After the Caucus

As a Minnesotan, I would like to address the fact that Santorum won the caucus here by saying this does not exactly represent that the state of Minnesota agrees with anything that is said by him in the following video:

I, for one, did not vote in the caucus because:

1) I am not a registered Republican. I am not a registered anything. I am a good old Independent/"I'll vote whatever the hell I feel like and screw your party lines" maniac.

2) I have yet to understand how the caucus works. You see, back in the Old Country (Indiana) we had something that made slightly more sense - it was a primary, and registered voters of Insert Party Name Here voted. I have yet to encounter any Minnesotans that a) know what a caucus is and b) voted in it. And only around 50,000 voted in the caucus. That's less than the number of students enrolled at my university.

3) If you don't know why I wouldn't vote for Santorum, watch the video again. If you aren't agreeing with the Fox News anchor (which I did, for perhaps the first time in my life), then perhaps we're having a failure to communicate - just like what's going on in this interview. I think we're done here.

Ashamed

http://www.babble.com/

This article came rolling around on my Tumblr dashboard last night and before I even opened it, I had a gut instinct as to what it was going to be about.

I absolutely hate it when I'm right in situations like this.

Sure enough, this Rolling Stone article is talking about Anoka, Minnesota. A town that's only a half-hour away from where I'm sitting now. A town that's cute and picturesque and is the "Halloween Capital of the World" and has a really good restaurant called Serum's.

It is also now the most hated place in America by people I follow on Tumblr. Because nine teens have killed themselves there in under two years because of gay bullying.

Also, it just happens to be Michele Bachmann's district.

Think I'm mad? HELL YES.

Minnesota gets in The Rollings Stones. And what for? GAY BULLYING. IN A TOWN THAT'S ONLY A HALF HOUR AWAY FROM WHAT'S BEEN CALLED "THE GAYEST CITY IN AMERICA."

FUCK.

Ugh. I'm just so upset. Here I am, in my secure little college, going to the Saloon and the Gay 90s and feeling like a great ally and all this and then I read THIS.

It really, really bothers me. And, instead of just sitting here and blogging about it, I'm going to write a letter to Representative Bachmann. It may not make a difference - but it's better than nothing. Minnesota is better than this.

RIP Megavideo

http://phandroid.s3.amazonaws.com

I was very distraught to find late last week that Megaupload (and thus Megavideo, the awesome not-totally-legal source that allowed me to watch three seasons of Torchwood and one season and three episodes of season 2 of Doctor Who) had been shut down.

I can't even blame SOPA. Because SOPA didn't pass Congress. So this whole thing was just an unfortunate timed thing. Which makes me very very very sad. There goes the rest of Season 2 of Doctor Who. There goes my chance to watch Sherlock and Modern Family this semester. Can't the government deal with more important things than internet piracy right now - like, I don't know, the ECONOMY? - and let college students like me (who actually MUST watch TV for a class this semester, thanks guys) continue watching things we love and adore but can't get on American TV? Is it really THAT big of a threat at the moment?

Whatever, guys. Whatever. I'm just going to keep mourning here and complaining for a few minutes longer. Before you guys do something else more important and ridiculous to piss me off. Which you will. 'Cause your politicians.

Wow, I just figured out what to be pissed about next - I'm getting jaded. And cynical. The two things I refuse to become. Grrrrr.... I shall not give in. I shall not become a cynic! Because... well, this:

http://randomoverload.com

 

 But personally, I like this best:

http://www.jarche.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/cynic-460x361.gif

Girls who like Boys who like Boys who don't like Bachmann

Here I am, trying so hard to NOT write another "I hate Michele Bachmann so much" post but have epically failed. I mean, things started off better. I was actually going to write about something I disagreed with in The Advocate. But then Rick Perry pissed off the world,  and I was going to start off there. But then [Львица] stumbled across this. And of course, it was back to Bachmann.

Here's the section I found appalling:

Bachmann warned The Lion King was Gay Propaganda: At the November 2004 EdWatch National Education Conference, Bachmann said the “normalization” of homosexuality would lead to “desensitization”: “Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of ‘The Lion King’ for instance, and a teacher might say, ‘Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?’ The message is: I’m better at what I do, because I’m gay.”

Basically, I'm going to let Stewie Griffin say what I feel about that. Because words alone aren't going to cut it.

 

I actually forgot that the quote ended that way until I made the pic. Thank you, Stewie, for creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Bachmann's attempts to keep America from normalizing homosexuality will just make people gay. Yes, that is exactly the point I wanted to make :P

Where I was actually going with this is I kind of loathe Michele Bachmann. It's not that I wish her ill. It's not that I actually want to harm her or any such thing. It's just... the things that she says makes me physically ill and I very much wish she wasn't saying them. Lemme put this in perspective for you.

Before I read this article, I came across one about John Barrowman (thanks to bloggingbarrowman on Tumblr). Now, as the entire universe probably knows by this point, I love this man to the point of being utterly irrational and insane (I'm sorry; he named a his Jack Russell terrier "Captain Jack." If that's not the cutest thing ever, then I don't know what is). Anyway, this article quotes many clever, wonderful things from Barrowman. But this is perhaps one of my favorite:

John is clearly in an impossible situation when it comes to his sexuality. He would like it to not be an issue. He says, 'I'm an actor. Not a gay actor. Is Brad Pitt ever described as a "straight actor"?'

