Get back to those wonderful republican ideals. Uphold them, especially the fiscal conservatism. We ALL need you to come back and help balance the government. Just as you count on the democrats to shake things up and bring in new ideas, they count on you to bring in the wise counsel about the costs and the change to tradition. (I'm NOT being sarcastic here, people. I love republicans, the real ones). Just like we need the Supreme Court to balance out issues and let us know we are, indeed, following the constitution, we need the bicameral system to balance out each other and double check the evidence before something is made into a law. Yes, there is debate, and that is how it should be. But, the thing is that we are missing one third of the debate lately. The president is doing HIS business, and he's avoiding the checks and balances of the Supreme Court, the Congress, and most importantly, from his party. He has let all of us down, and we need to be reminded that republicans are not selfish people.
Almost finished. Lesson Four. Being registered "republican" does not mean you have to vote like other republicans. Here's an analogy to show my point. Lemmings, cliffs, crashing surf, certain death, following the others--bad idea.
We need to see some republicans who DON'T need to be hand-held by Bush. We need to see that they can stand alone on issues according to what they think is RIGHT, according to the people they represent and their values (in that order). We need to see that republicans are honest and that their party membership is a benefit, not an albatross or a pair of cement shoes. We need to see that republicans care about people--all people--and that they will not force their faith or their personal beliefs on the people. Take back your party and make it stronger. Find a candidate who can stand up for those classic republican ideals, and I might even vote for her or for him.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Another Pat on the back for Muslims (and anyone else he doesn't like)
Pat Robertson strikes again. Yet again, a man who prclaims to be a minister of Christ twists news and commentary into hatred. According to Robertson, radical Muslims are evil, satanists. This is in regard to the cartoon dissent and violence, and the idea that Muslims want to take over and/or destroy the world. In his position, Robertson COULD have criticized the violence and could have promoted more peaceful resolutions, but instead, he throws out just as much hatred, thoughtless gasoline on the fire by judging an entire group of people by the actions of a few (compare the number of violent protestors to the number of Muslims world-wide).
Though I am a bit distant from my Sunday school days and beleifs, I have a warm feeling about something the pastor said during one of those children's sermons.
He said, "God is love. He loves us, and he wants us to love everyone, including people we don't get along with. It's okay to love people who aren't Lutheran or even Christian. We are all God's children in his eyes, made in his image." Then, the congregation sang the song, "They will know we are Christians by our love."
This sounds really cheesy, I know, but this message has really stuck with me. Though I no longer attend church and tend to have my own version of spirituality (other than organized religion), I have respected many, many Christians (like many people in the Christian Peacemakers Teams who go to Iraq, etc) for their ACTIONS. This kind of Christian need not proselytize or threaten people with hell and damnation if they don't convert. Some of these Christians are even OKAY with not converting those they work with or help. This is because they get the idea that we are all people here, we are all loved by God, AND we need to work together and love each other. They do NOT betray Christianity or even organized religion; in fact, they step above the political finger pointing and damnation agenda manuvers, and they get to the heart of the idea that God IS LOVE. They ACT like it.
Pat, do some more thinking, critical thinking, before you blab this kind of hate. Hire someone to clamp a hand over your mouth so we don't have to hear this kind of talk or see your actions for what they are. Get past the old testament fire and brimstone, tough God stuff. Move into the new, "love one another" testament. If you really want to call yourself a Christian, ACT LIKE IT and show the world some love.
Though I am a bit distant from my Sunday school days and beleifs, I have a warm feeling about something the pastor said during one of those children's sermons.
He said, "God is love. He loves us, and he wants us to love everyone, including people we don't get along with. It's okay to love people who aren't Lutheran or even Christian. We are all God's children in his eyes, made in his image." Then, the congregation sang the song, "They will know we are Christians by our love."
This sounds really cheesy, I know, but this message has really stuck with me. Though I no longer attend church and tend to have my own version of spirituality (other than organized religion), I have respected many, many Christians (like many people in the Christian Peacemakers Teams who go to Iraq, etc) for their ACTIONS. This kind of Christian need not proselytize or threaten people with hell and damnation if they don't convert. Some of these Christians are even OKAY with not converting those they work with or help. This is because they get the idea that we are all people here, we are all loved by God, AND we need to work together and love each other. They do NOT betray Christianity or even organized religion; in fact, they step above the political finger pointing and damnation agenda manuvers, and they get to the heart of the idea that God IS LOVE. They ACT like it.
