Why You Gotta Be So Angry?

The usual clutched pearls are happening over the violence that broke out in Chicago at a Trump rally - which is going to be more common as the endless slog of election cycle continues - and the Republican front runners all had identical responses: it's Obama's fault.

Yes, the target audience members are that stupid; and no, there really isn't much of a difference between the candidates. Trump is probably a bit more to the left of the others, but who the hell can tell what he'd do in office?  I certainly can't.  I literally have no clue: he's made impossible promises and has a fan base that desperately wants to hear them; but he's had wildly different views on half of the things he's said publicly and the other half is clearly fantasy talk.  So...?

Back to the violence, then.

You'll see and hear several people, from the obvious talking heads of the Right to the well-meaning milquetoasts on the Left, say that Gosh, That's Not Going to Help!  Anger Doesn't Solve Anything!

Then Hillary Clinton made a fantastically ignorant statement about Nancy and Ronald Reagan.  And then sent a comment that read, literally: "Sorry about that."

Her initial statement?  That the Reagans had 'helped start a national conversation on HIV and AIDS.'

"Sorry about that"?  Seriously?  The Reagan White House was laughing about the deaths of gay men from HIV and AIDS related causes, and it took years, thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of infections before he even mentioned it publicly.  Inside the White House were members of the Moral Majority, armageddonists (which included Reagan himself - partially explaining his approach to environmental policies) and other holy rollers.  Needless to say, something nicknamed "The Gay Plague" wasn't going to be treated with any seriousness beyond a shrug and righteous smile.  After all, it only affected people who deserved it, right?

This should sound familiar.

It caused anger.  Lots of it.  And that anger, finally, got the disease noticed.  As much as people were annoyed by ACT UP and similar groups, that anger is what motivated people to look, even if it was just to ask "what are those faggots so angry about?"

Welcome to Chicago.

Robocop v. Robocop, and Deadpool's Boldest Statement

Deadpool, as you just might have heard somewhere along the way, is an R-rated super hero film.  This is supposed to be the legendary Kiss of Death for those stories, as the assumption was that an audience of kids was a necessary ingredient for success.

That suspicion has to some degree proven itself to be true: when such movies take on 'adult' themes, and use adult material, the results are mixed at best.  Watchmen was big and expensive, but also messy and uneven.  Darkman was very good (despite the trailer), but made little impact at the box office.

So we end up with dark or adult themes while retaining a bloodlessness that lets them keep that magical ($!) PG rating: Batman and Wolverine are two that stand out as characters that should have R ratings.  Those two have characters with troubled backgrounds; move in thematically dark worlds (literally in Batman's case, I suppose); and use violence to a ridiculous degree to achieve their goals.

But probably the best example of the inherent weirdness of the PG vs. R rating is Robocop.

The original, with fountains of blood and deaths happening every few pages, is rated R.  Paul Verhoeven had to recut and resubmit the film 12 times before he got to an R rating, down from the X that the MPAA wanted to give it.  The remake from 2014, with deaths happening every few pages but no blood at all, is rated PG-13.  I'm not here to comment on whether one was better than the other (the first one was), but to note that the remake box office more than doubled the budget - not an easy thing for a $100 million movie.  Not as statistically impressive as the quadrupling the original did, the first had a budget of only $13 million(ish).

But which was more successful?

A nebulous term, I realize: but I don't hear people talk about the remake as being influential or inspiring in any way.  It broke no new ground, sparked few imaginations.  I think it was a good movie, but it won't change anything.  I feel like in another ten years, the only time I'll hear it mentioned will be after the question "Didn't they do a remake?"

So why the heck was it made?  They got the nostalgia kick, and it was a success financially, but there was no guarantee that would have happened (see also: Dredd).  Still, to better their chances the powers that be decided to get rid of the blood and target the PG rating, making the violence sanitized for whole families to enjoy.  To compare: the original Robocop had 32 deaths; the remake has over 50.  Killings aren't a moral problem for the MPAA, so long as there is no immediate, visual consequence to them.

Back to Deadpool.

Deadpool without the blood would be ridiculous, but possible.  Most of it was animated in the 'during' shots any way, and could have simply not been added in post-production.  Don't show him sawing frantically (and comically) through an arm and avoid showing the bloody stump on camera, and Hey, Presto! you have yourself a PG-13 film.  Well, except for one thing:

Swearing.  And sex.  Swearing and sex.  Okay, two things, fine!

The swearing would be easy enough to eliminate as well - he's speaking with a full face mask 90% of the time any way, so redubbing would be a piece of cake.  It could even be incorporated into the 4th-wall breaking humour in a "Monkey fighting, Monday to Friday" way.  They certainly do enough lampshading to make that part of the script.

The sex, on the other hand...

The sex scenes are varied, lively, and fun, and they work as an excellent shorthand for audiences to see how their relationship progresses over time.  Announcing the holidays as they go was inspired time leaping.  They missed Black History Month, which would have been interesting; but I suppose that's not technically a holiday.  Then again, I'm certain there's no way they kept Lent - that 40 days of going without!  Yerk!

But there's a detail or two that I haven't heard mentioned much that I think should be.  First, he shows no mercy to her as a newbie to the game of skeeball.  Yes, he's massively attracted to Vanessa; but his priority is to win a Voltron the Defender ring, not to get laid, dang it!  (She does win what I'm sure is a lovely pencil eraser.)

