AGT Blog: All Good Things, The Blog on American Culture and More!

4TH Quarter Pick: G-Dragon or 태양 (Taeyang)?

2009-11-17T11:55:00.000-08:00

Prior to my listening of "웨딩드레스", I really don't know if I'm enjoying 태양 as much as I was feeling G-Dragon. If one is looking for an average pop star to deliver a moderately good song - then 태양 is your man. 태양 has the dance skills, singing skills, and is spectacular in 빅뱅. But, does he really have what it takes to run a succesful solo career?

G-Dragon has the innovative feel, fresh fashion sense, and individual sound that attracted me to him in the first place. 태양 just doesn't have that.

Don't get me wrong, "웨딩드레스" is a good song and "Where U At" scores well in its own respects, but do they really compare to "Heartbreaker" or "Breathe"? Not by a long shot. The same goes for the videos. G-Dragon's first two were visually amazing. The first two videos by 태양 were OKAY - at best. The premiere,("Where U At") I'll admit, was disappointing - and I'm quite the YG fan. The second one was better, but still was lacking the individuality that 태양 will need to be a hugely successful pop star.

Will 태양 sell as many copies of his future album as G-Dragon has? Probably not.

Should 태양 just stay as a singer in 빅뱅? Debateable.

Will the new album by 태양 worth listening to? Of course.

On a different note, why isn't YG further pushing the careers of 이승현 or T.O.P.? Aside from G-Dragon, they both seem to have the best prospects of success. T.O.P. is already popular and is even staring in the hit-drama IRIS and the song "Strong Baby" by 이승현 reached moderate success.

Following Sarah Palin On Facebook Pays Off

2009-11-13T09:07:00.000-08:00

When Sarah Palin updated her Facebook page this morning, I didn't know what to expect. The message pretty lame - but the commenters themselves make it all worth it.

So, there's the shot of Palin's article. Not really much to note - the obligatory shot at the "liberal" media, the awkwardly folksy colloquialism, and a shout-out to Alaska. (I'm disappointed that there was no "Support the troops!" message stuck randomly inside.)

However, the comment circled in red is really just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this crowd...

Let me get this straight. "Steve" here is criticizing the media for reviewing a book that they (supposedly) have not read - by criticizing articles that he has not read. Brilliant.

But why was he randomly attacking the NYT and the Washington Post? Those two publications have nothing to do with --

Oh, that's why.

By the way, I actually agree with "Gloria". I think we all hope that Lou Dobbs goes to Fox News. MSNBC's Pat Buchanan, too.

Speaking of real news networks...

So, let me get this straight. Anti-government conservatives are trusting Sarah Palin, rather than the American media run by American citizens? I know that she's a currently unemployed, part-time blogger, but Sarah Palin's claim to fame was politics! She is a politician!

There you go! I knew these comments were feeling a tad bit too open minded for the social conservatives who follow Palin and her ilk.

When's she going to let you interview her? Right after you have $100,000 just laying around.

($150,000 worth of clothes will work, too.)

Of course, when you have all of this ignorance, one or two must speak the truth.

Damn straight.

Finally, in conclusion, these four images that simply bring three letters to my mind:

W.
T.
F.

Comment 1: Sexism!
Comment 2: Reasonable, yet irrelevant question.
Comment 3: Look at whose Note you're commenting on, "Anthony".
Comment 4: That's just fucking weird.

The World's Oldest Business

2009-10-07T13:50:00.000-07:00

(Originally posted on Daily Kos)

Suppose you were in a position of power and given the opportunity to improve living conditions for millions of people within your jurisdiction. Would you do it? What if this proposition would also control the spread of disease? Would a proposal that would also protect your people from abuse be welcomed? The charges would be minimal, with most costs being covered by the revenue generated by the plan itself. This scheme would also curb a good percentage of street violence, without rescinding any person’s civil liberties. The proposition I write about is the legalization of the work of Adult Service Providers – including prostitution.

“Adult Service Providers” is a blanket term, referring to escorts, erotic entertainers, adult film stars, prostitutes, brothel managers, and adult website managers. Treating this variety of work like any other business would enable the same standards to apply to the sex industry. If a legal adult chooses to become an Adult Service Provider, often known as a “sex worker”, he or she would have the right to do so. Just like other businesses, professions with sex workers would be subject to strict health regulations and standards. This factor would likely lead to a sharp decline in STI/STD and AIDS rates among sex workers (and, of course, among their clientele). Since sex workers and their executives would be under the same laws as other companies; verbal, sexual, and physical abuse laws would now be able to protect millions of men and women from said abuse. As a result of these adult oriented institutions now being subject to strict regulation, persons or institutions that traffic humans or illegally take advantage of minors would be discovered and punished easier.

The current laws against the sex industry are unacceptable, because, rather than attempting to actually fix many problems, they pretend that prohibition will actually end an industry known colloquially as “the world’s oldest business.” It has been well over 100 years since most laws prohibiting prostitution were enacted, laws that have stood only to clutter our judicial system and overfill our jails – while doing nothing to protect the freedom of Americans. In other words, these laws have not ended human trafficking, they have not lowered STI or AIDS rates among sex workers, nor have they prevented minors from being used in sexual exploits.

Furthermore, most harmful pieces of legislation prohibiting the work of Adult Service Providers are “feel good” laws – enactments that serve little purpose other than to seem favorable. The success of keeping traditionally scorned-behavior – prostitution, the use of recreational drugs, etc. – illegal is irrelevant because said laws are not measured by actual success, but by how “safe” the laws make most of its citizens feel – even if millions of Americans suffer in the process. These laws, in essence, take away adults’ rights to their own sexuality, privacy, and freedom. Furthermore, as the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a 2007 explanation, “Such laws [against prostitution] have traditionally represented one of the most direct forms of discrimination against women. The woman who engage[s] in prostitution is punished criminally and stigmatized socially while her male customer, either by the explicit design of the statute or through a pattern of discriminatory enforcement is left unscathed.”

Unfortunately, conservatives and many liberals actually staunchly support these “feel- good” laws, instead of the commonsense solution of legalization. Among liberals, feminists are debatably the most divided on this issue. Older feminists tend to disagree with the notions behind many sectors of the sex industry, due to its sexist tenancies, and are fine with its inadequate prohibition. However, many younger feminists (“third-wave feminists”) recognize that the government should respect a sex worker’s choice in his or her own line of work. On the other side of the political spectrum, some libertarians have come out in support of legalizing the work of Adult Service Providers, but most self-identified conservatives want no change of the status quo. While President Obama has never addressed the issue, due to his repeated actions of backing-away from socially liberal views, one can guess that he would be no more progressive on this issue than Glenn Beck.

Americans need to ask themselves if they are ready to let go of their idealistic world view and start fixing the country. At the end of the day, the sex industry is not going away. We can either embrace it, therefore making America a safer place for all, or we can continue allowing this failed system to waste more time, money, and resources, while simultaneously destroying countless lives. The choice is up to us; for the sake of the nation, I hope we pick the right one.

15 Aspects That Must Be Recognized In Third-Wave Feminism

2009-07-22T19:47:00.000-07:00

(Cross posted at Daily Kos)

The following is a incomplete list of my many thoughts, objections, and suggestions concerning the current state of feminism and where we should be headed. All of the following points could be expanded upon. They are listed in no particular order.

