Anyone who pays attention to politics, or at least the polarizing, media-hyped, red-state/blue-state politics that is trumpeted during any election - or the 2 years leading up to one - are presented with certain bullet points; one being that Republicans hate all non-white people and Democrats want Mexican Islamic terrorists to move into your neighborhood and date your daughter. Another is that Republicans think life begins at the mere thought about having sex with your girlfriend while Democrats think children up to 8 years of age can be murdered as long as it's for "a good reason". Exaggerations? Yes. Far from how it's usually depicted? No. Abortion is a divisive issue for many people which would be perfectly understandable to me except many of those same people don't care so much when it comes to genocide ("That's all the way over on another continent") or the death penalty ("It says 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' - unless they kind of deserve it").
Here's the dirty little secret though that nobody tells you...
During President Clinton's terms in office, the number of abortions performed nationwide went down each year. During President Bush's terms, those numbers have gone up. Why? Well, it could have something to do with moral leadership, seeing as how Bill Clinton had morals (aside from the whole adultery thing) and George Bush has PR people to say he has morals. But really, it's much colder and simpler. When people have money, jobs, and educational opportunities, they have fewer abortions. See, people with money are more likely to have the baby since they'll actually be able to feed and clothe the baby. People with good jobs will actually have the baby when they're pregnant because they'll have health insurance to take care of it and won't have to be worried about finding someone willing to hire them while they're 6 months pregnant. And people who are educated are smart enough to not spend all of their free time on their back with their drunken paramour and are also wise enough to use contraception. However, when you're the kind of President who tells schools that condoms and sex education are sinful and abstinence is the only thing worth teaching, then when teens eventually do have sex - and they will - then they do it unsafely and before they are intellectually and emotionally prepared. That's what leads to abortions.
And oddly enough, the perceived sin of contraception in America also leads to abortions the world over. See, President Reagan in all of his wisdom initiated a policy that prevents the United States from providing aid of any kind to overseas clinics that perform or even inform people about the option of abortion. That aid includes contraceptives. We are so appalled that they are giving abortions to people who are unintentionally pregnant that we are refusing to give them the tools to prevent those people from having more unplanned pregnancies and thus...more abortions. Cause really, if you let it happen once, chances are you may let it happen again.
The House of Representin' just passed a bill that would overturn that policy, and no doubt if it passes the Senate, President Bush will be waiting with his stamp and pen to veto it, but honestly, how irresponsible is that? I can understand if he doesn't want to give them money because that could be used to actually facilitate abortions. But this is just giving them contraceptives...a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies and thus prevent abortions. I believe in personal responsibility, and believe that no one should ever have an abortion if only because no one should ever put themselves in a situation to become pregnant when they aren't willing and/or able to take care of that child - though of course that's sometimes unpreventable. So, like most Democrats, I believe the mantra that abortion should be "legal, safe, and rare". President Bush however seems to think they should be "illegal, dangerous, and performed often instead of educating people on safe sex, encouraging responsible behavior, and trying to help poor people to a level where they can economically take care of a family" (albeit that is a much less-catchy mantra).
So I'm going to go out on a limb and say "How dare you, Republicans, be supporting more abortion! I for one think there should be fewer abortions, and that's why I support this bill!"
That would make an awesome bumper sticker.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Thursday, June 21, 2007
The First Amendment Extends to High Fives
In fact, I think the original text was "The necessity of demonstrating through physical means the awesomeness of a given event, the right to High Five your bros shall not be infringed". Damn John Adams had to stand in the way, yet again.
A school in Vienna, Virginia has a strict "no touching" policy, which makes sense when you consider that most touching between adolescents is inappropriate, whether it's the awkward groping of the first "for reals" girlfriend, the homoerotic ass slapping of "straight" athletes, or the numerous physical tortures perpetrated on the whole of the chess team/av club. So really, on the surface it seems normal. But this policy is so strict in fact that a student got in trouble for putting his arm on his girlfriend's shoulder when he leaned down to say something to her at her lunch table. Surely, you would think that even in this hyper-sensitive, overly-cautious, dateline-myspace-predator obsessed day and age we could distinguish and allow for consensual, non-sexual, non-violent touching. Of course, you'd be wrong.
