I care about my privacy on Facebook. I like sharing as little as possibly outside of my friends and I don't want to use Facebook to connect to other sites. I may link to my blogs on Facebook, but I don't want Facebook to always know when I do something on another blog.
That said, Instant Personalization is back on Facebook, again. It's opt-out again instead of being opt-in, because Facebook has some sort of really annoying opt-in boner that likes being all up in my business. I don't post on sites using Stalkerbook Connect because I don't was my newsfeed to be filled with all of that idiocy, I barely care about seeing my friend's non-Stalkerbook idiocy on Stalkerbook. If I wanted to read their posts on Gizmodo or The New York Times I'd ask them what their opinion was about that. If I want to see what videos they like on Youtube, I'd subscribe to their channel so I could find their likes easier. I like keeping some aspects of what I do online separate from other aspects of what I do online. The only people who I'm friends with on Facebook are people I know in real life and a few select internet people, then like..3 "celebrities" because they were like "friend me". I don't need everything I do to get back to Stalkerbook, it's bad enough Google know just about everything, at least it doesn't spam the site telling the internet what I'm doing on the internet.
I just figured this would be something of interest to people here, because most everyone everywhere has a Facebook account. I also feel everyone has the right and responsibility to keep track of what gets shared where, and if nothing else, informing on the situation then sharing my possibly alarmist opinion helps the spread of information.
Jasmine P.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
December 16, 2010
Fucking Parent Groups (not porn)
I go off on parent groups being shit all the time, this is pretty much more of the same. Same dance, new tune.
I saw this on Yahoo, "Parent Groups Colds TV Shows for sexualizing young girls" which I can agree is not the best thing for shows to be doing, but one of the first thing the article does is list shows that are "popular" with the 12-17 crowd. First, that group is too large, 12 year old and 17 year olds are at different maturity levels and are interested in different forms of television. And second, not very show listed is necessarially for that age group, or for that entire age group. House, Family Guy, Grey's Anatomy, NCIS, Desperate Housewives. I mean, they just went after prime time TV, which is when this age group should be studying or doing their homework.
But I also question how much sexualization is too much? Telling teens that teens don't have sex is a lie, looking around many middle and high schools you see visible examples of teens who are having sex. But I think it's worse when you don't know, those girls could be much worse off, I mean, if they are boning, not if they are virgins. I approve of Glee showcasing a pregnant teen in the first season, hot out the gate with that decision. That little bit of truth shows some of what teens have to deal with in that situation, even if it's over hyped and extra-ridiculous pretty much all the time. My point being, the irl is ashamed and embarrassed, but has to deal with it, that's real-ish.
You know, looking at all the things that cause eating disorders, do girls raised without any social pressures what so ever just not develop eating disorders? I want to see this experiment. Take 300 girls, put them in an isolated location from the age of 2 until 18 allow no outside media, no comparisons, no whatever causes eating disorders and social anxiety disorders and see what happens. I'm just saying.
Response to Two-and-a-Half Men - women have already been reduced to sexual objects in media. This show isn't reducing it, just perpetuating the myth that exists in our society. Case in point: why are women areola and nipples more harmful than men areola and nipples? They're the same thing, modified skin cells and sweat glands, but remember what happened when we saw Janet Jackson's ray encircled nipple? Children were hurt by it. The children were scarred! But that extra fat, hairy, bear of a man at the beach in swimming trunks, or a Speedo, their nipples don't harm children. I mean, maybe they run screaming from the fat, just not their nipples.
Why is there no show of sexualization of men? I mean, that's all Sex in the City did, right? I barely watched any episode so I really don't know. I know this study was on network television and not cable, but why don't people ever talk about the issues boys and men have to live up to societal demands? I personally know two dudes who have body image hang ups. Opposite ends of the spectrum. Where are the studies talking about how overly muscular men or extra ripped guys in television harm boys? What about them? Also, why is a sexual situation in a relationship or to build a relationship the only form of a healthy sexual relationship? One night stands don't necessarily objectify men or women, I'd rather see characters get off than be cuckholds and abstinent. Where are the television shows that talk about proper condom use and the psychological effects sex has on a person? Also, show me the outside of skinny gettin' it on, somebody loves every shape. Showing a bigger person, male or female, boning, or implying that they're going to or they did will help kids understand that they don't have to be waifs to get laid.
Jasmine P.