Pat, do some more thinking, critical thinking, before you blab this kind of hate. Hire someone to clamp a hand over your mouth so we don't have to hear this kind of talk or see your actions for what they are. Get past the old testament fire and brimstone, tough God stuff. Move into the new, "love one another" testament. If you really want to call yourself a Christian, ACT LIKE IT and show the world some love.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Smiley Picture Iraqi Civil War?
Here we go again. Can you see another inquiry, another commission, another giant report, more inadequate apologies to the world, and more dislike for the US? When we've already seen the backlash for no WMD in Iraq, for the 9/11 commission and report, for the federal government "forgetting" to budget the promised money for Afghanistan, for Paul Bremer screwing it up in Iraq, for Hurricane Katrina response, for the general state of New Orleans and surrounding areas--the poverty and the racial inequalities, for the VP shooting a guy and not fessing up, for the electronic spying, etc, etc. Hey, even going back an administration, people, duh, you can't even get away with getting a BJ. What makes them think they can lie about this not being a civil war, at the least the beginnings of a civil war?
"It is not a great smiley picture nor is it a disaster," Pace[Peter Pace, Marine General, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] said. "What is [sic] it is a very tough environment that still has a lot of work to be done but one in which we're making very, very good progress."("Top general touts progress in Iraq, disputes assessments on civil war" Kuhnhenn and Youssef).
Yikes, these people are even sounding alike. How many times have we heard this line from Bush in regard to Iraq "It's tough. Really tough." The kindergarten-speak and the reliance on simple-minded acceptance of whatever they tell us is showing here, and it needs to show us how very disrespectful and manipulative some of these elected officials and cronies can be. In political school, do they teach these people that people in the US are dumb? That we watch so much TV and believe in cartoons that we will believe anything if we hear it enough? This is how I feel, and more than anything, I feel shamed that I get treated this way. How many people have been killed, and this man has the gall to say "it's not a great smiley picture?" Lay off the emoticons and get real, General Pace.
Right now, you (and anyone else who tries to sweep this under the carpet with head-patting and platitudes: "It's okay, go back to watching "Desperate Housewives") are under scrutiny, and you deserve every minute of it. Iraq is on the verge of civil war or already there. Say it and start taking action. Let's, FOR ONCE, speak the truth, because, unfortunately, you speak for us, and make some realistic plans. We went to war (both Afghanistan AND Iraq) without a cogent plan (reasons aside for now) or even a few back up plans, and that showed a lack of concern, maturity, and responsibility. It also proved a point that many have leveled on the US--they are out for their own benefit, and they will take down anyone who gets in the way. Okay, it's passed, and let's not do the same kind of mistake. Call it a civil war and call in the experts, the people who know how to budget, to make plans, to consider the people at risk, to consider the options, and to make back up plans. A hint, they probably didn't go to political school.
"It is not a great smiley picture nor is it a disaster," Pace[Peter Pace, Marine General, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] said. "What is [sic] it is a very tough environment that still has a lot of work to be done but one in which we're making very, very good progress."("Top general touts progress in Iraq, disputes assessments on civil war" Kuhnhenn and Youssef).
Yikes, these people are even sounding alike. How many times have we heard this line from Bush in regard to Iraq "It's tough. Really tough." The kindergarten-speak and the reliance on simple-minded acceptance of whatever they tell us is showing here, and it needs to show us how very disrespectful and manipulative some of these elected officials and cronies can be. In political school, do they teach these people that people in the US are dumb? That we watch so much TV and believe in cartoons that we will believe anything if we hear it enough? This is how I feel, and more than anything, I feel shamed that I get treated this way. How many people have been killed, and this man has the gall to say "it's not a great smiley picture?" Lay off the emoticons and get real, General Pace.
Right now, you (and anyone else who tries to sweep this under the carpet with head-patting and platitudes: "It's okay, go back to watching "Desperate Housewives") are under scrutiny, and you deserve every minute of it. Iraq is on the verge of civil war or already there. Say it and start taking action. Let's, FOR ONCE, speak the truth, because, unfortunately, you speak for us, and make some realistic plans. We went to war (both Afghanistan AND Iraq) without a cogent plan (reasons aside for now) or even a few back up plans, and that showed a lack of concern, maturity, and responsibility. It also proved a point that many have leveled on the US--they are out for their own benefit, and they will take down anyone who gets in the way. Okay, it's passed, and let's not do the same kind of mistake. Call it a civil war and call in the experts, the people who know how to budget, to make plans, to consider the people at risk, to consider the options, and to make back up plans. A hint, they probably didn't go to political school.