1. There must be a widespread understanding that feminism does apply to men. Therefore, men who stand up for feminist issues may, and should, be identified as feminist. It is counterproductive and hypocritical to discuss gender equality while simultaneously creating a double standard towards males who share feminist values.

(I think that the phrase "feminist male" should be dropped, as well. A feminist who identifies as female is never addressed as a "female feminist". A man who advocates for feminist ideology should have the same title as a woman who does the same. By buying into the system of calling a feminist who identifies as male a "male feminist", we reinforce the concept that there is something wrong with being a male AND a feminist.)

2. While transsexual acceptance and rights are an important aspect of third wave feminism, it must understood that not every person is as educated on the topic as some are. Unless clear transphobia (a bigoted attitude transsexuals) is exemplified, ignorance should be contacted with empathy and, bluntly, education. Feminist infighting only hurts the cause.

3. Fox "News", World Net Daily, CNS News, Drudge Report, and The Fox Nation are all unreliable, far-right, anti-feminist sources. While some feminists legitimately speak out against the mainstream media's approach to feminism (which is more times than not negative), we must understand that these sources are beyond saving. While more feminists should be encouraged to appear in these sources arguing for the benefits of feminism, feminists should simultaneously discourage the use of them for anything else.

4. Applying make-up, nail polish, shaving legs, and most other sexist, cosmetic double standards are NOT antitheses to being a feminist - the motivation behind the products are. While these products are all derived from the sexist ideal of a "perfect" woman, many women (and men, for that matter) enjoy these items; there's nothing wrong with that choice. However, there is an inherent problem when there is no choice involved. Feminists should be strongly encouraged to consider the motivations behind their habits but not castigated for living them out.

(This logic applies only to minor, mainstream cosmetics. Feminists should be weary

concerning breast implants, skin whitening creams, and vaginal rejuvenation.)

5. Feminists can be from any religion, race, creed, gender, socioeconomic class, country of origin, sexual orientation, relationship status, height, status of ability, experience or lifestyle. While some religions and lifestyles have very anti-feminist sentiments, accepting individuals of these communities will allow us to spread our message to even the most unlikely repentants. Feminism is about equality, not discrimination.

6. As feminists, we cannot allow sexism or objectification to happen to males, like it has to females. As embarrassing as Rush Limbaugh, Micheal Savage, or Bill O'Reilly and their visions of oppressed, white, straight, Christian males are, we must remember that white, straight, Christian, males need to be treated with the equality they deserve.

7. All women who are politicians, actresses, singers, CEO's, or in any position of power are NOT necessarily feminists. While feminism has enabled most of these women to suceed, that does not mean that they currently identify with it. Sarah Palin, Tila Tequila, Michelle Bachman, and Lady GaGa are not feminists due to their success.

8. Despite the Republican party's strong anti-feminist stances, being a member of the Republican party does not mean that one is inherently anti-feminist. Many economic conservatives hold strong feminist values. It hurts the feminist movement when possibly dedicated people are needlessly excluded.

9. Feminists must remember that men are sometimes the victims of sexual assault; not just women. Also, men are not always the assailant. While, statistically, women are usually raped by men at a much greater level, one must never forget that unconventional sexual assault is still sexual assault.

10. While one can be a feminist and personally oppose abortion, taking away a woman's right to choose is an inherently anti-feminist position. There are many people that are pro-choice, but would personally never condone or undergo an abortion procedure. This is a very controversial subject, however an extremely important one as well; feminists cannot be silent or waver on the issue of abortion.

11. In cases of rape, victim blaming is always unacceptable. However, over time, there multiple cases have occurred in which the "victim" has lied about being raped for personal gain. While these attacks are very, very infrequent, feminism must not be blind to their existence.

12. Feminism must be unafraid to call "fakers" out. Every time that Sarah Palin would call herself a feminist (before promptly contradicting herself), every time Tammy Bruce agrees with Bill O'Reilly, and every time plastic surgery is marketed as a "liberating" thing to do, real feminists must speak up! How can the true message of feminism reach the people if it is drowned out by all of these fake feminists?

13. Making sexist comments against men, in favor of women, is a directly un-feminist action. Whether it be a joke from a progressive, Dana Perino discussing the Mark Sanford affair, or anything else, these comments enforce gender stereotypes and are still sexist.

14. There is nothing wrong with choosing to live in a traditional lifestyle (being a stay-at-home mom, wearing a burqa, having the male in a heterosexual relationship be the breadwinner, etc.), but there are major problems with expecting it and castigating those who do not fit into it. This being said, people who choose to live in traditional lifestyles must respect others choices as well.

15. Reaching out to younger people is one of the most important actions that third-wave feminists need to accomplish. Many myths about feminism - "feminism is irrelevant", "feminists are sexist against men", "feminism is only for women", etc. -are accepted as truth to an alarming number of young people. If feminists hope to keep the movement alive, then young people must have exposure to feminist ideologies.

Is Porn A 'Conservative Family Value'? Fox 'News'' Paradox

2009-05-15T16:00:00.000-07:00

Why exactly does Fox "News" have a "Maxim Monday"?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518792,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519909,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519792,00.html

It seems frivolous and hypocritical of a "news" station so devout to promoting "conservative family values" to be sponsored by Maxim magazine. As Media Matters has documented, Fox has a history of this inappropriate behavior:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200903130033

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200905110038

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200904300023

http://mediamatters.org/clips/200602240009

http://mediamatters.org/clips/200603200004

http://mediamatters.org/clips/200903020013

http://mediamatters.org/clips/200903190035 (Why exactly is Fox [Out Of] Business Channel even covering this story? What does it have to do with business news!)

http://mediamatters.org/clips/200603200004

Now, yes, sex does sell; truthfully Fox isn't the only station to do this:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200904010023

Still, why does the media - mostly Fox - choose to go down this road? Do we - as a society - really need to objectify women to make people watch the news?

Miss California: My Opinion

2009-05-15T14:16:00.001-07:00

She was asked for her opinion - and she gave it. Everyone has an opinion and she was asked for hers.

Now, just like many opinions, hers does NOT stand up to scrutiny - she said that one could "choose gay marriage" which would only be true in 4 states. Unless of course she was repeating the myth/talking point/lie that being non-heterosexual is a "choice", which also does not stand up to psychological scrutiny.

However, "Perez Hilton" is also a trouble maker. Calling her a "bitch" and a "cunt" was not only sexist, but it was unintelligent. He is also NOT an LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) activist by any stretch of the meaning and should not pretend to be (and the media should not act like he is one). He is a blogger - and a lame one at that.

On another note, Miss California was NOT denied the title of "Miss USA" because of her homophobic views. The right-wing will blame Perez Hilton and say that his agenda blocked her win, but this is not true. It has been revealed that she would not have won, even if she was not a bigot.

However, I do find it amusing that a woman who believes that same-sex marriage is a threat to marriage and society (which the Republicans have failed time and time again to prove) and a woman who preaches “family values”, not only has fake breast implants, but she has numerous naked pictures of herself floating around online!

Furthermore, no one mentions the fact that her call to fame was walking around on a stage with less than 6 square inches of clothing on. If she – and the right-wing – wish to discuss what is detrimental to society, let us take a look at the whole “Miss USA” pageant. Pushing women to fit a borderline anorexic body size? Making them trot around on stage like objects in minuscule outfits? Pushing women to be more concerned with their looks then their intelligence? (Especially in the case of Miss California.) Sounds pretty nightmarish to me.

@Plinky: What do you follow online?

