A woman got on my subway train today and began to cite the ways we could all get into heaven. Mostly, her theory was, as you can probably guess, to worship Jesus Christ. After her loud and brilliantly-timed announcement (between Queensboro Plaza and 59th and Lex), which I got a special seat for because she was standing right next to me, she sat down in a seat by the window and began reading out loud to herself from the Bible, singing to herself, smiling... and basically acting crazy. Now, if she weren't reading from a Bible and instead reading from, oh I don't know, the Communist Manifesto or the latest novel by Danielle Steel, she'd be nuts. Of course, I don't think that the reaction on the train would be different, but I think in many places in the US, she'd even be admired.
I suppose this makes me an atheist. This woman has an imaginary friend who makes her run around subways screaming about someone, reading out loud to herself, and swaying to the gospel songs playing in her head. Nuts, right? Nope, just devout; no, really, crazy.
There are "pro-life" (anti-choice is what we call them in the pro-choice arena) people protesting in front of Planned Parenthood clinics in Wisconsin now protesting the pill. "The pill kills babies," they say. Now, I guess I should have seen this coming, but I guess in my heart of hearts, I didn't want it to be true. Sadly, it is. Now, these people: also nuts. Wrong, first of all, but that's not the point. They aren't going to pharmacies to protest condoms because they go on penises, which belong to men. They only go to places of women's health to protest women's health measures: mainly birth control and abortion.
Birth control kills because it might prevent implantation of an embryo, which I don't think it does, but let's leave that aside. They only care about women taking care of their lives. Sex, you see, is morally sinful, even though entirely natural, as is masturbation, and thus women should remain pregnant their entire lives if they choose to have sex. Sex is only allowed when conceiving children. So if you happen not to conceive, does that mean that you are sinning? Since pregnancy results statistically so rarely, are billions of women on a freight train bound for hell? Men, of course - go have all the sex you want.
On top of all this, these people also don't want anyone knowing about sex. Nope, it doesn't happen; abstinence is the key. Abstinence from what, you say? Stop asking questions. I'll have none of it.
Come on, these people are not just religious, they are CRAZY! Why can't we simply call a spade a spade? They believe in an imaginary force that will come down and smite us, and they think they are going to the happy place for shouting slurs at poor women walking out of health clinics. They're not morally righteous, they are just plain wrong - and they are CRAZY.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
Unmitigated Disasters
No, I'm not talking about my job search. I'm talking about Myanmar and China. Is it just me, or has the whole world gone to hell in the past like 10 days? Yes, I know, I live in the United States and even with gas being really expensive, I still have rose-colored glasses for the poverty and dire straits of the majority of the human community. Still, I think things have gone from bad to worse in the past two weeks.
For those of you not up on the news (but read my blog... ok, so maybe that's no one), a huge cyclone hit Myanmar about 10 days ago, and now the death toll has reached 32,000 people. The government, an illegal military junta whose only apparent allies are China and Thailand (and even they probably don't like them very much), refuses to let disaster relief agencies and NGOs unfettered access into the country to give aid to the desperate, starving people. They are afraid someone will kick them out of power. Now, here's what I don't understand. Apparently over the weekend, they had a referendum on whether or not these guys can stay in power. Of course, any opposition is brutally oppressed, like the Buddhist monks beaten some years ago for protesting the dictatorship. Thus, the vote was probably not honest. No shock there - as if without the cyclone it would have been honest. But the real thing that confuses me about this whole thing is this: wouldn't they look much better as a government if they LET PEOPLE INTO THE COUNTRY TO HELP THE CITIZENS NOT DIE? I mean, I get the whole iron-grip-on-power thing, but if the people weren't pissed off at them enough, now they're letting them die by the thousands. Think they're going to be happy about that? I predict, if the international community doesn't launch a humanitarian attack (yes, you heard me) first, a massive riot and political upheaval possibly in the next year. A people cannot stand being oppressed and denied basic human rights for very long. I would venture a guess that they wouldn't mow down the entire population of a country, and I think it's fair to say that there are more people than government officials. I'd take the public in that fight.