Sex Allowance, the new kind of Utah Jazz
Remember growing up and hitting your brother on the back of the head, practicing your cursing by calling him every bad word, and dipping his toothbrush in the loo? Then again, remember wanting to beat up anyone who bad mouthed your brother? Sticking up for this kid you normally thought was a jerk? This strange kind of pull in two directions is how I feel about "Americans [US Americans] are puritanical about sex."
Sure, I know this is true, and I can say it and do. I abhor abstinence-only sex education, and especially the type I got, which was limited to horrid videos about painful births. That's right. We watched a video with about three different women pushing, grunting, and ripping themselves open. Let's just say that most people felt like puking. Sex was villified. I resent that. I resent not being talked to as a young adult, one who COULD make informed decisions and who COULD be trusted to learn without the information being dumbed down, left out, or biased by paranoid school board members (we actually had a school board member say that there were no gay or homeless people in our city or nearly 100,000 in So. CA. Does this get across the idea of the ignorance?). Back to my point. I KNOW that people in the US have weird perceptions of sex, the angel or whore complex, rape fanatasies, fear of saying the words penis and vagina, to the point of using baby names to describe their "privates." I know this, and I hate it.
Now, I REALLY hate it when people from outside the US say this kind of thing. My defenses go up, and I can overlook my own criticisms. I know this is silly, but that's just it. "Those Americans with sticks up their asses." "People in the US can't appreciate the fact that people are sexual beings, that bodies don't need to be covered up." "Prudes." "Puritans." These comments make me see red. These are generalizations. Not ALL US Americans [and us the term correctly, people] are prudish, backwater dumbies. I'm sure that the Brits (with the famous "Close your eyes and think of England) suffer from similar anger over the generalization that they all have bad teeth and have sex with their flannel nighties buttoned up to the neck.
Now, this latest buzz about the Utah Jazz player who got the "okay, go get 'um, Tiger" from his wife is a prime example. Right away, we start to hear about how open and non-puritanical these people are because they come from Russia, where people are more open about sexuality.
Whatever. I just don't see this permission to have an affair as being very enlightened (or very unique), for a number of logical reasons.
Sure, I know this is true, and I can say it and do. I abhor abstinence-only sex education, and especially the type I got, which was limited to horrid videos about painful births. That's right. We watched a video with about three different women pushing, grunting, and ripping themselves open. Let's just say that most people felt like puking. Sex was villified. I resent that. I resent not being talked to as a young adult, one who COULD make informed decisions and who COULD be trusted to learn without the information being dumbed down, left out, or biased by paranoid school board members (we actually had a school board member say that there were no gay or homeless people in our city or nearly 100,000 in So. CA. Does this get across the idea of the ignorance?). Back to my point. I KNOW that people in the US have weird perceptions of sex, the angel or whore complex, rape fanatasies, fear of saying the words penis and vagina, to the point of using baby names to describe their "privates." I know this, and I hate it.
Now, I REALLY hate it when people from outside the US say this kind of thing. My defenses go up, and I can overlook my own criticisms. I know this is silly, but that's just it. "Those Americans with sticks up their asses." "People in the US can't appreciate the fact that people are sexual beings, that bodies don't need to be covered up." "Prudes." "Puritans." These comments make me see red. These are generalizations. Not ALL US Americans [and us the term correctly, people] are prudish, backwater dumbies. I'm sure that the Brits (with the famous "Close your eyes and think of England) suffer from similar anger over the generalization that they all have bad teeth and have sex with their flannel nighties buttoned up to the neck.
Now, this latest buzz about the Utah Jazz player who got the "okay, go get 'um, Tiger" from his wife is a prime example. Right away, we start to hear about how open and non-puritanical these people are because they come from Russia, where people are more open about sexuality.
Whatever. I just don't see this permission to have an affair as being very enlightened (or very unique), for a number of logical reasons.
