A Moment of Silence

The Internet is merciless. In recent years, it has forced nearly every industry, every organization, to adapt or die. It is a digital natural selection, killing off whatever can’t keep up. (Remember Blockbuster?)

Yesterday, the Internet claimed another victim: Playboy.

The magazine will continue, but it will no longer feature nude photos. What had been one of the first stepping stones to manhood for so many boys over the past 62 years has admitted defeat and will soon officially cede that role to the Internet. (In reality, of course, that fight was lost long ago.)

This is sad news, but it’s not surprising.

I was born in 1987, and men of my age were probably the last who saw their first boob on a piece of paper. I remember mine fondly. I was about seven years old. In stereotypical fashion, my friend had managed to sneak away with a Playboy from his dad’s stash. To keep from getting busted, we climbed a tree. When he opened to the centerfold, I almost fell out of it.

A few years later, I managed to get a hold of my own. It featured the Barbi twins. That magazine held a special place in my heart and under my bed for a long time.

And then came the Internet. Suddenly, I and countless other prepubescent boys around the world had access to more porn than even the most deranged addict knew what to do with. It was the beginning of the end for print porn.

It was a good run, Playboy. The ink may fade, but those centerfolds will live on in our minds forever.

Why You Should Stop Crying About Your Student-Loan Debt

With student-loan debt being featured in the media so prominently lately, I know that you’ve all been dying to hear my perspective. So here it is: quit bitching.

And lest you assume that I’m some spoiled brat who had mommy and daddy pay for school, keep in mind that I finished college with over $110,000 in student-loan debt. That costs me $600 a month, and it would cost me more if I weren’t on the income-based repayment plan. One more thing before we go any further: none of this applies to victims of predatory lending practices.

So why aren’t I the poster child for the student-loan crisis? (And it is a crisis.) Because I took on that debt of my own free will. I wasn’t forced to go to a school that cost $40,000 a year, nor was I tricked into borrowing the money to pay for it. And while I didn’t know exactly what I was getting myself into regarding repayment, I was certainly capable of finding out.

Is college too expensive? Yes. But we’re free to go to a less expensive school or to forgo college entirely. Once I realized that I had made a mistake in choosing St. Joe’s, I transferred to a much less expensive school. A school I could have attended from the beginning but chose not to.

Is it hard to find a good job without a degree? Yes (depending on what you want to do), but you still had a choice: borrow money to earn a degree that qualifies you for a certain career, or settle for a different career. “But I don’t want to settle for a job I don’t love.” Life ain’t fair, my friend. As my man Ben Franklin said, the only guarantees in life are death and taxes; he didn’t say anything about finding a fulfilling career.

I’m not happy with the choice I made regarding college. But I can’t blame anyone else for that choice. I wanted to further my education, and that was the trade-off.

All that being said, I’ll be first in line for loan forgiveness as soon as I’m eligible. I’m not opposed to lightening the burden of student-loan debt, but I’m not going to cry about that burden when I willingly put it on my own shoulders.

If I Die Before I Wake, at Least in Heaven I Can Skate

Ten years ago today, one of my closest friends died. He was a few months shy of 17. I have a fair amount of vivid dreams, and I’ve had a lot about Pierce since then. But one dream has stuck with me more than any other.

In the dream, it had recently snowed, and the sun had set. I was excited to go out; I love the snow. So, as on countless other days, I stepped outside and walked up my street, a steep three-block hill lined with row houses. At the top was the school my friends and I hung out at. You’d see us there almost every day, some of us just sitting around, others skateboarding. In my dream, Pierce had passed away, as in real life. But there he was. Everyone was acting like nothing had happened. It’s hard to describe how I felt when I saw him. Confused, shocked, elated.

I asked a friend what was going on. He told me that Pierce had been allowed to come back for one day. I didn’t think to ask how or why. I didn’t ask Pierce what the afterlife was like.

I had one thought: I want to have just one more snowball fight with my friend.

With tears blurring my vision and a smile spread wide across my face, I scooped up a handful of snow, pressed it into a ball, and threw it at Pierce. Then I woke up.

The dream saddened me, but there was something comforting about it, too. I’ve often said that dreams are almost like memories of real events. While you’re dreaming, it feels real. And in vivid dreams, you truly feel the emotions, the state of mind you’re in. So yes, the dream still makes me sad. It brings back the pain of losing him. Of seeing him lying in the hospital bed. Of serving as one of his pall bearers, lowering him into his final resting place while fighting back the tears, trying to stay strong like a pall bearer is supposed to. This pain isn’t as fresh, but it’s still deep.

But the dream also gave me this memory of getting the chance to throw just one more snowball at my best friend. A friend I’ll never get to see again.

Real or not, I’ll take it.

Transracial...Is that a Thing?

Spoiler alert: No.

I’m not writing about Dolezal; I want to discuss whether transracial is a legitimate concept.

(Disclaimer: I understand that transracial has long been used to describe children adopted by parents of another race. For simplicity’s sake, I’m going to use the term to refer to the idea of self-identifying with another race.)

This train of thought got started when I saw a Facebook post that said something like, “Ugh…transracial? Really?” My first reaction was to agree. But then I thought of two things. First was Caitlyn Jenner. She self-identifies as a woman; can't a white person self-identify as a black person? Second was a recent conversation I had about race as a purely social (as opposed to biological) construct.

Those thoughts led me to wonder whether I dismissed transracialism too quickly. I’m no sociologist, but I did take an introductory sociology course as a college freshman, so I’m pretty much a sociologist. As such, I understand the idea that neither race nor gender is based on genetics. Both are social constructs. Ethnicity and sex, however, are not purely social constructs.

Race and Gender—Social Constructs

As I understand it, African American is an ethnicity that refers to Americans of largely African descent. Some may narrow the definition to only those descended from slaves. “Black” refers broadly to a culture shared by African Americans who are fully assimilated into a particular subset of American culture.

Gender is a similar concept. At the risk of being accused of not giving gender its due, I’ll sum it up like this: gender refers to behaviors and attitudes that mainstream society associates with a particular sex. Boys play with trucks, girls play with dolls. Not because of genetics, but because parents buy trucks for their sons.

Simplistic (and probably flawed) definitions, but I hope that they work.

