Stop Fucking with The Kids

Is the only way I can describe it.

Look, I don't like kids that much. I like babies even less. I can tolerate them now but thanks to some teething incidents I had when I was a kid, I just do not like kids. I have not since I was one myself. I like plants. When my maternal instinct kicks in, I buy a new one.

BUT

That doesn't mean I want to see them suffer. Kids that is.

I seem to be the only one who remembers I was a fucking child once, and the memory of my child hood is still very fresh in my mind.

When I tutor, I treat my kids as equals more or less. I do not speak down to them. I treat them like damn human beings and try to set an example for my peers to do the same. It's been proven that children are no where near as stupid as we, adults, would like to think they are.

They make mistakes. They're young. They need guidance, but they don't need to be screwed over. Let's take it from the top with the educational system.

This story pissed me off so badly I honestly could not see straight for a few minutes. This child was bullied daily, being taunted with anti-gay slurs even though he was 11 and even though he did not identify as gay. This child hanged himself over daily abuse despite his mother's pleas for the school to do something. If the school did, it proved woefully uneffective.

The thing is, this isn't the first child suicide over bullying we've heard about, is it. There have been FOUR this year according to the GLSEN article, middle school aged children. Fucking middle school when things are at such a critical stage. What are you, about 11-14 now for middle school I think. This child will never see his 12th birthday for being taunted by his peers over a perceived orientation. He was different and that's all the kids needed.

Bullying is a part of the school experience you may say, it builds character, teaches kids about the real world and what not and toughens them up. Alright, tell that to the young lives that have been snuffed out because their voices were ignored. Tough enough for you, now?

Children are cruel, but it's foolish to think that they come out of the womb screaming "fag!" and "dyke!" and "omg fatso!"

No, it's fucking us, man. Directly or indirectly, children learn from us. They learn from the outside. They. LEARN. Intolerance. You can have a personality but kids, I do not believe, are seldom born to be a bully. That's not it. That's passing off blame to shit we don't understand therefore absolving US of any guilt but fuck that, it's US.

I was bullied quite often as a child for being overweight and not the prettiest, and this seems to be commonplace in childhood. And I can only speak from my experience but my teachers seldom did anything about it. You could almost say they had just given up--because bullying occurs so often they figure kids will get over it. Well as we're finding out not all of them do.

And these are the same people who wonder why these kids are killing themselves because life is already too damn hard for them. You want to know why?

Check this out. A while ago, a month or so ago, there was a bill in TN that wanted to remove all teachings of any human sexuality outside of heterosexuality at ANY grade level. This would have effectively erased homosexuality from these kids' lives. I can't say if it actually got anywhere but I wouldn't doubt it since being afraid of TEH GAYNESS is what's in now.

Parents don't want their kids to learn about what is different. They teach the children, even if it's indirect, to mock what is different. So when someone doesn't act like you, look like you, you're bad. We don't want you. See where I'm going here?

I would go into how much I hate the images on TV with hyper-sexualized women, racism and other such bigotry but must I?

There's no guarantee that you'll just mysteriously get over a lifetime or torment, nor is there a guarantee that you'll just leave high school like "oh wow, all that shit I did? So lame. I'll be a good person from now on!" No. It doesn't always work like that. Hell I'd say rarely because I'm a misanthrope.

So, we teach the kids hate, they see hate, they hate, and...well, what DO we do about it, other than just assuming the kids will toughen up.

About that. Do none of these adults, these protectors & educators of our young, remember being kids? Or were their childhoods so idyllic that they can't possibly fathom the sort of abuse that goes on in schools? I digress...

What do we do? Stop fucking with the kids is what we should do. Stop not taking them seriously. Stop not believing them. Stop passing over cries for help. It's not that you're not doing all you can do with limited resources, money, and time, but think about what's at stake here. It's not your spare time & sanity, it's a child's fucking LIFE, man.

Let me get to the bottom real quick with the government and wrap this up--

Oh, about Wednesday night, I caught a special on HBO called Hard Times at Douglass, looking at the effects on the No Child Left Behind act on Frederick Douglass High in Baltimore. Yes, even the government is fucking with the kids for whatever reason (and the teachers let's not forget), because we know how well that improved education *coughitdidn'tcough* *coughitjustfuckedupthecurriculumand* *coughmadeithardercough* But the gubmint has been fucking with the kids for years, in all sorts of countries, what with child labor and insurance and what not. Yeeah, government doesn't seem to care bout the future much, go figure I guess.

No really though, stop fucking with the kids. I'm sure all your intentions are in the right place, and that's great! But you're fucking up and I'd like not to open my browser or look in my newspaper and hear about yet another child in danger or dead over things we should be getting our act together on, alright? Alright.

Random musings on women's studies

You know what, in retrospect, my Intro to Women's Studies pissed me right off.

Backtrack. You see, I was aiming to minor in women's studies (now I'm an undecided/film studies minor). I do still want to take further courses if I'm able, though. This is also the first year, I believe, that a women's studies major has been offered.

The teachers participating in the course are basically doing it because they wanna. They already come from other departments like English and Sociology and are just teaching the course because, damnit, they wanted to. And that's great.

Going a little forward, Chally from Zero At The Bone tweeted a quizlet over Twitter and I took it, and turns out I'm Judith Butler. I was ecstatic, then paused, and an ellipsis appeared over my head.

So naturally I typed in Judith Butler in my handy dandy address bar and a Wiki article appeared. And I went through it and said, "Oh, I know her". What I meant was, I knew her theories, but not specifically her by name. Eh, that happens a lot. I have an unfortunate domino memory though and thought back to some musings I had over Christmas break about me first semester.



Now, I loved my Women's Studies course. It was great. It was one day a week for 2 hours in the evening so that meant I didn't eat dinner Mondays but it was still great. We had a great teacher and the class discussions were usually pretty good. I enjoyed taking it. So I guess "pissed" is a strong word, more like "miffed a lot". That's a phrase.

BUT

Miffed a lot it is. I was miffed. For one thing, yeah we had discussions but it never felt like we talked about anything...specific. Our book was full of influential articles and we read just about all of them, and we talked about plenty of intangible theory *sigh* but rarely ever the women themselves. It was kind of weird, now that I think about it (or thought about it a few months ago). Also, besides the odd Audre Lorde piece and mentioning bell hooks & Gloria Anzaldua literally at the very end of the class race was conspicuously absent. Uh, I was the second black student in the class and I think in total there were about 5 people of color (we had a small class note) so I never figured out if I was the only one that noticed that.

Back to talking about specific women, our final exam was to do--we chose a woman to write a short report on and presented it to the class. I did Simone Beauvoir and Gloria Anzaldua. That was as specific as we got even though, as I said, we talked about plenty of articles and women's issues and that was fine.

So I guess "miffed a lot" doesn't work either, maybe "unsatisfied" is best. It was an intro class so it's unfair for me to expect to be given a full blown course on err'thang but it just feels like even in our short amount of time we could have gone so much more in depth, not just...theory. Oh well, I guess that's what more specific courses are for.

I see you don't quite get racism: Racism in Hip Hop

Wow, did you see that? I went a day without a post! Frankly I was busy sleeping.