Word. Point is, being gay is not the first thing a lot of actors want to be described as - for reasons we discussed in social psych. Say things like "male nurse" or "black lawyer" or "woman doctor" imply that they are outside the social norms and perpetuate stereotypes. So, using their sexuality as a reason they're better at what they do is... well, flat-out wrong. Or, as [novel killer] said about the subject on Facebook: "Does this mean that Bachmann does view gay people as more talented and thus that is why she seems to not like them? Because that seems to be the only way she could come up with that correlation." Agreed.

Of course, there's a problem with having these concerns so near and dear to my heart. While mentioning this about Bachmann to my dad this morning, the conversation went basically something like this:

Dad: "She's not going to win the nomination anyway, so don't worry about it."
Me: "Yeah, but she's not the only one saying stuff like this."
Dad: "Sure, but I'm more worried about getting four more years of what we have now. That'll really destroy our country."

When you're in an economic crisis, it's difficult to make something like human rights a priority - I sort of touched on this in my politics post. But like I said, I feel like I shouldn't have to choose. Candidates should care about both. But I digress...

And though I have been hating on Bachmann (a lot), something else Barrowman said in that article got me thinking about a TV show that has been troubling me of late:

He was famously rejected for the role of Will in Will & Grace, on the grounds that he was 'too straight'. He rolls his eyes. 'Because I like sports and I like cars, I'm not easy to slot into that "camp" box. To me, it is just pigeonholing. Too easy.'

He believes that the Will & Grace model is a perfect example of what is wrong with the way the big American networks portray 'gayness'.

'If that programme was true to life, Will would have a boyfriend. But they want to perpetrate the myth that he is waiting to be "cured".'

John Barrowman was rejected for the role of Will?! Wow... just wow. I kind of have a special place in my heart for "Will and Grace" because it was the first sitcom I ever seriously watched. And it was the first show I ever saw homosexuals on. But I gotta agree with Barrowman here. I remember one episode - the last episode I watched of it, actually - where Grace wanted to have a baby and for some reason she wanted to have Will's baby and instead of doing artificial insemination, they were going to sleep together. And I was like, "WHAT THE FUCK?!" It seemed totally wrong to me. Let me have NPH explain why:

via the-slow-show.tumblr

There you go - how simple was that? Will is a gay man. Will would probably never sleep with Grace unless under threat of death - he's her friend, not her friend with benefits, boyfriend, OR A STRAIT MAN AT ALL. Within that moment, the entire show went from being kind of stereotypical but supportive of gay culture to being totally... awkward. I've never felt quite right about that show ever since. 

This is the whole reason why I don't like the term "fag hag" (and thus wrote that post about it) - because it in some ways insinuates that women who are friends with gay men just want to change him into a strait man and sleep with him (not necessarily in that order). That's not to say "fag hag" is always used that way. But that association is one of the major issues I have with it.

So, it seems the pic I used on my post for "fag hag" might be more fitting than I thought. There's some weird, complex stuff at work here - wanting to portray Will in a stereotypically gay way, but getting him to end up with Grace in the end. And making women who are friends with gay men just wanting to actually sleep with him instead of being friends. It's this weird, discordant... mess.

And to add to that mess, I feel like addressing people who keep saying stuff like "I'd totally sleep with [insert name of hot gay celebrity here] if he wasn't gay!" Partly, I feel like it could be too easy to slide back into the "wanting to turn him straight" mess (or have people declare that's what you mean). I also feel like it's not true. Honestly, I'm totally obsessed with John Barrowman because of who he is; I feel like if he were straight, he'd be an entirely different person. So girls out there who have a major crush on a gay man: it's okay. You want to sleep with a gay man. It'll never happen, but neither will sleeping with Brad Pitt. That's the way it goes.

So... this took me a lot longer to write than I thought it would. Mainly because of the Will and Grace tangent. And I still haven't gotten to that article from The Advocate. Dammit. Well, to be continued then...

Let's Get Political

Here's a pretty basic idea of how politics are thought of in the US:

http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/luc/2009/11/rethinking-political-ideologies/

I, however, don't see politics in a straight line - I never have. So I've made this diagram to help describe how it works in my head:

It's sort of a work in progress, but that's the gist of it. Anarchists and Libertarians are kind of in the same boat - both like limited power. Dialectically apposed would be Fascism, so that's in the center - since it seems to be both a right wing/ left wing issue (or, since there's a debate about that, just for simplicity it's going there). And the rest, I think, is self-explanatory.

I also found this neat little graphic, showing that I am not the only person who thinks this way (damn, there goes my thesis, but at least I'm not alone in the world):

http://singularcake.blogspot.com/2011/05/political-fever.html

I like this diagram, except for the fact that fascism and monarchy are equated as the same thing (I feel like all Fascist governments have sucked big time and one could argue that not every king or queen was a bad. Also, may I point out that fascism is SPELLED WRONG). I also still think the libertarians and the anarchists have a lot more in common than they would like to admit. And I don't totally agree with where the circles are. But the basic concept is on the right track.

Of course, as soon as I make this diagram, I realize I have no idea where the hell I belong on it. The problem is, I'm never exactly at the same position all the time. On some issues, I'm pretty damn liberal (gay marriage! the environment! censorship! civil rights!) Other times, I am conservative (not changing shit that works fine the way it is! fix the tax code!) And then I get libertarian - or is it anarchist? (stop making government institutions that waste money/ oppress people/ don't do any good!) And then there's that streak of moderate in me (abortion! immigration! affirmative action!) And then there's stuff that I have really strong feelings about, but just don't fit any political party, exactly (bullying! education/ No Child Left Behind Act! privacy and the PATRIOT act! war! religion! science! fire arms! fucking WHY is some of this a political issue?!)

