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).
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.
Alice in Wonderland (Love).
Johnny Depp (Love).
Tim Burton (Love).
Filming has started in Britain (in Cornwall). Mia Wasikowska (from Australia) will play Alice, but more importantly, Johnny Depp is going to play the Mad Hatter! I can't wait, he's always so amazing in pushing eccentric just a bit too far. I thought he was fantastic in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (and pretty amazing in everything else to be honest). The Johnny Depp/Tim Burton combination never ceases to be fantastic though.
Just look at the examples:
Sweeney Todd
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Edward Scissor Hands
I can't wait to see what happens with the characters. It is a children's story, but there are so many drug/psychedelic/existential possibilities within the stories that Tim Burton will probably be able to play off it and make it extremely modern and relevant like he's done in his other movies.
1.
"Illinois priest accused of dealing coke from rectory." Source
It sounds quite like a euphemism. I just love that word rectory.
It gets better though! Not only was this priest dealing cocaine from his 'rectory,' it was on the University of Illinois campus!
The Reverend Christopher Layden pleaded not guilty Thursday to two counts of delivery of less than 1 gram of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a church and one count of possession with intent to deliver 1 to 15 grams of cocaine near a church.
There's another thing that strikes me about this -- his conviction for dealing actually included the specification 'near a church.' Apparently it's not just bad that a reverend is selling cocaine to students -- but the sentence actually specifies 'near a church'. Wow.
2. A great one from Australia:
"Politician quits over underwear 'dirty dance'" Source
Okay that's another one with a slightly misleading title -- did he resign over a skidmark? Perhaps 'underwear dirty dance' is the wrong combination of words. The actual story is even better though:
CANBERRA, Australia - The police minister in Australia's most populous state was forced to quit Thursday over reports he "dirty danced" in underwear over the chest of a female colleague in a drunken late-night office party.
That's hilarious! And fantastic, why would he quit over that -- who hasn't got a bit out of hand at a party at once time or another and ended up dancing in their underwear. So what if it was over a female colleagues chest? As long as it was consensual... although I guess it isn't the most dignified behaviour.
It's even better -- he had only been in the position (the position of police minister, not dirty dancing, underwear colleague straddling-position -- because THAT would be impressive) for three days! I guess that's one way to introduce yourself to your new co-workers.
His comments on resigning:
"I'm a human being and I made a mistake and I am going to cop the consequences," Brown told reporters. "I am not wanting to duck or weave this issue. As you can imagine this is a pretty tough day for me."
'Cop the consequences'? from the police minister? This is no time for bad puns sir! I can definitely sympathize that it's 'a pretty tough day for him.' I bet the hangover is brutal.
If you aren't familiar with this, I'll explain it fairly simply:
1) Scientists like to try new things.
2) The Swiss like to build useful (but slightly odd) things.
3) Sometimes, experiments can be dangerous.
What CERN has done is build a massive (17 mile long) tube under Switzerland (and some of France). It's like a very, very big hollowed out underground doughnut. Scientists will be using this large doughnut to try and recreate the Big Bang. The criticism of this, is that some other scientists think that maybe trying to recreate the Big Bang underneath Switzerland isn't the best idea. Since the potential for bad things to happen is worse than say, the first time some old Swiss nutter fired up a cuckoo clock.
The way they do this, is by getting particles to spin around REALLY REALLY fast inside the big tube, and eventually making them run into each other. Then, when they do collide... well actually no one actually knows since it hasn't been done before.
Some say that it could create a massive black hole right there, underneath Switzerland, sucking up all of the cuckoo clocks, delicious chocolate and Nazi plunder, then make the world implode (bad times).
Some say that it could open up a portal to another world (dimension?) and allow other being to invade through a "worm hole" (bad times).
The guys at CERN say, "pretty sure it'll be fine."
