News that a Harrisburg, Pa. Chick-fil-A donated food to a marriage seminar offered by one of the states leading anti-gay organizations created an uproar across the United States. Although the news isn't shocking -- Chick-fil-A is known for its strict Christian values (i.e. it's closed on Sundays) -- it is forcing some people and groups to boycott eating at the chain.
In sponsoring the Art of Marriage Conference, many people believe this is a way for the organization to take a stance on gay marriage and support the anti-gay movement.
Chick-fil-A answered this outrage by posting a video on its Facebook fan page stating that the company values all people. Is that enough of a response? With people completely outraged and ready to boycott -- gay is a blazing hot topic these days with marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell -- this response is inadequate and lazy.
So, this makes me wonder ... will this news make you boycott the organization? When choosing what to eat, not many people consider the company or its stance on hot topics ... many people simply think, "is the food good?" I have seen firsthand some of these Chick-fil-A fanatics who travel around the country to Chick-fil-A openings -- they are serious about their chicken. When Americans like a product, they typically stay true.
However, if you are hell bent on boycotting Chick-fil-A, would this, in turn, make you look into other places you frequent? Other fast food chains and chain restaurants? Grocery stores? Gas stations? Online shopping? How about different brands of food or clothing or appliances? If you are going to take a stand, you might as well go balls to the wall!
The only reason Chick-fil-A is at the center of this outrage is because the topic of gays is so controversial, awkward and hot right now. News outlets across the country saw this story and knew it would be popular, knew that the people behind the forces of Pro-gay and Anti-gay would have their buttons pushed! In turn, these forces are at the ready to boycott anyone who shares different beliefs. The Pro-gay people are pissed and the Anti-gay people are in love!
Chick-fil-A's response is weak and speaks for their feelings -- they are an evangelical organization that is closed on Sundays and have been known to check in to their employees martial status and church affiliation. Are you surprised they don't like gay people? Why don't you ask them about abortion? Screw "Love thy neighbor," these people are "born again" and think they know who is bad and who is good and act accordingly.
If gay supporters across America want to boycott Chick-fil-A, then do it! Good for them! However, they need to be strict in their support. Look in to other organizations and call them out for affiliations and support of questionable groups. If not, then go ahead and stuff your gut with a damn spicy chicken sandwich and shut up already!
As for Chick-fil-A, if you don't like the uproar then stop supporting organizations with such strong views on such controversial topics!
Monday, January 31, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Taco Bell -- where's the beef?
Yo quiero Taco Bell! An Alabama law firm filed a class-action lawsuit against the fast food chain claiming the ground beef, referred to as seasoned beef, has less than 40 percent meat.
Really? Are you serious? What did you expect -- your 99 cent beefy crunch burrito to have cuts of filet mignon? Maybe some sirloin? Maybe your fat ass shouldn't be ordering five Chalupas for your fourth meal at 2 a.m. to feed your eighth chin. Maybe you have deeper problems than the beef at Taco Bell. Were you ignored as a child? Was your daddy mean to you?
Here's the ingredients list that is easily accessible on the Taco Bell website: Beef, Water, Seasoning [Isolated Oat Product, Salt, Chili Pepper, Onion Powder, Tomato Powder, Oats (Wheat), Soy Lecithin, Sugar, Spices, Maltodextrin, Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), Garlic Powder, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Cocoa Powder (Processed With Alkali), Silicon Dioxide, Natural Flavors, Yeast, Modified Corn Starch, Natural Smoke Flavor], Salt, Sodium Phosphates. Contains soybean and wheat.
I was comforted the seasoning mixture contained somewhat healthy, everyday items ... next time you want Taco Bell, and one of your health conscious friends gives you lip, just say, "the meat contains oats! Oats!"
This lawsuit reminds me of something I heard on the radio the other day (yes I listen to talk on the radio). They were discussing one of the 2011 Sundance films called "Hot Coffee," the story of the woman who spilled a hot coffee on herself and notoriously sued McDonalds. Really? This woman deserves a movie? She was in the car with her nephew, ordered coffee and put it between her knees to add cream and spilled it on herself. Duh! Everyone knows not to do that and if I was this lady I would be too embarrassed to tell my friends, let alone a lawyer and the world!