You get the idea. There's a lot of... stuff... that doesn't fit a political party. Thus voting in the coming election is not going to be very easy for me. I want a candidate who cares about the environment -but not to the extreme of shaming people who use Styrofoam once in a while, has good public speaking skills and an understanding of economics, history, language... okay, basically I want an interdisciplinary person who support the HRC and won't be a condescending douche after he/she gets elected. And who won't raise taxes so that college students and others are actually being paid minimum wage, not minimum wage before taxes. And I'd really appreciate it if he/she maybe wasn't a Democrat or a Republican since all they seem capable of doing is disagreeing with each other and then glaring at each other and slandering instead of, oh, I don't know, TRYING TO COMPROMISE.

Oh, politics - you are the most cynical thing in my life. I want to care more - I think working for a campaign or in DC would be incredible - but I just feel so... unable to discuss politics. Because we've gotten to the point where you can't just disagree with someone. A difference in opinion is an insult to you as a person, a danger to our country, a Fascist or Socialist or Anarchist threat. Politics are so emotional that if someone disagrees with you, you could end up hating them (thank you, Michele Bachmann, for proving this to me). Things that involve moral and personal concerns (abortion, for example) are suddenly the dividing grounds for parties. In this next election, I'm torn between wanting to support what I hear in college (OWS!) and what I've seen in my life (capitalism doesn't suck that bad if it's managed right!). Between what I know (capitalism has serious downfalls) and what I also know (has socialism EVER worked?!) I have to pit fiscal management against gay rights, attitudes towards education against separation between church and state, environmental concerns against taxes. When in my head they're all interconnected and should be able to WORK TOGETHER.

And thus I'm back where I started - trying to find myself on that circle of politics. Which has now just become a web of confusion. This is the result of telling your children from a young age to think critically - it is the best thing you could ever teach them. And also the worst :P

I Should Just Become A Lobbyist

The time has come for me to continue my gauntlet-throwing. Unfortunately, I must attack Michele Bachmann. I'd say I feel bad about it... but I don't. Truly, she really needs to think before she speaks.

Thanks to the Advocate, I found out this article. Along with this video:

Yes. Michele Bachmann has once again wonderfully avoided answering a serious question. Rather than talking about her views on gay marriage, she just reiterates that gay individuals can get married as long as it is a woman marrying a man and a man marrying a woman, as that is the law in our country. It's also the most goddamn stupidest response I've heard yet.

Also, she doesn't even know what a GSA is. My God... I fear for the world.

Also, does anyone else get this weird vibe about her wording like she could be alluding to gay Americans not actually being citizens or am I being too anal about trying to out her as a nutjob? Because I'm really starting to loathe this woman. I respect you, no matter your political platform, as long as you show equal respect. This woman thinks she knows it all - and is totally, totally condescending.

Anyone else also concerned that people are actually APPLAUDING what she is saying?

And I'm not even going to try and tackle what she says in the second half of the video. It would be in all caps and it would only end in tears.

Here is what I think Michele Bachmann's problem is: I don't think she realizes that HOMOSEXUALS ARE REAL. It's like she's in denial that gay men like men and gay women like women. A gay man is not going to marry a woman because... oh my God, do I really have to describe this? WHY DO PEOPLE STILL HAVE A HARD TIME ACCEPTING THIS?! I mean, c'mon people - I didn't know homosexuality existed until I was thirteen or fourteen. When I did learn about it, it made exactly as much sense to me as heterosexual relationships did at that time (because then, I couldn't understand why ANYONE wanted to have sex, because after learning about it via sex ed, it sounded totally nasty. Thank you, public school health class). So there was never any inequality there in my mind. Ever. I just... I just don't get it. They're people... who love people. End of story. And people who need people are the happiest people in the world. Thank you, Funny Girl.

Here's a pictorial representation. Michele Bachmann is on the left. I am on the right.







So that's where we are on this whole issue.
And in other news....

Thanks to this blog I found this article about Chick-Fil-A totally not supporting gay couples. As you probably know, Chick-Fil-A is known for having deep religious ties (and not being open on Sundays). Now their charitable outreach group, Win-Shape, has come out and said they have deep anti-gay ties too. (Fun fact about Win-Shape: I was trying to remember why their name sounded familiar and I realized it was because of an incident I researched, involving an exorcism at a southern college, and that the kid who performed the exorcism was a Win-Shape scholarship recipient. So yay for that weird tidbit).

Guys, just... seriously?

What I want to know is, how is gay marriage different from inter-racial marriage? I mean, think about it... if you're for inter-racial marriage (and if you're not - ufta, that's gonna be a problem) then I just don't understand why you wouldn't support gay marriage. And the religious explanations... people do realize that the Old Testament sections were probably more focused on making sure they had adequate population growth than with men loving each other, right? The whole "men lying with men" was probably more of a problem because they wanted children to carry on their community and thus men not procreating was kind of a pain. And that the texts have been translated and stuff. And that God didn't sit down with a pen and write it... it was written by men. Also, if you take the Bible literally, you can't eat shrimp and you're cool with stoning people. And if you're really practicing what you preach, you believe that God loves everyone equally - no matter what. And that he makes no mistakes. So, yeah... Just saying.

Now that I've just ostracized myself as a heretic (you know, that's a word you don't here much any more - heretic.)... anyway, now that I am a twenty-first century heretic, I am going to consider becoming a lobbyist for the GLBT community. Because it would be fucking awesome. And I've already proven that I talk about this stuff forever. So win-win.