The experiment is set to happen at 8am tomorrow (Swiss time? -- I'm not sure, but being Swiss they won't be late!) So really there's only a few hours left before the Earth implodes or we suddenly get unexpected visitors. Or maybe something else exciting could happen? Who knows? I'm not too worried though -- the world seems to be continually scheduled to end -- fortunately the date keeps getting pushed back. Oh well, if the world doesn't end tomorrow because of a giant black hole just underneath Switzerland, we've always got the 2012 Aztec-scheduled apocalypse (sorry London, and you FINALLY got the Olympics).
So just in case something does go horribly wrong, I salute our new transdimensional (possible Tim Curry-esque) new overlords. And since I was the first to say it, I think I should get Western Europe (assuming it isn't turned into a massive crater).
Oh, and if you're actually worried about it, don't be. The general scientific consensus is that the fear-mongering is ridiculous (as is usually the case with panicky end-of-world pronouncements).
So what's going on in the United States of American these days? Rome is burning and the leaders are focusing on PR.
Barack Obama has chosen Joe Biden as his VP - because nothing says 'change' like an old white guy that's been in the senate for 20 years (Letterman said something along those lines, I stole it because I think it's really funny, and pretty perceptive).
So BO has chosen an old white guy to make the Democratic power couple Jobama. Fantastic.
Now McCain has chosen some woman in a pantsuit as his VP. I WONDER why he could have done that? Could it be because slightly less than half of the democrats were whipped into pantsuit frenzy, being pitted against the other half of the democratic party. Now, Americans are offered another pantsuit they can trust, with a war veteran behind (on top of maybe? - we all know that women in pants suits like to be on top).
So what is it down to now? Celebrity power couple Jobiden versus Mcpantsuit.
They've both basically picked someone who resembles the opposing camp - I know there's never been much variety in American politics. There's two old white guys with different colour ties - one is slightly to the right, and one is further white. Now we've there's two old white guys who have accessorized with a bit of diversity. It doesn't even seem to be about politics anymore. The whole thing has just become a farce.
Oh well, China just showed the world in Beijing that they could be ready to be the next world superpower. They can put on a great show, while (partially) successfully masking the social ailments of the country. I think the world is entering an age of Potemkin superpowers.
New York Fashion week is starting next week and shortly after that London, Milan and Paris will be starting their unparalleled weeks of publicity, glamour and money. All of the most high profile, most exclusive designers will show off their latest collections to a world audience. I love seeing all the new collections, planning out what I want to buy and how I want to look in the upcoming season.
So where am I looking in these fashion weeks? Cities? Designers?
In the opposite direction.
I was just reading in Dazed & Confused about this year's Caribbean fashion week, and it got me doing a bit of research. I saw some really fantastic stuff and it looked like so much fun! (Caribbean Fashion Week website). The selection of menswear wasn't the best, and most of it wasn't really my style, it got me looking into other, lesser well known fashion weeks.
Lahore Fashion week (Pakistan) will be November 4-8
Singapore Fashion week should also be in early November.
From now on I'm definitely going to focus more on some of the lower profile fashion weeks. As much as I go crazy for Vivienne Westwood and Dior and Alexander McQueen I also love finding new and interesting designers that I never knew about before - trying them and realizing they look fantastic. I like to mix styles and try new things when it comes to clothes so I'm going to be watching the Caribbean, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Manila, Kuala Lumpur and Shaghai (and Tokyo, obviously). These cities should get more international publicity, the world's creativity isn't locked up in Paris, London and New York.
I hear about the same designers being brilliant every year in those cities and it's starting to get a bit tired. I still want to know, but I'm going to look for things that are completely new to me as well. And anyway, I'm tired of all this 'giving food/charity' to developing nations. The best way to help a developing nation to develop is to become more invested in their economy - to recognize that the country has something to offerer and buy it! Supporting those creative industries will fuel more innovation and industry within the country and promote a more equitable international relationship.
So it's settled. a solution to world poverty, is international shopping!
Stumble It!
