For the Record, I Expect Nothing Less From Kanye West

Why. Why. Why.

What are bands accomplishing from boycotting Arizona? Are the legislators going to be so hurt by not being able to see Maroon 5 in concert in Arizona? Does the state of Arizona really suffer from lack of bands performing live in their state?

Maryland is planning to introduce a similar bill. No one is boycotting them.

And howabout boycotting all of the states that have refused to pass gay marriage?

WHAT ARE THEY DOING?

This is a fantastic reason to never listen to celebrities when it comes to politics. Especially when they try to take an asinine stand like this. I bet some of these bands didn't want to boycott but were bullied in to it. How many of them actually fully understand everything in the bill? Why do celebrities think that being famous means they should be political?

I think if I was famous then I would never reveal my politics. It's alienating to a lot of my fan base. I want to bring entertainment to people, and I want them to enjoy it without feeling like I have something against them. I wonder how it must feel to be a fan of someone and what they do, either acting, singing, or any kind of art, and then find out they are very against things you believe in. Do they still appreciate you as a fan? How could you enjoy what they produce without the feeling that they don't like you, or that their anti-whatever sentiment is more than just political, it's personal? The things they say often feel pretty personal.

I'm a fan of civil discourse. Erik and I disagree politically on a lot of things, but honestly as I type that I don't know how true it is any more. Through our discussions, we have found a lot of common ground. That's because we don't argue to win, we argue to find the truth. We understand where we're both coming from, and that sort of understanding does not come from statements like "Republicans/Democrats are stupid." Whenever anyone starts a sentence like "Those Republicans/Democrats..." I cringe. Grouping everybody under one lump sum and assuming they're all this or that or think this or that is unfair and immediately puts people on the defense. Now you're not arguing to come up with a solution, you're arguing to the death.

So when celebrities take what I so often assume is an ignorant and knee-jerk reactions, like not touring in Arizona because of a bill they want to pass, I get angry. This doesn't accomplish anything politically, it just hurts your fans. It not only hurts your fans because they won't get to see you, it hurts the fans who disagree with you. It's a betrayal to the money and support they've given you. And honestly, it's a betrayal to the fans who feel more strongly about other issues, like gay marriage. How do you justify not touring in Arizona when gay people are not equal citizens in most of the United States? What makes this issue worthy or your time, and not the others?

I say Arizona fans boycott music. Show them that you don't want to hear their opinions, you want to hear their music, but if you have to hear their opinions, then you won't bother with their music. You're more than the politics of the state you happen to live in.

Because Bigotry is Funny

I'm really enjoying the gratuitous amounts of apostrophes. Also I'm confused why they feel so strongly about emos? And sophisticated swine? Apparently also, if you're straight but "effeminate" you still love the devil. At least they're progressive enough to understand that feminists and "loud mouth women" are not necessarily the same thing.

Stop Making it Something That it's Not.

I'm sure you've all seen some variation of this quote, be it a facebook version or otherwise. This particular quote irritated me with the final, "That shut her up."

Quick lesson: rephrasing the problem in a way that seems witty and funny does not negate the problem or make the person who points it out less correct. You didn't shut her up, you proved her point by showing how insensitive you are to the issue.

"Stop being a shitty lock."

I would like to quarrel with the idea that women are supposed to be locks, that virginity is something that needs to be locked up and protected. This isn't the middle ages, a woman is not worth more if she hasn't had sex. Being a virgin does not make someone more moral, or "pure," or better than other people. It just means she hasn't had sex.

Funny how you could have just looked that up in Webster's.

If a woman does not want to have sex with a man, it's not because she is keeping herself locked up. She has not "maintained" her virtue, she has not won the age-old battle of men versus women. She has simply decided that she does not want to engage in sex with this man. Maybe it's because she doesn't have a condom and does not want to risk STDs. Maybe it's because she has to get up for work the next day. Maybe it's because she doesn't want to have sex with men she is not in love with. Maybe she's just genuinely not attracted to him.

Regardles of the reason, viewing her as the victor is unhealthy. Now the man leaves dejected, emasculated and less of a man. See how this depiction is starting to look unfavorable for BOTH parties involved?

If the woman did want to have sex, she did not lose her virtue or become a slut. Consenting parties both get to have fun and feel good. What's so bad about that?

Also, this completely ignores the possibility of a woman seeking out a man for sex. A man can say no and still be a man, and a woman can ask for sex without being a slut.

We expect everyone to fit into this incredibly small and constricting boxes of "gender" that leaves a surprisingly large amount of people out. That's not good for anyone, even the people who somehow manage to attain those ridiculous standards.

Sex isn't a game. No lock, no key, just two people of equal worth and value having a healthy and enjoyable time.

In the words of the atheist bus ads, "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

This is Why We Need Real Doctors

Homeopathy: failing harder than ever before with a new male viriginity test.

There's no science to back this up. There's no reason to assume this ONE WOMAN'S claims are correct. She happened to notice red spots on men's ears when they told her they were virgins? Oh yeah. That's conclusive.

Let's also consider the fact that these men potentially raped women. Now they're out on the loose, and these women's stories, as opposed to this random acupuncturist's crazy ramblings, are going to be ignored.

What the fuck, world. What the fuck.

For the sake of argument, I'd like to point out that even if these men DID have sex and were NOT virgins, that's also hardly conclusive evidence that they raped the women in these cases. Can we please take the conversation about the accused's and the accuser's viriginity out of rape trials? It doesn't mean anything.

We Face the Ghosts So You Don't Have To!