The second disaster was a massive - 7.9 on the Richter scale - earthquake in the Sichuan province of China. China, contrary to previous disasters, has been pretty upfront about the problems they now have with regard to rescue operations, and they have even been (we think) honest about the death toll. I think it's pretty obvious they are feeling international pressure to speak plainly about their need - if they have it - for aid considering a) the Myanmar situation and b) the upcoming Olympics. Perhaps people will be kinder to China if they open up a little. This is very good PR for an isolated, repressive society. Now, if only they'd extend their openness to human rights abuses and get to work on fixing them up. After cleaning up after the quake, I suppose that's the next item on their agenda.
While the US might previously have been in a position to launch an assault on Myanmar to forcefully get aid workers in to help the people, with American troops overstretched around the world and in Iraq, we are paralyzed, at least should it come to an out-and-out military conflict with the Burmese government. I guess it shows that one unmitigated disaster - Iraq - prohibits us from preventing another unmitigated disaster - Myanmar.
Of course, considering how well we did in aiding Katrina victims, other countries have every right to not want US involvement in their disasters. Yes, our own unmitigated disaster, and things are still not normal down there more than two years later. Our very own cyclone of epic proportions. Now, imagine if the world community had decided to invade the US because our government was not doing enough for the victims of that hurricane... Imagine if US citizens had risen up to overthrow our government in the wake of such inaction and ineptitude. What would have happened then?
For those of you not up on the news (but read my blog... ok, so maybe that's no one), a huge cyclone hit Myanmar about 10 days ago, and now the death toll has reached 32,000 people. The government, an illegal military junta whose only apparent allies are China and Thailand (and even they probably don't like them very much), refuses to let disaster relief agencies and NGOs unfettered access into the country to give aid to the desperate, starving people. They are afraid someone will kick them out of power. Now, here's what I don't understand. Apparently over the weekend, they had a referendum on whether or not these guys can stay in power. Of course, any opposition is brutally oppressed, like the Buddhist monks beaten some years ago for protesting the dictatorship. Thus, the vote was probably not honest. No shock there - as if without the cyclone it would have been honest. But the real thing that confuses me about this whole thing is this: wouldn't they look much better as a government if they LET PEOPLE INTO THE COUNTRY TO HELP THE CITIZENS NOT DIE? I mean, I get the whole iron-grip-on-power thing, but if the people weren't pissed off at them enough, now they're letting them die by the thousands. Think they're going to be happy about that? I predict, if the international community doesn't launch a humanitarian attack (yes, you heard me) first, a massive riot and political upheaval possibly in the next year. A people cannot stand being oppressed and denied basic human rights for very long. I would venture a guess that they wouldn't mow down the entire population of a country, and I think it's fair to say that there are more people than government officials. I'd take the public in that fight.
The second disaster was a massive - 7.9 on the Richter scale - earthquake in the Sichuan province of China. China, contrary to previous disasters, has been pretty upfront about the problems they now have with regard to rescue operations, and they have even been (we think) honest about the death toll. I think it's pretty obvious they are feeling international pressure to speak plainly about their need - if they have it - for aid considering a) the Myanmar situation and b) the upcoming Olympics. Perhaps people will be kinder to China if they open up a little. This is very good PR for an isolated, repressive society. Now, if only they'd extend their openness to human rights abuses and get to work on fixing them up. After cleaning up after the quake, I suppose that's the next item on their agenda.
While the US might previously have been in a position to launch an assault on Myanmar to forcefully get aid workers in to help the people, with American troops overstretched around the world and in Iraq, we are paralyzed, at least should it come to an out-and-out military conflict with the Burmese government. I guess it shows that one unmitigated disaster - Iraq - prohibits us from preventing another unmitigated disaster - Myanmar.
