This is hilarious. Eminem, the notoriously homophobic lily-white American rapper, just had Sacha Baron Cohen's are ass lowered onto his face at an awards show.
He did not look happy. Maybe it was planned, maybe it wasn't. But it's hilarious - it's exactly what Eminem deserves. I had to watch it a few times.
Obviously a publicity stunt for his upcoming movie Bruno (coming out July 10).
I actually don't think this is a big deal, and I think people who are outraged should get over it, and need to look at it from a different perspective.
First, yes it is a civil right violation - but there are FAR more serious violations of civil rights that are going on in the US, and I understand that minority groups are concerned with rights for their group - but there are bigger issues.
Now, equal legal rights for same sex couples is important. But marriage isn't. Here's why:
Marriage is basically a religious institution. The legal part of marriage is just about the legal rights of couples (which need to be available to same sex couples). Marriage is a symbolic thing that might be important to some people - but it shouldn't be. Putting the focus on demanding gay marriage be recognized is based on the assumption that the church and state have the authority to recognize and sanction their relationship. They don't.
I don't recognize that the church or the state have the authority or the right to 'recognize' my relationships. Legal rights, yes.
The actual marriage part is not important - I can understand how some people see it as an important symbol of human rights. But it isn't.
The biggest argument ignorant people have about same sex marriage is that it will "undermine the institution of marriage." That's ridiculous because by changing marriage to allow same sex couples it is actually reinforcing and strengthening the institution of marriage. Same sex couples have the opportunity to undermine marriage by not recognizing the external authority to institutionalize a relationship.
Take the basic legal rights that need to be available to everyone. Empower yourself by not recognizing unnecessary impositions of external authority.
I love things like this. They amuse me on so many levels.
First, is the absolute panic that people get in over this. The media and the government tend to get cautious (or, alarmist, if that's the word you would like to use). But to be fair they are in a terrible conundrum. If they don't raise the alarm people will be furious that the government hasn't done enough. If there is action taken, and nothing comes of it then it's an over-reaction and it's panic-mongering, and it's horrible. I love reading letters to the editor, because everyone is always OUTRAGED! It doesn't matter which side they're on, there are always so many outraged, angry people. People don't get it. There are so many people that just can't chill. People who don't realize that it doesn't matter who you're angry at - which little issue you are angry at the government about, death is still going to happen.
Gutted.
It goes beyond that though - the politics get so much more exciting. THE PIG FARMERS. I love this - I understand how the piggy farmers feel, but I still think it's funny. Initially it gets picked up as swine flu - so people all of a sudden get scared of pigs. A Muslim country kill hundreds of thousands of pigs. Pork sales PLUMMET! Everyone is afraid of pigs. So the swine lobby rears its snout, and interferes to government. In the meantime, Steven Harper [Canadian Prime Minsters] tries to remove any undue prejudice against pigs and calls it 'Mexican Flu.'
THEN, the Mexican ambassador makes public statements condemning this, the pig farmers condemn the other naming, public relations nightmare go all around making ambassadors and farmers wake up in cold sweats about jargon and catchphrases, and they all lobby governments and assail media associations to have this "epidemic" renamed.
Eventually "H1N1" is a term that is generally accepted [grammarians and numericists everywhere are outraged - but their lobby is not strong enough].
And thus we have a new name for a strain of flu that has killed HUNDRED of people (while the regular flu has killed hundreds of thousands already this year, in North America alone).
A beauty pageant (see "scholarship program") contest recently condemned gay marriage.
Honestly, I haven't been too bothered, but I just heard the best statement about this:
"She's not an arbiter of social justice, her main skill is looking good in a bikini!" (Craig Ferguson). But it's true. I know we can criticise "public" figures for the opinions they express, but I would actually rather advocate her right to say it than criticise what she says. Actually I'd like to do both, but whatever.
Let her say it - criticize the opinions, use it for a conversation topic, but don't question her right to say it. Because she can and she should be able to. The fact that her nipples have become a bigger (heh) story than her social views speaks for itself. On a few levels.
I don't want to go on about this, because it's not a particularly interesting issue. Except for the attitudes that seem to come out of this. But:
"She's not an arbiter of social justice, her main skill is looking good in a bikini!"
