Stratovania

Apparently our nation still acknowledges Labor Day despite the fact that Scott Walker is considered a viable candidate for President. I really think we're in an era when workers are considered unimportant and expendable, which seems like pretty much the opposite of what the labor movement was trying to accomplish. Businesses aren't afraid to fire people whenever they see fit, because they know there are a lot of other people who will take the job, at least for a brief period of time. Seems like I'm constantly reading something about how poorly workers are treated, be it complaints about how little time Americans get off from work compared to other developed countries, rich people lobbying against having to pay health insurance or raise the minimum wage, questions about why looking busy is more important than actually doing your job, observations on how it's usually jobs that pay the least money that require you to be working every single second, or how workers at Amazon are encouraged to tattle on each other. While I've never worked for a place as bad about that last one as Amazon seems to be, employees ratting each other out is a pretty common occurrence, and I've never really understood what the rats feel they have to gain. It just produces a really paranoid environment, and I have to suspect that this decreases productivity, because why bother putting in a lot of effort when you're likely to get fired for something stupid and unrelated? I guess the opposite side of the coin is when businesses have team-building exercises. The way I see it, unless you're actually supervising another person or their work directly impacts yours, you should concentrate on your own work.

In more pleasant news, bethje and I went to the Brooklyn Botanic Garden for the first time yesterday. Why is it that Brooklyn has a BOTANIC garden, and Queens and the Bronx have BOTANICAL gardens? Are they trying to keep the number of syllables consistent? But no, the one in the Bronx is just called the New York Botanical Garden, so that wouldn't work. Anyway, Beth used to really enjoy going to Longwood Gardens, and I actually volunteered at their library for a little while. That's not too close to us anymore, so this is sort of a substitute. There's a deal where you can get a free membership for a year with a New York City identification card. I took a lot of pictures there.
( Read more... )
After that, we ate at the Park Cafe, and went to the Canal Bar to see the Tim Burton Batman with our friend Stephanie. Can we get Batman to sort out the unfair labor practices in this country? That's really more of Superman's kind of thing, isn't it?

Penn & Teller's Bullshit!: Self Esteem - The point basically seemed to be that the obsession with self-esteem has led to ridiculousness and narcissism. In a way I agree, because I'm sick of people asking each other if they're happy. Maybe they were before you forced them to THINK about it! And yes, the life coaches and hypnotherapists are obviously bullshit artists. On the other hand, I know quite a few people with truly low self-esteem that impacts their lives in negative ways. Then again, people who hate themselves can be sometimes be the worst narcissists. I don't know. It's a complex issue, but I share the distaste for people being obsessed with how they're feeling at any given moment. Unless there's an all-consuming issue to deal with, the human brain doesn't really WORK that way.


Futurama: A Clockwork Origin - This one was all right, but I think it became rather light on humor after it reached the evolving robots. The funniest part was at the beginning, with the satire on Creationism. Really, I have to suspect that Creationism will be about as popular in another thousand years as the geocentric universe is today. I kind of think the show works better when it comes up with futuristic equivalents to debates that are going on today (e.g., robot-human marriage and illegal downloading of people) than when it just takes current controversies wholesale into the future. To be fair, they DID imply the discovery of a lot more transitional fossils than we know today. Dr. Banjo's dismissal of these intermediary forms was pretty much exactly what a lot of modern Creationists do. The brief subplot of Dr. Zoidberg taking care of Cubert was pretty funny, as was the appearance of the flying spaghetti monster (who presumably evolved from flightless manicotti).

All right, here's another television report. First, the new Futurama episode, which was largely an extended parody of Twitter and YouTube. It started out pretty well, giving us futuristic versions of the iPhone and social networking. I think it touched upon a few elements that weren't really explored, though. I thought, for instance, that they'd do something more with Flexo throwing himself away. Also, while amusing, the Mom scenes didn't really amount to anything, and the ending with the zombies was very abrupt. I did like the running gag with the two-headed goat. The Futurama writers are pretty skilled at doing gross-out humor that's somewhat smarter than what you'll see on other somewhat comparable shows.