...which has never stopped me before.

I just wanted to do a little post real quick, obviously I'm not dead if you've seen my Continuing Thoughts over there. Also my contact info is now at the bottom of the page in a lil box for your extreme inconvenience. Working on that.

So let me get to the meat of this. I'm going to try my damnedest tomorrow to attend a seminar the school's having about, well, Racism in Hip Hop. It has a really weak name like Racism in Hip Hop in our so called post racial era, I'll get back to you on that.

Let me just say that...I'm a punk. I don't know when, I don't know why, but when I was a youngin' I got sick of gangsta rap and the early onset of Lil Wayne (I SAW it coming but y'all didn't listen) and switched over to the local classic rock station. My life was changed. More Clash & Siouxsie Sioux than Sex Pistols, you'll often also hear me crying out, "BIRTH! SCHOOL! WORK! DEATH!" than the latest Diva Beyonce tune. I'm a punk in the deviant sense, I don't listen to the music black folks are supposed to listen to (don't get me started on how without black folks there would be no rock).

I like rock music. I like industrial, punk, classic rock. Even in the rawk & rolllll community I'm an anomaly for my tastes and, well, me skin color. It's kind of sad but what part of reality isn't. You'll hear many of my "alternative" (I'll get to that in a later day) black ladies & gents bemoan more or less this same fact: we're black, we listen to white music, white kids think we're cool in that token way, while claiming not to care. Ask your friends. I'm telling you.

So does that mean I don't know what's going on in hip hop? Nope, it does not. Recently, in the past few years or so I've more or less refound my connection with hip hop and R&B. I stuck to "old skool" but I eventually moved on up and realized that, while mainstream is garbage and always will be garbage, you know, if you look under the surface, hip hop deserves much more credit.

Hip hop embraced me much more than the rawk & rolllll community ever did and probably ever will. It seems that hanging out with the folks that shared the same musical interests as me, obviously, shared a completely different world view. Especially about the vile black hip hop which they decree as crap, racist, sexist & misogynist, and generally inferior to the Lawd Rawk & Rollllll.

Coming from both sides of the fence (did I mention I listen to baroque), I kind of laugh at the assertion that these rabid fans make about their hated nemesis, because...uhh...rock does a lot of the same things. It's misogynist, sexist, occasionally backhandedly racist, and a lot of it is crap. Don't front, yes it is. In any era. I don't care, turn on the radio right now and tell me you could stand it for three minutes.

Music differences kill me. So what do I mean when I say hip hop embraces me? I mean that hip hop can incorporate all of my interests: rock, trip hop, trance, eastern influences...as for whether or not the rawk and rollllll camp can do this as well, sure they can, but it never feels quite genuine. I suppose it's just my current reconnection with a music form I now love that's making me think this way, but I think it's true. Hip hop also, strangely enough, has a lot less annoying antagonistic "liberal progressive" head-scratching racists, and I get tired of those. Go fig.

So, the racism in hip hop seminar. I'm rather interested to see it because notice I didn't say racism doesn't exist in hip hop, but I'd like to see how the speakers address this and in what form & context. There's lots of problems with hip hop, even the underground/thinking person's hip hop and I'm curious in how we fix these things. With my long lost mistress, rawk & rolllll, I'm...less inclined, because, sometimes, some things just need to be left behind.

When/if I attend the seminar (it happens when I get back from work if I'm not exhaaaussteeed) I'll try to fix this up a bit, and I'll try to fix it up in general. I was afraid that if I stored it in drafts I'd forget all my awesome points, I'm not a good draftist :/

I see you still don't quite get racism: New York Post edition

Yes, I'm going to talk about that stupid cartoon from the goddamned New York Post.

I wasn't. In many ways I frankly don't care, I much prefer to watch the ignorant eat themselves alive. It eventually happens and I've learned that it happens fairly quickly. True, it's good to call folks out on their ignorance but I believe that, a little like a very unstable atom (which I guess they are), idiocy just doesn't live long.

I'll say for this much like what I said for that infamous New Yorker (do I sense a pattern?) cover: sure it's satire. But that doesn't mean it isn't stupid & racist.

So let me say that I still see that folks don't quite get this racism thing, and referring to things as "satire" or veiling it under "oh you just didn't get the joke" is supposed to absolve you of any wrongdoing. Some folks do this an awful lot and these are usually the same people that wonder why shit happens, never thinking that "Uh, maybe I did that?"

Let me address two things while we're looking at this cover, and I'm going to make this real quick because there have been plenty other of good blog & news outlets that have covered this:

1) YES it can be taken as racist, I don't give a fuck about context
2) Even if you take away the racist elements, it's still a really bad and ignorant cartoon



Now, we've got that out of the way, point 1.

1) Yes, it can be taken as racist. And if you really, really claim that you don't see the racist elements here, frankly I don't believe you. It's not a secret that my people, BLACKS, have often been compared to monkeys, chimps, and apes and still are. Have you heard the phrase "porchmonkey"? Yes, it is a racist term referring to blacks and our typically wide nosed, large eyed, thick lipped appearance. Supposedly we look like apes and people still think that blacks are "unevolved" and are still stuck at the "ape" phase. The irony of this being that we ALL evolved/split off from apes but no one seems to care about evolution and shit.

Secondly, no, I don't care about the context. Really, I don't. I'm not ignoring it, I just don't care. The little speech balloon says something to the effect of (I'm not looking at it as I post) they'll have to get someone else to write the stimulus bill. And sure perhaps a *ahem* certain black president didn't write the stimulus bill. Just what do you think when you see that. I look at the White House and I don't see any black folks so--oh, wait, yeah I do. Sorry I forgot, like the cartoonist.

Oh, the context for the cartoon was something along the lines of a pet chimp slaying it's owner's family--and no you didn't make that connection because you hadn't heard the story before reading the cartoon, and that's where our problem lies.

And now point 2.

2) Okay, about that chimp that killed its whole human family. Why are we even making a joke about this and why does it relate to the stimulus package. That's it, seriously, explain to me.

Do you see where I'm going with this? The only thing stopping people from making the racist connections is the fact that they just don't want to, and we call this being woefully unaware. Also, why are we making a joke about a pet animal killing/injuring its family? Tell me, New York Post, I want to know.

Oh, they did issue a statement on it. And it was totally worthless. Even your employees hate you, NY Post. Good on ya!

Folks, you don't have to explain satire to make it effective. Satire doesn't even have to be funny. But when you have to go to such lengths to dig yourself out of a ditch, well, maybe you did something wrong? I dunno, I'm just gonna watch them eat em selves. I hope controversy is tasty.

CVS says no condoms for you

While I was trying to un-depress myself I came across this article on the Curvature blog.

CVS Limits Condom Access for Some

Another CVS practice that disproportionally affects communities of color is the chain’s lockup of condoms. Condoms are one of the best defenses against unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS, but CVS makes it difficult for people of color to obtain them. At hundreds of stores across the country in areas where people of color predominate, CVS displays condoms in locked cabinets that require customers to summon CVS staff to unlock them and then monitors customers while making their selections. CVS is less likely to lock up condoms in areas with fewer residents of color, and the chain’s two main competitors do not lock up condoms.

