And if you doubt me dog, you betta out me dog

I'm throw'd off slightly, brah

Oh I see they're still trying to out Queen Latifah. I think I saw this story a while ago but since I'm on a roll with sadness why not. I can't depress myself much more this week--wait.

QUEEN LATIFAH THREATENED THROUGH TABLOIDS

So a make-up artist and a stylist are suing Queen Latifah claiming she owes them $1 million dollars combined. Roxanna Floyd says she’s owed $700,000 on work done between July 2005 and February 2008.

Stylist Susan Moses says she was cheated out of $300,000 during that same period. While the lawsuit has yet to go to court, it’s already spilling over into the gossip pages.

Apparently the two are threatening to go public about Queen Latifah’s private life if they don’t get their cash.

Lawyers for the two told the National Enquirer, “Whether Latifah is gay or straight has absolutely nothing to do with our clients claims,” though they added that “Latifah’s personal life could become an issue in the case as it relates to her treatment of another stylist.”

*rolls eyes backwards until the whites show, trembles, falls backwards and starts clawing at the air*

Bring em out bring em out! Suddenly sounds different.

This is old fucking dumbness but it's still fucking dumbness and that's what we're going for this week.

I really hate it when the gay community tries to force people out. Like, against their will. I mean celebrities, politicians, what have you. Because it's fucking dumb. I used to think it was a good thing but I've realized that being forced to come out is rather scary and hurtful.

"Oh Xands, they're being selfish by staying in the closet!" I beg to differ head voice, for I think you are being fucking selfish by demanding they come out. Especially in this case when we're not even sure that Queen Latifah is...gay.

Do you not get that if it were safe for gays & lesbians and whoever to come out about their differing sexualities that we would all do it? There are hypocrites that stay in the closet because of fear, and then there are people that stay in the closet. It is, frankly, none of our goddamn business. If Latifah wanted to come out, she would have. But threatening to out her and sue her for unpaid fees is some ol bullshit. If you agree with any of that you are also on some ol' bullshit and I really don't care.

As a black person, I don't mind coming out to a few friends every now and then but I am scared to death, really, of coming out to the world. It would not be good. I'd rather run around with an upside down cross and three sixes on my head screaming "GODLESS" than whisper I'm gay. I try to live as openly as I can but it's pretty rare, except in print, that you'll hear me admit to my queerness. It is not good. It would not be good for me to come out to very many people until society changes its fucking dumb views on sexuality.

I look at celebrities that are out, and I do not feel better about coming out. I do not relate to very many of them even in sexuality. They feel safe to come out. I do not. Is Queen Latifah in the same situation? I do not know and I do not give a fuck. Perhaps she feels like Wanda Sykes, who officially came out about last year some time, and said it was just not a big deal or anyone else's business to broadcast. Perhaps Latifah is not gay. Perhaps she is. Perhaps you feel forcing her out of her comfort zone is the way to go. Perhaps you feel those pesky human rights and right to privacy are getting in the way.

Pretty much all of the above just brings me much sadness. And that's the theme of the week!

Catholics, rest of the world to Pope: "Shut the fuck up!"

Oh this just warms my heart. A tip of the hat to this entry on Pam's Houseblend.

In light of Papa Benedicto XVI's embarrassing, dangerous, and inane comments on condoms, and everything ELSE HE'S DONE since his...uh...ascension? it seems all sorts of folks are just crawling out the woodwork all angry-like.

First, France & Germany told the Elder Thing to STFU, now it seems the Shepard's own flock are about to join together in a rousing rendition of "Bring 'Em Out". Okay, maybe not, but that'd be hilarious.

Vatican Insiders declare Pope a "disaster"

The Holy See is struggling to contain international anger over the Pope's claim on his first official visit to Africa that Aids "cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems".

The Pope's remarks about condoms, and a recent furore over his lifting of the 20-year excommunication of a British bishop who has questioned the Holocaust, has left him looking isolated and out of touch, prompting calls for a radical shake-up of the way the Holy See delivers its message.

The Pope is isolated and fails to adequately consult his advisers, said a Vatican source with 20 years' knowledge of the Holy See.

Another Vatican insider described Pope Benedict's four-year-old papacy as "a disaster", recalling the pontiff's previous inflammatory remarks on Islam and homosexuality.

"He's out of touch with the real world," the Italian insider said. "On the condom issue, for example, there are priests and bishops in Africa who accept that condoms are a key part of the fight against Aids, and yet the pope adheres to this very conservative line that they encourage promiscuity. The Vatican is far removed from the reality on the ground."

I think I can safely sum that up to "DO NOT WANT". I think this is my favorite piece from the whole thing (the link is mine for the good Papa):

The Holy See claimed that the Pope had no idea that British bishop Richard Williamson had denied the extent of the Holocaust, but critics have pointed out that a simple Google search would have uncovered the maverick's anti-Semitic views.

Yeeep. But don't worry, the Papa's foot soldiers aren't taking this unfair criticism from sensible Catholics lying down, oh no:

We learned this morning that "Vatican insiders" consider Benedict XVI "a disaster". It's true. They do think that. He's a disaster for them, and their determination to turn the Catholic Church into a touchy-feely forum in which uncomfortable teachings and traditions are "modernised" to impress non-Catholics. Until the Williamson affair, the media weren't sufficiently interested in attacking Benedict XVI to be useful. But now, after that own goal... YES!!!

Take the furore over condoms. I don't think the Pope should have strayed into the topic of condoms and Aids, but what he said didn't represent a hardening of the Church's line on this subject. Post-Williamson, however, the liberal media have slipped back into anti-papal default mode, which suits certain "Catholics" just fine.

I just love how it's always the Libruls fault in ANYTHING when shit goes down. And you thought it stopped at politics. Nope! Puppies get run over? Libruls. Your foot falls off? Libruls. Millions dying over seas? Libruls. Can't find the cool side of your pillow? Libruls. LIBRULS!!!111!!AUUGH!

*tissue* Okay. Okay. I'm done now. I think I might just start calling Papa the Rubberband Man, he's always in trouble man.

Music = intelligence? You don't say

I've heard about this "study" before but I've only seen the actual data once or twice...the only reason I'm taking time out of my napping schedule to do this and blast DMX is because the Telegraph is reporting on it?

Talkin bout some dumb shit, ain't that some shit.

You may have heard of Music That Makes You Dumb. Like...a couple of years ago. It turns out the Telegraph just asked somebody (I consistently & constantly advocate asking your friends about what's up) and the results are in: listening to rap, rock & pop signal a dumb person where as listening to classical music and old standards and high end indie & rock signal a smart person. Like I.

Now, if you're like me you'll look at this chart upside down one time, think about it for five minutes, conclude that's bullshit and be on your way. This article makes me irate for a few reasons, some of those being:

-musical genres that overlap
-the genres themselves
-use of goddamn SAT scores
-what about those of us that can stand more than certain genres?

I'm not really going to go out of my way to disprove this little chart. All this list really proves, to me, is that some folks that happen to listen to certain music may be deemed dumb or unable to do well on the SAT. You may listen to Lil Wayne and fail the math portion but I guarantee you Lil Wayne could run you circles on standardized testing. That makes...little sense? Also I guess it's good for people to sit and feel smug that they listen to high end, "intelligent" bands therefore that makes them smart folks. Ehhh.

