|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Every now and then I like to come and check out xanga, and this is one of those times. I realized that, as it stands, my last xanga post is about Don Imus (for God's sake), and that just can't stand. I miss this place! It's sad to see that so many of the people I subbed to (or vice versa) are long gone. That's life, though!
To any of you that are still here and still remember me, things are good, I have two, count 'em, TWO kids now. I blogged about Lily before she was born, she's two years old, and now there's a little boy, too (Andrew, he's 3 months old). I'm back in school (it's a never-ending journey, obviously) and doing freelance writing on the side.
If any of you fine folks do remember me and want to add me on Facebook or Myspace (I hate it, too, but many friends convinced me to finally join), look me up under Jon Hartley. I'll happily add any of my xanga homies. Take care.
| | |
| So, radio personality Don Imus landed himself in hot water after
referring to the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos"
on his radio show recently. Besides the important fact that this
confirms once and for all that the term is spelled "ho" (and not "hoe"
as in the garden tool), this has launched the kind of media saturation
one would expect in today's clusterfuck of 24/7 Anna Nicole mania
-slash- PC but only at first glance -slash- celebrity fixated
coverage. I mean, I'm actually surprised if many of you haven't
heard about this because the media is ALL over it. Before I
launch into my rant, let me get a few things straight:
--I've never even listened to Imus's show, and in all likelihood, he is a huge douchebag,
--I wouldn't dream of attempting to justify his rather ignorant comments,
--and even if it was meant as a joke, you have be careful because if a
seemingly racist joke is, well...NOT funny, then you're in deep shit,
my boy.
However, the media's response to this is freaking absurd. It
seems that we as a culture have been successful, if our goal was to
create a society where no one is willing to say anything demeaning or
insulting towards a group of people SOLELY out of fear of the backlash
that will follow. I personally don't look at that as progress,
though.
Consider the uproar over Michael Richards's racist rant on stage, or to
a far lesser extent, the response to former NBA star Tim Hardaway's
statement that he "hates" gay people. At what point does all the
ganging up on someone who said something ridiculously stupid start to
miss the point?
I believe that there are still many, many racists, sexists, homophobes,
etc. out there, but now they're just terrified to speak their minds,
lest they lose their careers, reputations, etc. Is that really
helping things, or is it simply driving the issues underground?
Is anyone else tired of the charade that follows after someone makes a
stupid comment and then proceeds to make seven or eight "formal"
apologies to every gay/lesbian, minority, majority, or knitting group
known to man? How does that serve any purpose? We all know
Tim Hardaway still doesn't like gay folks. We all know Michael
Richards, whether he's racist or not, looked like a deer in the
headlights during his "apology" on Letterman. What is the point
of all this? At what point does the apology stop being an apology
and start being an excuse for Rev. Al Sharpton to get his boots licked
on his radio show?
By the way, Al Sharpton is a jackass..
I'm not saying people should run around saying crazy racist, sexist or
homophobic things. But I also don't think that a three-ring media
circus should ensue when someone *does*. Seriously, spare us the
campaigning for forgiveness via visiting with Sharpton or Jesse
Jackson, spare us the righteous indignation, much of which is conducted
by people who are worse bigots than Imus or Richards ever have been,
and spare us the continuing coverage of several apologies, of sponsors
dropping their ads and running away with their tails between their
legs, of slap-on-the-wrist two week suspensions. If you really
disagree with what the guy said, NBC, *fire him* and be done with it.
Things have gotten so political that nearly everything is coated with a
not-so-thin layer of b.s. these days. In a culture where a
witchhunt or trial by fire awaits verbal missteps big and small, the
only thing can come out of it is rampant hypocrisy. Shit, go to
any internet message board, chat room, or discussion thread. See
how people act, how they talk when they are anonymous and free from the
threat of being reprimanded for their statements? That's when you
see what people are truly all about.
The most ridiculous thing about this is that many members of the media
and the Rutgers team themselves have said that the Imus quote has
"overshadowed" their achievement (getting to the women's National
Championship game this season). The achievement has only been
overshadowed because of the media that has blown the whole thing out of
proportion. I mean, the ignorant ramblings of some old man on the
radio? Really, who cares?
| | |
| OK, this is actually about God, not about "Stuff". I had to get you to read somehow, and dammit, people love "Stuff". Can't get enough of it.
And yeah, all three of you who still come here, it's been awhile. But I don't typically address my regular disappearances, at least not when I actually have something to write about...why start now? 
There's an interesting discussion posted between a (apparently) well-known atheist and a (apparently) well-known pastor on MSNBC.com. <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17889148/site/newsweek/">Here's</a> the link. Don't be lazy, check it out! I'll wait here.
