Welcome back! First I wanted to thank the people who contacted me about my last few posts. Glad to know something I say is worth talking about ;)... Anyway, I'm
returning to my blog today to express my boring and long-winded views
about a few videos that are on youtube. This post is rather old. The first time I wrote it I knew that it needed serious editing, but I didn't have the resolve to give it justice. So hopefully I have said things appropriately and, as a pipe dream, that it makes some kind of difference!
The original video (which I will be linking to) is about a woman who works for a
television news station and received an email from a viewer about her
weight problems. As you probably know, I have serious 'weight problems'
myself and have struggled with them since I was a child. Basically the
story is that the woman is overweight and a viewer wrote her a letter
which uses formal language and expresses strong, yet common opinions. He
basically says that she needs to start losing weight or stay off the air, expressing that she is a poor role model for the "community's young people,
girls in particular." The first video I will link to is what has been
circling around the
most, and it is the woman's actual response which she made during her
station's news show.
*Note: You don't have to watch either video to follow along with the rest of my post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxiNSDkrekQ
The
second video and the main reason for my post is from a channel that I
follow on youtube, sxephil, which stars the youtube vlogger Philip
DeFranco. In the video DeFranco says that he want's to play "devil's
advocate" by posing the question "Do you think that original letter was actually bullying?".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-ENUvPmWrQ
My first reaction to the letter,
when I heard it in it's entirety, was that the man wasn't exactly a
bully. But the more I think about it, the more I feel that he was extremely
rude and clearly intended to hurt her feelings nonetheless. So, in that
sense, the letter was actually a form of bullying. Not bullying
in the classic sense where one person repeatedly harasses another
individual. But, bullying in the sense that this one man's voice is
actually part of a chorus of thousands of every-day people who seem to
make a point in daily conversations to point out and demean the idea of
being anything other than thin and fit. (ex: "Oh, you had one piece of
fried chicken? You're such a fatass LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL")
So to break
it down I'll explain why I believe this letter should never have been
sent or supported. Mainly, why it's so completely hurtful and why it is
that bigger people, like myself, are made to feel uncomfortable everywhere we go. In my opinion there are 3 big reasons why big people have a tough life. I'm not blaming anyone for them, but it's not as if anyone of us decided, "I want to be fat." Many argue that we've chosen to be fat out of laziness and a lack of discipline which thin people somehow have. I argue that bullies have chosen to be conceited and mean out of insecurities that everyone else has learned to live with. I just hope that, by pointing out some aspects of fat life, some people might reconsider their words the next time they feel animosity towards us.
One reason that life can suck sometimes is that it is physically
uncomfortable to be overweight. Obviously, our body is under extra stress. Most things built to be used by people have an "average" person in
mind which we sometimes don't match up with (restaurant booths and
seating arrangements, turnstiles, chairs, cars... the list is endless). The second major issue is how embarrassing it is to have our body. It is
difficult to shop for clothes, many every-day activities look absurd to others because of our body. When we eat in public others around us assume that we are overeating and view it as gross, and
the first and only thing that many people around us will ever notice about us
is a BIG personal problem that we cannot hide. Lastly, and most importantly, the
biggest thing that makes life as an overweight person into a daily
struggle is the way that we are treated by others. To so many people,
we are actually a problem. We are treated as less important, extremely lazy, dumb, oblivious,
troubled, and overall as worse people. In the opinions of many, we are choosing to make others around us look bad out of our own selfishness.
Can you put yourself in my shoes?
This is how I feel, and not everyone who is overweight will agree with everything I said, but I hope that some of them at least understand where I'm coming from. Our problems are just that, they are OUR OWN. Being overweight, most of us try very hard to not cause problems for anyone else, even the slightest inconvenience. This is extremely embarrassing to us. We are people, so often we are very good people. We try our best to live our life as a normal person and enjoy as much of it as we can! To many, we have an obligation to ourselves to fix our problem, which may be very true! But there are so many other people who have issues that they need to fix but choose to ignore, and most of them are successfully able to hide it! Anyone that we ever meet in person will see our problems and pass a judgement before they even know our name! If it's our own fault, then sobeit. That is no reason for us to be treated like criminals!
And on that note I feel like I need to leave the subject alone. If you've read anything else that I've written, you know how passionate I can be. I'm sorry if I'm borish, but this subject isn't easy for anyone. I want to thank you just for reading! As always I appreciate all of your feedback (good or bad)! I'm always looking for constructive criticism... but, HEY... I wouldn't say no to a metaphorical pat on the back either ;)...
Again
Thank you!
-S
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Lets Talk Tablets. I love them, but...
Recently I've been shopping around. I'm no where near close to buying something. First I need more money ;). But I always love saturating myself with knowledge about the field of electronics. C|net has always seemed like the perfect place for the reviews of the top products, and I most often agree with them. So I looked at about 15 of the leading tablets.
When I was comparing these tablets, C|net kept saying "But you can often find a better value in a full fledged laptop. So I spent some time looking at laptops... They lied! Sure, laptops can be much more efficient when it comes to power, but the price ranges just do not match up! So I went back to the tablets.
Thank god for tablets, or we would all be playing angry birds with a damn touch-pad mouse or on our 2.5" screen iPhones. But the more I play around with them, the more I wonder why none of the companies making them have had the balls to make a one-size fits all tablet that's actually amazing?
The market is extremely well balanced. When one product falls behind even a little bit, the competitors outclass them by leaps and bounds. Even the iPad is susceptible to this competitive market. But what I've come to suspect is that these companies are HOLDING OUT ON US.
