I was just thinking...
As I'm sure many of you know by now, the US Military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy, which prevented homosexuals from openly serving, ended yesterday, September 20. This was an enormous step in the gay rights movement.
A brief history on DADT: Don't Ask, Don't Tell was enacted December 21, 1993, and the congressional bill to end it was enacted in December 2010. In federal appeals court, on July 6, 2011, DADT was barred from further enforcement. On July 22, a certification was sent to Congress setting September 20 as the official end date. It was signed by all the necessary people: President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
So, what does the end of DADT mean? It means that homosexuals in the military now no longer have to hide their true selves. With such a major part of the federal government being the military ($663.8 billion. That's right, billion) it is a huge landmark for the government to be so accepting. Or, rather, to have stopped being so hateful. I think this is enormous for the US government, and here's why: The same-sex marriage issue has been a hot button issue for many years now. However, it shows no sign of being truly addressed on the national level. It appears as if same-sax marriage legalization will be a state government decision, at least based on the current political atmosphere. So, repealing DADT is just about the biggest thing the government could possibly do right now. Just about.
The other major gay rights issue that is on the table at the national level is the Defense of Marriage Act, or DoMA. DoMA defines marriage as between a man and woman, which is incorrect. It is possible that this could be repealed at some point in the near future, but I wouldn't hold your breath. So, for the time being, the repeal of DADT is the biggest victory for gay rights on the federal level. Congratulations!
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Dystopian Society
I was just thinking...
After way too long without having read it, I finally sat down and read Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. I've always been a fan of novels of dystopian society, and as a book-lover it was kind of silly that I wouldn't have read the one about burning books. But now I have! With my reading load this semester, this will probably be the last book I read for leisure this semester.
In any case, as far as dystopian novels are concerned, I've read just a few. I have a bunch on my list that I really do need to read, like Animal Farm, Brave New World, Atlas Shrugged, and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and Children of Men (I've seen the movies for these two). All I've read is Fahrenheit 451, Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Road, A Clockwork Orange and The Giver.
The five that I have read number my list of top novels I have ever read, and for good reason. They're all exceptionally well-written, and I apparently have an affinity for their subject matter. I'm not quite sure what it is that attracts me to this genre, but I can't get enough. I think I'm just really into messed up worlds, with messed up people, which would also explain my love for Chuck Palahniuk. Palahniuk's work has been described as "trangressive fiction," which I thoroughly enjoy because of my interest in fringe/alternative cultures. For this same reason, I also consider myself a fan of cult films. (I'm even taking a class this semester on the logics of cult films)
But I digress. Fahrenheit 451 was everything I wanted it to be. It was exciting, it presented such an alternative world, while still holding onto some parts of our own world. The irony of reading a book about a society that burns books didn't hurt my interest, either. Regularly, I would explore a book in entirety here, but I have decided to focus on one important aspect of their alternate world that I found, to say the least, amusing.
Fahrenheit 451 was published in 1953. I know this is simplifying it, but for our sake let us assume that it is around this time (it was) that televisions began to become more present in people's lives, particularly in their homes. The rise of television was a main point of criticism that Bradbury presents in this book. The protagonist, Guy Montag, has a wife, Mildred, who spends the majority of her time with her "family," which are understood to be television characters. In this society, people's parlors and living rooms have become legitimate "television rooms," as televisions can cover the entire wall, and multiple walls. (The Montag's have three walls with televisions installed) Mildred seems to be more involved in the life of these people on the walls than with her life with Montag. She is almost completely surrounded by the lives of the "parlor family," both literally and figuratively. Now here comes the part I find most interesting: The parlor family does not seem to be on a real show, with a plot for each episode or anything like that. It doesn't seem like there even are episodes. It appears (I could be wrong), that the parlor family is a live feed of these people's lives. Wait, doesn't that sound familiar? YES, YES IT DOES!
How Bradbury could have known about the direction of television towards reality TV is beyond me, but it does appear as if he has predicted it, maybe even more advanced than we have reached in 2011. The immersion that people have in television (reality television especially) is almost sickening at this point in our society, and people really do live through these people, the ones they see on these screens.
Although most people do not have television screens spanning the whole wall of every wall in a particular room, people do have access to television shows everywhere; be it on the actual TV, on their computers, or on their phones, TV is everywhere. I am just as guilty as the next guy for succumbing to the ethereal glow of the television, but I fully understand its significance as a sign for the depletion of our society. TV has spelled the downfall of books, (with a little help from the movies, also present on TV), and people, for the majority, are none-the-wiser for it. Sure, TV news is quick and accessible, so it has become easier to stay in the know, but knowledge from reading books, even novels, has greatly fallen. Many people today chose not to read because it is "easier" to just turn on the TV than to read a book. They also make the argument that if the book is really that good, they will wait until the movie comes out. That, my friends, is disgusting.