On CNN, they spoke to the head of the PTA (because the school was at least smart enough not to try and defend such a crazy policy). This woman then espoused the dangers of even the "high-five" (as the kids are calling it these days). Her reasoning is this: when you and your buddy are high-fiving in the hallway, of course other people are gonna wanna get in on that action. Soon a third person is high-fiving you, then four, then five people are high-fiving in a virtual orgy of celebratory hand-slapping. In such a situation, traffic in the hallway would come to a complete standstill as, almost contagiously, all of the students break into spontaneous high-fives. Elbows would fly, legs would kick, and people would be bound to get hit in the head. Despite my exaggerations, that last sentence was literally what she said would happen. I mean, I know just what she's saying. When you and your friends are high-fiving, you get so caught up that you can't help but kick your heels and flail your arms wildly. Sure, someone always gets hit in the eye, and more than once I've had a friend end up in the hospital, but it's so worth it for an awesome, full-power high-five.
The other argument for the policy, suggested by the school, is that some handshakes are actually secret gang signs. Luckily though, if you don't allow people to do those handshakes in school, the entire gang network breaks down. In fact, the only reason I ever joined a gang was for the cool handshakes. If I couldn't high-five my gangmates (that's what they call them, right?) in school the next day after a sweet drive-by shooting, I don't think I would have joined. "Hardly worth it," I would have said.
The only thing possibly more absurd was the father of the boy who was at the center of the news story that first sent me on this rant. Just as he was proclaiming that high-fives are constitutionally guaranteed as free speech (though not in as concise terms or complete sentences for that matter) he also stated that people of other cultural heritages who attend the school who might not be so into physical contact in the classroom should adapt to be more American when they come here...you know, since the things we do make so much sense.
It's so much harder when you disagree with everyone on every side of an issue.
A school in Vienna, Virginia has a strict "no touching" policy, which makes sense when you consider that most touching between adolescents is inappropriate, whether it's the awkward groping of the first "for reals" girlfriend, the homoerotic ass slapping of "straight" athletes, or the numerous physical tortures perpetrated on the whole of the chess team/av club. So really, on the surface it seems normal. But this policy is so strict in fact that a student got in trouble for putting his arm on his girlfriend's shoulder when he leaned down to say something to her at her lunch table. Surely, you would think that even in this hyper-sensitive, overly-cautious, dateline-myspace-predator obsessed day and age we could distinguish and allow for consensual, non-sexual, non-violent touching. Of course, you'd be wrong.
On CNN, they spoke to the head of the PTA (because the school was at least smart enough not to try and defend such a crazy policy). This woman then espoused the dangers of even the "high-five" (as the kids are calling it these days). Her reasoning is this: when you and your buddy are high-fiving in the hallway, of course other people are gonna wanna get in on that action. Soon a third person is high-fiving you, then four, then five people are high-fiving in a virtual orgy of celebratory hand-slapping. In such a situation, traffic in the hallway would come to a complete standstill as, almost contagiously, all of the students break into spontaneous high-fives. Elbows would fly, legs would kick, and people would be bound to get hit in the head. Despite my exaggerations, that last sentence was literally what she said would happen. I mean, I know just what she's saying. When you and your friends are high-fiving, you get so caught up that you can't help but kick your heels and flail your arms wildly. Sure, someone always gets hit in the eye, and more than once I've had a friend end up in the hospital, but it's so worth it for an awesome, full-power high-five.
The other argument for the policy, suggested by the school, is that some handshakes are actually secret gang signs. Luckily though, if you don't allow people to do those handshakes in school, the entire gang network breaks down. In fact, the only reason I ever joined a gang was for the cool handshakes. If I couldn't high-five my gangmates (that's what they call them, right?) in school the next day after a sweet drive-by shooting, I don't think I would have joined. "Hardly worth it," I would have said.
