Porn on Seasame Street

[this happened 3 years ago, and I wrote the post below back then.  But for reasons I don't remember, I saved it as a draft, where it has been ever since, until I happened to go through my drafts folder today]

Sesame Street's Youtube was hacked, and porn was uploaded.

It seems as though everyone's reaction to what happened is either: "ha ha, too bad I missed it" or "that was the worst possible thing imaginable, the hacker is sick and should be tortured".

I feel like the one kid who sees that the emperor's new clothes don't exist.

Hey, guess what?  People have sex!
Seeing sex does NOT scar or disturb or warp children!!!
You know what does give children a lifelong neurosis around sexuality?  Sheltering and hiding them from it, which teaches them that it is bad and shameful.
No child would think that was a big deal if all the adults around them didn't make such a big production out of it.

Sexuality is not bad for children.  If it weren't for sexuality, there wouldn't even BE any children!

It has been shown conclusively and consistently that there is a directly inverse relationship between sex education and teen pregnency and STDs
Knowledge, truth, and education = GOOD
Sheltering and hiding a significant part of life = BAD

Parents are such hypocrites:  the very fact that they are parents proves that they have done the very thing they pretend to be so shocked about themselves; at least once.

If you aren't mature enough to talk to your kids honestly about sex, then maybe you weren't mature enough to have kids in the first place.  For that matter, maybe you aren't mature enough to have sex yourself.
If parent's were straight forward about sex with their kids, seeing it on screen would be a non-issue. 

You know what does give children a lifelong neurosis around sexuality?  Sheltering and hiding them from it, which teaches them that it is bad and shameful, (regardless of what you say explicitly).
This is exactly why America is so screwed up when it comes to all things sexual.  Not that kids sometimes see people having sex.  The fact that so many of you react as though there were anything wrong with that.
Hey, guess what?  People have sex!  We are animals.  All animals have sex.  That's how we produce new people.  No child would think that was a big deal if all the adults around them didn't make such a big production out of it. 

If you want to tell your kids that its only for grown-ups who love each other, that's fine, but there is no reason for them not to see "hardcore" - that's actually how it works!  Its not like the hacked video was full of BDSM or fetishes.  It was just people having sex.  Get over it.

If I Were Elected King of the Country

My new friend asked me a few weeks ago, "what would you change about the world, if you had the power to?"

She said she tried to ask all new people she met that question.

She said it was surprising how many people didn't have an answer because they had never thought about it.

I couldn't answer, but for a very different reason.

I just couldn't sum up, couldn't choose from the list what to say first.

I've been thinking about it ever since then, and I still can't find any way to tie all the various things together, so, instead of going into the detail about how and why for each one, I think I'll just list as many as I can think of.

(and if anyone wants elaboration on any in particular, ask me as a comment, and maybe I'll make that one its own post)

These are in no particular order:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Election day would be a national holiday.  No one could be forced to work more than a 4 hour day on election day. 

Anyone not registered to vote would pay a small annual penalty with their taxes.

Judges would be subject to recall by popular vote.

Congressional, presidential, and governor terms 6 years.

All term limits would be eliminated.

All elections would be instant run off type (or another equivalent to eliminate "lesser of two evils" votes).

Party, primary, and electoral college systems eliminated.

Voter initiative process on federal level, and all 50 states.

All campaign related ads would be banned from TV, radio, print, direct mail, and billboards, starting 1 year prior to any election.  Each candidate or initiative would receive expanded space in the official election guide.  All statements made that could not be verified by an independent 3rd party fact checker would be marked with an asterisk.

No individual could donate more than $500 to any campaign or political organization in a year.  No company or corporation could donate any amount to any campaign or political organization.  No union, church, or other group could donate without 100% unanimous consent of all members, and then no more than the equivalent of $100 per member.  For any amount an individual spent out of pocket for a campaign, they would have to contribute an equal amount to the public campaign fund. 
All of this would be less important, giving the ban on media ads.

Media (of any form) which reports any mistaken information or error as factual, would be required to report the correction with equal or greater prominence and length of time as the original mistake (if error was headline for 3 days, retraction must be headline for 3 days)

Public school would be paid at the national level, by number of students (regardless of performance).  Any outside income (gifts of cash or supplies by parents for example) would reduce funding by 50% of the amount of income (i.e. parent donates $100, then federal funding is reduced by $50), used for the pool, to benefit schools with less generous parents.

Teacher training and classroom curricula would be evidence based

No multiple choice test could be used for assessment.  Guiding principal should be teaching for understanding, not just retention of facts.

Preschool and kindergarten would both become mandatory and free.

2 and 4 year college / university would be voluntary, free for any family below median national income.