The detail I liked most, though?  Vanessa - the girl of his dreams and the woman he falls madly in love with - is a prostitute.  She gladly takes his money for their first meeting, and he happily gives it to her.  It's not even an issue.  If they hadn't become a couple, he would have been just as happy to hand over the cash in exchange for her company without a single moral qualm raised.

Her past isn't flung in her face; she's never shamed for it; he doesn't regard her as less of a human being because of it.  The movie never mentions it again, and in fact has her later working in a strip club and he's wondering if he's good enough for her.

Neat, huh?

Know What's Funny?

You've probably seen them: the shirts in banner ads reading

"D.A.D.D.
Dads Against Daughters Dating
Shoot the first one, and word will spread!"

It gets a bit less humourous when you see someone who did just that.  Heck, it's not like it hasn't happened before, plus who knows how many times in fiction!  More disappointing than the shooting are the people - almost exclusively men - who leap to defend the choice those two men made.  Heat of the moment, arguments preceeded the shootings, the girls were too young, etc.  The guys who are jumping into the argument aren't intimately involved with either case, and they have some emotional distance.  So what about the arguments are they making?

The first is obvious; the second I would certainly hope was the case; the third is the most telling.  In the latest case, she was 16 and her boyfriend 17.  Depends on who you are, of course: some think so, others don't.  But more importantly is the idea that her dad is 'protecting' her.

Protecting her from what?

North America as a whole has a wee bit of a problem with the issue of sexuality: a big chunk of that is going to have come from how the nations were founded.  Roman Catholic stricture or Protestant Puritan censure is hardly going to lead to the hedonistic freedoms you might think.  There was some leavening in the mix provided by the folks who were here at the time, but the indigenous tribes were pretty much culturally steamrolled within a century (though echoes remain).

"What was she wearing" is still a common question in the public forums even after it had been expressly banned in rape cases.  Think that's not all about controlling women's sexuality?  Fair enough, it could  indeed be about something else, but it'll be kind of difficult to explain how priorities can be screwed up enough that hundreds of thousands of rape kits can go untested.

If they are there, why do they go untested?  The kits were used - the incredibly invasive prodecure was done, and samples were collected.  But a decision somewhere along the way was made to put the budgets into other fields, leaving a massive backlog of the best tools we have to catch rapists - a crime that has one of the highest levels of mulitples (same perpetrator repeats the same crime) of any violent criminal activity.

Why?

There are excuses, but there is a reason why those excuses are thought to be acceptable, and it isn't often mentioned.  Or mentioned at all that I've ever seen.

Embarrassment.

The idea - the myth - is that men are responsible for women's sexuality.  Men have cast themselves in the role of the Protectors of Innocence and Virtue (or at least of Nookie).  That a woman could  be raped is seen as a failure to somehow guard them and it leads to two responses: either foot/budget shuffling and looking anywhere else, or sudden hyper-vigilantism.  Both are highly visible, and neither is the response of someone willing to accept responsibility.

That the foot shuffling is being pointed out now is a good thing: blaming the woman for getting raped has finally gotten some pushback in recent years with laws limiting past history being used in court cases, and "she was there, so she must have wanted it" becoming less and less acceptable, making you wonder why it ever was...

But there has been less condemnation of the hyper-vigilantism than there should be.  Some of the most extreme variants have been mocked, and deservedly so: seriously, if "Purity Balls" where the father pledges to take responsibilty for his daughter's virginity doesn't creep you the hell out, I don't want to know what does.

Outside the obvious, though, there are other sides to these defenders-o'-the-gates that isn't as explicitly stated.  On March 25th, the Supreme Court is going to hear from widespread tchotchke specialists Hobby Lobby.  You've heard about that case, I'm sure: they are owned by religious fundamentalists who don't want to be forced to pay for employees abortions, right?

Close.

They actually don't want any of their female employees to get any birth control or women's specialist clinic visits at all.  Not "we don't want to pay for it"; they're saying "we don't want them to have it".  There are four specific types of birth control the owners of Hobby Lobby want no part of because of their belief they athey are actually causing abortions by stopping fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, which seems straightforward enough.  After all, if the US government can reach a comprimise with Catholic owned and run institutions then a business shouldn't be a problem: just have the female employees sign the same piece of paper saying that those will be paid for by the insurance company rather than the employer.

Except, no.

The clauses Hobby Lobby (and co-plaintiff Conestoga Wood Specialties) wants to be exempted from include clinic visits, education, and counseling.  They do not want those methods of birth control even mentioned during any doctor visits because then they would be 'morally liable' for the woman's decisions.

To be clear: penis pumps, implants, and boner pills are covered in many medical plans (including federal ones like Medicare and the Affordable Care Act) without background checks, marital status conditions, or employer's say-so.  The ONLY reason for that discrepancy and obvious hypocracy is that men are men and women aren't.

Women who want sex are evil.  Wanton.  Reckless.  And clearly, they have to be forced into 'good' (celibate) behaviour for their own protection.  The same line of reasoning is repeatedly applied to sex education in schools or sex on in movies: Save the Children (and Women)!

Again, save them from what?

What's being protested against isn't promiscuity; though some few of the more honest complainers will say so, they simply don't know any better.  What is being protested is the possibility that women can be responsible for their own sexuality without men's help.  That women may not need a bodyguard for their bodies, and would frankly rather be left to make their decisions about who's doing what to them (and when) all on their own.