The other show I'm addressing here is one that's actually a few weeks old, but bethje and I just got around to watching it. It's the second episode of the current season of Penn and Teller's Bullshit!, about fast food. I liked this one a lot better than the cheerleading one, but there were a few flaws and straw man arguments that I noticed. Overall, though, it had basically the same view I do about fast food, which is that the stigmatization of it is usually just yet another attempt to demonize fat people. They made a valid point about how, while fast food isn't great for you, neither is what you'll get at most non-fast-food restaurants. People who patronize fast food joints tends to have a better idea how many calories what they're eating has. (Don't ask me about that, though, because I have no clue when it comes to calories.) I did think the statement that the President wants to place mandatory calorie counts on fast food was a bit of a mislead, because you'd obviously be free to ignore that. I don't know of any serious movement to BAN fast food, but there is an incredible level of guilt involved with it. Penn continued on his anti-tax screed with the soda tax. He's probably right that it would place an additional tax burden on poor people, but it's not like the prices don't keep increasing anyway. It often seems like arguments over tax increases are making mountains out of molehills. ("I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far!") If I'm paying more money, why do I really care where it's going? Overall, though, I think the episode made a valid point.

Today is the first Thursday in May, which makes it the National Day of Prayer. I can't say I've ever really been into the prayer thing, but hey, to each his or her own. I've seen it suggested that prayer is really a way for people to work through things and build themselves up to face challenges. It's sort of like what I suggested in this post about how belief in God can sometimes inspire people to take matters into their own hands. That only applies in certain situations, though. Praying for success in battle is one thing, and praying for the enemy to turn into little black ants quite another. An all-powerful deity SHOULD be able to turn the enemy into ants, but I'd say the chances of it happening are basically nil, unless you have access to an Infinite Improbability Drive. And when people say, "I'll pray for you" in response to a disagreement, that's really just a smug way to get in the last word without having any actual argument. It's like, "You may THINK you've won this argument, but GOD is on my side!" Yeah, what makes you so sure?

( Our Father, who art behind this cut, hallowed by Thy name. )

If you believe in prayer, go ahead and do it. Hey, you're not hurting anybody, and maybe the joke will be on the skeptics when it actually comes true. But remember that prayer isn't a substitution for thought and action, and that you can't force others to share your religious convictions.

I don't have much to say about tonight's Simpsons and American Dad episodes, but they were decent enough. The friendship that developed between Homer and Chief Wiggum was interesting, but nothing really came of the subplot. The Battleballs themselves were an amusing concept, but the mistakes that led the school and Marge to think Bart was dealing drugs were rather predictable and not all that funny. I thought at first they were going to do something related to schools banning Pokémon cards, although I guess that's really old news at this point.

Also tonight, we watched a documentary called Protocols of Zion, which I believe I added to our Netflix queue a few years ago when revme mentioned it. I don't think he'd seen it at the time, and I'm not sure if he has since. As might be expected from the title, it dealt with the continuing popularity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the infamous late nineteenth century forgery (and plagiarism, for that matter) detailing how Jews secretly rule the world. Apparently there was a bit of a spike in interest in the Protocols after September 11th, tied in with bizarre conspiracy theories about how no Jews died in the attacks, and how the Zionists were secretly responsible. Yeah, that makes sense, considering the rampant antisemitism in Al Qaeda strongholds. But since when do the beliefs of hate groups and conspiracy theorists have to be consistent? The film mentioned how the Protocols really just confirmed existing prejudice, and that a significant amount of antisemitic thought dates back to the beginning of Christianity. There was a clip of Mel Gibson insisting that people who have problems with The Passion of the Christ actually have problems with the Gospels. Hey, I have a problem with both, although at least the Gospels contain some good stuff to augment the cringe-worthy parts. But there's definitely a tradition of blaming "the Jews" for the death of Jesus, which only became worse as Christianity grew apart from its parent religion. While it seems that modern churches are trying to distance themselves from this idea, there's still a significant lunatic fringe that still holds on to it.

I'm most likely not doing a video game post this week, unless I think of something while I'm at work. I've been known (well, known by myself, anyway) to plan out posts pretty much word for word while working, although of course they don't come out exactly the same when I actually write them. The Mushroom Guru posts were fun, but I've largely run out of ideas, and I can only recall receiving two comments on them anyway. Am I using the wrong forum, or were they just not funny? Either is possible, but it's difficult to tell when no one leaves feedback. And when I make comments like that, it's pretty much always people who comment on other posts anyway who leave a reply like, "Oh, I'm sorry. I've been busy recently." While I definitely appreciate your replies, I'm really not talking to you, but to anyone reading this who NEVER comments. Then again, maybe there aren't any people in that category. I don't know. While I'll probably keep using LiveJournal for posts about my life, is there a better place for my creative experiments and observations on religion and mythology? And if so, would it be possible for me to an RSS feed on LJ, so people who DO like this format would be able to read them without going somewhere else? I feel like I've asked these same basic questions many times, and while I've gotten answers, they've never really been enough to go on. Really, that's mostly my fault, though. I'm just not sure where to get started.