All college finals would be administered one semester after the end of the class (to test for long-term retention)

Public school teacher salaries would be cut by roughly 5-10% (approximately the amount private school teachers make), principals and administrators by 25-50% (to be within 25% more than teachers).  All of this extra money would go to hiring more teachers to reduce classroom size. 

Teachers would have at least 15min of prep time for each 55min of instruction.
They would be eligible for overtime after 112 hours per month(equivalent annual hours to other jobs, considering summer and other breaks - after reduced work hours, (see below))

Cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and predictable irrationality would be a required course in middle school, high school, and college (beginning, intermediate, and advanced, respectively).

Drug use would be decriminalized.  Selling without a license would not be.  Prostitution and gambling would also be legal, (though regulated and taxed).

No law or regulation could stay in effect unless it can be shown to tangibly benefit some individual or society as a whole.

No censorship of "indecency" (nudity, sex, language)

Sex ed would be taught in preschool, 5th grade, and 12th grade, each class more advanced and in-depth (the first would be similar to current Jr High level, the last would be equivalent to college Human Sexuality course).  It would be a graduation requirement, so no opt out.

It would be illegal to formally teach any child below the age of 18 any form of religion, (other than in a historical or sociological context).  This would include attending services.

Churches would no longer be tax exempt.

No government recognition of religion or God, even in a neutral, non-specific way (e.g. "...One Nation, Under God..." or "In God We Trust")

All pronouns would be replaced with gender neutral ones.

All restrooms and locker rooms would be unisex (with individual stalls, and/or separate areas of the room optionally)

Combat and infantry roles would be available to women in the military.

No government or business could mandate different dress codes by gender.

This would include that women could be topless anywhere that men could.

Public beaches and parks would be clothing optional.

All laws on sexual assault, age of consent, marriage, etc would be gender neutral (this would, among other things, inherently legalize gay marriage).

No cosmetic surgery (including circumcision and pierced ears) before the age of 18

All subsidies and price controls for feed crops would be eliminated.

Minimum standards for animal welfare would include daily access to outdoors and a diet resembling a "natural" one - i.e. herbivores could not be fed animal by-products, nothing would be fed manure, nor its own specie, nor a reciprocal specie (i.e. Animal A is fed animal B, and animal B is fed animal A)

All new cars would be governed to a maximum of 65mph, or to the maximum of the state is is sold in, whichever is lower.

Each lane on any highway with 2 or more lanes in each would direction would have specified lane speeds. A two lane would have a maximum speed of 65 and minimum of 55 in the left lane, and max of 55 and minimum of 40 in the right. 
For a 3 lane, from the left, the speeds to maintain would be 60mph, 50, and 40 (each +/- 5mph).  A 4 lane would be 60, 55, 50, and 45 (+/-5).  A 5 lane would be 60, 55, 50, 45, 40 (+/-5). 

Speeds on all highways would be monitored by randomly placed, (and periodically moved) radar machines - a combination of the radar systems that say "your speed is:" and the camera detection system that catch red light and toll violators.  Like the latter, they would look up registration by plate number, and mail you your ticket.

The first 2 violations would be warning.  The 3rd would be a $100 fine.  The 4th would be a $500 fine.  The 5th would be one week mandatory community service.  The 6th would be license suspension for a year.

No one could get a drivers license without an intensive driver's ed class (50 hours minimum).  It would cover all the basics, plus: changing oil, checking tire pressure / fluid levels, changing a wheel, and safety check - cone tests, parallel parking, driving in reverse - calculating speed, distance, and time, as well as braking distance and impact force at different speeds - fuel economy, basic hypermiling - safe and legal bicycle operation - auto crashes, causes and prevention - practical accident avoidance, using simulator - poor weather handling, rain, ice, snow, fog, and glare - driving with manual transmission.  The final test could not contain any multiple choice questions, and would cover all topics, some as hands on skills tests.

Driving class (as above) would have a 2-3 day mandatory refresher course every 10 years - every 5 years before age 25 and after age 60, as well as after every moving violation or accident

No communication device while driving (including hands free) except 2-way radios used in the course of a job which involves driving (truck and taxi drivers, emergency services)

Public safety tax based on weight for all motor vehicles, added to annual registration (i.e. one pays for the additional risk to everyone else caused by their choice to buy a 3 ton SUV rather than a 1 ton car) - based on the grand total public cost of all accidents, divided by the total number of registered cars, proportioned by weight.

Anyone found to be 1% or greater at fault in any auto "accident" would be automatically charged with criminal negligence.

Revoke mandatory airbags, seatbelts, crash rating standards.