2009-03-31T07:35:00.001-07:00

I follow many sources online, conservative and liberal, political and not political, funny and serious. Here's what I'm following as of 10:34 AM on Tuesday March 31st, 2009:

ACLU online newsroom, AGT Blog: All Good Things, The Blog on American Culture, Asia - CNN.com, BillOReilly.com, Blogger Buzz, CCInsider Blog, Change.gov, Charlotte Green's Blog, Choose Responsibility Blog, Christian Coalition of America - Religious Rights Watch, CNN.com - Europe, CNN.com Top Stories, CNSNews.com Headlines, CofCC Feed, Coffee with HG, Courant.com - Connecticut News, D e t s t a r . c o m, Daily Kos, Def Sounds, Democratic National Committee: Blog, Democratic National Committee: Connecticut, Democratic National Committee: LGBT Community, Democratic National Committee: Party, Detstar Caption Contest, Detstar Gaming Network, Draft Sarah Palin For Vice President, TRshady.com News, FMyLife Blog, Focus on the Family News, FOXNews.com, FOXNews.com - FOX 411 Column, FOXNews.com - Pop Tarts, France24 - france, George F. Will - Archive, GLBT Issues: CNN.com, Global Warming on The Huffington Post, Godless Liberal Homo, GodLovesFags, Google Finance Blog, Google Gears API Blog, Google Operating System, GOP.com Blog :: All Topics, Gorillaz.com, How to of the Day, HRC Latest News, I am Fashion, I Luw Fashion - Men's Fashion Blog / Men's Style, Join the Impact - Protest Prop 8 on November 15th!, Last.fm – the Blog, Laura Ingraham, Leadership in Everyday Life, Lily Allen - Blog, Little Kuriboh's Placebo, Loomis Chaffeee School News, LP Association Forums (News), Major Garrett's Bourbon Room, Media Matters for America, Michelle Malkin, Michelle Malkin is an Idiot Blog, Most Popular Entries on HuffingtonPost.com, msnbc.com: Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann, msnbc.com: Rachel Re:, NARAL CT, National Center for Lesbian Rights, News Hounds, NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias, NYT > Eminem, Obama HQ, ObaMeter Updates, Official Google Blog, Official Google Reader Blog, Official Google Video Blog, Old Saybrook Democrats, Perez Hilton News, Remarkably unremarkable, Sex on The Huffington Post, Sgt Duty's Blog, Shady Records and Aftermath News, Somewhere I Belong Blog, Stuff White People Like, Super Smash Bros Detstar, Sylvia Rivera Law Project, Taft School News, Tea with BG, The Cheshire Herald, The Eminem Blog, The Legend of Zelda Detstar, The Pirate Bay - Blog, The Quizlet Blog, The TypeRacer Blog, Think Progress, This Is 50 .Com Blog, Toon Zone News, VideoLAN - News, We Can Stop The Hate, White House.gov Blog Feed, WorldNetDaily, WorldNetDaily Commentary, YouTube :: Blog, Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series Blog, Zap! Blog.

@Plinky: Where was your first kiss?

2009-03-24T05:18:00.001-07:00

@Plinky: What gadget is at the top of your wish list?

2009-03-22T09:26:00.001-07:00

Portable Internet Access by Lance and Erin

Satellite internet would be an amazing gadget, although unrealistic at this point in time. It would be fantastic to have internet on every square inch of the earth and it would better the earth as a whole. People in conservative religious countries could open their minds and learn of more open-minded cultures. Developing nations could put intelligent people to work on computers easier. News could be delivered all over the word, even more instantly than it already is.

@Plinky: Hybrid Prius or Escalade with gold rims?

2009-03-21T09:52:00.001-07:00

It is a classic battle of what is intelligent and what is enjoyable - kind of. Would I purchase a Prius or an Escalade with gold rims?

I would, hands down, pick the the Prius. The Escalade - with gold rims, no less - seems unnecessary, expensive, bad on gas, and not environmentally sound. The Prius, while it is smaller and less showy, it is practical and costs less for gas money.

Now, yes, there is a new hybrid Escalade, but (I'm estimating here) the gas money for the hybrid Escalade would cost more than the gas for the regular non-hybrid Prius. Furthermore, I have no need for an SUV over a regular sized car.The Prius would be a logical choice for me.

@Plinky: What's the worst way you've ever dumped someone?

2009-03-19T13:34:00.001-07:00

In the summer of 2007, I was going out with an amazing,girl. As cool as she was, the time was coming where I needed to break up with her. I was not going to see her for several months and I just did not feel the spark necessary to go through such a long time without seeing her. She lived over an hour away, since I did not have the means to actually see her I attempted to make the call and she did not pick up.

Somehow, I got it in my head that she was avoiding my calls. I do not remember if someone told me this or if I heard her say it; all I know is that I somehow felt as if she was ignoring me. I was forced to break up with her by text message and by voicemail.

Although we have made up and are now friends; if you are reading this, please forgive me.

@Plinky: Recommend a book to someone who needs a good laugh.

2009-03-18T08:15:00.001-07:00

Stephen Colbert's "I Am America (And So Can You)" is a hilarious addition to the author's already large-and-growing "Colbert Nation". In a complete and extensive parody of conservative political pundit, Bill O'Reilly, the author's main forté involves taking on the role of a right-wing point of view. However, the inflated ego, the extremity of the message, and the political references will do one of two things: allow you to enjoy a good parody or wonder how the transcript from Fox "News" Primetime arrived in your hands!

@Plinky: Sports - An Insight

2009-03-17T08:33:00.001-07:00

I do not personally enjoy sports. I think that sports are, overall, uninteresting. But, that's just my personal opinion.

However, there are two types of people who DO enjoy sports. Those who watch sports and those who play sports. Those who watch - but do not play - bother me relentlessly. If it's such a great game, then why not play it yourself? If everyone who watched a sport managed to play that for at least one hour a week, we'd be a more fit nation. (Oh, and NASCAR is not a goddamn sport.)

On the other hand, there are many talented athletes, but a good number of them are egotistical and obsessive, allowing little considering for other people and for other activities.

While sports could be a great thing for our country - especially due to the weight problem we have - sports do not seem to be helping. Why, you ask? Aside from the obvious answer of "some people are lazy", consider this example: You are overweight. Not obese, but enough that it is noticeable. You are not an athlete; sure, you might toss the baseball with mom or dad from time to time, but you're no A-Rod. So, you show up at your school's intramural sports practice, to hopefully get into shape. On the way there, you picture an environment in which you and people similar to you work out, play games or sports, and have a good time while getting into shape. No pressure, no embarrassing moments, no sweat (metaphorically speaking). Sounds great, right? Unfortunately, this is not the case. You are placed into a huge class of people with the minority who ARE athletes and for whatever reason decided against playing a legitimate sport. These people manage to intimidate you - and others - enough so that little exercise or enjoyment is exerted from the intramural sport.

While this may seem "unrealistic" to some, this happens everyday. From talking to many people - each with completely different background - I can tell you that it happens every single day to millions of well intentioned young people. In fact, this has sort-of happened to myself. While I am not overweight, intramural sports have always been dominated by the overconfident pricks who decided it would be fun to torment those who are not as talented as them - or so it would seem.

While there is no easy solution to this, there are a few small possibilities. While punishing talent is not an overall good idea, there are some extremely able players who play intramural. Some sort of regulation or quality control would definitely help this problem. Schools or organizations should also invest in innovative and new ways to help keep kids fit. Dance Dance Revolution (DDR) and Wii Fit are two video games which allow kids to work out while playing a video game - double whammy! Of course, some kids would simply prefer to watch cable television or listen to their iPods while running on treadmills - whatever works.

