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.
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*.
I accidently stumbled across this book after doing some googles:
"Angels (and demons): what do we really know about them" (by Peter Kreeft). I read a bit, for a laugh because the title caught my interest. But I had trouble understanding how some people actually believe this - and by the circular logic and ridiculous conclusions that are drawn. I've been reading alot of academic journals and research papers lately (honours research project - funtimes) and after reading parts of this book I found it laughable.
The guy asserts the study of angels (aptly named angelology) is a science like any other, but that it's a science that also requires faith. So you have to BELIEVE. Maybe if I clap my hands and truly believe I can grow up to study faeries - or heffalumps and woozles.
Kreeft suggests that people are more suspicious of angelology than natural sciences are because it deals with the supernatural. Um, yes. The claim is that these are beings of god (completely invisible obviously - like all imaginary friends) and that every human that is alive or has ever lived has his own angel. And here is an example of what he calls deduction [which anyone who has any knowledge of the scientific method can get a good laugh about this]:
"If any one of the points of this theory were false, the data would be different. For instance, if angels could not assume bodies, they could not eat. However in Scripture they do on occasion eat (see Gen 19:3); therefore they can assume bodies."
AHA! Genius. See how convincing his logic is. The bible said A; B requires A; and B should mean C. Therefore C is unquestionably true.
Oh and by the way, there are angels everywhere. Always - there is an angel with you right now apparently. Basically the monotheistic Stasi. Imaginary, but just as intrusive - they even get involved in politics!
The book answers all the questions you could possible have about angels - seriously one heading is, "Are angels involved in politics?" The answer is a resounding yes, by the way.
Another question/heading: "What do angels do all day? Don't they get bored?
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.
For the full litany of problems, read Part 1 and Part 2
This bit is actually quite funny (but not so much when it's happening to you).
My phone had arrived in the mail - so as soon as I got home I called Bell to activate it. When I called, I was told that they couldn't activate it without coming in and showing my ID (security problems, etc). I was a bit frustrated by that, but fair enough. I understand. So I drove down to the store (about 20 mins each way). I gave my new [gorgeous, amazing, very well reviewed Samsung Cleo] to the agent there to activate. Of course, it didn't work - the computer gave him some error message. He told me that it wasn't going to work and he didn't know why.
Then he put me on the phone to Solo mobile. I told them my problem, and the guy from Solo Mobile told me that they had closed for the weekend (this was Friday night). I would have to call back Monday after 10am.
Frustrating for me - I called to activate my phone, and was told I couldn't activate it on the phone; I went into the store to activate my phone, and was told they couldn't do it; so I was put on the phone and told, to call back in three days. Great. Thanks.
I even went back on Monday afternoon with the phone and another agent told me basically "there is nothing I can do." (Time 6/6)
Stay tuned for future tribulations and Bell-created misery.
This is a continuation of a previous post, for earlier problems and lies, read Part 1.
Five months later, my phone broke. I know, phones tend to break which is why I asked before I bought it "Have you had ANY problems with this phone breaking?" I made it clear that I wanted a phone that would be durable. But I was told that they didn't have any problems with the LG Chocolate. I made the mistake of trusting what I was told before I signed the contract. When my phone broke I realized this was the second thing that I had been lied to about. I did a quick google search, and found a litany of problems that people had with their LG Chocolates. Lists of broken phones and constant problems - apparently many stores have stopped selling them because of the constant problems (when I got back to my Bell store I was told that they don't sell them anymore -- what a surprise!)
I went in, with my broke phone with my list of current complaints. I was basically told that my options were either: buy a new phone; or, buy a new phone! I asked to talk to the store manager and was told basically the same thing. He didn't care, and he couldn't (see wouldn't) do anything about it. It didn't matter that I had been lied to about other things (that wasn't related to THIS problem) or that I had been lied to about problems with Chocolate (anything that was told couldn't be proven -- which is an interesting viewpoint to take about contract negotiations).
During the discussion (see: heated) I was also told that the store wasn't responsible for any of their products. I had trouble believe that too. That really isn't something that inspires confidence in a consumer. When you are told that anything the store sells is not their responsibility... they are just selling it to you!
So I asked for the contact information for his boss. He refused to give it to me - but said he would ask.
He called me back 5 days later and said [the same thing I had essentially been told during my last three problems] "there is nothing we can do." I gave up at this point, and asked him if any Bell phone would work to use with my contract. He corrected me and said any Solo Mobile phone. So (keeping in mind my constant problems) I repeated.... "any solo mobile phone?" Yes. Double confirmed.
I bought a new Solo Mobile phone (not from them obviously -- I had already been told that "they are not responsible for any products they sell." obviously I'm not going to buy anything from them) and took it in.
I can't believe Bell - I've had probably the worst customer service I've ever had.