Traffic lights would flash green before turning yellow (as in Mexico).  They would flash red before turning green (so you know to turn your engine back on)

Stop signs would be considered yield signs for bicyclists (as in Ohio)

All 4-way stop sign intersections would be converted to either a 2-way stop, a traffic circle, or a stop light.

All major one-way streets would have timed / synchronized stop lights.

50% tax on retail gasoline, money used to subsidize public transit.

At rush hour, instead of a carpool lane, the left most lane would be for commercial vehicles (being used for work, not for commuting), transit, emergency services, and people with permanent disabilities only.  On highways with 3 or more lanes, the next one over from the commercial / handicapped lane would be for carpools of 4+ people, plus toll road paid by electronic RFID tag

Upper limit of inheritance or gifts of $10,000.  The government income from estates would replace all (or at least most) of the income tax.

The rate for any remaining income tax would be at least half for earned income (wages / salary / commission) as for unearned income (dividends, capital gains, gifts, prizes).

The tax rate on unearned income would be steeply progressive, with a maximum rate of 99% after $100,000.

One may only own land which you personally live and/or work on - i.e. a maximum of two parcels (one for work, one for home) per person.  They can be any size, so long as they are a) continuous and b) actively and directly used by the owner in some way.

No one could have more than 2 households as tenants, and then only if the tenants share the same parcel that the landlord lives on.

Corporate charters would only be granted for very specific circumstances, where it is demonstrated that the product or service offered could not be provided by a privately held company, and that it is of overall benefit to society.  Any charter application which met those standards and was granted would be for a specific and limited time period - 1 year by default, 5 years with requested extension, 10 years considered with an explanation of the need for a longer time period.

Patents and copyright would be good for 10 years, or until a 25% return on investment was made by the patent/copyright holder, or until the applicant dies whichever came first.

Business licenses and fees would be by percentage of net income, not flat amounts.

Business insurance companies would be required to offer a broad range of coverage and deductible amounts, so that small scale and hobby businesses with low maximum potential risk could afford coverage.

Any form of business could be run out of one's residence unless a specific risk or harm to the neighbors could be demonstrated.  "Lowering property values" would not in-and-of itself be a valid form of harm.

Employers would not pay for the employees' payroll taxes.  The employee would cover the full amount of their own social security and medicare taxes.

Employers would also not cover medical insurance, but that would be irrelevant, because there would be nationalized, single payer, health care.

1/2 of company profit would be distributed equally among all employees, without regard for title or position.  Any increase in efficiency due to improved technology that were not passed on to the consumer would be distributed to employees either in the form of fixed hours and increased salary, or fixed salary and decreased hours.

No one could sue for loss of profit.

A company with more than zero profit could not lay off employees.

Overtime would be anything over 86 hours per month, would pay time and a half, no exceptions by profession, would apply to salary and commission as well.  Double time after 172 hours in one month.

No company or corporation could buy another.

No company could have more than one location, except in those cases where the nature of the company required multiple locations (such as delivery service).  Exception could be made on a case by case basis, if the expansion could be shown to benefit society as a whole enough to offset the anti-competitiveness.

Any company based in the US, or with a majority of US shareholders, or with 1% or more of product exported to the US, must follow all US wage, safety, and environmental laws and regulations, regardless of the location of production.  (For example, if a company builds a factory in China, they still must pay US minimum wage if they want to export the product into the US)

No US military protection of private property, on US soil or abroad.  For example, US oil companies would have to pay for their own private security to guard pipelines.  Private corporate interests could not be considered "national interests", even if the product they produce is of value to the nation.

Any action of military or CIA is automatically war, whether or not it is officially declared.

Any action longer than 5 days must be approved by congress.  Any action longer than 60 days must be unanimously approved by all 50 states (via senators and/or governors).  Any action longer than one year requires majority vote of all US citizens.

Military budget reduced by 90% (give or take).  It could never be increased to more than 10% less than whatever nation has the highest military budget.

Universal conscription of all citizens at 18, both genders, deferments for medical issues, but no other reason.  Everyone must attend bootcamp.  After that, choice of 2 years of either military service, or civil service.

In middle school, high school, and college, reversible long-term birth control would be provided at no cost to both genders (yes, the technology exists).  This would be voluntary, and either child or parent could choose to opt out for any reason, however it would be the default - everyone would get it unless they actively choose to opt out.

(Voluntary) permanent sterilization would be provided at no cost to all adults.

All forms of contraceptive would be covered in full through health care.

Child tax credits would be eliminated.

Welfare would provide a fixed amount per household - it would not increase with additional children.