It is summer vacation. Which is awesome. Being an RA for the summer is sweet because I'm taking on responsibility and working with cool people. Only being an RA for the summer is sweet because it has left my afternoons free to enjoy day time TV.

Only being an RA for the summer is sucky because it has left my afternoons free to enjoy day time TV.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good paternity test on Maury as much as the next guy. And I'm not about to complain about being relatively stress-free and relaxed while also having a job. It's a sweet gig. I just suspect that after while I'm going to start to go crazy a little.

For now, however, I have Ghost Hunters to keep me occuppied.

If you've watched Supernatural, you may have seen the characters who call themselves "Ghostfacers." They're a mockery of those people that take their EMF readers, find the nearest dilapitated house and investigate. They're quirky and have a ridiculous theme song. "Stay in the kitchen when the kitchen gets HOT!"

I've learned from Ghosthunters that this portrayal is unfortunately not that far off. These are people who mysteriously miss getting all the sightings, sounds and actions of ghosts on camera, despite having cameras set up everywhere. These are people who take shadows as proof of the undead. These are people who dangerously pretend to be skeptical, but only to a point ("that sound was definitely the wind outside so we'll discredit it. But that sound is only explained by GHOSTS.")

Is human intelligence really this far gone? I suppose this sort of thinking has been around as long as humanity has, but when will these people get open-minded enough to the idea that they might be wrong? When will they listen to reason?

I think I need to not watch this show anymore, because the more I saw, the more frustrated I became. It's really like people have given up on science. Science cannot explain everything yet, so to some people that makes it meaningless. Maybe if we could depoliticize science, show people how much it's affecting their everyday lives, and why the scientific method (i.e. the backbone of skepticism) works, they would believe in it more. They'd take the time to hone their skepticism skills and see right through this ghost hunter crap.

Oh wait, that sounds like science class in high school.

Dammit. Arts are important, but I don't care what anyone says, science is critical to our survival. As long as people are capable of convincing other people of things that are very undeniably false (o hai Scientology) we are at risk.

In the meantime, I think I saw a two hour block of Spongebob on Nickelodeon this morning. I'll stick with that.

Oh, Science, why do you do this to yourself?

First of all, cracked is a fantastic website and you all need to read it in its entirety. Even though this article about petty feuds in science is the one I'm focusing on right now. Go ahead, this will be here when you get back in a week.

Second of all, despite this article being absolutely hilarious, it's simultaneously depressing. I mean, just think about these comments for a moment:

"More depressing, though, is that John Harrison was one of history's most promising supergeniuses, and might have outshone everybody else on this list in terms of his total output of incredible discoveries, if not for the fact that the British government forced him to spend his entire life rebuilding the same clock over and over again."

"The backlash against this not-exactly-radical healthcare reform was so severe that doctors who had already practiced some form of personal hygiene stopped doing so, and went on compensating for their threatened manhood with ever longer probes. Over the next three years, childbirth mortalities almost tripled."

"Also it's commonly believed that Tesla would have received a Nobel Prize for his contributions to physics had Edison not sabotaged him at every turn."

Science, you're pretty awesome and all, and I'mma let you finish, but your pettiness is the greatest, most frustrating pettiness of all time! all time!

No matter how fantastic the logic behind the scientific method is, and no matter how beautiful the "search for the truth" may be, if scientists can't get their heads out of their asses and work together we will get nowhere.

As a somewhat sidenote, I find it interesting that I think capitalism both hinders and aids the scientific method in this regard. Competition is awesome because it motivates scientists to compete to make discoveries and inventions that will help us. But competition also promotes petty lies and thievery to win.

I'm looking at you, Watson and Crick.

Think of the Children!

Have you heard of the Creation Museum? No? Probably for the best, it means you don't hang out in a crowd that believes the world is 6000 years old.

For those who don't know, in summary: The creation museum is to the creationists what The Museum of Natural History is to..well...everyone else. Frustrated that they did not have a building dedicated to their (ahem) science, the creationists took it upon themselves to build such a thing so as to "educate" the masses.

Admittedly, I shouldn't really care. The museum isn't going to convert educated adults, and the uneducated adults probably already believe all of this. The first amendment guarantees the right to say whatever they want to. If they want to use the Bible as a source of actual history, scientific or otherwise, it's not going to affect me, right?

The problem is not the adults paying money to visit this museum and learn about Adam and Eve and their pet dinosaurs, it's the adults paying money for their children to visit this museum.

Children are supposed to trust their parents, especially given that their parents are their primary source of survival. Naturally, they believe everything their parents tell them. They are telling them that scientists are liars, and are going to hell for not believing the literal interpretation of the Bible.

Where does that thought process naturally take you? If you don't trust scientists, then you won't trust doctors, you won't get vaccinated, you won't get proper medicine. If you don't trust scientists, you won't trust engineers, and you won't trust any modern technological advancements.

If you don't trust scientists, you only have religious leaders to believe, the ones that say condoms do not prevent the spread of AIDs, and immodestly dressed women cause earthquakes. You believe that treating your child through prayer and not accepted medical practices is okay. You believe that treating some people differently than others is okay.

But is this enough evidence to step in and say enough? Undoubtedly for some families these fundamental religious indoctrinations become harmful not just mentally but physically, and that's not okay. Once we draw that line though, we enter a dangerous territory where attacking one set of religious beliefs becomes attacking all religious beliefs. We start forcing people to believe in evolution as opposed to allowing free thought and freedom of speech. Children are being hurt, and growing into adults that will continue the cycle, but how can we stop it without becoming them?

This post by Jen at Blaghag.com and her review of the Creation Museum, specifically this post, is what got me started on this.