Throwing Down the Gauntlet

Today, I received this really kind, sweet email from the president of the Human Rights Campaign, thanking me for all I've done for marriage equality. Now, this was a mass email but it still put a pang of cognitive dissonance in my mind. Mainly because I just joined the HRC two months ago and I haven't done much. Yes, I signed a petition. Yes, I talk about gay rights a lot. Yes, half of my best friends are gay and I photo-stalk people who photo-stalk John Barrowman. But that doesn't equal much of anything. Of course, neither does a passive-aggressive blog. But it's a first step, and it's the thought that counts.


So, as a New Year's resolution before New Years (a Thanksgiving resolution, if you will), I'm jumping into the political arena. That's right, baby - I am throwing down the gauntlet. Because we have a big election next year. And as GLBT issues are near and dear to my heart, there's some stuff I think should be clarified.

Read this article. And then watch the video posted below (it's the same that's on the article's website). Or just watch the video and then read the article. Really, I don't care. Just do it.

I don't know about you, but when I first watched this, I felt a bit like I do when someone is speaking Italian above my level - I can understand words, and maybe a few sentences, but nothing made cohesive sense. Fortunately for me, I read the article first. Or maybe unfortunately... because I spent much of the morning think about this.

Now admittedly, the video doesn't mention anything at all about homosexuals. But the Huffington Post blog article says that Tamara Scott, Michele Bachmann's Iowa Campaign Co-Chair, is speaking in reference to gay marriage and how it will ruin the institution of marriage. Because this is taken out of context and I have no idea what "red herring" is being referred to, maybe the Huffington Post (which is a pretty liberal paper) is just trying to make Scott look really bad. But she does work for Michele Bachmann. And, as I just learned in my social psych textbook, birds of a feather flock together.

This article, talks about John Becker and his refusal to pay for therapy sessions he scheduled as part of a sting operation to reveal that a clinic used reparative therapy - ones that are supposed to "turn" gay people straight. Here's the deal - the clinic Becker went to is a Christian counseling center in suburban Minneapolis, run by Marcus Bachmann, Michele Bachmann's husband. Now, Marcus Bachmann denies that his practice does any such counseling. But the thing is, Becker's video of the session he attended seems pretty convincing. And as Michele Bachmann refuses to talk about it, saying it's not important in regards to her campaign, there isn't a whole lot of clear light shed on the issue.

Here's my take: I don't like it when the media gets too deeply involved in a politician's background or past mistakes. Sometimes it's just too much and blown out of proportion (Bill Clinton did pot? This is Jack's lack of surprise). Sometimes it's just a violation of privacy. Besides, nobody's perfect - there's going to be mistakes in a candidate's past. But there's a level of knowledge you NEED to have about a candidate, not only to support their issues and empathize, but to TRUST them. Knowing whether or not your candidate thinks homosexuality can be "cured" by therapy? Big fucking deal to me. As far as I'm concerned, Bachmann is totally unelectable unless she discusses what her husband's clinic does. Yes, I know there's a level of patient confidentiality there - I'm a psych major, for God's sake - but discussing what sort of therapies one uses doesn't break that confidentiality. It's a simple yes or no question, really.

So if Marcus Bachmann's clinic has nothing to hide, why won't either one of them talk about it? A very good question in deed.

Also, all of you Bachmann haters out there, don't blame Minnesota for her. Please realize that she represents only ONE district of our state. And that I had absolutely nothing to do with her election. So haters - be hatin' elsewhere.

SOPA, or: If this is real, my blogging career is over

So I saw this on Tumblr like five minutes ago: If SOPA passes, the following sites could be blocked for US users.

WHAT. THE. HELL.

Here's an article about it.

A Minnesota senator, OUR AMY KLOBUCHAR, supports it.

Really, guys? REALLY?

I don't know if it would actually block Facebook and Twitter from US users. I can't seem to find any articles to support that. However, I can find a website about American Censorship Day, claiming that Facebook will be gone from my life. Along with Twitter, Tumblr, Megavideo - no more Doctor Who and Torchwood! :( - and no YouTube. Not to mention that it seems this blog will cease to exist. Did I make the gifs I put on here? Did I take the photos (some of them, yes). But overall, nada. Call me a pirate. Me and like 90 some percent of my generation.

If this is real, then my creative outlets, innovation sites and business tools are kaput. My hopes of finding an outlet to practice writing, create a web presence and beef up a resume are gone. The chance of aspiring musicians, actors, entertainers, etc to express themselves and post their work will be made far more difficult to attain. So we watch TV shows for free and we sing covers of our favorite songs - guess what? I bet for every song we sing and TV show we watch, we BUY something that compensates. Yes, I watch Torchwood on Megavideo. But I'm planning on buying the seasons and I buy other merch. So we consumers are still buying stuff, if that's your worry. We're not going to fuck you over, music/movie/media industries. We LIKE you. We buy stuff, we do. We respect what you do. We just don't like spending loads of money for single songs, TV seasons, cable. And if you haven't noticed, American TV is ridiculous and Netflix has decided to suck. So... can you really blame us?

I don't like censorship. Lemme just make that clear. I don't usually get super in-your-face political, but this is something I really care about. I love how accessible the internet is - anyone can post anything. Yes, that causes problems - LOTS of problems. But seriously, I think this is the least of your worries. Could you maybe work on catching people who post child porn or something? That seems a little more vital to the integrity of our country than, you know, the guy at the U of such-and-such downloading a Katy Perry song for free. IMHO.

