McBible

*warning: potentially offensive content.  it's not a bash on religion or the bible, and it's not particularly profane, but this subject is not happy.

Hurray, another opinion piece!  It's really super long; sorry.  The next big thing will take some time to research, but I'm still posting opinions in between.  Tonight's little thing is too long to fit into the title bar, so I'll have to put it here:

"Would You Like Fries with That?"

God, His Son, and the Ones Who Claim to Know Him

It's not that I actually dislike religion.  Sure, I'm an atheist, but...well.  Atheism, to me, is a lack of belief in God.  It's not hatred for God.  I did go through a period during which I raged against an institution that betrayed me utterly, but I got that out years ago.  I'm left with the quiet realization that the idea of God is not the sum of its parts; it's the creator of those parts, and I can forget the jerks who happen to get together in a building every Sunday to teach and nurture a creation myth.  It's not their fault for wanting to believe in something greater than themselves, but it is their fault for using that belief, twisting it, and hurting others.  Knowing that I am better than the ones who hurt me makes it easier to separate the Idea from the Ideal.

And that's what religion is -- or at least, that's what I've been led to believe.  Religion is a cultural movement made up of a number of people striving toward, worshiping, or otherwise interacting with an Ideal.  As long as they're not hurting anyone, I can't fault them for that.

No, I don't dislike religion.  What I dislike is those who would use religion to hurt or oppress others.  Go worship in your churches, your temples, your mosques, your synagogues, your whatever.  Dance around a fire or pray or play music or whatever it is you do to honor your Ideal.  I honestly could not care less.

But.  But.

But here's the thing.  People do use it.  In the black and white terms of Christianity -- which I'll be addressing here, obviously, because it's the Bible and because so far we don't have a whole lot of, say, Wiccans vying for the top spot -- they use it for evil.  What happened to not committing adultery or bearing false witness against thy neighbor?  What about not coveting?  These things -- you know, three of the ten commandments -- are obviously not as important as things like whether homosexuals can serve in the military or that our President's secretly a Muslim born in...wherever.  These are the people who make the McBible.

What is the McBible?

Most people don't know what they're talking about when they talk about their own religion.  They might cite easy passages, or if they're really daring they'll eff up the story of Sodom and Gomorrah or something, but have they really studied what they're saying?  Chances are they haven't.  Preachers hand it to them in sermons.  Friends hand it to them in snotty conversation.  Politicians hand it to them in the form of legislature.  They can get it anywhere for cheap, but it's not the real thing.

Okay.  Some examples.

As it's obviously an issue that affects me personally, I'm going to first address the issue of homosexuality.  Here are the "condemning" parts of the Bible no politician has bothered to quote (most likely because they've never bothered to study for their own arguments, but hey, don't cite me or anything):

1) The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19

The King James Version of Gen 19

Here are the verses I think are most relevant:

6	And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
7	and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
8	Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
9	And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

So, Lot pleads with them to go away and they don't.  Why?  Because this dude comes along, proceeds to point the finger and call them all assholes, and then hides behind Lot when they come after him.  Surprise surprise, mob mentality kicked in and they tried to trample Lot.  (Note that "know" has many different meanings throughout the Bible, and even if this one did mean "know" in a sexual way, it would mean that the aforementioned assholes wanted to demean him -- rape him.  This is not homosexuality, this is aggression and punishment and humiliation.  Yeah, I'd probably burn them too.)  But to be honest, Lot's no better.  He threw his virgin daughters to the wolves.

Romans 1:26-27

	26  ¶ For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27  and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

Note: God gave them up unto vile affections.  As in, either he threw in the towel -- which wouldn't have happened; he'd have just killed them, as usual -- or he caused this.  Despite all that is wrong with continuity here and the dubious credibility of Paul (go have a whack at Paul sometime, I dare you), homosexuality is apparently God-given.  We're born hated by God.  Lucky us.  Either we did something terrible in a past life, or...oh wait.  Christians don't believe in reincarnation.  Yeah, God just hates us.  I can see why any politician worth his salt won't touch this one with a ten-foot pole.

Leviticus 18:22

           22  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

I'd like to point out here that correctly translated, it's condemning pedophilia.  The second word there should be related to boy, not mankind.

