Culture
“Blaming The Victims”
Mar 4th
According to the Radio Equalizer, a Boston talk radio host is being attacked for “blaming the victim”- in this case, he was saying something about the young woman who was raped and murdered in New York City. Imette St. Guillen was raped and murdered after leaving a bar alone at 4 AM. From the reports I’ve heard, she was drunk…it’s NYC, it’s 4 AM in the morning, and she walks out of a club onto the streets alone. Now, this doesn’t mean anyone has the right to attack her or harm her in any way, but let’s face it folks- this is a VERY bad idea. I surely wouldn’t be caught, even as a man, drunk and walking out of a club in the middle of the night alone- no matter where the club is at.
From the Boston Herald’s Story:
WRKO midmorning host DePetro late yesterday denied blaming Imette St. Guillen for her demise, but said being out alone at 4 a.m. and drinking with strangers was “asking for trouble” and that women must use “common sense.”
“As tragic as it is, your first reaction is she should not have been out alone at 3 or 4 a.m. in the morning because look at what can happen,” DePetro said. “I wasn’t wrong. I went on the air and people said I was right on.”
This seemed to piss off many listeners, especially women, who claimed he was blaming the victim, and such a thing is not allowed.
From what I’m getting of this story, she supposedly had a major fight with her friend or roommate or something the night she went out, and her friends wanted her to not go out, or to not go out alone? I’m not totally sure of the situation- the reports are a bit confusing so far.
The problem is- he’s right. ANY parent in their right mind would teach their children that such a thing is a HORRIBLE idea. This woman was a college student, so she’s an adult- she can make her own choices. The sad fact is, tho, you put yourself into situations you shouldn’t be in. Common sense tells me personally- going out and getting drunk PERIOD can easily lead to major problems. Getting drunk and going out alone into the streets at 4AM would be even worse, and this is common sense as a man or a woman. Now, in her situation, being a woman makes it even more dangerous.
No one is saying that she deserved it- surely this host isn’t saying that…but, come on folks- we need to start thinking logically in life. We need to make common sense choices. We need to make sure we don’t put ourself into situations where we could be put into jeopardy. IS there ANYONE out there who is willing to deny that this was a bad move on her part? If she was your daughter, wouldn’t you have advised her to A. Stay away from drunkenness? B. Not go out on the streets alone in the middle of the night? C. To DEFINITELY not go out alone, drunk, at 4 AM?
If I had children, no matter what age they were, I would smack them upside the head if I found out they were out all night at bars- alone or not. You have to use your head and realize that when you choice to go get drunk in the middle of the night, you raise your risk level substantially. Admit it or not- if a woman (OR a man) leaves a bar drunk at 4AM by herself, she’s (or he’s) much more likely to get into trouble than the same person who makes sure she has someone leave the bar with her…that she doesn’t drink till she’s drunk, or maybe that she comes home at an earlier and safer hour.
Preaching common sense is NOT blaming the victim, it’s just what it is- it’s common sense. If you think he’s blaming the victim, you’re helping put other women in harm’s way by denying the responsibility of friends and family to tell the man or woman in question to make sure they use their heads and make sure they’re never put into these situations. Just as a girl should never go to a drunken party and pass out- for such behavior is much more likely to lead to danger…the same goes with this young woman. If she were at home and sober, she would be alive today. Let’s teach all of our kids the dangers out there (these include being out at all hours of the night, being drunk, etc), and let’s make sure they make decisions that will keep them safe. When someone attacks the person for preaching responsibility, they’re merely attacking the message, and if the message is common sense and responsibility we’re attacking- we’re simply putting more lives at risk.
The Incredible Shrinking Oscar
Mar 1st
I’m always glad to see Hollywood losing any of its influence on flyover country (which is most of the nation)…the values are just completely contradictory for the most part, and the political ideology being foisted upon us is almost always unwanted and worse- a major irritant for many.
The Oscars having a smaller and smaller viewership is nothing but good in my mind. Americans, I think, in many ways, are making a statement- we don’t want your so-called “values.” The fact that a film that, if not for the gay theme, wouldn’t have received ANY attention, is the most talked about film doesn’t help Hollywood out, since it goes against the moral values of the majority of the possible Oscar audience. That and a divisive host like Jon Stewart (this was the most absurd decision possible), I’ve little doubt that the Oscars will suffer even more than it has in the past few years.