- So, he can have sex with the groupies, just once a season and with his wife's okay (does she get to pick out the groupie from a line up?). How safe is this? Where is the stipulation about STI screening, protection against pregnancy, and what about the emotional aspects?
- This sends a message that there are women out there who can be used for sex, just so that this woman can feel like maybe her husband won't stray if he gets a quickie with another woman once a season. So, what about this other woman? What does she get out of this? What about her as an individual?
- Didn't these people see the movie "An Indecent Proposal"? Okay, a reference to pop culture may not seem logical, but just about every woman I talked to, after seeing this movie, said that she didn't think her marriage would survive that kind of affair, from either person, and that even with the other person knowing, it would put up these emotional barriers, jealousies, and hurts. There would be comparisons, from both parties, and the fear that maybe the person would continue with the affair, without permission.
- Open marriages. This is not something new, and the Russians did not invent it. Neither did the Europeans or the US Americans.
- We got very little information about the "talks" this couple had about this offer. They have discussed things, but we have only little snippets, out of context and much edited. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE DETAILS. Thanks, no, but I am just making the point that people are going off on how understanding and open this woman is, how realistic and how giving. Well, I can imagine that we don't have the whole story.
- Um, does SHE get to step out once a year? Is that part of the deal? Because, if not, I don't see how this is having parity. This seems more like something someone would do out of desperation to keep ahold of a wanderer. "
- Sex is NOT like pizza, and the comparison just does not work, especially in reference to denying pizza to children. Okay, maybe a ten year-old cannot stop the craving for pizza and might bust into a parlor in desperation for the cheesy temptation. But, I'm sorry, a healthy, grown man has the ability to reason that giving in to temptation will have consequences. This kind of man can control his lust. And, her comparison shows her husband in a not so positive light. Can't he control himself?
- Okay, since some people are calling it an "allowance," maybe there is a weird mother-child relationship between them. When he's good and does his chores, he gets to have a girl? EEeeewwww.
- Finally, WHY DO WE EVEN KNOW ABOUT THIS? TMI. This is between them, right? So, unless he has take out an ad in the Salt Lake City Tribune, who blabbed about this little "deal"? Was this locker room boasting? Was it leaked to the press for publicity? Did they have one of their "sex talks" in a local restaurant (because they are so cool and open about sex)?
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Howdy, Partner. What do you call your lover?
Last week, when introducing A---- to a group of academic colleagues, I floundered over what to call him. With this crowd, saying partner would have been perfectly acceptable, as would have been S.O. or even boyfriend, though some may have cringed at that (including me). So, I said to the group, “This is A----.” And, I left it at that, thinking they would figure it out.
Ten minutes later, the woman next to me asked, “So, who is this man?” and I told her that he is my partner, and she understood and laughed at me (not in a mean spirited way).
Introducing a “Boyfriend” has been a dilemma for me forever, well, since I’ve had “grown up” relationships with people. In this case, A---- is very tall and looks nothing like a “Boy,” which is one of the reasons why I find him attractive and love him. Even as a teen, I never went for the boys who couldn’t grow facial hair. I like men. And, since I am particularly close to this particular man, I CANNOT call him my “Boyfriend.” We are friendly, sure, but we are much more than that. And, despite the fact that I am slightly older, we are both over thirty, for goodness sake. Likewise, I abhor being labeled as a “Girlfriend.”
Back to my social gaffe, I’ve had difficulty because of the MANY connotations of all of the acceptable and even unacceptable names we give our “Special Friends.” One time I heard my aunt introduce him to someone as my “Special Friend,” and that person immediately turned to stare at poor A----. I’m assuming she thought he must have a disability, and she was checking him out to see what it could be as it wasn’t very obvious. My second cousin, who happens to be gay, also has a “Special Friend,” so there are several connotations to this moniker. When I hear relatives say this, I always insert the question, “What is her name? She’s such a nice person,” just to get across the idea that she has an identity beyond her gayness, but I think that is another story.
Once, when a student asked me where I went on vacation, I said, “My partner and I went to Chicago.” And, I could almost hear her mind working over whether or not I am gay. I’m not. And, I know that some people LIKE to use the ambiguous term “Partner” to cause confusion (people get their kicks in different ways) and to subvert sexist language and homophobia. I get it, but I don’t really want to do this. I’m not gay, and I feel no need to hint that I might be.