Universal, single payer healthcare - however, in order to engage in certain high risk activities, you would have to opt out.  You would present your opt out card before buying cigarettes, and to get a registration sticker with a stripe which indicates you may drive a car without a seatbelt of ride a motorcycle without a helmet.  Possibly also for purchasing more than a certain quantity of alcohol at one time, and certain foods.  Anyone who opted out could be refused service at any hospital unless they pay in full in advance, even in emergencies.  They could still purchase private health insurance, if any private insurer wanted to cover them.



Citizenship would not be automatic:
At age 18, each person would need to pass the same citizenship exam that immigrants have to pass (this would be covered in high school). 
They would  have to go to military bootcamp, and then either serve in the military or in civil service for 2 years.  They would have to register to vote. 

Anyone choosing not to apply for citizenship would be considered a native resident. 

Native residents would not have to pay any taxes.

They also could not vote or run for office.  They would not be eligible for public assistance, including health care and (college level) education.  They could not drive motor vehicles on public roads, nor sue in court.  They would be responsible for the labor, fuel, and expenses if using emergency services such as police or firefighters. 

One could apply for citizenship at anytime, up to age 40, however, once revoked, you could not get it back for 15 years, and would have to begin the process from the beginning.

Advertisements that only work due to ignorance and stupidity

I don't generally see a lot of ads, thanks to AdBlock on the computer and a RePlayTV unit that automatically skips them when I watch an occasional show, but between Hulu, the few that get past the RePlay's filters, and billboards, I can't seem to escape them entirely.
Which is fine, they are paying for me to have free content, some of them are entertaining, and every once in a great while actually informative.

But there are 3 out right now which grate against me so severely that the only way I'm going to be able to stop ranting in my own head about them is to rant on the internet.

They are deliberately relying on consumer's ignorance in order to try to convey a message which simply isn't there - the facts are technically accurate, but the implication is actually the exact opposite of reality.


1) The new milk campaign, attempting to discredit soy milk:

They list a bunch of scary sounding "chemicals" that soy milk contains, to contrast with cow milk, which according to the ingredient list has only one ingredient: "milk".
Never mind that the list of scary sounding chemicals they list consists almost entirely of vitamins and minerals which are actually quite healthy, or neutral at worst.

So, in the interest of fairness, here are some scary sounding chemicals that are present in cow's milk:

• oligosaccharides
  galactose
  pantothenic acid
  phosphorus
  selenium
  manganese
  lipoprotein lipase
  inactivated alkaline phosphatase
  lactoperoxidase
  C16:0 ß-hydroxy fatty acids
  conjugated linoleic acid*
  α-lactalbumin
  blood serum albumin
  transferrin
  high proline micelle
  methionine
  cholin
  cerebrosides

Golly.  Don't all those chemicals sound unknown, and therefor scary? 


*(which is a TRANSfat omg!!!!!!!! - but wait, aren't transfats all man-made and added by the evil food industry????  What?  Some transfats are naturally occurring? How can that be, when everything natural is good and healthy, and all transfats are devil food??)

---

2) 5-hour energy:

73% "said they would recommend a low-calorie energy supplements to their healthy patients who used energy supplements. 73%!"
Wow!  That's a C- grade.
Ok, so never mind that 73% is not particularly impressive.

Never mind that if it has no calories it has no actual energy.  It may make you feel energetic, but the human body gets its energy from calories, not stimulants.  (Don't believe it, try going on a fast where you consume nothing but cocaine for a few months)

And never mind that almost 1/2 the doctors they tried to survey refused to participate in the first place...


They worded it pretty carefully.  Sounds like they handed out a survey that said "if you had a patient who was determined to take an energy supplement, would you recommend that it be low calorie?"
Well, sure, given that constraint, of course.
Just like IF you have a patient that smokes, you might recommend that at the very least they smoke light, filtered cigarettes.  That's not exactly an endorsement.
And even with that particular wording, 27% still wouldn't recommend it.
But wait - there's more!
If you read the fine print, even among those who would recommend low calorie energy supplements to patients who are going to take energy supplements anyway, after reviewing the ingredients of the specific 5-Hour Energy brand, 45% of them would NOT recommend it!  45%!

So, assuming that the 1/2 of doctors who refused to dignify their survey with an answer would not have been impressed, you have 50% (number who answered at all) x 73% (number who said yes to low calorie) x 55% (number of those who said yes to the brand) = 20% who actually said they would recommend the product IF a person was dead-set on using an "energy supplement".

We can only assume that the number who would recommend it to a patient who wasn't already on legal stimulants is approximately 0%

---

3) No On Beverage Tax

This is a local one, but similar measures are being proposed all over.
It isn't even a ballot measure yet, but the soda industry and retailers are fighting it preemptively.  In theory it would tax beverages with added sugar by one penny an ounce.