While not all athletes are "egotistical", "overconfident", or "pricks", far too many are. While no one should not be allowed to celebrate his or her own success, belittling others is never acceptable. Furthermore, if you are a talented athlete who chose to play in intramural sports, what the hell type of sick satisfaction do you gain from beating those who clearly don't play sports very often? You disgust me.

@Plinky: What city would you retire to if money were no object?

2009-03-17T08:31:00.001-07:00

Acceptance is one aspect of life that cannot be purchased with money or wealth. San Francisco is, by far, one of the most liberal and open minded cities in the entire United States, nay, the world. This earth would be a better place if we acted more like they do in SanFran.

The Right to Choose

2009-03-03T15:45:00.000-08:00

No conflict in recent years has separated Americans quite like the issue of abortion. The abortion debate has spiritual, political, and moral implications. Despite the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion remains a hot button issue for many people in America. But what specifically is an abortion? What remains legal and illegal in the United States? Is abortion just a fancy word for murder, or is it a safe, legal medical procedure, or both?
An abortion is an operation to remove an embryo or a fetus from a women to terminate a pregnancy. During the late 1960's and early 1970's, people began to rally against abortion in mass numbers, labeling the procedure as “murder of an unborn child”. The Roe v. Wade ruling said that it was unconstitutional to bar women from undergoing an abortion, thereby legalizing abortion in every state. In the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the Supreme Court decided that each state government had its right to choose whether to allow funds to go to clinics that provide abortion services. These two court decisions opened the door for the anti-choice rebellion to attempt to chip away at our current laws concerning abortion.
The concept of a fetus or an embryo being labeled as a “human being” has been disputed by many doctors and scientists. Embryologists' research shows that an embryo is merely a collection of cells. The cells divide to eventually, over the course of eight to ten months, create a human being. However, the embryo is considered merely a ball of cells when it is in its early stages of the pregnancy and a fetus only has a few of the major functions associated with a living, breathing human being. Before this stage, the female egg has just been fertilized by the male sperm. At this time, there has been no set plan for the egg. Statistically, the majority of fertilized eggs end up as miscarriages and never make it past the first few stages. Still, it remains inconceivable that cells, merely dividing as directed by their DNA, could possess a mind or feel pain in the same way that grown human beings can. These medical facts seemingly contradict the Christian bible and many other religious texts, causing much argument.
While abortion must remain legal until Roe v. Wade is overturned, the opponents of abortion will stop at nothing to limit the availability of abortions. In 2003, Congress passed the Federal Abortion Ban, banning abortions from being performed after 12 weeks of a pregnancy. Currently, 19 states have laws that stop federally mandated clinics from even suggesting abortion to women. In thirty-three states, women who rely on federal health care are not allowed to receive an abortion. In 43 states, women who are under the legal age of adulthood are not permitted to receive an abortion without a parent or guardian's consent. In early 2009, President Barack Obama reversed the “International Gag Rule” during his first week in office. This legislation banned the United States from funding charitable organizations overseas if their clinics provided abortions.
Recently, the government of North Dakota has taken steps to completely ban abortion. This ban, which is illegal under federal law, will not only ban abortion, but certain types of contraceptives as well. While the bill still needs to pass that state’s Senate, chances look good for its success. Republican Governor John Hoeven, the North Dakota House, and the North Dakota Senate were all classified as anti-choice by NARAL, the biggest pro-choice association in America. The American Civil Liberties Union, NARAL, and the Obama administration have not yet commented on this disastrous situation, but Planned Parenthood has. “[The North Dakota abortion ban] is dangerous, far reaching and allows the government, not women and families, to make critical decisions about health care,” said Sarah Stoesz, President of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota.
Abortion should be legal to everyone without restriction, for it is every human being’s choice to make moral decisions. People who are against abortion would still be able to keep a child or give him or her away for adoption under current laws. If the religious right feels strongly about abortion, why do they continually attempt to change the laws rather than educate people of their beliefs? Teaching people about one’s beliefs is a better solution than painting liberals as “baby killers”, boycotting charities that provide abortion as one of many helpful services to the impoverished, and even bombing abortion clinics. Furthermore, the anti-choice side must cease their assault on scientifically and medically accepted facts; no matter how hard they believe that an embryo is the same as a human, that does not make it so. The Government should not intervene in women's lives to the extent of removing reproductive rights. Politicians and priests are neither doctors nor scientists, so why should they be making decisions as if they were? Abortion has never been an easy decision to make, but with her intellect, her family, her doctor, and her friends, a woman will make the right decision. Some people may abuse the system, overlooking easier and safer means of birth control, but these select few should not disable everyone else from the right to abortion.

Realities of a Dream

2009-02-23T12:20:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama. Love him or hate him, his administration will remain in power until 2012. Until then, supporters and critics alike will begin comparing his more than 500 campaign promises and his actions as President. While keeping every promise seems unrealistic in a single term, how much can President Obama actually do? I believe President Obama's previous actions and sentiments can be used to predict his administration's future endeavors. Here are my predictions for the next four years:

Abortion: Obama has remained staunchly pro-choice throughout the campaign and extending into the first few days in the White House. He has already lifted the infamous “global gag rule”, which cut the funding of charitable organizations offering abortion as an option to women. I doubt President Obama will change on this issue or ever sign a piece of anti-choice legislation.
LGBT rights: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights have, for a long time, been viewed as “wedge issues” for far too many Americans and, as a result, are often ignored by politicians. The Obama administration has taken a strong stance in support of LGBT rights. He has pledged to repeal “don't ask, don't tell” rules that bar LGBT civilians from serving in the army, and his administration is the most LGBT-friendly administration in American history. He opposes the use of the word “marriage”, but supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples. However, I cannot see our President opposing same-sex marriage if the issue crossed his desk.
Iraq: Despite the polarizing effect of the Iraq war within U.S. politics, Obama has promised to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. On the web site whitehouse.gov, the Obama administration promises “a responsible, phased withdrawal” by the summer of 2010; a realistic plan.
Economy: With each new day more people lose their jobs and homes, while more and more industries request to be bailed out. At first, Obama promised to sign an economic recovery package on his first day in office. That day came and went, with no such deal signed. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi estimated that a deal could have been reached in early February. However, yesterday Congress passed a stimulus package for over $800 billion. Despite the clearly partisan manner in which the bill was passed – zero Republicans voting for it – Barack Obama will probably sign this bill into action.
Education: In defense of the “No Child Left Behind” act, Former President George W. Bush said, “We don't teach kids to pass the test. We teach them to read, so that they may pass the test.” President Obama has several strong plans to rebuild the American school system. Aside from reforming “No Child Left Behind”, the Obama administration has the “Zero to Five” plan aimed at children before kindergarten, expansion of after school programs, a plan to address the staggering drop out rates, and initiatives to encourage more people to finish college. While at first, these plans seem too far-fetched to be passed, I think that Obama's own success in college will motivate the passage of many of these education reforms.
Oil: On the campaign trail, then-Senator Obama promised to eliminate the import of oil from the Middle East and from Venezuela within 10 years. Critics, including myself, questioned whether this plan would really be accomplished, and I still do. The plan itself remains excellent, but the goals are set slightly too high. However, I can see a bill getting passed by both Democrats and Republicans, in a bipartisan manner.
Gun control: Despite the rumors and fearmongering, Obama does not want to ban guns from the U.S. or anything like that. While not a friend of the NRA, he has repeatedly voiced his support of the Second Amendment, while proposing measures to ensure guns do not fall into the wrong hands. In my opinion, the ban on assault rifles will be renewed and other smaller restrictions will be enacted, such as time limitations on gun purchases.
World stature: Over the past eight years, America has lost considerable respect from the rest of the world. The international sympathy from the September 11 attacks has been turned to a strong dislike over the course of seven years. Whether it be Guantánamo Bay, our rampant xenophobia, the Iraq war, the backlash against Europe, or the embargo against Cuba, every country seems to have its reasons to dislike the US. Already, Obama has ordered the shutting down of GITMO, promised to pull out of Iraq, was interviewed by a Muslim television network, and made a commitment to meet with leaders of countries that the U.S. does not agree with. While our popularity will not fix all the problems, having more friends than enemies will not be a negative.
Science: From prohibiting stem cell research, having a Vice President who did not use e-mail, considering “creationism” a legitimate theory, to referring to a popular search-engine as “the Google”, the Bush administration showed little understanding or respect for science and technology. In his first week, President Obama overturned a ban on stem cell research and began to upgrade the computer systems in Washington. From what we have seen, I think that we can count on this administration to understand that innovation through science and technology should be harnessed, not feared.
Party politics: To many conservative commentators, President Obama, the tenth most Liberal former senator, has been a punching bag since late 2007. So why was it that Obama had dinner with well-known conservatives George Will, David Brooks, and William Kristol? The answer: bipartisanship. The Bush administration was known for chastising and laughing at people who happen to disagree with it. Since the beginning of his candidacy, Obama has spoken out against such close minded approaches of running our country. Whether it be appointing his political opponent, Hillary Clinton, an important Cabinet position or inviting conservative pastor Rick Warren to speak at his inauguration, Obama has clearly shown that even conservatives' voices will be heard in this administration.