Another problem I have with the appellation “Partner” is that I sometimes feel like a cowboy when I say it. Once, on accident, I even used a twang when I said it, and so people probably thought I am a gay person into cowboy role-playing, since I am certainly not from Texas. I have been know to joke with greet A---- with “Howdy, partner,” just because it IS funny. But, in seriousness, this is another titleI have trouble saying.
“Significant Other” seems like a Spockism (the Vulcan from Star Trek). It is just too logical to convey the meaning I need. And, the term “Other” is such a buzz word in feminist, etc, theory. The attempt to make the title less cold and Vulcan-like, with the abbreviation S.O., is equally uninformative. WHY is this person significant? HOW significant? When a person says “husband” or “buddy,” we can get an idea about the relationship, but significant? It seems like the person is just trying, again, to subvert the language (this can be a worthy cause, but sometimes, I just want to say something that people will understand).
Now, I’ve toyed with the sobriquet “Lover,” but that is TMI for my taste. People have such dirty minds (and, really, we are lovers), but they don’t get the romance of this word. They just think—sex—which it is about sex but much more, too. I just want to tell people something with reference to A----, and I don't need to picture us doing it.
For the heck of it, I looked up “boyfriend,” “man,” and “lover” and here are some other choices: admirer, angel, armpiece, baby, beau, beefcake, beloved, blade, bloke, buster, chap, companion, courter, crush, daddy, darling, date, dear, dearest, dear one, doll, dude, escort, fellow, fiancé, flame, follower, gent, gentleman caller, gentleman friend, guy, heartbeat, heartthrob, honey, honeybunch, hunk, idol, idolizer, inamorato, love, loved one, lover, lord, main man, man, master, mister, number one, numero uno, old man, paramour, passion, pet, prize, rave, Romeo, spark, squeeze, squire, steady, stud, sugar, sugar daddy, suitor, suppliant, swain, sweet, sweetheart, sweetie, sweetie pie, tootsie, treasure, truelove, turtledove, valentine, wooer, young man
I must say that some of these would be fun to throw around and see reactions, including A----'s.
“How do you do? I’d like to introduce you to my idolizer and supplicant” or “Here is A----, my armpiece sugar daddy, beefcake, stud. He’s a nice chap of a fellow, a real Romeo and a prize bloke.” If we go out for Italian food, and I need to order for A----, I can say, “My numero uno inamorato will have the lasagna.” If I’m feeling especially loving in February, I could call him, “My valentine, heartthrob, passion pet.”
The “Lord” and “Master” thing just couldn’t work for me, and I know A---- would puke if I called him a “Tootsie” or “Turtledove."
Ten minutes later, the woman next to me asked, “So, who is this man?” and I told her that he is my partner, and she understood and laughed at me (not in a mean spirited way).
Introducing a “Boyfriend” has been a dilemma for me forever, well, since I’ve had “grown up” relationships with people. In this case, A---- is very tall and looks nothing like a “Boy,” which is one of the reasons why I find him attractive and love him. Even as a teen, I never went for the boys who couldn’t grow facial hair. I like men. And, since I am particularly close to this particular man, I CANNOT call him my “Boyfriend.” We are friendly, sure, but we are much more than that. And, despite the fact that I am slightly older, we are both over thirty, for goodness sake. Likewise, I abhor being labeled as a “Girlfriend.”
Back to my social gaffe, I’ve had difficulty because of the MANY connotations of all of the acceptable and even unacceptable names we give our “Special Friends.” One time I heard my aunt introduce him to someone as my “Special Friend,” and that person immediately turned to stare at poor A----. I’m assuming she thought he must have a disability, and she was checking him out to see what it could be as it wasn’t very obvious. My second cousin, who happens to be gay, also has a “Special Friend,” so there are several connotations to this moniker. When I hear relatives say this, I always insert the question, “What is her name? She’s such a nice person,” just to get across the idea that she has an identity beyond her gayness, but I think that is another story.
Once, when a student asked me where I went on vacation, I said, “My partner and I went to Chicago.” And, I could almost hear her mind working over whether or not I am gay. I’m not. And, I know that some people LIKE to use the ambiguous term “Partner” to cause confusion (people get their kicks in different ways) and to subvert sexist language and homophobia. I get it, but I don’t really want to do this. I’m not gay, and I feel no need to hint that I might be.