There are two questions I ask when I'm looking at a tablet. The first is, "How functional is it?" Does it have good specs and features? Is the OS nice and can it be updated? With Android there is almost always at least one major problem. Either it's $200 too expensive, or it's missing some major feature like a camera, expandable memory, or the newest version of android. The Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 is very good in these respects. However, it's really confusing that this tablet is a year newer but has worse hardware than the Tab 7.0 plus! It's worse in most respects to it's predecessor, except for it's updated OS. When it comes to functionality, the iPad reins supreme. It doesn't have expandable memory, but it makes up for it with the nearly flawless iOS and the whole apple package (apps, itunes, apple store).
The second question I ask is, "How comfortable is it to use?" When I hold an iPad, I feel like I'm going to drop the damn thing. That 10" monster is impossible to type on unless you put it down and use both hands. It's great for watching movies and playing games, but it's heavy and the new ones get super hot! All of this really wears your hand out after a few mins. So, that is where the 7" tablets come in!
I love this size! It's pretty much perfect. The tablets are lighter, have better battery life, and are always cheaper. Even the clunky Kindle Fire is really comfortable to use! The Google nexus is pretty much the most comfortable tablet I've ever held. (Seriously, if you ever see one, pick it up!... then just make sure to wipe the drool off your chin.) The nexus is at an amazing price too! But, unfortunately, it does lack a few features. I simply don't know why things like an expandable memory slot should mean the difference between a $200-$300 tablet and a $400-$500 tablet!
What I want:
-An apple or android tablet that is a comfortable 7" tablet so I can hold it while typing with my thumbs.
-It should have an operating system that's not just a version of android that's been overhauled and rendered half as useful (like the nook or kindle fire) and needs to be up-to-date and/or updatable.
-I want at least one decent camera. I don't need a rear-facing camera. I'd rather see what I'm taking a picture of than be able to do video chats. A flash would be great too.
-I'd like expandable memory but don't absolutely need it.
Right now the only thing that seems to be holding people back is putting all of those features into a tablet that's around the $250 price range. Right now for $250 you can get a B+. For $400 you can get an A-, and for $500 you can get an A. But there is no A+ on the market right now. If anyone were to ever do it, I'm assuming it will be Apple. But, I hate to say it, we haven't seen a decent product come out of the company since Steve Jobs passed. And we know, even if that rumored iPad Mini ever does come out, the price difference to the full iPad is probably going to be negligible.
Lets hope that the new iPhone is amazing, or that apple does something impressive in the next few months. Even though it literally became the most valuable company ever this past week, the future does not promise smooth sailing.
But that's another story.
When I was comparing these tablets, C|net kept saying "But you can often find a better value in a full fledged laptop. So I spent some time looking at laptops... They lied! Sure, laptops can be much more efficient when it comes to power, but the price ranges just do not match up! So I went back to the tablets.
Thank god for tablets, or we would all be playing angry birds with a damn touch-pad mouse or on our 2.5" screen iPhones. But the more I play around with them, the more I wonder why none of the companies making them have had the balls to make a one-size fits all tablet that's actually amazing?
The market is extremely well balanced. When one product falls behind even a little bit, the competitors outclass them by leaps and bounds. Even the iPad is susceptible to this competitive market. But what I've come to suspect is that these companies are HOLDING OUT ON US.
There are two questions I ask when I'm looking at a tablet. The first is, "How functional is it?" Does it have good specs and features? Is the OS nice and can it be updated? With Android there is almost always at least one major problem. Either it's $200 too expensive, or it's missing some major feature like a camera, expandable memory, or the newest version of android. The Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 is very good in these respects. However, it's really confusing that this tablet is a year newer but has worse hardware than the Tab 7.0 plus! It's worse in most respects to it's predecessor, except for it's updated OS. When it comes to functionality, the iPad reins supreme. It doesn't have expandable memory, but it makes up for it with the nearly flawless iOS and the whole apple package (apps, itunes, apple store).
The second question I ask is, "How comfortable is it to use?" When I hold an iPad, I feel like I'm going to drop the damn thing. That 10" monster is impossible to type on unless you put it down and use both hands. It's great for watching movies and playing games, but it's heavy and the new ones get super hot! All of this really wears your hand out after a few mins. So, that is where the 7" tablets come in!
I love this size! It's pretty much perfect. The tablets are lighter, have better battery life, and are always cheaper. Even the clunky Kindle Fire is really comfortable to use! The Google nexus is pretty much the most comfortable tablet I've ever held. (Seriously, if you ever see one, pick it up!... then just make sure to wipe the drool off your chin.) The nexus is at an amazing price too! But, unfortunately, it does lack a few features. I simply don't know why things like an expandable memory slot should mean the difference between a $200-$300 tablet and a $400-$500 tablet!
What I want:
-An apple or android tablet that is a comfortable 7" tablet so I can hold it while typing with my thumbs.
-It should have an operating system that's not just a version of android that's been overhauled and rendered half as useful (like the nook or kindle fire) and needs to be up-to-date and/or updatable.
-I want at least one decent camera. I don't need a rear-facing camera. I'd rather see what I'm taking a picture of than be able to do video chats. A flash would be great too.
-I'd like expandable memory but don't absolutely need it.
Right now the only thing that seems to be holding people back is putting all of those features into a tablet that's around the $250 price range. Right now for $250 you can get a B+. For $400 you can get an A-, and for $500 you can get an A. But there is no A+ on the market right now. If anyone were to ever do it, I'm assuming it will be Apple. But, I hate to say it, we haven't seen a decent product come out of the company since Steve Jobs passed. And we know, even if that rumored iPad Mini ever does come out, the price difference to the full iPad is probably going to be negligible.
Lets hope that the new iPhone is amazing, or that apple does something impressive in the next few months. Even though it literally became the most valuable company ever this past week, the future does not promise smooth sailing.
But that's another story.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
LGBT Support.