Anyway, I originally wasn't going to make a post at all today, but then I came across this article. Aren't you glad that ridiculous bigotry is still alive and well? Because I'm not, but it looks like someone must be. bethje had told me earlier about Constance McMillen not being able to bring her girlfriend to her prom, and how when the ACLU got involved, the school just canceled the prom entirely. Well, they apparently settled the issue by holding a small event for Constance and her date that only four other people attended, while other students attended a separate prom. I wondered for a minute why anyone would have attended the separate prom knowing the prejudice that went into the decision, but then I remembered that we're talking about high school students here. The article touches on how cruel an environment high school is for anyone who's different in pretty much any way, and how the schools rarely do anything to prevent this. In fact, in this case, we have the school coming right out and saying, "Hooray for homophobia!" Doesn't it figure that this school would be in Mississippi, and have "agricultural" in its name? Does a state that's stereotyped so much by the rest of the country really want to perpetuate the stereotypes? Come on, if you're portrayed as marrying your first cousins and having five kids by the time you're sixteen, it's probably not a good idea to marginalize anyone else for their sexual identity. Obviously the redneck stereotypes aren't true for most people either, but this school and its students certainly aren't helping matters. Oh, and of course there are also bigots leaving comments on the article, yakking about the "gay agenda." First of all, this is a phrase that you obviously took from someone else, meaning you're just parroting another person's thoughts. And really, if you want to talk about agendas, which is more of one? Wanting to have the same civil rights as everyone else, or working hard to overturn that pesky separation of church and state?

1. I don't read the Huffington Post very often, but I find that I usually agree with their politics. On the other hand, I'm not so keen on their promotion of so-called "alternative medicine." Apparently, their "wellness editor" is called "Dr." despite not having a medical degree. If you thought accepting things with no evidence was the exclusive province of the right wing, think again! Really, it seems to me that New Age stuff in general is basically the opposite side of the coin from fundamentalist religion. That's not to say that some people don't incorporate elements of both, mind you. Advocates of "natural health" and the like claim that there IS evidence, but the government is suppressing it. I'm not going to deny to stranglehold the drug companies have over the government, but if these alternative cures really work, why suppress them instead of marketing them themselves and getting even richer? Then again, why try to outlaw gay marriage instead of taking advantage of the marketing possibilities inherent therein? Hey, Disney was smart enough to do that, so why not the rest of you in the generally pro-business section of the political spectrum? And by the way, Arianna, how long have you lived in this country? Lose the accent already!

2. Speaking of "natural health," the people who hold that pretty much anything can be accomplished through diet and exercise...well, they have a valid point, but I still think there's a significant flaw in that philosophy. To wit, they seem to think that health is simply a single measure, like a life bar in a video game. From what I've seen and experienced (which, admittedly, isn't exactly hard data), it's completely possible to be healthy in some respects and unhealthy in others.

3. I've heard that there's been a certain amount of controversy over the latest Family Guy episode, which is kind of bizarre. I mean, the last new episode before that had a running joke about Peter being raped, and it's this new one that gets flak? I kind of feared the worst when they introduced the girls with Downs Syndrome, but they ended up treading pretty lightly as far as Seth MacFarlane shows go. Of course, Bill O'Reilly's complaint on the show has nothing to do with mocking mental illness, and everything to do with (surprise, surprise) someone having different political views than him. See, at one point, the girl says her mother is the former Governor of Alaska. You know, because Sarah Palin has a kid with Downs Syndrome? Honestly, the joke really didn't make much sense, as far as I could tell, but it was slightly amusing. To O'Reilly and Palin, however, it constitutes an "attack on her family." My God, what horrible network would air such a terribly insulting program? Oh, wait, the same one that employs O'Reilly. But we already know Mr. Falafel and Mrs. Deathpanel are people who can dish it out but not take it. What I don't get is how someone who gets indignant about two-second jokes on comedy shows can reasonably expect to be President. Hey, I'll admit I'm too personally sensitive to hold public office, so why can't you, Sarah? Oh, by the way, the FG character said her dad was an accountant, which Todd Palin isn't, so why aren't you bitching about the implication that you have an illegitimate child? Or did you not pay that much attention?