I saw this on Yahoo, "Parent Groups Colds TV Shows for sexualizing young girls" which I can agree is not the best thing for shows to be doing, but one of the first thing the article does is list shows that are "popular" with the 12-17 crowd. First, that group is too large, 12 year old and 17 year olds are at different maturity levels and are interested in different forms of television. And second, not very show listed is necessarially for that age group, or for that entire age group. House, Family Guy, Grey's Anatomy, NCIS, Desperate Housewives. I mean, they just went after prime time TV, which is when this age group should be studying or doing their homework.
But I also question how much sexualization is too much? Telling teens that teens don't have sex is a lie, looking around many middle and high schools you see visible examples of teens who are having sex. But I think it's worse when you don't know, those girls could be much worse off, I mean, if they are boning, not if they are virgins. I approve of Glee showcasing a pregnant teen in the first season, hot out the gate with that decision. That little bit of truth shows some of what teens have to deal with in that situation, even if it's over hyped and extra-ridiculous pretty much all the time. My point being, the irl is ashamed and embarrassed, but has to deal with it, that's real-ish.
You know, looking at all the things that cause eating disorders, do girls raised without any social pressures what so ever just not develop eating disorders? I want to see this experiment. Take 300 girls, put them in an isolated location from the age of 2 until 18 allow no outside media, no comparisons, no whatever causes eating disorders and social anxiety disorders and see what happens. I'm just saying.
Response to Two-and-a-Half Men - women have already been reduced to sexual objects in media. This show isn't reducing it, just perpetuating the myth that exists in our society. Case in point: why are women areola and nipples more harmful than men areola and nipples? They're the same thing, modified skin cells and sweat glands, but remember what happened when we saw Janet Jackson's ray encircled nipple? Children were hurt by it. The children were scarred! But that extra fat, hairy, bear of a man at the beach in swimming trunks, or a Speedo, their nipples don't harm children. I mean, maybe they run screaming from the fat, just not their nipples.
Why is there no show of sexualization of men? I mean, that's all Sex in the City did, right? I barely watched any episode so I really don't know. I know this study was on network television and not cable, but why don't people ever talk about the issues boys and men have to live up to societal demands? I personally know two dudes who have body image hang ups. Opposite ends of the spectrum. Where are the studies talking about how overly muscular men or extra ripped guys in television harm boys? What about them? Also, why is a sexual situation in a relationship or to build a relationship the only form of a healthy sexual relationship? One night stands don't necessarily objectify men or women, I'd rather see characters get off than be cuckholds and abstinent. Where are the television shows that talk about proper condom use and the psychological effects sex has on a person? Also, show me the outside of skinny gettin' it on, somebody loves every shape. Showing a bigger person, male or female, boning, or implying that they're going to or they did will help kids understand that they don't have to be waifs to get laid.
Jasmine P.
November 22, 2010
Do Something Great This Weekend
Alright, I’m still pissed off over Barnes & Nobel calling this week ‘Black Friday Week’ on top of Black Friday even existing, but my rage from this morning as dissipated a bit and I’m going to do something constructive. I’m going to ask you to donate but in a few different ways that I think are great.
First, I implore you to donate money or blood to the American Red Cross. For some of you donating blood is a bit of a commitment, which is why I point out that you can also donate money to the Red Cross. I ask for a blood donation first because they always need blood, I assume they always need money too but blood and components are more important to me. A few years ago when my mother was sick the donations of blood, packed white blood cells, packed red blood cells and plasma were important and great in helping her. Due to the kindness of other people she made it a bit longer and was able to take care of some things before dying. She encouraged my brothers and myself to donate, as a way to pay forward the kindness of someone else who donated. I have reasons to not be able to donate blood, but will find a chance to donate money to the Red Cross, which is tax deductible for the fiscally minded in the room.
Information on donating to the Red Cross can be found here: Donation information
--
If you want to donate money to children, there's Desert Bus for Hope. It's a real time game about driving from LA to Las Vegas, a 6 hour drive or something, but the bus is made to not be able to drive straight so you can't just hold don the button and walk away which the game plays itself. Donations means people play this game for longer periods of time, it's a vicious hellish road or boredom with very little. When you complete the trip, you are awarded with a return trip! Should you crash you get to wait for a tow truck to pick you up! Riveting, isn't it? The money donated goes to Child's Play, an organization that gets video game systems and toys into hospitals to make a child's stay suck a little less. You can straight donate money to DBH, or you can bid on some of their fabulous auctioned prizes, which currently include Jayne's Hat, a Megaman helmet knit hat and other handmade goodies, a Darth Vader figure in it's original 1996 box and what not. Some Dark Horse merchandise has be put up for auction; there's a replica of Ramona's star bag, a pixel Goomba blanket, Magic cards, a DJ Hero bundle, and more, so you can be selfish and helpful at the same time! What I really like about DBH is that is showed up out of nowhere i 2007, I heard about it then, and it's been growing since.