Leviticus 20:13

           13  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Again, boy here.  Either someone made a mistake (unlikely) or they did it on purpose, as with the witch thing (much more likely).  Also, on the subject of Leviticus, we mustn't forget the other abominations, like shellfish.  Keep his statutes: you can't have a garden, and that cute little patch you want so you can cover the hole in your blue jeans?  Forget it.  Also, God thinks that insects have four legs.  Just a thought.

1 Corinthians 6:9

 9  ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Fornication means sex, doesn't it?  In the Biblical sense I'm pretty sure that it refers to premarital sex.  Idolators is pretty self-explanatory.  Adulterers...yeah.  Abusers of themselves with mankind...not so sure of that one, but I sort of get a 'euthanasia' feel from it.  Effeminate?  Darn, Heath Ledger didn't get to go to heaven.  He was my favorite, too...so cute in A Knight's Tale.  But maybe his performance as the Joker helped.  Blood, fire, chaos?  Totally up the Old Testament's alley.  ...Wait.  Where's the part about homosexuality?

1 Timothy 1:9-10

9	knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10	for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

So, jerks who swear and do other godless stuff, murderers of parents (but apparently not of children), manslayers (insert one of a number of jokes about Buffy and her unfortunate love life), pimps, their hos, pretty faces who steal husbands, liars, and people who lie in court.  I'm not going to comment on the sexist undertones here, because this is par for the course.  I'm still not seeing where homosexuality fits in.  For them that defile... maybe, but I honestly got whores from that.  Not homosexuals.

Conclusion:

Haters gonna hate.  Politicians gonna pander.  It's unfortunate that they use "God" to defend their positions, when all they have from any of those passages is "Well, you're gay because God hates you, and that means I get to hate you too."  But what politician would ever say that?

I'm now going to quote Jesus for a little while.  He's a pretty cool guy.  I'd totally friend him on Facebook, even though we'd never hang out.  Out of everyone in the entire Bible, he's the only one I can stand.  So let's hear it from the original hippie himself:

From Matthew:

12  Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: Lk. 6.31 for this is the law and the prophets.

15	¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16	Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17	Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18	A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19	Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Mt. 3.10 · Lk. 3.9
20	Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Mt. 12.33

 Luke 10:25-37

25	¶ And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26	He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27	And he answering said,          Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; Deut. 6.5 and thy neighbor as thyself. Lev. 19.18
28	And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. Lev. 18.5 Mt. 22.35-40 · Mk. 12.28-34
29	¶ But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor?
30	And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31	And by chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32	And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33	But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34	and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35	And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him: and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36	Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among the thieves?
37	And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

	Jesus said to love thy neighbor, not to use the Old Testament to justify your hatred and oppression.  It's actually kind of sad, when you think about it, to see Christ so perverted by the very people who claim to worship him.  (Dude.  It's not Godianity; it's Christianity.  You'd think it'd be all about love and peace and healing and helping others, but apparently that's too old-fashioned for these people.  Or something.)

Look, I understand that politicians say half the crap they do because they want to connect with their target audience.  I get that although a person's favorite book might define their actions, their understanding might be a little effed up.  But if you're into Christianity, you can't justify hatred.  You can't justify persecution.

7  So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

(Jesus said this while doodling on the ground in front of angry politicians.  I kind of want someone to do this and see how many people get the reference.)

 One more McBible for the Hungry Masses

(sorry, I don't have magic bread or fish or wine)

Santorum.  Oh, I love to bash him.  I mean, he is basically a nutjob with a creepy smile, but the problem is, he's in the running for a position of authority.  He's anti-America, anti-equality, sexist, and pushing for a theocracy.

"Our civil laws have to comport with the higher law."

Religious or not, tell me how that's American.  Tell me why I, as an atheist -- or Jen, as a Wiccan...or Chrystal, as a Buddhist -- must answer to the Judeo-Christian God.  Why must I comply with his Ideal?  I shouldn't have to.  I won't give a history lesson here, because this is already so long, but there is a separation of church and state for a reason.  Our founding fathers set it up this way; isn't that good enough?  Apparently not for Santorum; he isn't a conservative.  He's suggesting big government.  He's suggesting throwing out our structure just because he believes he must be the authority on What is Right for You.

Santorum doesn't just give you the McBible.  He wants to force it down your throat and hold your nose until you either swallow or die. 

Grr.  But the biggest smaller irritation (which means it's smaller than the gut-wrenching fear I feel every time I hear 'President' and 'Santorum' in the same sentence, but it's still pretty huge), right now at least, is his assertion that all babies are gifts from God, regardless of where they came from.  I'll leave off after this, but seriously?  Rape babies are gifts from God?