For those of you who do not know, I am friends with a big chunk of the Lancaster gay community. They're all great, and a lot of fun! One of my closest friends is sort of the social hub for hundreds of locals who are interested in clubs, drinking, parties, and classy affairs. If you know me, you are probably aware of this. But you might also wonder how the hell a straight, low class, fashion-less guy like me fits into this scene. From what I can tell, not very well!... But they seem to accept me and I just do my best to fit in and have fun.
Anyway, within the last few years the subject of LGBT rights has seemed to evolve quite a bit. Especially in the news. Support for the LGBT community has grown slightly and the subject doesn't seem to be so taboo in the media. This is great! I feel that we are very close to constitutional amendments, or at least federal laws which protect the rights of everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. But just because support for LGBT almost seems to be on the winning side of things, doesn't mean we're entitled to do or say whatever we want.
As humans we like to group together in the face of conflict. Unfortunately, we much prefer to group together on the side that's winning. This is especially true for us Americans. The cliche of a group of kids forming a circle around a fight and cheering the bad guy comes to mind. Yeah, that's often dramatized on TV and in movies. But the only thing that I see in those fictional fights as being completely inaccurate is the perfect circle that kids form and the fact that the person who's winning is always the bad guy. People still like to stand back and watch a fight, and it's easiest to cheer on the winner. So in the fight for LGBT rights, it's almost like LGBT is winning and beating the crap out of the homophobes while the general public stands around and cheers them on. Now that homosexuality is such a common and open subject and the LGBT community is more free to express themselves in public, the homophobes feel more threatened than ever.
If you learned anything from sesame street, you probably learned that you can rationalize with anyone in a disagreement and come to a compromise. Well, that's not really true. Unless we can sit every single person in the world down to have a completely open debate with each other, a simple compromise that's agreed upon by both parties is just not gonna happen.
Don't get me wrong, the issue is definitely not black and white. There needs to be some compromises. But, so far the only compromise that's taken place has been to pretty much leave things the way they are unless there's a chance of a lawsuit. This has a lot to do with how complicated the issue is. But until we come up with something that everyone agrees on, it's just going to be a fight over beliefs.
Beliefs are strong and sometimes impossible to change. Homophobia is something that was taught to millions of people from birth. That's why this fight is probably not going to be over in our lifetimes, let alone in a few years. When the loosing side has strong beliefs and conviction things might start to get ridiculous. So in order to get by and not waste our lives fighting relentlessly while gaining little or no ground, we need to work at this slowly with strong, well timed advances.
And that's how I feel about that... ONTO the current issue...
Recently there have been blow-ups about what companies and organizations are on which side. Well guess what, until the fight is over, which it might never be, there are always going to be people in positions of power who will express their open support for one side or the other!
Oreo came out with an image of a rainbow filled Oreo with the words "JUNE 25 | PRIDE". This was part of their centennial celebration, but is an obvious nod to LGBT support by Oreo and, by association it's owner Kraft. Immediately the homophobes were in uproar and thousands began to organize a boycott of the brand. Not only is this a weak push by the homophobes, but it was a completely shallow idea. This is very much an intellectual battle, these kinds of scare tactics are about as effective as a declawed cat taking a swipe at your hand.
BUT on the other side of the fight, we have Chick Fil A (A devout christian corporation) providing food for the Pennsylvania Family Institute (a severely anti-gay company). And there's also Boy Scouts of America having a unanimous vote to uphold their policies of no gays ever. And as with the Oreo issue, we now have an uproar, but this time it's obviously on the pro-LGBT side.
Attention all LGBT supporters:
Have we learned nothing? Little fights and protests against private companies and organizations are pretty much useless. Even if you were to shut a company like Chick Fil A down for good, support for the other side would only grow. Changing their mind is a pretty good goal, but it's probably not going to happen. What we need to do is let the homophobes be homophobes. If they don't get any attention then maybe they'll wonder what they're doing wrong, or even start to let their guard down. A fast food chain and a weird all-boy "ethics" training club are harmless. We need to fight organizations like Pennsylvania Family Institute. We need to take down organizations of people who are doing nothing but spreading hate and making strong advances in this fight.
Stop trying to organize a boycott of Chick Fil A, and stop sending hate mail to the Boy Scouts. If you want a time wasting pass-time where you worry about something pointless, then watching sports is a hell of a lot more interesting. If you don't like them, then don't support them. But I, for one, love fried chicken and waffle fries. The Boy Scouts was never something that I loved, except for pinewood derbies, so I'm not gonna go out and burn my old uniforms or anything.
Please stop filling up my Facebook newsfeeds with complete lists of all the companies that the other side should boycott in the interest of consistency. We need to pick our battles here.
Anyway, within the last few years the subject of LGBT rights has seemed to evolve quite a bit. Especially in the news. Support for the LGBT community has grown slightly and the subject doesn't seem to be so taboo in the media. This is great! I feel that we are very close to constitutional amendments, or at least federal laws which protect the rights of everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. But just because support for LGBT almost seems to be on the winning side of things, doesn't mean we're entitled to do or say whatever we want.
As humans we like to group together in the face of conflict. Unfortunately, we much prefer to group together on the side that's winning. This is especially true for us Americans. The cliche of a group of kids forming a circle around a fight and cheering the bad guy comes to mind. Yeah, that's often dramatized on TV and in movies. But the only thing that I see in those fictional fights as being completely inaccurate is the perfect circle that kids form and the fact that the person who's winning is always the bad guy. People still like to stand back and watch a fight, and it's easiest to cheer on the winner. So in the fight for LGBT rights, it's almost like LGBT is winning and beating the crap out of the homophobes while the general public stands around and cheers them on. Now that homosexuality is such a common and open subject and the LGBT community is more free to express themselves in public, the homophobes feel more threatened than ever.