What have we become? Yes, we don't burn books, but they are shunned by a good portion of society. Like many other dystopian novels, our society has become dangerously close to what these books have "predicted." Is this what we really want? I don't think so! So, go read a book, turn off the TV, and repeal the PATRIOT Act.
After way too long without having read it, I finally sat down and read Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. I've always been a fan of novels of dystopian society, and as a book-lover it was kind of silly that I wouldn't have read the one about burning books. But now I have! With my reading load this semester, this will probably be the last book I read for leisure this semester.
In any case, as far as dystopian novels are concerned, I've read just a few. I have a bunch on my list that I really do need to read, like Animal Farm, Brave New World, Atlas Shrugged, and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and Children of Men (I've seen the movies for these two). All I've read is Fahrenheit 451, Nineteen Eighty-Four, The Road, A Clockwork Orange and The Giver.
The five that I have read number my list of top novels I have ever read, and for good reason. They're all exceptionally well-written, and I apparently have an affinity for their subject matter. I'm not quite sure what it is that attracts me to this genre, but I can't get enough. I think I'm just really into messed up worlds, with messed up people, which would also explain my love for Chuck Palahniuk. Palahniuk's work has been described as "trangressive fiction," which I thoroughly enjoy because of my interest in fringe/alternative cultures. For this same reason, I also consider myself a fan of cult films. (I'm even taking a class this semester on the logics of cult films)
But I digress. Fahrenheit 451 was everything I wanted it to be. It was exciting, it presented such an alternative world, while still holding onto some parts of our own world. The irony of reading a book about a society that burns books didn't hurt my interest, either. Regularly, I would explore a book in entirety here, but I have decided to focus on one important aspect of their alternate world that I found, to say the least, amusing.
Fahrenheit 451 was published in 1953. I know this is simplifying it, but for our sake let us assume that it is around this time (it was) that televisions began to become more present in people's lives, particularly in their homes. The rise of television was a main point of criticism that Bradbury presents in this book. The protagonist, Guy Montag, has a wife, Mildred, who spends the majority of her time with her "family," which are understood to be television characters. In this society, people's parlors and living rooms have become legitimate "television rooms," as televisions can cover the entire wall, and multiple walls. (The Montag's have three walls with televisions installed) Mildred seems to be more involved in the life of these people on the walls than with her life with Montag. She is almost completely surrounded by the lives of the "parlor family," both literally and figuratively. Now here comes the part I find most interesting: The parlor family does not seem to be on a real show, with a plot for each episode or anything like that. It doesn't seem like there even are episodes. It appears (I could be wrong), that the parlor family is a live feed of these people's lives. Wait, doesn't that sound familiar? YES, YES IT DOES!
How Bradbury could have known about the direction of television towards reality TV is beyond me, but it does appear as if he has predicted it, maybe even more advanced than we have reached in 2011. The immersion that people have in television (reality television especially) is almost sickening at this point in our society, and people really do live through these people, the ones they see on these screens.
Although most people do not have television screens spanning the whole wall of every wall in a particular room, people do have access to television shows everywhere; be it on the actual TV, on their computers, or on their phones, TV is everywhere. I am just as guilty as the next guy for succumbing to the ethereal glow of the television, but I fully understand its significance as a sign for the depletion of our society. TV has spelled the downfall of books, (with a little help from the movies, also present on TV), and people, for the majority, are none-the-wiser for it. Sure, TV news is quick and accessible, so it has become easier to stay in the know, but knowledge from reading books, even novels, has greatly fallen. Many people today chose not to read because it is "easier" to just turn on the TV than to read a book. They also make the argument that if the book is really that good, they will wait until the movie comes out. That, my friends, is disgusting.
What have we become? Yes, we don't burn books, but they are shunned by a good portion of society. Like many other dystopian novels, our society has become dangerously close to what these books have "predicted." Is this what we really want? I don't think so! So, go read a book, turn off the TV, and repeal the PATRIOT Act.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
September 7 GOP Debate
I was just thinking...
Last night, after I got done with my work, or a good portion of it, I turned on the Republican Candidates (for President) Debate. I caught just about half of it (the second half). I regularly watch these debates, as it interesting to see how the other half goes about their business. I noticed a lot of things throughout the hour or so that I saw, much of which were not good things. I will explore a few of them here.