Of course, considering how well we did in aiding Katrina victims, other countries have every right to not want US involvement in their disasters. Yes, our own unmitigated disaster, and things are still not normal down there more than two years later. Our very own cyclone of epic proportions. Now, imagine if the world community had decided to invade the US because our government was not doing enough for the victims of that hurricane... Imagine if US citizens had risen up to overthrow our government in the wake of such inaction and ineptitude. What would have happened then?
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Like a Fine Wine
Very interesting New York Times article about wine and recent pot shots that critics have taken at oenophiles. Wine "snobs" certainly have their weaknesses, Eric Asimov writes. Some studies have shown that some people (among which I count myself) think wines that are more expensive taste better. It is hard to sell the cheapest wine on the menu, restaurant owners explain, because people do not want to seem cheap or uncultured. The more expensive wines must be better. Other studies have shown that cheaper wines actually outperformed more expensive wines in taste tests.
His article, however, brings into light the fact that wine free of context is difficult to discriminate. That is to say, wines taste better - or worse - depending on the situation. Case in point: I bought a wine the summer after my junior year of college. It was a Concannon Petit Syrah, 2004 (I believe). It was $15. This is the typical price I pay for wines. I stick to the $12 to $25 range, thinking that these wines are pretty consistently decent. With few exceptions, I have been right. In any case, I bought this wine and brought it home to drink that night with the woman I had been courting all summer. That wine tasted delicious as finally she caved to my obvious advances - and let me tell you, that was the BEST wine I've ever tasted.
The following week, she and I went to the grocery store to buy wine, and we both wanted the wine that had tasted so good that memorable night. We happily bought it, eager to reap the same enjoyment... and it fell flat on its face. It had tasted so good before - what had changed? I can tell you: the thrill, the novelty, the anticipation was gone, and it had nothing to do with the wine. Thus, my scientific conclusion: wine is not as good divorced of a good context.
Wine knowledge is not easy to come by, and even harder to remember. Do I like merlots? Do I like zinfindels? Which year was supposed to be good for California pinot noirs or Italian chianti? True, I rarely buy the cheapest wine on the menu, but that has begun to change. I've tried a lot of wines, and I'm starting to understand what I like. If that means I go for the $40 bottle and you think I'm being snobby, then ignore it - stop judging. There is a reason I'm making the purchase. I ask for recommendations, I read, I sample, and I try to make educated choices - but really, I do not need to justify my actions. I'm an adult - deal with your insecurities on your own time. If I like an $8 bottle more than a $20 bottle, it does not mean I am an ignoramus. The same goes for me liking a $40 bottle over a $15. Something is motivating me to buy that particular wine, and it's OK. So there! (Can you tell I'm a little insecure?)
I'm currently reading a book by Isabel Allende entitled Aphrodite. My girlfriend pointed out that I had not finished the book before I put it on my profile as one of my favorites, but there's a reason for that. I liked it 15 pages in, and I do not anticipate that changing. If I like a book because it moves me to cook or turns me on, then chances are, I'm going to keep liking it. Don't judge me based on how or why I like a book - I'm allowed to put it on my list, even if I've only read the introduction. (I mean, I didn't just judge the book by its cover... at least I made it inside.)
The book is really about not being judgmental about food or sex. If cinnamon works for you, then it works for you. If you need saffron to get your juices flowing, fine. There can be aphrodisiacs in any number of foods, and it also largely depends on context, love being the big one.
I've recently been buying books like that. One, The Whole Lesbian Sex Book, spends page after page telling the reader it's OK to be interested in things that are beyond the "norm" of your sexuality. It's fine to be interested in things that are frowned upon by better, more loyal gay people. If you fantasize about sex with Brad Pitt, embrace it and have fun with it.
The point is, readers, that you have a right to your preferences. Does it really matter that there is a better wine out there for cheaper? You could be fully educated on the joys of fish eggs and still not like caviar. And it's the same with wine. If you don't like $2 wines because they're not interesting, though entirely drinkable, that's fine - and that goes for those who only buy wines that cost more than $20, too. Stop feeling guilty, and embrace life to the fullest (or lightest, if that's what you're into).