Transcending Gender

2009-02-23T12:15:00.000-08:00

"Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” While the times have changed and society has developed since they were written, these words from the Declaration of Independence still speak as loudly as they did the day they were penned by Thomas Jefferson. While these three properties are known as the “Inalienable Rights”, a group of people still live in constant alienation because of who they are: transsexuals.

While the average American faces a one in 18,000 chance of being murdered, a transsexual's chances are much slimmer: one in 12. A transsexual, as defined by the American Psychological Association, is “[a person] who live[s] or wish[es] to live full time as members of the gender opposite to their birth sex”. In other words, a male who has the body of a female - or vice versa. Nowadays, with hormone therapy, a year-long transition, and Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS), transsexuals are now able to live in the correct gender. Still, approximately 55% of transgender youth report being physically beaten every year and 48% of transgender adults reported having been victims of assault or sexual assault. What do people have against transsexuals? To what extent does the media cover transsexualism? How do people in our community view transgender people?

Since Lili Elbe underwent SRS surgery in 1930, the surgery has become an accepted practice virtually everywhere in America. Despite the medical acceptance, transsexualism has its critics. One of the foremost is the fearmongering “Focus on the Family” organization run by fundamentalist James Dobson. He and his group “oppose the ordination of "transgender" and "transsexual" individuals and the celebration of "transgenderism" as one of God's gifts,” going on to claim that, “[t]he modern "transgender" movement is systematically working to dismantle the concept of gender as the Bible and the world have always known it to be. If the transgender lobby succeeds, there will be striking consequences for marriage, family and society at large.”

What Dobson and this viewpoint misrepresent are the true intentions of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender movement, which pushes for legislation such as anti-job discrimination bills and extended hate crime initiatives. The idea promoted by “Focus on the Family”, is that LGBT activists are pushing some sort of anti-religious sentiments onto the Christians of America. Do “anti-discrimination bills” sound detrimental to society, religion, marriage, or family? The complaints of “Focus on the Family” and other similar critics attempt to scare uninformed readers and rationalize “transphobia” - a fear or hatred of transsexuals. Fear tactics aside, these rationalizations are nothing but an attempt to push certain religious beliefs into becoming a deciding factor in U.S. Politics. These attempts to push religion into the political arena is a violation of the First Amendment, which advocates a separation of church and state.

. The only three situations in which transsexualism is discussed in the media are: in the minimal coverage of a murder; in a mean-spirited joke; or when transsexualism receives attention from right-wing pundits. Even so, the limited coverage of a transphobic crime is so pitifully insignificant, some consider it to be a “filler” story, used mainly to fill space. Hollywood treats transsexuality as nothing more than the punch line of a nasty joke. Adding to the effects of questionable media coverage, conservative pundits speak about transsexuality, specifically murders of transsexuals due to their gender, as if describing non-humans. Chris Baker, a radio host from Minneapolis, in describing the murder of a transwoman named Moses Cannon, said, “I believe the media and the rest of the enablers out there, they have this guy's blood on their hands because they create this false sense of reality and they enable people who need serious psychological counseling.” In essence, Mr. Baker blames “the media” - not the murderer! Rush Limbaugh, one of the most popular talk radio hosts, frequently uses vulgar and demeaning terms to describe transsexuals and SRS surgery. In discussing the murder of a transwoman in San Francisco the ex-MSNBC commentator Micheal Savage proclaimed the victim to be a “psychopath”, calling her a “freak” several times, and comparing her to a “junkie”, an “illegal immigrant”, and a “pervert”. He goes on to rant, “You're never gonna make me respect the freak. I don't want to respect the freak,” concluding by saying, “Sick. Everything is upside down.” Are these the types of vitriolic feelings we should have towards other human beings? Should we be rationalizing a murder, demeaning people, or calling different people names?

But how much better are we on The Island than these pretentious commentators? I knew that I had to find out, however, I could not just randomly poll people. When people are asked if they hold bigoted feelings, people often display a “Bradley Effect”, namely speaking to what one knows to be a more accepting view while keeping their true feelings hidden. I posted the pictures of three transwomen onto the “News Conference”, a public forum accessible for every student at [my school], and asked for peoples' opinions on the three images – without telling people that they were born as men. The three images displayed Isis King, an America's Next Top Model contestant, Harisu, a Korean pop music star, and Angie Zapata, a murdered transwoman. Once people would submit their initial opinion I would reveal the secret and ask for the students' opinions once more. The results ranged from, “[laughing out loud,] thats disgusting”, “ they[']re happy and they look good”, “EEWWWWWW”, to “I can appreciate the fact they felt like women inside the bodies of men so they wanted the SRS surgery, but the fact that they were originally male, is a instinctively disconcerting.” Disappointingly, many members of our community expressed displeasure with the transwomen. One person called them, “a disgrace to womanhood,” and another, a “disgrace to mankind”.