If you learned anything from sesame street, you probably learned that you can rationalize with anyone in a disagreement and come to a compromise. Well, that's not really true. Unless we can sit every single person in the world down to have a completely open debate with each other, a simple compromise that's agreed upon by both parties is just not gonna happen.
Don't get me wrong, the issue is definitely not black and white. There needs to be some compromises. But, so far the only compromise that's taken place has been to pretty much leave things the way they are unless there's a chance of a lawsuit. This has a lot to do with how complicated the issue is. But until we come up with something that everyone agrees on, it's just going to be a fight over beliefs.
Beliefs are strong and sometimes impossible to change. Homophobia is something that was taught to millions of people from birth. That's why this fight is probably not going to be over in our lifetimes, let alone in a few years. When the loosing side has strong beliefs and conviction things might start to get ridiculous. So in order to get by and not waste our lives fighting relentlessly while gaining little or no ground, we need to work at this slowly with strong, well timed advances.
And that's how I feel about that... ONTO the current issue...
Recently there have been blow-ups about what companies and organizations are on which side. Well guess what, until the fight is over, which it might never be, there are always going to be people in positions of power who will express their open support for one side or the other!
Oreo came out with an image of a rainbow filled Oreo with the words "JUNE 25 | PRIDE". This was part of their centennial celebration, but is an obvious nod to LGBT support by Oreo and, by association it's owner Kraft. Immediately the homophobes were in uproar and thousands began to organize a boycott of the brand. Not only is this a weak push by the homophobes, but it was a completely shallow idea. This is very much an intellectual battle, these kinds of scare tactics are about as effective as a declawed cat taking a swipe at your hand.
BUT on the other side of the fight, we have Chick Fil A (A devout christian corporation) providing food for the Pennsylvania Family Institute (a severely anti-gay company). And there's also Boy Scouts of America having a unanimous vote to uphold their policies of no gays ever. And as with the Oreo issue, we now have an uproar, but this time it's obviously on the pro-LGBT side.
Attention all LGBT supporters:
Have we learned nothing? Little fights and protests against private companies and organizations are pretty much useless. Even if you were to shut a company like Chick Fil A down for good, support for the other side would only grow. Changing their mind is a pretty good goal, but it's probably not going to happen. What we need to do is let the homophobes be homophobes. If they don't get any attention then maybe they'll wonder what they're doing wrong, or even start to let their guard down. A fast food chain and a weird all-boy "ethics" training club are harmless. We need to fight organizations like Pennsylvania Family Institute. We need to take down organizations of people who are doing nothing but spreading hate and making strong advances in this fight.
Stop trying to organize a boycott of Chick Fil A, and stop sending hate mail to the Boy Scouts. If you want a time wasting pass-time where you worry about something pointless, then watching sports is a hell of a lot more interesting. If you don't like them, then don't support them. But I, for one, love fried chicken and waffle fries. The Boy Scouts was never something that I loved, except for pinewood derbies, so I'm not gonna go out and burn my old uniforms or anything.
Please stop filling up my Facebook newsfeeds with complete lists of all the companies that the other side should boycott in the interest of consistency. We need to pick our battles here.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Listening to your own advise.
Lately I've been feeling guilty for how angry I get at people who I don't even know. If you were to follow me around you would think I was crazy, but that would be the case if you were to follow anyone around for too long. So instead of feeling frustrated about these things for much longer, I've decided to return to my blog to write about one or two issues.
Okay, as everyone knows, Jerry Sandusky has been found guilty of 45 out of 48 counts of child sex abuse. I feel that Sandusky was almost certainly guilty and belongs in prison. However, I feel that the trial was way too short to be considered anything close to "justice". One argument is that the trial needed to be short to ease the pain of the victims and their families. But their pain hasn't stopped many families from letting their hate get the best of them. But that's all besides the point. Somehow the prosecution was able to convince 12 "objective" jury members that Sandusky was guilty of 45 allegations in 8 days. If you break it down statistically, that means that the prosecution proved one allegation about every hour that the trial took place.
The amazing thing about this country is that, in theory, our judicial system assumes that a person is innocent unless proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So even a man like Sandusky, who is almost certainly guilty of one if not all of the things in which he was accused, gets a fair trial and a chance to prove himself innocent. The unfortunate part is that judgement is what it all comes down to, and given enough time and evidence, you could practically convince anybody of anything. So if the defense had had more time to form their case, Sandusky would have only been found guilty of a fraction of those allegations.
But that's just my theory... I'm frustrated that the trial was so fast and so extremely one-sided. That has nothing to do with Sandusky's actual guilt.
The problem I see is that this whole thing turned into a witch hunt the moment that the news broke. Sure, we're talking about bringing justice to men who were sexually assaulted as children, and that is an extremely taboo subject, but that does not give anyone the right to go around attacking anyone that they believe to be part of the problem.
Joe Paterno was killed by the Penn State Board of Trustees. It's as simple as that. Not only was his image used as the face of the entire scandal by the press, but he was disgraced and brought to shame by the school that he had devoted 61 years of service to by individuals who were more guilty of covering up evidence than he ever was. Many of those individuals still have their jobs, and more importantly, their lives. Mike McQueary, the man who was the key witness in what Joe Paterno may or may not have reported to the police still has his job with Penn State. Who's more guilty in that case? Joe Pa took the fall because everyone knew his name and Penn State was desperate. I commend the students who protested against their own school over what happened.
That statement can be rephrased in a thousand different ways to mean the same thing. Basically, it not uncommon for a group of people to be doing something that's wrong without realizing or caring. It doesn't feel wrong because of the way our social mentality works as human beings. It's extremely easy to feel comfortable with something just by quickly verifying that you're not the only one. Bullying is very often a result of this behavior. I site the recent video that has surfaced of a bus monitor being bullied by a bus full of kids. If you haven't watched the video, do so, and prey that you can't remember a time when you were one of those bullies!!!