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Gender and Politics
You know, I'm a sucker for reading articles that do little but confirm my previously held beliefs. I dislike reading things that challenge my views. However, I especially like it when articles that are brilliant say things that I have been saying. Of course, it makes me wonder, "Why didn't I write that?" That aside, however, it is incredibly life-affirming. It makes me feel like I have not had my head in the sand.
This is how I feel about "Post-Hillary Feminism," from the April 21, 2008 edition of New York Magazine, by Amanda Fortini. In discussing how gender played into this election and how women felt about Hillary's candidacy, it nails it. It is a phenomenal read, and though depressing at best, it ends happily, like all good magazine articles. She even articulated that wish that Senator Clinton would make an Obama-style speech on gender and sexism, and she gave voice to all the women out there who wanted it, too. I no longer feel alone in wanting to lash out at the political pundits or people who just don't get that sexism exists in a real way in this country. But is it true, what she says in the article? Is it the case that Hillary's campaign has been an awakening of a kind not seen in 30 years?
I have to be a little less optimistic than she is on this point. She leaves it open for the reader to speculate about what will come out of Mrs. Clinton's now seemingly doomed candidacy, but I suspect that nothing will. The few times sexism was pointed out in this campaign, despite its constant presence, was entirely obliterated by talk of national race issues and the likes of Jeremiah Wright. Women were once again ignored as a demographic in this country, and the dilemma that I'm sure many black women faced when choosing between Clinton and Obama was not discussed in enough detail if at all. People were much more likely to talk about race than sex, and the media buttressed those race discussions. Not so for gender. Like she says in her article, women who talk about gender all the time are denounced as hollering, whiny feminazis. Those who speak of race in a frank way are enlightened.
I think the thing I took away from her article was a sense of having a right to see gender bias wherever I go. I have a right to point out sexism to my friends and constantly try to raise consciousness. I have a right to glare or call out every man who stares at my breasts before he looks at my face. More importantly, I have a right not to be stared at at all. I have a right not to be called sweetie by every older man with whom I have contact. I have a right to be upset.
I do not want to work at something where I have to hide my feminist side. Make me a professional feminist. Better yet, make me a happy professional - and keep me a feminist. Those making a real difference are those who talk about these things constantly - and not just in academia. I have to stick it out and become a professional and talk about gender as much as I talk about politics. After all, they are completely inseparable.
This is how I feel about "Post-Hillary Feminism," from the April 21, 2008 edition of New York Magazine, by Amanda Fortini. In discussing how gender played into this election and how women felt about Hillary's candidacy, it nails it. It is a phenomenal read, and though depressing at best, it ends happily, like all good magazine articles. She even articulated that wish that Senator Clinton would make an Obama-style speech on gender and sexism, and she gave voice to all the women out there who wanted it, too. I no longer feel alone in wanting to lash out at the political pundits or people who just don't get that sexism exists in a real way in this country. But is it true, what she says in the article? Is it the case that Hillary's campaign has been an awakening of a kind not seen in 30 years?
I have to be a little less optimistic than she is on this point. She leaves it open for the reader to speculate about what will come out of Mrs. Clinton's now seemingly doomed candidacy, but I suspect that nothing will. The few times sexism was pointed out in this campaign, despite its constant presence, was entirely obliterated by talk of national race issues and the likes of Jeremiah Wright. Women were once again ignored as a demographic in this country, and the dilemma that I'm sure many black women faced when choosing between Clinton and Obama was not discussed in enough detail if at all. People were much more likely to talk about race than sex, and the media buttressed those race discussions. Not so for gender. Like she says in her article, women who talk about gender all the time are denounced as hollering, whiny feminazis. Those who speak of race in a frank way are enlightened.
I think the thing I took away from her article was a sense of having a right to see gender bias wherever I go. I have a right to point out sexism to my friends and constantly try to raise consciousness. I have a right to glare or call out every man who stares at my breasts before he looks at my face. More importantly, I have a right not to be stared at at all. I have a right not to be called sweetie by every older man with whom I have contact. I have a right to be upset.