Now, a little background for me, you guys know I come from Nashville. Nashville on a whole, I think, doesn't really have that many CVS stores. We have Walgreen's stores galore though. For the longest time I had no idea what the hell a CVS was until we passed one in a, let's say more upper-middle class area when I was little, and to this day I've only been in a CVS a handful of times. Walgreen's is my shit by the way.

So not particularly caring about CVS, in my time around the blogosphere I've been learning that, apparently, CVS has a problem with us colored folk, or at the least poor communities. I grew up in a poor, working class community, or better yet "The Hood", so apparently this explains why I'd never seen a CVS store until I was like...damn near 15. That and the Walgreen's stores kind of make it obsolete.

Again I say, not giving a fuck bout some CVS, I had no idea it was like that. But while reading Cara's analysis on this policy of locking up condoms, it got me thinking--it set off a couple of memories of home, and y'all know I'm suddenly homesick, so bear with me, I will have a point.

Like I said, we have a Walgreen's mafia. The closest Walgreen's to my house locked up their condoms--but they also locked up cough syrup & cold medicine and allergy medicine due to the meth epidemic. I remember once commenting to my mom about how shameful it was that we had to lock up condoms because someone would steal them. This particular Walgreen's literally got robbed every weekend so it was a surprise that they just didn't lock everything in the joint behind glass. But what was also odd was--or at least now after I read this information--was that this was a black community, but it was a fairly middle class area. The gas station never got robbed and I thought that was weird, but that's actually neither here nor there.

So, that Walgreen's locked up condoms & birth control. I said I could understand the cold medicine shit, sad as it was, but the condoms? Again though, keep in mind that Walgreen's got robbed an awful lot (it still does, poor guys).

A few of the Walgreen's in our area locked up condoms & birth control for what I always assumed to be security purposes, even in the more ritzy areas. The areas you would expect the Walgreen's employees to rob, not the other way around. I found it really sad that we had to lock up the Trojans from what we assumed to be randy teens that were too embarrassed/cheap/young to buy some damn Durex.

But the CVS. The nearest CVS to us was in a very upscale neighborhood, and while they did lock up the allergy medicine, the cold medicine and, hold on, condoms were on full view for folks to buy. I remember this because I was mostly bemused and sick. And now that I'm in college, you go in the convenience store in the Culp and the condoms are next to the fucking cough drops. It is university and at least they're promoting safe sex which is great. But as I've bemoaned constantly, I'm also in the whitest of the whitey white areas of the state, good ol' Appalachia.

So what am I getting at with this series of loosely connected stories? I already said I hadn't been in many CVS stores, so I can't comment on their policies really. Is there really some vast conspiracy against poor and/or black communities having to do with condoms? I think it's kind of interesting, and on that Curvature post in the comments there was a semi-discussion on whether this was classist or racist, with the consensus seeming to be that it's both. I agree with this even with my limited experience and I think it's a really interesting topic to go into.

Personally, my feelings on this supposed epidemic of condom theft is, at least in my neighborhood it isn't working. We still had really young girls getting pregnant and catching STDs at a scary rate. I say young folks because for some reason condom thefts are usually blamed on the young, probably with good reason. There seemed to be an awful lot of "condom breakage" too, suggesting to me that if indeed kids are out robbing stores of condoms, they still don't know how to use them (or didn't bother to use them, which ever). It all just goes back to crappy abstinence only sex-ed, really. Make your own damn problems, look at the consequences. Again I say, people wonder why shit happens.

What's so wrong with anger?

Y'all know I have a BA in Dylanology, but before that I had my Master's in Rush. The song I'm pulling lyrics from for this post is called "Stick it Out" from their '93 album Counterparts. As I go along you'll see why I used this particularly "angry" song over the countless millions of 'em.

So let's talk about anger. Or rather, I want someone to tell me when "anger" became a bad thing for MINORITIES.

Trust to your instincts
If it's safely restrained
Lightning reactions
Must be carefully trained

I don't get it. When I say "minority" for the purposes of this post we're talking men and women of color for right now. If that term bothers you any I apologize.

I've never understood why minorities of any sort can't be angry though. We're labeled with "angry black" or "that damn angry woman" or "angry asians". It's supposed to silence us, somehow, but the irony is that the silencing makes us even angrier. This isn't exactly new ground but it still kills me when I see in internet debates or real life conversation, it's usually some white person pulling back from a minority like "Oh my gosh why are you so angry?"

I've always thought it's pretty obvious to anyone who's not fucking clueless. I mean, you've been in history class and learned about what us silly minorities have suffered under the hands of Them In Power, right? So we're not supposed to be mad. We're supposed to suck it up and be polite, respectable negroes, asians, women, whoever. This is how people listen to us to totally disregard us later. If we politely write letters with our dainty white gloves on. Riiight.

Stick it out
Don't swallow the poison
Spit it out
Don't swallow your pride
Stick it out
Don't swallow your anger
Spit it out
Don't swallow the lies

So again I ask you, what's wrong with anger? We have every right to be angry but there will be folks that will tell you to calm down or watch your tone, like that matters when you're confronting patriarchy, discrimination, prejudice, what have you. Don't cuss, don't shout, it frightens us!

Honestly, if I'm not shouting, how do I get heard above the dull murmur of the masses? That's the part I don't get. We're supposed to be quiet and hide in the background, politely raise our hands like "excuse me? Can we have some equality?" Yeah, this gets nothing done.

I'll tell you about my anger. I consider myself pretty chill. On the other hand, I'm afraid I'm not very tolerant and blatant idiocy makes me kind of upset. I don't like to waste energy, so if I'm yelling at you about shit I probably have a good damn reason. You disregarding my argument because you did something to piss me off is really more telling of you that it is of me.

I have been called angry and pissed by white men many times. People that know I'm usually a calm individual (if a little bouncy) but the minute I call them on injustice and stop being their little dancing monkey suddenly I'm angry. I've been told to calm down. And sure, every so often I'll get so pissed I make insane typos because my hands are trembling. It's true, yes, I do get mad. And I don't really care. Why shouldn't I get mad? Why shouldn't I declare my anger? Hell, I don't even particularly care if you listen to me or not, the thing is, you've made this black chick pissed and she's telling you about it. If that makes you uncomfortable, deal with it. Think about what you said prior to me screaming at you to eat a bowl of dicks and don't do that again. Consider it a learning experience, fucker.

You might be too dizzy...to do the right thing

Anger is good. I'm telling you, anger is good. Sure, sometimes it causes us to make rash decisions like slash boyfriend's tires or set girlfriend's cat on fire. But I honestly believe that anger is good. It's healthy. If you never get angry at something you might be Richard Cory. It's fine for other folks to get mad, but minorities? No, we're either just whining or we need to get ourselves together. We can't be mad about injustice or anything, and for god's sake stop yelling, I can actually hear you!

You get so used to surrender

Man I get tired of people's bullshit. I tell you guys everyday (or everyday you read my blog, I'm more than likely pissed at something). I'm sure you do too. I am tired of being told I should just lie down and take what's coming to me and smile politely at it, or better yet, that I need to just pull myself up by my bootstraps and get over it. No one cares but me.