———————-
(from The Left Coast Report)
3. The Incredible Shrinking Oscars
TV execs are biting their fingernails over the upcoming Oscar telecast.
Things are looking kind of bleak. Of the five nominees for Best Picture, there are no box-office standouts.
In fact, when you add up the audiences for these nominees they don’t even measure up to the amount of folks who went to see one single movie, “The Chronicles of Narnia.”
Many of the films with nominations in major categories have very few people who have actually seen them. Those who do watch the telecast may be scratching their heads over flicks like “Junebug” and “Transamerica.”
Only two name stars have been nominated in the major categories, George Clooney (“Syriana”) and Reese Witherspoon (“Walk the Line”).
The master of ceremonies, Jon Stewart, hosts a television show that averages less than half of the audience that Bill O’Reilly commands each night.
If the overt political content is not enough to turn off middle America, one of the nominees for Best Song is from the film “Hustle and Flow.”
The Left Coast Report passes on that the tune will be performed live by the group Three 6 Mafia. Its title? “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp.”
Fight Government Censorship in Cable TV
Feb 28th
I think all Americans should fight government censorship proposals for cable and satellite TV. Congress has no right telling Americans what they can and cannot see on paid television. Americans make the choice to actively pay for cable or satellite TV services. With today’s technology, one can easily get digital cable and use the cable box to block certain channels, certain ratings, etc.
John Rockefeller is pushing a bill that would allow the FCC to censor cable and satellite-based programming.
These ideas that are being pushed are, in my book, unamerican. Where do we draw the limit? What will be next to be censored?
People are turning to cable because of poor programs on broadcast and to have more of a choice of what they choose to watch. They can pay for certain channels or not. I doubt few Americans want government involved in their viewing choices. I posted the other day about trash TV, and I think we should try to get away from trash TV…especially on broadcast networks. But, the fact is- I want this to be voluntary. Better yet- I want Americans to choose NOT to watch these programs, and parents mainly to make sure their kids watch better programs and stay away from the trash that clutters so much of television. But, again- I do NOT want the government at all involved in any of this. I want freedom from government intervention into my television viewing. If the federal government gets involved in what a cable network can and cannot air- it’s obvious there’s no limit to what areas of life they can control.
Please contact your federal representative and tell them you oppose the congress from trying to censor cable and satellite television. Tell them that this should be a choice by the American people- if we don’t like it, we can switch the channel, use the V Chip technology or even the ratings lock outs built into nearly all digital cable boxes. Let’s stop the government from being even more involved in our private choices.
I should also mention here that I completely oppose the idea of an ala carte system where you pick only the channels you want and drop the ones you don’t. I don’t see how this model will work for consumers. Many consumer groups like this model, because they say they can get rid of certain channels that contain content they don’t want in their homes. Fortunately, the technology already allows for this. Use the V Chip that most of us have in our TV’s today or use the cable box to block the channels, put a password lock onto the thing- and bam- you’re done.
I haven’t seen any models of an ala carte system, but it makes no sense- it would raise prices, I’ve no doubt. A bundle is a much better option…maybe you don’t want all the channels you have, but bundling channels together in a package will be much cheaper for the consumer in general. Having a plan that would allow you to say- ‘I want Disney, USA Network, Bravo, MTV, and CSPAN is all great and good- but I can imagine this will kill cable companies in some regards, which means the prices for all of us will go up. I can’t imagine a scenario where someone says- I want the bundle I have now, all the channels you offer (which is what I currently have with my cable company), but I don’t want any increases. The lost money with the ala carte consumers would drive my prices up- also, it would drive the prices up for the ala carte folks as well. No doubt that the price for each channel will be raised in connection to the lost revenue that the system itself will cause.
I think too many people complain about TV, channels they don’t want, etc. yet refuse to do the simple thing- switch the channel, use the chip, use the box. If it’s a matter of money- they have to realize the ala carte idea will raise prices for everyone. I haven’t studied this issue, but it seems like a no-brainer to me…if you have all your customers in a bundled cable package, and then many move to ala carte where they pick and choose the channels or a tier of channels- they will expect to pay less…and they will…but that lost money has to be made up, of course, and it will be made up with those of us who want a bundle.