Oh, and the case of the dad who killed Johran McCormick because his daughter snuck him into her room that night?  There's religious precedent for the father's act... but he killed the wrong person:

Deuteronomy 22: 20-21 - If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Let's Make This No Big Deal, Okay?

One of the more annoying complaints I hear from the social conservatives regarding Pride Day is that old chestnut "I don't mind gay people, really!  But do they have to make such a big deal about it?"  The answer is, of course, that yes they do.  Why?  Because they were visibly persecuted for a century.  That takes a lot to come back from.

That being said...

How about treating sexuality, and sex for that matter, as a regular part of life?  Clearly, that's what the social conservatives are insisting upon; so anything done to make it a part of everyday life should, in theory, meet their approval.  Right?  And what could be a bigger part of everyday Canadian life than hockey?

Meet Cory Oskam, who got to meet his hero, Vancouver Canuck Cory Schneider, on the ice at GM Place.

The Sex God Can't See

According to Garfunkel and Oates, at least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ36S3d1CaU

You're Too Sexy For This Job

There's a lot of things the stupider portion of the world insists on saying that simply leave me perplexed.  Things like "More guns for more people is the same as making safer people" or "Businesses should run the government because they both make money" or "Science is a belief system".  You know, really stupid stuff.

But one that not only confuses me but I've never even heard anyone try explaining is this one: "Atheists are working to create Sharia law!"

To be clear: the people who have said this would have to believe that people who hate the idea of religion taking precedence in legal decisions are demanding a religion have precedence in legal decisions.  It's not even a case of saying that "one plus one does not equal two"; it's saying "two does not equal two".

Add to this the realization that Sharia laws have little to do with the Koran: many of the terms were interpreted well after the book's publication, at a time when a rigid totalitarianism swept through much of the Islamic world: this is the stuff brought up as the boogyman of folks who want you to think of Islam as a faith of thugs (despite that being an Indian word - etymology joke!).  Basically, a bunch of total dicks established a strict, unbending law when they were feeling insecure about their power, despite having metric fucktons of it.  Imagine if laws established by Catholics at the height of the Spanish Inquisition were the ones Christians were insisting be adopted into the American legal system.

Individual rights, especially the rights of women, have had a difficult time in places where strict Sharia laws became the rule rather than the guide of a changing world.  Take, for instance, the wearing of the hijab: women must wear the full-body covering so as to not inflame the passions of men with their irresistible sexiness.  Kinda silly, and definitely something that makes it much easier to stop thinking of women as actually human and more as possessions to jealously guard from anything that might like them.  Flat out ignorant, right?

Well, apparently in Iowa this is a problem.  No, seriously.

For some reason, it hasn't occurred to anyone that being "too attractive" shouldn't really be the problem of the women.  However, after consulting with his pastor, dentist James Knight decided he wouldn't be able to control himself around his "stellar" employee of ten years, Melissa Nelson.  So, naturally, he fired her; a decision that was upheld by Iowa's Supreme Court on December 21st as being perfectly reasonable.

Does it need to be said Knight only decided to fire the married Ms. Nelson after getting caught sending text messages to her by his wife?  Didn't think so.

(Apologies for Right Said Fred earworm, those of us in a certain age group!)

Honour Maintained

In honour of Jon Swift's yearly assemblage, the Vagabond Scholar (Batocchio be his name) has assembled a collection of the best of the year from us smaller blogs.

http://vagabondscholar.blogspot.com/2012/12/jon-swift-memorial-roundup-2012.html

In pretty good company, I'd say!

Another Rival

I've written about the surprising truth about nerds and sex, but there is another contender out there looking to unseat the classic Manly Man that I hadn't considered:

Gays.

Seriously: they've got a strong case.

CollegeHumor's Favorite Funny Videos

On the Internet, You Can Be Anything...

...So why did you choose "stupid"?
-Something more people need to hear

Picture this:

You're at a convention, held by folks that some people find controversial.  A lot of people disagree with your views, but not inside the convention: here, you're quite safe.

As one of the speakers, you give a talk you wrote up just for the occasion, and it goes over well; everything's good, and when that meeting is over you greet some well-wishers say thanks and head back to your room.  Everything's good.

Until you notice someone followed you, and he's holding a gun.

He wasn't noticed until you pressed the call elevator button, and now he's right behind you telling you how much he liked your speech and how he thinks you're really great.  His gun hand never comes up, and he doesn't raise his voice.  In fact, he doesn't seem aggressive in any way.  He seems happy and smiling and really, genuinely pleased to see you - even if he is a bit nervous, and possibly a little drunk.

And when the elevator comes, he steps on with you.

He doesn't bother pressing a floor, but does keep talking about how much he liked your speech, and by the way, he really likes your writing which he's been following online for a long time.  And do you know what?  He really likes you, too, especially now that he's seen you in person, up close like this.  Did you know you're really cute in person, up close like this?  Because you are.

His gun hand never comes up, and he never raises his voice, and he doesn't seem aggressive in any way.  He clearly doesn't think he's doing anything wrong, and hey: can he ask you just one question...?  Please?

Here's my question: is there anything in his behaviour that strikes you as potentially dangerous?  Any alarm bells going off?  Then, congratulations!  You're a woman!

Funny story:

This has happened, and at a convention of skeptics.  I've been away from blogging for nearly two years, but I like to think of the online skeptic groups as "my people" - these are the ones I most consistently identify with, despite the wide-ranging (and often rambling) fields I wander through.  I tend to like them, despite and because of disagreements in approach and ideas that crop up - the reliance on logic and snark usually gets  entertaining results, especially when blended with politics, which frankly needs way more humour in real life.

