Touchy - Feely

A school in Connecticut (a state known for leaning a bit too far left) has banned any physical contact. That's right, no hugging, arms-over-shoulders, or even high-fiving. They are well on their way to the brick-in-the-wall idealism I would normally accuse conservatives of.
As ludicrous as this sounds, I have actually experienced the same ridiculous "no touching" experiment in the sixth grade. Here in Utah, the reddest state in the Union, you would think that the school would be more worried about keeping evolution out an abstinence in out schools rather than keeping then from touching one another. It was a similar system, no touching of any kind was allowed, even arms over shoulders were banned. Me, like most kids, inevitably ended up in the principals office for one offense or another. My mother was rather upset with the school's needless and difficult to enforce policy, along with many other parents. The rule quietly disappeared by the end of the school year. This school also tried to ban chewing gum and certain types of necklaces that could have potentially been used as 'weapons.'
So what use is it to tell kids that they cannot practice one of the most fundamental forms of non-verbal communication, especially when they are at such an important stage in their social development? Why inhibit the forming of bonds among children, just so you can proudly proclaim during a PTA meeting that you have stopped any and all possible forms of inappropriate touching from your school? Just so you can be as PC as possible due to the fear of not having your ass covered enough. But it just doesn't work. I didn't intentionally set out to break the rule when I was under the same iron no-touching fist, it just happened. Why? Because I was a kid. Whether it was either patting a shoulder or play-shoving in the lunch line, it was all in young, innocent fun.
I'm not one to casually spout tautologies, but dammit, kids will be kids, and you should let them be. Please, think of the children.

Daily Douchebaggery

Mike Huckabee. Former presidential candidate, current douchebag. Mikey just recently likened abortion--more accurately a woman's right to choose such a legal medical procedure--to slavery. That's right, if a woman, in any circumstance or instance, decides to terminate a pregnancy within the current legal standards, she is guilty of what amounts to owning a person outright, and treating that person as subhuman, in Mr. Huckabee's eyes. Sigh.
Mr. Huckabee seems to forget that abortion, however distasteful it may be, is legal. One person deciding to cease the growing of another being in her body is not slavery, it is a very difficult personal choice, or so it should be. I cannot trust the beliefs of any supposedly educated man that does not believe in the theory of evolution, and strives to force his religious beliefs on society. Maybe Mike should move to Iran or the deep, deep, backwards parts of the South where his beliefs might be welcomed.

Legalize Hit

Twenty-five million Americans lit up last year, and ten billion was spent to keep them from doing so. About $400 was spent per user to halt its use, and guess what? It did nothing. Potheads and hippies have been clamoring for decades to legalize marijuana; in a country where legal drugs like alcohol and cigarettes kill tens of thousands a year. But there has never been a recorded death attributed to marijuana. So why all this expensive effort to keep down a drug that is still easily acquired and used every day? Legalizing marijuana could save 7.7 billion in wasted taxpayer money, and generate 6.2 billion, according to an article on Alternet.
This decriminalization would also get nearly 30% of our prison population free, those charged with drug offenses, most from marijuana. this would free up much needed space, reduce costs, and may eventually change our status as the World's Incarceration Capital. We have more prisoners in out country than China does. It says something when a communist nation with four-times our population sends less people to prison than we do. Our priorities are seriously screwed up.
On a CNBC clip I watched, a round table discussed the pro's and con's of legalization. A former DEA head spouted distorted or untrue facts purporting the dangerous nature of marijuana, while a calm and logical advocate ripped him to shreds, philosophically. There is no reason that it should remain illegal. Alcohol is more of a gateway drug than weed cold ever hope to be. The sad truth is that the conservative right are maintaining an antiquated view of this 'evil drug,' and continually pumping up a war on it that has remained almost completely ineffectual since its inception.
Just because one group of people think something is a good idea, or that it's a good idea to cater to misplaced and unnecessary fears doesn't mean it is. Look how well Prohibition worked out. Thirteen years after it was passed, it became the first and only amendment to be repealed. Thirteen states have decriminalized the use of marijuana, mostly for medical usage, and I feel others will soon follow. However, the biggest stumbling block to ending an expensive and fruitless war, keeping the billions spent on weed in our country, and effectually putting many drug-lords out of business would be for the Federal government to take to step and remove that stumbling block.
For the detractors, no, this will not lead to the legalization of dangerous, deadly drugs like heroin and meth, which is where money spent fighting weed should be utilized, and yes, there will be safe usage requirements on it just like alcohol. There has to be. Usage may go up, but is that more detrimental than sending thousands of people to prison for wanting to relax with a bowl or spending ungodly amounts of money in what amounts to political masturbation? I don't think so.
For the record, I have not ever smoked marijuana, I merely advocate for its legalization, and to be used wisely. Although no one has ever overdosed on pot, you shouldn't ever get behind the wheel of a car intoxicated with ANYTHING. There, that should cover my ass.