So if you happen to be as outraged as me and worried just enough that this totally legitimate, visit the American Censorship Day website and sign their petition. Let's just hope this is just a lot of ruckus over something that won't pass, that we've overblown into a monstrosity. But these days - who knows?

I can't tell if I'm going more anarchist or more libertarian. God help us all if I become either one.

Bonding with Absolute Strangers

[Львица], [The Question] and I went to see the free movie of the week at the student union on Saturday night (this week's film happened to be Captain America. More about that later, hopefully). While we were walking back, some guy was walking and talking with the people around him and, as we passed them by, he said loudly, (something along the lines of), "It was like, 'Let's get coffee. By the way, this is a date.'" And suddenly, I was sent into hysterics. I was laughing so hard I was nearly crying.

I don't know if this guy was referring to something he himself had done or something that had happened to him, but I know that very experience far too well. Because that's exactly what I did to [No-Mr-Darcy]. Whoops.

And thus, miscommunication leads to awkward situations. Because then everything feels like this:

So, so, so true.

A Yankee on "British" History

Because I'm trying to avoid politics in the United States right now (mainly because I spend too much time thinking about it everywhere but here) I've been reading the BBC news webpage a lot, especially in regards to Scotland.  This article especially caught my eye: 'Britishness' no threat to Scots.

This was a topic we talked about quite a bit on my trip this summer; some of the only history the course covered. I had the good fortune of sitting next to one of the professors we had guest lecture, Nicholas Phillipson of the University of Edinburgh, when our class took him out for drinks after the lecture. He gave us a nice summary of the current political situation in Scotland, which we'd only touched on briefly when discussing the union of Scotland and England in the 18th century. There's been a lot of tension in the past and it's beginning to resurface, now that Scotland has their own parliament again; a tension between people who want to remain part of Great Britain and those who want Scotland to become its own country. Those who want Scotland to separate have formed their own party, the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) and things are beginning to heat up, it seems. Especially from what I could glean from Professor Phillipson, this is a BIG issue.

It's interesting when I talk about Scotland here in the States how many people don't realize it ISN'T its own country. There's been success in putting a block between "Britshisness" and Scottish culture so that people - like many Americans - don't quite realize that Scotland isn't its own distinct nation. My professor in my Cultural Studies class went on a tangent the other day while talking about Raymond Williams and how, because Williams was Welsh, he was alienated from British society. My professor then went on to say that people from Wales and Scotland don't think of themselves as English and not even as British; in fact they will take offense if you call them British; they are Scottish or Welsh. His tangent articulated a point I've heard emphasized before, a point that makes politics in the UK incredibly complex and hard to articulate to foreigners. I mean, I'm only going off of what I've read, heard and seen - I am my no means very well versed in this political situation. Mainly because I'm not Scottish...

This Professor Mitchell in the BBC article makes an interesting point, saying that the Scottish identity is strong enough to not be under any threat from "Britishness" now. I mean, he could be right... but I feel like there still some pretty strong feelings towards Britain and that there will be no simple acceptance of being British for some. And this isn't even taking into account the issues of Northern Ireland or Wales (that's right, Wales is in this boat too. They might seem like the quite, peaceful ones who never really rebelled in the past. But even on the BBC they articles published in Welsh - their personal culture is WAY important to them, so it definitely matters). It's a weird situation - a post-colonial, post-imperialistic aftermath where it isn't clear what should happen. Professor Mitchell is right in saying that their is a link between Scotland and the UK but saying they have a "common past" may not sit so well with some. They do share a past but the way the two sides see it is incredibly different. I hope they can find some common ground, but I also don't think that necessarily means Scotland remaining part of the big GB. But then again, I'm a Yank - revolting against the British is in my history.

Which brings me to another interesting BBC article... Is the US Declaration of Independence Illegal?

This article discusses how American and British lawyers are discussing the legality of the Declaration. Meaning was or was it not illegal?

Um... really? We're arguing this? I didn't realize there was any doubt.

Yeah, pretty sure this is NOT how the war went down...

OF COURSE IT WAS ILLEGAL. We were rebels. The only reason America is America and not part of Great Britain is because some how we won the war, not because the document that Jefferson wrote up, stemming off of John Locke, was viewed as totally legit. Does any American really think that the Declaration was viewed as anything other than crap by the king of England? I mean, yeah, it's important to Americans BECAUSE WE'RE AMERICANS and it was our way of putting, in writing, that we were done with England. (It's like changing your relationship status on Facebook, for all of you who feel like that this metaphor relates better than anything else I can come up with. And to totally make the Revolution sound like a break-up. Wow, reminded me NOT to become a history teacher.) (Also, what's with calling the American Revolution the "War of Independence?" Apparently that's what us Yanks are supposed to be calling it these days. But it was a revolution! We revolted! There was death and war and stuff! It wasn't pretty! We should remember that... and honestly, American Revolution sounds more badass.) Of course the Declaration wasn't the final straw for England. They didn't freak out and say, "Oh my God! They wrote a paper! They must really mean business!" No, it was the toll from the war that led to an American victory...and some assistance from the French. Who later had their own rebellion. But that's another story.

Point is, we were doing something totally batshit crazy by saying we no longer belonged to Britain. Somehow, it worked, and we take great pride in it. Which every once in a while makes things a bit awkward with our friends across the pond. Maybe that's why I'm so interested in Scotland wanting to separate from England/Britain/UK... whatever I should be referring to them as at this point. Because things are getting so complicated with these identities. I mean, how do the English even see themselves now? Do they see themselves as one with Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland? Or do they see themselves as distinct too? I don't know... something to look into, once again...