In the Sandusky case, I feel that people are resulting to bullying without even realizing it. The issues are disturbing to many people and being upset about everything is pretty much the only way that anyone can feel. However, when you're being a bully, you're not upset. When someone is being a bully, they're enjoying themselves. You're often ganging up with other people in order to confront something you dislike for whatever reason. It's a way of making yourselves feel better through the immediate approval of others around you.
When I saw Sandusky's lawyer take the mic on the night after the verdict was given, I was watching a crowd of bullies! Sandusky's lawyer had done nothing wrong except take part in a system that, according to almost everyone in that crowd, had worked. Somebody had to be Sandusky's lawyer. It's the only way that the system can works! The crowd, surprisingly, never openly booed the man, but several times resorted to cheering his failures and many individuals ended up yelling at him and interrupting him while he spoke. This was not a sporting event! This was not anywhere that cheers were acceptable! Should people be happy that Sandusky was found guilty? Sure, but justice is not about making each other feel better by punishing someone who you feel did something wrong. THAT is known as bullying.
Thank you for reading.
PS: sorry for the length and any editing errors. It's 2:30am, I've done the best editing that I could at the moment but I need sleep. So I'm gonna publish this and then re-read tomorrow morning.
______________________________________________________________
Okay, as everyone knows, Jerry Sandusky has been found guilty of 45 out of 48 counts of child sex abuse. I feel that Sandusky was almost certainly guilty and belongs in prison. However, I feel that the trial was way too short to be considered anything close to "justice". One argument is that the trial needed to be short to ease the pain of the victims and their families. But their pain hasn't stopped many families from letting their hate get the best of them. But that's all besides the point. Somehow the prosecution was able to convince 12 "objective" jury members that Sandusky was guilty of 45 allegations in 8 days. If you break it down statistically, that means that the prosecution proved one allegation about every hour that the trial took place.
The amazing thing about this country is that, in theory, our judicial system assumes that a person is innocent unless proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So even a man like Sandusky, who is almost certainly guilty of one if not all of the things in which he was accused, gets a fair trial and a chance to prove himself innocent. The unfortunate part is that judgement is what it all comes down to, and given enough time and evidence, you could practically convince anybody of anything. So if the defense had had more time to form their case, Sandusky would have only been found guilty of a fraction of those allegations.
But that's just my theory... I'm frustrated that the trial was so fast and so extremely one-sided. That has nothing to do with Sandusky's actual guilt.
The problem I see is that this whole thing turned into a witch hunt the moment that the news broke. Sure, we're talking about bringing justice to men who were sexually assaulted as children, and that is an extremely taboo subject, but that does not give anyone the right to go around attacking anyone that they believe to be part of the problem.
Joe Paterno was killed by the Penn State Board of Trustees. It's as simple as that. Not only was his image used as the face of the entire scandal by the press, but he was disgraced and brought to shame by the school that he had devoted 61 years of service to by individuals who were more guilty of covering up evidence than he ever was. Many of those individuals still have their jobs, and more importantly, their lives. Mike McQueary, the man who was the key witness in what Joe Paterno may or may not have reported to the police still has his job with Penn State. Who's more guilty in that case? Joe Pa took the fall because everyone knew his name and Penn State was desperate. I commend the students who protested against their own school over what happened.
______________________________________________________________
"Do what's right, not what's popular."
That statement can be rephrased in a thousand different ways to mean the same thing. Basically, it not uncommon for a group of people to be doing something that's wrong without realizing or caring. It doesn't feel wrong because of the way our social mentality works as human beings. It's extremely easy to feel comfortable with something just by quickly verifying that you're not the only one. Bullying is very often a result of this behavior. I site the recent video that has surfaced of a bus monitor being bullied by a bus full of kids. If you haven't watched the video, do so, and prey that you can't remember a time when you were one of those bullies!!!
In the Sandusky case, I feel that people are resulting to bullying without even realizing it. The issues are disturbing to many people and being upset about everything is pretty much the only way that anyone can feel. However, when you're being a bully, you're not upset. When someone is being a bully, they're enjoying themselves. You're often ganging up with other people in order to confront something you dislike for whatever reason. It's a way of making yourselves feel better through the immediate approval of others around you.
When I saw Sandusky's lawyer take the mic on the night after the verdict was given, I was watching a crowd of bullies! Sandusky's lawyer had done nothing wrong except take part in a system that, according to almost everyone in that crowd, had worked. Somebody had to be Sandusky's lawyer. It's the only way that the system can works! The crowd, surprisingly, never openly booed the man, but several times resorted to cheering his failures and many individuals ended up yelling at him and interrupting him while he spoke. This was not a sporting event! This was not anywhere that cheers were acceptable! Should people be happy that Sandusky was found guilty? Sure, but justice is not about making each other feel better by punishing someone who you feel did something wrong. THAT is known as bullying.
Thank you for reading.
PS: sorry for the length and any editing errors. It's 2:30am, I've done the best editing that I could at the moment but I need sleep. So I'm gonna publish this and then re-read tomorrow morning.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Self criticism.
A list of thoughts that are swirling around in my head. They are all related but I can't line them up into a coherent idea.
#1. Why is it that we can't live without an extreme amount of self criticism. In my mind self criticism and "productiveness" go hand in hand, but not for a healthy reason.
#2. What is productiveness anyway? In nature, a wild animal has a productive day when they find something good to eat and don't die. A wild animal's main concern is built into it's instincts, and reproduction is a driving force.
#3. So when did we suddenly become so civilized that sex is just something you do for fun unless you're planning on having a family.
#4. Animals know what stress is. A dog or cat feels stressed when they think their life is in danger or when they might get hurt. A person has a "LIFE CHANGING" event when they go through these events. We put so much gravity in the mundane that our mortality has to JUMP OUT AT US for us to take any notice, and when it does, we get featured on a TV show about surviving.