But I have always wondered, not in terms of smart vs not smart, how much of what we listen to has to do with us. We listen to certain music because we like it and more often than not because it means something to us. It moves us in a way, but does it really signify how intelligent we are or how we live? I listen to Bob Dylan, DMX, and Bach--what does that say about me other than my tastes are pretty diverse and eclectic?

Also, I hate the SAT & ACT. Hate. Absolutely. I killed the ACT mind you, I still hated it about as much as I hate letter grading systems.

And now you can go back to whatever it was you were doing.

We're thinking of the children alright: 9 year old raped, pregnant, excommunicated?

Coz that's how it works!

Well, in case you ain't know, there's this story making its way around the blogosphere. It goes a little something like this:

A 9-year-old girl who was carrying twins, and whose stepfather is suspected of raping her, underwent an abortion on Wednesday despite complaints from Brazil's Roman Catholic Church.

The stepfather has been jailed since last week, the police said. Abortion is illegal in Brazil, the country with the most Roman Catholics, but judges can make exceptions if the mother's life is in danger or the fetus has no chance of survival. Fatima Maia, director of the public university hospital where the abortion was performed, said the pregnancy, which was in its 15th week, posed a serious risk to the girl, who weighs 80 pounds. But Marcio Miranda, a lawyer for the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife in northeastern Brazil, said the girl should have carried the twins to term and had a Caesarean section. "It's the law of God: Do not kill," he said in comments reported by the newspaper O Globo.

Even shorter, a 9 year old CHILD has an abortion because her stepfather raped her. She was carrying twins. Her body would not have been to handle the birth because she is so young and small. And the Roman Catholic church wants to...to...call her a murdering murderer. WITCH HUUUUNT!

No really, as if that weren't bad enough now the girl's family and the doctors that performed the abortion have been excommunicated. This is me drawing the "I give up" Xs on my eyes. Say. Fucking. What?

So, all I'm seeing is this: a little girl was raped & molested for YEARS by her stepfather, it seems that no one did much to help her, she gets pregnant with twins and has a life saving abortion. And that's pretty much all I care about, then here comes the church basically saying "eh, rape? But she killed a fetus! She killed two fetuses!"

Give me a goddamn break. Seriously? And what the fuck was a C-section going to do if she was too young to give vaginal birth? Ah, I get it, save the kids. As in, the babies, not the kid that got raped because she's unimportant right now. Oh yeah she can take care of them, she's nine (old enough to bleed you know). Oh wait, let's give them up for adoption, better option. Certainly. And leave this little girl with the knowledge that her church cared more about a fetus than her safety and her life. Never mind her body possibly not being able to carry the weight of twins, or the fact that we can't even be sure what her living conditions are like. What, were you going to take care of the kids?

_AUUUUUGHHH

Goddamn that's just unbelievable and frankly unacceptable. Unacceptable and unbelievable IN ANYONE'S GODDAMN UNIVERSE except the church I GUESS. That's pretty much all that needs to be said on that.

Conscientious Objection & Atheism

I'm a lot better, thanks. Although last night I did just randomly skin my toe this morning because of the GODDAMN CLOSET.

*nurses it* Okay, I think we're all done with that random slew of emo posts, but I read something interesting this afternoon while I was desperately studying for a class I didn't go to (don't judge me).

I was reading this post from the Friendly Atheist about Agustin Aguayo, an army specialist. Long story short, Aguayo is an an agnostic and decides during his training that he could not kill another human being because it was against his beliefs, so he files as a conscientious objector (which I didn't even realize you could DO anymore).

Except, you know, atheists & agnostics apparently don't have morals (Aguayo says he believes in a "higher power" but doesn't attend any churches) so how can we conscientiously object to anything? Or so a judge felt:

… although Aguayo met many of the requirements of a conscientious objector according to military policy, he failed to meet one important non-official requirement: his belief system wasn’t Christian.

Aguayo wasn’t court-martialed that day. Instead the army told him he was going to Iraq whether he liked it or not — even if he had to be forcefully carried onto the plane. Soon after, Aguayo went AWOL again.

...

PFC Aguayo’s convictions do not appear to be sincerely held… PFC Aguayo did not identify any specific ways he has altered his behavior to accommodate his beliefs. Although practicing a religion is not a requirement for CO approval, PFC Aguayo has not discussed any equally significant source of his beliefs other than he was raised in a kind and respectful family.

So, at the end of the day and going AWOL repeatedly and clearly showing that he DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE TO KILL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, the consensus is that you don't go to church, you're non-christian, you don't get to conscientiously object. Which is just WEIRD and wrong for a couple of reasons, 1) it's pretty clear that not everyone in the army is a Christian so why is this even a "non-official" requirement, and 2) why are they trying to force this man to do what he's clearly decided he isn't up for.

Let me explain that second point first. As you guys know I identify as an atheist, but when I was a little one, for some reason I wanted to join the Marines. Really badly. The ceremonial swords looked so awesome and I wanted to feel like I was doing something I suppose. Mind you, back then I dreamed I could have met the weight requirement. But also back when I was fantasizing, if I'm not mistaken there was no war. Sure there was some military shit going down, but I'm pretty sure the major conflicts were over, far as the public knew anyway *side eyes the government* My dad was in the Navy, btw, before he got discharged for having whatever mental problems (thanks for passing those on, damnit).

But yeah, I wanted to be a Marine. I didn't factor in that whole war and killing folks business (or knowing the demon child I was, I probably didn't care). But as I got older--and this wasn't a conscious decision, but you know what? Killing is horrible and war is hell. I would never want to be part of that. And even after identifying as an Atheist, guess what? I still don't want to have to kill anyone. I don't think I could even in self-defense if my life was in danger (well, maybe). As much as I talk about how awesome it would be to burn my AmLit teacher's house down and terrorize his pets, please believe that I don't have it in me to burn his house down with him in it _{knowingly, and maybe I'd feel bad later}. I do not and I will not--it goes against my moral code.

Yes, folks, even without a deity to govern us, most real atheists (by that I mean not your emo Satanist neighbor down the street, we don't associate) still have MORALS and VALUES. I believe that this is just a part of the human experience. Not believing in God and not going to church doesn't make you an immoral or amoral asshole, it makes you godless. If in fact you are an immoral or amoral bastard, you were probably that way anyway regardless of your religious beliefs.

And that's where people get it twisted, that without any sort of moral structure humans would go nuts. And maybe that's true for some of us that claim we'd go on killing sprees if it weren't for Jaysus, but I can almost guarantee you that's not true for the rational 80% of the world, religious or not. It's just stupid. People, I believe, know what's right and what's wrong regardless of religion. We did before organized religion and we would continue to do so without it.

So on to that first point, well that doesn't really need to be explained much more. There's been some ongoing debate about these so-called atheists in foxholes, and atheists & agnostics have made it pretty clear we have no problem joining the army if we think it's right. But also, what about other folks that practice different religions in the army? Uh, Islam? Judaism--well, I guess that'd fall under Judeo-Christian. The point is, it's like they're implying that if you're not Christian you don't have the morals to conscientiously object, which is just silly considering that on the whole religions are actually PEACEFUL (yeah even Islam, I know right). Most of them have SOMETHING to the effect of "don't kill that person" unless you count the extremists that just want to go all hard on everything.