Genesis 3:16

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

Yeah.  Because Eve wasn't punished enough, being saddled with a lying, finger-pointing husband dictating her life and intense pain for nine-plus months (and let's not even mention the delivery).  Now she has to go through the pain and anguish if some other jackass decides she's a free screw.  Um, no.  I've read the Bible three times, and I'm pretty sure Genesis has no such addendum.

Further reading: The Bible; The Constitution

OMG, That Baby Issue

Tonight's topic is family planning and the issues surrounding it.  I may -- scratch that, I will -- return to this at some point with more research and interviews backing me up, but tonight, this is simply an opinion piece.

I'm not here to talk about abortion.  As with anything that doesn't directly affect me, I'm kind of ambivalent; I believe in a woman's right to choose what goes into and comes out of her body, but sometimes I think, "What if [insert good friend's name] had been aborted?  What then?"  I get shivers.  So no.  This isn't about that hot topic everyone dances around like a friggin fire pit.

This is about the 'threats' posed to women by Rick Santorum and his ilk.  Of course, we're not in immediate danger, at least for the next four years; with the exceptions of Romney (and Paul, who isn't actually a Republican and won't get the Republican vote no matter how hard he tries), the conservative candidates are so far right that even lots of conservatives are shaking their heads and going, "...What?" 

But this isn't about this year.  This isn't about who's going to be President for the next four years.  This is about people like Santorum who would rather see women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.  (Can you tell I dislike this nutcake?  I'm using him as a public example of views that are very harmful to women, but making him look like a tool is totally a bonus.)

First, some facts, both about birth control...and Planned Parenthood. 

I mentioned PP because a) it's a family planning facility, but it offers more than its name suggests; b) its services are blown out of proportion by those who would say that women have no rights to their own bodies, and c) it's been attacked so many times it's ridiculous.  Of all the women (part of a couple or otherwise) who visit PP each year, three percent actually get abortions.

...Yep.  Three percent.  Their other services are: breast exams, testing for/prevention of cervical cancer, treatment for UTI/yeast infections, pelvic exams/pap smears, birth control/the morning-after pill, pregnancy services,  help with menopause and female infertility, and testing for STDs.  They also provide men's health services, but I'm talking about birth control, so I'll limit this to women's resources.  I'd like to point out that PP provides these services on a sliding scale, which is probably why so many people use their services. 

At a clinic or private practice, a pap smear can cost up to $500 without insurance.  At Planned Parenthood, it's based on your income; low income=low cost.  No income=no cost. 

Now let's talk about birth control itself.  Santorum states that birth control is bad for women.  Before I get into statistics and facts, I want to say something a little more close to home: I'm on Depo Provera.  I'm also asexual; even if I were straight, I wouldn't have sex.  My BC use is purely health-related; if I don't get the shot every three months, I don't stop bleeding.  This is maybe gross to think about, but many women use BC primarily for health reasons. 

Yes, there are side effects for Depo; long-term, it can cause bone loss, swelling, nausea, and other related symptoms.  My other meds cause light sensitivity, blurred vision, insomnia, weight gain, and a potential deadly rash that makes all your skin boil off.  Is he going to tell me to stop taking the only anticonvulsant that works for both of my health issues because it's 'bad for me?'  Not to be melodramatic or anything, but I'd probably be a one-woman riot.  And not in the funny way.

 Let's get into the facts here.  Birth control can be and is prescribed to help women with PSOS (polycystic ovary syndrome), endometriosis, heavy bleeding, debilitating cramps, severe PMS, low estrogen levels, irregular bleeding, and even acne.  PSOS affects one in fifteen women.  Endo affects 5.5 million women in America, and causes between 30 and 40% of those women to be infertile.  Estrogen imbalance can cause serious issues; birth control can act as a substitute for estrogen and therefore regulate menstruation. 

And birth control is bad for women.  Sure.  All medication is potentially bad for the person taking it, but often the benefits outweigh the risks.  Despite the chance that my skin can boil off, I continue to take Lamictal to manage two conditions. 

I want to take a moment to talk about the morning-after pill.  This is one of those 'in-between' issues, except...no, it really isn't. 

Emergency contraception is used purely as a birth control method.  There really isn't any health value in it.  So, your condom breaks, you realize you haven't taken your pill in two days, whatever, Plan B or Next Step is probably where you look.  Basically, it overloads your system with progestin, preventing fertilization.  Lots of people claim that this is like abortion.