When I think of "Hot Coffee" and the Taco Bell lawsuit one thought comes to mind -- $$$$$$$$$$$
Get a life!
Really? Are you serious? What did you expect -- your 99 cent beefy crunch burrito to have cuts of filet mignon? Maybe some sirloin? Maybe your fat ass shouldn't be ordering five Chalupas for your fourth meal at 2 a.m. to feed your eighth chin. Maybe you have deeper problems than the beef at Taco Bell. Were you ignored as a child? Was your daddy mean to you?
Here's the ingredients list that is easily accessible on the Taco Bell website: Beef, Water, Seasoning [Isolated Oat Product, Salt, Chili Pepper, Onion Powder, Tomato Powder, Oats (Wheat), Soy Lecithin, Sugar, Spices, Maltodextrin, Soybean Oil (Anti-dusting Agent), Garlic Powder, Autolyzed Yeast Extract, Citric Acid, Caramel Color, Cocoa Powder (Processed With Alkali), Silicon Dioxide, Natural Flavors, Yeast, Modified Corn Starch, Natural Smoke Flavor], Salt, Sodium Phosphates. Contains soybean and wheat.
I was comforted the seasoning mixture contained somewhat healthy, everyday items ... next time you want Taco Bell, and one of your health conscious friends gives you lip, just say, "the meat contains oats! Oats!"
This lawsuit reminds me of something I heard on the radio the other day (yes I listen to talk on the radio). They were discussing one of the 2011 Sundance films called "Hot Coffee," the story of the woman who spilled a hot coffee on herself and notoriously sued McDonalds. Really? This woman deserves a movie? She was in the car with her nephew, ordered coffee and put it between her knees to add cream and spilled it on herself. Duh! Everyone knows not to do that and if I was this lady I would be too embarrassed to tell my friends, let alone a lawyer and the world!
When I think of "Hot Coffee" and the Taco Bell lawsuit one thought comes to mind -- $$$$$$$$$$$
Get a life!
Academy Award nominations
The nominations were announced and the Oscar buzz started. I wonder ... have any of you seen all of the movies listed -- for best picture and also the movies related to the actresses and actors nominated for their work? Half on the list? None on the list? Will these nominations motivate you to see the films?
I looked at the list after being reminded the nominations were announced by Google News -- why do people watch the news when you can type google.com and click News and it's all there!?
Of the best pictures listed I've seen "True Grit" and "Inception." These days it takes a lot to get me to the movie theatre. With the high cost of tickets and food at the theatre and the influx of people -- both fellow moviegoers who respect the rules and movie-going tradition and those who text or chat on their phone during the feature film, talk loudly and are otherwise annoying -- it's not what it used to be and I'm hesitant to go even when it's a movie I want to see. I could wait until the movie becomes available to rent, pick it up on Netflix and enjoy it in the quiet and comfort of my living room where the popcorn doesn't cost $10 and I won't hear about Candi's weekend plans at the club during the best part of the film as she yaks excessively on her cell with her boo Chuckie Love. With the overabundance of technology it's funny I don't have the give it to me now mentality but use technology to wait until the movie is available for rent.
I liked "Inception." Yeah, during a bit of the film I was confused as to what was going on but I liked that ... it wasn't simple to grasp, you went to the movies and they also wanted you to think! How dare they! Although this is often the time people lose attention -- when they are confused or bored -- they worked it into the movie so it was interesting enough that I kept watching. Of course watching my dreamboat Leo on the big screen wasn't all painful either.
I enjoyed "True Grit" also, although the trailer was misleading. Not to sound like Mary Masochism but having a trailer with Rooster Cogburn (who was brilliantly played by my main man The Dude aka Jeff Bridges) talking about how he's not sure how many people he's killed as a U.S. Marshal makes me expect a certain amount of violence. I'm not expecting the body count of the most recent "Rambo" film, which reached past 100 and was almost laughable, but I was expecting more than what the film offered. However, I enjoyed the movie and its mix of humor and toughness.