Daily Douchebaggery

I have actually had someone request that I nominate this asshat for douchebaggery, but I do not single someone out for general doucheness. They have to commit an act that merits douchebaggery in and of itself, all other previous acts only lend to the aptness of the title. So I hope you enjoy this, Kat.
I first read about this a week or so ago in a magazine that I can't recall the title of, and was so excited that I even took a picture of the brief story with my phone. I then promptly forgot about it until browsing through my phone.
It would appear that Mr. Self-righteous Save-Tibet, who decries poverty and debt, especially in 3rd World Africa and wants to guilt others into saving the world so a solid-gold statue of him can be built in Ireland, has found a way for his band to legally avoid paying taxes. And whats even better? This isn't the first time they have done this. What a douchebag.

Why I Hate the News Media

Here is an example of why I have a strong distaste for 'journalism,' particularly FOX's brand. The unnecessary quotations are a dead giveaway that something is going to be amiss in this story. 'World's Deadliest Spider' sure is eye catching, but as you read the article the horror-inducing moniker downgrades into 'one of the most lethal,' and further into 'harmless to humans.' Apparently the spider was most likely misidentified, and furthermore it was destroyed so no one knows for sure. Basically, this is what they call a non-story. A frightening headline leads into an article that produced no sound conclusion, merely letting you wonder, and possibly implying that buying organic foods from those liberal, health-food stores is dangerous.
This is extremely shoddy journalism, amounting to crying wolf in order to get a few extra hits on your website. FOX is guilty of this ad infinitum, employing fear-mongering personalities like Hannity and O'Rielly, and journalists as well, it would appear. I have no respect for anyone that cannot write an article that holds up under its own merits. The only interesting thing coming out of this article was a comment at the very end about this, as it turns out, not-so-lethal spider, may lead to treatment for erectile dysfunction. Go figure.

Wait, wait . . . ok, NOW we support equal rights.

Welcome to the 21st century, America! The Obama administration just recently formally endorsed a UN resolution that Bush and his cronies opposed that calls for "worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality" that is already supported by 66 other countries. Not surprisingly, all European UN members endorse it, and many other countries that outlaw homosexuality opposed it, including Islamic nations and the Vatican.
A non-binding resolution may seem like nothing more than another hollow gesture from the UN, this is still important in an ideological way, showing that America is willing to move away from a religiously imposing society that condemns anyone outside of the 'norm,' to a one where people are accepted for all aspects of their character, physical makeup and origin.
This is sure to get the panties of the evangelicals and the Hannity's of the world into a bunch, straying from the belief that anything against what they believe is a sin and will destroy our country. No one has as of yet shown definitive evidence that homosexuals directly harm society, at least as an organized entity. Christianity on the other hand, well, we just wont get into that again.
Studies (scientific, not ones organized by religious groups) have shown time and time again that homosexuality is not just 'in your head,' it is actually in your brain. It is a natural, genetic aberration, occurring in many animal species as well, including primates, birds and fishes.
Despite the fears of detractors, this is not going to lead the open acceptance of pedophilia, incest or bestiality. Two mutually consenting, non-related adults can and should be allowed to have whatever relationship they want, without the government or some religion stepping in and saying whoa, no you don't. This type of thinking will go away just like racial segregation, laws against interracial marriage, women being considered as property and human slavery. It may take some time, coinciding with the death of the last two homophobic generations, to really see us progress to the point where we consider everyone as equals.
Jefferson may have never foreseen the power of his words when he was crafting the Declaration of Independence and wrote 'all men are created equal,' but the full potential of that statement is just beginning to be realized, and all Americans, and hopefully all people of this world, can look at each other equally.