Another problem I have with the appellation “Partner” is that I sometimes feel like a cowboy when I say it. Once, on accident, I even used a twang when I said it, and so people probably thought I am a gay person into cowboy role-playing, since I am certainly not from Texas. I have been know to joke with greet A---- with “Howdy, partner,” just because it IS funny. But, in seriousness, this is another titleI have trouble saying.
“Significant Other” seems like a Spockism (the Vulcan from Star Trek). It is just too logical to convey the meaning I need. And, the term “Other” is such a buzz word in feminist, etc, theory. The attempt to make the title less cold and Vulcan-like, with the abbreviation S.O., is equally uninformative. WHY is this person significant? HOW significant? When a person says “husband” or “buddy,” we can get an idea about the relationship, but significant? It seems like the person is just trying, again, to subvert the language (this can be a worthy cause, but sometimes, I just want to say something that people will understand).
Now, I’ve toyed with the sobriquet “Lover,” but that is TMI for my taste. People have such dirty minds (and, really, we are lovers), but they don’t get the romance of this word. They just think—sex—which it is about sex but much more, too. I just want to tell people something with reference to A----, and I don't need to picture us doing it.
For the heck of it, I looked up “boyfriend,” “man,” and “lover” and here are some other choices: admirer, angel, armpiece, baby, beau, beefcake, beloved, blade, bloke, buster, chap, companion, courter, crush, daddy, darling, date, dear, dearest, dear one, doll, dude, escort, fellow, fiancé, flame, follower, gent, gentleman caller, gentleman friend, guy, heartbeat, heartthrob, honey, honeybunch, hunk, idol, idolizer, inamorato, love, loved one, lover, lord, main man, man, master, mister, number one, numero uno, old man, paramour, passion, pet, prize, rave, Romeo, spark, squeeze, squire, steady, stud, sugar, sugar daddy, suitor, suppliant, swain, sweet, sweetheart, sweetie, sweetie pie, tootsie, treasure, truelove, turtledove, valentine, wooer, young man
I must say that some of these would be fun to throw around and see reactions, including A----'s.
“How do you do? I’d like to introduce you to my idolizer and supplicant” or “Here is A----, my armpiece sugar daddy, beefcake, stud. He’s a nice chap of a fellow, a real Romeo and a prize bloke.” If we go out for Italian food, and I need to order for A----, I can say, “My numero uno inamorato will have the lasagna.” If I’m feeling especially loving in February, I could call him, “My valentine, heartthrob, passion pet.”
The “Lord” and “Master” thing just couldn’t work for me, and I know A---- would puke if I called him a “Tootsie” or “Turtledove."
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Sushi--Does not equal Russian Roulette
Sushi lovers, don't despair. The latest scare tactic is just that--you can still eat your sushi.
While drinking my morning coffee, I read on msn "Skip the Sushi--It might be bad for you" and my heart plummeted. As I kept reading, though, I realized that this is yet another scare--like eggs are bad for us, food coloring is bad, no, wait, eggs ARE good for us, but the special eggs that come in what look like cream containers are even better (and more expensive) for us. Some scientist does some kind of small test, usually on a poor defenseless mouse and then has this revelation about how this type of food or material will cause cancer, deformity in unborn children, or whatever else they can think.
Now, some of these findings have been legit--like aluminum coated pots and pans can lead to Alzheimer’s. But, then, we have that other scare--the wax from milk cartons, you know, the ones we all drank out of every day for 12 years. It causes cancer, but usually only if the person ingests SOOOO much of the waxy material and for so many years. Maybe some people were more into their milk than I was; I usually stopped and tossed the container when the milk was gone. Never, not once, did I scrape the wax off and eat it. Anyway, my thought was thanks for the warning, but really, do this kind of test BEFORE we have already ingested this stuff, and then, put a nice little label on the side of the carton showing the dead lab mouse and the explanation that this poor mouse was shot up with the equivalent of 80 cartons worth of wax.
Okay, a warning about the possible dangers of high mercury in the TUNA would be appropriate for sushi lovers or even those who are giving sushi a try. A warning would let people know that they should have better variety in their sushi selections--not all tuna. That is pretty easy to do (if you are uninitiated to the world of sushi and still think it is all raw fish and gross). The variety of sushi is great, and one need not gorge on tuna. There is salmon, shrimp (cooked even), mackerel (which is fish that got the idea of sushi going in Japan), red snapper, halibut, eel, octopus, crab (usually cooked as well or that fake stuff made out of white fish), lobster, abalone, fish roe, scallops (just to name a few). And, this is if you want some kind of fish.