It isn't. Life doesn't begin during sex.

Even if you believe that life begins at conception, you don't have a cute little zygote until two weeks after that scary unprotected sex.  Fertilization is generally at week three.  So what is emergency contraception?  A concentrated dose of the hormone found in birth control pills that works exactly like birth control, only a little late.  Sure, it's kind of the easy way out, but it is not abortion.  Not even close.

Fun fact: a haploid cell has only one set of chromosomes.  It's basically a sex cell, which is formed during that whole Mendel's Principle of Segregation thing.  When two haploid cells connect over coffee and have a wild night, a diploid cell is formed.  A zygote is one diploid cell (with two sets of chromosomes) which will eventually divide and divide.  I'm not sure if I really believe that one diploid cell can be considered a baby, but for the sake of this argument I totally do.  EC isn't abortion, because the zygote doesn't even exist. 

Obviously, I'm a strong proponent of birth control.  This is partly because I enjoy a life free of anemia and constant discomfort, but also because a woman has the right to control her own body.  And I bet you anything a husband wouldn't preach abstinence to his hot wife, no matter how rough it would be to have a baby at twenty years old.  Until a zygote is formed, those haploid cells are just potential.

I have the potential to be a superhero, but nobody arrests me for vigilantism.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Opposition?  Anger?  Please, do tell.  I eagerly await your responses, positive, negative, and in between.

Solving Inequalities

This topic, suggested by my sister, is the ethical and constitutional problems with equal marriage rights in politics and the government.  In layman's terms, how can politicians publicly gay-bash and still get taken seriously?  Why don't their followers care that they're hurting real people?  Should this be allowed in politics?  Should it be an issue in the government?

non-heteronormative people < people who believe their God should be able to run this country


                                   ...there's a problem here.  That 'less than' should be an equal sign.


But it isn't.  And here's why:

Commercial featuring fear-mongering, borderline racism, and fake concern for children!

Thrown out, but the mentality survives and grows.

WHAT.

Gays and lesbians will make us lose wars, apparently. Also, the cake is a lie.

This guy is a whack job, but unfortunately an influential one.

Let me first say that I have read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and all 27 amendments.  I've conducted interviews, gone through the actual laws passed banning same-sex marriage, read through the trials which finally nixed Prop 8 for good, listened as politicians and conservative news shows bashed me by proxy, and dealt with the fallout of coming out to my family.  I'm not just some uninformed kid whining about how so-and-so hurt her feelings, okay?  I'm a twenty-five-year-old woman who knows what she's talking about.


I'm talking about equality.  Well, actually, I'm talking about inequality, but in this case that's just semantics.

There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution which defines marriage.  Marriage wasn't defined as 'one man and one woman' until 1996.  They say that they don't want marriage redefined, but isn't that exactly what they did?  What they really mean is that they want an excuse to keep discriminating against me and people like me.  If their proposed definitions are ruled unconstitutional, they are the victims; we are somehow infringing on their rights.

This.  Is.  Not.  Okay.  Guess what?  We don't want extra rights.  We don't want to corrupt your children.  We don't want to shove our feelings down your throat, invade your homes, or take over the world.  

Surprise!  We just want due process.


Here's what my interviewees had to say (with one exception, I kept my orientation secret so they wouldn't worry about offending me):


"I'm all for marriage between a man and a wife; I think it should only be between a man and a woman.  But the government should be equal.  It's just fair, and things need to be equal."  --a returned Mormon missionary at Utah State University


"It doesn't matter to me; I don't care if you live together, get married, own things together, buy a house together.  It's none of my business." --a mother with a gay daughter


"I have mixed feelings, but the government should stay out of it.  Who am I to say they can't kiss or get married...know what I mean?  I mean, I know this is not gay marriage but if people have lived together for years they can be married without even getting married, like insurance, benefits, stuff like that...why isn't that offensive to the institution of marriage and two guys getting married is?" --a non-denominational Christian classmate


"On a technical scale, there's nothing in the Constitution about it.  Government shouldn't get involved.  But I don't think it's right; I'm Mormon, I just got back from my mission, I voted for Prop 8.  But religion aside, I have no problem with gay people, I just disagree with gay marriage.  And getting married without getting married...sharing a last name, sharing insurance, that kind of thing...they shouldn't do that either.  It's like piracy, only with marriage contracts.  The government shouldn't be involved, but if it's left up to the People, my personal opinion is no."  --a good friend of mine (we're still friends even after I told him I'm gay)