Which is why it's stung me to see a stories about women being harassed at skeptical conventions.  That alone was bad enough, but what has been shocking is the astounding reaction when these women have complained about inappropriate behaviour: they'd get attacked.  Not in person, of course, but online.  The way would be led by so-called men whose mission in life seems to be huddling in misogynistic echo chambers full of desperate idiots, gathering digital bile to spew at imagined slights to "manhood", whatever their fevered imaginations define it as being.

You know: what atheists like to laugh at when the poor, persecuted Christians in America bemoan their outcast state?

Yeah.  Same thing.

Those folks who know the story know the blogger in question had to stop writing because of the constant bombardment of insulting and barbarous attacks on her, and we lost a voice of reason to hate.

Her crime?  To say that following a strange woman onto an empty elevator while trying to chat her up was NOT the way to win her over.  Some of the guy's "defenders" (I don't know if he even knew what was happening online) will no doubt be outraged that I put a gun into his hand, but it was done for a reason: so you would feel uncomfortable.

I am not a particularly strong man.  I don't work out, I don't have a physical job, I'm not naturally big, and I'm a long ways away from my theoretical prime-of-life.  But I am physically stronger than 95% of the women you know, and that is something most men simply don't think of.

Unless you have been a single woman or small man (I didn't hit my growth spurt until grade 12), then the idea of potential threat is just not something that will occur to you until you encounter someone who has had it as part of their lives.  Now obviously, this does not mean that everyone is an enemy - but it does add the possibility.

Ask Western soldiers stationed in Afghanistan as community liaisons how it can colour your world.  Ask them how they react when they see someone following them through the streets, or what they think when they're alone and a stranger approaches them.

Hint: it's not "Oh, here's a charming person about to engage in some light conversation!"

Remember when I said that the women I'm talking about haven't been attacked in person?  A couple of them have had their addresses published in open forums on expressly misogynistic websites.  Can you think of any reason for that to happen other than to intimidate?  Again, picture the home addresses of Seal Team Six getting published on a site dedicated to supporting al-Quaida.

But instead of taking her advice on how to actually approach women in the real world (ie. not following them into empty elevators chatting them up) and moving on, the pathetic folks suffering their imaginary wounds hounded her until she left.  The guy who liked her speech?  He's not going to hear another one from her.  Likewise, no more of her writing is going to appear online and she's really, really not going to go to another convention for him to try talking to her again, but with a more acceptable and understanding approach this time.

Total losers in this unnecessary and hyperbolic exchange?  Him, her, us, and the idiots who think they won.  But that's pretty much a given, isn't it?

Fight the Real Enemy

This day in Whoops!

A New Jersey pastor who banned church staff from using Facebook, claiming it leads to infideity, admitted to having group sex with his wife and another couple.

Seriously, Facebook to hook up with 'old flames'? Why would you bother with that when there are so many other sites that have people on them without whatever baggage you've left behind?

I know the idea of finding lovers from the past, but I do believe in letting the past remain its own country, too. Whoever is back there has changed from when you knew them last: you know, the whole "a man cannot cross the same river twice" thing.

That being said, if you're trying to get out of a relationship, it's certainly one way to find a convenient excuse. The problem is that it's just an excuse, not a cure. The change has to come from you, for your reasons, or it just ain't gonna work.

Playing Catch-Up

Religion

With an election coming up in the US, it looks like people are back to ignoring the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque". Must be a relief to know that any major protest can simply be ignored and/or ridden out until attention goes elsewhere! But even as the Muslims are breathing a sigh of relief, another group gets pushed ahead.

Witches.

Well, I suppose Wiccans generally rather than witches in particular. Bad enough trying to overcome the image of sexually gratifying yourself with a broom handle or being hideously ugly or being in league with the devil; now they have to get past being phenomenally stupid as well.

Politics

...Which brings us to the Tea Party nominees. A boon for anyone who is even marginally progressive in the US, there are over a dozen seats or Republican nominations that went to TP nominated or backed candidates, and not many in the Republican Party are happy about it. Many are making sure to add a huge "fiscal responsibility" angle to their campaigns, despite ample proof over the past twenty years that Republicans are utterly inept at managing national finances.

Even so, Republican nominees that are clearly supported by fervent, single-issue fanatics are more likely to keep the more moderate conservatives at home or even voting in favour of their rival Democrats. Which is, again, a boon for any progressives in that nation.

Sex

So long as the Democrats actually behave like progressives.

President Obama benched a federal court decision on the rather idiotic "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy brought in by former President Clinton because having gays serve openly in the military is apparently still an issue that frightens Americans. The federal court judge ruled that DADT is unconstitutional in a court case brought up by the Log Cabin Republicans (irony alert going off every time those guys are mentioned), but an injunction was granted to the Department of Justice by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals staying the ruling, at least until after the national elections. This comes after a previous effort to have DADT removed passed the House of Representatives but was filibustered by that "Maverick" John McCain.

To clarify: The Democrats got an injunction to keep a law in place that has stopped soldiers from serving in a time of war and cost over $350 million to enforce despite the removal of that policy being a large and very visible promise last Federal election; a group of Republicans (though not the party itself) fought and beat that law, which led other Republicans to decry "activist judges" and defend the Democratic policy.