I do not want to work at something where I have to hide my feminist side. Make me a professional feminist. Better yet, make me a happy professional - and keep me a feminist. Those making a real difference are those who talk about these things constantly - and not just in academia. I have to stick it out and become a professional and talk about gender as much as I talk about politics. After all, they are completely inseparable.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Superheroes and Superdelegates
I was glad to hear today that people are overestimating the differences between demographics voting for Clinton and Obama. Senator Claire McCaskill, an Obama supporter, is not deterred by ideas that this close and tough Democratic campaign has done any kind of irreparable damage to the party, and I think deep down, I agree. Still, I hope blacks turn out - at this point, I think they'll relish the opportunity for vote for a black candidate for President. I think Obama will be the nominee at this point. I'm kinda sad about it, not gonna lie. But, that being said, I'm done with this whole process, and once again, I'm back to thinking this is all politics as usual.
Basically, I think Senator Obama's right: real change only comes from the bottom up, not the top down. Ironically, he's running for that top position on a message of change. What does that mean? Does he think he's created a political machine here that is going to implement his just-as-moderate-as-anyone-else policy ideas from the street? If he has created a political movement here as he claims (though I do not think he has) and brought a bunch of new people into the political process, they are not going to accept anything less than a revolution with all his talk of change. If things don't change radically, he'll have some big problems, or at least those people will stop being involved in the voting part of the political process. I do not see him as the Democratic messiah. His message, though he speaks of change, is nothing out of the norm.
I'm back from New Hampshire, though now I think I'm coming down with a cold. Figures; I was exhausted yesterday so I took a personal day to get some sleep and drive back to New York with a little more rest, and now I'm getting sick. I'm going to work tomorrow - we'll see how the rest of the week goes. I really hate being sick.
Senator Clinton, who just finished speaking, sounded hoarse and tired. I wish her the best, and I'm still behind her. I have to say, I wasn't behind her idea of canceling the gas tax, but now she's saying she wants the oil companies to pay the tax. I don't know what's right. I have to admit; I'd love to see gas go back down to like $3.40 around here. I say that knowing full well that I have no choice but to pay whatever it is. I can't afford not to drive across the country, even though paying $380 to make that trek will be really, really painful. Cheaper gas won't make me drive more, nor do I think anymore that it will increase demand. After all, it's still really expensive, and all of America has no choice but to pay whatever the price to drive to work or take a vacation. The oil companies have us in a pinch. After all, I cannot ride my bike across the country to move and I cannot afford to buy a new hydrogen or biofuel car right now. So, cut the tax; what the hell. In any case, I'll be paying attention to where the superdelegates go over the coming weeks, reluctantly resigning myself to an Obama victory.
Speaking of superdelegates, I heard a great Science Friday podcast about Ironman and superhero superpowers. Apparently, they are working on a helmet that, when worn, can control a cursor on a computer screen by channeling brain power; basically, telekinetics. I'm very excited about that prospect. They took calls about people's favorite superpowers. What superpower would I want to have? I want to see into the future, specifically into what I'll be doing in 5 or 10 years. Beyond that, I think I'd like the power to "beam" myself from place to place. That would save me a lot in gas money.
Basically, I think Senator Obama's right: real change only comes from the bottom up, not the top down. Ironically, he's running for that top position on a message of change. What does that mean? Does he think he's created a political machine here that is going to implement his just-as-moderate-as-anyone-else policy ideas from the street? If he has created a political movement here as he claims (though I do not think he has) and brought a bunch of new people into the political process, they are not going to accept anything less than a revolution with all his talk of change. If things don't change radically, he'll have some big problems, or at least those people will stop being involved in the voting part of the political process. I do not see him as the Democratic messiah. His message, though he speaks of change, is nothing out of the norm.