Desert Bus for Hope Child's Play
--
The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society because it's not all about breast cancer, and which is what my mom had.They have some text message donation and different ways to help, and things you can buy online if you want to help that way.
Donate online right now and How to Help
--
I think I've tapped out my writing abilities for now, but please, if you can, donate. If not to these donate to other valid and safe groups that need money or attention. There are national bone marrow donation groups, specific cancers, children, education, homeless, LGBT groups and more out there that need attention. I decided to channel my rage in getting an e-mail calling this week 'Black Friday Week' into sharing information about worthy groups that are always looking for help. So please, do something great and donate. Not just this winter, not just winter but all year round, the need doesn't stop just because the year's over.
Jasmine P.
First, I implore you to donate money or blood to the American Red Cross. For some of you donating blood is a bit of a commitment, which is why I point out that you can also donate money to the Red Cross. I ask for a blood donation first because they always need blood, I assume they always need money too but blood and components are more important to me. A few years ago when my mother was sick the donations of blood, packed white blood cells, packed red blood cells and plasma were important and great in helping her. Due to the kindness of other people she made it a bit longer and was able to take care of some things before dying. She encouraged my brothers and myself to donate, as a way to pay forward the kindness of someone else who donated. I have reasons to not be able to donate blood, but will find a chance to donate money to the Red Cross, which is tax deductible for the fiscally minded in the room.
Information on donating to the Red Cross can be found here: Donation information
--
If you want to donate money to children, there's Desert Bus for Hope. It's a real time game about driving from LA to Las Vegas, a 6 hour drive or something, but the bus is made to not be able to drive straight so you can't just hold don the button and walk away which the game plays itself. Donations means people play this game for longer periods of time, it's a vicious hellish road or boredom with very little. When you complete the trip, you are awarded with a return trip! Should you crash you get to wait for a tow truck to pick you up! Riveting, isn't it? The money donated goes to Child's Play, an organization that gets video game systems and toys into hospitals to make a child's stay suck a little less. You can straight donate money to DBH, or you can bid on some of their fabulous auctioned prizes, which currently include Jayne's Hat, a Megaman helmet knit hat and other handmade goodies, a Darth Vader figure in it's original 1996 box and what not. Some Dark Horse merchandise has be put up for auction; there's a replica of Ramona's star bag, a pixel Goomba blanket, Magic cards, a DJ Hero bundle, and more, so you can be selfish and helpful at the same time! What I really like about DBH is that is showed up out of nowhere i 2007, I heard about it then, and it's been growing since.
Desert Bus for Hope Child's Play
--
The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society because it's not all about breast cancer, and which is what my mom had.They have some text message donation and different ways to help, and things you can buy online if you want to help that way.
Donate online right now and How to Help
--
I think I've tapped out my writing abilities for now, but please, if you can, donate. If not to these donate to other valid and safe groups that need money or attention. There are national bone marrow donation groups, specific cancers, children, education, homeless, LGBT groups and more out there that need attention. I decided to channel my rage in getting an e-mail calling this week 'Black Friday Week' into sharing information about worthy groups that are always looking for help. So please, do something great and donate. Not just this winter, not just winter but all year round, the need doesn't stop just because the year's over.
Jasmine P.
August 31, 2010
Aggressively Passive-Aggressive
Going with me being so estoeric is I am aggressively passive-aggressive. I swear, I'd own this if it was a competition. My passive-aggressive tenancies include and are not limited to: telling other people to invite me out when they can, being esoteric, acting disconnected so other people will ask me what's wrong and I can get attention, craving attention and validation by showing off but acting like I'm not stealing the limelight, asking if other people support my ideas before I follow through, maintaining a blog where I whine about things every time I get a little depressed and sharing it on twitter.
I'm so passive-aggressive that I forget I am until after I've acted like a right twat. It's getting to be incredibly irritating. I think I know what I want in life, but I'm so afraid of rejection that I don't want to take any initiative, but I want to appear open for what I want to accept me.
Passive-aggressive is really weird power play. I act submissive or passive so I can then decide weather or not to accept someone or something that I already do. I am such an asshole.