I didn't watch the debate BUT...

Like the title says, I didn't watch tonight's GOP debate. I was busy studying for a psych and Italian test. However, I did come across this wonderful picture in the Star Tribune:

This photo is so great. I have no idea what's going on here, but the expression on Romney's face... and Ron Paul... :D

Say what you will about Ron Paul, he makes the debates pretty interesting. I'm no libertarian (well, I could be in some aspects I could be but I think many libertarians would be appalled by many of my views) but I like the guy. It's probably because he's an underdog and the media ignores him. And he makes expressions like that. Now I'm totally wishing I'd watched the debates. Next time, Ron Paul. Next time.

Flu-ish Delusions

Here's how you know when you're sick - your dreams start taking on strange topics like this:

1) I dreamed that Michele Bachman was talking on the Greta Van Susteren show on Fox News and said that how Hilary Clinton and Michelle Obama were talking in some clip was like "sodomy, like illicit sexual activity" and then there was this huge controversy that she was calling Clinton and Michelle Obama lesbians. I woke up in a cold sweat, laughing and coughing at the sheer ridiculousness of this dream.

2) I dreamed I was walking downtown trying to meet up with [Львица] who was at the same restaurant as [X] and a bunch of people from the Scotland trip. It was late at night and I was walking with my parents, I think, and we were in some part of Minneapolis that doesn't exist but I thought I knew. There was some restaurant we passed by that I'd always wanted to go to but we realized it was on fire and that there were a bunch of cop cars and fire trucks out there and a bunch of people gawking at it. Then I realized that the buildings next to it were also on fire. I got worried and decided we should get out of there so my parents and I scampered away. We were some distance away when we noticed the fire getting bigger and suddenly this huge explosion occurred. We got thrown to the ground but got up quickly. We could see that all three buildings - which were like twenty stories each - were totally gone. We started sprinting away and I found the restaurant where [Львица] was at to share with her my action movie-like experience.

Well, at least my fever is mostly gone. That should mean "normal" dreams tonight. Not that any of the dreams I have are normal.

Good point, passive-aggressive cartoon. Good point.

May I take your hat, your coat and your swastikas?

As this post alludes to, I attended a lecture yesterday with [Львица] about a cultural phenomenon known as "Holocaust Envy." Except it wasn't quite what we were expecting. [Львица] covers it very nicely on her blog. So I'm going to talk about a different part of the lecture - namely the guy who was sitting besides me.

I try not to judge (and ultimately fail, every time) but the guy was a bit odd from the start. He entered the room, huffing and puffing as if he'd just run up the stairs instead of taking the elevator to the eleventh floor. He sat next to me and, throughout the whole lecture, he breathed heavily, constantly putting me on edge that he was going to pass out or something. Then at the end, during the questions section, he suddenly raised his hand and asked two very odd questions. Well, first he made a statement, calling the use of the presenters words very "generalized" if I remember quickly. Then he asked about the Ukrainian holocaust and asked why no one spoke about it, why it wasn't part of this presentation, why the Holocaust gets special treatment. The lecturer pointed this man out as a perfect example of "Holocaust envy," that he was in fact "seething with it." This did not make the man any too happy. He then repeated his next question - "Who wanted the Holocaust?" [Львица] and I could not quite believe we were hearing him correctly. We thought perhaps it was something sort of sarcastic, a reminder that the Nazis or the actually events of the Holocaust needed mentioning as someone before had brought this up. Maybe he wanted some sort of clarification, as in who wants Holocaust envy, who uses it to their purposes. But he clearly did not mean any of these things. The lecturer was not allowed to answer this man's question and the man left, saying his meter was running out, trying to emphasize that he was (supposedly) not leaving intentionally. But, with all truthfulness, I was pretty glad he left.


What can the answer possibly be to that, who wanted the Holocaust? In that situation, the only answer that it seemed he was going to come up with was the Jews. Which makes zero sense, really. Unless you're one of those nut-jobs who thinks the Jews "created" the Holocaust so that people will feel bad for them (they exist, I'd direct you to check out this totally disgusting website this guy created who's convinced that the tattoos from Auschwitz are fake and part of some "Jewish conspiracy" but I don't want the creep to get any more page views than necessary). So unless he had some sort of really complex answer to the question, like the complicated history of how hatred towards Jews arose in 1920s and 1930s Germany - and he did NOT look like the sort of guy who'd have that knowledge ready to spout off in the middle of a lecture (plus it would have had nothing to do with any of the material covered, as far as I can figure) - then the only answer he could have spawned would have been one that labeled him as a...well, kind of a Neo-Nazi. Too bad he left before I got the chance to ask...

Then again maybe it was for the better. Regardless - life tile.

In Sickeness and In Health

I came across this article this morning while scanning the headlines on Google New: Pat Robertson Says Divorcing Spouse with Alzheimer's is OK.

Now, from the beginning, I should admit that I already have great dislike for this televangelist. He's way too focused on Armageddon. He condemns feminism, homosexuality, and liberal college professors. He describes feminism as a "socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." He states that acceptance of homosexuality could result in natural disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and other threats like terrorist attacks. Apparently Robertson thinks Scotland is a "dark land overrun by homosexuals" (this cracks me up actually. I'm not even offended by this one, it's so ridiculous). Don't even get me started on what he said about the earthquake in Haiti. (I admit that I got most of this info from Wikipedia - from Pat Robertson and Pat Robertson controversies - but I still stand by the fact that Wikipedia has good source links. Besides, it's less biased than this post is going to be).