In the end, when it comes to government intervention- I say no thank you. Keep government out of what channel I can see and what I can see on that given channel at what time of day. The idea is nice- to “protect” children, but the government is also limiting my rights to watch what I want in the process. There are better, smarter ways- government intervention isn’t one of them.
A Honeymoon Surprise?!
Feb 27th
People are weird. Here’s proof. Women getting cosmetic surgery to get their hymens umm, what the heck word would you even use really? They say they want to get their hymens back intact for cosmetic reasons and to give their husbands a surprise on their second honeymoon.
Here’s a snippet from the article:
They usually opt also to have one of the new “designer vagina” procedures, such as tightening up of the vaginal canal slackened by childbirth, or the cosmetic trimming of enlarged labia.
You’d think it was a joke, or the daily activites of insane people (actually, my bets are on some form of insanity!), I mean seriously…”designer vaginas”?!
Like I said, people are weird.
Trash TV: WB Set to Debut Show All About Sex
Feb 27th
TV is becoming trashy…well, more trashy. The WB is proving this by debuting a series called The Bedford Diaries- a show about a group of college kids in a sexuality class. Matthew Modine is the open-minded, “progressive” professor, who wants the kids to record sex diaries- they talk about sex, they tell of sexual encounters, heck- they might even have sex on camera! All to share with the class. Yay! That’s education in the fictional college for this WB series- tho actual academia isn’t far off with some of the absurd, stupid, and even dangerous courses some schools teach.
In the trailer for the show- we hear the professor ask the students to think of their last sexual encounter…was it with a lover, a stranger, yourself? We see a girl unzipping her jeans, her hand moving down slowly…another girl underneath some guy, looking up to the camera in bliss, a guy talking about how his sexual past is like a PBS murder- mystery, you wake up wondering where you are, who you’re with, etc. The teacher’s ex-wife is getting it on with one of his students, another girl says that she’s pregnant (she’s white, her boyfriend is the token black guy of the cast- they are, together, the token interracial couple)…it’s obvious from the scenes that he’s having sex with yet another girl (a girl from class- who mentions that they should record it for class.) Yet another girl says she met a married couple and had sex with the husband. We hear numerous times how tough NYC is and how it takes no prisoners- thanks for the lame info. Let’s move on…
There are scenes of people kissing, people touching, people making out- there’s a mention of suicide, there’s a scene with a college girl in bed with a very older man…there’s really nothing but scenes of sex, talking about sex, wanting students to talk about sex, discuss it, take part in it, etc.
It’s the cheap ploy used by bad TV shows to pull in the targeted audience- unfortunately, the WB’s audience is mainly in their teens and in high school- which means, the already oversexed society will become even more so, and let’s not even talk about the many society destroying side effects this new found “progress” has on society in general.
It looks like a regular WB show, just with maybe more sex.
And if all of this wasn’t enough- the show is clearly desperate for horny viewers. Here is a shot of the trailer- it was meant to be very obvious, as you can see for yourself. A young girl and guy sit across from each other at a library table, both on cell phones (it’s “progressive” to talk on cell phones 2 feet apart), the girl talking about how hot she’s getting, the guy saying they should go for a beer, the girl telling him that she has a much better idea, doing her best “sexy” face (tho, to me, it looks like an ‘I have diarrhea face.
In the shots that follow…we see a girl jump into a pool after disrobing. Now, you tell me what’s wrong with this picture, and I’ll tell you what’s wrong with society.
Tune in teens across America, we’ve got boobies!
David Copperfield
Feb 24th
I’ve never seen David Copperfield…but I just bought tickets for his performance in town in April.
David Copperfield
The Centre, Evansville, IN
Monday April 17, 2006 8:30 pmÂSeat location: section BALC-L, row F, seats 5-6
Total Charge: $54.75
As you can see, I wanted to go cheap- so I got the balcony, the first before last row on the left side. Not too bad for $19 a ticket…the maintenance fees, online fees, etc. are absurd tho. That’s where they get ya!
So, my theatre plans are as follows:
Previous Posts: Rockapella Tickets
Absurd “Studies” on “Beauty”
Feb 22nd
A new study purports to show that ‘uglier’ people commit more crime…earlier “research studies” show that ‘uglier’ people are harmed in the labor market and ‘prettier’ people are treated better.