Jasmine P.
I'm so passive-aggressive that I forget I am until after I've acted like a right twat. It's getting to be incredibly irritating. I think I know what I want in life, but I'm so afraid of rejection that I don't want to take any initiative, but I want to appear open for what I want to accept me.
Passive-aggressive is really weird power play. I act submissive or passive so I can then decide weather or not to accept someone or something that I already do. I am such an asshole.
Jasmine P.
Esoterically Me
I am esoteric. I rely on other people without blatantly telling them that I rely on them. I use my friends to validate me to such an extent that when I'm alone I decide I'm worthless and want other people to tell me what to do, how to act or even just tell me to do something I already want to do. Like, right now, I'm friggin' giddy over this dude. I spend too much time contemplating what he thinks about me, what I'm wearing or things I like or say. I have elaborate fantasies of us just hanging out or him actually asking me out and it both cheers m up an depresses me. I feel like I'm loved but then I think about who I am and how I act and decide there's no way he'd like me and I'm back to where I started again. Sometimes I make elaborate plans to boldly say what I feel but it never works out. I'm either too distracted in the moment (too giddy, too eager, too nervous) or I'm finally calm again and I'm confused as to how I feel. I'm going insane. The person I actively turn to tells me to just go for it, but then I'm too afraid, or I don't know the next time I'll see this guy.
I'm esoterically me because I post song lyric for unrequited-love songs as my status on facebook hoping he gets the message. I say we should do something together, effectively saying we should go out or I go out on a limb and directly ask him out. I'm tired of being so stressed out, I want to forget about romance and infatuation and just focus on being stressed about school and classes and getting my life together.
I want a cheat code to get to the end. I want to peek at the last page of the book to see how it all ends, I'm tired of turning the pages one by one and feeling like I progress no further into the story then I was when I woke up this morning. I at least want to say something before my journal comic gets online. There's flirting something like...6 or 12 days in, love sick whining for the next two months then meager interaction for the last few weeks with an increase in pining and being a whiny bitch.
I'm tired of being so esoterically me.
Jasmine P.
Fuck, this whole rant is esoteric.
I'm esoterically me because I post song lyric for unrequited-love songs as my status on facebook hoping he gets the message. I say we should do something together, effectively saying we should go out or I go out on a limb and directly ask him out. I'm tired of being so stressed out, I want to forget about romance and infatuation and just focus on being stressed about school and classes and getting my life together.
I want a cheat code to get to the end. I want to peek at the last page of the book to see how it all ends, I'm tired of turning the pages one by one and feeling like I progress no further into the story then I was when I woke up this morning. I at least want to say something before my journal comic gets online. There's flirting something like...6 or 12 days in, love sick whining for the next two months then meager interaction for the last few weeks with an increase in pining and being a whiny bitch.
I'm tired of being so esoterically me.
Jasmine P.
Fuck, this whole rant is esoteric.
August 10, 2010
Seven Words...
 |
| Beetle Bailey. I don't own it. |
Shit. Piss. Fuck. Cunt. Cocksucker. Motherfucker. Tits.
Those seven words are George Carlin's original "Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television" (1972). It was revised a few years later to remove 'motherfucker' but the rhythm was lost so he reinstated it. It flows, say it out loud. Shit. Piss. Fuck. Cunt. Cocksucker. Motherfucker. Tits.
 |
| Wow, Sarge's cursing turned into onomatopoeia...fuckin' a... |
This is 1972, it took until the 90s for asshole to really be said on television. Slowly, almost 20 years later these words found their way to television. I'm not dead and I still have some pretty damn good morals if you ask me. Almost 40 years later A television show is getting hell for having grawlix (@!#$& in place of profanity) in it's title, in a situational comedy that I'll assume is geared towards adults. It's already self censoring so why are parent groups getting pissed over something that gets shows in the daily or Sunday comics? Hell, there's a 'no cursing' sign that's popular around Virginia Beach and possibly other public locations that is a the 'no' circle&slash over grawlix to symbolize 'no cursing.' How is that acceptable in public but having a show title with four grawlix symbols be improper for television?
 |
| Grawlix Sign |
 |
| Hey! I drew this! My character Methvin slipping on ice. Classy slapstick, I know. |
I used grawlix here because it was funnier than having him shout 'fuck' and I wanted to be respectful for my teacher when he saw it. I knew what he was saying, but any word can be put in that jagged speech bubble. As for the show's title "Shit My Dad Says" inspired by a Twitter feed, that spawned a book. I dunno, it's a show about a grumpy old man. The only people who'd want to watch a show about bitchy old people are adults who have to deal with their own bitchy old people so I really don't see why parents are in such a huff over a show that I highly doubt too many children would watch. It's like me watching Seinfeld as a kid. I didn't get why the show was funny. As as adult I can appreciate it being clever and I think it's less shitty then I did when Ibetween the ages of 1-10 during the show's entire run. Children don't get adult humour.