Tradition Over Science, the Catholic Way

It seems like every time the world tries to take a step forward, the Catholic church wants us to take two steps back. During a recent trip to Africa, his 'Holiness' commented that condoms to do prevent AID/HIV but rather exacerbates the problem. This is, of course, contradictory to every study done on AIDS transmission and condom use increasing sexual promiscuity.
While studies ( not to mention logic) have shown that condom use prevents the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, even AIDS, Pope Benedict has decided that he and the church know better than anyone how to stop the rapid spread of the deadly virus through Africa, possibly offering this (satirical) resolution.

The RC church has a history of defying science, and consistently decries any method of birth control other than the 'rhythm method.' Since the world is no longer flat, not the center of the universe, I think that they need to just take a cue from more modern religions and keep their goddamn noses out of people's bedrooms.
It takes some massively sexually frustrated individuals to deny the right to adults to plan their family structure and enjoy intercourse and call such an activity a sin, and then sweep homosexual priests under the rug. The only reason that they are against homosexuality openly is because it denies them new members to crush under their oppressive boot and pinch for cash to keep the pope in funny hats. But hey, if you don't use a condom, there's no possibility of having children, so you can sure keep trying.

If you're happy and you know it it's a sin *clap clap* if you're happy and you know it it's a sin *clap clap* -- Simpsons "Gone Maggie Gone"

I . . . AM . . . OUTRAGED!

Outside of the cultural vacuum that is Utah, this probably barely made a ripple in the news, but inside, it made waves. Tidal waves. The HBO series Big Love decided to recreate a Mormon temple ceremony in an episode, much to the consternation of LDS members. Local news channels cut into their vital Idol recaps to talk about it, fueling fires that were already spreading from social circles. Local radio comedian talk show host Doug Wright spent a great deal of time over at least two days talking about it, freely admitting he had not seen it and most likely never intends to, inviting others to call in their own uneducated opinions on something they would not look at objectively.
What these people did, the news personalities and radio hosts, did exactly what the shows producers/writers/advertisers wanted them to do, create a buzz so people would watch it. It was just a ratings ploy, and they played right into it. But aside from this, the big argument is whether or not this is disrespectful to the church for showing their sacred ceremonies on television for anyone who wants to see. American culture has a history of depicting others sacred ceremonies as entertainment, or merely novelty.
As for this instance in particular, no one needed to get their feelings hurt or be 'outraged' as Mr. Wright was, because of several reasons. One: you do not watch and will not watch a show that is on a channel that is paid for, so the audience is limited. Boycotts and threats to change cable services are not necessary, these providers are not responsible for the content of individual shows on pay channels, particularly one that shows R-rated movies and shows on a regular basis. Two: this was a beautiful, integral part of the story that was woven in without making it a circus, like the media does. It was not disrespectful in any way, I personally watched it. In fact it was quite respectful of the ceremony itself and was depicted accurately as possible. Three: you show none of the same discomfort at the depiction of other religions and their ceremonies on television or in movies, because YOU don't believe in their faith. And if you do find it sacred in some ideological, obligatory way, congratulations.
The last point is the most important. Remember this the next time you see a Native American ritual acted out, or you watch a communion ceremony, or a confession scene, remember that what is sacred to you is not necessarily sacred to everyone else, and vice versa. So unless you ban all private religious ceremonies from the media, don't start getting all deeply offended. This brief blip on the entertainment time line is nothing compared to the problems Mormonism is currently facing, or will see in the future.

*Note: I was going to post a link to the scene, but HBO had YouTube remove all of them due to copyright issues. Sorry.*

What if. . . Conservatism ran our country?

The Conservatism movement has swept our country, pushing liberals into their dark, New York Times padded dens, quietly sipping their mochachino's and freeing the country to live under religiously based idealism and fear of unknown, indescribable enemies. The importation of soy and expensive coffee is banned, cutting off liberals main food sources. Many wither and die, curled up in their hybrid cars and energy efficient houses. Conservatives are free to wage wars unfettered by conscience, and create the laws they have always wanted.