As for the other movies on the Best Picture list, "Black Swan," "The Fighter," "The Kids Are Alright," "The King's Speech," "127 Hours," "The Social Network," "Toy Story 3" and "Winter's Bone," my feelings waver. Maybe it's the overload with new films but I get turned off easily.
For example, "The Social Network." I have heard so much about this film on TV and through news headlines and the more I hear, the more turned off I become. It's not what I hear in terms of plot content but the excessive praise and brown-nosing. When people say it's the must-see film of the year, that turns me off even more. Life changing. Epic. Turns me off even more. It's hard to watch a film for the first time without expectations. Can you block out all you've heard before making it to the theatre? Not just from media but also from friends.
Also, there are not a lot of new ideas out there for movies, if any. Most movies are takes off of older films, like a steaming stew of various films and ideas. Like after watching the "Twilight" films a friend suggested I check out the "Clan of the Cave Bear" books which offered a similar tale of love. These new films could be seen as a take on the current times, especially "The Social Network" (I guess we're in the technology age), but I'd rather try to see all the old films I haven't seen (my Netflix list is around 150). I pledged to watch the "100 Best Films" according to Time magazine but have not fulfilled my promise.
One of the best picture nominated films I am interested in is "Black Swan." Half for the mental anguish the characters go through and the lesbian angry love (sexy!) and half because I love Natalie Portman but having this list of best pictures doesn't make me want to run and see the films. It makes me think of what my dad told me last night after I told him I heard that when the original "True Grit" hit the Academy Awards in the '70s, the original Rooster Cogburn (played by John Wayne) won for Best Actor. I wondered if my dad thought Jeff Bridges was going to win.
"John Wayne won because he was popular. Don't know why. He played the same character in each movie he was in."
Maybe what the Academy Awards (and America) needs is brutal honesty!
I looked at the list after being reminded the nominations were announced by Google News -- why do people watch the news when you can type google.com and click News and it's all there!?
Of the best pictures listed I've seen "True Grit" and "Inception." These days it takes a lot to get me to the movie theatre. With the high cost of tickets and food at the theatre and the influx of people -- both fellow moviegoers who respect the rules and movie-going tradition and those who text or chat on their phone during the feature film, talk loudly and are otherwise annoying -- it's not what it used to be and I'm hesitant to go even when it's a movie I want to see. I could wait until the movie becomes available to rent, pick it up on Netflix and enjoy it in the quiet and comfort of my living room where the popcorn doesn't cost $10 and I won't hear about Candi's weekend plans at the club during the best part of the film as she yaks excessively on her cell with her boo Chuckie Love. With the overabundance of technology it's funny I don't have the give it to me now mentality but use technology to wait until the movie is available for rent.
I liked "Inception." Yeah, during a bit of the film I was confused as to what was going on but I liked that ... it wasn't simple to grasp, you went to the movies and they also wanted you to think! How dare they! Although this is often the time people lose attention -- when they are confused or bored -- they worked it into the movie so it was interesting enough that I kept watching. Of course watching my dreamboat Leo on the big screen wasn't all painful either.
I enjoyed "True Grit" also, although the trailer was misleading. Not to sound like Mary Masochism but having a trailer with Rooster Cogburn (who was brilliantly played by my main man The Dude aka Jeff Bridges) talking about how he's not sure how many people he's killed as a U.S. Marshal makes me expect a certain amount of violence. I'm not expecting the body count of the most recent "Rambo" film, which reached past 100 and was almost laughable, but I was expecting more than what the film offered. However, I enjoyed the movie and its mix of humor and toughness.
As for the other movies on the Best Picture list, "Black Swan," "The Fighter," "The Kids Are Alright," "The King's Speech," "127 Hours," "The Social Network," "Toy Story 3" and "Winter's Bone," my feelings waver. Maybe it's the overload with new films but I get turned off easily.