I say 'fuck it' to people who don't curse around their kids. I'm all about them sticking to their guns, but when it gets around to policing other people I rally the First Amendment Brigade. I call upon the late and great Lenny Bruce and George Carlin who were practically martyred for being profane in their stand up. They paved the way for slowing the hell that the FCC made television and movies. I mean think about the fact that Alfred Hitchcock was the first person to not just show a fucking toilet in a movie (Psycho (1960)), but to have it flush and it was a plot device. Some show from 1947 called Mary Kay and Johnny was the first to show a couple in bed at the same time, on television.
 |
| Two beds, one couple? |
All this amounts to and all my anger is that showing reality on television isn't going to kill a child. Like the book fucking says EVERYONE POOPS! Why are bodily functions so squeamish? Part of the only reason animals work so hard at hiding them is to keep from being found by predators or for sanitation reasons. A child hearing profanity isn't going to grow up to join a biker gang or or have a million kids.
Essentially I'm rallying the troops against people who have issues with words. People assign meanings to them. Words don't mean anything, I could get into that who batch of semantics, but my point is that people need to stop worrying about the children. Fuck the children (in a metaphorical way. If you're fucking children, you out to be apart of a human centipede, so fucking lie, bastards). Why is our world being dumbed down for children? The world of a child is different from the world of an adult I get that. Why are we making such a fuss to make the adult world clean enough for children. Instead society, parents, families should be preparing their children for just how harsh and rough life is as an adult. I've said it before somewhere here, but keeping a child in a bubble does them no good.Teach a child, don't shield them from the world and they will be better prepared for what's out there then if you keep them from ever learning about bad things.
Petitioning sponsors to not sponsor a show you disagree with makes you a bully and an asshole. There's more to American than 'Christian' morals. I'm quite saddened that Swingtown got canceled a few years back because some prudes didn't like a show about consensual extra-marital fornication, even if all four partners were there and agreed with everything. I would have loved to see the show come into it's own and see what topics it would have dealt with. Sex is an untapped and very un-understood vehicle for conversation. It's too fucking taboo.I wonder, is it the mechanics of it that people are embarrassed about, or the nudity? Out society dislikes it's genitals too much. Penis. Vagina. They're words, there's nothing wrong with words. People give words power over them and over their minds, which is how we get to this point that people are pissy over a pictorial representation of 'foul' language. Whatever four symbols are used for the show aren't that bad. I mean, walk through a bookstore, there's profanity on all sorts of book stores. Just look at the documentary Fuck, it takes a fair stance between the liberal belief and the conservative belief to look at how that one word gets used in society, it's actually a really heavy documentary.
I think I've lost my point and half ass ended this about three times four paragraphs ago. Long story short, leave the show's title as it is. Grawlix are everywhere, in the Sunday paper, on public property, and more. It's not 'hurting the children'. The world is made for adults, the smaller population between adults and children, but the side with power and control. Let adults watch a show geared toward what their lives are about, aging baby-boomers (and maybe hippies) who are either pissy at home or pissy in a retirement home. It's life, life happens. It doesn't kill the children.
 |
| Censorship. |
Jasmine P.
Relevant or Interest Links:
Youtube: George Carlin Seven Dirty Words... Not the original performance, but still great. It gets the point. There are a few great copies and variations
The Examiner
National Journal. (.com?)
Federal Communications Commission - Dated 2008
Lawbrain
A Blog About Swearing Around Children
Twitter: Shit My Dad Says
Snopes: Early to Bed
Snopes: First Toilet on TV(Kind of)
Fuck (film)
July 16, 2010
"Adult"
This is bullshit. Applying for FAFSA is fucking bullshit. I jump through all these fucking hoops and now I get stopped just because my father's alive. To quickly explain why his living is a bad thing: my parents have been divorced since I was about 1 year old. My mother had sole custody over my brothers and myself until she died. She died when I turned 18 which automatically makes me an independent. I checked that box on FAFSA because my father does jack shit to provide for my well being. He doesn't even send me money once a month, which he did for my brothers. If I want money from him I have to either directly ask him for it, or I have to try to beg for it by sounding as pathetic as I can to see if he gives me anything. It's gatdamn bullshit.