Who the fuck are you to tell me that, I want to know.

I care and me caring is all I care about. So I'm mad, you know what you should do? Listen to my grievances regardless. It's not that people don't whine, but this automatic dismissing of minority anger so you can plug your ears and go "Nananana, lalala!" has really got to stop. It's all sorts of immature and disrespectful, and yet it still goes on with the completely oblivious--and they wonder why shit happens. Well that's why shit happens. You don't listen to us, we make you listen. That, again I say, is how feelings get hurt and people get cussed out.

I'm angry by the way. Oh noes!

AmLit is keeping it real...real American

I'm about to set upon you all a great revelation!

I think I may hate my American Literature II class.

No...hate isn't the right word. I dread going to it. I get majorly bored sitting in the class listening to my teacher drone on (then the brief moments of silence when he asks a question and no one feels like answering).

Also, the reading? Extra, extra dry.

What's irritating me most though, is an extreme lack of diversity in the writing.

I was looking through my Norton anthology and in the beginning there's a lot of Native American works. Towards the end there's a lot too. I look at my syllabus and wonder why we're not covering these hymns, chants, and stories, as well as authors like Ambrose Bierce (whose Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge trumps Huck Finn so hard I can't stand it). I look at the syllabus and for the first time, a little numbly, I note the authors.

Mark Twain. Henry Adams. Henry James. Kate Chopin. Jack London. William Faulkner. John Steinbeck.

What did you notice about all those.

...

Yeah? Yeah. They're all white. I threw in Kate Chopin to fuck with you. Make no mistake that we do cover some black authors suck as Booker T Washington & Richard Wright and Ralph Ellison.

But actually, you know what, add those names to the list and take out Chopin's. NOW what do you see? That's right, all male. Seriously, the whole syllabus looks like that, and in reality we're not even covering that much literature. I know, it's the second part of the course, but please tell me there's a THIRD.

Now for the beginning of the anthologies there's actually a pretty good reason for that make up, being that for a long time most writers in America were wealthy white males. Then they were wealthy white females. Then they were just white folks. Then blacks, and all those other wonderful minorities. We know this, and I can understand that pretty well. Except this class goes from Civil War to past the 60s, so I'm a bit perplexed as to why there isn't an increasing diversity of writers in our set out little time line.

Like, really confused, because this anthology and my Heath anthology contain a great diversity of writers for us to pick and choose from. Hell-o, professor, 'sup? Is there something you want to...tell the class?

I actually don't think my class cares. Goodness knows I barely do, and if I were another plain-jane complacent person with more time on my hands, I don't think I would. I'm keeping these books, it's just one class, I'll read what the fuck I want as long as I get them grades.

STILL

It rather bothers the hell out of me that this class seems to be content just to study a really superficial, I think, sampling of American authors. This is kind of ironic because I originally wanted to take Euro Lit, which would have probably been mucho màs blanco. But since I'm here I might as well improve my condition I guess.

So why? The simple answer is that we only have four months in a MWF class to cover the span of American Literature, so *shrug* I suppose. Pick out all the important ones, which makes sense. Too bad we don't like simple answers though, right?

I'd also like to mention that this list, strictly in academic terms, is boring as hell. It may have to due with aforementioned lack of diversity, but seriously. WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THIS. I aim to ask the teacher about it one of these days, I just wish I'd realized this sooner.

And I suppose my laundry's done. You know how it goes, it all comes out in the wash.

Hold on, she can still have babies, this is murder!

I'll admit, if I barely know shit about American politics I know next to nothing about Italian politics (other than they actually seem to have a lot of issues that very much mirror our own in a sort of Bizarro way). But there's this case I've been following about an Italian woman--Eluana Englaro--who's been in a coma for about 17 years after she was in a car accident. Now her family is trying to fight for her right to die peacefully as, according to her doctors, the coma is irreversible.

17 years in a vegetative state. 17 years watching your daughter lay there and show no signs of ever waking up again. The woman is, for all intents and purposes, dead. Keep that in mind because it's about to become key when you read what this article says:

Italy faces constitutional crisis over coma woman

The Italian government has been plunged into a constitutional crisis over the fate of a 38-year-old woman who has been in a coma for the past 17 years. Eluana Englaro was left in a vegetative state after a car crash in 1992. After a decade-long court battle, doctors reduced her nutrition on Friday in preparation for removing her feeding tubes, which her father claims would be in accordance with her wishes.

But in an extraordinary turn of events, the country's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, after consultation with the Vatican, has issued an emergency decree stating that food and water cannot be suspended for any patient depending upon them, reversing the earlier court ruling. On issuing the emergency decree, Berlusconi declared: "This is murder. I would be failing to rescue her. I'm not a Pontius Pilate."

Wait, hold on, I haven't gotten to the creepiest part yet:

Justifying his campaign to save Englaro's life, the prime minister added that, physically at least, she was "in the condition to have babies", a remark described by La Stampa newspaper as "shocking". Giorgio Napolitano, Italy's president, has refused to sign the decree, but if it is ratified by the Italian parliament doctors may be obliged to resume the feeding of Eluana early this week.

You are fucking kidding me.

This woman in a coma is able to have babies. Just what the fuck does that have to do with anything considering she's been in a COMA for 17 years? Signore, just what the fuck are you implying?

Everything is wrong with this. This is sick. First off, good job comparing yourself to Pontius Pilate--so I guess she's somehow your "Jesus"? Your Virgin Mary? Also, consulting the Vatican? They have no impact on this woman's life. Even if she were Catholic, dude, they have no bearing on her family's decision to let the Englaro die. It is not your right to come to her family and say they can't let their daughter have her dignity and die peacefully. You have no right to keep this woman hooked up in a hospital for, what, another 17 years? And for what? She isn't coming back, her family has realized this, and they are willing to let her go. I suggest Berlusconi does the same. Sir, it is not up to you, the decision had already been MADE.

A little more:

The case has deeply divided Italian society and raised concerns over the influence of the Vatican. Yesterday Pope Benedict indirectly referred to Englaro in a message delivered to mark the World Day of the Sick, stating that society had a duty to defend "the absolute and supreme dignity of every human being" even when "weak and shrouded in the mystery of suffering". But even some of Berlusconi's political allies, including the president of the lower house of parliament, Gianfranco Fini, have stated that the supreme court ruling should be obeyed and Englaro should be allowed to die.

Meanwhile, doctors are continuing to act according to the original supreme court ruling. On Friday morning in the La Quiete clinic in Udine, northern Italy, they began reducing the amount of food in Eluana Englaro's feeding tube, according to a precise medical protocol that will see nutrition gradually replaced with sedative and anti-convulsant medication. Experts say that within four to five days her condition may have deteriorated to an irreversible extent, though it might be two weeks or more before her heart stops. The process means the Englaro family and their doctors are now in a race against time as they try to end Eluana's life before the Berlusconi government and its backers in the Vatican halt the process.