Now that I've admitted I'm biased while subtly trying to persuade you to side with me, back to the thing about Alzheimer's. First off, he does say that he would guilt trip people for doing this. But why say it's okay in the first place then? He states that Alzheimer's is a "kind of death."

This leaves me kind of speechless. Yes, Alzheimer's is a terrible disease. Yes, it is incredibly hard for spouses to go through. But it isn't the only terrible disease out there. Once you say it's okay to divorce someone with Alzheimer's, it it okay to divorce someone because they have have cancer? Because they have lupus? Because they have depression? After stating that one disease is grounds to divorce someone, how can you keep this from snowballing into something uncontrollable.

And Robertson, who condemns abortion, who seems like the sort who could condemn taking someone off of life support or any sort of assisted suicide, has blatantly labeled this disease as a form of death. How is this different from euthanasia? Yes, you're not actually killing the person but you're already labeling them as dead. I simply don't understand how this sort of cognitive dissonance can exist.

And all of this coming from a man who belongs to the front crying that if homosexuals were allowed to get married, the institution of marriage would be destroyed. However, I think Robertson completely misunderstands the institution of marriage overall. Especially the little bit "in sickness and in health." Marriage is supposed to overcome all obstacles - that's what strong, eternal love is supposed to do. Of course, this isn't always the case - sometimes divorce is better for both people. Everyone's relationships are different, after all. But I feel like there's extreme differences between both people wanting divorce for the betterment of each other or one person or a couple needing divorce because their relationship is unhealthy, and one person wanting to divorce their spouse because they don't want to deal with their sick partner. Aside from what God says on the topic (there's plenty and I'm not going to try to paraphrase it here) Robertson's words weakens marriage by implying it CAN'T overcome something like this. Really, Robertson, you won't let two men or two women who love each other let their relationship get legitimized but someone who doesn't want to deal with their sick spouse can get divorced? Maybe I have a totally romantic, idealist idea of love. But somehow, I feel like I'm right on this one. Sickness is terrible, love is not easy, life is hard - but life and love will endure. Isn't the idea of marriage itself proof of that?

It was a Tuesday, but I don't remember that now...

Ten years. It's been ten years since 9/11. I feel almost required to make a post about the anniversary, but I don't feel pressured to do so - I want to. That day was a nightmare for me, not because I knew anyone in New York or DC, not because I understood what was happening, but because it firmly drew the line for the end of my childhood, as if someone had taken a bit of rope and slashed it in half. [Львица] mentions repeatedly how it's incredibly how everything, EVERYTHING has changed because of that event. "It's our JFK," she says. It's true. It's that one tragedy that you remember forever and have a hard time acknowledging how long ago it actually happened.  It blows my mind that the children who are 10 years old now were just infants when it happened. They don't remember it, but they're learning about it, via the TV, their parents, school. It's weird for me to think that this event is history... but it is. How is it being taught? How is it being remembered? What does it mean to someone who is the same age as me when it happened but is learning about it ten years later?

I don't know the answers. I only know my own experiences. I write this post today instead of yesterday because I simply couldn't write it on the anniversary. All of my thinking about the even happened after the 11th, and that's still how I seem to operate. I can talk about it any day that isn't 9/11. But when it's the anniversary, I get all shook up and teary-eyed and little paralyzed with fear. I don't want to talk about it, I don't want to think about it. It's like I remember 9/11 on everyday it happened... except the anniversary. Then I don't want to think about, if only because it's the only way I feel I can pay proper respect to those who dies. Besides, 9/11 was the most unsuspecting of days, a day like any other.  It's anniversary is now no longer that way and perhaps why it's easier for me to write about it on an average day (not that any of the days following the 11th felt average in 2001). Everything has changed and we're still dealing with the changes. The most important thing is to see how far we've come. Did I think that 10 years later I'd be writing my own blog, in college, with my own apartment? Not at all - I didn't even know what college was then. It blows my mind how much has changed. What will things be like another ten years? Fifteen? Twenty? Who knows? Only time, our great friends and our great enemy, will tell...

Hipster Attack

So within the span of five minutes this morning, I saw two stories related to hipsters. One from my father: Hipsters are Abandoning Obama. Interesting. Am I right in seeing that this article seems to be saying that hipsters are abandoning Obama because he's "too mainstream?" Or is that my personal judgment of hipsters coming in? (even though I sort of claim to be one... ah, the paradox that is my life)

The other story I saw prior to this article on, where else, Facebook, from [manly-metro]: Minnesota named 'Most Hipster State in the US', to which [manly-metro] commented on his link:
"FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The vibe I was getting was that he really doesn't like hipsters. Especially when one girl commented "*proud* :p" and he called her "bad" for saying that. Right... Okay, [manly-metro], here's one for you: would you rather be known as the most hipsters state in the US or the state that elected A PRO WRESTLER as governor? Oh, you think that's manly? How about the state that gave us MICHELE BACHMAN? I'm guessing you don't like her much. Many college students don't. But may I show you what some people think of hipsters and other college students? This is a comment from the article about hipsters abandoning Obama:


They are what Glenn [Glenn Beck I would assume... ah, the things I could blog about him...] called “Useful Idiots” that were misled by their college professors into thinking that progressive-humanism is glamorous and will do good for all with communist/marxist skewed delusional end result thats not reality!!! Americans in their 40′s and older have seen the evil and impoverishing effects in their reality that has been hidden from these sheltered punks!!! The look on their face when they find out they‘ve been deceived would be quite satisfying if we weren’t all in misery with them! Sometimes I believe that God is going to give us a good as* kicking so that us free Americans can see how blessed we have been and to teach us a lesson we won’t forget for generations!!!

