Log in

Previous 10 | Next 10

Mar. 23rd, 2007


She Couldn't Be More Objectified

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

This new cover of Vanity Fair, a popular magazine, is disturbing more people than just me. Shall we break down this picture?

-She appears to be naked from first glance. That was my inpression, until I saw the flesh-tone fabric barely hiding anything.

-The only splash of colour on her otherwise "nude" body are five inch "hooker heels".

-The man holding her is clutching her waist so violently, it's leaving marks.

-The lead from the Sopranos is looking back, while holding her, as if he is about to do harm to another person.

He isn't even acknowladging the woman throwing herself over him. She's just an object; a watch, a tie, a car; something to show off to your buddies, but you forget about it quickly.

Mar. 7th, 2007



Gay Marriage

The first thing I should say right off the bat is: I have absolutely nothing against those labeled "gay". I personally am bisexual, and I happen to know firsthand that you can't choose whether or not you're attracted to the same sex. And, hey, my mama taught me to respect EVERYONE, not just people who're like me.
Now, to start:

As I see it, there are two parts of marriage: the legal bit, and the religious bit.

They're both equally important, give or take depending on your personal moral values. The legal bit is basically having all the things like sharing bank accounts, being able to take care of the other person after their death, and basic things like that. It's to ensure you can support yourself and your spouse (and any children you have/adopt/etc.) financially, you're legally bound, etc.

The religious bit is harder to define. It changes with each church. Mostly it's a "bound under God" type of thing; "do right by each other" and such similar things.

Thanks to our first amendment to the United States Constitution, we can each believe what we want to believe. Unfortunately for that same amendment, that includes priests and people of the church. Most of those who are involved with church aren't exactly happy with the idea of gay marriage. It's in some of their holy books that homosexual relationships are a free ticket to hell. I completely disagree, but they can still believe that, can preach that.

It's hard for me to say this, but I wonder if making gay marriage legal in every church you go to is completely Constitutional. I wish it were easy--it's not black and white. It's like the KKK--they can say whatever they want to as long as it isn't hurting anyone. (That's why they can have recruiting websites.) It's unfair to extend Constitutional rights only to some. If we did that, the country would eventually get so corrupt it'd be exactly what our founding fathers were aiming against. Trust me, we do NOT want that to happen.

I am completely for legal joining of two people in a way similar to--or exactly the same as--traditional marriages. However, I don't think that forcing priests who have always been anti-homosexual is what "Freedom of Religion" means. I wish, so much, that it were clean-cut--black and white--but it isn't. That's probably why it's taking so long to decide whether or not it's Constitutional. (If you ask me, the Constitution needs an update.)

Possibly the best solution would be establishing churches where gays could marry, but then there's "Separation of Church and State" which is a HUGELY important law.

Mar. 6th, 2007



The "N Word"

I go to a school with a population of 4,000 some.

We have a banner across our doors proclaiming "Diversity is our Greatest Strength."

And yet....

Every day--every single day--I hear the "N word". From white folks. From black folks. From every other race of people, I hear it.

It is just NOT a word you should use. Back in the day, it was an insult. It was the rudest way possible to insult someone, describing what they pictured as an inferior race. Now, I hear it as a term of endearment--from blacks, usually--and as a description of someone they saw in the hallway--usually whites.

Personally, I find nothing offensive in calling someone "black" or "white"; not everyone who is considered "black" is African-decent, or an American citizen, or either. But "nigger" "nigga" "negro" etc. is rude, racist, and quite simply disgusting.


Valerie Plame Trial

Scooter Libby was convicted on four counts.  1 obstruction of justice, 1 lying to the FBI, 2 lying to a grand jury.  He was acused on five- the other was another lying to the FBI

Feb. 22nd, 2007


"That's So Gay"

Am I the only one who is completely annoyed and offended by this?

"That looks gay,"

"You're gay,"

"You're acting gay,"

I hear these said every day.  Insults, usually, and occasionally comments on appearance.  That's right.  Every. Single. Day.

It needs to stop.  In my opinion, it's belittling to the homosexual community and their quest for equal rights.  It shows that people view gay people as inferior, as something to be insulted and used to make someone feel bad.

Also, something else.  The school I go to is in Chelsea, between eighth and ninth avenue.  I believe it's a center of gay culture, or something along those lines.  And to have people from my school saying these things daily- I really hate that I and others have to hear it.

Anyways, just another rant from your friendly neighborhood loca chica.

Feb. 18th, 2007


Who Knew God Was So Political?

Oh, Kansas. Guidelines for schools curriculum in Kansas has been changed to now include pro-evolution.

Before this change was implemented, Kansas had a science guideline that "questioned the theory of evolution", but was not a complete "intelligent design" advocate, but did support it throughout the course.

"The new standards reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution. The board deleted language suggesting that key evolutionary concepts -- like a common origin for all life on Earth and change in species creating new ones -- were controversial and being challenged by new research."

Because teaching -however subtly- that the Christian God made the earth to all the little boys and girls isn't controversial?

Sadly, everyone seems to be crapping their pants about it. [Emphasis mine.]

"John Calvert, a retired attorney who helped found the group, accused the board of promoting atheism. And Greg Lassey, a retired Wichita-area biology teacher, said the new standards undermine families by 'discrediting parents who reject materialism and the ethics and morals it fosters.'"

And all those families out there who aren't Christian? The before standards did not discredit them?