The rather silly idea that serving beside gays would lead to a dissolution of the military is rather ludicrous, as the US Army has already served alongside gays in the armed forces. As of this date, only two European countries do not allow gays to serve openly in their militaries: Serbia and Greece, who have apparently decided to completely ignore their own military history.

Science

I am not a scientist. There is no possible way I could be confused for one, what with being a high school dropout and essentially unemployable for any white-collar position. So why is it I understand what this story in the Atlantic means better than the person who wrote it? It is long, and it is well written, but the deliberately antagonistic headline that writer David H. Freedman uses as a lead - implying not only that science is unreliable, but also deceitful - does nothing to help Dr. John Ioannidis' major work.

What Dr. Ioannidis did is report on the difficulty in getting accurate results in scientific studies, specifically medical ones. His own headline is also grating, and one that is used by people who don't understand what scientific method is as a catch-all for "proving" that their crackpot beliefs are better than science. Again, the entire point of Dr. Ioannidis' work is that tests have to be more rigorous before they are published, with clear methodology that is open to criticism - in short, more scientific. For a more complete response, check out Dr. David H. Gorski's (who is quoted in the Atlantic article) reply here.

Motorcycles

Missed the entire riding season because I like interesting bikes: my Goose is still out of commission because of the difficulty in getting engine parts for it. Next time, something new, perhaps... Still, looking to sell off my rebuilt RD350 to help pay for it, so I must be dedicated to the Italian.

Since I have a bike already, the next one we bring in is going to the Significant Other. We were looking at the Honda 125, which is a brilliant price and good engineering: under $4500 for a new Honda is tough to turn away from. Alas, it just didn't have the juice we need to travel highway speeds while sharing the road with logging trucks. Kawasaki's 250 Ninja is the next option, with a bit more power and a touch more heft, but after trying it on the road, I still couldn't picture the little thing hauling my fat (210 lbs) corpse around with much alacrity, never mind introducing a passenger to the already taxed shocks.

But this year, Team Green introduced a 400cc size to the stable. It's very much a middle-of-the-road bike, having only 45 horsepower and weighing in at nearly 500 pounds; but as you could probably guess by my ride, I don't mind the extra weight, and the size slips right in to the 201cc-400cc category as far as insurance is concerned. It is also apparently moving into the 650 Ninja chassis, meaning it's going to have more room to move than the 250. The down side is having a price tag that's only $1200 less than the 650, and at $7500 there's going to be a lot of competition at the price, if not at the size. No one else makes the 400cc motorcycles any more, which I admit is my second favourite size (right after 750), so it'll be interesting to see how it sells.

Hockey

Memo to Rick Rypien: if you want to reach out to fans, try Twitter.

An Unexpected Relief

Funny story.

I've been working with a new show: a musical, of all things. Not really my thing, but it'll be fun, and I've never been in a pantomime before, so why not? I believe I've mentioned that I'm musically declined before? Looks like I'm "singing" ABBA in this one.

In any case, I found myself working with a slew of new people of pretty much every age and shape, two of which are quite attractive. So naturally I've been chatting regularly with one or the other when time has allowed. Over the days, I noticed they arrived in different vehicles, but the kids they brought with them seemed interchangeable. Then I caught that they lived in the same house, and was brought up cold.

Were they mother and daughter? Was the eldest girl still (or back to) living at home, and driving her own car so they can pick up other kids on the way to rehearsals?

Oops!

Granted, I'm lousy at judging ages, but looking again, I supposed it was possible for one to be in her mid-thirties and the other to be... No, no no no no no! Nooooooo... There was no way I was attracted to a 17- or 18- year old! That's literally less than half my age! I've got a certain self-image, as we all do, and mine doesn't include the Dirty Old Man:



This isn't what I am turning into, is it? The caricature can stay just that, thanks: a nicely self-contained joke; a piece of cultural shorthand for sad old perverts forever chasing brainless young hotties around a desk or using their canes to lift up the skirts of girls in the park.

Sure, I'm a sad old pervert: that I can accept. Hell, I accepted that when I hit 30. But why on Earth would I suddenly be macking on kids decades younger than me? Was I hoping to recapture my youth by fucking some? AAAHHH!!!

Luckily, my concern only lasted for a day when I read their bios: they were married, and to each other, at that. So, sure, my chances with either are pretty much shot, but my self-image has been restored. I am not suddenly having my head turned by a wildly inappropriate teenager after all! And as an added bonus, I got to say a line I never thought I would:

"Oh, thank God you're married!"

A Reminder

The lovely folks at World-O-Crap do terrible things: they read horrible, horrible writing and gleefully tear it to shreds so you and I and other more delicate folk don't have to. Their latest piece is all about spit-roasting staggeringly idiotic "Dr." Mike Adams, who tried this tired chestnut of and inequality argument:

My speech will highlight several pending cases, which show that homosexuals are not the principal victims of civil rights violations in this country. Instead, they are the principal perpetrators of civil rights violations in this country – especially on our college campuses.

And don't that just warm the cockles of your heart? But don't be afraid - go look at the things they (and their commenters) can do to the stupid: they takes a load of hot air and turns it into a cool breeze!

There are reasons why gay boys and girls are far more likely to commit suicide that straight ones are: they feel alone. That there is no one else like them around, and certainly no one they can trust to talk to. Teenagers can be isolated and lonely without having the added pressure of being the target of the weak and small minded.

But now they don't have to.