I will mention that there's also a fair debate on the Friendly Atheist post about why did the guy even join the Army if he knew he was just going to conscientiously object, and I honestly don't think that's fair. He'd already done a tour of duty, and even if he hadn't, damnit war is hell. I relate it back to my joining the Marines--I thought it was a special honor, but did I think about having to kill? Of course not, I just wanted to do it. This man isn't 5 or 6 years old, but he clearly joined the Army out of choice then realized that he just couldn't do this. How is this wrong? Would you rather put him out front and make him take other lives--something he doesn't believe in--and fuck his mind up for life? Perhaps he didn't think he was agnostic until he joined the army, we're not all born into non-religious families. As for whether he bit off more than he could chew and he's just chickening out, I say bless him for actually realizing he made a mistake and trying everything he can to get out of there. I don't think it's disrespectful towards the army, he clearly no longer wants to be there, why force him? That's just my outsider's look on it though.

See? Look at that, a big ol' substantial post! I'm so happy *sniff*

The battle is over, and as usual there are no winners

I told you all a little tale about a woman's family fighting for her right to die. Well, she died.

Italian coma battle woman dies

*Side note: If you don't like that headline I guarantee you I hate it more. Whaaaat?

Eluana Englaro, the Italian woman at the centre of a right-to-die debate, has died, the health minister has said.

Maurizio Sacconi made the announcement in Italy's Senate as politicians were debating a law that would have forced doctors to continue feeding her.

Ms Englaro, 38, had been in a persistent vegetative state since being injured in a car crash in 1992.

Doctors at a private clinic in the northern city of Udine had been withholding her food since Friday.

They had earlier said Ms Englaro might live for another two weeks.

Really, I'm more concerned with the family than these fuckheads fighting over this woman's body, on both sides. I understand that Italy has no euthanasia law (although patients can refuse treatment) so I suppose it had to become somebody's business. I still don't care. I just can't imagine how this family feels, having to watch their daughter for 17 years and, finally knowing that she would never wake again, have to fight tooth and nail to let her go.

In July, a court in Milan ruled that doctors had proved Ms Englaro's coma was irreversible. It also accepted that, before the accident, she had expressed a preference for dying over being kept alive artificially.

Perhaps you don't agree with euthanasia. I don't completely either. And we're fine with that. But you know, sometimes, at the end of the day it doesn't really matter what you believe in or in this case, don't, but rather, what's right for this woman and her family. I don't believe in suffering and that kind of overrides any personal queasiness I have about euthanasia, added to the fact that it's seriously no one's business but her family's.

And now she has passed on and you can believe this shit is nowhere near over. It will be taken to the streets (well, even more so actually). And that makes me sad and, dare I say, ill inside.

Our History, Our Heritage

Well! My Facebook friends have been lively lately. You know what, I keep tellin y'all, notes are fucking fun.

So, after the extreme silliness and drama of yesterday, earlier this afternoon I saw this note post from Mr Paul W. Spirit by him, edit by moi.

Listen, I grew up in the south but I don't understand the notion that we should be proud of the Confederacy.

See, my family taught me as a child that the South was in the wrong, and frankly they were. And no, I'm not talking only about slavery. They were guilty of Treason, nothing more or less. And Treason is punishable by death. Everyone whines and complains that the North was too harsh during reconstruction and caused the South to suffer. Well come on! First off, the Confederate leadership got off easy, every one of them could have been hanged. But they weren't because Lincoln and those after him knew that they were still Americans and the Country had to be united. But it couldn't go unpunished. You can't just walk away from your country because you don't get what you want. That is not Democracy!

And before any of you say anything about how the United States was founded by rebels, let's get real. Yes, they did rebel. But rebelling from tyranny is not the same as rebelling against a government where you just got out-voted. Welcome to Democracy...you don't always get what you want. But all this still comes to my first question: Why be proud of it? The answer I hear most often is "it's our heritage, it's our history." Okay, so should modern Germans walk around with swastikas painted on their wind-shields and belt buckles just because its part of their history? No, of course not. So if anyone can enlighten me on this, please feel free to do so.

Shit! You know we love it when people go hard!

And now, my unabridged thoughts.

Man, living in the South is tough sometimes. I take that lie back, it's tough living in the South all the time.

As school children we learn about the Civil War. We learn that it was more or less a battle between the North & the South over...ehh, different ideals. At first you might get the impression that it's all about slavery. Then over the years more complex reasons come out. State's rights and all that. You learn more and more about what exactly went down, but there has to be a moment in your head where you go...

"What the FUCK were we fighting over?!"

Living in the South is haaard with that kind of legacy. I know sometimes people don't want to say treason but isn't that just it? And how the hell can you be proud of that? I admit when I was younger, I was taught that the rebel flag was offensive, and I just understood it without ever realizing why until I got older and started learning more and more about the American civil war. Only backwoods rednecks idolized that hateful thing. And then it all starts clicking--that part of American history was BAD, why does the South have such a sick fascination with it? Damn!

And it's only been a few times recently when I've had people try to justify Confederate pride to me. And when they do it's usually the weak excuse of "it's our history!" Okay, yeah, dude. I'm black (and some native american & irish actually). Yeah, the Civil War surely was part of my damn history--so I should ride around with a rebel flag out the backside, but only on the left side...?

Yeeeah. Come on, South. Do you really want to look back on that period--a senseless war WE LOST--with pride? That has never made sense to me.

Let's Talk About the DREAM Act

After days and days of peer pressuring Danz to write me a damn entry on the DREAM Act, what do you know, he writes me a damn entry on the DREAM Act. It is truly a must read.

So what is the DREAM Act, aka the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors act? Let me allow my man to explain it to you, so divinely.

First, let me explain the situation of thousands of people living in this country. There are quite literally thousands of people who, each day, have to wonder if they're being investigated or about to be subjected to deportation because either their paperwork was lost during the creation of the Department of Homeland Security or their visa was not renewed by their parents during their course of living here. Now, these people entered as children, lets say one enters at age 7, completely legally. They somehow lose their legal status here, probably by their parents forgetting one of many forms to fill out, or forgetting to notify the government of a change of address, or whatever. Whatever the case may be, the child is not at fault. Now fast-forward to their high school graduation. These children have not been able to legally work because they lack a social security number or resident alien number, and many do not attempt to break the law, beyond the fact that they exist and are in the country technically illegally, and not of their own volition. These people cannot enter college, with the exception of select few places in California where arrangements are made, etc. Still. There are thousands of law-abiding, able, intelligent people in this country who through no fault of their own are here illegally, as defined by US law.

Now, the DREAM Act would enable these people who have slipped through the cracks of US immigration law to gain a conditional status, with a resident alien number and work permit, and require that they either gain a two-year college degree or spend two years in the military within six years, in order to gain complete residential status.