#5. Are we missing something here? We worry about so much imaginary shit that we literally can't tell the difference between "reality" and shit that we just make up. Having a home isn't reality, it's shit that we made up. Granted, we made it up a LONG time ago and many scientists feel that shelter is a major need for a human being to survive. But there are so many things that we surround ourselves with, things that we interact with our entire lives, things that we think of as "ours" or a "necessity" when in the real world it's all just shit people made up because they made life "better"
#6. At one time we dreamed that we were going to start colonizing the universe. When people started exploring the space around earth, we really got excited. It's still pretty damn exciting to me, but most people just don't share the same interest.
It made me depressed to learn that so many people are now struggling to find work after the shuttle program was shut down. We are facing hard times, but I feel that it's all self inflicted. There's nothing wrong with this earth! We need to stop blaming stuff that we can't control for things that we caused ourselves. And pointing fingers doesn't really help either.
#7. Politics are bullshit. And as many have said, anyone who is a good politician should NOT lead a country. It's just too bad that we set ourselves up for failure there.
#1. Why is it that we can't live without an extreme amount of self criticism. In my mind self criticism and "productiveness" go hand in hand, but not for a healthy reason.
#2. What is productiveness anyway? In nature, a wild animal has a productive day when they find something good to eat and don't die. A wild animal's main concern is built into it's instincts, and reproduction is a driving force.
#3. So when did we suddenly become so civilized that sex is just something you do for fun unless you're planning on having a family.
#4. Animals know what stress is. A dog or cat feels stressed when they think their life is in danger or when they might get hurt. A person has a "LIFE CHANGING" event when they go through these events. We put so much gravity in the mundane that our mortality has to JUMP OUT AT US for us to take any notice, and when it does, we get featured on a TV show about surviving.
#5. Are we missing something here? We worry about so much imaginary shit that we literally can't tell the difference between "reality" and shit that we just make up. Having a home isn't reality, it's shit that we made up. Granted, we made it up a LONG time ago and many scientists feel that shelter is a major need for a human being to survive. But there are so many things that we surround ourselves with, things that we interact with our entire lives, things that we think of as "ours" or a "necessity" when in the real world it's all just shit people made up because they made life "better"
#6. At one time we dreamed that we were going to start colonizing the universe. When people started exploring the space around earth, we really got excited. It's still pretty damn exciting to me, but most people just don't share the same interest.
It made me depressed to learn that so many people are now struggling to find work after the shuttle program was shut down. We are facing hard times, but I feel that it's all self inflicted. There's nothing wrong with this earth! We need to stop blaming stuff that we can't control for things that we caused ourselves. And pointing fingers doesn't really help either.
#7. Politics are bullshit. And as many have said, anyone who is a good politician should NOT lead a country. It's just too bad that we set ourselves up for failure there.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Views on the Trayvon Martin muder case
I'm going to admit right now that I don't know as much as I could about the Treyvon Martin murder case. I've followed it a little bit since the day it happened, but haven't really heard any new information about it since then. But I have seen people's reactions to it and, as always, it's kind of ridiculous to see how people are reacting.
Most people who I know might say something like "What George Zimmerman did was horrible and there's very little doubt that he was acting on racial prejudice." and "He should have been arrested on sight." I would agree and I fully understand why people have gotten upset, even those who have nothing to do with any of it. But I feel as if a whole nation has suddenly taken up a cause (like we do so often) just because it's the popular thing to talk about. And it's even worse when we so unanimously seek blood!
I find it scary that a whole nation has suddenly risen up and is now calling for Zimmerman's head on a pike! Yes, he deserves justice. But that's just it! We have a justice system that has to do it's job! If it does it's job poorly then we have a right to complain and things should be changed. But as far as this case goes we really need to pick our battles. Things have to be taken care of one thing at a time. I feel like people need to calm down and stop criticizing a system that hasn't even had time to do it's job. And part of that job is investigating the people involved, and the exact events at the scene of the crime.
Many people feel that the history of these two people are irrelevant to the case. But, in my opinion, there is absolutely no reason why looking at their history is a bad thing. As for Zimmerman, if it proves that he was extremely racist and violent in nature, then it gives fuel to the prosecution. But, theoretically, if he was a peaceful man with no racism that anyone was aware of, then it's going to be a bit harder case to prove. But having all of the information you can is pretty much the only way to prove anything. And there's a possibility that it might prove things that nobody want's to believe.
I think that if we need to look into Zimmerman's past then we should look into Trayvon's past too. Nobody want's to hear that they might find something to prove that Trayvon was somehow not the perfect, upstanding youth that he's so far been portrayed as. And personally, I have no idea who he was. Obviously, he is dead and it's disrespectful to criticize him or dig around to find the negative aspects of his life. But that doesn't mean that we should just assume that he was a perfect saint. He was a kid, and there's no denying that kids don't always act rationally. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, understanding exactly who he was may help explain more of what may have happened on the night of his death!
But what I'm really interested in (as I've said before) is what actually happened at the scene. What do witnesses say? What does the evidence say? Is there any way that we can know exactly how the incident unfolded? So far I've heard very little that can prove any concrete facts. 911 calls are a very good lead, but a 911 call leaves a lot to the imagination.
It's true that looking into these people's pasts and knowing exactly what happened at the scene of the crime will not change anything that actually happened. A young man is dead and it's a tragic loss. But, unfortunately, that fact does not mean that proper insight would not change anything that matters. What matters right now is that the correct people have their facts straight before we sentence a man to death (which is a real possibility in Florida). We cannot be a country that succumbs to Mob Rule.