Cut to now. My mother has been dead for three years, I've been an independent and my father isn't giving me shit. I haven't been working but I've had my inheritance to spend on school for three years, it's running a bit low. I call campus Financial Aid to figure out why they need my father's information and it's because he's alive. If I say I made an attempt to contact him they'll say that and I guess I'll be awarded the money they tentatively told me I could receive. The problem herein lies in the fact that my father will respond, he will fill in his tax information and FAFSA might not give me any money because he of whatever he fucking makes. Or they'll give me less. Either way it works out not in my benefit and I might be screwed and have to apply for a loan from somewhere else.
I guess I understand where the government is coming from in wanting both parent's information, but he's dead. If my mother was still alive they wouldn't have needed his information because she had custody, so now, just because she's dead and he isn't they need his information. I honestly don't know how much he makes, I'm just assuming it's more then enough to keep me from getting shit and that makes me a very sad Jasmine. Sad and furious. I bet you that if I had been in trouble and I told the government the same shit about m father they wouldn't care that he's alive. But when I need money from them they make me jump through the most idiotic of hoops to get a few pennies. In the grand scheme of things $20k isn't that much to the government, I don't understand why they're trying to hard now to not spend it when they spend a few million if not billion every fucking day. I mean if education is so important in this country make it easier for people to either afford fucking college or make it easier for people to get money to pay for college.
I just want money for school. I want to be done with school and I want to really be perceived as an adult because this shit makes me feel like a child. I hate feeling like a child.
Jasmine P.
Cut to now. My mother has been dead for three years, I've been an independent and my father isn't giving me shit. I haven't been working but I've had my inheritance to spend on school for three years, it's running a bit low. I call campus Financial Aid to figure out why they need my father's information and it's because he's alive. If I say I made an attempt to contact him they'll say that and I guess I'll be awarded the money they tentatively told me I could receive. The problem herein lies in the fact that my father will respond, he will fill in his tax information and FAFSA might not give me any money because he of whatever he fucking makes. Or they'll give me less. Either way it works out not in my benefit and I might be screwed and have to apply for a loan from somewhere else.
I guess I understand where the government is coming from in wanting both parent's information, but he's dead. If my mother was still alive they wouldn't have needed his information because she had custody, so now, just because she's dead and he isn't they need his information. I honestly don't know how much he makes, I'm just assuming it's more then enough to keep me from getting shit and that makes me a very sad Jasmine. Sad and furious. I bet you that if I had been in trouble and I told the government the same shit about m father they wouldn't care that he's alive. But when I need money from them they make me jump through the most idiotic of hoops to get a few pennies. In the grand scheme of things $20k isn't that much to the government, I don't understand why they're trying to hard now to not spend it when they spend a few million if not billion every fucking day. I mean if education is so important in this country make it easier for people to either afford fucking college or make it easier for people to get money to pay for college.
I just want money for school. I want to be done with school and I want to really be perceived as an adult because this shit makes me feel like a child. I hate feeling like a child.
Jasmine P.
July 8, 2010
Journalism, What the Frig?
How Celador Stood Up to a Bully in Taking Disney Down| The Wrap.com, By Dominic Patten
I read this article. Then I had to read it a second time to get what the hell they were talking about. It's like this person took the inverted pyramid that is the general consensus of form for jounalistic writing and played Jenga with it, remembered he had an article to write and used his Jenga-upped pyramid to write.
The inverted pyramid, a quick explanation, is a guide for format of an article. The journalist puts the most important information at the top of the article, then any details pertaining to the story go in all the successive paragraphs in order from most important to least important. A slightly longer description can be found here, on wikipedia. This can successfully be seen in this article from the New York Times and the same story written for the BBC. This is interesting because it's the same story with more or less the same information presented in each. The NYT article has more anecdotal information keeping the story entertaining that way. The BBC article has more numerical information which is interesting in comparison and more facts. Between these two, in my mind, the BBC is more valuable because of the the greater amount of numerical information.