One male, who wished to be kept anonymous, even said, “If I were dating any of them and found that out, I would leave her immediately because even though he looks like a woman, he is still a man. Then I would probably throw up.” A few people admitted their own hesitance of acceptance, one girl saying, “I feel a little strange knowing that they're men. I mean, I guess I wish that I was more open to that, but I'm still not so comfortable with the thought of transgenders. I'll come around, but for now[,] I don't know I feel about that,” and another saying, “ the whole transsexual thing doesn[']t make much sense to me.” However, other students disagreed. The responses were very uplifting; “I didn't know [SRS Surgery] was that effective, and good for them if it makes them happy,” “considering they used to be males, the changes are very impressive. Go them!”, and “They must be excited the operation went so well! I think it would be sad to feel that you were the wrong sex, but if [SRS Surgery] makes them happy, then that’s what they should do.” While most of the of the polled individuals, 37.7% (48.72% of males, 18.18% of females) reacted negatively to the transwomen, 36.07% (28.21% of males, 50% of females) reacted positively, and 26.23% reacted neutrally. To me, this showed that the movement for the acceptance of transsexuals still has quite a long way to go, but with each year considerable ground is gained in the name of acceptance and equality.

Unfortunately

2009-01-03T15:10:00.001-08:00

I don't think I'll be getting around to finishing and Blogging for quite some time. My regular monthly article will be out, however, I'm not sure when the others will. Hope you all had a fun New Year's Celebration!

.anorexia. by JadexFace

2008-12-28T17:53:00.000-08:00

.anorexia. by ~JadexFace on deviantART

This is a very nice piece by JadexFace. I think it beautifully illustrates a lot of what's wrong with society these days. It really bothers me when people act as if sexism is no longer a problem and that feminism is dead. I really hope that people realize that women everywhere are still being held down every day; anorexia is one of the many problems women, girls, and all people will have to endure until society is ready and willing to look its inherent sexism right in eye.

There might not be any more posts for a while. However, I am planning a book review of Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World", "LGBT Rights - Part 2", and more. Stay tuned. And if I don't post for a few days -- have a great New Year!

P.S. Barack Obama will be the President of the United States of America in 22 days.

"Barack", Paper, Scissors

2008-12-26T20:22:00.000-08:00

Today I spent a good amount of time moving my blog to deviantART and to LiveJournal. Sorry, but there's no new article today. To keep yourself busy, why not play this fun little game? The man behind this madness must have been very smart, creative, and bored. Have a nice Boxing Day!

Happy Holiday 2008! Season's Greetings to All!

2008-12-25T20:51:00.000-08:00

This is your Holiday gift. Have a great day off!

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

A Colbert Christmas: Another Christmas Song

Colbert at Christmas
Colbert Christmas DVD

Green Screen
Bill O'Reilly Interview

Stephen Colbert is hilarious. I don't even celebrate the traditional or new holiday of "Christmas", but I found this quite funny. Enjoy it!

Response: Ben Sapiro, CNS News, Call Gay Communities "Intolerant" In An Appearently Brain-Dead Trance

2008-12-24T09:42:00.001-08:00

When CNS News isn't berating the Unions of America, this far-Right propaganda outlet can often be found providing misinformation about gay rights and abortion. However, the "Conservative" columnist, hypocrite Ben Shapiro, is too much. I have called hypocrisy on Mr. Shapiro, because he doesn't even follow his Conservative roots, which exemplify a smaller federal Government. However, this man has had the nerve to propose laws against pornography and limiting speech in anti-War protests. Regardless, Ben Shapiro spits upon the First Amendment, yet again, with his latest article, which needs response. As per usual, the author's text will be bolded and my response will be regular.

"Gay Community Is Intolerant, Too" by Ben Shapiro

Did he just admit that the Fundamentalist Conservatives are intolerant? Did he just agree with the Liberal LGBT activists without even intending to?

Pope Benedict made a “shocking” statement Monday. He said the Roman Catholic Church opposes homosexual acts and wishes to help those who engage in such acts. The Church, he said, “should … protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed.”

The previous week, the Rev. Rick Warren made a similarly “shocking” statement. In opposing gay marriage, Warren said, “I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”

The first two paragraphs are relatively fine, Shapiro is simply repeating news of the last two weeks. Aside from the unnecessary quotation marks around the word shocking, my only real criticism stems from Pastor Warren's comments. Marriage has been redefined many times in the past 5,000 years. Marriage originated as a form of trade between families. Eventually, the joining of two lovers became religious, but even since marriage has been redefined. It was redefined 40 years ago to provide more equality to Black people. If Rick Warren is against incest, pedophilia, and polygamy, then why doesn't he protest that instead of normal couples who happen to be LGBT?

The gay community attacked both the pope and Warren with gusto. The Rev. Sharon Ferguson, chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, labeled the pope’s words, “totally irresponsible and unacceptable in any shape or form.” Meanwhile, Brad Luna, director of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, jabbed, “Rick Warren is somebody who has opposed our equality.”

I'm not sure if "attacked" is good diction, because no one has physically "attacked" neither Rick Warren nor the Pope.

Here’s my question: What’s the big deal? It isn’t as though the pope and Rick Warren are articulating anything new -- they’re articulating the same traditional Judeo-Christian perspective that has been a moral standard for thousands of years. So why the hubbub? Warren is not stating that he wants to criminalize homosexuality. And the pope is merely suggesting that sexuality may be flexible, and that sexual behavior can be changed. Where’s the big threat to the gay community?

First off, the threat is that people actually believe the baseless claims that both the Pope and Rick Warren spew. Neither has used actual facts, statistics, or data in their hate speech, only analogies that hardly fit. Shapiro, allow me to ask you a question. How does having the Virgin Marry on the cover of Playboy hurt Christianity? How is Harry Potter a threat to Christianity? Moreover, how are a group of gays and lesbians, most of whom have no interest in being married by a bunch of homophobes, going to threaten the church?

The gay community constantly asks: If we want to marry, how does it hurt you? Here’s a similar question: If religious people don’t approve of homosexual behavior, how does it hurt you? We’re not advocating violence against gays and lesbians -- far from it. We’re not going to invade your bedrooms and toss your same-sex partners in prison. We’re not advocating that you be fired from your job. We’re not saying that you’re rotten human beings. We’re just saying we don’t approve of your behavior. It’s that simple. So how does it hurt you?

It does hurt the LGBT community. I will not divulge into every example of how it can hurt people, but I'll provide the best example: the Hate-Crimes Bill. Many Conservative-Fundamentalists are against legislation adding LGBT to the list of hate crimes. Their reasoning? Some half-brained, untrue, idea that their freedom or religion and speech will be persecuted if such a measure is passed. The only problem with that logic? It's not true. Who is being hurt by not passing this measure? The thousands of LGBT people who are harrassed for who they are, just because members of the intolerant-Right wrongly assumes that their religion - which IS protected under the Hate Crimes bill - may be treat upon.

The fact is, of course, that a religious standard of marriage does hurt gay people. The gay community wishes to hijack marriage and use it as a shield to legitimize traditionally immoral behavior. By opposing gay marriage, traditionally moral folks prevent the gay community from having its way.

Traditionally - I'm going on an assumption here that Mr. Shapiro is referring to a pre-1960's "traditional" - homosexuality is immoral. While at first, "traditional" America may sound fine, there are many problems. Women in the past were treated awfully, there was little tolerance for non-Whites in our country, and religious intolerance was still quite rampant. Who exactly is "hijack[ing] marriage"? Does anyone actually believe that Anderson Cooper, Ellen Degeneres, Rachel Maddow, Amanda Palmer, Clay Aiken, and Angelina Jolie sit around scheming up plans to "legitimize traditionally immoral behavior"? All major non-partisan studies have shown that homosexuality is neither a choice nor is alterable.