This is just...sick. In a "race" to give this woman her final--or at least her family's final--wishes. It's true that people do come out of comas in months, years, decades...but this is what her family wants. They just want their daughter to go off peacefully. What is wrong with this? How is this a "crime against humanity" I ask you? Wouldn't it be more humane to end her suffering? Just because she can still have children--physically--but is not MENTALLY capable is that all that's required for life? That...is sick.

That Obligatory Black History Post

Why he's so mad for? Why he gotta have it?
Cause I slaved my whole life, now I'm the master

-Kanye West, "Swagger Like Us"

"Xands..." you ask fearfully, checking my pulse. "This title says 'black history post'. Why the hell are you quoting Kanye West?"

And you'd be right to be worried, but I swear I'm going to explain my sudden lapse of reasoning. I haven't been feeling very substantial this week but suddenly I'm reinvigorated!

As we know, February is Black History Month...I think I like the alternative, Black History Awareness Month. I like the "awareness" bit. It's one thing to just know history--but if you aren't aware and aren't able to apply it daily well then...

Every year without fail I get someone, usually white, perplexed and distressed out of their mind--perhaps even wringing their hands--asking me, "Oh Xands, why do blacks get a history month?! You'd all be offended if whites had a history month!"

EVERY

YEAR.

EVERY GODDAMN YEAR someone asks me that question, and it doesn't seem like simple explanations are ever enough. Try it, I'm serious. Next time someone asks you why there's a black history month, don't even give them an in depth answer. Just say something like, "Well because every other month is white history month." Do some sarcastic air quotes. They'll turn from "understanding" to "scoffing" real quick. Or maybe it's just my so-called friends. I think it might be the air quotes that get's em riled.

I find myself quite sensitive around February for that very same goddamn reason. You know, if you don't particularly care for the month, well don't do anything for it. It's not like MLK Day, Presidents Day, Labor Day...you still go about business as usual. Don't learn anything about black people in the world. Go about your usual day. It's not hard.

But do not, under any circumstances, ask me or your black friend and expect to get some miraculous in-depth answer that will explain the universe, damnit. You will get a simple one, and it will be so simple that it has clearly flown over your head.

I tried that "because it's white history month every other month" response a few times, and usually I'm called stupid or ignorant, first to my surprise and then to my extreme cynicism and lack of faith in anyone/anything. I come to expect it. What is it, ask a stupid question get a stupid answer? Yeah.

You gotta have a fever for somethin' good, come on y'all... Q-Tip, "Fever"

Alright then, enough grandstanding, why then? Why are blacks sooo special that we get our own month to learn about ourselves? As much as I get tired of repeating this shit, I will say it every month all year until it finally starts sinking in; until folks stop giving me that blank look about February when I say I'm heading up to the Culp center for a seminar on racism & hip hop (well, I'll probably never stop catching flak for that); until folks stop scratching their heads over Women's History, Hispanic Heritage Month, GLBT History month, and stop wondering why white folks don't get everything.

Right? Well. It's the way you treat us. Okay? See, that was easy. What do I mean? Well shit, it's no secret that history books are only just being rewritten to include more achievements by those of us not white straight males. Accurately. Blacks weren't slaves forever until the Civil War and then jump into the 60s. Women didn't just vanish until WWII then cue feminism. Chinese have been in the country forevers and evers. I mean really.

Oh but it's not just history books that are being re-written, every year literature anthologies get updated to include women, blacks, chinese, japanese, mexicans, native americans...art books, there was something between Eurocentric Renaissance art then, you know, cue Modernism, Post Modernism, Futurism.

You'll never understand why things are the way they are now without history. I assume most of us here would agree with that, but when it comes to learning about a certain group's history that fact seems to break down and it's all "Reeeally, a whole moonth? *weep*"

So that's really it. Black History Awareness, you either do it or you don't. You either get it or you don't. I'm at the point in my life where if someone asks me to explain this phenomenon one more time I might actually resort to physical violence (just sayin). But I'm recommending, if you've never done it, that you at least try to comprehend, and learn about black history be you black, white, native, anything in between.

As a side note, I didn't bother even going there with why BHA is in February, 28/9 days, the damn suckiest day of the year. Not even gonna go there... _{it does fail though.}

English Only Amendment... FIGHT!!

Well, first off you may notice that shit looks different. Again. I can't help it.

Anywho, the battle to pass the English Only amendment is really gaining ground this time around. Let me make a more coherent post about that other than dismissing it as being "silly"...well, it is but being silly doesn't stop something from getting passed. WE ALL KNOW THAT.

First off, I mentioned that this was proposed a few years ago, but was shot down by I think then Mayor Bill Purcell. New mayor Karl Dean also told the proposal to fuck off and has voted against it.

This is the week of early voting, actual voting is January 22.

I should also mention that this isn't for the whole state of Tennessee, it's just for the Nashville/Metro-Davidson County area. Which is actually a large area anyway.

So you may still be wondering what the big deal is. So you wanna pass an English only bill, big damn deal right? Well, no. I like sub-headings, let's do sub-headings.

I. What, exactly, happens if this bill passes?

That is actually the major question and that's what's important. From the information I've gathered, the proposal just wants to cut all that silly non-English communication provided by Metro govt. I'm assuming this means no more bilingual, trilingual, multilingual communication from Metro services. EVERYTHING will be in English. We're even holding up the hand to people who don't speak English. God forbid they want to do business with us or anything. But don't take my word for it (emphasis mine):

“English is the official language of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. Official actions which bind or commit the government shall be taken only in the English language, and all official government communications and publications shall be in English. No person shall have a right to government services in any other language. All meetings of the Metro Council, Boards, and Commissions of the Metropolitan Government shall be conducted in English. The Metro Council may make specific exceptions to protect public health and safety. Nothing in this measure shall be interpreted to conflict with federal or state law.”

II. Okay, I see that bold part. What's your beef?

We live in an English speaking country anyway, theoretically you should already know English. In theory.

Getting aside from the fact that we all know damned good and well that not everyone in this country speaks English, be it well or at all, here's the worst thing about this wonderful "proposal".

The official language of Tennessee?

...IS FUCKING ENGLISH. It's already WRITTEN IN OUR DAMN CONSTITUTION! By now you should be thinking...

III. Okay. ...Wait, what?

That's right, the official language of TN is already English, and here we are trying to make the official language of a CITY...ENGLISH.

And that is exactly where this proposal fails to make any sense at all. How the hell are we trying to amend our Metro Charter so that English is the official language...and it already LEGALLY IS? They obviously either failed a few government classes or just want to save themselves the inconvenience of translating anything--but hold on, translating. Nevermind the fact that I don't think I've seen any of these so called bilingual translations that the city seems to not want to inconvenience itself with anyway. Walk around, everything here is pretty much English anyway unless it's an ethnic-owned place, then it's either in English or in X language, say Spanish. I've seen several car shops owned by Mexicans, their signs are in Spanish. They live in large Spanish neighborhoods, they usually serve Spanish people, many of them probably speak English well enough anyway. What is really the point here.