One of the unpredicted effects of the internet is this: community. The exact opposite of the closeted stereotype, kids (and adults) on-line can find friends, share ideas, see that the world is not only bigger than they imagined, but that they can also touch any part of it! And one of those parts is the It Gets Better Project.

At the It Gets Better Project, gay people are encouraged to show gay kids that not only is what they are going through survivable, but they can thrive after it. Survive school, and school becomes a smaller and smaller part of your live until it is just a tiny, miserable little speck that can be blown away with the smallest breath from your future self.

So if you're gay - or heck, even if you're not - go ahead and submit a video. Give them a chance to see who is out there, hear how they got there, and just how much better life is now!

It serves as a reminder that whenever you hear someone say that high school was the "best years of their lives", they either have really bad memories or really pathetic lives now. Just ask Stephen Fry.

Humans, A Working Guide

Killing a bit of time while waiting for the Canucks vs. Edmonton Young Stars game to begin streaming, and an article by dating site OK Cupid caught my eye:

The REAL ‘Stuff White People Like’

What drew my attention was the sample size (526,000 people) and the fact that they're self-selecting. The words used in people's profiles were written because that is what they want others to see. If you're embarrassed about being the 2004 University Chess champion, you're not likely to mention it; or if you don't think other people like Creed, you're more likely to hide the fact that you do. On the other hand, if you think reading '100 Years of Solitude' is going to get you some action, it's in the profile whether you've read the thing or not!

The lists were divided by sex and by race (again, both self-selected), and there were some startling revelations in the choices made:


The top word/phrase for White people:

Men: Tom Clancy
Women: Red Sox

Revelation: Really? So the guys are 40+ with aviator's glasses and golden lab retrievers and the women are from Boston. And I've never heard of Jodi Picoult.


Top word/phrase for Black people:

Men: Soul Food
Women: SOUL FOOD!

Revelation: While black men may like soul food, with black women it is possibly more important than their own blood. Both are also scared of God.


Top word/phrase for Latinos:

Men: Merengue
Women: Merengue

Revelation: Hispanics and dancing. Lots of it. The men mention three different dances in the first ten words; the women do the same, but also mention music, a musician, and 'I love dancing' made it to 11th place.


Top word/phrase for Asians:

Men: Taiwan
Women: Coz

Revelation: The men mention where they are from quite often, and emphasize that they are 'simple' guys. The women talk food far more, and emphasize that they are 'simple' girls. So, Asians like simplicity, and I have no clue what 'Coz' is.


Top word/phrase for East Indians:

Men: CRICKET!
Women: Bhangra

Revelation: Indian guys like their sport almost as much as black women like their soul food. Oh, and third for guys? 'A software engineer'. Indian Women go for the dancing first, but authour Jhumpa Lahiri second. Also high in their list? 'Interpreter' and 'my passport'. I'm guessing work's important to East Indians.


Top word/phrase for Middle Easterners:

Men: Arabic
Women: Different Cultures

Revelation: Huge difference here, as guys have 'Arab' or some variant listed four times in the top ten words, where women don't at all in the top 50.


Top word/phrase for Pacific Islanders:

Men: Hawaii
Women: Alicia Keys

Revelation: The guys are quick to mention 'ukulele' and 'Swingers', while the woman have 'kick boxing' and 'my girlfriends' in their top five. This tells me that the guys know to get their seduction game on, because Pacific Island women don't mess around!

WWACJD?*

*What Would an Associate Chief Justice Do?

Well, in this case, she'd get chained up and on her hands and knees blowing her husband while a black guy plows her from behind.

Allow me to put a reminder out there for all those folks who are cool with a bit of photographic exhibitionism: once and internet porn star, always an internet porn star.

Personally, of course, I couldn't give a rip what she and her husband (and whatever other consenting adults who happen to be around) do sexually, other than to wish them good luck and hope they have fun. Let's face it, I'd rather the judge deciding my case be someone who is getting laid often and well than one who is frustrated and bitter. Wouldn't you?

The more interesting aspect of this situation is the apparent justification for doubts about Justice Lori Douglas' credibility, according to the University of Ottawa's dean of civil law Sebastian Grammond:

Grammond doubts that Douglas would have been appointed a judge if she had disclosed the fact that there were nude photographs of her on the internet in her application.

There is a question in the application that asks, "Is there anything in your past or present which could reflect negatively on yourself or the judiciary and which should be disclosed?"

"I think the facts are sufficiently suspect to warrant disclosure and to raise very important questions as to whether such a person should have been appointed a judge," Grammond said.

It's not that she is apparently into kink - specifically playing the submissive to a black man/men - but that people might know about it. Welcome to the brilliance that is Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

It's a double standard at the most basic point: if you're okay with someone playing Cops and Robbers in the bedroom, then why is it a bad thing when people find out about it?

What her husband did, pressing unwanted advances on someone who was also a client of his law firm, was certainly wrong. I've been hit on by women, men, and couples, and fortunately whenever I've said "no, thanks" they listened. They were polite and left the offer where it was and that was that. I've never had someone who was in a position of power over me make an advance, and I hope never to. Of course, it's not something I'm likely to have to worry about now that I'm hitting 40, but still!

So Justice Douglas' husband (lawyer Jack King) should be reprimanded, investigated, and, if deemed suitable, charges against him should be laid.

But it's interesting to see who the story leads off with, isn't it?