It’s a subtle distinction, but maybe this will help clear it up: I’m currently reading Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (great book, great author). She’s from Nigeria. If she’s granted US citizenship, she’s an African American. But she didn’t share in the experience of black Americans. The novel is about a woman who emigrates here from Nigeria and must “grapple with what it means to be black for the first time.” Her genetics didn’t change, but she wasn’t black until she got to America. It’s related to questions of Obama’s blackness. Some feel that because of his upbringing, he doesn’t truly know what it means to be black in America. He is undeniably an African American, but some question his blackness.

(Dolezal is clearly aware of the distinction. When asked by Matt Lauer whether she’s African American, she nodded her head yes and said, “I identify as black.”)

Oppression and Self-Identification

An integral part of the black experience is oppression, both historically and currently.So is it even possible for a nonblack person to truly share in, not just commiserate with, that experience?

Nope.

It’s possible for a white person to get it (to an extent). But getting it is not the same as experiencing it. In America, white people simply don’t know what it’s like for society—not just individuals—to discriminate against you because of your skin color. And don't cry about affirmative action. All other things equal, you're better off in this country if you're white.

But wait. We elected Obama, so racism is dead, right? The ability to not think about race is one of the great perks of white privilege. White privilege doesn’t mean that white people get everything handed to them or that the KKK secretly controls America and keeps blacks down. But let me ask you this, white folk (courtesy of Americanah): How many times have you worried that your race would keep you from getting a loan? Have you ever worried that you’d get pulled over for being white? Do you expect to see mostly nonwhite people when you open a magazine? You can’t simply self-identify with that kind of experience. You have to, you know, experience it.

Of course, that raises the question of whether such experience is necessary for a male (sex) to self-identify as a woman (gender). Frankly, if I were a woman, I think I’d say that yes, it is. I fully support LGBT rights, but I wouldn’t hold it against a woman for believing that experiencing sexism is an essential part of womanhood. But why do we (myself included) accept the transgender concept so much more readily than that of transracial?

I think that at least part of the answer is culture. I would say that the difference in the experiences of a white man and a white woman is not as extreme as that of a black woman and a white woman.  The feminist would probably say that sexism just doesn’t get the attention it deserves, and the poor-white-people guy would say that black people just want to pull the race card, but I still think that it’s an important factor.

Oh, and that whole blackface thing always makes it pretty awkward when white people pretend to be black…

Beauty Is in the Eye of the Beholder

This is my first post in nearly two years. I fell off for a variety of reasons. The two most significant are probably laziness and the feeling that, given the sheer number of opinions out there, I can't come up with anything that hasn't already been said. The latter may be true, but I've decided to (try to) not care. And shout out to Keith for helping convince me to dust off my keyboard.

So. A lot's happened over the last two years. What's bothered me enough to get off my ass and complain about it? Glad you asked. Yesterday, I was asked, "Did you see the pictures of Caitlyn Jenner? She's beautiful, isn't she?" I said no. I was then asked, "Are you anti-transgender people?"

So because I, a 27-year-old,  don't find a 65-year-old transgender woman attractive, I'm prejudiced? I was pretty insulted. And frankly, I think that women and transgender people should be too. To paraphrase some article I saw, it's funny how Bruce Jenner was praised for his Olympic achievements, but Caitlyn Jenner is praised only for her looks.

Yes, a lot of people are calling her courageous, but most of the comments I've seen are related to her appearance. And though I recognize the impact on the LGBT community, I question how much courage it takes for a millionaire celebrity to do this. It takes infinitely more courage for some nobody from Alabama to make such a decision. This praise for Jenner might even be harmful. It's similar to the belief that because Obama was elected, racism and oppression no longer exist.

I was similarly bothered by all the hubbub over the "courage" Angelina Jolie showed when she decided to have her breasts removed because she was at an increased risk for breast cancer. When you can afford to have the surgery (and to have a world-class plastic surgeon give you implants), it seems like a no-brainer to me.

But I digress. I think that every human has the right to do just about whatever they want to their body, but I want to talk about the leap from my saying that Jenner's not good-looking to the assumption that I'm prejudiced against transgender people. Such logic is born of two phenomena.

The first is the crippling fear so many Americans have of being politically incorrect. (For the record, I am not one of those political-correctness-is-killing-society people.) I think that a lot of people have a subconscious fear of being labeled a bigot if they don't let everyone know how beautiful they think Jenner is. I'm reminded of a chapter from Adichie's Americanah that describes some rich Main Line woman who always refers to African women as beautiful or stunning, even when the main character, a Nigerian woman, the women simply are not attractive. Or the "big is beautiful" idea. If you're happy with the way you look, I'm happy for you. But I'm not attracted to overweight woman. (Nor am I especially attracted to super-skinny women. Thigh gaps are kinda weird.) You can't choose your sexual orientation, so why am I expected to alter my opinion on what constitutes beauty?

The second phenomenon is the fact that it makes a lot of people feel warm and fuzzy inside when they write a Facebook post about it. "See how progressive and accepting I am!" These are probably the same people who changed their profile pictures to an equal sign in support of gay marriage but couldn't be bothered to let their elected representatives (i.e., the people in a position to actually change the marriage laws) know how they feel.

I know that beauty is subjective. If you really think Jenner is beautiful, that's fine. She's just not my cup of tea. That doesn't make me a bigot.

Is the Pope Catholic?

Shout out to Donnie for getting me off my lazy cyber ass.

Believe it or not, I am not always an unbiased observer. But I'm pretty sure I've come up with a fairly objective way to criticize Pope Francis' recent "support" of gay priests.

Let's start with this: even before Francis' revolutionary statements, the official Church position was that being gay is not a sin (though any homosexual activity is). A gay man can still fully adhere to the tenets of Catholicism; there's no reason to prevent them donning the frock in the first place. So what is so praiseworthy about what the pope said? He essentially just reiterated Church teaching. I seem to remember John Paul II being put up on a pedestal for a similarly pointless statement, saying Jews are not guilty of deicide. Of course, this magnanimity came decades after the Church had already graciously withdrew that charge. (Yes, it took almost 2,000 years for the Catholic Church to officially declare that they no longer held Jews responsible for executing Jesus.) Francis' supporters may bring up the fact that Benedict had barred gay men from becoming priests, but he was a dick. All Francis has done so far is be less of a dick.