Okay, I think I've had enough of the media covering the reactions of the old ladies who gasp, "Well, I never!" while their monocles fall into their tea. Obviously I'm stereotyping, but I hope you know what I mean. The news will tell us some anecdote that there's really no reason for most of us to care one way or the other about, like Adam Lambert grinding a backup dancer's face into his crotch or Tiger Woods cheating on his wife, and the media highlight the reactions of the sanctimonious busybodies who still bother getting indignant at such things. Come on, if you want to overreact to everything you see on TV, that's your prerogative. But why encourage such people? We already have Fox News for that; the other networks don't need to join in. Hey, you know what I'm indignant about? That homophobia is still so accepted that politicians have to claim to be against gay marriage to be able to win in what we tend to consider our LIBERAL party. But I get the feeling that a lot of the "well, I never" crowd is all in favor of homophobia.

As for Adam Lambert, though, I'm sure he's glad to have gained some notoriety. When you're a pretty generic theater kid who got famous through a televised talent show, it's probably pretty hard to distinguish yourself from the rabble. Oh, and I'd also say I have to wonder how somebody could possibly be on a show like American Idol and be anti-gay (Jordin Sparks allegedly is, and I don't think she's the only one), but then I've also heard that there are homophobes in the International Wizard of Oz Club. Some friends of Dorothy they are!

Another thing that I've been meaning to rant about recently is...well, a few days ago, bethje and I were listening to the car radio, and they were playing sound bites of kids saying what they thought was in fruitcake. So, was it automatically supposed to be funny because the kids got it wrong, and since they were kids, their being wrong was just adorable? I'm not really sure I get it. I have to say I don't know a whole lot about kids (even when I WAS one, I didn't understand any of the others), but it seems to me that no children like to be patronized. And isn't an "aww, everything these little tykes do is so cute" attitude somewhat patronizing? I guess I also feel bad for the kids when parents think it's cute to take pictures of them with their pants down or spaghetti on their faces. Maybe I'm just projecting my own childhood insecurities onto the world, though. By the way, I also don't know what's in fruitcake, although I believe they generally contain brandy.

What else? Well, Beth and I watched the movie version of Rent last night. Not being a teenage girl or someone who remembers seeing the play when I WAS a teenage girl, I don't think I got a whole lot out of it. I guess I'm not quite sure why being loud, obnoxious, self-righteous, and unemployed is supposed to be a GOOD thing. I mean, I've been all of these things before at some time or other, but I don't brag about it. Or am I missing the point?

Well, it's Veterans' Day again today. Not that I ever do anything for it, but hey, it's important to honor veterans. They did a dangerous job that the rest of us don't want to do, after all. Sure, you hear the stories about bad apples like the torturers at Abu Ghraib, but I'm willing to accept that they're in the minority. And could behavior like that possibly be blamed on the methods employed by the military? When you're teaching soldiers to disobey one of the most basic customs of polite society (i.e., don't kill people), is it any wonder that they might disobey others as well? Maybe I'm wrong, but it's not like dirty tactics are anything new in war. Just look at the early books of the Bible, for instance. Under the supposed command of Yahweh, the early Israelites slaughtered entire populations and burned their towns, sometimes saving the virgin women to rape. In general, war strikes me as very primitive, and the idea of removing soldiers' individuality and turning them into killing machines is disturbing. But if an enemy won't react to anything else, what do you do? I won't give up hope that there's a more peaceful alternative, but damned if I know what it would be. I seriously doubt I could ever be an effective fighter, and I sincerely hope I'll never get the chance to find out. Fortunately, I grew up in an era with no draft, although that doesn't necessarily mean there won't be one in the future. I don't think anyone over thirty was drafted in Vietnam, but they were earlier in the century. Really, why would a country want to involve so many people in a war when they don't even believe in the cause? It doesn't exactly ensure the best troops, does it? But if there's a draft and you manage to get out of it, does that just mean some other unlucky person will end up going in your place? That's one reason I sort of like the idea of requiring everyone to become involved in SOME sort of national service, but not necessarily military. That way, even if you didn't go abroad and shoot somebody, you can still say you've served your country. Or is there something I'm missing here?