Really the reason I asked him to make a post is because, frankly, he could do it better. It's true. Things like this actually rather make me angry--not the DREAM Act itself, of course, but the opposition to it. I do get super frustrated with America and it's...ways sometimes. We're xenophobic in waves and yet we're the land of the free. We want education to be the utmost importance but we won't give it to the people that need it most. We pass these acts and movements and so on and so forth and often times it all seems for naught. It does get a little hard to be optimistic sometimes...a lot of times. And sadly I like to wallow so much in fighting the opposition that I forget my original point. I do essays like that too, and it works for that but not when you're trying to inspire.

Definitely check that out. And while you're at it, buy us some Jones Soda.

It's Inauguration Day

The rest of that Emily Dickinson poem, I remember it now.

Tell all the Truth but tell it slant---
Success in Cirrcuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise
As Lightening to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind---

This post has been seeping in a bitter marinade for days. Depending on how you want to view it, it's either going to totally ruin your day or not affect it at all. It's true, I want to be as optimistic as I can about this new presidency. I don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, or Communist--after 8 damn years under Bush I don't know how you can NOT be breathing a sigh of relief. I mean really, I know there are still plenty of people that figure Bush did just fine. Well the rest of us not sipping that lukewarm Kool Aid disagree.

But why does it take so long to write a simple post? Lately I've been trying to be more thoughtful as to how I put myself out there when I talk about politics. I really hate them, but I don't want to come off as completely clueless and ham-fisted, as I'm sure I do occasionally.

But why so long to write this post? What disturbs me so much about writing about Obama? Is it that I want to be negative and can't? I want to be positive and can't? Do I just not know what to say?

I want to show you all a post I read at Professor What If's blog, and in a way it might help to explain why I picked out that Dickinson poem as well.

It--the post--talks about comparisons between Obama & MLK. And I think this is where I and probably a lot of people get hung up on the man and we play that Red Light Green Light game with our support.

Let me tell you folks, Obama is not MLK. I'll also go further and say that if people don't stop comparing the man to Abraham-freaking-Lincoln I may pass out in my own fury. He is NEITHER. For all their ideologies perhaps being the same, for FSM's sake Lincoln had a civil war on his damn hands. He had to deal with the South trying to split off in it's own silly little country, and the nation was traumatized by his assassination--oh wait, is THAT what you're trying to say, that he's likely to get assassinated for ______? America can't let itself have anything!

BARACK OBAMA is his own man, and we should NEVER forget that. He is a politician but he quite clearly has his own thoughts and feelings on how things are and will be run. Lately around the blogosphere--which has been making me slightly depressed, but then again so has the weather, nugh--around the blogosphere I said, I've seen a few too many interest blogs treating the man like he's their puppet.

"Oh I hope he does this. Oh he didn't? Damn I should have supported Hillary!"

It's fine to critique the president, it really is--as we learn in art, how does one improve if one doesn't know what one does wrong? But this is the Red Light Green Light shit without even giving him a chance, without him even OFFICIALLY being President yet, and this is another reason I've had such issues trying to get this post down. I really want to. I'm also really afraid that supporters may get so tangled up in their own hype that nothing he does and nothing he says will ever assuage everyone. And truth be told, when has a president ever pleased everyone in the country? But I just feel like the stakes are higher this time about. I wouldn't know how, I feel like I've been stuck in a time capsule for years and this is more or less "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

_{I'm not sorry for linking to that Who song, you can't make me be! ...I'm sorry.}

So, all this to say what exactly? There have been many cries of "don't believe the hype!" (okay now I am sorry for that) but those little hysterical cries, after descending into whimpers, seemed to me like they were trying so hard to take away the victory from the Dems. Oh he's not black, he's half white (as I've done in the past, really). Oh he's not a citizen. All these petty arguments that made the opposition sound like sore, sore ass losers. And by opposition I mean strictly Republicans, I can't say anything about third party since I was planning to vote for McKinney anyway (I can, however, talk all the shit I want about Ralph Nader).

And I can't really say how many people that supported Obama actually gulped down all that Obamaid and completely forgot in the midst that this is a human being. I also certainly don't want to take anything away.

So I guess in the end, what do I want to convey to you, exactly? Another reason it's been difficult to get this post down. It's been a wonderful rollercoaster ride. Despite my snark I was so amazingly happy when Obama won and I refused to let anyone take that away from me, despite being in an overwhelmingly Republican state. Even if I didn't support him at first and still look at him with a critical eye, I'm not letting anyone waver my support for the man and all I can really hope for, I suppose, is that he makes the right decisions and if he has to piss off or "let down" a few folks along the way, well, damnit I guess that's what will have to happen.

Just try to remember that he is not Lincoln, he is not FDR, and he is not MLK. He is Barack Obama, 44th president of the US. And this wasn't as insanely cynical as I thought it was going to be! It must be the Snow Day the Invisible Pink Unicorn has blessed me with.

Outtakes: I am a JERK for having to look up whether he was about to become the 44th or 45th president. God, kids, learn your damn US history.

As it turns out, Bush got 10 things right

Well, I just got my ~$1,000 refund check. You may be asking, "Xands how you make that paper? And what time do you get off work?" Well, going to a relatively inexpensive school has its benefits *sews together a money fan*

I'm already forming my shopping list--but alas! I've been schooled by my father to spend my money much more wisely this time, and...well since my birthday isn't until the summer anyway, this shouldn't be too bad.

Anyway, let's get to the good stuff. The Weekly Standard, something I don't think I've ever read until today with good reason, seems to figure that Bush did ten things right during his presidency. I don't know if that's at least ten things or maximum ten things, and I beg to differ muchly either way, but let's save our snickers and laughing and hear what the good people have to say.

Bush's Achievements (I guess.)

The postmortems on the presidency of George W. Bush are all wrong. The liberal line is that Bush dangerously weakened America's position in the world and rushed to the aid of the rich and powerful as income inequality worsened. That is twaddle. Conservatives--okay, not all of them--have only been a little bit kinder. They give Bush credit for the surge that saved Iraq, but not for much else.

And Jacob Marley was dead, to begin with.

Since the conservatives apparently hate lists I'm just going to number them out the best of my ability for you. You can pick and choose which ones you have beef with and which ones you'll begrudgingly nod your head on.

1. The Kyoto Protocol and halting "global warming hysteria"
2. Better terrorist interrogation & intelligence gathering tactics = saved Americans
3. Rebuilding Presidential authority
4. Supporting Israel
5. No Child Left Behind (dear fucking FSM who still believes this worked?)
6. Democracy promoted abroad, mission accomplished!
7. Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit of 03
8. John Roberts & Sam Alito (eh, begrudging head nod)
9. His widely ignored strengthening of ties with East Asian countries without making China angwwy
10. The Iraq Surge

I thought about calling this Bush's Commandments because Mr Barnes really does make W seem a bit like Moses. And I mean Charlton Heston Moses, partin the Red Sea and shit. It also ends on this questionable note:

How does Bush rank as a president? We won't know until he's judged from the perspective of two or three decades. Hindsight forced a sharp upgrading of the presidencies of Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. Given his achievements, it may have the same effect for Bush.