However, there is a HUGE difference between discrediting and teaching about the theory of evolution. The course does not say that evolution is correct; it gives out the evidence for and against evolution, and explores the theory. The before class said that "evolution was wrong and the idea that God created the earth was correct."

Merciful Mother. Get over yourselves and let the children learn about science.

Feb. 15th, 2007


Teen Dating Abuse

According to a recent study, cell phones and other types of technology is another way for abusers to control their partners.

"In the survey, conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, 20 to 30 percent of teens who had been in relationships said their partner had constantly checked in on them, had harassed or insulted them, or had made unwanted requests for sexual activity, all via cellphones or text messages. One out of 4 reported hourly contact with a dating partner between midnight and 5 a.m. – in some cases, 30 times per hour. And 1 out of 10 had received physical threats electronically. A much smaller percentage of parents reported that their teens had had such experiences."

That's scary, those perercentiles. But then people decided in this snippet to blame the victim.

"As communication technology has become pervasive, 'teen dating abuse has skyrocketed,' says Jill Murray, an author of several books on the subject and a psychotherapist in Laguna Niguel, Calif. She's seen a case of a teen logging more than 9,000 cellphone calls and text messages monthly. The attention seems flattering at first, she says, but later a girl or boy 'feels smothered and doesn't know how to get out.'

Dr. Murray says parents have an obligation 'to limit cellphone and computer use to something reasonable.' She advises blocking the computer and taking away cellphones overnight."

How is that helping, if you take away the victim's things? If a victim isn't responding to the attacker, isn't the abuser just going to become frusturated and resort to harsher mesures, thinking the victim is ingoring them? But no, the answer is always the same; any time something goes wrong in a teenager's life, take away the phone and computer. That'll fix it.

Why don't you encourage your kid to take action? Tell your teen what to do if someone IS harrasing them. Why can't they intercede in the first place, when they see the need to take away the phone because someone is harrassing their child over it? Why wait and put your child in potetially more danger?

Now, I'm not saying teens should have acess to their phones 24/7, but taking the phone away would seem to me like a really bad thing to do. The abuser would get frusterated and angrier and go to find them, while if you have the phone, you can make the choice (a scary choice, but a choice nonetheless) to tell someone and stop picking up the phone.

And if I was in an abusive relationship, I'd want my cell phone handy at all times.

Via Feministing

Feb. 14th, 2007


Sen. Scott Brown vs. Gay Activist Teenagers

MA Senator Scott Brown (R) found it necessary to chew out teenagers who had written smack about him on the popular website, facebook.com. Some commentors on the site had written things like, "I hate Scott Brown," who is agaisnt same sex marriage. There were more vulgar comments about his family, including his daughter, who was a former American Idol finalist.

Really, how immature do you have to be to actually confront a bunch of teenagers because they have opinions? He justified his actions by saying he "was just repeating what some students wrote about him on a Web site." and that "I actually called them on it. I said 'Now there's hate speech and then there's respectful proper speech."

Called them on it? They're teenagers with opinions that aren't homophobic. So you're calling them out? Brown also named the kids, even after "Some of the teachers tried to stop him, and said things like 'You shouldn't be naming students.'"

So how is that confronting the students? Yelling at them and not allowing them to talk back? To justify what they said? Because, heaven forbid, we have opinions that aren't what you think they should be. Because its so incrediably needed for our country's leaders to go ranting off to a High School because not everybody agrees with him. And then, saying their names and what they wrote word-for-word, curses included, in front of the entire student body in an attempt to humiliate them. Just because they don't like you.

I think Brown suffers from some insecurity issues.

Via Feministing.

Feb. 13th, 2007


What Is the Second Amendment?

What is the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States?

The right to bear arms, right?

That's what I'm sure people would say.

Well, let's take a closer look, shall we?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Why don't we look at it again, with some emphasis

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


What does militia mean? Let's go to dictionary.com and see what they say.

1.a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2.a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3.all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4.a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government

I find that interesting.  So a militia is like a citizen defense group.  And it's necessary for us.  And it seems like that defense group has the right for weapons.

Isn't that interesting. 


Rape On The Inside

Rape in prison. Male prisoners are more likely to be raped by other inmates, while female prisoners are more often raped by male guard; either way, it's a problem that isn't being adressed. All too often, guards and judges tell the prisoners that "they should try to consent."

"My abuse started in the County Jail where I was raped by four inmates . . . . [In prison, a few years later,] I was put in a cell with a gang member who made me give him oral sex. . . . . [After reporting the incident to two officers,] I went to see a psychologist who told me that I'd caused that inmate to sexually abuse me because I walked around thinking that I was better than the others. He said that I should come down out of the air . . . . [After being transferred to another facility and sexually abused again,] I was put back in that same building, in a different cell. Still I was being asked for sex and told that I would have to give myself over one way or another; at this point (looking back on the matter), I can see that I was going through a brake down mentally. Anyway that night I'd made up my mind that I was taking my life for it seemed as if that was the only way out of that Hell. So the sleeping medication they was giving me, I saved for 8 days which came to 800 mg and I took them . . . . It is truly impossible to put into words what goes through one's mind when becoming a victim of rape. Being made into a person of no self worth, [being] remade into what ever the person or gang doing the raping wants you to be."

This man crimes was nonviolent: car theft, burglary, et cetera. Now, I am not saying his crimes deserve himself not do be in jail. I don't know what he did well enough. But does it deserve the unwritten sentance of rape?

Previous 10 | Next 10