For example, "The Social Network." I have heard so much about this film on TV and through news headlines and the more I hear, the more turned off I become. It's not what I hear in terms of plot content but the excessive praise and brown-nosing. When people say it's the must-see film of the year, that turns me off even more. Life changing. Epic. Turns me off even more. It's hard to watch a film for the first time without expectations. Can you block out all you've heard before making it to the theatre? Not just from media but also from friends.
Also, there are not a lot of new ideas out there for movies, if any. Most movies are takes off of older films, like a steaming stew of various films and ideas. Like after watching the "Twilight" films a friend suggested I check out the "Clan of the Cave Bear" books which offered a similar tale of love. These new films could be seen as a take on the current times, especially "The Social Network" (I guess we're in the technology age), but I'd rather try to see all the old films I haven't seen (my Netflix list is around 150). I pledged to watch the "100 Best Films" according to Time magazine but have not fulfilled my promise.
One of the best picture nominated films I am interested in is "Black Swan." Half for the mental anguish the characters go through and the lesbian angry love (sexy!) and half because I love Natalie Portman but having this list of best pictures doesn't make me want to run and see the films. It makes me think of what my dad told me last night after I told him I heard that when the original "True Grit" hit the Academy Awards in the '70s, the original Rooster Cogburn (played by John Wayne) won for Best Actor. I wondered if my dad thought Jeff Bridges was going to win.
"John Wayne won because he was popular. Don't know why. He played the same character in each movie he was in."
Maybe what the Academy Awards (and America) needs is brutal honesty!
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Sex tapes, talent & luck -- modern day celebrities
Among the celebrities on display in a recent issue of one of many trash rags available (Us Weekly, OK! Magazine, Star) was U.S. First Lady Michelle Obama. A photograph of her from a soiree overseas was paired with a photo of a similarly dressed celebrity (movie star) with a rating of "Who Wore It Best." When did a U.S. president's wife share the stage with movie and television stars? While it's nice to have a Jackie O-dressed First Lady again, I wondered if I missed something.
Any person can be a celebrity these days -- and the focal point of public scrutiny as well as living among the rich and famous. From Kim Kardashian's sex tape with RJ developing into reality TV shows, workout DVDs and non-stop attention to Harrison Ford's successful movie career to Madonna's iconic success as a performer and singer ... there are all kinds of celebrity. The term celebrity is flooded and polluted with people like Kardashian and others ... Snooki and the Situation, Kate Gosselin, Kathy Griffin, Kendra, K-Fed, Tori Spelling, Camille Grammer, Paris Hilton ... I'm not talking about 15-minutes of fame (i.e. Balloon Boy's parents) but fame whores who, when subjected to scrutiny, have no once valued celebrity-worthy talent (acting or singing ability) but are harassed by paparazzi and followed by the creeping public eye whether they are buying herpes creme at Walgreens or walking the red carpet at some event.
To give these D-listers an easier way to fame, reality shows are exploding across the airwaves and we (Americans) can't get enough. Take The Jersey Shore for example ... the show follows a group of youngish men and women of questionable Italian/Jersey descent as they share a house on the Shore for a few months. They party, get in fights, drink heavily and behave badly, acting like the idiots they are -- all to the viewers amusement. It's like college but no class or homework and these folks aren't college-age ... so it is tinged with a pathetic quality. The show's successful ratings set records on its network at MTV.
I TiVO this show. As I watch Sammi Sweetheart bitch and moan to her off-and-on-boyfriend Ronnie about the other girls in the house, and Snooki get into a drunk-induced stupor each night at "the club," I feel better about my life and my character. As Paulie D spikes his hair to magnificently stiff levels for another night out on the town and J-Wow leaves the house each evening to prowl around Jersey in what looks like ripped leotards, I forget about my day. It's like a car crash. Common sense says watching this show gives it good ratings, making these creatures famous. They have money to buy a tanning bed or millions of morning-after pills. BUT I can't look away, I am drawn to the chaos and fights.
Do I like these people? No.
Do I support them any other way than watching the TV show? No.