I'm back from New Hampshire, though now I think I'm coming down with a cold. Figures; I was exhausted yesterday so I took a personal day to get some sleep and drive back to New York with a little more rest, and now I'm getting sick. I'm going to work tomorrow - we'll see how the rest of the week goes. I really hate being sick.
Senator Clinton, who just finished speaking, sounded hoarse and tired. I wish her the best, and I'm still behind her. I have to say, I wasn't behind her idea of canceling the gas tax, but now she's saying she wants the oil companies to pay the tax. I don't know what's right. I have to admit; I'd love to see gas go back down to like $3.40 around here. I say that knowing full well that I have no choice but to pay whatever it is. I can't afford not to drive across the country, even though paying $380 to make that trek will be really, really painful. Cheaper gas won't make me drive more, nor do I think anymore that it will increase demand. After all, it's still really expensive, and all of America has no choice but to pay whatever the price to drive to work or take a vacation. The oil companies have us in a pinch. After all, I cannot ride my bike across the country to move and I cannot afford to buy a new hydrogen or biofuel car right now. So, cut the tax; what the hell. In any case, I'll be paying attention to where the superdelegates go over the coming weeks, reluctantly resigning myself to an Obama victory.
Speaking of superdelegates, I heard a great Science Friday podcast about Ironman and superhero superpowers. Apparently, they are working on a helmet that, when worn, can control a cursor on a computer screen by channeling brain power; basically, telekinetics. I'm very excited about that prospect. They took calls about people's favorite superpowers. What superpower would I want to have? I want to see into the future, specifically into what I'll be doing in 5 or 10 years. Beyond that, I think I'd like the power to "beam" myself from place to place. That would save me a lot in gas money.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Dress Zippers Suck
I saw a Wired Magazine article featuring Sarah Silverman ranting about technology, and I decided to write my own little rant.
Dress Zippers. They suck. First, they eliminated the hooks on the top of the zippers, meaning someone HAS to help you zip up your dress. In fact, it really takes three people to put on a dress. If you try to do it yourself, it's impossible. First, no hook, meaning it takes one person to bow the zipper at the top and another to actually do the zippering so that the zipper can make it up to the top. Then, the zippers are so pathetically weak that it can't get over the seams of the dress. Really, I think they put seams on there that mess with the zippers just to get some sadistic glee - as if trying on dresses wasn't awful enough. Last year, I wound up crying. Yeah.
It went much better this time, though. Walked in after a 30-minute commute to find a dress in 15 - yes, 15 - minutes. Now, I have a dress for the wedding in two months and for this formal. I'm very excited. Now, I love JC Penny.
That's life. I'll write more later.
Dress Zippers. They suck. First, they eliminated the hooks on the top of the zippers, meaning someone HAS to help you zip up your dress. In fact, it really takes three people to put on a dress. If you try to do it yourself, it's impossible. First, no hook, meaning it takes one person to bow the zipper at the top and another to actually do the zippering so that the zipper can make it up to the top. Then, the zippers are so pathetically weak that it can't get over the seams of the dress. Really, I think they put seams on there that mess with the zippers just to get some sadistic glee - as if trying on dresses wasn't awful enough. Last year, I wound up crying. Yeah.
It went much better this time, though. Walked in after a 30-minute commute to find a dress in 15 - yes, 15 - minutes. Now, I have a dress for the wedding in two months and for this formal. I'm very excited. Now, I love JC Penny.
That's life. I'll write more later.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Update on the Obama-Wright Debaucle
Spectacular article about coverage of the Reverend Wright's comments and Obama's reactions and how it's playing in the black community. The Reverend has the worst timing, it would seem, and he's only serving to divide the community. If it gets any worse, or the Obama campaign can't put it behind them, I worry that black voters are going to lose hope and interest and stay home. Though I'm not an Obama supporter, I'm well aware that this would be devastating for the Democratic party and, more importantly, national race relations. If a popular black candidate goes down in flames thanks to the predominantly white media, whatever little faith young blacks had in the political process will be dealt a serious blow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