But by the same exact standard, the gay community’s insistence that homosexuality be respected -- their insistence that figures from Pope Benedict to Rick Warren treat homosexuality as a perfectly acceptable way of life -- hurts religious people. By opposing religious people’s freedom to articulate their view on homosexuality, they encroach on religious freedom.
Someone’s standard has to win. If the pope and Warren have their way, traditional morality will remain the standard and the gay community will feel left out. If the gay community has its way, traditional morality will be discarded and the religious community will feel left out.
Whose standard should win?
The moral answer might be complex -- as a religious person, I favor the traditional marriage movement -- but the systemic answer is simple: Let the people decide. We live in a republic, and that means that the American people must be given the freedom to determine which societal standards they want implemented.
Advocates for traditional morality have won virtually every electoral battle over gay marriage. The gay community has won its victories in the courtroom, calling on elitist judges to twist the words of state constitutions. It’s illegitimate, and it cuts against the most basic American value: the right of the people to decide how to regulate their communities.
The gay community has every right to oppose the pope and Warren. And the pope and Warren have every right to blast the gay community. That’s freedom of religion and freedom of speech. But let’s stop pretending that the pope and Warren are intolerant while the gay community is not. There’s intolerance on both sides. But someone has to win. The people should decide who wins.

Truthfully, I grouped the last few sections together because, simply, Benny-boy misses out on a valuable piece of information: we DON'T live in a total "republic", we elect people to make decisions for us. So, the commentary on the so-called "elitist judges" (Care to elaborate how exactly they're elitist, Mr. Shapiro?), how this entire process is completely "illegitimate", and how it's "the right of the people to decide how to regulate their communities", isn't exactly true. First off, the word "communities" can throw many people off. How many of us actually consider their ENTIRE state to be "their community"? Second, it's not our right: we don't live in that type of country. Contrary to popular belief, we do not usually vote on such hot-button issues. We ELECT people to vote for us. Haven't you ever taken Eighth Grade U.S. History, Mr. Shapiro?

While I applaud Ben "Hypocrite" Shapiro for acknowledging how intolerant the anti-gay movement (and inherently himself) is, he has yet to point out intolerance on the LGBT Communities' end. Disagreeing with a single religious point does not make anyone a bigot. I would enjoy watching people attempt to justify Exodus 21:7, Ephesians 5:22-24, and Leviticus 25:44, then turn right around and tell me that they believe that homosexuality is wrong.

Be On The Lookout: Michelle Malkin

2008-12-23T22:18:00.000-08:00

As a preface: this is a new series of posts I hope to begin. Yes, I know, the "LGBT Rights" series has been a bit neglected, but I will continue that eventually. This series is known as, "Be On The Lookout", a new collection of infamous people who may one day gain popularity and fame: but not if I have anything to say about it. It may seem ironic that I am seemingly giving these people more publicity, but it is my hope that the commentary I provide will convince you (or others) reason enough to not to support these dubious individuals. These segments will not cover the Bill O'Reilly's and the Ann Coulters; they have already gained enough critisism. These segments will cover the scum of the Earth who haven't made it to that level yet - and we hope never do.

To start things off, my first "Be On The Lookout" winner? Michelle Maglalang Malkin.

The Editor & Publisher contributor Bronwyn Lance Chester, once commented on Malkin saying that, "[She] habitually mistakes shrill for thought-provoking and substitutes screaming for discussion. She's an Asian Ann Coulter. [...] She’s the worst of what's wrong with punditry today. She adds absolutely nothing to genuine political discourse."

To this, Malkin replied, "I'm not Asian, I'm American, for goodness' sake. I would take the comparison to Ann Coulter as somewhat of a compliment. I have a lot of respect for Ann Coulter[.]"

First off, Michelle, you are Asian. Barack Obama is half-African, Geraldo Rivera is hispanic, and Keith Olbermann is white; they are also all Americans. I do not mean to sound disrespectful or rude, but, if your are a Fillipina-American, then you are also an Asian-American. Ethnicity and race are completely different from citizenship. You don't have to speak another language, you don't have to hang out with people of your ethnic background, but don't try to say that you're not Asian.

Second, conservative or not, you take being compared to Ann Coulter as "a compliment"? Really? Ann Coulter who uses such words as "faggot" and "ragheads" to describe people? The same Ann Coulter who has said repeatidly that the country would be a better place if women did not vote? Ann Coulter, who called Christians, "perfected Jews"? The very same Ann Coulter who made comments directed at widdows of 9/11, by the nature of, "[now] that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."? You take that as a compliment? The answer? Yes.

Michelle Malkin has unfortunately managed to gain some fame from appearing on MSNBC, C-SPAN, and, of course, Fox "News". In fact, this woman has co-hosted the "O'Reilly Factor" on multiple occaisions. This was, until, Geraldo Revera, made comments about Malkin. He said, "Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I've ever met in my life. She actually believes that neighbors should start snitching out neighbors, and we should be deporting people. It’s good she’s in D.C. and I’m in NY. I’d spit on her if I saw her." Geraldo Rivera is not a liberal. He works for Fox "News". He has made huge critisms of The New York Times. Aside from putting Malkin's "Liberals hate conservative minorities"-bullshit to shame, this quote proves one thing: if a "radical" conservative like Geraldo Rivera despises Malkin, then she must be truly awful.

A quick Google search pulled up two stories which should be brought to light. Both of these stories are not deep-dark secrets from Malkin's past. They are not lies. In fact, she is quite proud of both of these. The fact that someone, being completely serious, could actually think up such vile concepts and actually report them, sickens me.

In 2004, Michelle Malkin released her second book, "In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror". In the book, Malkin attempts to justify the racism that controlled our country during the internment of Japanese-Americans. She then draws comparisons to our current war on terror, enticing prejudice against Muslims and Arabs. I have no problem with intelligently voicing an opinion that may not be my own as long as it is intelligently written. However, this book banks off of an ignorance of different cultures and a fear of anything associated with the Middle East. It seems to me, that Malkin has picked the easiest solution to the issue or terrorism, but not the most intelligent or fair answer.

The second story, comes from an early 2008 controversy involving Rachel Ray and Dunkin Donuts. In a new ad campaign, the Food Network's Rachel Ray was seen in a black and white scarf, to which Malkin expressed great outrage. Michelle notes that, Rachel Ray is "clueless[ly] sporting of a jihadi chic keffiyeh in a recent DD ad campaign. I’m hoping her hate couture choice was spurred more by ignorance than ideology." Does this woman dare speak on others' ignornace? The scarf worn by Rachel Ray, the same style as worn by John McCain's daughter, is extremely popular among United States and British troops as well as citizens of the Middle East, regardless of political or religious views. In fact, the stylehas become so famous that popular clothing brands, such as Hollister and Abercrombie & Fitch, have begun production of the scarf. Malkin, are you so much of a fear monger that proud Americans have to abandon their fasion accessories - even ones made by all American companies such as Abercrombie & Fitch!?

I advise everyone to Be On The Lookout for Michelle Malkin, for being a self hating Asian-American, fear mongering against Muslims and Arabs, and being an complete attention whore.

Katy Perry: Gay Ally or Tool of the Establishment (For A Lack of a Better Term...)

2008-12-22T12:30:00.000-08:00

Video link is here. The video is even avaiable in HD - that's even better quality than YouTube's "High Quality" setting.

The two women in the video besides Katy Perry are Margaret Cho and Amanda Palmer. Both bisexuals, Palmer, a singer, and Cho a comedian/gay rights activist whose latest work was starring in Proposition 8: The Musical. I have always had mixed feelings for Perry: I supported her enough to defend her from Fox "News" and Bill O'Reilly's homophobic attacks but I was very critical of how positive her song was for the LGBT Community at large. Similarly, I question how good this video will be for the community as a whole and I question the true valor of Perry's pro-gay tendancies.