Evolution Revolution!

In a brilliant move, leading conservatists have finally banned the teaching of evolution, forcing this evil, scientifically based modern idea out of our schools and back into Europe, where it belongs. the name of Darwin is no longer allowed to be used in public, and he will be burned in effigy along with all likenesses and copied of The Origin of Species. Anyone expostulating upon the idea of 'evolution' will be tried for treason and ejected from this country if found guilty. In a further move, any animal species found to be showing signs of evolution will be exterminated for disobeying the Word of God, and the Conservatist party. DNA will also no longer be admissible in court.

Corporate Responsibilty

Corporate responsibility covers more ares than just choosing what goes into your product, which is mainly what I expound on here. It also has a lot to do with what you do with your profits. Many companies reward their CEO's, managers, and often their employees. Many also donate to various charities and causes. Why would they do such a thing? Tax write-offs, mainly. Occasionally, there is some altruistic motive behind these donations, but I believe that is consistently rare. What do you do when you find out a company you purchase goods from supports causes that you don't? What would you do, ignore this indirect funding or stop purchasing? Companies pay taxes. Should they be able to support whatever causes, ideas or legislation they want? Should these causes, politics or religion color their business?

This post began about a year ago when, in the midst of reviewing a product by Bolthouse Farms, I ran across some information that disturbed me. Apparently, the former owner donated money to causes support fundamental Christianity and hinder or fight against gay rights. In fact, their mission statement used to mirror the beliefs of the Bolthouse Foundation, which was founded and is currently run by William Bolthouse, former owner of BF. The company itself was not necessarily directly supporting causes like the National Christian Foundation and the Alliance Defense Fund, but William owned the company and donated much of his money to these causes. And although the company was bought out in 2005 by an investment firm, it still remains partially family owned. William's son-in-law is currently the chairman of the board.

The company seems to want us to believe that they no longer have anything to do with William Bolthouse of the Bolthouse foundation. The current CEO of Bolthouse Farms released a letter that says:

The Bolthouse Foundation is a private foundation funded by some of the former owners of Wm. Bolthouse Farms, Inc. The foundation is a separate entity and is not connected to Bolthouse Farms in any way. Furthermore, they do not receive financial support or benefit from the profits of Bolthouse Farms. We appreciate your concern and apologize for the confusion.

The bulk of the scandal surrounding this company erupted in June of last year, but has since then tapered off quite a bit. Even the boycott that was sparked by the actions of William was called off in October. However, Alex Blaze of Bilerico dug up a lot of information that seems a bit contrary, to put it lightly. But I could find no articles or blogs about William or the Farms published this year. So maybe they have taken up some responsibility and cast off the weight of the homophobic former owner, and are striving to remain an unbiased company, or maybe the higher-ups are still covertly funding there negative causes through William. Until I see proof either way, I'm going to hold off judgement, but I'm also going to hold off purchasing any Bolthouse or Bom Dia products, aside from my latest review. Consider it me being fair-and-balanced (Oh please, don't sue me, FOX!).

Whether or not what a company supports is a 'good cause' in your eyes, think about it this way. Business, religion and politics are three things that need to to stay as far away form each other as possible. When one begins to taint the other, nothing but problems arise. I hope Bolthouse Farms and all the other companies whose products we review try to maintain some level of corporate responsibility, both with their products and their profits.

*Note: This post was borrowed from my other blog contribution at Better Libations.*