The ad claims that it would "hit the city’s poorest residents and the elderly the hardest"

Because, you know, poor people and old people are legally mandated to drink nothing but soda. 
Or is it that their unique physiological properties make it that the empty calories in soda are actually a nutritional requirement? 

Ah, I know - some people are SO poor that, not only aren't there supermarkets nearby with real juice, they don't have running water, so their only source of liquid is the soda they buy at the gas station.

Wait... what?  Gas stations and corner stores sell not only 100% juice, but also bottled water? Hmm....

Whoa, whoa, whats that!?  Running water is legally required in all rental units, including the projects and even homeless shelters, and many if not most renters don't actually pay for metered water?  Are you saying all these poor people could actually be drinking water for FREE?

And even if one does pay metered rate for tap water, its cost is between one half to 5 cents a gallon?  Now you are just being silly. 
That would mean that even without the tax, generic brand soda costs roughly 35 times as much as tap water for the exact same nutritional value. 
Gosh, so maybe drinking water would save more money than traveling to a city without a beverage tax to find cheap soda, as the ad campaign suggests is the only possible alternative.

---

I suppose its good that we have any truth in advertising laws at all, but I really think we need to take the next step and ban "technically accurate but deliberately deceptive and misleading in it's implications" advertising as well.

Counter-protest / Not that there's anything wrong with it

• May 24, 2009

Counter-protest / Not that there's anything wrong with it

 

A friend of mine insists that I seem really gay (despite this friend being female, and us sleeping together).
As evidence she questioned someone I had just met, who agreed that whatever I was, she doubted it was straight.
As I found this more than a little strange, I proceeded to ask other people if they thought that when they first met me.
Responses mixed, but I was surprised to find some people agreed with their assessment.

The reasons I got included: that I seem comfortable with myself and others, comfortable in my own skin (mind you, I was in my own home at the time), and that I am not a sleazy slimeball.

I definitely consider those both to be very positive (and, I like to imagine, accurate) things to say about me, but it leaves an absolutely terrible implication for like, all straight men everywhere. 
Like, (aside from gay guys and me), they are all fake, all of the time (or at least around women), always trying to show off or prove something, I suppose, or one way or another acting (presumably for the chance to have sex with everyone they meet).
I have a lot of trouble believing that.



Having an inside pass, I do know that this is terribly common.  Disturbingly common.
But if it is perceived to be universal...
Perhaps this is why nice guys finish last.  Women perceive guys who are just regular, decent human beings as all being gay.

When I was younger I used to believe that everyone is naturally bi, and it is only social conditioning that makes us suppress it.  I was raised in an extremely liberal household by an openly bi former hippy who was totally honest and through in education on all topics. 
(A note for the anti-sex-ed folk: nothing can make sex less appealing to a young person than hearing about it in detail from one's mother.  Statistics show that repressive communities have a far higher teen birth rate.  I on the other hand waited until 21, and then only because the other person insisted).
I grew up not just watching but participating in the gay parade.  It was a while before I understood that a certain anonymous alcohol recovery support group was not in fact specifically for the LGBT community.  Many of my best childhood memories was of Camp Lavender Hill, where every kid was from a LGBT family.  So I was open-minded.
Then I got the opportunity to test the theory.
Turns out I was wrong.
It just doesn't do it for me.
Not at all.
Even years later, I tell myself I "should" be more open-minded.  Nothing can make me lose interest in sex faster than watching gay porn.

I am neutral on the gender tests I have taken, and I'm proud of that.  I may act effeminate by this society's standards - mainly because I am totally oblivious to the standards.  I probably wouldn't act the way I am "supposed to" even if I knew, but the truth is I don't.  When I think about it, I don't see what I could do that wouldn't be a blatant caricature of what it means to be Manly.  I think of flannel, a big belt buckle, beer, and slapping women I barely know on the ass.  I think of constantly challenging other guys to frivolous competitions and asking total strangers for her number on the sole basis of her being "hot".  Who does these things?  How can anyone take them seriously? 