So what's the big deal? Is simply treating human beings as such really that admirable? Shouldn't one have to do just a little bit more than the bare minimum in order to earn our adoration? And speaking of the bare minimum, why is everyone so impressed by his apparent humility? One of the best-known passages in the Bible is Matthew 5:5: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth." Sure, it might be a big deal for an average person to come close to living up to Jesus' philosophy, but shouldn't that simply be expected of the pope? It's like giving the president a Nobel Peace Prize for nothing. (See what I did there?) Can't we take it for granted that the pope will do what his god told him to? (Well, except for those things that his god apparently changed his mind about, like eating kosher and stoning adulterers.)

A leader ought to be exceptional, and his followers should expect nothing less. On the bright side, at least America isn't the only country settling for mediocrity.

German Bishops to Congregation: "Pay Up or Go to Hell"

I have to be careful with this one; I'm afraid I'm going to have an aneurysm before I finish.

The German Catholic Church is essentially excommunicating members of the Church who don't pay a church tax.

Apparently, several European countries have already been levying church taxes, ranging from  about 4%-9% of one's income tax, on registered members of certain faiths and giving that revenue to their respective religious institution (after being paid a service charge for collecting the tax, of course). Some smaller religious communities collect the tax themselves. The obvious way around this is to tell the government that you're no longer a member of that faith and then practice it anyway, which is what many people have been doing.

Most of the religious institutions that benefit from this tax have not pursued those who practice their faith without paying the tax. But the Catholic Church in Germany will not stand for tax evasion! Render unto Caesar, damnit!

Last week, German bishops officially declared that "those who lack solidarity bid farewell to the community of believers" and will be forbidden from receiving sacraments. The Church hasn't outright said that those who don't pay the tax will be excommunicated, but I don't see much of a difference. Those who have been excommunicated are also barred from receiving sacraments, which the Church holds are necessary for salvation. The Church has to officially lift the excommunication in order for one to be accepted back into the flock; I don't know if such a formal recognition is required to lift the ban that results from not paying the tax.
Incidentally, it should be noted that the Church's rhetoric is (ironically) reminiscent of Pope John Paul II's  call for solidarity with the poor; it seems the Church is trying to implicitly use the memory of the popular John Paul II to legitimize this decision.

Now, aside from being a dick move, I think this is literally sinful. There is an act called simony, which the Catholic Encyclopedia defines as "'a deliberate intention of buying or selling for a temporal price such things as are spiritual of [sic] annexed unto spirituals'. While this definition only speaks of purchase and sale, any exchange of spiritual for temporal things is simoniacal." It goes on to say that "The various temporal advantages which may be offered for a spiritual favour [include] the munus a manu (material advantage), which comprises money...The spiritual object includes whatever is conducive to the eternal welfare of the soul, i.e. all supernatural things: sanctifying grace, the sacraments, sacramentals, etc." The Catholic Church generally considers this an extremely serious offense.

Now, the majority of Church income comes from this tax. So some will argue that any organization needs money to survive. But are magnificent cathedrals, innumerable acres of property, and billions of dollars in cash really necessary for the Church to perform its spiritual duty? As far as I can recall, the Christian god doesn't demand a payment in exchange for his grace. And there has almost always been a grassroots version of Catholicism that advocates a return to the simpler ways of early Christianity. I suspect their ranks in Germany may begin to increase.

So how the hell do they expect to get away with this? Well, the Church has convinced believers that its own interpretation of scripture alone is legitimate. When you convince people that you hold the keys to Heaven, you can get away with just about anything. This is probably why the Church resisted translations of the Bible into vernacular languages for so long; who can argue with the Church's interpretation of scripture when the common believer can't even read it?

Granted, it is true that a clergyman who is extremely knowledgeable in ancient Hebrew, Latin, Greek, etc. will have a better understanding of what the ancient scriptures really meant, but does that mean the Church alone is capable of correctly understanding the Word of God? The Church has utilized its authority to such an extent that people are too scared to think for themselves. As one German Catholic said, "I don't like paying [the tax], but I do because I fear the step of quitting the Church." He, and countless others, equates disagreeing with the church to eternal damnation. Are they really the same thing?

I didn't think the Catholic Church was still capable of surprising me. I thought this kind of blatant avarice and abuse of power was given up in the Middle Ages (as opposed to the subtle avarice and abuse seen today). Perhaps it's fitting, then, that this is occurring in the same country that gave birth to the Protestant Reformation.

It's no wonder Martin Luther consider the pope to be the Antichrist.

Suck It, Wholefoods: Philabundance Opening a Not-For-Profit Grocery Store

Philabundance, the area's largest food bank, announced plans to build Fare & Square the nation's first not-for-profit grocery store. The facility, located in the City of Chester, is being built in response to a problem that many low-income residents face: lack of access to healthy and affordable food. Fare & Square will accept food stamps and also offer other programs to the poor while still offering fresh produce, meats, and other common items at low prices to all other shoppers.

What's up now, Wholefoods?

It seems counterintuitive (to me, at least) that basic food would be more expensive than heavily-processed food; you'd think all of that processing would jack up the cost to the consumer. That's not the case, however. And that's one of the major reasons that obesity disproportionately affects the poor. Philabundance is hoping that Fare & Square is successful and will provide a model for similar programs across the country.

Watch for the hipsters to jump all over this.

All Day I Dream About...Slavery?

Designer Jeremy Scott has created a new high-end sneaker for Adidas, seen below.

Critics were quick to associate the ankle cuff with slavery, calling the design racist.  Of course, such claims have been denied by both parties.  But don't worry; I've figured it all out for you.

For the purposes of this article, I consider racism to mean a belief that one or many races are inferior to another.  Here, the shoes would be indicative of racist attitudes if the designer and/or Adidas are implying that black people ought to be enslaved or imprisoned, that black people are naturally suited to slavery or are more inclined to crime, or even if either party is jokingly suggesting such a belief.  I'll say now that I see no reason to think that the shoes are somehow supposed to satirize such notions.  More importantly, the designer hasn't made such a claim, either.

So, are the shoes somehow associated with slavery?  Despite the misleading title to this post (sorry), the shoes don't bring images of slavery to this white guy's mind.  But the shoe isn't out of the woods, yet.

Consider the name: JS Roundhouse Mids.  Perhaps you didn't know this, but "roundhouse" has been associated with jail for centuries.  Coupled with the prisoner jumpsuit-orange, it seems pretty clear that Scott was influenced by prison chic.