Edit:
This video by TYT is relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=F2yMGLHtFGk
Most people who I know might say something like "What George Zimmerman did was horrible and there's very little doubt that he was acting on racial prejudice." and "He should have been arrested on sight." I would agree and I fully understand why people have gotten upset, even those who have nothing to do with any of it. But I feel as if a whole nation has suddenly taken up a cause (like we do so often) just because it's the popular thing to talk about. And it's even worse when we so unanimously seek blood!
I find it scary that a whole nation has suddenly risen up and is now calling for Zimmerman's head on a pike! Yes, he deserves justice. But that's just it! We have a justice system that has to do it's job! If it does it's job poorly then we have a right to complain and things should be changed. But as far as this case goes we really need to pick our battles. Things have to be taken care of one thing at a time. I feel like people need to calm down and stop criticizing a system that hasn't even had time to do it's job. And part of that job is investigating the people involved, and the exact events at the scene of the crime.
Many people feel that the history of these two people are irrelevant to the case. But, in my opinion, there is absolutely no reason why looking at their history is a bad thing. As for Zimmerman, if it proves that he was extremely racist and violent in nature, then it gives fuel to the prosecution. But, theoretically, if he was a peaceful man with no racism that anyone was aware of, then it's going to be a bit harder case to prove. But having all of the information you can is pretty much the only way to prove anything. And there's a possibility that it might prove things that nobody want's to believe.
I think that if we need to look into Zimmerman's past then we should look into Trayvon's past too. Nobody want's to hear that they might find something to prove that Trayvon was somehow not the perfect, upstanding youth that he's so far been portrayed as. And personally, I have no idea who he was. Obviously, he is dead and it's disrespectful to criticize him or dig around to find the negative aspects of his life. But that doesn't mean that we should just assume that he was a perfect saint. He was a kid, and there's no denying that kids don't always act rationally. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, understanding exactly who he was may help explain more of what may have happened on the night of his death!
But what I'm really interested in (as I've said before) is what actually happened at the scene. What do witnesses say? What does the evidence say? Is there any way that we can know exactly how the incident unfolded? So far I've heard very little that can prove any concrete facts. 911 calls are a very good lead, but a 911 call leaves a lot to the imagination.
It's true that looking into these people's pasts and knowing exactly what happened at the scene of the crime will not change anything that actually happened. A young man is dead and it's a tragic loss. But, unfortunately, that fact does not mean that proper insight would not change anything that matters. What matters right now is that the correct people have their facts straight before we sentence a man to death (which is a real possibility in Florida). We cannot be a country that succumbs to Mob Rule.
Edit:
This video by TYT is relevant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=F2yMGLHtFGk
Monday, March 19, 2012
I hate Hipsters (once and done)
I'm posting this but I'm still sort of working on it. So please excuse the choppy ideas, please excuse any grammar mistakes and please excuse my dear Aunt Sally. It was her birthday yesterday. (no seriously)
I think it's safe to say that we've all heard of hipsters. Most of us have learned to hate them. Many hipsters don't even realize that it's what they are. In truth a hipster would never admit to being a hipster, but I think we are all a little bit hipster sometimes. I honestly don't see TRUE hipsters that often. But you might not see most of them for what they were unless you tried to talk to them. Irony, ironically is a big theme in this post and not just because hipsters think that everything they do is ironic. It's an Irony Inception!... Fuck Hipsters... you ain't ironic... you're pointless... you're like vain Muppets but without a billion dollar franchise!!! Ok... that was my little outburst, and now I'm gonna try to be rational.
The most common opinion that seems to be held by hipsters is that they're better than others because of what they are doing. And this can be said of most extreme views. The general consensus is that hipsters are undisciplined, immature, and childish in their actions. If hipsters are childish, it means that they are selfish and ignorant which means that they're susceptible to hate which results in conflict. I think hipsters were born out of misguided messages being confused by the human instinct to compete.
It's kind of ironic that many hipsters dress and try to act so much like the hippies. Our generation was the one to spawn the hipster, with their selfishness and hate, and yet our elders constantly hammered us over and over with the idea that everyone is equal. Many of us were the children of hippies and the baby-boomer generation. It's easy to see that most of our elders are people who lived and grew up in the 60s. Whether they like it or not, most of our elders were impacted in a major way by the ideals of the hippies. The 60s were all about the hippies! Color TV was getting big and the country was evolving a whole lot. Capitalism was in full swing and mass media as we know it today was still coming into it's own.
One result of the hippies, the 60s, and the evolution of mass media was the refinement and implementation of public broadcasting in America, climaxing with the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. In 1968 a show came on the air known as Mr Rodgers Neighborhood. Fred Rodgers, a man sometimes blamed for the problems of our generation, was sort of a hippie himself. He was an educator, a song writer, an author, and a minister. On his show he taught all about peace and love, but he also taught that we are all special. "Everybody is special" is not originally Mr Rodgers' idea, and it's romantic nature has held a lot of appeal for some time. But, as we all know, the hipsters love to be special. Some think that the idea spawned an entire generation who feels a sense of entitlement, but this can't be true.
In my opinion, children develop personalities based on the mistakes that were made by their role models being compared to the ideals that said role-models impressed onto them. This would explain why every generation came out more effed up than the last! It's really confusing when something like, "Love, peace and equality are the key to happiness!" is what our role models are teaching us while they are also telling us that we're special and while they themselves are guilty of hate and ignorance! But I believe that there are extremes in all aspects of society, and hipsters are just one of them. The reasons that we have hipsters are very complicated and can't be simplified by a few sentences, but lets just remember that they're, for the most part, harmless. If we didn't have them, we wouldn't have much to poke fun at. Our generation would just seem sad and under-developed. Unfortunately, for our elders more than anything, human nature is just too powerful to overcome with flowers and protest rallies.