So conflicted... and still sort of Catholic

So I found this article on Sunday (couldn't ask for better timing, really) and I felt like sharing it: Pope Tells Pilgrims to Stay True to Their Beliefs 

This is the part where I get to blabber about my "Catholic upbringing." I was baptized, went to Catholic school (three different schools, to be exact) from pre-school through half of fifth grade, went through First Communion and First Reconciliation (or First Confession as it used to be called) and went to church nearly every Sunday until sometime during fifth or sixth grade. I cried the first time I said "hell" as a curse and was terrified that I would be in some sort of huge trouble for it. I wore uniforms. I loves singing church songs. I probably wanted to be a saint.

I am now not-very-Catholic-at-all. It's still a core part of my life, or at least my background - I mean, when people have questions about Catholicism, they often (foolishly) turn to me for answers (please don't ask me to explain how Holy Communion works. I learned the hard way that my brain somehow adhered to the Lutheran doctrine, not Catholic. Oops). When it comes to Christmas and Easter each year, I long to go to church, even though when I attend, I feel awkward and a bit too... well, "Cafeteria Catholic" to use the only phrase that comes to mind. It would be easy for me to say that being in a secular school (aka public school) made me "less Catholic" but that's not true. It was switching to a new church in a new state with a totally different outlook on faith. But I did meet people, for the first time in my life, who were NOT Catholic. I learned who Jews were (seriously, I had NO idea they existed until 7th grade. I am not kidding. That might have been an epic fail on my part though, so don't blame the schools yet...) And I started to think about how maybe there could be more than one right answer to how to practice religion. I could prattle on about this forever, but it'll have to wait - more explanation some other time, when it's not a total tangent.

Pensive Pooping Teddy Bear Takes On World

Okay, so after the insanity that was yesterday's posts, I'm going to write something very short and sweet about a book I just reread - Winkie, by Clifford Chase. Here's the gist: it's about a teddy bear that comes to life, experiences life (as in walking, talking, eating and pooping) and gives birth to a baby bear ("Baby Winkie"), only to suffer tragedy and despair and to be accused of terrorism by the FBI. Yes, you read that right - a teddy bear is accused of terrorism. As ridiculous as it sounds, it's a really interesting book, and well-written considering the strange plot. So look it up if you're interested in inanimate objects acquiring life and someone poking fun at the US justice system. And pensive pooping teddy bears, of course.

Love and Loss, or: too much info about my personal life, Part 1

I’m making myself write this or I’ll never do it and I’ll regret it. Not because I think anyone cares but because this is my modern way of journaling and it’s not healthy for me to keep a bunch of thoughts like this piling up in my noggin, which is cramped for space as it is. And it is a huge cultural study – one I’m actually really interested in *cough, probably because it involves myself, cough*. So here goes nothing.

This starts with another blog for class that I wrote months ago (which stemmed from something I said in the blog about White Noise, actually). I’d been thinking a lot about what it’s like to be single in America and how much it fucking sucks. Not only is there an edge of loneliness to it, there’s this whole idea that you’re screwing up your life because you haven’t gotten a boyfriend or a girlfriend yet. And I especially noticed this when one of my friends from high school got her first boyfriend. As I’d said before regarding this topic, this runs the risk of sounding like a Dr. Phil show or me psychoanalyzing myself (which would both be lame and totally awkward). So I’m going to try very hard not to do that. It’s going to run like this – the first part is going to be a rough rendition of my original blog about capitalism and why that affects me being single (I know, I’m recycling another blog. Give me a break – it was one of the hardest I’ve ever written. Except for this one). The rest is going to be my reflections and how it’s gotten weirder. It’s gonna be long, so hold on for a bumpy ride.

I.

My friend, who I will refer to as [X] (because I can’t use “her” a thousand times, I can’t think of any girl’s names that start with [X], so no hints at who I’m talking about and, even though not many of my friends read this and if they do, it’ll be easy for them to figure out who I’m referring to, I’d rather be safe than sorry and at least show that I’m not trying to bitch about people online. It’s my way of working through feelings – and cultural concepts. Okay, I’m just a bitch, I admit it. But I’m working on it)… anyway, [X] is nice person (I emphasize she’s nice because, despite anything disparaging I say about her, you the reader should remember that I am biased from knowing her and not without faults myself. Thus it’s a hell of a lot easier for me to point out her downfalls). [X] was my best friend in high school and we bonded over a mutual appreciation for sarcasm, English literature and a sort of solidarity from both being only children. However, now that we’re in college, things are weird, possibly because we both have communication issues (she’s never online the same time I am, I apparently don’t know how to use a cell phone, she won’t really message me first unless it’s really important, and I don’t know how to begin conversations). But then things have gotten really weird.

Bush Legs

So I was reading an article from Slate today about how apparently America ships dark meat chicken to Russia because we (oddly enough) consider it waste and Russia had a chicken shortage at one point in time. I mentioned this to my roommate, [Львица], who spent a semester in Russia last year. "Oh yeah!" she said. "I know that!" She went on to tell me that because this shipment of chicken to Russia had begun during Bush's time as president, her host family called chicken legs "Bush legs." Perfect. :)