Anyway, it's interesting, but altogether representative of just about every "atheist vs. Christian" debate I've ever heard in my lifetime. Right down to the end, where the pastor pretty much turds on everything he's tried to say by ending with this gem:
"We're both betting. He's betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble."
Wow. So toss everything aside, and it all comes down to that, eh? Might as well be a Christian because if there IS a God, I don't wanna be stuck in hell! Really, the whole conversation could have been summed up like this (but read the whole thing anyway, haha):
Atheist Guy: "I would rather not believe in something because I don't have enough evidence to be truly convinced than believe in something out of fear. I'm willing to accept the fact that sure, I could be wrong and according to popular Christian belief, I may end up in hell for it.
Pastor Guy: "I, on the other hand, find it enjoyable and fulfilling to believe in God. I also am unwilling to take a chance by not believing in anything, when logically, I have nothing to lose by being a Christian. If it's not true, it doesn't matter anyway, and if it is true, I would much rather be in Heaven than Hell".
Some thoughts on the discussion:
--I do find it ironic that the pastor uses such logic to (self-consciously, almost) defend his faith at the very end, after developing an entire argument that his *faith*, not necessarily his sense of reason or logic, is where his belief comes from. He criticizes the atheist for thinking too much and feeling too little, all while justifying his faith with a terrible gambling analogy that breaks the whole thing down to a "better safe than sorry" type decision.
--The pastor actually cites the high percentage of people in the world that believe as some sort of evidence that their beliefs are true. Well, the majority of voting Americans actually wanted Bush for a second term. The majority of Greeks believed in Zeus. For God's sake, enough people watch f'king Laguna Beach to warrant repeat seasons and copycat shows...are we *really* going to use "majority rules" as proof of anything whatsoever?
--I also find it troubling that the pastor seems to not believe in altruism without faith. I don't think that morals and altruistic behavior are impossible without faith; that's what sets us apart from other animals. And even some animals are capable of behavior ("ethics", even) similar to what the Golden Rule preaches...to imply that anyone who is an atheist- or even someone who is a spiritual "free agent" like myself- can't truly be of solid morals or care for others is pretty condescending. The dude even says himself, "
I've heard this kind of sentiment from the faithful toward atheists more than once. My family has a website that frequently sees lively debate on the topic, and one of my cousins- who is agnostic- is treated almost with pity due to his lack of Christian faith. On one hand, it is nice to pray for someone else to find the answers they seek. On the other, it's pretty insulting to continually insist that you'll pray for someone to realize some sort of truth, even when they insist they are perfectly happy and fulfilled without it. It seems that many- not all- Christians seem to believe that atheists are moral relativists who have a pit of emptiness in their soul and deep down, are very incomplete and unhappy because they haven't accepted Jesus. Of course, that kind of treatment is insulting...every bit as insulting as when atheists think of all Christians as ignorant sheep.
I don't know how even a staunch believer in Christianity can read that discussion and not think, "wow, that pastor pretty much got owned", or at least, "he could have represented our faith better than that". Even if you're going to say, "hey, I don't need to provide you with all this scientific evidence, that's why it's called faith," at least don't use terrible arguments that contradict each other while repeatedly ignore any good points made by the other person.
Whenever I read something like that, or a heated discussion even by two average joes on the world wide interweb, I find myself hoping that the person on the Christian side will have at least some kind of rational or decent response to the arguments presented, and I'm almost always disappointed. I don't think Christians are all dumb sheep (and I've defended them in my blog before), but I do think that the vast majority of them are completely unprepared to defend their faith with any depth consisting of more than "I just know it's true".
I'm not belittling Christians, if anything, I envy them. I actually find the idea of dying and then simply ceasing to exist for the rest of eternity pretty depressing and downright disturbing, being my egocentric self. However, when I considered myself a Christian, I was always just doing what the pastor in the article admitted to doing: covering my ass in the hopes that it actually is all true, hoping that there's something after this life and fearing that if there is, I may end up in hell. Unfortunately, that's not enough for me to make an honest commitment to Christianity, and quite frankly, I wouldn't be pleased with that kind of believer if I was God, anyway. After all, who would want their kingdom full of a bunch of people who are really just worshipping you because they fear hell or because they think heaven is going to be totally kick-ass?
I'm somehow reminded of a friend I had in junior high who I just hung out with to play his Sega Genesis. | | |
| I'm feeling cranky, time to start ripping into things. --Michael Richards (aka "Kramer" from Seinfeld) apparently went on a racist tirade during a show late last week. The fact that a has-been comedian flipped out and crossed a half dozen lines while addressing a heckler is not of that much interest to me. The reactions people have had after seeing it, however, is interesting. Allow me to share with you the two prevailing defenses for Richards (yes, idiots are defending what he said), and further illustrate why they are completely ridiculous.