When you look at both of those articles you can stop reading abut three or four paragraphs in and have the most important information and not missing any part of the true story. Now when you compare those stories to the one from The Wire about Disney, four paragraphs in you're only just getting to the information that you're seeing in that story. It's a bit different on the BBC article were every sentence is a paragraph, but if you read until 'perpetual flight' where it's bolded you get the important information of the story. If you choose not to read the entire story you've still read the most pertinent information.
When I look at The Wire article I want to know who Celador is, we learn that in the third paragraph with the littlest amount of information explaining who or what Celador is. In the fourth paragraph we get three overly used cliches, a sign of a weak writer. He uses 'shell game' and 'Hollywood underdog' and 'tip the scales.' Calling someone an underdog is so over played, and using three incredibly weak cliches is an insult to your readers. It doesn't need to be too high brow but use something that is more clever. I can think of few situations where cliches need to be in a new article.
Well, after the third paragraph where we learn who the hell Celador is I want to learn what Disney did. Oh, it's six paragraphs down after a poorly placed quote. Wait, that's quite distracting, who is this Stanton Stein? Oh, he settled with Disney about Home Improvement some years ago. He worked with Celador for a while, is he still working with Celador? Why was this not said before, or his stud quote left until after we've been told what Disney did wrong? Oh hay there studio jargon, what do you mean? I understand this may be a trade paper but a few more context clues would be helpful.
What Cliche?! Can I call you Clich? Cleesh? Aww, this one's inside a quotation, I guess it's fine. [Not really.] Alright! Only nine paragraphs in and we finally meet someone from Celador! He's only their CEO. Alright we're getting to the case, nope! I spoke too soon, an anonymous NYC-based marketing analysis interjects with something that's marginally useful! I don't get what the Tory Story 3 thing has to do with this case, but whatever.
13 paragraphs in we learn what Celador was seeking. 14 and 15 paint Michael Eisner to be a prick, especially he never showed up to court that day to argue he's more of a dick than a prick.
Oh hay, it's the Internet, let's use a second page! And another paragraph laden with cliches in paragraph 17. This writer loves paragraphs chocked full of cliches, doesn't he? And another vague quote, but I'll accept this one as anonymous because it's from a juror.
--
My verdict on this article is the author scrambled what came across the journalism wire and added his cliches to make it seem like he wrote more of the story that he actually did. [The Wire I spoke of is the press release from some other reporter from the court. It used to be sent by telegraph, then fax and I'll assume now by Internet and e-mail.] It's shit like that that make people not want to pay for news, poor writing. It doesn't help that the author's name is a false link, it's just be colored blue.
Now, I just ranted, spewed words onto the Internet. I was not attempting any proper format, this is closer to five paragraph essay than journalism, but it's not that, it's all opinion. I don't understand who taught this guy to write, but he needs to go back to school and be taught how to not suck. I only got what the article said when I was making fun of it, and then it's still quite poorly written.
If I were to write this story I'd start be introducing Celadon and Disney in the first paragraph and I'd explain why Celadon took Disney to court. I'd move on to explain what self-dealing is, why it's bad and why this is a landmark case. I'd introduce Stein, possibly before explaining why who case is important for small production offices. I'd describe some of the more important court days, like the one given with Eister not showing up to defend Disney. I might not use the quote from the New York analyst. I'd end with the quote from the Celadon CEO, maybe, or some stupid anecdote or joke maybe.
That story written as I proposed is simple and to the point. It would explain what the situation was and why this is important, especially if Disney loses the appeal. It would also be a lot stronger because it isn't pussyfooting around the subject.
Jasmine P.
I read this article. Then I had to read it a second time to get what the hell they were talking about. It's like this person took the inverted pyramid that is the general consensus of form for jounalistic writing and played Jenga with it, remembered he had an article to write and used his Jenga-upped pyramid to write.
The inverted pyramid, a quick explanation, is a guide for format of an article. The journalist puts the most important information at the top of the article, then any details pertaining to the story go in all the successive paragraphs in order from most important to least important. A slightly longer description can be found here, on wikipedia. This can successfully be seen in this article from the New York Times and the same story written for the BBC. This is interesting because it's the same story with more or less the same information presented in each. The NYT article has more anecdotal information keeping the story entertaining that way. The BBC article has more numerical information which is interesting in comparison and more facts. Between these two, in my mind, the BBC is more valuable because of the the greater amount of numerical information.
When you look at both of those articles you can stop reading abut three or four paragraphs in and have the most important information and not missing any part of the true story. Now when you compare those stories to the one from The Wire about Disney, four paragraphs in you're only just getting to the information that you're seeing in that story. It's a bit different on the BBC article were every sentence is a paragraph, but if you read until 'perpetual flight' where it's bolded you get the important information of the story. If you choose not to read the entire story you've still read the most pertinent information.