I want your sex . . . lyrics

Scientists always find new ways of blaming problems on various causes, sometimes with dubious research to back it up. This appears interesting, though, and potentially valid. A recent study links sexually explicit lyrics to teenage sex. Overall, it appears as more of a factor than a cause in a higher incidence of underage copulation, which one would hope isn't that easy to influence with music. If it is, I'm definitely listening to the wrong CD's when I have a lady over.
However, you need to take into account the many, many variables when it comes to teenage sex. Background, religion, ethnicity, personality, parental involvement and many others. No one just hears a song and acts on the basest message their subconscious derives from the lyrics. By that logic, after all the Queen I've listened to I should be gay by now, but I'm not. Or by all the angst-ridden, melancholic angry music I've passed over my inner ear I should have scars on my wrists or be in jail for beating someone near to death. Hasn't happened. This cause-and-effect discussion gets rehashed constantly, every subsequent generation coming up with new reasons why their kids are horrible and the world is spiraling into a pit of apathetic, cancerous degradation. If every generation was that much worse than the one before, by now we should all be beating each other to death over simple eye-contact and having unprotected sex with animals in the street. But we're not.
Video games aren't making your children violent, they merely bring out their inherent violent tendencies. Sexual lyrics are not making your children have sex, they'll figure it out without listening to degrading music they shouldn't be listening to anyway because it's mostly garbage, not necessarily because of the lyrics. This kind of music may only enhance certain ideas and actions they already have a mind to do.
If anything, I take exception with the complete lack of imagination these type of lyrics show. Back before the relative sexual freedom of the eighties, writers had to be more careful to conceal the true meaning of a song instead of just saying it outright, which is often done these days. There's no cleverness in songs of a sexual nature anymore, they just blurt it out. I blame Frankie Goes to Hollywood.

I'd like a bonde, blue-eyed baby, please.

I must have been channeling some scientific spirit yesterday when I wrote about DNA mapping being used to make composite images, and then extrapolating with the possibility that it could be used to create personalized toddlers. So, what should I find this morning? A few articles on designer babies. Who wouldn't want to be able to pick out the perfect child to fit into their perfect family, and totally avoid the crap-shoot of genetics? Well, me, for one. I'm also assuming some religions are going to get hot and bothered about this. But more importantly, a fair number of scientists are getting a little peeved at the idea. Who knew that jerking around with a person's DNA before they are even a small jumble of cells in some OC princess' uterine canal would upset some doctors. This practice has already been used for years to halt hereditary diseases in their tracks, surely making some children's lives much happier and enjoyable. But to use this technology just to have a child that is aesthetically pleasing to you is beyond yuppie. It's downright disturbing. If you're only wish is that your child look the way you'd like, I would hesitate to even allow you the privilege of raising offspring. You have some serious sociopathic issues. Get help.

That's him alright. He looks just like this DNA.

When I first saw this article, I was intrigued. Upon reading it, I was amazed, then disturbed, then frightened. But now I'm back to intrigued. We now have the technology to make a composite picture of a person based on their DNA. Wow. Someone could pick up a dab of blood, a hair or some skin cells from you and create a picture of what you should look like, with relative accuracy. I'm betting this method is only in its infancy, and once the practice of obtaining DNA samples of everyone becomes commonplace, it will be much harder to get away with a crime. I'm suddenly remembering the movie Gattaca, in which your DNA decides what you would do in life. This could be very interesting for our future as a society, where you can be tracked by your DNA, catch hereditary diseases before they show themselves, and even carry around a copy of your DNA profile in your wallet in case of emergency. But the downside (and there always is one), is that you can be tracked by your DNA. Also, the idea of eugenics rears its Huxleyan head out of the gloom. If you knew ahead of time that your child would have some disability, or that your combined DNA could possibly produce a serial killer, a child with crippling depression, or heaven forbid, an ugly child, would they end the pregnancy or avoid having children altogether? Doctors could covertly clean up our gene pool, or create perfect combinations of DNA to make super-soldiers or champion runners or--serial killers. I'm going to wait and see on this one.

Good morning, honey--OH MY GOD! Oh. *sob*

I am alternately amused and disturbed by this product, and I cannot quite pin down their market niche. Lonely military wives? Lonely widows? Lonely girls with 'great personalities'? All of the above and more? Whatever it is, it's still kind of creepy. And the part that's even more distressing? At Overstock.com they are SOLD OUT of them. I almost want one so I can slip it into bed with one of my unsuspecting friends in the middle of the night. It would be worth the angry 'did you do this?' phone calls. I don't know who came up with this, but this person is either a freak or a genius, possibly both.

What I really want to know is this: where is the man's equivalent? A slender arm and a soft cottony breast to cradle would help put a lot of lonely traveling salesmen to sleep. Maybe I'm on to something here. . .

John Huntsman, Jr, a Republican I can trust.