In the space of a few months, I've been:
1) Lied to (about multiple things)
2) Basically accused of lieing (not in those words)
3) And continually dealt with agents who were nothing but dismissive.
During this time I have been told by the store manager (here in Kelowna):
1) The store IS NOT responsible for the products they sell
2) Anything that I was told during initial contract negotiations can't be proved (and therefore, is not valid)
I bought the phone and signed a contract as soon as I got back to Kelowna this summer. I got the LG Chocolate - before I bought it I asked first, "does the bluetooth work for file transfers?" I was told yes, it does. I asked this directly because I used the bluetooth file transfer constantly with my previous phone. I was also worried about it breaking (because the design looked a bit... questionable. And I know that some phones can be pretty bad). So I asked, "have you had any problems with this phone breaking?" I was told very directly, "no - no problems."
My FIRST problem was when I got home and realized the bluetooth file transfer didn't work. I couldn't get my laptop to recognize it - I couldn't even get it to recognize the phone when I plugged it into my computer with a USB cord. So, I took my FIRST trip back to the store to find out what was wrong with the bluetooth. I spent an hour at the store (to give credit, the agent who was helping me this time was nice) It was useless though, nothing was solved - she recommended that I call tech support.
I went back about a week later, when I had time again and someone else tried to help me. This time, after a while of nothing helpful this agent called in someone else. He said that many of the bluetooth features didn't work on MOST LG PHONES! I had two solutions offered to me A) Send the phone in (and be without a phone for a few weeks) and hope that they could fix it -- but I was told that they probably couldn't. Or, B) They might be able to give me another LG chocolate. But, since my exchange period was up, they couldn't exchange the phone!
That was my first problem because I was lied to when I got the phone. I asked SPECIFICALLY if it had the feature, during a contract negotiation, and I was told it did. So I signed the contract. Then, by the time I knew the truth, they wouldn't do anything about it. Looking back, I probably should have dealt with that then. But I didn't know there would be so many more issues.
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.
I have to say that I love Facebook, if I was forced to choose between a world without kittens and a world without Facebook I would probably let the kittens burn in hell and choose to keep Facebook in the world. I'm sorry, but I would.
There must be something wrong with its' marketing though. Maybe it's just something way I've put in my information, or some weird reaction facebook has to me, but somehow they always manage to aggressively target me with ads that I'm less than interested in.
The first reason I believe this is because the majority of the ads I saw for months and months were "Muslim Singles" ads. It was the same ad over and over for a Muslim dating site - the thing is, somehow the advertising did sort of worked and after seeing this ad hundreds of times, I ACTUALLY CLICKED ON THE WEBSITE. I quickly realized that it probably wasn't for me (and didn't really expect it to be).
Another thing I got for a really long time was a whole group of weight loss sites. "Tips for losing those love handles." "Best ways to eliminate belly fat." Those kind of ads. Those aren't what the ads actually said for legal reasons -- and the fact that I have teenage-onset Alzheimer's. Belly fat? I barely even have hips. I just go straight from abs to thigh.
For a short period of time Liverpool university seemed interested in me. Right now the facebook ads are asking me if I'm afraid of suddenly going blind? (No.) And advertising some charity. At least I'm not getting activist-related ads. I have, and nothing does my head in like activists.
I really haven't been able to figure out how facebook targets their ads though.
Facebook seems to think that I'm a hypochondriac, obese Muslim. Oh and it keeps asking me if I want to play pirate ships games. I would, but I'm too busy with my Halal-Pilates-for-World-Peace.
There's alot of new fashion trends that I enjoy getting into and trying out - sometimes disposable fashion is fun because you only have a few months to try it out and by the time you realize it looks awful, it's already gone out of style so you can throw it out. There are some retro trends that I avoid like a retrovirus.
One of the things I always try and avoid is anything that looks cheap and tacky. I've been noticing far to many plastic wayfarers - especially in bright colours.
The last person to look good in wayfarers was JFK. And he was shot just for wearing them. So why try to bring them back, and make them even worse by making them bright colours. I like bright colours, but not when it makes it look like a toy from McDonald's.
Here's an example, and it proves my point: Katy Perry's cover art for her single "Ur So Gay."
They just look ridiculous - and that's the point of the picture! She's just giving a silly look and wearing ridiculous sunglasses - she's not even wearing and clothes. BECAUSE NOTHING GOES WITH THEM. This is not the kind of style you want to emulate! It's like those ridiculous venetian blind sunglasses that Kanye West started wearing (I won't even go into that and I won't post a picture). Okay, maybe you think they look cool on an album cover (if you think so you're a bit delusional) but with the concept, it makes it interesting. THEY ARE NOT COOL IN REAL LIFE! They really do look like they were bought at a discount supermarket or came with a burger.
Unless the intended style is looking like a child.
If you really feel the need to go for something a bit quirkier, and move away from the big, shiny, uber-reflective glasses, go for something like this:
Stumble It!