...Okay? If you're wondering "What the hell?" I think dude is trying to get at Truman & Eisenhower being hated on for most of their respective presidencies but now we look at them all rosy and what not. Which...really isn't that true unless you're still taking a high school course. In the big leagues we admit Truman fucked up. Not even going into how they both faced totally different challenges during their terms anyway, saying we'll be looking at Bush like we look at Eisenhower now is...incorrect.

...Actually, you know what, he may be right. Future generations will probably still be scratching their heads going "What?" during their US History Since 1999 class the way your fellow classmates probably tore their hair out trying to remember who came before Johnson. Am I being mean and biased?

To segue into something totally different, after reading this post from The Minority Militant (who is now code 10: pimp down, it seems...you gotta look behind those bushes man) and this post from Pharyngula, I have been blinking incessantly. Eyelids...eyelids. Those flaps of skin that just kind of hang out around your face? Yeah...it's hard to say you DON'T notice them, but as it turns out they're sort of a big deal with some Asians. I had no idea at all. This is why I love y'all, educatin me and what not.

Also, if you didn't hate Rick Warren enough...

Here's more reasoning for you!

I'll just direct you to this post from the Friendly Atheist about Rick's adventures in condom burning in Africa. Yes, condom burning. Whatever could that mean.

Oh Rick, I do hate you.

PETA has to be stopped

They're out of control, damnit!

If you'll look on my blog roll & see O Hell Nawl!, that's where I nagged this piece from. I know you've been there.

PETA's push to rename fish 'sea kittens'

A CAMPAIGN to rename fish as "sea kittens" in order to improve their image has been ridiculed by the Federal Opposition.

Outspoken animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is using the "sea kitten" name as part of its push to restrict fishing.

They do have a point, we all want to save the "cute" animals or the "majestic" animals, like dolphins and tigers and whales and what not, but let a rhino or a shark be in trouble and the public at large doesn't really seem to care. Well, maybe not so much on the rhino, but sharks just aren't "majestic" enough, and African wild dogs aren't "cute".

But yeah, it's campaigns like this and other shit that make people give PETA the side-eye in just about everything they do these days. I mean really. As awesome as sea kittens sound, this really isn't going to fly with anyone. They seem intent on burying any good intentions they may have in utter silliness.

Activism! RIIISIIING!

You'll have to forgive me, I just woke up a few hours ago and I'm reeeal bored.

Anyway, when I get bored Facebook notes happen. I like "blogging" on Facebook through the notes system and most of my friends seem to enjoy it, even if I don't talk about anything in particular. Lately though I have been harping on the issues of gay marriage and the recent passage of what I'll just call the "propositions".

It's hard to explain. I'm not so much angry over the passages as I am not surprised; I mean, America can barely handle a half-black president let alone gay marriage and other such progressive things. However, I'm still disappointed and amazed. What I'm also amazed at is how many intellectual friends I have, AKA If I See You In Nashville Again Watch Your Back AND Your Chest. Something about the internet just brings out the BULLSHIT in us and I still see people contesting the election results. I know, it never ends.

Anyway, back to gay marriage. Since most of my friends just think I'm awesome because I am, I decided to share some excerpts with blogland to calm down my hubris. Italic brackets are me talking to myself.

This is from a note called "What rights do gays have and who judges?"

So, I dunno if you guy [Ed: Is that a Freudian slip?] have heard but gays are back to square one in Arizona, Arkansas, California, and Florida: they can't marry in 3 states and can't adopt in 1. Again. Team America.

I know a few people who believe that gays should only have "some rights" but those "some rights" usually exclude adoption and marriage.

So what rights do gays get to have and why is it up to straight people to judge? It's almost like Almighty Whitey deciding that blacks & other whites can't marry, and even further, it's like white, christian, male landowners deciding that no one can do shit but them (except marrying other males that is).

Tell me, Facebook, do you think that gays should only have "some rights"? What rights do you think gays should have and why do you feel you should be the judge of such?

To be clear, usually when I say "a few people" I mean like maybe...a couple that I know personally and then just others that I assume think this way. It just makes my life easy.

This is from a recent one I wrote called "It's Not About YOU":

...

Anyway, you may have noticed that I've been harping an awful lot about Prop 8 and it's passage, and just gay rights in general. Or rather, even civil rights in general because I'm still trying to remember the point in history when we said that Americans can pick who marries who.

Even Keith Olbermann says YOU FAIL massively.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HpTBF6EfxY

I just want to share that vid with as many people as possible because, for all his sorta-hammy acting, he's pretty right on. If you have anything contrary to say you can just fuck off, because if you think the world is going to end because X married X then I guess interracial marriage should still be illegal too?[Ed: Bahaha...ha. Wow. I inspire myself sometimes.]

Put your personal feelings and/or religious convictions aside and just listen to the man. ...[D]id you know that gay marriage is only legal in a few states? And most of those are up north anyway. Not liberal, sunny California, I mean cold-ass, isolated Massachusetts and Connecticut. Freakin NEW ENGLAND is officially killing the rest of the country in the push for civil rights. [Ed: God, I'm sorry I had to leave that in. I swear I don't have anything against New England, you're beautiful.] They're not perfect states because they let gays get married, but it shows a level of common damn sense and the realization that no, we as humans CAN NOT just walk into someone's home and split them up because homosexuality is wrong to you somehow, some way.

...'Kay, that was more of a rant than anything productive, but I guess in a way I'd like to get more of my friends to think about these things. I consider myself to hang out with a pretty diverse crown--Muslims, Catholics, Christians, bible nuts (sorry P!), whites, blacks, straights, gays, guys, gals, asians, stoners, straight-edgers, republicans, democrats, liberals; you know, I just like to get as many viewpoints as I can. And I just like _most of these people. I don't want to force my opinions on them even though sometimes in my notes and blog postings and journal entries, I know I can come off kinda dogmatic like I'll kick you in the chest if you don't agree. I promise I'll only key your car!

The thing is, I'd like more of these issues to get out there and whether you agree or not I'd like for people to at least think on it rather than just following what generations did prior or what your parents do "just cuz". I'd like to break that thinking and I figure, why not start with people I actually know.

...I'm still BORED! My room mate's asleep so I don't know if TV is an option...and it's 4 in the morning anyway *pout*

Let's talk about the distractions going on elsewhere

Alright...I'm going to try this political thing, again. I kinda suck when it comes to political matters :P and we know this. But to get you in the mood, let me share with you an old Irish folk tune.

Are we really sure
That a love that lasted for so long
Still endures?
Do I really care?
Hey hey,
Let's talk about the distractions going on elsewhere

I keep hearing footsteps, baby
in the dark, oh in the dark
Why? I keep hearing footsteps baby
In the dark
Oh in the dark, hoo

My mind,
Drifts now and then,
Looking down dark corridors and wonders what might have been
Something's up ahead,
Hey, should I keep this same direction,
Or go back instead?

I keep hearing footsteps baby
in the dark, oh in the dark
Why? I keep hearing footsteps baby
In the dark
Oh in the dark, hoo

Honey, let's stop walking around
When there's love lost to be found
Aah, you know I still care, I still care
What's the sense in going elsewhere?