I don't know what the pro-English only side is arguing, and honestly I'd like to see it. So far I've only heard from the Belmont and Lipscomb crowds (that being all white, rich, privileged private college kids. I know, call me biased, I'm really not sorry). I just hope their argument isn't as damned embarrassing as this proposal.

IV. Alright, what do you think should be done?

I've said it before, but if the state really doesn't want to convenience itself with those wacky non-English speaking folk, then damnit do something about it. Provide more resources to teach them English, don't just look at them and go "I CAN'T UNDERSTAND YOU LALALALA"

That's not fair and that's just ignorant. The other thing would be...to...uh...not pass the bill. So many people are against this it isn't funny and is becoming more embarrassing still. I'm hoping it'll fail and die a quiet death for no one to ever propose it again. Seriously, this is stupid, I think it's stupid.

For me this isn't just a government issue but a people issue as well. How dare we turn away those that don't speak English well, not that we haven't been doing it forever and we're trying to do it still? You know what, in addition to making me pay for my classes by the HOUR (and I'm a full time goddamn student), TN can pretty much go to hell. YES I'm biased and I don't care!

If you're still interested, please try Compassion Politic's article, the analysis on this blog, and even the Anti-English Only Facebook group. This shit spreads way beyond "Hey let's make everything English!" when you realize what "everything" entails.

Uggggh. Boooo, Nashville.

Gay is the new black, haven't you heard?

Okay, I've been reading Renee of Womanist Musings and her great post here about the new cover of The Advocate. The cover declares that gay, it's the new black. I'm assuming by this they don't mean the color, as in "Hey, everyone's wearing it this winter!" but the people, as in Blacks.

The more I think about it the more this irritates the fuck out of me. As I don't say very often I identify as a queer female--or at the very least definitely unstraight--but I'm also black. Among a lot of things.

I just want to know what the fuck "the new black" is supposed to mean. How is gay suddenly the new black? After Prop 8 folks went from blaming the blacks (they constituted 70% of the Yes on Prop 8 vote but they don't even make up that much of the state of California...uhh?) to suddenly trying to appropriate "the struggle" as their own. Like, am I missing several steps here?

The cover declares the gay rights struggle as the last great civil rights struggle. Um, negative. As I see it the gay rights struggle is probably one of the more notable struggles of our times--well, I suppose I should say "currently" actually. But it ain't gonna be the last and I'm going to question "greatest". Because no one else is currently struggling for equal rights or anything. It may not be as profound as say, the 40s & 50s for women and blacks (and everyone else I suppose) right NOW, but that doesn't mean we've all just stopped and said "Equality at last!" and gone back home. The LGBT community isn't out there fighting the big fight.

That's just pretentious, and, I'm gonna say it, silly. I don't want to put down the movement--ever--but there's been some serious missteps going on since the Prop 8 decision. In a way I guess it's like watching someone get sucker-punched and stagger around a bit. You're a little dizzy and disoriented because you probably didn't see that coming. I can definitely understand that but this cover and its implications (and my interpretation) is just driving me up a wall right now.

I think I'm being a little or a lot harsh on this but this is getting on my damn nerves. I've seen some interpretations in defense of comparing the gay rights struggle to the black civil rights struggle, some neutral ones, and some against. I'm not really asking what to believe since I know where I fall. All I want to know, really, is how the hell "gay is the new black" and why no one thought that sentiment might be a little, I dunno, offensive. I am so serious, someone please explain this to me because I've been watching Discovery Military for the past couple of days and obviously not paying attention. If you don't mind that is.

Sigh.

Another round of the Blame Game

Bleh, I bet you've all heard this story by now about the young man in Florida that decided to kill himself on the internet. Naturally there were people that egged him on in a failing example of reverse psychology I suppose, and...basically the crux of this story is there were perhaps hundreds of people that watched this man kill himself before their eyes and either LOL'd or didn't bother to do anything before it's too late.

Forgive me but I don't take suicide lightly. Not. At. All. Never have. You can claim to want to kill yourself bout 10 times and I will take each time seriously. You should Call me a sucker but as a survivor of a couple suicide attempts, that shit is neither funny nor to be taken lightly. There's a REASON you're crying out for attention that way, I'm convinced.

Oh, but wait, we're not done yet. Now that the victim is dead we have to play the blame game. We have to pass it around--first off, it's the young man's fault for essentially crying wolf so many times and the time he finally did it, well, how were we supposed to know? It's his own fault.

Then, you know, its the viewers' fault for egging him on or not trying hard enough to stop him. Then it's the family. Then it's society & pop culture's fault. Then it's all of these & everyone's fault. Then at the end there's a big ol' question mark.

I. Fucking. HATE this Blame Game shit. This young man is dead and you can blame whoever you want for it--maybe it is his fault, maybe it is the fault of the viewers, maybe this rests on all our shoulders. It could be all these things, but for goodness's sake passing around & assigning blame to various structures way, waaay after the fact is just so annoying to me. Identify the problem, that's it--but most of the time after we're done assigning blame for the issue it becomes clear that there's nothing to do to get rid of the problem.

If you blame the man, well, then what? What happens in other cases like these where these people need help and no one offers, do we blame them every time? If you blame his family, how do you punish them? If it's society and desensitization and all that, what do you do? What to do. I hate this Game.

I wanted this post to focus solely on victim blaming but it's more than just victim-blaming, it's everything-blaming and I really can't stand it. Especially over this man's case and any suicide, private or public. He's gone and when there was potential to help it just wasn't effective, and now it's _____'s fault for this young man's death. I grieve and I'm also angry at the way this is being taken and the damn blaming game.

Sigh. I just have all kinds of non-faith in humanity these days. Oh I could talk about this story and others like it for days, but what's the point....

Activism! part 2

So yesterday I introduced you to part of a Facebook note I'd written entitled "It's not about YOU". I figured it would slip under since it was more of a rant than anything encouraging, but it drummed up some interesting responses anyway. And by interesting I mean "No longer friends with".

Juuust kidding.

Anyway, the beginning of the conversation starts like this:

Its most definetly the next great issue our country will face, and sadly marriage laws (as Im sure you know) are delegated to the states, so there's nothing any President can do about it. Damn. This is when we like centralized authority...But also I should like to note that I think New England is just trying to clear its' name from that whole Salem Affair.

That's from my friend PW who's pretty intelligent. For some reason I scoffed at that though, and said:

Even if the president could do anything he's already said he's against gay marriage.

"Next great issue" my ass. Gay marriage didn't just suddenly pop up...and as long as America decides to turn both eyes blind to the rights of others it's not going to go away.

Here's where the fun really begins, with that scoff oddly enough. My brother-in-arms Daniel jumps in and kinda derails and fucks up the duration of the dialogue, not intentionally:

well, the "against gay marriage thing" is not the same as "against giving gay couples equal rights"

You can hear the collective "Rrrriiiight."

Oh isn't it? Please explain to the class Daniel..., I say.

It kind of is the same thing. Marriage gives you legal rights. We are looking (we being me and the gays HAHAH) for legal documentation, not the right to walk down an isle, my other compadre BF says.