On the Kinsey scale I am all the way over to the right.  I can recognize when a guy is cute.  I have kissed a few guys.  I have even gone much further than that once.  And it all causes exactly zero erotic response for me.  Even when there is a physical response from the physical stimuli, its just not sexy (and yes, I don't know how this isn't common knowledge, but the physical and mental responses are totally separate things, and it is entirely possible to have either without the other.  They generally tend to be associated, but they are separate things.)
I may be sensitive, caring, introspective, open with my feelings, honest and not at all manipulative; but the thing is I REALLY like having sex with women.  I mean, a lot.  If I could find a partner to match, we would spend at least a few hours each day on it.  I just can't even put it in words.  I walk around a college campus, a beach, some special event, all these incredible girls walking around, ohhhh, on a hot day, skin showing, dude - I can't even write this without driving myself crazy.  Remembering race day last week for example.  I could melt.  Melt onto her.  Melt into her.  Her too.  Screw all my convictions and preferences about partnership and commitment - look at that girl right there, her face, that curve where hip meets waist, firm little belly, that smile oh my god I want that girl...
That's what makes me straight.  That, and when I see or think about two guys that way (or one and me) my deepest reaction is I feel a little sick inside, (which, incidentally, allows me to understand homophobia.  Sure, they are bigoted jack-asses who buy into what some book written thousands of years ago tells them to believe -  but ultimately homophobia comes from a raw emotional place, just like for the pro-life people).




On race day I could understand people who didn't know me assuming I was gay, given the circumstances.

The Bay to Breakers, you probably know, is an annual running race is San Francisco which is unique in that it is simultaneously a legitimate competitive race in which people fly in from all over the world to compete for $74,000 in prize money, and a moving festival/party with giant floats, free alcohol, public nudity, and all manner of silly costumes.

This was my 3rd year competing, and as always I combine the two elements by actually running the course, but not wearing traditional running attire.  Its the one time a year I don my stripper outfit - silver swimsuit and a bowtie.
I hoped to beat last years time by 11 minutes.  To improve on last years haphazard practicing I started training earlier, made a schedule, kept a log, and made sure to begin my recovery earlier (I started last years race sore).  I trained smarter - but not harder.  I skipped on rainy days and never made up for them.  I did do one long run (11miles), but I never matched last year's 4 repeats on the 300ft-in-one-block hill near my house.
In the end I beat my old time but only by 30 seconds.
On the plus side I ended the race with very little soreness or pain, and for the first time had the strength and energy to walk around, see costumes and meet up with friends instead of just lying in the grass for an hour and then going home like last year.

As I began walking back the way I had come I noticed some of those "God Hates Sinners" people with their giant signs and bull horns who come out to every public party type event in San Fransisco.

And I got a spontaneous idea for a simple counter-protest.
No words.  No sign. 
I, dressed like a male stripper, still listening to my MP3 player music, stood near them, and began to dance. 

Fun.  Life.  Free. Joy.  Dance.  No one gets hurt.  How can anyone say dancing and enjoying a beautiful day like this is something God hates?  God invented all this. 
I just happen to not being wearing a lot of clothes.  Hell, humans invented clothes.  God puts us here naked.  I'm not even gay.  I'm not Catholic either.  (Catholic is in the largest font on the list of things God hates).  I think my implication was understood because all the people passing by began to cheer and wave and take pictures - which must have confused my Christian friends, as I had come from behind and they had no way to know I was there.
Eventually they turned around, and said something I couldn't hear over my headphones, and tried to move away from me a little.  Then I went on to put on another show near a different set of the same group a little up the road.  I was told by a couple people that I was their hero. 
I was just happy to make people's experience of passing by the hate filled religious fanatics a more positive and entertaining one.
I'm thinking, maybe a worthwhile annual tradition...

First version mysteriously disappeared!

• Jan 23, 2008

First version mysteriously disappeared!

I have been failing to fulfill my responsibility to provide my non-nonsensical thoughts to my 4 or so readers and the 10 anonymous people who for some reason refuse to let me know who they are.
This is primarily because I haven't had time (from work, spending time with my wife, and video games).
When I have posted, its been the sucky unoriginal kind where I just summarize a news story or post a link I found interesting.
Unfortunately, this is going to be another of those.

On the plus side, I have 5 original ideas lined up, which I am sure I will get to relatively soon.  The subjects are written down so I won't forget, and the content has been enhanced and refined by countless raving conversations with people in the real world.