Closet Racist Defense #1- "Black comedians make fun of white people all the time; what's the difference?"
Response- That's true, black comedians do make fun of white people consistently. I do agree to a certain extent that white folks don't have quite as much freedom to make racial jokes about minorities as they do about us. However, this point is moot as Richards was not making a joke. Did you hear a punchline in there? Me either. Anyone who can't see the difference between the 9,383,285th joke about white people not being able to dance/jump and Richards angrily calling an audience member a "nigger" is either an idiot or just in denial. Also, booooo to any dumbasses out there (there already are some) that would claim that maybe Richards is trying to pull an Andy Kaufman-type stunt here. There's denial, and then there's DENIAL. Hey, I liked him on Seinfeld, too. I was disappointed to hear him go on a racist rant, too. But let's not go too far out in left field trying to make excuses for the guy, now. I mean, maybe his brain was temporarily taken over by aliens who are attempting to incite a "race war" to soften us up for their eventual invasion. Maybe someone was holding his loved ones hostage and is making him pull outlandish stunt after outlandish stunt to get them returned safely. Or maybe Richards is a racist asshole.
Closet Racist Defense #2- "Black people call each other 'nigger' all the time, what's the big deal?"
Response- This is one I definitely wanted to touch upon since I've heard it many, many times from racist garbage over the years. This and the similarly idiotic, "well, the word doesn't have to mean a black person...white people can be 'niggers' also." First of all, let's not play dumb here. There's a difference, a BIG difference, between one black person using the term to another as a term of endearment and a white person using it towards a black person as an insult. Are we going to pretend we don't know what context is now? I'm not going to go into whether or not black people should use the term or not...that's not my problem (or my choice) and it's a seperate issue entirely. However, this whole "black people use it, so why can't I?" thinking is irresponsible at best and downright ignorant at worst. My friends can jokingly call me an asshole, but that doesn't mean a complete stranger can angrily call me one and not provoke a negative response. It's hard to find a white person who doesn't understand that simple concept, yet they feign ignorance to why there's a difference between a black person and a white person using the "n word". And as far as the whole "the word can be used for white people, too" defense, just stop. I've never, in my entire life, heard a white person call another white person a "nigger". I don't care what you *think* the word means, or what the dictionary says. The dictionary also says "gay" means happy and "faggot" can mean a bundle of sticks. But if someone calls you one of these things, you're not going to punch them in the face because you dislike being compared to twigs. Again, stop playing dumb.
--The Bears rock. I would go as far as to say they rawk, even. 9-1 now, best start since the 1985 Super Bowl champion team. Yet, the idiotic sports media continues to slight them; now crowning the twice-defeated San Diego Chargers as The Team To Beat aka The Team We Like For This Week. I love football almost as much as I despise moronic sports "analysts". Not one of them is ever willing to take a stand and say "this is the team I think will do well and I'm sticking to it." Instead, they flip-flop like veteran politicians from week to week, depending on the short memories of beer-swilling couch potatoes to preserve their credibility. If you want to see some lame, oversimplified shit, just watch the "keys to victory" (or similar garbage, they do these with every game) for a football game and revel in the wonderful football knowledge of someone who can confidently say, "their quarterback needs to play well to give them a chance", or "they need to protect the ball". No, REALLY!?!?! Can you be more SPECIFIC, ass-wad??? I guess I shouldn't get so annoyed, but every now and then I get annoyed that nearly every aspect of American culture is dumbed down to fit the lowest common denominator. Stupid music, stupid movies, stupid reality television shows, and stupid sports coverage.
EDIT: And another thing...