So don't worry. She can say what she wants - and so can you*.
Up front, it's important to realize that any electoral process will have problems. No voting system is perfect, and politicians will always try to work the system to get the most power - that's the game.
I wanted to write this, because I keep seeing the STV stuff everywhere, but nowhere actually explains it fully. I don't want to vote for something that hasn't been explained fully. I find annoying when flyers and posters give a general idea but don't explain how it actually works -- kind of a 'don't worry it's good for you, you don't need to understand.'
It's a bit more complicated - a fairly simple system, but one that wouldn't be feasible without computers.
The best way to think about it, is everyone still gets one vote, but your vote can (but doesn't have to be) dived up. You get to rank candidates (if you want), with the chance to split your vote.
If you like the original system, you won't lose anything with STV - your vote isn't watered down, you don't HAVE to split up your vote. If you choose one candidate, 100% of your vote will go to that candidate.
However, if you choose to rank multiple candidates your vote may be divided up. Each area has multiple candidates, and each candidate needs a certain number of votes to get elected - so, for example, in elections where one candidate wins by .5%, one person (and a big chunk of the electorate) doesn't get shafted.
So each candidate needs a 'quota' of votes. The formula is:
1+ (VOTES/SEATS+1)
So if there are 10,000 votes and 4 seats,
1 + (10,000/4+1) = 2,001.
Any candidate that gets 2,001 votes or more, gets a seat. You'll notice that more than 4 candidates cannot get a seat with that system. If less than the number of candidates [in this case 4], then things get a bit more complicated.
Let's say one candidate got 4,002 votes. They had twice as many votes as they needed. So if you voted for that candidate, your vote CAN be split (if you ONLY voted for that candidate, 100% of your vote stays with them). If you put a second choice, enough of your vote stays with that candidate to get them elected (they only need .5 of each person's vote). So the NEXT .5 vote is transferred to your second choice (if applicable). This means that a variety of candidates may get more .5 votes, until someone passes the quota. So your vote may actually be used to elect multiple candidates you like.
Now, if NO ONE meets the quota (entirely possible) the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated [kicked off the island, doesn't win the million dollars] because they cannot win. So THOSE votes are transferred. So if you like someone and don't think they have a chance of winning, you can still make them your first choice! And if they end up doing very poorly, your vote will be transferred to actually make a difference.
You can rate as many or as few candidates as you want. Your vote could go all to one person, or .6 to one, .3 to another, .1 to another. Depends what you want to do.
As a voter it means your vote can go alot further (if you understand the process). So the popular vote will reflect the representation in the House much better. Whereas now a party could get 100% of the seats with about half the popular vote.
It's a step in the right direction. And gives voters more power and influence than before, thanks to more sophisticated technology. Just think, the older voting systems (first past the post) are used because they are easier when people have to count them -- this would be impossible if it was just done by people.
But the UN has just passed a 'binding' resolution to try to stop people from criticising religion.
I've never really been a champion of religious beliefs, but for most of my life I've always felt "well, people should be able to believe whatever they want."
I still think that to a certain extent, but I think as long as it's a personal thing. But when it goes into the UN, and these countries,
{Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, and South Africa.}
the champions of human rights get a resolution passed to tell the world that religion shouldn't be criticized it just does my head in.
I don't like the term 'religious tolerance' because I think tolerance implies a hidden resentment. To me religious tolerance implies an grudging acceptance. I've always thought of religion of being an important metaphor a lot of people use in their lives to understand the world.
It bothers me that organized religion sells itself as a sort of balance between threat of violence, aggression, and misery contrasted with the delusion that rituals {hacking off bits of your penis; getting on your knees; reciting phrases; eating biscuits} will let you conquer death and live forever happily. Bothersome to me.
But I like religion. I think the best story ever written is probably the Mahabharata. Like you wouldn't believe.
I think that the UN passing a resolution that says criticising religion leads to unpleasant things and therefore criticism should be illegal is absolutely ridiculous. The UN has phrased it in a way that is ambiguous enough that any government who chooses who adopt this "binding" resolution can make criticisms of religion into a human right issue.