I wasn't able to get a quote from my last interviewee (a father in his 40s), because I wasn't in a position to write things down, but I'll sum it up:


It has to be an issue in the government, because marriage is a government-sanctioned action.  It has to be in politics, because people vote for those who share the same values.  Marriage has been, for thousands of years, only for raising children.  Marriage promotes family households.  Gays have no reason to get married; insurance benefits and tax breaks are set up for families.  Marriage already has a definition; we shouldn't redefine it just for 5% of the population.  Why change things for that 5% when it's worked up until now?

*note: some of this information is not correct.  same-sex couples can raise children.  it is, however, his opinion, which is what I asked for.


Hmm.  The results of this experiment have proved my hypothesis: young adults are more accepting than...old adults.  (Can I call them that without being insulting?)   Even though the older generation still holds to their bizarre ideals, the younger generation is starting to realize the truth: we're people, and the Declaration of Independence tells us we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 I know that there are some kids so indoctrinated that they repeat everything their parents say without forming their own opinions.  And I know that there are some old adults who support marriage equality.  And it's okay to have opinions which don't match mine.  (That's what's nice about this country; we have the right to think and say whatever we want.  But this is my blog, my opinions, and my collection of information.)

So answer me this, elder Americans: why shouldn't we have the floor now?  We're just as intelligent, thoughtful, and principled as you are; it's just that your principles are going out of style as we come to understand that people who are different are still people, no matter what our parents think.  We need to have a say in our future; after all, you're going to die much sooner than we are.  No offense.  It's just a fact.


One more fact: the first amendment to the Constitution says that nobody can make a law respecting an establishment of religion, nobody can impede free exercise of religion, nobody can abridge the freedom of speech, nobody can infringe on the freedom of the press, nobody can interfere with the right to peaceably assemble, and nobody can prohibit a petition for a governmental redress of grievances.


Examples of this can be found in Arkansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and Oregon; in these states, churches and conservatives drafted petitions to ban same-sex marriage and they got their way.  They exercised their first amendment rights in petitioning the government, openly using their religion as an excuse to discriminate against a minority group, and publicly hating on said minority group.

I exercise my right to free speech when I call them douchebags who use religion as a weapon.  If this were the 13th century, they'd be killing us.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Aggressive defense of conservative social politics?  Suggestions for future topics?  I didn't start this blog just to publish my opinions; I want to hear what you think.  I'm all eyes and ears.

An Education

*note: this information pertains to the northernmost quarter of Utah.  Although I did a lot of research and interviews, take this with a grain of salt, especially if you live in another state.

This issue, suggested by a friend who wishes to remain anonymous, is traditional public schools versus charter schools. For this entry, I had to do more than just research; I interviewed a lot of people and really had to think about what I thought.  I'm very neutral on this subject, so it's not going to be an opinion piece; it's a report.

Here's the scoop on charter schools, for people who aren't in the know:

Charter schools are schools which are funded by the state, but function like private schools.  Each charter school has a different focus; my sisters go to an IB school (which you can find here), my brothers go to an IB school focused on the Founders (which you can find here), and there's a school in Logan, Utah for teens who are slipping academically (which you can find here); and they're mostly sort of selective.  There's a lottery system instead of a traditional enrollment system -- if your name doesn't come up in the lottery, you can't get in.

Okay, now that the infodump is over, I can get down to the real issue.

I interviewed ten people; two children, three parents, and five college students.  The responses I got from my interviews were overwhelmingly in favor of charter schools; nine out of ten preferred charter schools, and the person who chose traditional public schools had never heard of charter schools.  Without releasing any names, I'll write some responses.

One of my college students told me that the issue with schools in general was that they needed to focus more on core subjects; students are there to learn, after all.  He added that teachers needed more leeway for discipline, because they are there to teach and guide their students.  These days, they're so restricted that they can't even try to help a troubled or floundering kid without getting accused of something.  He said that in traditional public schools, the standards are too low; because of the No Child Left Behind Act, instead of pushing their students, the teachers just lower the bar.  (This is different in charter schools, because -- although they are still held to NCLB -- they essentially govern themselves, and most of the teachers are non-union.  This means they push their students rather than letting them slide by, and the result is better education and more driven students.  It's not "no child left behind;" it's "all children moving forward.")