Thank God the Democrats will (seemingly) finally get us a minimum wage hike... Did you know that the minimum wage from fifty years ago would be worth over $10/hr. in today's dollars???.. Yes, that means one person working full-time for minimum wage fifty years ago makes what two would today in many states (including my own)... Now, I don't make minimum wage, but this still affects me, because once everyone has to pay a few dollars more an hour, it stands to reason that those making hourly wages above minimum will see..pay increases..as well... The job market is a competition, just like anything else... Oh, and maybe this could help all the Republicans stop bitching about people abusing welfare and other programs... Why should a single parent with limited education take a job for $5 or $6 an hour when they will have to shell out $100+ per week in daycare in order to work?.. Ensure that people have access to jobs that are worth working, and they will work... No one, not even a douchebag working the drive-thru at McDonalds, should be making $5.15 an hour in 2006, in one of the richest countries in the world... That only buys you a couple gallons of gas, for God's sake!.. You know, I can understand- to a point- if someone is a Republican because their views on issues such as abortion, social policy, etc. fit their own... But there is simply no way to defend Republican economic policy... Two terms in office, and yeah, W. created some jobs...jobs in the military to fight..a ridiculous "war", that is... You know, John Kerry was wrong after all, because you *can* still end up in the military with a college degree... After all, many college graduates have such a shitty selection of jobs to choose from that the best alternative is..to serve a few..years under Premier Bush and get those loans paid off, at least... --EDIT 2:Return of Edi-to Just saw the video of Michael Richards "apologizing" on Letterman and it's pretty amusing. First of all, fuck you, Jerry Seinfeld..."Stop laughing, it's not funny." People can laugh if they want to. And Richards' apology WAS funny. He comes on in nearly dead-on Kramer fashion and stumbles through an awkward apology to "Afro-"Americans before rambling about "The Rage" over and over. The Rage, The Rage!!!! He must contain it! Seinfeld admonishes the crowd like some sort of self-important parent while his equally self-important cohort says he's "reeling" from the incident as if he was a passive victim of the situation rather than the cause of it. We even get the disclosure beforehand about Richards' crazy, zany stage presence, as if it naturally led to a hate-filled racial diatribe. Kudos to Letterman for at least asking a good question: How would he have responded had the hecklers been white people? Richards "jiu-jitsued" around that one with the same klutziness as the rest of his unnecessary speech. God forbid Seinfeld loses some money on DVDs due to this, right? | | |
| Just found out not two hours ago that we're having a girl. Needless to say, I'm absolutely terrified. I promised I'd write about this exciting new development and I haven't with all of my horror movie pimpery and whatnot, but I will now (and hopefully a couple of y'all will still slide on down to the previous entry and vote on the Eerie Eight...come on baby!)... It's hard to say exactly how I feel about knowing I will be a father in 4 1/2 months. I mean obviously I'm excited and happy and all that good stuff, but there are so many other feelings as well. For one, I just can't get my head around the basic idea of it. I mean, when I think of a father, I think of MY dad. I think of a million different things, but myself? Ha ha...not so much! It's going to be a very strange feeling knowing that a little girl will be calling me "daddy" in the not-too-distant future! And I'm nervous. I've always had a sort of mixed experience with my dad, your standard divorce thing where I was too young to remember my parents even being married, and my time spent with my dad over the years was sporadic at times. Even so, my dad was always larger than life to me, an iconic figure despite his many faults. As I've gotten older, I've (of course) vowed to be a better father than my dad was. Not that my dad is a bad father, but there are definitely things that could have been different, and I've always promised myself that for my children, they would be. When we found out, it was just crazy. I mean, I knew there was a possibility, a great one, that she was pregnant but when the test displayed two lines instead of one, I was just in disbelief. Of course, the follow-up test followed and this time the two lines were even bolder, as if defiantly saying, "OK...*now* do you believe me?" I will admit that I got a little teary-eyed. I was overjoyed though, completely excited and happy. Of course, I expected a boy.  Part of this is because all my life I wanted two sons, close in age like my brother and I. I wouldn't trade my childhood with my brother and our continuing friendship for anything, and I guess I wanted my kids to have the same thing. Also, I am more than a little intimidated at the thought of raising a girl. I mean, I want my children to be free-thinkers, strong and independent and let's face it...society doesn't necessarily always value these traits in girls as much as in boys. It's not exactly the 1950's but it's not all about equality yet, either. There are so many different issues and challenges with raising a girl...not to mention (dun-dun-DUNNNN!)....dating. Yes, my child hasn't even been born yet and I'm already stressing about her wanting to date. Ha ha...a little glimpse into my mentality there. Knowing you'll have a daughter changes how you look at everything. I have always been a good boyfriend, I think, and respectful towards women...but still, I look back at my interactions with girls so differently already. I don't know...it's just crazy. Ha...forgive me if my thoughts aren't completely organized yet! Anyway, there's the scoop, more or less...once I get ultrasound pics scanned I'll put some up for you guys...even though I've always thought that ultrasound pics are only interesting to parents...lol. I've already realized I'm going to be "that guy" who goes on and on about his kids at the drop of a hat and always wants to show everyone pictures, etc. So am I ready to be a dad? Well, is anybody ever really ready? I think the most important thing is to want to be a good dad, and I know I'll have that part down. The rest I'll have to figure out along the way. Thanks for stoppin' by...but mostly, stay classy. | | |
|