Who feels really sure?
Can I really guarantee your happiness shall endure?
Do we really care?
Hey hey,
Let's look at what's been happening and try to be more aware

I keep hearing footsteps baby
in the dark, oh in the dark
Why? I keep hearing footsteps baby
In the dark
Oh in the dark, hoo

Let's stop walking around
Well when there's love, lost to be found
Oh baby, you know, I still care, I still care
What's the sense in going elsewhere?

Let's stop walking around
Well when there's love, lost to be found
Oh baby, you know, I still care, I still care
What's the sense in going elsewhere?

Alright, obviously that was the Isley Brothers, "Footsteps In The Dark". Why the hell did I pick this song to open up a political post? This song isn't political at all, it's about a relationship breaking down. And no, I don't intend to twist it to be political to suit my needs because the lyrics are pretty open. No, I chose it because the lyrics have always felt so lost to me. This man has discovered his wife cheating and he's just like, "Well...what's the point in me leaving?" Can he keep her happy? Will they be able to overcome this incident? All these questions. Like I said, I'm not trying to politicize this song, but parts of this song really gets across how I feel about politics and the government sometimes. What can I say? I'm old-skool. So if you think I'm about to ruin your favorite slow-jam...just plug your ears and hum the tune loudly.

First off, I'm a little tired of the election. There, I said it. I'm tired about hearing of the racist attacks from McCain and his crew, I'm tired of Palin, I'm tired of Obama and his ties to socialist parties (yeah that's what I said). Thus my heading you see..."let's look at what's been happening, try to be more aware" (shut up I can sing). I'd rather talk about something else.

I was reading this post on Queers United about Florida's Marriage Protection Amendment aka Prop 2. Well, actually it's a commercial against Prop 2 which seeks to ban...gay marriage. Now, let's all roll our eyes and heave a sigh.

I don't know about you but I've been trying to keep up with these bullshit--er, I mean, these propositions in California, Florida, and I think there's one in Arizona now. California, maybe the most liberal state in our nation (or so we like to fancy them) may be banning gay marriage with Proposition 8. Why? Because...well, opponents of gay marriage feel it's only between a man and a woman. To this I say what-the-fuck-ever because it's 2008 on my calendar and frankly I still don't get how or why anyone would work to stop gays from getting married. As a side note, I've been trying to shed some of my heathen ways and wake up to the fact that it's not just crazy Evangelicals that want gay marriage banned. I do over-generalize a lot when it comes to these matters and I apologize. For me I have to keep reminding myself that there are just people who don't want gay marriage for whatever reason. Hell, there are gays that don't want gay marriage.¹ Questionable...but, it's their choice to oppose. Kinda like it should be...a gay's/lesbian's choice to get...married--hey!

Ahem. Anyway, to me this "traditional" argument of marriage only being between a man and a woman is outdated. What is this "marriage" anyway other than a legal contract between two people for some benefits? I'm not stating that as fact, it's just how I feel on the matter but there is some truth to it. What also hurts my head is the "why can't they be happy with civil unions?" talk. To me civil unions are just...silly. It's like giving you a cookie but not calling it a cookie, but you know damn well it's a fucking cookie. They're just too scared to call it a cookie--er, civil unions and marriages I mean. They're not on the exact level but...come on, they're pretty damn close.

I remember a former acquaintance of mine asking why can't gays just have civil unions and call them a marriage. 15 at the time, it struck me as the most ignorant thing I'd ever heard in 14 or so summers. You don't call a civil union a marriage because it ISN'T a marriage! A marriage is a marriage. Why can't gays have a marriage? I'm no where near convinced yet that a lesbian couple has to take a civil union just because the courts don't want to give them a marriage for whatever reason. Ehhh? Not too sure on that one.

I know I've done all this rambling without much of a point so let me make one. Why am I against Prop 8 in California, even though I'm bout as close to California as I am to Maine? Because I feel marriage should no long be simply defined as between a "man and a woman" thus preventing a whole group of people from partaking in a basic right/privilege (depending on how you look at it). That's just silly. It's really no one else's business who you marry be it male or female and as always, I'm amazed at some people's ability to interfere with someone else's personal life on this matter. Marriage, aside from being this legal contract, is also to me a symbolic representation that you choose to be with this person for the rest of your life (well, with the rising divorce rates, maybe...a few years). Other than the whole legal contract thing, why the hell does the Almighty State Govt need to get in on this? Sign the paper and move on for goodness's sake.

I'm done with California now, let me rage on Florida. I read an article in my Women's Studies class--we get assigned reading--and (un)fortunately my group was to do an article on Gay adoption and why it's so hard. Not sure how recent the article was but I think Florida still pretty much has Gay Adoption on lock. Go on, Florida.

The article discussed how the children of gay parents are harmed by the state's refusal to grant protection to gay couples, that, from what I understood, being the benefits they would receive for being legally married. The article also goes on to list the seminal argument that gays can't have kids because of the "harassment" the children of gay couples will face. This argument totally neglects to mention that kids are just fucking vicious anyway and it's always going to be SOMETHING. This whole ostracizing argument pretty much falls apart in the real world but you'll still see people falling on the same laurels.

And now Florida has this Proposition 2 which is supposedly "protecting marriage" by not including the icky gays...

...and, if you read closer, not many other people. Uhhh, what?

I like this article from KnowMyRights.org which explains a bit how in the eyes of Prop 2, unwed straight couples, gay couples, seniors, domestic partners, anyone who hasn't gone through some kind of complex legal work are...unmarried and thus get no rights. Ehhh? What's really going on, Florida?

Now why am I against Prop 2 despite only having been to Florida once and only having 1 friend there now? Well, I do have something vengeful against Florida but I kinda want to know how this Prop 2 is "protecting" marriage. WHOSE marriage eh?

Now about the Arizona one, which I think is Prop 102...eh, I'm sure whatever it says I'm vehemently against. Like Florida, I have something vengeful against Arizona (and yet, I'd like to live in New Mexico. Why not?)

So enough of my pretending I'm an expert. In the name of equality these propositions and others like them must be stopped. After hearing about Connecticut granting same-sex marriage I'm bout tired of these other fools fucking around with their old concept of marriage. Wake the hell UP, yes?

For actual information and not rambling, try:
http://www.noonprop8.com/
http://www.knowmyrights.org

And...you know, Google & Wikipedia. You can try SayNo2.com but my internet seems to hate it so I don't feel totally comfortable linking back to it...but you can try.

Sigh...I'm done for the night. Shit, it's 3 AM!

_{Note 1: I just randomly found that article Googling, it's kind of old and I just wanted it to make a point.}

The modesty police!

They live inside of my head!

Jewish 'modesty patrols' sow fear in Israel

In recent weeks, self-styled "modesty patrols" have been accused of breaking into the apartment of a Jerusalem woman and beating her for allegedly consorting with men. They have torched a store that sells MP4 players, fearing devout Jews would use them to download pornography.

"These breaches of purity and modesty endanger our community," said 38-year-old Elchanan Blau, defending the bearded, black-robed zealots. "If it takes fire to get them to stop, then so be it."

Well! That makes me feel a little weird about wearing my tichel now, it feels like I'm supporting a bunch of hysterical lunatics now :/

Look at the description of them. Bearded, blacked-robed? "Religious vigilantes"? They sound like a renegade, mini-Inquisition almost.