One of the mothers told me that she likes charter schools better because of the involvement of teachers and parents; she shared a story with me about the principal coming, on a Saturday, to a ballroom competition and socializing with the parents.  Since parents are required to put a certain amount of hours into the school, they have a much better understanding of the things their children learn, the way they're taught, and the way the classroom works.

Another spin on charter schools was given to me by a college student with nieces and nephews in the Logan charter school, Fast Forward.  She seemed pretty ambivalent at first; on the one hand, when her niece transferred from Logan High, she was ready to graduate early, but at the end of the year she was behind in her classes, smoking pot, and generally being a delinquent.  On the other, her nephew is doing very well at Fast Forward -- much better than he would be at a traditional public school.  After talking with her, we decided her niece had problems because of her friends, not because of the school.

(Unrelated note: I know that if 'niece' were spelled 'neice,' it would sound like mace with an n instead of an m.  Still, when I spell it correctly, it looks wrong.  Anyone else have this problem?)

Both of my charter students told me that they liked charter schools better; they like the uniforms, the way they're taught, and the amount they're taught in comparison with the traditional public school they previously attended.

My older student explained more than my younger student; she spent more time at traditional public school and is therefore experienced enough to make comparisons about more than just bathrooms and recess and how nice the teachers are.  She told me that in traditional public school, she learned very little because "the whole class had to stop and wait for the kids who weren't doing anything, and sometimes the kid never caught up so we didn't do anything.  They didn't even have any tutoring."  Then she explained that her new school had tutoring systems for the kids who struggled or fell behind; this is, I'm sure, the point of NCLB, but according to almost all of my interviewees, this is not how it's done in traditional public schools.  A quote: "I've tried every kind of school; public, private, home school, and charter, and charter school is the best."

She also mentioned that she gets to go skiing every Wednesday.  How friggin cool is that?  Traditional public schools don't have weekly outings like that.  Just saying.

I would write what the others said, but it's more of the same; all of the parents said more or less the same things, and the college students were on the same page (again, except for the girl who didn't even know what charter schools were).

My conclusion: if I was crazy enough to adopt some kids right now, I'd want them in a charter school.  If I were ever to use this blog to spread awareness, this is the topic.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Challenges from proponents of traditional public schools?  I'm all ears and eyes.

Dead Criminal Day

Who is St. Valentine?  Which of the Valentines are we celebrating here?  The most commonly accepted Valentine is the bishop of Terni, who performed Catholic marriages in Italy even though they weren't allowed and eventually got executed (on February 14, apparently) after trying to convert Claudius.

So.  We're celebrating the execution of some Catholic dude who was breaking the law.  Like Easter, except mundane and kind of pointless.  Also, Jesus was Jewish, but that's way not the point.

In my opinion, Valentine's Day has been warped so badly that it doesn't matter what the origins are; V-Day is now simply a commercial exploitation of the human desire for comfort and intimacy.  Nothing says "I love you" like a big box of expensive chocolates, or a big bouquet of overpriced flowers, or a diamond necklace, or...you get the point.  You never hear of "Fourth of July Diamond Earrings," which would be more appropriate in our society even though it should be July 2.  You never hear of "Beltane Sapphire Bracelets."  I'm just throwing out holidays here; I'm trying to show how silly it is to give in to this stupidity. 

I'm not one of those people who shout "Death to Consumerism" at every opportunity.  I'm not obsessed with money, but I understand the reasons for it.  However, this makes me a little ill.  I'm not necessarily irritated with the companies; supply and demand is basically why they do what they do.  I'm annoyed with the consumers.  I'm annoyed that everything's all pink and gross.  I'm annoyed with the women who say, "I'm on a diet, but hey, it's Valentine's Day.  I'm going to eat a box of chocolates.  Wait until tomorrow when I cry at you about how I'm so fat."  I'm annoyed that people overthink V-Day because they believe it's important.

It's not.

There's no real religious context.  There's no political context.  Isn't that why we have holidays?  An old Catholic dude, who pretty much nobody's heard of, got executed for breaking the laws in fourteenth-century Italy.  The closest thing to romance in his case is the illegal marriages he performed. 

...Maybe, instead of exchanging gifts with our significant others, we should go out and commit crimes together.  That would be more in the spirit of Valentine's Day.