On a more pleasant note, today is also the fifty-sixth birthday of Andy Partridge, formerly of XTC. Happy birthday, Andy! While I put about as much stock in astrology as I do in the position of my feet on the sidewalk having the potential to give my mom spinal cord injury, I do think it's kind of cool that Andy and I are apparently both the same Occidental AND Oriental zodiacal signs. Scorpio Snakes, represent! If our venom doesn't get you, our pincers will!

I voted yesterday, but I guess it didn't do much good, as Chris Christie won the gubernatorial race. I'll admit I didn't do a whole lot of research going into this election, but looking at his positions on issues doesn't exactly fill me with hope. He's opposed to gay marriage, in favor of destroying the wetlands, and apparently favors parents in poor school districts using state money to send their kids to private schools (as opposed to, y'know, improving the public schools themselves). Oh, and he was a lobbyist. Great. But much more disappointing was the result of the election in Maine, where the bigots came out in force to oppose gay marriage. Why does this issue keep being put to the vote? It's a civil rights issue, and those are too important to leave up to the majority. But morality doesn't seem to be of much significance in the country today. Just look at all the opposition to universal health care, for instance. Why isn't a reasonable level of health care considered a moral right? Well, you have a lot of corporate lobbies trying to convince people it isn't, and they're obviously doing a good job. We can't underestimate the power of telling people that something will result in Higher Taxes, though, as if "Taxes" were one single figure rather than the results of many different factors. That's not to say that the expense isn't a significant concern, but I think some issues are more important than money. Besides, despite being in debt, the government apparently still has enough money to bribe other countries. Funny, that. Also kind of funny, if you look at it in the right light, is the idea that there are businesses based pretty much entirely around finding excuses not to pay for things. And these businesses are some of the most powerful entities in the country.

With universal health care, though, I can understand some of the arguments against it, and it's incredibly obvious why certain corporate interests would be against it. With gay marriage, though...not so much. You'd think the corporate lobbies would be in favor of it because marriage of any kind is incredibly profitable. Disney got on board with that, so why don't other corporations want to? I've considered the possibility that the insurance companies might be behind this one as well, since more marriages could mean having to insure more people. While there's some logic there, though, it strikes me as rather convoluted and indirect. No, while that might be a factor, it's primarily religious groups that are driving the anti-gay-marriage campaign. I have to suspect there's more to it than just "the Bible says," though (especially since the Bible DOESN'T say; it says to stone gay men to death, but doesn't address whether they should be allowed to get married). The rank and file of homophobic voters might be convinced that it has something to do with keeping people out of Hell, but what do the leaders want? I tend to hold to the idea that winning battles like that is a way for the fundamentalists to get their foot in the door to enact other, potentially more significant legislation. Some particularly tactless religious leaders have made no bones about the fact that they essentially want to rule the world, or at least have someone on their side doing so. I don't necessarily think it's some vast conservative Christian conspiracy at work (although that might be a stronger possibility than it would seem at first glance, what with The Family and all), but I do think banning gay marriage is a means to further ends, even if the average conservative voter doesn't know it.

That brings me to another point I've been thinking about recently, which is that the government really should start taxing churches. As with the other issues, this is basically the case of a tradition that favors the powerful continuing unabated. A lot of churches have convinced people to just flat-out give them ten percent of their gross income, and then will ask for donations on top of that. Of course, if someone WANTS to do that, it's their choice. But there are religious leaders trying to convince people that they're horrible if they don't tithe, even if they can't afford it (which, based on what the Bible teaches elsewhere, presumably means these people should be RECEIVING money, not giving it). Pretty much everyone else who's in business to make money gets taxed, so why do religious institutions get a free pass? Yes, many churches do charitable work, but I don't see why a church's charitable enterprises couldn't be set up as a separate non-profit. I suppose the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation doesn't need to pay taxes, but that doesn't make Microsoft tax-exempt. Would I feel differently on this subject if I were religious myself? I guess I don't really know, but I kind of suspect not. Agreeing with the basic doctrines of a religion doesn't have to mean buying into whatever the leaders say, after all.