First and most importantly, most of the candidates lied, about one thing or another. And these weren't little lies, these were outright wrong statements that were presented as facts. They attacked President Obama, and attributed things to him that were not even remotely true. They made it sound like the situation in Libya was started by Obama, and they repeatedly alluded to the United States' involvement in the struggle. If they paid any attention to the news, they would know that the US Army never, ever had boots on the ground. They also made a clear lie in saying that he launched air strikes without the consent of the UN, which, again, is false. I get it; they want to smear Obama: He IS their eventual opponent, after all. But, creating complete falsehoods to sway the stupid Americans dumb enough to take their word as fact and vote for them is dirty politics.
I did not take notes on the debate, so most of this is not supported with specific details. For this reason, the rest of this will mostly be my thoughts and opinions on some of the candidates.
Ron Paul
Ron Paul is not a republican. I mean, he technically is, but in reality, he is not. He is a libertarian. The overlap between libertarian-ism and republicanism is almost strictly their belief in less federal government involvement. The difference between these two groups beliefs is that the libertarians are a step away from anarchists. They would be pretty happy if government was done away with completely, at least on a federal level.
That being said, I like Ron Paul much more than most of the republican candidates. I can get behind him, to a degree, with his calls for drug legalization. Some of his arguments are kind of crazy, and yet some others I would say I agree with. But, Ron Paul is still not a real republican, so he holds no chance of winning the nomination.
Michele Bachmann
I used to be terrified of Michele Bachmann, and that is NOT just because of her face on the cover of Newsweek. She scared me because she had the Tea Party following that Sarah Palin had, yet seemed to actually know something about politics and the United States, in general. She was the smart Sarah Palin to me. A smart Sarah Palin is equal to what it would be like if we gave (28 Days Later) rage virus-infected zombies semi-automatic weapons; extremely dangerous.
However, after last night's showing, I am pretty comfortable with her running for president. She has no chance. She was like a bully at a school when a bigger bully transfers in. That new, bigger bully is Rick Perry.
Rick Perry
Rick Perry is the scariest man in the United States right now. He has a Tea Party following, which, as we know from our knowledge of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, is full of crazies. So, he's a Tea Party guy with a following stronger than Bachmann. Uh oh. He was Governor of Texas. He seems to be missing a few screws. Wait, doesn't that sound familiar? Uh oh indeed!
Rick Perry stole the show last night. He and fellow front runner (it will absolutely come down to these two) W. Mitt Romney duked it out a little bit, and appeared the strongest candidates in the field. But Perry held the spotlight due to his absolutely insane comments regarding global warming. He said, in one way or another, that he was scared of there being a leader of this country who would put the economy in jeopardy by believing in something as ridiculous as science. He asserted that the scientists who, time and time again, have proven the reality of global warming are wrong. He basically said that he does not trust science, and is scared of people who do trust it. Really? This is 2011! These aren't even opinions anymore, they're pretty much facts! Even Mr. Moron (George W. Bush) says it is real! It is incredible that someone can be a legitimate candidate with these beliefs, but he is, and is currently leading the polls. What does that say? It says that not only does a politician have these beliefs, but also that a majority of people agree with him! I have said before, when referencing Sarah Palin and FOX News, that the scariest part isn't that they believe this way, but that people listen to them and agree. There is nothing like people agreeing with crazy people to make me lose faith in humanity. How can he be so wrong, so stupid?
All signs point towards Romney or Perry getting the Republican nomination, at least at this point. While I would not prefer either, and will not vote Republican regardless who the candidate is, this does not bode well for the country, which is apparently about halfway filled with morons, and a bunch more who think Obama is useless. (He is not; the republicans just refuse to cooperate on anything) I fear that Obama could lose the election, and none of the Republicans would be even remotely good for the country. With a possible exception for Jon Huntsman.
Jon Huntsman
Holy moley, Batman! A moderate! Huntsman won me over last night. I mean, obviously not really, but enough that I could deal with him. I will never vote for a republican, but, if I had to deal with a republican as president, Huntsman would be the most agreeable. I have always felt that voting in the US isn't about voting for the best candidate, but the least bad one. Jon Huntsman is the least evil, least terrible republican in the current field. I don't foresee John McCain from the 90's (back when he was a moderate) coming back and running, so it's kind of Huntsman or bust for the republican field.
My approval for Huntsman is all relative; I would never ever vote for him. He just looks good in a field of full of Rick Perrys and Michele Bachmanns.
Last night, after I got done with my work, or a good portion of it, I turned on the Republican Candidates (for President) Debate. I caught just about half of it (the second half). I regularly watch these debates, as it interesting to see how the other half goes about their business. I noticed a lot of things throughout the hour or so that I saw, much of which were not good things. I will explore a few of them here.