It's also worth noting the shoe's tagline: "Got sneaker game so hot you need to lock your kicks to your ankles?"  Given the particular type of vernacular English used, it's fair to assume that the sneakers would've been marketed to those influenced by hip hop culture.  So, young black men would have made up a significant portion of the target demographic, had the shoes actually gone to market.


So, we have the following equation.  Prison theme+black male demographic=x.  And what does x equal?  Racism?  Or was it merely naïveté?  Or, perhaps, Scott and Adidas merely observed the perceived glorification of criminal behavior in some rap music and tried to cash in on it?


Before I answer that question, though, I'd like to consider another one:  What if Scott was black?  Would the shoes, could the shoes, still be racist?  Or would it just be another example of the aforementioned glorification of criminal activity?  This raises the question of the ol' racism double standard; if it's OK for a black person to do it, why isn't it OK for a white person to?  To which I respond, "Because."  Sometimes, double standards are a good thing: guys can fart, but girls can't; college kids can drink every day without beign an alcoholic, real-world grown-ups can't; black people can say "nigga", white people can't, unless Kanye gives his mostly white concert ticket-buying audience permission or if you find yourself in the following situation:




Anyway, back to the shoes: are they racist?  Not intentionally so.  Racism is profitable, and it seems to me that the intention here was to cash in on the perceived tendency to glorify criminal behavior or serving jail time instead of snitching.  However, they are extremely ignorant.  So there you go.

You're welcome.

Oy Vey...

Compared to the other Abrahamic religions, Judaism generally does a good job of minding their own business (something Christianity and Islam will seemingly never learn to do).  When it comes to religious foolishness, though, Judaism is one of the worst.  Orthodox Jews exhibit what I consider the most personally and socially destructive religious "value": accepting suffering and injustice as the will of their god instead of trying to change things for the better.  But whatever idiotic religious practices might be particular to Judaism, there is one characteristic they share with the other major religions: hypocrisy.

Lauren Odes offers a prime example.  Odes was about to begin a new data entry job for a company in Manhattan.  She says she was told to observe other employees to get an idea of the dress code, which she described as casual.  Although she felt she complied with the unspecified dress code, the Orthodox Jewish owners of the company apparently felt otherwise, saying her attire was "distracting."  So the next day, Odes compromised and wore a more modest t-shirt to work the next day.  The company was still unsatisfied.  That's not surprising; a t-shirt is certainly less-than-professional.  The alternative offered by the company, however, was simply ridiculous.  Initially, her female supervisor actually asked Odes to tape her breasts down!  Refusing to do this, her supervisor gave her a bathrobe to wear over her clothes.  A bathrobe!

Odes complied nonetheless.  However, after teasing from her coworkers, the supervisor softened up and allowed Odes to go out and buy a sweater...as long as it went down to her ankles.  I didn't even know ankle-length sweaters existed.  While shopping for the sweater, the company called her and fired her.  Odes has since filed a lawsuit for sexual and religious discrimination, claiming the Jewish owners fired her for offending their religious sensibilities.

So, where's the hypocrisy?

The company is a lingerie wholesaler!  Firing this woman for having tig ol' bitties is like a gym firing an employee for being too fit!  The owners apparently have no qualms about making money from behavior they consider immoral, but you better cover up those forearms and shins if you expect to work for them.

I typically side with employers on issues like this; a company ought to be able to impose whatever legal requirements for employment they want, including a dress code.  But the "professional dress code" defense goes out the window when you ask your busty female employees to wear an old robe or ankle-length sweater.  Furthermore, the fact that she was asked to tape down her breasts shows that the owners took issue with her actual body, not the clothes she was wearing.  Remember last year when the oh-so-provocative Hilary Clinton was cut out of that picture published in a New York Orthodox Jewish newspaper because pictures of women are sexually suggestive?

I used to praise Judaism for the fact that it doesn't seek converts and shove its faith down your throat like so many other religions do.  But, as I look at all religions more critically, the Jewish opposition to conversion seems more and more to be rooted in elitism.  I was naive; there is no religion that does not tout itself to be their god's chosen people and therefore superior to everyone else (interestingly, some scholars translate Jesus's statement "Love thy neighbor" to mean your fellow Jews and that he never intended Gentiles to follow his teachings).  And the Abrahamic religions seem especially concerned with keeping women in their place.  It's a shame so many people are duped into buying this garbage.

A Flyers Prayer Against the Devils

I believe in Claude, and Jagr Almighty, scorers of goals and assists.
And in Danny Briere, the playoff Savior and King,
Who was conceived in the Frozen north, born of snow and ice,
Suffered under Phoenix and Buffalo,
Was doubted, mocked, and traded.
With his third team he rose again.
He ascended into Philly and is seated at the right hand of Claude and Jagr Almighty.
They will raise the Cup for fans living and dead.
I believe in Hartnell's Spirit,
The wholly impenetrable Bryz,
The corp of D-men,
The forgiveness of PIMS,
The checking of the body,
And Cups everlasting.


Amen.


(based on the apostle's creed)

Flesh and Blood is Overrated

This shit is surreal.  And really fucking cool.



I'm not much of a hip hop fan, but this goes way beyond that.  For all intents and purposes, we saw a dead man perform live on stage.  The technology used to create this hologram could very well change the face of live entertainment forever.

Most obviously, other dead musicians can essentially go back on tour.  We could see the resurrection of Elvis, Nirvana, Queen, Bob Marley, and countless others (Nirvana seems one of more likely possibilities; Courtney Love would make a whole lotta money).  Hell, you could have the Beatles play at your birthday party.

Dead comedians could conceivably take the stage again, too.  Using new material is questionable, but it's not out of the question to think that people would buy tickets to see a holographic Richard Pryor, even if it's the same routine from 30 years ago.

This technology might not be limited only to dead performers, though.  Now, I wouldn't pay to see a hologram, but there are a lot of fools out there who probably would.  The line between live performance and  fancy music video could be further blurred if there is a way to "stream" an artist's actual voice and movements through the hologram projector.  More importantly, the cost of touring would go down dramatically if artists could get away with holographic performances.  Insurance, lodging, transportation, security, and countless other expenses related to touring would all decrease.  An entire world tour could be done in one night.  You could have every single major artist from a particular genre perform on the same stage without any of them having to leave their homes.