Now, I'm not a V-Day grouch.  I'm single right now, yes, but guess what?  I like being single.  Having a significant other is too much work; it takes up energy I'm not willing to expend at this point in my life and takes up time I simply don't have.  My views would not change if I suddenly had a Valentine.  So please don't assume that I'm just bitter.

I just don't find dead criminals very romantic.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Feel free to give me an earful, if you want; I'm all ears and eyes.

Nasty Newt

*edit: there was a little (stupid) error with my dates because of a typo, but they're fixed now.

Today's topic, suggested by my mother, is Newt Gingrich.  I had to do a lot of research on him because I wasn't sure if I knew enough about him to write this, but the more I read, the less I liked him.  So, here's the scoop on Nasty Newt.

I’ve been to Newt Gingrich’s website.  At first glance, he seems like a pretty good guy; he’s worked for/with the government before, he apparently knows his stuff financially, and he has a nice quiet personal life; a wife, a home.  Comfortable living.  His website features Gingrich supporters giving testimonies about why they chose to support him, and maybe they’re a little nasty, but those are other people. Some pretty big, well-known companies endorse him.  His website doesn’t mention his earlier political scandals, but there’s no solid proof and he was ‘victimized’ anyway, so why should it?  His wife has given several public talks, and they’re all positive.  

Well, I say ‘his wife,’ but I should clarify that she’s his third wife.  There’s nothing wrong with remarriage if your first marriage falls apart; my parents are both remarried, and I’m really glad they divorced in the first place.  However, his first wife told us that he had an affair with the woman who eventually became his second wife.  His second wife told us that after she refused to have an open marriage, he decided to cheat on her for six years with his campaign aide.  Wait, what?  This man professes to be trustworthy and religious and pro-family values, but he made a very calculated, conscious decision to commit adultery.  He doesn’t even have the flimsy excuse of it just happened.  He thought about it and decided to go ahead anyway.  Furthermore, both of his ex-wives were ill – the recovering from cancer treatments, and the second with MS – when he left them.   

 Callista’s an idiot if she thinks she’s the end of this cycle, so we can’t trust her word, and it’s already a given that we can’t trust his.  If he can’t behave appropriately in his personal life, how can we expect him to do it politically?

He believes America was once and should be the ‘dominant country.’  Why, exactly?  What makes him think that we’ll be able to liaise with other countries if we’re so full of ourselves that we believe we’re better than everyone else?  That causes resentment.  That’s the kind of mentality which, on the playground, gets a kid beat up.

He talks big, talks about this ideal society – which is ridiculous, since everyone knows idealists never actually get anything done, because they’re working for perfection and perfection doesn’t exist – but even so, even if this ideal did exist, it wouldn’t matter; he doesn’t give any specific solutions.  He cracks jokes and alludes to Big Plans; however, in all of my readings both ‘pro-Newt’ and ‘anti-Newt’ (there doesn’t seem to be a middle ground here), I haven’t found anything more than empty promises of a better country. 

 Okay, okay, he said some specific stuff about jobs.  Again, he’s talking big; does he really believe he’ll get that done?  He’s either completely idealistic or just delusional…do we want someone like that representing us?

Look, I know Gingrich supporters will tell me but he is specific!  He’s telling us [a, b, c]!  I understand where you’re coming from.  He has lots of goals that sound really…sound.  But how will he accomplish those things?  For instance, how will he achieve 100% expensing?  If he could back up his promises, maybe I'd be able to take him more seriously.

He says that there’s some war against religion.  Generally, I like to use family-appropriate words on the internet, but this is bullshit.   As an atheist, I’m ambivalent about religion; on the one hand, I can’t understand it intellectually, emotionally, or spiritually.  On the other, everybody has the right to believe what they want to believe, as long as they aren’t violent about it.  There was a proposed anti-bullying law which had a clause stating that you could bully someone if you objected to them from a spiritual, religious standpoint; it got rejected, but seriously?   

War on religion?  What Gingrich means is that there are other belief systems out there.  Not everybody is Christian.  That means that not everybody agrees with his standpoint and the standpoint of most of his followers.  What Gingrich means is that he thinks everybody should be Christian.  If we aren’t, we’re ‘anti-religion.’ 