If one wants to stay away from fish altogether, that is an option. One can have an omelet, cucumber, avocado, carrots, diakon (radish), asparagus, and I've even seen broccoli. Oh, and, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that sushi can even be vegan--nori (seaweed), rice, vinegar mixture, and veggies. Um, sounds like a salad to me and not really a danger.
The msn article quotes a representative from gotmercury.org, a part of California-based Sea Turtle Restoration Project, Eli Saddler: “Eating sushi has become the new Russian roulette.” Excuse me, I don't see any bullets in a veggie maki roll or even one loaded up with shrimp and eel. This statement is much too vague and broad to carry merit. I'm unsure if it is Reuters (from whom msn acquired the article) taking Saddler's warning out of context or if it is Saddler himself who needs to qualify this statement, but whatever the case, sushi, in and of itself, is NOT dangerous. One might want to watch tuna (or other large, salt water fish) intake to avoid too much mercury, and even the tuna is okay in moderation. People can continue to enjoy their spider rolls without fearing that the crab is leveling a revolver at them as they bring the delectable morsel to their mouths.
While drinking my morning coffee, I read on msn "Skip the Sushi--It might be bad for you" and my heart plummeted. As I kept reading, though, I realized that this is yet another scare--like eggs are bad for us, food coloring is bad, no, wait, eggs ARE good for us, but the special eggs that come in what look like cream containers are even better (and more expensive) for us. Some scientist does some kind of small test, usually on a poor defenseless mouse and then has this revelation about how this type of food or material will cause cancer, deformity in unborn children, or whatever else they can think.
Now, some of these findings have been legit--like aluminum coated pots and pans can lead to Alzheimer’s. But, then, we have that other scare--the wax from milk cartons, you know, the ones we all drank out of every day for 12 years. It causes cancer, but usually only if the person ingests SOOOO much of the waxy material and for so many years. Maybe some people were more into their milk than I was; I usually stopped and tossed the container when the milk was gone. Never, not once, did I scrape the wax off and eat it. Anyway, my thought was thanks for the warning, but really, do this kind of test BEFORE we have already ingested this stuff, and then, put a nice little label on the side of the carton showing the dead lab mouse and the explanation that this poor mouse was shot up with the equivalent of 80 cartons worth of wax.
Okay, a warning about the possible dangers of high mercury in the TUNA would be appropriate for sushi lovers or even those who are giving sushi a try. A warning would let people know that they should have better variety in their sushi selections--not all tuna. That is pretty easy to do (if you are uninitiated to the world of sushi and still think it is all raw fish and gross). The variety of sushi is great, and one need not gorge on tuna. There is salmon, shrimp (cooked even), mackerel (which is fish that got the idea of sushi going in Japan), red snapper, halibut, eel, octopus, crab (usually cooked as well or that fake stuff made out of white fish), lobster, abalone, fish roe, scallops (just to name a few). And, this is if you want some kind of fish.
If one wants to stay away from fish altogether, that is an option. One can have an omelet, cucumber, avocado, carrots, diakon (radish), asparagus, and I've even seen broccoli. Oh, and, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that sushi can even be vegan--nori (seaweed), rice, vinegar mixture, and veggies. Um, sounds like a salad to me and not really a danger.
The msn article quotes a representative from gotmercury.org, a part of California-based Sea Turtle Restoration Project, Eli Saddler: “Eating sushi has become the new Russian roulette.” Excuse me, I don't see any bullets in a veggie maki roll or even one loaded up with shrimp and eel. This statement is much too vague and broad to carry merit. I'm unsure if it is Reuters (from whom msn acquired the article) taking Saddler's warning out of context or if it is Saddler himself who needs to qualify this statement, but whatever the case, sushi, in and of itself, is NOT dangerous. One might want to watch tuna (or other large, salt water fish) intake to avoid too much mercury, and even the tuna is okay in moderation. People can continue to enjoy their spider rolls without fearing that the crab is leveling a revolver at them as they bring the delectable morsel to their mouths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