The only thing possibly more absurd was the father of the boy who was at the center of the news story that first sent me on this rant. Just as he was proclaiming that high-fives are constitutionally guaranteed as free speech (though not in as concise terms or complete sentences for that matter) he also stated that people of other cultural heritages who attend the school who might not be so into physical contact in the classroom should adapt to be more American when they come here...you know, since the things we do make so much sense.
It's so much harder when you disagree with everyone on every side of an issue.
Monday, June 11, 2007
You're Just Never Satisfied
You know what bugs me about modern media? It has become too interactive. You can look up things at your leisure on the internet, or text in your votes with your cell phone, or e-mail the pundits your opinions, or get the DVD with 10 different possible endings because the studio wanted to satisfy every single person in the world. People have so many options, and so much input, that they start to feel like other people owe them; they start to feel like they should have some sort of creative input into everything.
Worst of all is television. Take, for example, Lost. This year, it got tons of flack from fans, who also gave it intermitent flack last year, because they wanted all of the mysteries answered in every episode. Of course, that would be stupid since if you answered all of the questions, it would no longer be a mystery, and then you'd just have a show about a bunch of people who used to be stranded on an island, and where's the fun in that?
But their complaint was that the show wasn't what they wanted, and yet they continued to watch it, or at least talk about it, when really...the show was what it always was. Plus, it was free, so they were free to just watch something else or nothing at all. My feeling with creative endeavours, whether they be books or movies, music or television is that people have a story to tell...if it entertains me and I enjoy it, so be it. If not, then I'll find that somewhere else and maybe someone other than me will enjoy what they have to say. When American Idol comes on I don't watch it and complain about what I want the show to be...I just don't watch it. It's their show, not mine.
The other problem is that people start to blame the artist for the audience's expectations. My sister will often complain about a perfectly good movie she saw simply because it wasn't what she thought it would be. Meaning, she sees the trailer and, for whatever reasons, thinks the solution to the mystery was going to be more supernatural or that the romance of the lead characters was going to be a bigger deal, and then blames the movie for not being what she expected or wanted rather than being pretty good at what it was. A movie or a show is what it is, or at least what the makers want it to be. Should it be their fault that it isn't what we expect, even if our expectations are based on nothing to do with them?
My point is about The Sopranos. A show I like, but probably not as the be-all-end-all that some people think. It's a quality show that is interesting, unconventional, and at times insightful. Is it the word handed down by some supreme deity to change our world like the monolith from 2001? No, nor does it need to be. It is what it is, and quite good at it. But, somewhere during the long break between the 5th and 6th season, people seem to have forgotten what that show was really about. In their memories, they remember all of the crazy hits, the strippers, the drugs, the mob fights and surprises. What they don't seem to remember is that 80% of the show was always therapy sessions, dream sequences, ambiguous glances, and silent scenes with characters deep in thought. The problem is The Sopranos was an unconventional show from the start, but it also attracted a huge audience of people who would be equally pleased if every episode was just wall-to-wall sex with strippers with brief interludes of massive explosions killing dozens of people with no talking whatsoever. They complain that this show has gotten worse, and there's not as much action, but if they were paying attention, this show is exactly what it has been all along. It's barely changed at all.
So why are they all so up in arms about the finale? First, is there any ending that would have pleased everyone? Some people wanted Tony to die, or to end up in jail, or they wanted Phil and everyone he knows to die, and others wanted AJ to kill himself or Meadow to die or Janice to become a mob boss or any number of crazy theories, none of which would have made anyone happy. If anything, David Chase gave the audience exactly what it wanted...an ending that implied something, but left enough room for people to interpret whatever ending they wanted.