Woodstock was said to be the hippies' big "told you so", and nobody can deny that it really helped their cause. But every attempt to recreate a similar event has failed. Maybe what Woodstock really taught us was that you need loud music and lots of drugs in order to ignore the stupid shit around you and just get on with living. A lot of our generation has adopted a life style based around this and maybe they're not all wrong, but drugs and loud music can't solve everything. To many, drugs are the cause of most major problems. Maybe the problems caused by drugs are just extremes, and again, there are always extremes in any situation. But drugs seem do a whole lot that throws any sort of balance out the window. These extremes have created gateways for a lot of hate, whether it's founded or not. But because many drugs were so new and unstudied when the hippies started experimenting with them, people who hate the hippies have a lot of concrete evidence against them. More evidence than those of us who hate our hipsters.
Ever since the 60s, the idea has been going around that the hippies failed. Many think that their ideas were ill-founded or childish. Obviously anyone who seriously thought that anarchy was a legitimate option for society was misguided. But as the hippies grew up, settled down, and learned some discipline with experience, they didn't necessarily grow out of their ideals. If you look around you'll find hippie ideals in almost every form of media. How ironic that hippies were anti-establishment and anti-big-business and yet the establishments of corporate media have adopted "peace, love and happiness" as the ideal message to send to their audiences. The fact that our generation is practically being saturated by media, marketing, and mixed messages isn't really proving to be helpful to our growth and development. And this is why I feel that the combination of any or all of these problems explains why we have hipsters.
I think it's safe to say that we've all heard of hipsters. Most of us have learned to hate them. Many hipsters don't even realize that it's what they are. In truth a hipster would never admit to being a hipster, but I think we are all a little bit hipster sometimes. I honestly don't see TRUE hipsters that often. But you might not see most of them for what they were unless you tried to talk to them. Irony, ironically is a big theme in this post and not just because hipsters think that everything they do is ironic. It's an Irony Inception!... Fuck Hipsters... you ain't ironic... you're pointless... you're like vain Muppets but without a billion dollar franchise!!! Ok... that was my little outburst, and now I'm gonna try to be rational.
The most common opinion that seems to be held by hipsters is that they're better than others because of what they are doing. And this can be said of most extreme views. The general consensus is that hipsters are undisciplined, immature, and childish in their actions. If hipsters are childish, it means that they are selfish and ignorant which means that they're susceptible to hate which results in conflict. I think hipsters were born out of misguided messages being confused by the human instinct to compete.
It's kind of ironic that many hipsters dress and try to act so much like the hippies. Our generation was the one to spawn the hipster, with their selfishness and hate, and yet our elders constantly hammered us over and over with the idea that everyone is equal. Many of us were the children of hippies and the baby-boomer generation. It's easy to see that most of our elders are people who lived and grew up in the 60s. Whether they like it or not, most of our elders were impacted in a major way by the ideals of the hippies. The 60s were all about the hippies! Color TV was getting big and the country was evolving a whole lot. Capitalism was in full swing and mass media as we know it today was still coming into it's own.
One result of the hippies, the 60s, and the evolution of mass media was the refinement and implementation of public broadcasting in America, climaxing with the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. In 1968 a show came on the air known as Mr Rodgers Neighborhood. Fred Rodgers, a man sometimes blamed for the problems of our generation, was sort of a hippie himself. He was an educator, a song writer, an author, and a minister. On his show he taught all about peace and love, but he also taught that we are all special. "Everybody is special" is not originally Mr Rodgers' idea, and it's romantic nature has held a lot of appeal for some time. But, as we all know, the hipsters love to be special. Some think that the idea spawned an entire generation who feels a sense of entitlement, but this can't be true.
In my opinion, children develop personalities based on the mistakes that were made by their role models being compared to the ideals that said role-models impressed onto them. This would explain why every generation came out more effed up than the last! It's really confusing when something like, "Love, peace and equality are the key to happiness!" is what our role models are teaching us while they are also telling us that we're special and while they themselves are guilty of hate and ignorance! But I believe that there are extremes in all aspects of society, and hipsters are just one of them. The reasons that we have hipsters are very complicated and can't be simplified by a few sentences, but lets just remember that they're, for the most part, harmless. If we didn't have them, we wouldn't have much to poke fun at. Our generation would just seem sad and under-developed. Unfortunately, for our elders more than anything, human nature is just too powerful to overcome with flowers and protest rallies.
Woodstock was said to be the hippies' big "told you so", and nobody can deny that it really helped their cause. But every attempt to recreate a similar event has failed. Maybe what Woodstock really taught us was that you need loud music and lots of drugs in order to ignore the stupid shit around you and just get on with living. A lot of our generation has adopted a life style based around this and maybe they're not all wrong, but drugs and loud music can't solve everything. To many, drugs are the cause of most major problems. Maybe the problems caused by drugs are just extremes, and again, there are always extremes in any situation. But drugs seem do a whole lot that throws any sort of balance out the window. These extremes have created gateways for a lot of hate, whether it's founded or not. But because many drugs were so new and unstudied when the hippies started experimenting with them, people who hate the hippies have a lot of concrete evidence against them. More evidence than those of us who hate our hipsters.
...And good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding - ALBERT CAMUS, The Plague
Ever since the 60s, the idea has been going around that the hippies failed. Many think that their ideas were ill-founded or childish. Obviously anyone who seriously thought that anarchy was a legitimate option for society was misguided. But as the hippies grew up, settled down, and learned some discipline with experience, they didn't necessarily grow out of their ideals. If you look around you'll find hippie ideals in almost every form of media. How ironic that hippies were anti-establishment and anti-big-business and yet the establishments of corporate media have adopted "peace, love and happiness" as the ideal message to send to their audiences. The fact that our generation is practically being saturated by media, marketing, and mixed messages isn't really proving to be helpful to our growth and development. And this is why I feel that the combination of any or all of these problems explains why we have hipsters.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)