This could even affect politics.  If this sort of thing becomes commonplace enough, politicians could avoid the dangers of going out in public entirely; you can't assassinate a hologram.  At the very least, they could cover the entire country on a virtual campaign trail.

I can't say for sure where this technology will lead, but it will be fun to watch.

It's Time to Break the Seal

Perhaps you’ve heard of the former Massachusetts judge who , shortly before retiring, awarded guardianship of a 31-year-old schizophrenic woman to the parents, who had intended to use that authority to legally force her to have an abortion.  The judge, Christina Harms, also ordered the woman be sterilized.

Harms based her decision on the fact that being pregnant requires the unnamed woman to stop taking her anti-psychotic medications, which makes her incompetent and creates a danger for her safety and that of others.  Harms believes that, if the woman was of sound mind, she would abort the fetus.  Furthermore, the woman has been pregnant twice before.  One pregnancy was aborted, while the other child is being raised by the woman’s parents.  In an attempt to prevent more unplanned pregnancies and “serial abortions,” Harms ordered sterilization as well.

The woman is fighting Harms’ decision, claiming she is a devout Catholic.  Her parents, however, say that isn’t true.  This is the aspect of the story that most interests me.  This judge had the authority to mandate that someone do something that goes against their religious principle.  Granted, the decision was over turned, but the initial ruling may help lay some very early foundations for changes in the law regarding certain religious practices.  Specifically, the Seal of the Confessional.  

I’m not saying that the government ought to be able restrict religious practices at will (or forcibly sterilize people), but respect for religion ought to be secondary to the effectiveness of the criminal justice system if the two come into conflict.  Why is it that one citizen can be subpoenaed and forced to testify, but another, who happens to be a priest, cannot?  Because some guy said so 1,500 years ago?

Anyway.  The Seal of the Confessional, or priest-penitent privilege, requires that a clergy member who, as part of an official religious ritual, hears a confession must keep that confession absolutely secret.  For some reason, this holds up in the courts of secular countries (although an Irish Member of Parliament is attempting to change that in his own country).  

It’s no wonder that priests got away with raping boys for so long.

Proponents of the Seal argue that legally requiring priests to report confessions would violate their religious freedom.  However, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that government can restrict certain religious practices if there is a “compelling interest” to do so.  For example, even the most ardent follower of the Aztec religion would not be allowed to make a human sacrifice.  I find it downright disturbing that our (secular) government allows priests to keep secret the confessions of murders and rapists.  Maybe they’re OK with waiting until the afterlife for justice to be served, but I sure as hell am not.  More importantly, our government shouldn’t, either.  One of the most critical means for governments to protect their citizens is through an effective criminal justice system, and allowing this irresponsible practice to continue seriously undermines that system.

And why do so many people assume that religious tolerance means catering to every religious (or at least Christian) belief out there?  Some religious beliefs are simply incompatible with the values of a secular society.  You know, the kind that America is supposed to be.  When such practices begin to threaten the safety and rights of other citizens, they ought to be curtailed.  The Church can make whatever rules it wants to, but America isn’t subject to a single one of them.

The best part is that the Christians themselves could easily resolve this whole thing.  After hearing a confession, priests give the confessor what is called a penance, which is some task to perform that will finalize the forgiveness of your sins.  Typically, a penance is a set number of prayers to say.  Even when I was a Catholic, I wondered why the priests didn’t simply require murderers to confess to the authorities as their penance.  

I assume the official response would be something to the effect of, “If we did that, the poor rapists and murderers wouldn’t confess their sins and they’d be damned for all eternity.”  Gays burn in Hell, but murderers are cool as long as they tell a priest they’re sorry.

The religious won’t like it, but this isn’t supposed to be a theocracy.  Everyone likes to rail against all those oppressive Islamic societies that run their countries according to the tenets of the Quran, but apparently it’s OK if you use the Bible.

Pete for President!

I have good news, America.  There is a man who, I believe, truly wants to serve the United States of America as its President.  After reading the speech he sent me, I feel that he honestly wants nothing more than to make this country as great as it ought to be.  

His name is Peter Wychunis. Here is his speech.

There are those who will say that my campaign is a joke; that I am making a mockery of our political system.  But look at the state of American politics today. The only mockery is the current system running our nation.  Policies are determined not by the Will of the People, but by the highest bidder.

The United States government has furthermore violated some of our most precious rights.  Whether that be a president unofficially waging war without the consent of Congress or something as seemingly innocuous as printing “In God We Trust” on American currency, there is no excuse for trampling on the Constitution of the United States.

American politics is already a joke.  I am here to make a promise.  I will not sell myself to private interest.  I will not be bought out by lobbyists.  I promise to lead this country as it was meant to be led.  By the People.  Instead of getting  votes through the support of private interest groups, I appeal directly to you.  I will uphold those American ideals that have been disregarded by far too many of our so-called leaders. 

If the People see fit to elect me as their next President, I will do everything in my power to pull the government back within the limits laid out in the Constitution.  I will appoint men and women who truly believe in the ideals on which this country was founded.  Men and women untainted by prejudice or by religious or anti-religious influence, whose only goal is to ensure that our society lives up to those standards.

Obviously, the state of our economy is of utmost concern.  I aim to implement major changes that will help stimulate our fragile economy.  For example, I intend to pave the way for the privatization of space exploration.  The process has already begun, and there is no reason for America not to lead the way during this Second Space Race.  The private sector will be able to view spacefaring technology in new ways, bring fresh ideas to the table.  This will inevitably lead to the creating of jobs, from rocket scientists to secretaries.  This is not to say that the government will not maintain its presence in space.  I also intend to lay the groundwork for more in-depth exploration of the Moon; specifically, we will be investigating the possibility of lunar mining.  With natural resources dwindling here on Earth, and no life disturb on the Moon, this may be a viable means to help stabilize the economy.  Unlike some of my competitors, I can’t promise to have a permanent lunar colony by 2020, but I will get the ball rolling.  I will also institute tax policies to encourage businesses to manufacture in America and, conversely, discourage relocating overseas.  Manufacturing will not have as prominent a place in America as it had 50 years ago, but I do not believe that our economy cannot have both manufacturing- and service-based components.  Other policies, such as the legalization and regulation of prostitution and marijuana, will bring in billions in tax revenue.  Though these actions will be considered controversial, I see no legitimate reason for our society to outlaw them.