In the meantime...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virgin Airlines has decided to put 100% of its profits over the next 10 years into developing a non-food crop based renewable bio-fuel to replace petroleum based jet-fuel.
You should avoid flying altogether: although planes are the cause of a relatively small percentage of GHG emissions, this is largely because of the sheer volume of driving we do.  Takes a lot of energy just to keep something that weighs 485 tons in the air, never mind traveling at hundreds of miles per hour.  Not that driving to NY is much better (its actually slightly worse if you make the drive solo).  If you have to travel long distance, its best to take the train.
But we all know we're gonna fly at least occasionally.
I think Virgin has earned our business.  Plus, their is innuendo in the brand, which is another plus.
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/01/virgin-airlines-pond-scum-biofuel-global-warming.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A bill has just passed congress, and is expected to pass the senate soon, which focuses on stopping domestic terrorism (that is, acts done by US citizens and permanent residents) not only before they happen, but before they are even planned.  It goes beyond conspiracy to commit a crime to simply holding an ideology which may tend to lead eventually to a crime.  While that is not an arrestable offense, it sets up a government agency tasked with tracking and surveillance on individuals which have undergone or are undergoing " 'violent radicalization' [which] means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change."
Look carefully at the syntax of that sentence (a quote from the bill).
It is not based on an actual attempt, plan, or even necessarily even a specific thought of violence, but just having an "extremist belief system" which facilitates violence.
It explicitly includes political or social change. There is no definition of what constitutes "extreme".
Protests have at times included breaking windows, flipping over unoccupied cars, and resisting arrest, all of which can be considered violence.  As such, simply adopting any belief system which is dissatisfied with anything politically or socially could conceivably fall under this new agencies jurisdiction.
By this standard, my blog might be enough to draw attention.

Of 435 members of congress, exactly 6 voted against this bill.  Among them were presidential candidates Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2008/01/homegrown-terrorism.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the US, the car with the highest mileage (the Prius) gets about 45mpg in real world driving.
This is lower than the average of the entire fleet of passenger cars (including light trucks, vans, and SUVs) in Japan, which has the highest mileage standards in the world at around 47.
The EU is close behind, with standards at about 43, and is set to go above 50 in the next 4 years.
Many US car companies have been advertising cars that get 35 as though this were good mileage.
Some Americans like to point out the rate at which China is catching up to the US in petroleum use and pollution (although this is in total for the country, no one comes close per capita) - yet even China averages 35 for all passenger vehicles.
The US, with all its resources, money, and technology, comes in dead last among all first world countries.  Our current 25.3 is actually LOWER than our average from 20 years ago (25.9)


Technology isn't going to help, because a lack of technology was never the problem.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/questions-and-answers-on-fuel-economy.html
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/all_reports/fuel_economy

ADDDITION:  Just read that a company (in India) has started selling a (4 door) car which gets 50mpg which retails for $2500 (American dollars).  Its called the Nano.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A blog I stumbled upon of a guy who, while in Japan, buys and browses a great variety of interesting and unusual (at least in our culture) sex toys, including an extended stop in a 7 story tall adult superstore.  Now I like to think of myself as fairly open-minded and adventurous, I enjoy or can at least sympathize with a variety of things I'd just as soon not admit to a general audience, and even I found this to be much more creepy and weird than even slightly sexy.  It is most certainly entertaining though.  Note also there is a part two at the bottom.
http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2005/08/curiosities-from-japans-porno-shops.html

Censorship vs gangsta rap (re: Imus essay)

• Apr 17, 2007

Censorship vs gangsta rap (re: Imus essay)

I recently saw a MySpace "survey" which included the question "Is Rap music disrespectful to women?"
My thought was "Of course.  All of it.  Even the songs and artists which aren't.  Especially rappers such as Public Enemy, Underground, and TuPac, and current artists OutKast, RasKaDee and Dead Prez with their "Mind Sex".  Oh and the lyrics of the Fugees, Queen LaTifa, and Lil Kim, very offensive to women."
A little on the sarcastic side, obviously.
Point is, that is a really stupid question.  Rap is not one song, one artist, or even one style.  There are artists who objectify women in rock and country, and there are artists who do in rap as well.

The important question is, when there are so many political, and/or positive, and/or fun and upbeat, and/or meaningful rap songs and artists, why is it that NWA and Snoop Dogg are considered representative of the entire genre.  Why are gangsta rap, hyphe (the glorification of stupid for its own sake), dirty south and crunk, the dominate styles in their respective times?

While there may be many complex reasons, it is important to remember that the promotion of a song or group is controlled by major record labels, radio stations, and concert venue owners.  The vast majority of these happen to be white. 
I'm not saying it is a deliberate conspiracy, but it is interesting that NWA got more air time than Public Enemy, when the former was hardcore gangsta rap, promoted violence in general, was disrespectful of women in particular, while the latter was purely political, and rapped about such things as the aftermath of slavery, alcohol abuse in the black community, and the use of the word "n***er" by ignorant black americans.