The fact is, the show is what it always has been, and nothing would have satisfied people's expectations. The finale of The Sopranos was great, if only because it knew that it was better to serve the needs of the show than the varied and unreasonable expectations of a fickle and uncreative audience. They complain that this ending was open ended, but what ending wouldn't have been? Nothing is ever completely wrapped up. Unless the show ended with Tony building a doomsday device that would blow up the entire Earth, then after the show ended, these characters were always going to go on and do other things and live their lives without us watching. At least they didn't try to have some cheesy or sappy or silly ending (like Seinfeld perhaps) that would have betrayed the essence of the show. Stop bitching people. David Chase doesn't owe you anything. You don't like the ending, too bad, it's not their fault. It's yours. Go buy Sex in the City on DVD and enjoy it.
Worst of all is television. Take, for example, Lost. This year, it got tons of flack from fans, who also gave it intermitent flack last year, because they wanted all of the mysteries answered in every episode. Of course, that would be stupid since if you answered all of the questions, it would no longer be a mystery, and then you'd just have a show about a bunch of people who used to be stranded on an island, and where's the fun in that?
But their complaint was that the show wasn't what they wanted, and yet they continued to watch it, or at least talk about it, when really...the show was what it always was. Plus, it was free, so they were free to just watch something else or nothing at all. My feeling with creative endeavours, whether they be books or movies, music or television is that people have a story to tell...if it entertains me and I enjoy it, so be it. If not, then I'll find that somewhere else and maybe someone other than me will enjoy what they have to say. When American Idol comes on I don't watch it and complain about what I want the show to be...I just don't watch it. It's their show, not mine.
The other problem is that people start to blame the artist for the audience's expectations. My sister will often complain about a perfectly good movie she saw simply because it wasn't what she thought it would be. Meaning, she sees the trailer and, for whatever reasons, thinks the solution to the mystery was going to be more supernatural or that the romance of the lead characters was going to be a bigger deal, and then blames the movie for not being what she expected or wanted rather than being pretty good at what it was. A movie or a show is what it is, or at least what the makers want it to be. Should it be their fault that it isn't what we expect, even if our expectations are based on nothing to do with them?
My point is about The Sopranos. A show I like, but probably not as the be-all-end-all that some people think. It's a quality show that is interesting, unconventional, and at times insightful. Is it the word handed down by some supreme deity to change our world like the monolith from 2001? No, nor does it need to be. It is what it is, and quite good at it. But, somewhere during the long break between the 5th and 6th season, people seem to have forgotten what that show was really about. In their memories, they remember all of the crazy hits, the strippers, the drugs, the mob fights and surprises. What they don't seem to remember is that 80% of the show was always therapy sessions, dream sequences, ambiguous glances, and silent scenes with characters deep in thought. The problem is The Sopranos was an unconventional show from the start, but it also attracted a huge audience of people who would be equally pleased if every episode was just wall-to-wall sex with strippers with brief interludes of massive explosions killing dozens of people with no talking whatsoever. They complain that this show has gotten worse, and there's not as much action, but if they were paying attention, this show is exactly what it has been all along. It's barely changed at all.
So why are they all so up in arms about the finale? First, is there any ending that would have pleased everyone? Some people wanted Tony to die, or to end up in jail, or they wanted Phil and everyone he knows to die, and others wanted AJ to kill himself or Meadow to die or Janice to become a mob boss or any number of crazy theories, none of which would have made anyone happy. If anything, David Chase gave the audience exactly what it wanted...an ending that implied something, but left enough room for people to interpret whatever ending they wanted.
The fact is, the show is what it always has been, and nothing would have satisfied people's expectations. The finale of The Sopranos was great, if only because it knew that it was better to serve the needs of the show than the varied and unreasonable expectations of a fickle and uncreative audience. They complain that this ending was open ended, but what ending wouldn't have been? Nothing is ever completely wrapped up. Unless the show ended with Tony building a doomsday device that would blow up the entire Earth, then after the show ended, these characters were always going to go on and do other things and live their lives without us watching. At least they didn't try to have some cheesy or sappy or silly ending (like Seinfeld perhaps) that would have betrayed the essence of the show. Stop bitching people. David Chase doesn't owe you anything. You don't like the ending, too bad, it's not their fault. It's yours. Go buy Sex in the City on DVD and enjoy it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
