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.