I really despise crazy zealots like these that think its their right to terrorize people in their own community for what they deem "sin". And from the article it seems they're attacking women mostly, to boot. Wonderful, more reason to make women afraid of the world I guess, but no one cares about female repression, she's wearing a red blouse!

Oh and the store attacks. Technology, it's purely from Satan. If we let people have public computers they'll download porn and become corrupt! Or listen to music! Oh noes! How insane does this all sound? It makes me a little ill inside...sigh, religion.

The Obama Waffles AKA And you wonder why I'm moving

I grow weary of my state, believe me.

By now you might have heard of this story about Obama on a waffles box. I was going to let this story go. Really, racial attacks on Obama aren't anything new right now.

Until I learned that somehow Franklin, TN is involved with this mess somehow, and y'all know I loves my state. And frankly, I really don't get this...how it's funny, how it's satirical, how it's...even relevant. I mean, waffles? Really. Really?

I posted this on my Livejournal but honestly I'm not up for debate over there these days...or ever again methinks. So, let's you and I take potshots at it together instead, then I'm gonna get a map and figure out what cave in New Mexico is more appealing.

Forum sells 'Obama Waffles' with racial stereotype

WASHINGTON — Activists at a conservative political forum snapped up boxes of waffle mix depicting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a racial stereotype on its front and wearing Arab-like headdress on its top flap.

Values Voter Summit organizers cut off sales of Obama Waffles boxes on Saturday, saying they had not realized the boxes displayed "offensive material." The summit and the exhibit hall where the boxes were sold had been open since Thursday afternoon.

And, kinda like the New Yorker cover, the box was meant to be "satirical".


The box was meant as political satire,

See? Even though...uh, it's hardly political.

said Mark Whitlock and Bob DeMoss, two writers from Franklin, Tenn., who created the mix. They sold it for $10 a box from a rented booth at the summit sponsored by the lobbying arm of the Family Research Council.

Franklin ain't shit, by the way. There's a girl down the hall from me from that region, I had to explain to her what a "minstrel show" was.

And if you ask me what it is so help me god. Y'all gon make me cry.

David Nammo, executive director of the lobbying group FRC Action, said summit organizers were told the boxes were a parody of Obama's policy positions but had not examined them closely.

Of course they didn't. Why should they? I'm sure even they weren't expecting...waffles.

Republican Party stalwarts Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney were among speakers at the forum, which officials said drew 2,100 activists from 44 states.

While Obama Waffles takes aim at Obama's politics by poking fun at his public remarks and positions on issues, it also plays off the old image of the pancake-mix icon Aunt Jemima, which has been widely criticized as a demeaning stereotype. Obama is portrayed with popping eyes and big, thick lips as he stares at a plate of waffles and smiles broadly.

Placing Obama in Arab-like headdress recalls the false rumor that he is a follower of Islam, though he is actually a Christian.

They are going to drive that into the ground aren't they?

On the back of the box, Obama is depicted in stereotypical Mexican dress, including a sombrero, above a recipe for "Open Border Fiesta Waffles" that says it can serve "4 or more illegal aliens."

.....now that just doesn't even make sense. Republicans need to go watch some Comedy Central.

The recipe includes a tip: "While waiting for these zesty treats to invade your home, why not learn a foreign language?"

Lawl.

The novelty item also takes shots at 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry, Obama's wife, Michelle, and Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The Obama campaign declined to comment.

There's really nothing to say :/

Wearing white chef's aprons, Whitlock and DeMoss were doing a brisk business at noon Saturday selling the waffle mix to people crowded around their booth. Two pyramids of waffle mix boxes stood several feet high on the booth's table.

"It's the ultimate political souvenir," DeMoss told a customer.

Asked if he considered the pictures of Obama on the box to be racial stereotypes, Whitlock said: "We had some people mention that to us, but you think of Newman's Own or Emeril's — there are tons and tons of personality-branded food products on the market. So we've taken that model and, using political satire, have highlighted his policies, his position changes."

Read that paragraph again.

I love how he totally failed to answer the question!

He said, honky, DO YOU FIND THE IMAGE TO BE A RACIAL STEREOTYPE?

not

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF IMAGES IN MARKETING?

The socially conservative public policy groups American Values and Focus on the Family Action co-sponsored the summit.

The sorta-implied irony!

Man, this Obama-campaign? Has just brought out all kinds of bizarre forms of racism. And just all kinds of bizarreness. Where were these creative people 4 years ago? 8 years ago? 10 years ago?

Your hurricane pregnancy

Um, the news got funny again I guess. I do mean "lol" funny btw. Between Hurricane Freak Out 08--The Gustav Edition and the political...tripe going on, I'm confused so I started laughing.

Alright, I'm not really laughing about the hurricane, that's kinda not funny. But this whole thing about Sara Palin and her forthcoming ill-grandchil is really distracting. So distracting I might...go...vote...!

Oh, in case you haven't heard, Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant and she's apparently getting the shotgun wedding too. Like Barack Obama said, big damn deal. To me, she's one in a billion teen girls opening their legs and trading penis for child. That is to say in a school environment, she's a pregnant teen and I really don't care. That's what happens when your sex-ed sucks...in fact, that's what happens when you have the best sex-ed in the 7 Seas--er, continents, whatever.

What does freak me out is that apparently, besides her family, other people DO care and are making her out to be this heroic lil lady or some kind of hypocritical whore with an agenda...? Eh? She's just having a baby, eesh. When was the last time that happened? I mean, I could go on and on about the conspiracy theories but I've been done with politics for a while. Although, the girl's timing (or rather, her mother's timing) is great and just makes this farce of an election eeeven better. It's entertaining, you should all totally read up on it. But don't look at it too long, you'll forget to eat.

Okay, so I'm done talking about how much I don't care about all that. I can't really say too much about Hurricane Gustav other than it's timing is also great. And I mean that in a wholly sarcastic way. Wow, some VP's daughter is pregnant, the Republican Convention and a damn HURRICANE. What the hell? Is it global warming? Is it god? Is it nature getting pissed at the States and all the other islands in the way? Or is it just sheer coincidence that I'd laugh at if it weren't so damn tragic?!

Sometimes, I kinda wish I were religious just so I'd have something relating to the Bible to say about this. Like a mini-Noah's Ark without the animals. But I'm not...damn.

The Revolver

Is another one of those stories that stood out to me in my Bedford literature anthology :P

It was written by Emilia Pardo Bazán who's an interesting person. An early Spanish feminist writer, critic and journalist who aspired to be more than just a housewife. She grew up wealthy and well-educated, unlike most women in her time. And instead of relying on her husband and laying up in the kitchen having kids, she became a writer! She was pretty notable in her day but I think she's still kind of obscure (at least in America), despite the acclaim she received. It kind of goes that way sometimes...

But anyway, I stumbled upon this interesting story...I can't even tell you when. It was more of an accident than anything. The plot is a little difficult to explain because it's a bit of a short frame story, but it's about a young widow telling her life story to an older widow in a bath house. She is suffering from heart problems and can't go long without gasping for air, and hopes the spa will cure her.