I used to dislike the entire genre for the same reasons; until I started to find the numerous exceptions to the generalizations expressed here.
Fact is, it is a style of music, not a type of content.  Beyond the question of who chooses what style becomes popular, the question remains, why are so many rappers the way described?  And in that, there is the same chicken/egg question raised by all of the media influences people arguments.  Does the community build its morals based on the music they listen to, or do they choose to listen to music that matches their morals?  Does art imitate life, or life imitate art? I think the question of why the community thinks this way is more important than why rappers do.  If youth were offended by the lyrics, they would stop buying the albums, and the rappers would stop writing that way. I think internalized racism is very relevant, but not exactly accurate. It is more that many black people have bought into the idea that the black community is in some way fundamentally separate from society at large.  While many sub-cultures in the US make some effort to assimilate, in a way blacks try to move away from the rest of society.  Of course this is true to a large extent of youth in general.  But when a punk or a goth or a skater white kid writes a note to a teacher, they generally do not use the sub-cultural words they use with their friends.  Some black children seem unaware that they aren't speaking proper english, and use slang even in formal settings.  Black youth are told that math, history, english classes are not relevant to their problems, to their community.  This is an extremely destructive, but widespread belief.  While the intention may have been valid, the result is not that kids do independent research and learn the history that classrooms leave out, the result is they don't try, or drop out, and continue a cycle of ignorance when they have children and fail to encourage them to perform well in school.  I think we should consider it a problem that many blacks consider another black person who is educated and articulate to be "acting white" or a sell-out or not really black.  This is a promotion of ignorance just as hyphe is a promotion of stupid.


The debate over ebonics is another example.  

The fact is that for generations blacks were denied formal education, and like in every culture where a group is separated from mainstream society and denied education, a slang of broken english developed.  And instead of emphasizing teaching, many people, including educated blacks (who, incidentally, don't speak that way), supported children's 'right' to remain ignorant. There is little chance that some one who spoke 'ebonics' would get a job as an executive or governor, so the unintended consequence of supporting deliberate cultural segregation would be to not only keep people separate, but also to maintain the status quo, or even reverse the positive changes that have developed over the years. 
It is my opinion that the best, possibly only, way to negate the still lasting effects of slavery is to tax the hell out of inheritance and provide free education, funded at the federal level, up to a bachelors degree, for everyone.  The effects of poverty and lack of education are inherited just as surely as money is, and there has never been any steps to level the playing field.  Reparations never came, and so, with the cumulative effect of inheritance, it is no surprise that blacks on average are poorer than the average american.  It should come as no surprise either that poor people, of any color, commit more crime, and particularly more violent crime.  They have less to lose, and more to gain from, for example, armed robbery, than someone whose parents paid for their college education.

As offensive as some lyrics or comedy sketches may be, I think the absolutely last thing anyone needs is another push towards censorship.  It is a dangerous and slippery slope.   We have come a long way, and any move towards censorship, no matter how well intentioned, is a step backwards for all of democracy.  Tipper Gore already got us those "parental advisory" stickers on albums, we have the movie and now TV ratings with all new TVs having the ability to lockout individual shows.  The Grand Theft Auto video game was a M (mature) game, despite its extremely graphic and extreme violence, potentially offensive racial stereotypes, drug use, and glorification of crimes of all sorts.  When it was discovered that an un-authorized hack of the software could unlock a small, clothed, soft-core simulated sex game, the rating was changed to  AO (adults only) and most major retailers pulled it from their shelves - despite the fact that the Sims 2 could be hacked just as easily to be far more graphic, and that Playboy: the Mansion game had equally graphic actions as mainstay of the game play; both of which games had only M ratings.  Point is, when society finds it acceptable to ban certain words or ideas, there is no way to control who decides what is offensive and what isn't.  Free speech applies to everyone, or it applies to no one.   Including rappers - even the bad ones.  And  to Imus as well, and those like him.
I also want to point out that "ho" does not mean "black woman".  There are white hos.  It is derogatory to women in general - and then only if it is meant to apply to all women.  There really are prostitutes, and if that is the context in which the term is used, it isn't necessarily offensive.  A lot of songs and media seem offensive because a key word or phrase stands out to the causal listener, who is unable or uninterested to hearing the overall context of the song, the album, or the artist.  I wrote my last blog on this subject (though Trent Reznor is white, it is an example of what I mean). Also not black, but a prominent figure in Hip-Hop, Eminem sounds at first listen (and 2nd, 3rd and 4th) to be horribly offensive, until you realize that 90% of it is tongue-in-cheek, that he is making a point to be over the top offensive.  You also see personal growth from one album to the next - artists are people, individuals, before they are musicians, no matter how big they get. They are only representatives of society because (and as long as) radio stations play their music and Tower stocks their latest album. In many ways, having an older generation insist that such-and-such is offensive, or bad, or unacceptable only makes it more appealing to youth.  I guess my overall point is it would be far better for us to focus on promoting positive messages, rather than attempting the censor negative ones, whether they be from white commentators, black rappers, or anyone else.  The enemies are mind set and culture, ones which include a internalization of ignorance and poverty.  Fighting messages we don't like is pointless at best.