Now, the terms ‘ugly’ and ‘pretty’ are completely subjective. Many men seem to be attracted to white blondes- I personally don’t care for girls with blonde or even light hair, and I usually prefer darker-skinned women, and I don’t mean white girls with tans, but women who have a more “ethnic” look to them. Some guys prefer tiny girls who weight 90 pounds, I personally find that fairly gross- I, myself, don’t even like women if you can see their collar bones, or those weird neck muscles that really thin women have popping out- I think it’s gross.
The point is- despite the various studies, beauty is subjective- according to one study, the most beautiful people are those with the most symmetrical faces. One study showed that the celebrity with one of the lowest scores was Mariel Hemingway. I mentioned this in a past post that you can search for over at the right…I think the woman is hideous. Completely hideous. I mean, she might be a great person, but as far as being attractive- NO thank you whatsoever. That alone proves that, hello- she’s not the “definition of beautiful.” Let’s just face it- there’s no scientific definition of beautiful- people are too diverse and too different to pin it down to one body size, body shape, or face shape, etc. If beauty is defined, then all those women who are part of tribes you see on nature shows need to realize they’re butt ugly- but, clearly if all the women in a certain tribe share many physical characteristics and the men find them beautiful- they cannot, by definition, be “ugly.” Like I said- it’s completely subjective, and attempts to make it anything other than that is pointless. Note to world- Cindy Crawford, in my eyes, is sort of weird looking…they claim she has the perfect ratio of her waist to her body, and that science has proven this with these “studies,” but the truth is- I think her waist is way too small and it’s just plain bizarre looking. Else I have issues or I’m right and it IS subjective and the millions of men who agree with me are just as normal as I.
Okay- so back to the studies that claim that people who are ‘ugly’ in high school have a hard time in life after that. That uglier people have a harder time in the labor market overall…and that because of this, the ugly among us are more likely to commit crime.
Has anyone seen a picture of the world’s richest man, Bill Gates? He is, by most standard, a fairly goofy-looking guy…and if you see pics of him when he was young, he looks even nerdier. There’s no way many people looked at ol’ Bill in high school and said- this guy is SO attractive…I dare say it was probably the other way around completely. Yet, he’s the richest man on earth.
Warren Buffet- not an attractive man today, and from my perspective, not what most would have considered a very attractive guy in his youth- tho the guy is rich as all heck. Same goes for George Soros just off the top of my head. There are thousands of examples- I bet if we looked at the CEO’s of the fortune 500 companies, we’d probably see a number of them, maybe even most of them, would be considered by most people to be somewhat unattractive at worst, and average at best.
Now, I didn’t look at the studies…but I saw two interviews with 2 guys who were doing them. The one study I saw yesterday on CNN, I think it was…and I saw the other one today on Your World with Neil Cavuto on Fox.
He didn’t seem to buy into the premise either…he’s done very well for himself, and he’d definitely be considered unattractive to most people. I think he’s the coolest business guy out there personally, but he didn’t get where he got today on his looks. Far from it. He mentioned how he never had any urge to commit crime, and that fact alone seemed to make him question the whole premise.
It’s damned near time people realize that these studies that proclaim to show what true beauty is are nonsense. The terms are far too subjective and millions of people completely disagree with the results- now, either those people have screwed up brains, or the studies are flawed and there’s no true measure of beauty for all people of the world…or even all people in one nation, one city, one social group.
Furthermore- studies that use these subjective terms of beautiful and ugly are bound to be nonsense, because they start off with bogus concepts that can never truly be defined as they’re claimed to be. Ugly people aren’t more likely to commit more crime, because ugly people don’t exist as a real group. An ugly person to one might be totally gorgeous to another. This is proven by the fact that I’m sure Trisha Yearwood’s husband, boyfriend, whoever she has (this just came off the top of my head) almost surely thinks she’s attractive…I, on the other hand, think she’s quite unattractive. My own brother (my younger brother), in general is attracted to very thin girls and they’re usually blonde. I tend to go for ethnic-looking girls with dark skin, dark hair, and dark overall features who aren’t as thin. And, hello- we share much of our DNA, considering we have the same parents and all (at least that’s what they claim!)
Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder…it’s a good thing to remember that. The bigger problem with proclaiming beautyand ugliness is that it leads many women (usually women) and men to strive for some state of ‘perfection’ of beauty when, in fact, no state exists. Women need not strive to be blondes with big boobs and get down to a weight of 110- despite what some researchers claim, you’re not at all ugly the way you are…in the end- there will be many guys out there who have different tastes that will certainly find you attractive. Same goes for men, but in this country it’s usually women who deal with this particular problem, and these so-called “studies” don’t help.
I just can’t wait for the first criminal to go in front of the judge and say- “Your honor, I could not help myself…look at me, I’m ugly, I had little choice.”
Terry Gross: Are You Sure You’re Not a Bigot?
Feb 21st
I was listening to the interview with Neil Clark Warren, founder of EHarmony.com. He mentioned he’s an Evangelical Christian, started on a master’s degree in divinity, and got a degree in psychology. He said they don’t match gays and lesbians at the site…mainly because he hasn’t ever had any sessions with gays and lesbians, and clearly part of it is because he’s an Evangelical Christian, and pushing homosexual relationships would be a sinful act!
Gross, as a liberal, had to try to attack him on this point and ask- are you sure it’s not just because you’re uncomfortable with gays?
Why, I ask myself, why do supporters of gays and lesbians have to always jump on the issue of homosexuality and turn it into either ‘you’re just uncomfortable with homosexuals’, or ‘you’re a homophobe!’ or maybe both.
Gross should try to learn some common sense- an Evangelical Christian probably has a reason for not mating together gay couples…golly- I wonder if his worldview plays into it at all? No, it had to become an issue to attack (even tho the attack wasn’t very severe.)
Gross lost any respect she had with her confrontation with Bill O’Reilly. She was so biased with that interview that the NPR Ombudsmen had to apologize for her. So, I don’t care much for anything she says to begin with.
She had to make sure she threw in other dumb questions including: ‘as a Christian, do you feel bad knowing that some of the people you match together will have premarital sex?’ Ugh…
Note to gays and lesbians- if we disagree with your lifestyle- stop taking it as an attack. Stop thinking because we condemn your choices we’re “uncomfortable” with you or that we’re bigots. It’s absurd, and it’s tired.
Note To Dennett and So Many Others
Feb 20th
Note to anti-theist, atheist, and attacker of religion Daniel Dennett. I can say with utmost certainty that I have absolutely NO desire to reproduce in any way shape or form. Not right now, and probably not ever in the future. I just do not have this desire in me…it’s not buried deep within me and unknown to me- if it were, I’d be out trying to have sex. I’m not interested in living that lifestyle filled with choices I see as immoral and a waste of time…not to mention it doesn’t sound like so much fun to me.
In his new book, Dennett says: “we have built-in desires to reproduce and to do pretty much whatever it takes to achieve this goal.”
Well, for me, and for millions of others- this is SURELY not the case. Either we’re all rejects of some evolutionary scenario, or it’s true and we don’t have the desire to reproduce and we won’t do much of anything let alone EVERYTHING possible to achieve this goal. It’s not a goal for me, so I don’t do ANYTHING to achieve it- that alone proves the scenario false. Homosexuals males and females clearly have no known desire to reproduce, especially since their chosen sexual activities make such a thing impossible. Priests and nuns also clearly have no desire in this. Old ladies who have never had kids and never married don’t have this desire, clearly…and millions of coupls get married, stay married till death and never have kids, never want kids, never even think of having them.
Either ALL of these people and many millions of others are complete rejects in this made up scenario, or Dennett and the reductionists like him are flat out wrong. I’m voting with common sense- millions lack this desire completely (I know from personal experience, thank you very much.)
This goes for the rest of you who seem to think that a certain chemical reaction in the brain is somehow the CAUSE of behavior, and not the result. We noticed the brain activity spike when someone started dating- this doesn’t mean that the dating is a built-in desire to mate (believe it or not millions of couples date and never have sex until years later when they marry…and even then many of them never want kids and do EVERYTHING possible to make sure they do NOT have children.) And don’t tell me that some brain chemical fooled you into thinking you love somebody, merely so you can get with them and reproduce. This is the fact of ANIMALS…and we need to stop trying to make the connection here between animals and people.