Personally, I loved the video. I found it very amusing, somewhat attractive, and I enjoyed the message at the end. Katy Perry isn't perfect and truth-be-told I had never heard of Amanda Palmer before this video, but I have been a huge Margaret Cho fan for quite some time. The song, "I Kissed A Girl" is very catchy, too. However, you can read my commentary on "I Kissed A Girl" here -- this isn't what this post is about.

To begin with, I'm not so sure about Perry. Coming from a religious extremist background and starting off her career as a Christian singer, she is no stranger to the far-Right. After minimal success, Perry released an EP entitled "Ur So Gay" which has been accurately labeled as "homophobic" by various sources. The title song is about an over effeminate ex-boyfriend of the singer and the negative aspects of the relationship. In this song the word "gay", is not only used in a derogatory sense, but it is used to describe a feminine-acting male - something all gay males aren't necessarily. Despite this overtone - and the slightly homophobic content of "I Kissed A Girl" - the rest of her first album, "One of the Boys", doesn't seem too bad. During interviews she has admitted to her bicuriosity and, during this performance, Perry has evidently pledged her support to the opposition of Proposition 8.

Onto the performance! Margaret Cho, the one with the purple dildo, and Amanda Palmer ambush Katy Perry amidst her rendition of "I Kissed A Girl". Perry eventually "gives in" and begins to passionately grope and kiss Palmer, while Cho continues to hump Perry. Now, there isn't anything wrong with lesbian sex. However, the LGBT community has long had to fight a battle against the "sexual harassment" stereotype; the stereotype which labels every non-straight person as an uncontrollable sex fiend. When this act ends, a curtain is pulled over the trio, by two men. When the curtain is removed, Cho is costumed as a Christian priest and Palmer and Perry are costumed in wedding dresses. Cho really risks mocking people of religion, but her character doesn't seem to be over-the-top and I cannot see too many people offended by her portrayal. (I now await Bill O'Reilly's response...) For the finale of this act, the curtain is raised again, this time with the words "Fuck Prop 8" written upon it. The two men holding the banner had their middle fingers right up in the air. As much as the crowd, and myself, thought this statement was bold and honorable, we really must watch how we address our anger. The people who are against same-sex marraige are mostly religious people; religion is a very personal sentiment. The LGBT community has no hatred or anomosity towards Christians or religious peoples, but such a debate can easily blur the lines of sensibility.

In my opinion, this video will be received differently by different groups of people. The younger same-sex supporters will mostly see this as a positive pop-culture embrace of love. The anti-gay Fundamentalists - of any age - will view this negatively. The older LGBT supporters, despite most of them agreeing with the "Fuck Prop 8" message at the end, will probably find this video to be frivolous. Still, I cannot see this video gaining much press over the next few weeks. It's the holiday season: a time for happiness, even when a large group of people, such as the LGBT community, is constantly mistreated.

"Arab Money": Offensive or Just Plain Dumb?

2008-12-21T12:47:00.001-08:00

On November 11^th, 2008, Busta Rhymes released his new song "Arab Money (featuring Ron Browz)" to the iTunes Music Store. When at first I saw this new song, I ignored it. Truthfully, I ignore all rap songs, at first glance, if the title includes the words "money", "paper", or "cash" in it; the last thing I need another materialistic rap song with an auto-tuned chorus and generic lyrics. However, YouTube managed to convince me one day to give it a listen. What I saw and heard shocked me.

Now, if I were to forward this video to every person in America, my strong suspicion is that the overwhelming majority of Americans would see nothing wrong with the song. I good number of those people would probably enjoy it. However, such ignorance should not be tolerated.

Busta Rhymes, the "Break Ya Neck", "New York City Shit", and "I Love My Bitch" hitmaker, has stated in multiple interviews that he is a practicing Muslim. (Source) Still, I do not think this validates the questionable lyrics of the song, in fact it just displays his own hypocracy. If I was gay, I would not say, "fag", if I were black I wouldn't use the "n-word", and if I were Asian I wouldn't use "gook", anymore than I do now. Being a member of a group of people does not validate use of certain derogatory terms or condescending statements. In the song "Arab Money (Featuring Ron Browz)" and "Arab Money (Remix) [Featuring Diddy, Ron Browz, Swizz Beatz, T-Pain , Akon, and Lil' Wayne]" there are many offensive and harmful comments and sentiments against Arabic and Islamic culture. I am aware that there is a seemingly daily release of a new version or remix of this song, but I will stick to the original and official remix for now.

"Bismillahi r-rahmani r-rahim. Al hamdu lillahi rabbi l-’ālamin"
"In the name of Allah, most gracious most merciful. All Praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds." (Translation Source)

This is used as the chorus and is taken from the Surah Fateha (which is from the Holy Qu'Ran). It seems rather blasphemous to take such a holy prayer and put it to use in a rap song with such a materialistic overtone.

“Dropping bombs like the Taliban“
“Sitting in casinos while I’m gambling with Arafat“

Both of these lyrics are grouped together for a good reason: they both link Arabic and Islamic culture to extremism and to terrorism. These lyrics are hardly what needs to be spoken to the already fearful American public.

“While I make you bow down and make Salaat like a Muslim“

This lyric isn't too bad, but I do I believe scrutiny is needed. Busta, are you trying to compare a sexual act which requires "[bowing] down" to a praying ritual of the Islamic faith?

“All the girls love me, yeah pop some bubbly“

Both drinking and promiscuous behavior are not allowed under Islamic law. Why is a self proclaimed Muslim decribing these activites in an Arab themed song?

"As-Salamu Alaykum Warahmatullah Wa Barakatu"
"Peace be upon you" (This is a greeting)
"Habibi"
"My love"
"Al hamdu lillah"
"Praise be to Allah"

These are just a collection of other parts of the song in actual Arabic. I don't really have a problem with these lyrics, other than using the context it is used in: a rap song about exceeding wealth and greed, drinking alcohol, and implied sex.

The Cover:

The cover has nothing directly offensive on it. Busta Rhymes is dressed in expensive clothing (I believe the scarf is from Louis Vuitton), displaying a matching ring and watch, and standing next to a luxury automobile. However, the text that says "Arab Money" and "feat Ron Browz" is written in fake Arabic caligraphy. This style of writing developed over time as a language to worship Allah with. Due to the nature of the cover, the music video, and of the lyrical content of "Arab Money", this text is almost mocking this style of Caligraphy and inherently mocking Allah.

Now, I must give credit to Busta Rhymes and everyone else on this record. This is not the most offensive rap song I've ever heard; the hypocritical religious over tones (such as 50 Cent with Get Rich or Die Tryin') have been much worse than on here. Despite Busta Rhymes' other ignorance, such as his admitted homophobia, I do not believe him to have created this song to be offensive towards Islamic or Arabic culture. Still, he has created one and not possibly at a worse time. Even over seven years since September 11^th, a good number of Americans are Islamophobic, believing that all Muslims are terrorists. Such Islamophobia was displayed when Barack Obama's religion was disputed by Fox "News" (and soon by all of the other leeching media sources) and believed by a good number of people. Still, Busta Rhymes may believe that disrepsecting the First Amendment means anything less than being downright asinine and offensive, we can only hope that his target audience knows better.