First and most importantly, most of the candidates lied, about one thing or another. And these weren't little lies, these were outright wrong statements that were presented as facts. They attacked President Obama, and attributed things to him that were not even remotely true. They made it sound like the situation in Libya was started by Obama, and they repeatedly alluded to the United States' involvement in the struggle. If they paid any attention to the news, they would know that the US Army never, ever had boots on the ground. They also made a clear lie in saying that he launched air strikes without the consent of the UN, which, again, is false. I get it; they want to smear Obama: He IS their eventual opponent, after all. But, creating complete falsehoods to sway the stupid Americans dumb enough to take their word as fact and vote for them is dirty politics.
I did not take notes on the debate, so most of this is not supported with specific details. For this reason, the rest of this will mostly be my thoughts and opinions on some of the candidates.
Ron Paul
Ron Paul is not a republican. I mean, he technically is, but in reality, he is not. He is a libertarian. The overlap between libertarian-ism and republicanism is almost strictly their belief in less federal government involvement. The difference between these two groups beliefs is that the libertarians are a step away from anarchists. They would be pretty happy if government was done away with completely, at least on a federal level.
That being said, I like Ron Paul much more than most of the republican candidates. I can get behind him, to a degree, with his calls for drug legalization. Some of his arguments are kind of crazy, and yet some others I would say I agree with. But, Ron Paul is still not a real republican, so he holds no chance of winning the nomination.
Michele Bachmann
I used to be terrified of Michele Bachmann, and that is NOT just because of her face on the cover of Newsweek. She scared me because she had the Tea Party following that Sarah Palin had, yet seemed to actually know something about politics and the United States, in general. She was the smart Sarah Palin to me. A smart Sarah Palin is equal to what it would be like if we gave (28 Days Later) rage virus-infected zombies semi-automatic weapons; extremely dangerous.
However, after last night's showing, I am pretty comfortable with her running for president. She has no chance. She was like a bully at a school when a bigger bully transfers in. That new, bigger bully is Rick Perry.
Rick Perry
Rick Perry is the scariest man in the United States right now. He has a Tea Party following, which, as we know from our knowledge of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, is full of crazies. So, he's a Tea Party guy with a following stronger than Bachmann. Uh oh. He was Governor of Texas. He seems to be missing a few screws. Wait, doesn't that sound familiar? Uh oh indeed!
Rick Perry stole the show last night. He and fellow front runner (it will absolutely come down to these two) W. Mitt Romney duked it out a little bit, and appeared the strongest candidates in the field. But Perry held the spotlight due to his absolutely insane comments regarding global warming. He said, in one way or another, that he was scared of there being a leader of this country who would put the economy in jeopardy by believing in something as ridiculous as science. He asserted that the scientists who, time and time again, have proven the reality of global warming are wrong. He basically said that he does not trust science, and is scared of people who do trust it. Really? This is 2011! These aren't even opinions anymore, they're pretty much facts! Even Mr. Moron (George W. Bush) says it is real! It is incredible that someone can be a legitimate candidate with these beliefs, but he is, and is currently leading the polls. What does that say? It says that not only does a politician have these beliefs, but also that a majority of people agree with him! I have said before, when referencing Sarah Palin and FOX News, that the scariest part isn't that they believe this way, but that people listen to them and agree. There is nothing like people agreeing with crazy people to make me lose faith in humanity. How can he be so wrong, so stupid?
All signs point towards Romney or Perry getting the Republican nomination, at least at this point. While I would not prefer either, and will not vote Republican regardless who the candidate is, this does not bode well for the country, which is apparently about halfway filled with morons, and a bunch more who think Obama is useless. (He is not; the republicans just refuse to cooperate on anything) I fear that Obama could lose the election, and none of the Republicans would be even remotely good for the country. With a possible exception for Jon Huntsman.
Jon Huntsman
Holy moley, Batman! A moderate! Huntsman won me over last night. I mean, obviously not really, but enough that I could deal with him. I will never vote for a republican, but, if I had to deal with a republican as president, Huntsman would be the most agreeable. I have always felt that voting in the US isn't about voting for the best candidate, but the least bad one. Jon Huntsman is the least evil, least terrible republican in the current field. I don't foresee John McCain from the 90's (back when he was a moderate) coming back and running, so it's kind of Huntsman or bust for the republican field.
My approval for Huntsman is all relative; I would never ever vote for him. He just looks good in a field of full of Rick Perrys and Michele Bachmanns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