Why Ken Mehman Deserves Nothing

In case you hadn't heard, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee decided to come out last week. Not in any interesting way, alas: just that he's what most folks either suspected or knew.

In his interview with the Atlantic Monthly, Mehlman tried to gain sympathy by talking about how long it took him to "get comfortable" with being gay - 43 years, apparently. For those of you keeping track, that's his entire life. So I guess he wasn't one of those "converted" types we so often hear about from the more paranoid branches of the conservative tree...

So why is he coming out now? Because in September he's going to be a speaker at a fund raiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights. That would be the folks who worked against California's infamous Proposition 8, banning gay marriage.

Funny story: while Mehlman was the chairman of the RNC, Republican strategist Karl Rove made sure that anti-gay referenda and initiatives were on the ballots in 2004 and 2006 as a scare tactic to get conservative voters to the polls.

"I can't change the fact that I wasn't in this place personally when I was in politics, and I genuinely regret that[...]If they can't offer support, at least offer understanding."

Gosh, and who can argue with that? Let's see...

Well, how about everyone who's not gay and has argued in favour of gay rights? In fact, how about everyone who has ever worked for the rights of any minority that they weren't a part of? Think they might have something to say, Ken?

You didn't have to be black to abolish slavery.

You didn't have to be native to demand action of residential schools.

You didn't have to be a woman to support the Equal Rights Amendment (in fact, it failed because a woman worked hard against it).

And you don't have to be homosexual to support gay rights.

You didn't even have to come out when you were "in politics", Ken: you could simply have opposed the decision to use gay people as bugbears to panic social conservatives and herd them to the polls. You could have objected to the hysteria that was actively encouraged by your party.

But then, you were also confused why so few gay people supported Republicans against "Islamic jihad", so maybe it is that you're simply not that bright. (Here's a hint: Democrats don't support "Islamic jihad" either. And of the two political parties in the United States, only one of them has openly compared homosexuality to atheism or acceptance of gays to encouraging bestiality, paedophilia, and incest.)

If you're going to ask people to forgive your past transgressions when you were in a position of power to do so, it's going to take some time. Opposing Prop 8 is a good start - but now you've got another 22 states in which specifically anti-gay initiatives were put onto the ballot at the insistence of the RNC while you were in power.

Good luck with that!

NOM NOM NOM!

So it looks like the rather silly Proposition 8 (the vote to ban gay marriage) got struck down by a federal judge in San Francisco today as being flatly unconstitutional. Which can't be that much of a surprise to those folks who thought about having a majority voting on minority rights.

While that could probably be filed under the category "No Shit", you do have to be a little concerned for the opposition. After all, what started as certainty that "God would make things right" in their battle against people getting hitched by (for instance) shooting a meteor at Orlando has devolved into complaining that they can't get anyone to appear in court for fear of "retaliation".

That they had no evidence and incompetent witnesses had NOTHING to do with it, I'm sure. Just ask Peter Barber Gallagher-Sprigg!

No it's all about fear of "retaliation", despite the people who have appeared as witness for them not being retaliated against. These are well known people, directly opposing rights for millions of Americans - and the retaliation is... where?

The reaction from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM NOM NOM!) president Brian Brown managed to spit this out:

"Never in the history of America has a federal judge ruled that there is a federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. The reason for this is simple – there isn’t!"

...without bothering to mention that the reason why no federal judge has said such a thing is because the only federal legislation is the Defence of Marriage Act, brought in in 1996. Federal governments have been terrified of touching marriage before or since, and have been leaving it up to the the states to decide for themselves. Hence gay marriage in Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Iowa (!) without the feds saying boo about it. Varied rights have been given in a slew of other states, too: Colorado, Hawaii, Washington, Rhode Island, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon (!), New Jersey, and Wisconsin.

California and Maine both have given some rights to gay unions, but both states have also had popular referendums overturning a previous legislative decision to grant full marriage.

Which is why the feds aren't going to get involved this time, either. And left in the hands of the courts, the decision is startlingly obvious: it's going to become legal. I'm sorry, but when the best witnesses in your favour $35 million can buy cites "preventing states from falling into Satan's hands", you're going to lose the argument.

It really couldn't come as a surprise, though: the lack of self-awareness comes right from the top. Maggie Gallagher, the chairman for the National Organization for Marriage:

"Gay activists treat Americans who disagree with them about same-sex marriage like bigots. They want to use the law to suppress and marginalize and stigmatize."

(Bigot: a person who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc. Webster's New World Dictionary)

NOM is using their influence to ensure a large portion of society is suppressed, marginalized, and stigmatized in a very specific way; we can clearly see what they are trying to do.

But Maggie and her ilk never do quite get around to what those in favour of gay marriage are going to do to those who are opposed to it. How exactly are the members of NOM going to suffer if gay marriage is legalized?

Other than eventually have to look for real jobs, that is.

Playing Catch-Up

Oh, damn.

Still waiting for the broken kneecap to heal, and for a very, very good reason: I'm now on the last hole in my belt. This is NOT a good thing.

All my exercise was walking the dog, but my walking has been limited to about 20 minutes at a time at most, and more frequently 10 or 15 minutes. Though a friend of mine advised me not to worry too much about it, as the legendary line goes: "The bigger the cushion, the better the pushin'!"

Unfortunately, the bigger the waist line, the longer the down time, too. The very best reason to lose weight and stay in shape is so you don't end up being winded after foreplay. Why would you want to limit not only what you can do, but how long you can do it for?