They are known for being disgusting and of questionable character -- that's why they got the job. No intelligent adult will ever take them seriously. I envy their stupidity and narrow-minded ways. Instead of worrying about making others happy, doing a good job at work or reaching goals, they are obsessed with partying and material possessions. How simple life can be! I would say they are so obsessed with reaching any celebrity-status that they are willing to be ridiculous and embarrassing on national TV, but they don't think what they're doing is wrong or questionable. They know they are fabulous, which makes it more hilarious.
This television show as well as others are created to suspend belief. The TV execs didn't want normal, everyday hardworking people who are respectful and trustworthy. Snooze alert! They hunted down the train wrecks, the people most likely to start a fight or create animosity (which isn't hard when living in a house with so many people). They found people who are self-obsessed and one-track minded. This makes for better television (which is driven by ratings). You don't have to think when you watch The Jersey Shore or ponder life's big questions. Sit back, relax and unwind by watching the chaos unfold before your very eyes!
Most people find fault with much of what is on TV -- rotting the minds of impressionable youth and giving them lowbrow mentors, but it's not going to get better. Parents should be involved in their children's lives and make sure they aren't watching filth because it's not going to go away. It's going to get worse and more accessible with the advancement of technology. TV and movies are created with the largest audience in mind. They want to attract your attention, get you interested and sink you in with flashy plots and outrageous characters.
What's better than car crash type characters? Are these modern day celebrities? Sort of. We still have our talented celebrities who are known for award-winning movies or albums and deserve the attention, but this development of D-listers is growing. Hopefully everyone can view them as ridiculous and enjoy the spectacle.
Any person can be a celebrity these days -- and the focal point of public scrutiny as well as living among the rich and famous. From Kim Kardashian's sex tape with RJ developing into reality TV shows, workout DVDs and non-stop attention to Harrison Ford's successful movie career to Madonna's iconic success as a performer and singer ... there are all kinds of celebrity. The term celebrity is flooded and polluted with people like Kardashian and others ... Snooki and the Situation, Kate Gosselin, Kathy Griffin, Kendra, K-Fed, Tori Spelling, Camille Grammer, Paris Hilton ... I'm not talking about 15-minutes of fame (i.e. Balloon Boy's parents) but fame whores who, when subjected to scrutiny, have no once valued celebrity-worthy talent (acting or singing ability) but are harassed by paparazzi and followed by the creeping public eye whether they are buying herpes creme at Walgreens or walking the red carpet at some event.
To give these D-listers an easier way to fame, reality shows are exploding across the airwaves and we (Americans) can't get enough. Take The Jersey Shore for example ... the show follows a group of youngish men and women of questionable Italian/Jersey descent as they share a house on the Shore for a few months. They party, get in fights, drink heavily and behave badly, acting like the idiots they are -- all to the viewers amusement. It's like college but no class or homework and these folks aren't college-age ... so it is tinged with a pathetic quality. The show's successful ratings set records on its network at MTV.
I TiVO this show. As I watch Sammi Sweetheart bitch and moan to her off-and-on-boyfriend Ronnie about the other girls in the house, and Snooki get into a drunk-induced stupor each night at "the club," I feel better about my life and my character. As Paulie D spikes his hair to magnificently stiff levels for another night out on the town and J-Wow leaves the house each evening to prowl around Jersey in what looks like ripped leotards, I forget about my day. It's like a car crash. Common sense says watching this show gives it good ratings, making these creatures famous. They have money to buy a tanning bed or millions of morning-after pills. BUT I can't look away, I am drawn to the chaos and fights.
Do I like these people? No.
Do I support them any other way than watching the TV show? No.
They are known for being disgusting and of questionable character -- that's why they got the job. No intelligent adult will ever take them seriously. I envy their stupidity and narrow-minded ways. Instead of worrying about making others happy, doing a good job at work or reaching goals, they are obsessed with partying and material possessions. How simple life can be! I would say they are so obsessed with reaching any celebrity-status that they are willing to be ridiculous and embarrassing on national TV, but they don't think what they're doing is wrong or questionable. They know they are fabulous, which makes it more hilarious.