Another major facet of our current economic state is the national debt.  Considering that a president has eight years at the most with which to work, I can’t promise some incredible surplus by the end of my time as president.  I can promise, however, that my administration will take a hard look at how this government spend the money it does have.  For example, our current military budget seems neither sustainable nor justified.  As official combat operations near an end, the time may be right for an appropriately-sized peacetime military.  While research and development will still be a high priority, there simply is no need for such massive forces in times of peace.  A standing army during peacetime was one of the greatest fears of the men who fought to establish this great nation.  However, the American military will maintain its standard as the world’s most effective fighting force.  As the son of a Vietnam veteran, I know that war is a reality.  But, as in World War II, we will have policies in effect that will enable America to militarize as efficiently as possible.  We will be ready and able to face any threat.

Another target of my spending cuts will be the salaries of our so-called public servants.  Benjamin Franklin once said, “Place before the eyes of [greedy, ambitious] men, a post of honour that shall be at the same time a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it.”  Although political offices inherently grant power to the person who holds that office, decreasing the salary for such offices will help prevent those from ever running for office who intend only to fatten their wallets.  True public servants are not in it for the money.  The President’s official salary, and those of all other major national political leaders, will be equal to the nation’s average poverty line.

That being said, I am not a wealthy man.  I do need money.  My administration will also be known for its transparency, so I will tell you that, though the President’s official salary will be equal to the nation’s average poverty line, I will utilize my position to increase my personal wealth.  I am not a rich man simply filling his already overflowing coffers.   And I am not taking money from lobbyists; I will do things like make paid appearances in various media, give speeches, write books, etc.  These jobs will be strictly apolitical.

Religion, too, is an issue at the forefront of the American consciousness.  Frankly, the sway that Christianity holds over the policies of this great nation is embarrassing.  Whatever your opinion of our Forefathers’ religious beliefs, it is clear that this country was meant to be run by a secular society.  As those very men who shaped the future of this country said in a 1796 treaty, “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”  Contrary to what my opponents may say, this is not a war on religion.  It is a fight to uphold core human freedoms. 

This undue religious influence only holds our society back.  Stem cell research, arguably the most promising scientific advancement in history, is being stifled for purely religious reasons.  Homosexuals are being denied to marry the person they love for purely religious reasons.  The right to die with dignity is being stripped of those who would utilize it for purely religious reasons.  Many of my opponents criticize the theocracies of the Middle East, yet don’t bat an eye at Christianity’s dominance of American society.  Apparently, separation of Church and State doesn’t apply to the religion of our current leaders.

I know there have been people before me who made similar boasts, only to betray the People’s trust.  My campaign appeals directly to you so that you will know that my power does not come from corporate backers and industrial magnates, but from your votes.  Where my predecessors have won votes by selling themselves to private interests, I hope to win votes by doing what is best for America.  I don’t have millions of dollars in anonymous donations to finance my campaign.  I will not come to power by working with private interest groups, and so I will owe them nothing.  I will be free to make the truly right decisions.

My name is Pete Wychunis.  I hope you approve this message.

Manifest Destiny 2.0

Newt Gingrich says there will be an American base on the moon within eight years.  He also expects to have men on Mars in the near future.  Experts call his predictions lunacy (get it?), but I think we should run with this.

What got America its start?  Taking land.  And there's a giant chunk of it, unclaimed, right up there in the night sky.  And who has more of a right to it than the country that got there first?

Here's the plan.  We start out on the moon to get our method of space colonization in order, just like we did with the original 13 colonies.  It should be much easier this time around without any pesky natives.  Aside from the space industry boosting our economy like WWII did, I'm sure there are some valuable minerals to be mined. While there is a treaty that says no country should exploit lunar resources, no spacefaring nation has signed it.  However, America has signed a treaty stating no military installations are to be built on the moon.  We'll have to find a way around that. Regardless, we'll be back on top in no time!

Once that's up and running, we can set our sights on Mars.  Mars!  The Red Planet will look so much better with some white and blue in there.  The best part about space colonies is that there will be new land out there for the taking.  Anyone (who can afford a trip to space) will be able to establish their family in the New New World, just like America's founders did when they came over from Europe.  It could be a whole new aristocracy!

Here's the best part.  There's at least one theory holds that the name Allah, as in Islam's name for god, comes from the title "al-" and the name of a pre-Islam Arabic moon god called Ilah.  What better way to win the War on Terror than to stick an American flag right in their god's face?  Vote Newt!

Fuck the No Cussing Club

McKay Hatch, some 18-year-old nerd from Pasadena, thinks he has the right to decide what you can and can't watch on TV.  He and 35,000 other nerds are up in arms over the episode of Modern Family that aired tonight because Lily, a two-year-old character, drops an F-bomb.  You know, "fuck."  Well, the girl actually says "fudge," but her lips are blurred and the word itself is bleeped out, but it seems like she says "fuck."
In 2007, Hatch founded the No Cussing Club in 2007 in response to the "rampant" cursing at his high school and what he sees as a link between profanity and bullying.  Which is to say, other kids called him names.  Not surprisingly, he now goes to a mormon college.

Hatch claims to have 35,000 supporters.  Assuming they are all regular viewers of Modern Family, that accounts for less than one half of one percent.  Would any TV show, business owner, politcician, etc. succumb to the demands of 0.49% of the people they are trying to please?  Furthermore, this kid isn't even really part of the demographic that Modern Family targeting.  Call me crazy, but my guess is that a show called Modern Family that follows three families is meant to appeal to...FAMILIES!  I don't know if this whiny douche bag is aware of this or not, but the issue of kids cursing is something nearly every parent has had to deal with.  If TV isn't allowed to be relevant, who the hell would watch it?