 Let me give you a little history lesson: the Pledge of Allegiance wasn’t written by any Founding Fathers.  It was written by Francis Bellamy – a Christian socialist – in 1892.  It certainly fits a socialist mindset, doesn’t it?  ‘Under God’ wasn’t added until 1954.  ‘In God We Trust’ was added to our coins in 1864, added to our paper currency in 1957, and adopted as the US motto in 1956.  Our original motto was E Pluribus Unum, which means ‘Out of Many, One.’  If anything, conservatives should applaud the removal of ‘Under God’ from the pledge, and constitutionalists should move for the removal of ‘In God We Trust’ from our currency and abolish the pledge completely.  Instead, they’re claiming a ‘war on religion.’

Speaking of war, we won the Second World War from 1941 to 1945?  As in, the war only started in 1941?  Here’s another history lesson: World War II started in either 1937 or 1939 (the dates are not set in stone, but they’re definitely in the ‘30s).  America only joined in 1941 because Japan dropped a bomb in Pearl Harbor.  I’m not going to go into the political and global issues that came along with WWII, because that’s another subject entirely, but Gingrich talks about the US ‘winning’ the war, because we dropped atomic bombs in Japan.   

We were violent – and maybe it was necessary, but here's the thing: we didn’t ‘win’ anything, we just defended ourselves by going on the offensive.  Thanks, Newt, for rewriting history.

I would say ‘Don’t get me started on attacks on other candidates,’ but this is the place to get me started.  I don’t really want to focus on President Obama, because seriously, I could write a book on everything Gingrich has said to tear him down.  But I will remind you that Gingrich said, at CPAC 2012, “My goal, with your help, is that by the time President Obama lands in Chicago, we will have repudiated at least 40% of his government on the opening‑day.”

This is a pipe dream.  People were clapping and cheering for idealistic garbage; isn’t that part of why Gingrich hates our current President in the first place?  Like I said before, idealists can’t get things done.  I may not agree with Gingrich’s policies, but that’s not the point.  People who believe in him shouldn’t.  He’s empty.

 

Gingrich has opened an attack website on Romney.  I think that speaks for itself.

Of course, Gingrich has very few negative things to say on Santorum, who is a complete loon who is dangerous to our country, to those of us who aren’t Christian, and to anyone who doesn’t fit the heteronormative profile.  If Gingrich likes Santorum, there’s another problem; how can I, an atheistic homoromantic asexual, possibly hope to publicly be myself with Gingrich/Santorum supporters pushing to make my life hell?  Just saying.

He’d also like to abolish child labor laws.  Why?  They’re ‘stupid.’  Let me tell you something about the reason for child labor laws.  From 1908-1912, a photographer named Lewis Hine took photographs of children working in factories, mines, and other places.  They were, frankly, horrifying, and they were a huge push for child labor laws.  I’m not saying that children are going to be dirty, dressed in rags, and miserable, but I am saying that there’s a reason for them.  If Gingrich doesn’t know this, he’s an ignorant fool saying stuff to attract equally ignorant supporters; if he does know this, he’s a jerk who doesn’t care.  Aside from all of that, children work for less than adults do.  If we abolished child labor laws, children would take jobs away from their parents, which would mean making less money for the family.  That’s just great, isn’t it?  Let kids work so adults don’t have to be responsible and family incomes will come down.

…Wait.  That’s not a good idea.  Well done, Gingrich.

I could go on, but I won't.  I'm not that passionate about this; Gingrich is a jerk with lofty ideals and a narrow view of history, and I don't necessarily like to dwell on stupid people, because the more I speak about them the more irritated I get.  

But all of this makes my grandma correct when she calls him 'Nasty Newt.'

Comments?  Questions?  Fiery accusations and corrections from Gingrich supporters?  I'm all ears and eyes.  Almost all comments are welcome.  (Friends and family, please refrain from talking about me.  Pretend I'm just a voice here; you don't know me.  I want to be a bodiless voice for this blog; any comments on me from people who know me will be deleted, but you're welcome to comment on the entry.  This goes for all entries.  Thank you.)

no wise fish would go anywhere without a porpoise

I'll be honest: I never really considered starting a blog.  Oh, I threw out ideas; maybe a food blog, or a blog on just how I'm taking over the world (that one was obviously in jest -- unless you'd like to be a minion, in which case I'll send you a form), but they were just passing thoughts.

Then I realized just how friggin opinionated I really am.  I started using Facebook as an outlet, but I'm sure I drove everybody nuts with my posts on birth control, marriage equality, video games, and pretty much everything else under the sun.  I needed a place to write my ideas.  Some things are just a sentence or two, but some things could become essays.

Seriously.

So here I am, ready to talk about anything and everything: ideas, opinions, and other such nonsense.