This television show as well as others are created to suspend belief. The TV execs didn't want normal, everyday hardworking people who are respectful and trustworthy. Snooze alert! They hunted down the train wrecks, the people most likely to start a fight or create animosity (which isn't hard when living in a house with so many people). They found people who are self-obsessed and one-track minded. This makes for better television (which is driven by ratings). You don't have to think when you watch The Jersey Shore or ponder life's big questions. Sit back, relax and unwind by watching the chaos unfold before your very eyes!
Most people find fault with much of what is on TV -- rotting the minds of impressionable youth and giving them lowbrow mentors, but it's not going to get better. Parents should be involved in their children's lives and make sure they aren't watching filth because it's not going to go away. It's going to get worse and more accessible with the advancement of technology. TV and movies are created with the largest audience in mind. They want to attract your attention, get you interested and sink you in with flashy plots and outrageous characters.
What's better than car crash type characters? Are these modern day celebrities? Sort of. We still have our talented celebrities who are known for award-winning movies or albums and deserve the attention, but this development of D-listers is growing. Hopefully everyone can view them as ridiculous and enjoy the spectacle.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
What do you follow?
You've heard all the cliched suggestions ... follow your heart, listen to your gut, follow your instincts ...
Listen to you heart, there's nothing else you can do;
I don't know where you're going and I don't know why;
Listen to your heart, before you tell him goodbye ...
These cliches are overused for a reason -- they are true.
A friend recently told me she's taking a break from her serious relationship. She thinks she's making a mistake by putting the brakes on but is unsure of what to do:
On the one hand she loves him but on the other hand her heart is telling her otherwise. A part of her -- a tiny voice in the back of her mind -- is telling her that she needs to see what else is out there. This tiny voice is the archenemy of the rest of her feelings -- the feelings of love and mostly-contentment with her boyfriend.
She asked me why life has to be so hard. I told her that life is hard. If anyone tells you otherwise, they're selling something -- a pill or lifestyle or even an outfit or meal. Something that will make you happy and do wonderful things for you.
You can seek happiness but will never be satisfied and truly happy. Happiness comes from within (another popular cliche).
When times get difficult (you look at your partner and aren't completely satisfied) we look somewhere else for satisfaction. If there is a problem then the relationship must be wrong. It can't possibly mean nothing is perfect and there are going to be highs and lows -- it means this is wrong. We want satisfaction, living in an egocentric culture and time. We want quick fixes. We're busy and don't want to wait.
Of course it's not that simple. Relationships are complicated, as is life.
She feels cold feet. She has feelings needing to be explored. Loneliness, feeling crowded and unsure.
So where is the balance? What's the answer Trebek?
On one hand: relationships are never perfect, especially if you receive most happiness from outside sources. You are going to feel negative emotions from time-to-time, if you're married to Joe Smith or George Clooney. Yeah, you're best friends and love each other deeply but everyone needs space. Alone time or time away from each other. Absence truly makes the heart grow fonder.
On the other hand: there's the damn voice. The tiny voice. It won't shut up. This early in the relationship, there's a good chance it's going to get louder if you don't entertain it, wine and dine the tiny voice, take it out for a spin. Or it could turn up mid-life or the mid-life voice is something completely different.
So what to do? This is life. Decisions like these are the ingredients for life. It's like those damn "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. So whats it going to be then, eh? You can't just finish the book and go back to the beginning and choose another route. The time is now!
Listen to you heart, there's nothing else you can do;
I don't know where you're going and I don't know why;
Listen to your heart, before you tell him goodbye ...
These cliches are overused for a reason -- they are true.
A friend recently told me she's taking a break from her serious relationship. She thinks she's making a mistake by putting the brakes on but is unsure of what to do:
On the one hand she loves him but on the other hand her heart is telling her otherwise. A part of her -- a tiny voice in the back of her mind -- is telling her that she needs to see what else is out there. This tiny voice is the archenemy of the rest of her feelings -- the feelings of love and mostly-contentment with her boyfriend.
She asked me why life has to be so hard. I told her that life is hard. If anyone tells you otherwise, they're selling something -- a pill or lifestyle or even an outfit or meal. Something that will make you happy and do wonderful things for you.
You can seek happiness but will never be satisfied and truly happy. Happiness comes from within (another popular cliche).
When times get difficult (you look at your partner and aren't completely satisfied) we look somewhere else for satisfaction. If there is a problem then the relationship must be wrong. It can't possibly mean nothing is perfect and there are going to be highs and lows -- it means this is wrong. We want satisfaction, living in an egocentric culture and time. We want quick fixes. We're busy and don't want to wait.
Of course it's not that simple. Relationships are complicated, as is life.
She feels cold feet. She has feelings needing to be explored. Loneliness, feeling crowded and unsure.
So where is the balance? What's the answer Trebek?
On one hand: relationships are never perfect, especially if you receive most happiness from outside sources. You are going to feel negative emotions from time-to-time, if you're married to Joe Smith or George Clooney. Yeah, you're best friends and love each other deeply but everyone needs space. Alone time or time away from each other. Absence truly makes the heart grow fonder.
On the other hand: there's the damn voice. The tiny voice. It won't shut up. This early in the relationship, there's a good chance it's going to get louder if you don't entertain it, wine and dine the tiny voice, take it out for a spin. Or it could turn up mid-life or the mid-life voice is something completely different.
So what to do? This is life. Decisions like these are the ingredients for life. It's like those damn "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. So whats it going to be then, eh? You can't just finish the book and go back to the beginning and choose another route. The time is now!
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Censoring history -- the Huck Finn debate
It was recently reported that publisher NewSouth will release a new edition of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" with all 219 N-words excluded in favor of the word "slave."
Some argue that high schools across America don't include the book in lesson plans because of its controversial language -- "Huck Finn" is listed on the most banned and controversial books list. This editing will be a way around the exclusion so youth can enjoy the wonderful novel. Others say the N-word is derogatory and impressionable minds shouldn't be forced to read such hateful content.
So, with this censorship in mind, NewSouth shouldn't stop at Huck Finn's adventures. What about Richard Wright's "The Native Son" or Frederick Douglass' "Narrative"? The list goes on. Such groundbreaking works of literature will be edited for who? For some jerks who thinks it's offensive.
The N-word is an offensive word that is dehumanizing and ugly. However, it is a large part of America's history, especially during the 1830s when the "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is set. This is a word used often and carelessly for centuries. It is still used and is often at the center of racial debates -- especially with the N-word used as a friendly word by some blacks.
When developing his characters, Mark Twain exposed the racists and racism that was prevalent as did other authors like Wright and Douglass. Are high school teachers too stupid to teach the background of the novel?
To change this word is denying history and would do students a disservice! The N-word and racism should be discussed in detail as part of all high school classes.
For concerned parents and jerks, censoring will not hide youth from offensive or controversial content. There will be a classmate or acquaintance on the bus, at baseball practice or whatever who heard from their parents or older brother or sister or someone about something off-color and adult -- sex, drugs, different races and religions, etc. With TV, the Internet, music and video games, controversial content is more accessible for impressionable young minds. What to do about it? Have conversations. Something comes up -- for example: the N-word or any derogatory word -- don't just mutter, "Don't say that." Explain why. Discuss. Help them understand. Instead of censoring words, use your words to teach and break down barriers. Words can be very powerful, as Twain has demonstrated.
Some argue that high schools across America don't include the book in lesson plans because of its controversial language -- "Huck Finn" is listed on the most banned and controversial books list. This editing will be a way around the exclusion so youth can enjoy the wonderful novel. Others say the N-word is derogatory and impressionable minds shouldn't be forced to read such hateful content.
So, with this censorship in mind, NewSouth shouldn't stop at Huck Finn's adventures. What about Richard Wright's "The Native Son" or Frederick Douglass' "Narrative"? The list goes on. Such groundbreaking works of literature will be edited for who? For some jerks who thinks it's offensive.
The N-word is an offensive word that is dehumanizing and ugly. However, it is a large part of America's history, especially during the 1830s when the "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is set. This is a word used often and carelessly for centuries. It is still used and is often at the center of racial debates -- especially with the N-word used as a friendly word by some blacks.
When developing his characters, Mark Twain exposed the racists and racism that was prevalent as did other authors like Wright and Douglass. Are high school teachers too stupid to teach the background of the novel?
To change this word is denying history and would do students a disservice! The N-word and racism should be discussed in detail as part of all high school classes.
For concerned parents and jerks, censoring will not hide youth from offensive or controversial content. There will be a classmate or acquaintance on the bus, at baseball practice or whatever who heard from their parents or older brother or sister or someone about something off-color and adult -- sex, drugs, different races and religions, etc. With TV, the Internet, music and video games, controversial content is more accessible for impressionable young minds. What to do about it? Have conversations. Something comes up -- for example: the N-word or any derogatory word -- don't just mutter, "Don't say that." Explain why. Discuss. Help them understand. Instead of censoring words, use your words to teach and break down barriers. Words can be very powerful, as Twain has demonstrated.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Love, sex and wishful thinking
If you use popular romantic books and movies as basis for reality, your sex/love life will never compare. Making love all night (whatever making love means), being soul mates, tall dark and handsome men, blah blah blah. The pair share a steamy and erotic night, full of passion and joint orgasms, before falling asleep in each others arms.
In reality there are ups and downs, fatigue from long days at work, stress, being sick, not being in the mood, boredom, inability to outwardly express feelings with your loved one, a busy schedule, and the list goes on.
You've seen the typical movie plot -- boy and girl meet and there's something stopping them from love -- usually a man who is not ready to commit -- and then in the end they fall in love and live happily ever after. While it's enjoyable to watch and the happy ending is comforting, it's not a realistic comparison for your love life.
Using these unrealistic characters (characters because they are not human beings) for comparison will set you up for disappointment. Your love life isn't going to compare to a fairy tale and it's not healthy to expect a specific experience or raise your standards to unreachable levels. That's not to say you shouldn't have high standards, everyone should, but there's a level that is unattainable and absurd.
Most of these characters are created from fantasies -- what woman wouldn't want a man to take her to candlelit dinners (minus the awkward chitchat when you find yourself with nothing interesting to say), buy her flowers or gifts for no reason, tell her how much they love her, and to spend more time on foreplay, focusing on her pleasure instead of getting themselves off and falling asleep?! Yes! But to expect all this -- the ultimate perfect man -- is silly. The men in these books and movies (it's always chick flicks -- guy flicks have impossible-bodied big boob women and explosions) are typically changed by the woman's love -- she's the one to capture his womanizing heart! How romantic.
Barf. If these are the standards we use as comparison for our significant others, straight from romance novels and romantic comedies, no wonder the divorce rate is disastrous.
In reality there are ups and downs, fatigue from long days at work, stress, being sick, not being in the mood, boredom, inability to outwardly express feelings with your loved one, a busy schedule, and the list goes on.
You've seen the typical movie plot -- boy and girl meet and there's something stopping them from love -- usually a man who is not ready to commit -- and then in the end they fall in love and live happily ever after. While it's enjoyable to watch and the happy ending is comforting, it's not a realistic comparison for your love life.
Using these unrealistic characters (characters because they are not human beings) for comparison will set you up for disappointment. Your love life isn't going to compare to a fairy tale and it's not healthy to expect a specific experience or raise your standards to unreachable levels. That's not to say you shouldn't have high standards, everyone should, but there's a level that is unattainable and absurd.
Most of these characters are created from fantasies -- what woman wouldn't want a man to take her to candlelit dinners (minus the awkward chitchat when you find yourself with nothing interesting to say), buy her flowers or gifts for no reason, tell her how much they love her, and to spend more time on foreplay, focusing on her pleasure instead of getting themselves off and falling asleep?! Yes! But to expect all this -- the ultimate perfect man -- is silly. The men in these books and movies (it's always chick flicks -- guy flicks have impossible-bodied big boob women and explosions) are typically changed by the woman's love -- she's the one to capture his womanizing heart! How romantic.
Barf. If these are the standards we use as comparison for our significant others, straight from romance novels and romantic comedies, no wonder the divorce rate is disastrous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)