Daniel defends himself valiantly and...well, at least he was valiant.

no, i meant that Obama stated that he was against gay "marriage", but that is mainly because there isn't any such thing, as marriage is essentially strictly a religious thing, he does support civil unions, which would give gay couples the same rights as hetero

Okay--wait, what?

So the core of Daniel's argument--mind you he's still responding to my scoff more or less--is that civil unions are the same thing, legally, as marriages, except, as I point out a few times to him over AIM, THEY'RE NOT. Ideally, they would be but if civil unions were totally equal to marriage in every way except religious ceremony, then I don't think there would be such an uproar over "gay marriages" would you?

While Daniel and I are duking it out, Mr Matt chimes in with this enlightened view:

I've recently revised my possition on the whole gay marriage thing(like in the last few days), and i have to say I'm against the idea of govt forced acceptance of it. Before you blow my door down allow me to present why. Marriage IS, under every circumstance, a religous institution, and Thomas Jefferson said that church and state should be seperated. So if a church wants to marry gays, WOOHOO!!!! but if another church down the street doesn't wan to marry gays, then geuss what?.....yup thats right WOOHOO!!!! They have made a decision that was their's to make. I dont think it ignorant for a church to not let gays marry. but i do think it ignorant for the govt to force the churches to let gays marry.

Another collective "...Rrrrriiiiiiggghhhtt...." from the gallery.

He doesn't want the government to force gay marriages on the Church, which is good because the government can't do that anyway. WHAT THE FUCK?

Daniel collects himself and charges back in with one more point:

I think the issue here, the issue being both the greater issue and the issue of nobody understanding what the hell I'm saying, is the word "marriage"
The point is, we want homosexual couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples, right? right, so FU to people upset at me for no reason. However this is to be achieved is immaterial at this point. We must do all we can.

Danz, sometimes unfortunately, is like me: he can't let shit go and likes to make really obtuse arguments, in that what he's saying makes sense it just has shit to do with anything. Yes, he really is still refuting my scoff and this conversation has gone on for HOURS at this point. DAMN!

Frankly, I think PW comes in and probably makes the best point about the struggle for gay marriage rights:

...Its not something I can identfiy with because lets just face it strait people will never truly understand. We can sympathize but we don't get it. Its gonna be hard. Don't think it will be easy. It will be so very hard. But we'll see.

So! I think that's probably one of the few...ambiguously successful dialogues I've ever had *blink* I've had them in the past and they're usually fine but I have no earthly idea where this one went to. It's kinda my fault for derailing it so hard with my cynical scoffing, I think I should have stayed out of this one. But I was really bored ;_;

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*

Questions for those who voted Yes on Prop 8

And...it so happens to be my 200th post! Yaaay! *noise makers & party hats...but no cake* Sorry there's no cake you gaiz :/

I'd say that I know *I* I don't have any friends that voted Yes on Prop 8, but I also said I didn't associate with ignorant folk. But I do, as it turns out. A lot of 'em. A LOT OF THEM.

I saw this post on the Friendly Atheist and figured it was worth spreading.



It wasn’t just Christians who voted to ban gay marriage in California, but no doubt the measure would’ve failed without their support. Ditto to the Mormons.

There are so many questions I want to ask those people who voted in favor of Proposition 8 and as a result banned gay marriages in California:

* How is your marriage any more secure now that homosexual marriages in your state are broken?

* What do you say to the children of gay parents who question why their mommies or daddies can’t be married?

* Can I vote on the legality of your marriage?

* How does this vote change your life?

* Are you proud of yourself?

* What did you say to your gay friends (if you have any) when you saw them post-election?

* Will your actions bring gay people closer to Christ?

* When gay marriage is finally legalized (it won’t be long), are you going to lie and tell your children your church led the charge for equal rights or will you tell them the truth and say you were the reason for the delay?

* How do you defend your position to your children?

* Are you in favor of lifelong commitments between two people or against it?

* What effect do you think this gay marriage ban will have on gay people? Young people? Non-Christians? Young Christians?

* Is this what Jesus would do?

Also, on the second floor (aka the Boys' Floor) there's a big sign declaring the resident(s) of that room is/are not racist because they voted for McCain they looked at the issues yadda yadda yadda. I wonder who made them feel so compelled to state that...if anyone did. I bet no one asked them. Real anti-racists don't need to explain themselves you guys!

This isn't the way to equality, damnit

Hu-sigh. I've really come to hate the almighty "race" question. As in, how do we solve equality. Or maybe even "what is racist and what isn't?"

I'm getting tired of people telling me that we have to "ignore our differences" to be equal. Why should I ignore what I am just to get on your little level? That's inane and I refuse. As a wise man said more or less, the key is NOT to ignore our differences. I'm obviously different from, say, someone from Spain. Different language, different culture, different everything. Am I supposed to just put that aside and try to get along with this person? Is he supposed to do the same? To me that would just be...crazy talk.

No, we shouldn't ignore our differences. We should embrace! Different isn't necessarily a bad word. We have to learn from each other, this is a good thing. I think by embracing our differences and trying to work with them in becoming equal is the better idea then just to ignore ourselves.

Why the fuck does this even need repeating.

What the fuck is femininty?

My room mate kind of irritates me with her concerns about her "femininity". She is a bit of a tomboy I'll admit, but what exactly is wrong with that? *blink* I remember I used to be concerned about my femininity but I gave it up when I figured that being female in general made me a girl (biologically at least, I mean I could go on about that but I won't right now).

Anyway, it's...annoying. She wants perfume that makes her smell like a woman--I ask, what exactly does a woman smell like? She wants to wear clothes that make her more girly. And yadda yadda yadda. It just makes my eyes roll. Even now she's going to the mall and trying to figure out what smells better on her.

WTF AUUUGH.

It's not that I don't put any effort into my appearance but damn. She's worried about her hair and her clothes and her scent and I'm just thinking, who exactly is she trying to attract and why? I can't tell her what to do with herself, of course, because it's her body and her self-esteem and also because she doesn't listen to me ~_~

Oh well. We obviously have different philosophies and different views--me, I put effort if I'm going anywhere in particular, she seems to want to make an impression everywhere. We have different views on what femininity is and that's fine I guess, even if it annoys me to no end. I guess maybe I'm the "tomboy" here and she isn't...ugh.

Persuading Atheists to become Christians

Now with instructions!

My friend Diaphanus found this funny thing, and he had such fun with it I think I'll try too. This is going to be long and...I hope I refrained from "Christian bashing" or at least lots of it. My thoughts in italics.

The problem with these "directions" start in the opening paragraph even:

Dealing with a friend that has different beliefs than you can be frustrating for both yourself and the non-believer. Learning how to deal with it can be extremely difficult and you might want to try to convert them by persuading them to believe.

You know, if you're so bothered by your "friend's" beliefs that you actually feel you must LAY HANDS UPON THEM and convert them to your damn system, perhaps you aren't friends.

Maybe you can keep "hinting" from time to time and make some progress...

No, that would be annoying and not get anything done.

The steps are broken up into 3 easy sections for your missionary quest: Prepare, Discussions, and Develop Your Friendship. These directions are odd: they suggest that you do things like charity work and generally being a moral human being, all to convert your "friend" to Christianity. What? Shouldn't you be directing traffic and giving blood anyway? How the hell does that convince anyone that Christianity is better than, say, Islam or Zoroastrianism (shit, I spelled that without a dictionary)?