And what exactly does this kid hope to accomplish?  It's the taboo nature of words like "shit" and "cunt" that give them their power.  As words are used more and more in daily speech, they lose more and more of their offensive connotations.  That's why so many white kids get away with "nigga."  By making such a big deal about a bleeped-out word, you create a Pandora's Box situation that makes cursing seem even cooler than it already is.  And, aside from the fact that membership in a No Cussing Club is like a bulls-eye for bullies, does this kid think that preventing cursing will stop bullying?  Even if we ignore physical bullying, this club cannot hope to achieve any real results.  Languages evolve and new profanities are constantly developing, whether from a change in the meaning of a current word or the invention of a new one.  This club is akin to breed-specific legislation.  In an attempt to curb dog attacks, our wise legislators ban certain breeds to keep them out of the hands of people like dog fighters.  Lo and behold, the dog fighters just pick different breeds to torture until they become just as vicious.

What about name-calling that isn't exactly "profane?"  Is it that much better to be called a loser than a bitch?  Maybe a little, but not enough to justify so much anti-bullying energy into a pointless cause.  More focus should be devoted to understanding the motive behind bullying and raising awareness about its effects, not simply eliminating one of countless tactics used by bullies.

But I digress.  What really pisses me off about this whole thing is that I'm sick of being told how to live my life.  You've got "activists" like Morgan Spurlock who want to decide what I can and can't eat, "public servants" like Nutter who want to tax drinks they deem to be unhealthy, and now we have yet another asshole who knows what's best for society in this kid with two last names.  What happened to personal responsibility?  Why is McDonald's or Coca-Cola liable for your poor decisions?  It's not up to government or corporations to tell us how to eat, and it's not up to TV networks to raise our kids.  Aren't there all kinds of parental controls avaialable on TVs and through cable companies? 

The networks decide what they will air.  If you don't like what's on, change the fucking channel.

If You Buy from Lowe's, You Are a Terrorist.

Advertising can be a tricky thing; you never know who you're going piss off.  Take, for example, Lowe's.  After running commercials on TLC's All-American Muslim, Lowe's pulled them after receiving complaints from some nutjob Christian group claiming to represent all of America.  This group's website has a whole list of companies that have pulled ads from shows that portray anything they don't like and other companies that still choose to promote such deviance as homosexuality or Islam.  They are currently working to get All-American Muslim pulled from the air entirely because it tries to blind Americans to the so-called Islamic agenda.

Decidedly un-American, right?  Religious tolerance!  Separation of Church and State!  Freedom of Speech!

That's what I thought at first.  I actually started this post with the intention of railing against said nutjobs.  Then the saying, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" popped into my head.  An unfortunate side effect of a free society is that all the stupid people of the world manage to make themselves heard quite clearly.  If one's religion values racism and intolerance (within the law), they have the right to practice freely.  Personally, I'd like to see all of 'em go, but that pesky Constitution promises the right to free religious expression.

Yes, I think this organization is un-American in that they want Christianity to culturally dominate what should be a secular society.  But I can't say they don't have the right to express those beliefs.  That's why the rest of America ought to be just as vocal about their beliefs.  If you're that worked up about it, speak up!  That's what this country is all about, right?  Well, I can't be bothered to email Lowe's and let them know that I disagree with their decision to pull the ads, but you should.

Back to Lowe's.  Wouldn't you pull an ad from a certain show if their was a segment of consumers calling for a boycott of your stores unless you stopped running commercials during a certain show?  Mr. Lowe's has a business to run; he's not out there to change the world.  And unless you want Uncle Sam to decide which shows companies are allowed to buy ad time from, it's up to Lowe's to pull or run ads as they see fit.  Sure, it would be great if Lowe's refused the demands of the ignorant, but I can't blame them for responding to customer feedback.

The world would be a better place without people trying to impose their beliefs on everyone else, but, the way I see it, there are only two ways that can happen: we lose our precious freedom of expression, or suddenly there is no more ignorance.  Which seems more likely?

Nuke-Free Is Not the Way to Be

As can be expected of any (and every) president, Obama has a long list of promises that he failed to keep.  Party politics has a lot to do with that, as well as the fact that not a single politician on the national stage has the a average American's interest at heart.  But there is at least one campaign goal that I am glad to see Obama has been unable to fulfill: a nuke-free world.

A recent article from The Atlantic describes some of the obstacles preventing Obama from making serious progress towards a nuclear-free world.  Thank God.

Don't get me wrong, a world without nukes is a wonderful thing to strive towards.  So is a world without crime.  Good luck.  Just take a look at the countries that have developed or are developing nuclear weapons: USA, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, Iran, and Syria.  The only country on that list that could give up nuclear weapons without fear of being are those cheese-eating surrender monkeys in France.  Do you really think Israel is ever going to both believe that Iran will destroy its weapons program and then destroy its own?  How about India and Pakistan?  And don't get me started on those commies in Russia and China.  And we certainly can't afford to get rid of ours without knowing for sure no one else has any.

The more you think about it, the less sense it makes for America to give up its nuclear arsenal.  What if Al-Qaeda regains political control in a country with nuclear capabilities?  Suddenly, Obama's motives seem rather suspect.  Now I know why.

Obama's plan is more than just another empty campaign promise or a silly fantasy.  I've come to the realization that Obama wants the US to be defenseless against nuclear attack.  Before asking why, we need to address a more important question: Who is behind this new threat?  The first suspect when it comes to possible nuclear war is, of course, Russia.  But it seems they are pawns in this international plot as well: in April 2010, Russia signed a treaty with the US that will reduce the number of each country's nuclear missile launchers by half.  Perhaps its China, the new Russia?  That also seems unlikely, given that they are already going to surpass the US on the world stage.  Plus, they'll need somebody to work their minimum-wage jobs.  As far as terrorists go, I highly doubt that they are organized and sophisticated enough to wield the kind of political power it would take to manipulate the world's superpowers.

So who could it be?  What nation would want to see the US fall under nuclear winter?

Japan.

Think about it.  The same country that produced the samurai isn't going to "forgive and forget" the killing of almost 250,000 people. Sensing that I was on to something, I looked further into the matter.  It seems Japan planted the seeds for America's current economic situation decades ago, when their auto industry took off in the 1960s.  It wasn't just competition in a free market that turned Detroit into a ghost town and signaled the decline of America's financial status.  The whole thing was engineered by Japanese leaders in response to the dropping of nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war.

Here's how the plan has gone along so far.  With ninja-like patience, they rebuilt their country and worked to establish themselves as the leader of the auto industry, knowing how devastating that would be to the American economy years later.