The UN has set many important guidelines for respecting human rights. But RELIGION is not a human, religion is not a person, and a person's rights are important, but an international body should not be giving rights and passing resolutions to protect organizational bodies.
I'd like to say that I have the utmost respect for each and every individual. I don't want this to be an attack on any person, because it is not.
But this resolution is terrible. It's buried within a title that refers to 'racial intolerance and xenophobia' which obviously seems hard to oppose without sounding racially intolerant or xenophobic. So I bet most people won't touch it. But I don't care - I've prefaced this with enough to try and help, because I think it is important that people understand some of my attitudes as I criticism this. I'm definitely not a supported of religion, but I DO support free speech. I think the combination of religious fundamentalism and fundamentally reactionary governments have limited people enough. Somehow religion has gotten caught up with ethnic and personal identities when it really shouldn't be.
People have taken to being 'offended' if their religion is criticized. Don't be offended just because I don't believe in your god exists, I still believe you exist, I might even concede that your god exists in your own head.
But in any argument about god, "The model works without that assumption."
I made a couple videos that address this, with the three main commandments of my own 'personal religion' in mind. Though shalt be irreverent; thou shalt be cheeky; though shalt be subversive:
and
Honestly, the world just terrifies me sometimes. I don't even know how to describe it, I have a friend who always used to respond to questions/comments/criticisms in a customer services job saying, "I just work here."
I just live here.
This is why my general approach to life is: have fun, laugh, and make other people smile, and enjoy it.
I'm not comparing Harper to Hitler - but they are right next to each other in that picture, so you can draw your own conclusions.
I've been listening to some of this talk for a while about how percentages of votes and what democracy is from many people who don't seem to understand how our system of government works. So here are a few main points:
In the Westminster parliamentary system, the leader of the government is one MP who has the support/confidence of the majority of MPs.
Each region votes in a member of parliament to represent their region in the house of commons. That person may or may not have a party affiliation, but each MP serves their region. They are not bound to a particular political party, they represent their region.
Each MP acts in a way that they think will best serve their region, and the country. We don't elect lackeys for a specific political party.
This is why political parties frequently break apart, and reconfigure. Different people have different ideas about how the country should be run, so they break apart usually into ideological (although frequently strategic) categories.
When the government loses the confidence of the House of Commons the government falls: then a new government has to be elected, or an alternative found. This is what really makes me angry. Harper knows that he no longer has the confidence of parliament - that he has a minority of the seats. Another group of parties has a majority of seats. (Don't say that a majority of Canadians voted for or against a coalition here, that's not how the system works - all of these Bloc/NDP/Lib MPs were elected democratically, and now they are representing the interests of the majority of Canadians).
So with his minority government, seeing that a majority of the house was able to form a new government, he decided to suspend parliament. To cling onto his power, when his party has a majority, by blocking a potential majority government is just ridiculous. It's undemocratic. Harper went to the Governor-General, an official appointed by the Queen of England, to suspend parliament! So the leader of an unpopular minority party with the help of an unelected official blocked a potential majority government from taking power.
Here are some of the issues that have been raised that I just want to cover briefly:
1) "The Bloc is a separatist party" - the Bloc hasn't been serious about separatism for years, the Bloc is primarily to ensure that a single province (with a very large number of Canadians) isn't pushed aside because they are a cultural minority inside a large country. Yes, they are a regional party whose primary interests are preserving Quebecois culture and values in Canada, but the fact that they are willing to join a national coalition shows that they are recognizing that Canada is facing a difficult time in the world economy and instead of fostering resentment and bitterness, they are willing to work toward common goals. They Bloc still won't have a majority, and it's not like they will just be able to separate if they gain power, because they still need the support of the whole coalition.
2) "A coalition is not democratic, we didn't vote for a coalition government." Again, the vote isn't just for a government. Each vote is for a regional representative who is actually an independent agent in parliament. Coalitions are not uncommon in a democratic system - they happen all over Europe all the time. A coalition is part of the democratic system: it's when a group of parties come together with common goals and purpose to better represent the nation. And they typically don't last for as long as majority governments because everyone in the coalition needs to agree to continue being the government.
Stumble It!