I digress...I'm not going to go through all of these, just the easy ones.

Most Atheists have high intelligence -- probably have an education -- and have spent a lot of time thinking about reasons TO believe.

I think more about throwing rocks thanks.

You have to give them a real reason -- not just an emotional one!

And, unfortunately, this is where most of these wanna-be missionaries fail.

You need to read and think a lot too. Collect all the compelling evidence that is available that demonstrates your beliefs are true.

"Compelling evidence", I assume, being the fact that wind is invisible and some shit in the Bible *shrug* yeah, that'll reel me in.

Think about your friendship. Are the two of you close? If not, try to increase your friendship before attempting to influence their religious beliefs.

That's...really petty.

However, do not do this merely because you want to convert them. You must have a deep and true interest in being their friend and being there for them throughout the entire process, which may last years.

That's even pettier.

Show by conduct how Christianity has impacted your own life in a positive way (Matthew 5:15-16).

I get that all the time, it hasn't worked. Am I just stubborn?

While quoting the Bible at every possible opportunity may be a bit much, saying "I thank God for... (something goes your way)" should be fine. It may also be useful to tell your friend about people you've met at church; when listing their good qualities, include that they are "religious" as a very far side note. Their religious fervor is not going to impress the atheist.

Damn right. Neither does your "missionary work" either though.

Now on to the Discussions section. Here's where it gets...odd.

Discuss that human brains work with much more than just intellect and logic and that when things go beyond our capability to understand then having faith in something larger than natural processes can bring extreme peace.

Or, you know, more questions and shit--well I'll be, that's how I "deconverted" in the first place! Haha...haaah...funny how things work...

Maybe it's not the answer, but it is peace, and peace in itself is a huge reward, a great return for faith.

Guys, I don't need religious faith for peace thanks.

Make a never ending list: inspiration, intuition, dread, hope, fear, faith, industriousness, procrastination, calmness, anxiety, anger, ambition, initiative, enthusiasm, boredom, fatigue, illness, health,... family, friendship, trust, honesty...

DO NOT do this. It's silly and has nothing to do with what's below.

* To know "everything" is impossible but being a functioning human and striving further to "know" more... Priceless!

Soooo...are you saying I should just numb myself to more knowledge because it's impossible to know everything? Since when was I even TRYING to learn everything because I'm an atheist? Go on, Christianity.

* Discuss how self-awareness, self-development and personality all point to highly organized and purposeful traits -- not randomness in our mental processes

To this I say, "And?" Try again missionary. Shit, this article is making me cranky.

Point out that "natural" scientific processes called entropy and chaos do not normally improve things: so how did life "happen" when nature is about dissolution, oxidation, mineral deposits, poison, corrosion, erosion, rot and breaking down "not" about building up...

You know all those big words, grasshopper, but not how to use them. And you just totally misunderstood grade school science it seems.

Talk about the existence of anything. Express as best you can the amazing intricacy of life and complexity of human "intelligence."

Another misstep with the junior missionary is that they can never really "explain" the existence of anything, let alone the "complexity of human intelligence.

Last is the Friendship section. Eh.

Give your friend practical advice for their problems from the Holy Book, such as from the book of Proverbs.

Refrain from this, missionary. It's just irritating. When I come to my religious "friend" for real advice, the last thing I want is to be lambasted with proverbs.

Go slowly about all of this until your friend is completely comfortable and accepts your inputs, and thinks of you as a "real friend" who just happens to be religious. Probably mere acquaintances can not break through the wall of "absolute" logic -- faith is not totally illogical, but is not pure logic.

First, you should already be "real friends" before trying to even attempt this ridiculous deception and trickery. And faith isn't illogical but not pure logic? Go on, Christianity.

Know when to ease up. Some people just truly don't want to be Christian. If this is the case with your friend, and you've tried everything else here, don't push any further. There is nothing more that you can do. Don't let it be cause to end your friendship, but know when to leave them be.

Best tip in the damn article.


The best way to convert atheists to Christianity? Don't. Just don't.

Notice to parents: 90 degrees F = kind of toasty,

you stupid motherfuckers.

Oh goodness, if I'm not careful I'm going to start laughing at people leaving their children in the car. Shit, I already am.

Me and Momo were talking about this "sudden rash" of parents leaving their young kids in the car to either die or grow up to never forgive their retarded selves.

I wouldn't call it a sudden rash or anything, this always happens at least 12 times a month during the summer. I'm just gonna go on a limb and blame horrible parenting--because, you know, when the weatherperson on TV says it's going to be 80° outside, that's at least pretty warm. To an adult or a young person, wouldn't that be just as hot and a little hotter for a child? Do you people live on the damn equator?

I'll never understand the logic that says "If I just run into the store, it's fine to leave my 3 year old in the car...alone...with the windows rolled up...and no AC!"

The stories about not one but TWO parents--one a single mother the other a crazy couple (Edit: I got the links I wanted, of course this shit happened in my state, but I was slightly...alarmed at the fact that there were so many stories from this year and a few years ago about parents leaving their kids in cars for some damn drinks)--leaving their kids in the car to go run to the bar are just flat out hilarious. I don't care if the single mother's child died because of her negligence, that shit is funny to me. It's funny that gettin' yo drink on was some how more important than your damn children. Why did you even have them?

But these are obviously superhuman beings that don't know the difference between hot and cold--or maybe it doesn't exist to them! so I'm just talking in circles *shrug* I can't even complain about bad parenting because without them I'd have nothing to laugh about.

How dare you photograph your own kids!

HA HA HA. Oh I love it. This is sad:

Father-of-three branded a 'pervert' - for photographing his own children in public park

When Gary Crutchley started taking pictures of his children playing on an inflatable slide he thought they would be happy reminders of a family day out.

But the innocent snaps of seven-year-old Cory, and Miles, five, led to him being called a ‘pervert’.

If you wanna be all "BUT BUT BUT!11!" and give me a list of reasons justifying the other parents' paranoia fine, but come on. Far as we know the guy was just having a family moment with his kids on a damn water slide. Oh yeah, doing it all obvious and what not really made him suspect. Pedophiles ruin it for everyone don't they? :P

And while they were harping on this man for his innocent act, a real pervert made off with 3 young children.

Okay, that didn't really happen, but wouldn't they feel silly if it did?

I'm gonna expand on this a little more but seriously, WHAT THE HELL?

Are we that damn paranoid now? When we see a man we don't know photographing his children, why is the first reaction "OMG PERVERT!11" when it used to be "Awww!"

God, look what all those Dateline episodes have done :P I know you can't trust anyone anymore, but surely even the boldest of perverts/pedophiles wouldn't be in your face with a damn camera, making his activities all obvious and shit. They're not as dumb as you think they are even if they do have a "sickness". Besides, even if he was some random pervert just taking photos, he wasn't doing anything sexual to the child. All pedophiles aren't even "omgrapists" but that's like another thing all together....

Good motherfucking grief people are ridiculous.