This young widow--who is named Flora--has had...quite the life. She married young to a much older, wealthy husband who, like all older husbands for some reason, begins to harbor a violent jealousy towards his younger wife. He cuts her off from her friends and monitors her every move like a prison warden, even watches her expressions closely for signs of unhappiness. It's kinda creepy how obsessive this guy gets, and it grows worse and worse each day; Flora becomes unhappier and unhappier until one day, her husband takes her to the bedroom and displays to her a gun hidden in the dresser--the titular revolver.

He basically promises to shoot her should she do any wrong upon him (think adultery or trying to leave him), and from that day on she lives in fear of the man, a prisoner in her own home. For 4 years the girl is taunted by the gun and the cold steel haunts her dreams, until one day her husband is thrown off his horse and killed. Yeah, just like that he dies of an internal injury. Of course upon his death, Flora realizes that she still loved her husband.

The kicker, however, is the fact that the revolver? It was never loaded! All this time she had been afraid of an illusion of power.

This story is very interesting to me, mostly because of the symbolic revolver. It gives such a short story so much depth and so many layers; the gun represents the oppression of the female, the power of men over women. Patriarchy, my book says. The gun is also--kinda obviously--a phallic symbol, masculinity.

The fact that the revolver was empty as well is the perceived power that men have over women (or think they have) and I thought Bazán was pretty clever and a little sneaky for weaseling that in. It's subtle but not so subtle that you don't catch on--I wonder if it was so obvious to the readers in her day? I wouldn't doubt it, these aren't exactly new thoughts.

A little more puzzling, however, is the bullet wound in the widow's heart. To me it signifies that in a way she'll always be under her husband's control, even now that he's dead. You could even argue that it represents her love for him, even after the torment he put her through. Like the revolver there's no clear cut answer, and that's how symbolism in a story, I think, should be handled. Your reader doesn't necessarily have to come away with a clear perception (of course, the general gist of what you're going for should be clear).

Another thing I kinda picked up on after another reading was the fact that her husband died of an internal injury, and now Flora has a "bullet wound" in her heart. I didn't think it was much at first, but now I think that's a very interesting allusion if you choose to take it that way...

But anyway, in all, I find this a really interesting piece of feminist work. And great writing in general, complex yet coherent and concise and never dizzying or confusing (all those Cs). I wish I had some kind of text link to it but all the copies I can find on the internet are either in the original Spanish or not the full story (like discussions). Ho hum :/

The Yellow Wallpaper

I started thinking about this short story today, The Yellow Wallpaper by one Charlotte Perkins Gilman. I read it first some months ago, just kinda randomly browsing through this big Bedford literature book I have (Christmas gift, and it has kept on giving indeed). I read the little intro on it about it being an important piece of feminist literature, but other than that I just kinda read it blindly.

The story, if you've never heard of it, is about a woman (the narrator, we can assume is Charlotte herself) who is basically going through what we think of now as postpartum depression in the most intense way, aka MADNESS. She is "ill", or so says her husband John, also a physician--to get away from stress, the two vacation in this big colonial house for the summer. The narrator wants to write and actually go about and do things, but her husband sort of usurps power in a way and ultimately confines her to a room upstairs; his intention is more or less "bed rest" but its more like imprisonment.

The room the narrator is confined in has this hideous (implied hideous) yellow wallpaper that pretty much drives her mad. She obsesses with the wallpaper and begins seeing a "figure" trying to escape from it; on the last day of the vacation in the summer home, the narrator locks herself in the room and begins tearing the wallpaper down to free the "figure" (whom she thinks is another woman trapped behind the wallpaper). Her husband finally breaks in and sees the narrator creeping alongside the wall, he faints, and she simply steps over him with every lap.

This story has stuck with me ever since I read it those months ago. I can't get over how disturbing the imagery of this woman crawling alongside this wallpaper is; I can't get over how total and swift her decent into madness is. And how she manages to journal it all down (the story is first person, like an epistolary thing almost) in the process. It's just...eerie. I've kinda wanted to talk about the book for a while, but frankly at first I wasn't a big fan. I didn't really understand, I guess, all I was thinking was, "Wow, bitch is crazy."

And, you know, bitch really was crazy but she didn't MAKE herself that way. I kind of choose not to see it as a "feminist" piece of literature, but I don't exactly take it at face value either. I just read it and try to mull over the symbolism of the wallpaper and how it's linked to this woman's madness and it works out better for me, that way. I just mull over the story some days in my head and it just gets scarier and scarier, even though it wasn't intended to be anything "horror" or at least I don't think.

If I may, it's kinda like the shower scene in Psycho where, upon a second or even a third viewing, you realize that all the gore and blood you imagined isn't there...but that doesn't mean you didn't see it in your mind and that doesn't make it any less real, right?

Sigh. I figured I'd talk about that for a minute, since it was gnawing on my mind so.

Powered by ScribeFire.

How far will YOU go for cheap gas?

I could've sworn I posted this here, but looks like I didn't! Which is great anyway, since it looks like gas just hit $5 dollars in some places anyway.

Five dollar gas. Hmm.

This is becoming one of my favorite entries from my journal. If you haven't heard already:

...Anyway, I have a good story to share. First, though, me thinks I should start wearing my glasses more often. It's not that my sight is horrible or that I'm going blinder, just that it feels like my eyes are straining way too much. I think it's just the computer screen, though, because when I'm anywhere else I'm fine :/

Or...I've been in the house so long I'm not accustomed to bright lights anymore XD

Well anyway, whether you drive or not you may be aware that gas just hit an average of FOUR DOLLARS a gallon. That's fucking ludicrous. At this rate, around 2010 there will be a Jordan & Nike Tax.

Edit: I'm totally working on proposing that Jordan & Nike Tax

But hold on, 90% of America That Is Surely Suffering! (The other 10% compose the states of Alaska & Connecticut, where gas was already well over 4 bucks) There is help! ...In Tijuana!

Cheap-Ass Gas In Mexico!

TIJUANA, Mexico — U.S. motorists are flocking to gas pumps south of the border to save 25 percent or more on the cost of a fill-up — courtesy of the Mexican government.

Worried about inflation, Mexican officials are keeping a lid on retail prices at the state-owned petroleum company Pemex. A gallon of regular in this border town is selling for about $2.60. With prices in California averaging $3.43 — and topping $4 at some stations — drivers are grabbing a deal while they can.

Wow, I haven't seen gas under $3 since...what, last year? Early last year? It's been so long.

But don't run across the border just yet--like all shady things, that cheap gas might fuck you up proper:

Mexican stations are notorious for dispensing short liters. And their fuel, loaded with sulfur, isn't as clean as that mandated in California. That's tough on the environment, and it could harm catalytic converters on newer U.S. cars and trucks, too, said Rich Kassel, a clean-fuel expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council in New York.

I dunno, when you drive a pick-up truck and you're paying 10 dollars for a gallon and a half of gas, "the environment" and "clean fuel" may be the last thing on your mind.

That story just kinda underscores, for me, how ridiculous this shit about gas is. When it becomes cheaper to hop a jet to Minnesota than it is to drive down the street to see Grandma, that's when things have gotten pathetic.