In the mean time, I've been spending way too long on the internet, and ended up in an argument about gay rights and whether and why they should be granted. After a few days of little back and forth messaged on a YouTube video (500 characters is really tough to get your point through in), it seems to have boiled down to this (after it was pointed out that there is nothing, and I mean nothing that homosexuals can do that hetros aren't happily doing right this minute):

"Society will never accept gays having full rights because of Gay Pride parades!"

That's paraphrased a little, of course, but that was the message in essence. Which I've certainly heard before, and know it to be a fairly common excuse for withholding rights to minorities. The self-same people will protest that they don't have any problem with gay people, but "why do they have to flaunt their 'otherness' out in the open like that?" The other variant of this excuse is "Why do they bother with that stupid lisp, and that prissy, faggy behaviour? It's all such a stupid act and I hate it! If they didn't behave that way, I'd be fine with them!"

Well, there are reasons.

First off, about the stereotypical "fag" behaviour: why shouldn't some people act like that? Is it seriously any worse than, say, the idiots on Jersey Shore? Or goofy little wiggers? Not really, no. Sorry, but if I had to choose someone to be sterile, it wouldn't be the folks for whom not having kids comes naturally.

It'd be this guy.

But that "fag" behaviour is what those who behave that way are comfortable with. Call it an act if you want to, but it is no more an act than anyone else's behaviour in public. Saying you have nothing against someone, then demanding that they change because you don't want to see them is, well, a bit stupid. Don't you think?

But why the parades? More to the point, why are Gay Pride parades so frequently overtly sexual? Simply put, sexuality is what is used to separate and ostracize a minority, so that is exactly what is being put forward in these parades. That's what the Black Cat Tavern riot was about, and why raids on clubs happen (even in 2010, if you can believe it). Hell, Gay Pride parades came directly from the Stonewall riots (Christopher Street Liberation Day ended up catching on), so it would be simply amazing if there wasn't a sexual element to an event that celebrates a liberation of sexuality.

Still, tell you what: I'll accept that you hate Gay Pride Parades for their displays only if you agree to protest against Hallowe'en and the Folsom Street Fair.

Deal?

P.S. Oh, yeah... Don't open either of those last two links if you're at A) work or B) your mom's house. Unless she attends the Folsom Street Fair, then I leave it up to you.

Tyger, Tyger, Burning Bright

So now that Tiger Woods is back to playing golf, I'm just going to skim down the pertinent facts of his time off:

A staggeringly successful, athletic, globe-trotting young man (who happens to be one of the richest in the world) is revealed to have had several affairs. This is revealed to the world when his wife hits him with a golf club and smashes the window of his car as he tries to escape. He, concussed and unable to steer, crashed said car.

Then his sponsors decide to either drop him or pressure him into getting back together with his wife after counselling to cure his problem.

To clarify:

His problem is that he has sex with women.

Her problem is that when she gets angry, she physically attacks him with a club.

Can anyone please tell me why the Sam Hill he'd want to stay in the marriage?

If you had heard this story being told about Serena Williams (she had affairs and was beaten for it by her husband), would any sane person have encouraged her to stay hitched to the guy?

A Day of Announcements

Yesterday, the President of the United States finally managed to drag his country kicking and screaming (and howling and moaning and wailing) into the modern era.

Mostly.

While the bill that passed is a mediocre amalgam of government and business that makes ManBearPig a thing of beauty, it's a step in the right direction, even if it's on the wrong path. A single-payer option really is the best (and cheapest) way to go for national health care, but that would have left insurance companies out of the loop for their biggest profit-producing teats. Still, some of the worst excesses of those same companies has been curtailed, which makes for an easy rebuttal against Republican attacks, if the Dems care to use them.

"I'm destroying the country, am I? Well how could you be in favour of pre-existing exclusions on children? Huh? Huh?"

The Republicans have sworn vengeance against those Democrats who are in supposed "risky ridings", but so what? What would they have done if the Democrats didn't pass the bill, donate money to them? Let them run unopposed? Didn't think so. The Republicans did everything they could to avoid any form of compromise, any appearance of there being a discussion, or contributing in any way to any kind of health care bill at all, so now they're pissed about not having a say? Too bad!

Of course, you could always ask the people what they think...

***

Also yesterday, an announcement was made of lesser importance nationally, but great importance socially - at least for one person. James Randi (he's The Magic Man in the links on the right, there) decided to come out as gay. While it's not a big surprise to me, the reasons he had for keeping that part of his identity a secret are finally not enough to outweigh his desire to live beyond his self imposed secret.

A long time magician and front line battler against fuzzy thinking and "woo-woo" beliefs, Randi has decided that he had enough of keeping such a huge part of himself hidden in a secret compartment out of sight of the public. While originally the 81-year old had been silent due to social pressure (as many other celebrities did), even as being gay became more acceptable to the public at large, he had built a career out of alienating mystics, mediums, "zero-point energy" con artists and other charlatans as well as established religions and decided that those people would use his sexuality to discredit his work.

Most famous for his appearances with Johnny Carson (himself an amateur magician) on The Tonight Show debunking the abilities of Uri Geller and exposing the supposed healing abilities of Peter Popoff as utter fraud, he has drawn the ire of many people who make a lot of money off "true believers" over the years. Now, he feels that announcing he is gay is not going to be giving those people any more weapons than they've already tried using against him.

Who knows? Perhaps the idea of someone being a "former gay" can now apply for the $1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge!