I know it's tiny, but it's still exciting! Matthew Good is following me on Twitter! :D
16 July 2009
04 July 2009
Why should you watch this?
Because the Westboro Baptist Church (I refuse to link to them) produced a song to the tune of We Are the World, of all things.
I really hope they get hit with a copyright lawsuit.
And again, because I'm not going to link to WBC, here's my favourite YouTuber's posting, with commentary.
Happy Independence Day, America. Maybe you can work a little harder on the bigotry.
I really hope they get hit with a copyright lawsuit.
And again, because I'm not going to link to WBC, here's my favourite YouTuber's posting, with commentary.
Happy Independence Day, America. Maybe you can work a little harder on the bigotry.
03 July 2009
24 June 2009
Guns solve everything, right?
Like Roger Ebert needs my help promoting his writing. But since this article isn't about movies, I thought I'd provide one more forum for sharing, in case you missed it (thanks, Tricky).
I'm all for personal accountability. An individual ultimately has to answer for their own actions, especially when those actions cause harm to someone else. But the buck doesn't always stop with the perpetrator. If Ebert is to be believed, O'Reilly -- and probably others in the right-wing media (Limbaugh, etc.) -- are inciting hatred and egging their followers into taking action. You can hear it night after night on O'Reilly's show. He yells, he bullies his guests, and then he implores his viewers to DO SOMETHING! Really, it was only a matter of time for someone to take matters into dangerous hands.
Bob Hebert, columnist at the New York Times, wrote an interesting Op-Ed last week with a similar theme:
He speaks specifically to people who think that the way to deal with the possibility of gun control initiatives in the US is to shoot as many people as possible before the guns get taken away. I feel like there's a common thread, though, between what Ebert and Hebert say (tee hee -- their names rhyme): while violence does happen as a result of liberals (protests gone wrong, etc.), it feels like the worst of the targeted violence comes from the right-wing; the same people who claim that liberals are ruining society.
The conservatives, self-proclaimed protectors of Morals and Values, seem to be willing to unleash all kinds of violence on opposition at any cost.
And it's not unique to the US. Currently, Iran is reportedly dealing with opposition to the disputed election with beatings and shootings of the protesters. Those enforcing the status quo in Iran are conservatives.
I think that difference is important. Whether it's racial, ethnic, cultural, political or culinary, I think that different perspectives, different experiences and different flavours add to our understanding of the world, reduce boredom, and enhance our experiences. And every time someone experiences something different, a little bit of ignorance gets chipped away. I don't always agree with the differences, but they're there for a lot of good reasons, and who am I to question those?
But I have a really hard time with people who don't embrace differences, who actively work to suppress differences in the name of "saving" us from something. That's when my enjoyment of differences starts to wear thin and I gag a little. While I'm sure there's some inherent value in having a world with completely intolerant, bigoted people milling about, I can't figure out what that could be, unless it's to show the rest of us what not to be.
People have different ideas of how to make the world a better place. I have the idea that, if people spent more time listening to what people actually need instead of assuming that they know and trying to force it on them, then we might actually accomplish some improvements that benefit all of us.
Much has been said recently about the possible influence of [Bill] O'Reilly on the murder of Dr. George Tiller by Scott Roeder. Such a connection is impossible to prove. Yet studies of bullies and their victims suggest a general way such an influence might take place. Bullies like to force others to do their will, while they can stand back and protest their innocence: "I was nowhere near the gymnasium, Sister!" A recent study of school shootings found that two-thirds of all the shooters were victims of bullying, and perceived themselves as members of persecuted minorities.
I'm all for personal accountability. An individual ultimately has to answer for their own actions, especially when those actions cause harm to someone else. But the buck doesn't always stop with the perpetrator. If Ebert is to be believed, O'Reilly -- and probably others in the right-wing media (Limbaugh, etc.) -- are inciting hatred and egging their followers into taking action. You can hear it night after night on O'Reilly's show. He yells, he bullies his guests, and then he implores his viewers to DO SOMETHING! Really, it was only a matter of time for someone to take matters into dangerous hands.
Bob Hebert, columnist at the New York Times, wrote an interesting Op-Ed last week with a similar theme:
Even with the murders that have already occurred, Americans are not paying enough attention to the frightening connection between the right-wing hate-mongers who continue to slither among us and the gun crazies who believe a well-aimed bullet is the ticket to all their dreams.
He speaks specifically to people who think that the way to deal with the possibility of gun control initiatives in the US is to shoot as many people as possible before the guns get taken away. I feel like there's a common thread, though, between what Ebert and Hebert say (tee hee -- their names rhyme): while violence does happen as a result of liberals (protests gone wrong, etc.), it feels like the worst of the targeted violence comes from the right-wing; the same people who claim that liberals are ruining society.
The conservatives, self-proclaimed protectors of Morals and Values, seem to be willing to unleash all kinds of violence on opposition at any cost.
And it's not unique to the US. Currently, Iran is reportedly dealing with opposition to the disputed election with beatings and shootings of the protesters. Those enforcing the status quo in Iran are conservatives.
I think that difference is important. Whether it's racial, ethnic, cultural, political or culinary, I think that different perspectives, different experiences and different flavours add to our understanding of the world, reduce boredom, and enhance our experiences. And every time someone experiences something different, a little bit of ignorance gets chipped away. I don't always agree with the differences, but they're there for a lot of good reasons, and who am I to question those?
But I have a really hard time with people who don't embrace differences, who actively work to suppress differences in the name of "saving" us from something. That's when my enjoyment of differences starts to wear thin and I gag a little. While I'm sure there's some inherent value in having a world with completely intolerant, bigoted people milling about, I can't figure out what that could be, unless it's to show the rest of us what not to be.
People have different ideas of how to make the world a better place. I have the idea that, if people spent more time listening to what people actually need instead of assuming that they know and trying to force it on them, then we might actually accomplish some improvements that benefit all of us.
22 June 2009
It's like crack, only with less death
My friends like to make fun of how addicted I am to my BlackBerry. Actually, it's more people with whom I have a casual acquaintance. People who know me well know that I'm just as capable of not looking at it when it beeps or blinks. Those who barely know me haven't yet learned that they just aren't interesting enough to hold my attention.
That's why I liked this post from writer John Scalzi.
The entire entry is pretty amusing. And poignant.
I get involved in e-mail/text conversations when they come up, if I judge that they are more important than what I am doing. Sometimes I'm wrong about what's "more important", but I never intend to be disrespectful.
The other night, I talked to a friend via IM on my BlackBerry while watching a movie with my mother and boyfriend. It wasn't because it was a boring movie, or because I disrespected either of them; it's because the topic was one that I felt needed to be sorted out before I could comfortably move on. Otherwise, the verbal bomb would have been dropped and I likely would have been more distracted with it hanging over my head. Having the IM conversation was unobtrusive to the other people and allowed me to gather more information before deciding that I was ready to get back to the movie. No one else was worse for the wear.
The argument I love from Luddites is, "What would you have done 10 years ago? What if you didn't have a BlackBerry/text messaging/the internet?" These are false, ridiculous arguments.
Ten years ago, my friend would have had to call me to talk directly. I would have had to make a decision to leave the room altogether to have the conversation. That's probably much more rude (or more stressful to cope with) than answering a text. Thirty years ago, the conversation would have waited until we were in the same town, since it would have been an expensive long distance call at the time. Eighty years ago, even a local call may have been a little ridiculous to achieve, since the subject was something that's still pending. And 150 years ago, he and I wouldn't have been friends. Gender barriers aside, I likely wouldn't have even made it to this province to live, let alone have become friends with someone who lived in another town where a half-day buggy ride would have been required for simple socializing.
So, stuff your "what would you do without texting?" argument. It's the only way I've communicated with some friends in the past few days because the surgery makes it hurt to talk.
While there may be problems with the instant and multiple communication inundation, I'd say it has as much to do with self-restraint as anything else. And if you don't let yourself (or your kids) socialize in any other way, then that's what sets you up for problems. Not the need to respond; your perceived need to respond.
That's why I liked this post from writer John Scalzi.
First: If you are the sort of person who believes that all your e-mails/texts must be responded to instantaneously or sooner, you may be a self-absorbed twit. Please entertain the idea that your responder may have a life of his or her own, with priorities which may not conform to yours.
The entire entry is pretty amusing. And poignant.
I get involved in e-mail/text conversations when they come up, if I judge that they are more important than what I am doing. Sometimes I'm wrong about what's "more important", but I never intend to be disrespectful.
The other night, I talked to a friend via IM on my BlackBerry while watching a movie with my mother and boyfriend. It wasn't because it was a boring movie, or because I disrespected either of them; it's because the topic was one that I felt needed to be sorted out before I could comfortably move on. Otherwise, the verbal bomb would have been dropped and I likely would have been more distracted with it hanging over my head. Having the IM conversation was unobtrusive to the other people and allowed me to gather more information before deciding that I was ready to get back to the movie. No one else was worse for the wear.
The argument I love from Luddites is, "What would you have done 10 years ago? What if you didn't have a BlackBerry/text messaging/the internet?" These are false, ridiculous arguments.
Ten years ago, my friend would have had to call me to talk directly. I would have had to make a decision to leave the room altogether to have the conversation. That's probably much more rude (or more stressful to cope with) than answering a text. Thirty years ago, the conversation would have waited until we were in the same town, since it would have been an expensive long distance call at the time. Eighty years ago, even a local call may have been a little ridiculous to achieve, since the subject was something that's still pending. And 150 years ago, he and I wouldn't have been friends. Gender barriers aside, I likely wouldn't have even made it to this province to live, let alone have become friends with someone who lived in another town where a half-day buggy ride would have been required for simple socializing.
So, stuff your "what would you do without texting?" argument. It's the only way I've communicated with some friends in the past few days because the surgery makes it hurt to talk.
While there may be problems with the instant and multiple communication inundation, I'd say it has as much to do with self-restraint as anything else. And if you don't let yourself (or your kids) socialize in any other way, then that's what sets you up for problems. Not the need to respond; your perceived need to respond.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