Their next step was to gain the world's trust by pretending that, as victims of the horror of nuclear attack, they would never develop nuclear weapons.  Not only that, but the constitution that Japan adopted in 1947 explicitly forbids the nation from declaring war.  And no one found that hard to believe?  It's not like Switzerland, who hasn't been in a war for almost 200 years; the Japanese were in some serious shit relatively recently and are located in a politically volatile region of the world.  Who the hell knows what North Korea is up to?  Or how strongly China will support Kim Jong-Il?  It's clear that Japan can't take that article of their constitution seriously.  It must be a ruse.

Now that Japan has the world's trust and America is in the Next Depression, the Japanese are secretly working with Obama to rid the US of its nukes and, therefore, its ability to deter nuclear attack.  Some might be inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt in this regard, since a nuclear-free world is a noble goal, one which the Japanese may be taking advantage of.  Don't be fooled.  The following picture of Obama and the Emperor of Japan shows just how deep inside Japan's pocket Obama really is.

No red-white-and-blue-blooded American patriot would ever bow that low to a foreigner!  And what kind of self-respecting world leader would show such submissiveness?  It's clear, then, that Obama wants to see America stripped of its most powerful weapon so that Japan can have its revenge.

Now we can get to motive.  Actually, it's not that important.  He lived in southeast Asia in the '70s; he was probably brainwashed into a sleeper cell or something.  The important thing is to act now!  This plan has been set in motion decades ago and is going to be extremely difficult to stop.  We need to let the government know that We Want our Nukes!

Niggardly

Yes, that's how it's pronounced.  But it has nothing to do with a racial slur.  The word, possibly derived from an Old Norse word that meant "to fuss over small details, means "stingy."  It is not related to "nigger", which comes from "negro", the Spanish word for black which itself is derived from Latin.


Over the years, the use of "niggardly" has many times been construed as a racist remark because the two words sound so similar.  For example, Wikipedia has an article about a white aide to a black mayor of D.C. who resigned after colleagues complained about his using the word.  Then-chairman of the NAACP came to his defense, saying, " "You hate to think you have to censor your language to meet other people's lack of understanding.  David Howard should not have quit. Mayor Williams should bring him back — and order dictionaries issued to all staff who need them."


This incident, and several others like it, highlight an issue that seems to bother a lot of people nowadays: has political correctness gone too far?  Imagine if the word "despicable" was no longer acceptable because it has "spic" in the middle of it.  Or "menu" was no longer used because it was perceived as sexist.  Sensitivity isn't inherently bad, but it can get out of hand.  


More importantly, this so-called controversy demonstrates just how beneficial decent education can be to society.  No one should have their career marred by someone else's ignorance.  But then again, an argument can be made for not using the word out of politeness if you are unsure how it will be taken, but I wouldn't fault anyone for using "niggardly" whenever it is appropriate.  In fact, I would love to see the word become more commonly used.  As a student of the English language, it sucks to see a word fall out of use because it sounds like a racial slur that it is not related to.  Unfortunately, there would be countless immature morons who use the word solely because it sounds so insulting.


I'm not really sure what the point of this post is.  It's been awhile since I've put anything up.  I suppose I just find this issue interesting because I find linguistics, in general, interesting.  I guess the moral here is to remember what happens when you assume.  And go read a book!  

Alabama Never Disappoints

I'm getting kinda sick of writing about religion in this country, but I just keep reading about things that I can't, in good conscience, ignore.  I wouldn't do you that disservice, loyal readers.  I will remain your beacon of light in these confusing times!


Anyway, some hick-ass town in Alabama has begun a program that will allow nonviolent misdemeanor offenders the choice of jail or going to church every Sunday for a year.  How can such an idea even get past the, "Hey, what if we offer them church or jail?" stage?  These people will be the first to talk about how much they love America, then wipe their ass with one of the country's most fundamental ideals.  I don't care if 100% of that town's population are practicing Christians; the program is simply unconstitutional.


Supporters are probably already saying, "Well, they don't have to go church.  It's their choice."  Wrong.  Church vs. jail isn't a choice at all (insert "What's the difference?" joke).  Offenders are essentially being forced, by the government, to attend church.  Who wouldn't rather sit in a pew for an hour a week than serve a prison sentence.  Even a weekly colonoscopy would be better; at least you'd be allowed to go home after taking it in the ass.  This is basically a "get out of jail free" card.  What productive result could possibly come from this program?  Odds are, most people in that town go to church fairly regularly anyway.  If it didn't stop offenders from committing the crime in the first place, it's not going to do much good in preventing them from doing the same thing again.  Especially if the only punishment is being forced to eat a tasteless wafer and take sip of wine every Sunday.


The pastor of one participating church is a little more optimistic: "You show me somebody who falls in love with Jesus, and I'll show you a person who won't be a problem to society but that will be an influence and a help to those around them." It's hard to decide which atrocity committed in Jesus' name to mention... Let's go with slavery.  As recently as the '60s, mainstream Christians were using the Curse of Cain as a justification of racism (because, obviously, this one guy was the forefather of all African people).  But let me guess; these people never truly understood Jesus, right?  Never mind the countless instances of slavery being condoned in the Old and New Testaments (Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.  Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.  [Ephesians 6:5]).    But I suppose I'm just nitpicking outdated passages that aren't meant to be taken literally.  I wonder how anyone knows which Biblical passages ought to be taken literally and which ones are just silly misunderstandings?  Or is it that "slave" was the translator's choice, and the Bible really means "servant"?  Call it what you will, these people were denied the most basic human rights and treated as livestock; if you think slaves were any better off 2,000 years ago, you're retarded.

I think this pastor needs to take a look at some actual facts.  The lower one's socioeconomic status and education level, the higher the likelihood that one will be religious.  Do you know what else the poor and uneducated are more likely to do?  Commit crime.  Seems kind of counter-intuitive, doesn't it?    Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion has more concrete figures, but I can't be bothered to look them up.


The problem isn't that other religions are excluded.  The problem is the logic behind this illegal program.  Attending any religious service does nothing to fulfill a criminal's debt to society.  And, although some might disagree, it's not a punishment and therefore will do nothing to prevent the criminal from breaking the law again.  In Alabama, you can steal up to $2,500 worth of stuff and still be charged with a misdemeanor and be eligible for this program.  I would trade 51 Sundays in church for a free $2,500 shopping spree any day. 


One nation under god is right.  He's been on top for centuries and still hasn't nutted.