Now, I know I beat up a lot on the Republicans, but it isn't like they don't deserve most of it, if not all. When you're in the business of affecting millions of people's lives by making laws and spreading ideals, you're bound to have to take some punches. It's especially bound to happen when many of your prominent members embrace literal creationism in the face of scientific fact and use every venue available to remove rights from our gay population, instead of protecting rights. Abstinence-only education, religious icons and phrases in government buildings, cutting corporate taxes, cutting education spending, picking fights with foreign countries, the list goes on. So why do I like our Republican governor John Huntsman? Enough to even vote for him last go-around? Because he appears to be a logical, moderate-thinking person. He has come out in favor of gay civil-unions in the state practically run by the LDS church, who sealed the fate of Prop 8 in California. Ballsy move, man. Republicans don't even like the idea of civil unions, let alone for homos. Also, in a more personally intimate matter, he is strongly in favor of revamping Utah's bizarre liquor laws, in order to appear more, well, modern. Being the only state in the Union with restrictions on beer and no actual bars, he has a point if we want a stronger future in tourism.
But this latest statement from our governor has made me just about tumble head-over-heels for this republican. Basically, he ignores Utah's own GOP leaders. He's so sick of an 'inconsequential' leadership, he doesn't even bother to get to know them. You've got to be doing something wrong when someone who runs on your own ticket is about to pull anchor and sail for better waters. I agree. When you've been reduced to bickering amongst yourselves and standing for nothing but the opposite of whatever the Dems stand for, you've about come to the end of your run. And if Mr. Hannity thinks people like Mrs. Palin are the new face of his party, he'd better reconsider. If they're going to survive past the end of the decade and actually come up with some real ideas and solutions, they need to get behind someone like Huntsman.

Daily Douchebaggery

This was inevitable, it appears. I had a suspicion that this man would say something unpatriotic and stupid enough to trump the many that spilled out of his pill-stuffed mouth before. He truly, honestly wants our President to fail. the more epic the better, I'm assuming. Why? Because he's black? Not quite. He's young and thought to be inexperienced? Nope. Because he's part of a party of political philosophy that Mr. Limbaugh doesn't agree with? You betcha'. In his own words, it's because he's a 'liberal,' and all liberals want to tear our country down and fail. All logical fallacies aside, this in utterly against everything we are supposed to stand for in a democratic country. I can still here the ringing in my ears from the Republican harpies screeching about Democrats not supporting Bush, so there's the hypocrisy aspect as well.
This begs the question; why? Why would anyone want our highest elected official to fail miserable at his job? Put simply, I told you so. He wants the childish vindication of being able to say that he was right, and every person who voted for Obama was wrong. This wouldn't necessarily bother me so much if it wasn't for the fact that so many people listen to and believe what this windbag says. At a time when we need to work together as a country more than ever before, people like this seek to further divide and pit Americans against each other, merely to increase their ratings and take some arrogant pride in proving that their side of the argument is the correct one. Ironically, Democrats couldn't be happier that the Repub's are listening to this douchebag, because the more confident he gets, the more inimical he seems to become. Every stupid phrase coming out of his mouth only pushes this dead party a little more towards its grave.
So congratulations, Rush, on hastening the end of your crumbling party. Sadly, it will be the suspicious, ineloquent, uninformed middle-Americans who will cling to its rotting corpse long after it has expired. And for that, Rush, you should be ashamed.

I also have a second-place candidate I wanted to mention, Mr. Bill O'Reilly. O'really, as I like to call him, is already a known misogynist (2), was somehow inadvertently invited to speak at a benefit for rape victims. Would you want someone who said the following to speak at such an event?

“Now Moore, Jennifer Moore, 18, on her way to college. She was 5-foot-2, 105 pounds, wearing a miniskirt and a halter top with a bare midriff. Now, again, there you go. So every predator in the world is gonna pick that up at two in the morning. She's walking by herself on the West Side Highway, and she gets picked up by a thug. All right. Now she's out of her mind, drunk.”

Yeah, I wouldn't think so. The only reason I didn't select Bill for this honor, besides selecting him before, is that this is really no big surprise. You'll get yours again, though, Bill. I guarantee it.

Thanks to Media Matters for the quote.