I’d go on with this rant…but what’s the point? The reductionists will forever claim this biological event takes place- thus A, B, and C are true and we’re merely brain chemical vessels, carrying this and selfish dna doing anything it can to make us make more of them. This doesn’t fit the real world situation…like I said- either hundreds of millions of people are rejects and broken or else the narrative created to try to reduce EVERYTHING down to biology is simply wrong. The world around us proves that the first of the two is the correct option, but that will almost never stop the reductionists from making their neverending and completely absurd claims.
Well Sure God Can Be Part of This Theory!
Feb 19th
[Notice]: Please keep any comments on this post ON TOPIC. The subject is- whether or not NDE theory negates God, and whether many who support the Darwinist view are talking out of both sides of their mouth when they constantly issue assurances to believers that the theory does not negate God, nor should it affect their religious views.
Any comments off topic will be deleted, so please…stay on course.
———————–
The Darwinists who want to constantly talk about how NDE (neo-darwinian evolutionary) theory doesn’t necessarily mean God doesn’t exist- many of them make me laugh. The ones who are a real hoot are the ones who call ID (intelligent design) proponents “creationists.” Now, creationists, in general, are people who think that the diversity of life on earth was created in a series of acts of a creator (usually God.)
Some have argued that a creationist is ANYONE who says that life was created (whether by God or whoever.) Even if that supposed creationist accepts common descent, but just doesn’t think the combo of RM+NS explains all that we see.
These guys often like to harp on and on about how NDE theory doesn’t say anything about the existence of God…but at the same time they attack creationists, and when using the term they mean ID proponents as well. Eugenie Scott is just one example of a person who does this.
Problem is- if they call anyone who believes God created the first life a “creationist” and then say that ID is creationism- and then attack ID as bogus…what they’re really doing is saying that, in fact, God doea NOT exist.
Well- they’re actually saying that any theistic God doesn’t exist. I’m not even sure if a deist God could be posited if he wasn’t the one who created the first living thing!
I think what I’m saying makes sense so far…
If you attack the very idea that God had anything to do with life coming about and starting it all off- you’re attacking the existence of God. Yet, these people so often speak out of both sides of their mouths- they want to paint the idea of a creator as nonsense, while also assuring the religious among us that the theory says nothing of God, and that their idea doesn’t mean that God is nonexistant.
Many of them are just doing this to score points with the public, with public leaders, with school boards, with the courts, etc. Many of them truly do have a Godless agenda, and their worldview laughs at the thought of God…which is why they paint ID as creationism, then attack ID, thus- attacking the idea that any God that created life exists at all.
Sadly, you’ll never get most of them to admit these basic truths. Some, like Provine, EO Wilson, and others are a bit more honest about what it all means to you and to me, and to the world we live in.
This post isn’t arguing the science of any of this- I will leave it elsewhere for others to talk about. This was merely about the doublespeak and the obvious logical conclusions from the worldview’s many of these people take. They claim that anyone who thinks God created life is a creationist, then they say creationism is nonsense and wrong- thus, the only logical conclusion is- life isn’t the result of God- and when you get to this point, it’s hard to posit ANY God at all…so you’re in a position where you’re basically assuing believers that the idea doesn’t kill the idea of God, yet in reality it does just that…
Far too many people are unaware of the logical conclusions with these ideas. They take the assurance that the person isn’t trying to attack God, but let’s face it- if they posit that no creator was responsible for life…we’re left with a very weak deistic God at best. Fact is- the people that buy into the assurances are often times completely unaware that the assurances are nothing but an example of someone talking out of both sides of their mouth.
[note]: I should add that I personally think that NDE theory does destroy the idea of God. At least any sort of personal God. If life is a series of “happy accidents” that were never planned out in advance, and there was no ultimate goal or purpose in mind- that’s the very same thing as saying you’re the result of blind accidents. If you’re the result of uncaring blind accidents that never had you in mind- then there’s no God. If there was some sort of God, and the above was fact- he or she would be a God completely unworthy of an ounce of time or thought…surely not worthy of praise or worship. Like Dawkins said- Darwinism allowed him to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist. William Provine said: “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”
Dawkins and Provine are obviously two examples of Darwinists who are honest about the logical conclusions of the worldview…
Recent Comments