When I look at The Wire article I want to know who Celador is, we learn that in the third paragraph with the littlest amount of information explaining who or what Celador is. In the fourth paragraph we get three overly used cliches, a sign of a weak writer. He uses 'shell game' and 'Hollywood underdog' and 'tip the scales.' Calling someone an underdog is so over played, and using three incredibly weak cliches is an insult to your readers. It doesn't need to be too high brow but use something that is more clever. I can think of few situations where cliches need to be in a new article.
Well, after the third paragraph where we learn who the hell Celador is I want to learn what Disney did. Oh, it's six paragraphs down after a poorly placed quote. Wait, that's quite distracting, who is this Stanton Stein? Oh, he settled with Disney about Home Improvement some years ago. He worked with Celador for a while, is he still working with Celador? Why was this not said before, or his stud quote left until after we've been told what Disney did wrong? Oh hay there studio jargon, what do you mean? I understand this may be a trade paper but a few more context clues would be helpful.
What Cliche?! Can I call you Clich? Cleesh? Aww, this one's inside a quotation, I guess it's fine. [Not really.] Alright! Only nine paragraphs in and we finally meet someone from Celador! He's only their CEO. Alright we're getting to the case, nope! I spoke too soon, an anonymous NYC-based marketing analysis interjects with something that's marginally useful! I don't get what the Tory Story 3 thing has to do with this case, but whatever.
13 paragraphs in we learn what Celador was seeking. 14 and 15 paint Michael Eisner to be a prick, especially he never showed up to court that day to argue he's more of a dick than a prick.
Oh hay, it's the Internet, let's use a second page! And another paragraph laden with cliches in paragraph 17. This writer loves paragraphs chocked full of cliches, doesn't he? And another vague quote, but I'll accept this one as anonymous because it's from a juror.
--
My verdict on this article is the author scrambled what came across the journalism wire and added his cliches to make it seem like he wrote more of the story that he actually did. [The Wire I spoke of is the press release from some other reporter from the court. It used to be sent by telegraph, then fax and I'll assume now by Internet and e-mail.] It's shit like that that make people not want to pay for news, poor writing. It doesn't help that the author's name is a false link, it's just be colored blue.
Now, I just ranted, spewed words onto the Internet. I was not attempting any proper format, this is closer to five paragraph essay than journalism, but it's not that, it's all opinion. I don't understand who taught this guy to write, but he needs to go back to school and be taught how to not suck. I only got what the article said when I was making fun of it, and then it's still quite poorly written.
If I were to write this story I'd start be introducing Celadon and Disney in the first paragraph and I'd explain why Celadon took Disney to court. I'd move on to explain what self-dealing is, why it's bad and why this is a landmark case. I'd introduce Stein, possibly before explaining why who case is important for small production offices. I'd describe some of the more important court days, like the one given with Eister not showing up to defend Disney. I might not use the quote from the New York analyst. I'd end with the quote from the Celadon CEO, maybe, or some stupid anecdote or joke maybe.
That story written as I proposed is simple and to the point. It would explain what the situation was and why this is important, especially if Disney loses the appeal. It would also be a lot stronger because it isn't pussyfooting around the subject.
Jasmine P.
June 20, 2010
Sharing as Default is Wrong
If anyone who's reading this paid a drop of attention to the things I linked to back in May and maybe April during the very large Facebook ruckus what I'm saying now will be fairly recognizable and familiar. I was looking on Google to see what's been said about facebook in the news recently, nothing really major about the site, but looking at one site and seeing a sentence I've seen before made this idea click for me.
"In January, CEO Mark Zuckerberg had said that his company was updating its systems to "reflect what the current social norms are." So when Facebook announced in April that it would automatically enroll users into new features such as Instant Personalization--which handed users' publicly available Facebook info to selected Websites that users visited--the implication was that users' wishes, not the company's bottom line, prompted the move from a largely private system shared only with approved friends to a largely public system that freely gave data to search engines, marketing companies, and anyone else who wanted it." (1)
That entire paragraph makes oh so little sense. If that was the case people would be walking around, in real life, all the time telling people their full name, their age, sexual orientation, etc, all the time. It wouldn't be something discussed in confidence like it is now, it would be introduced as soon as you met somebody. There are actually things I've learned about people from their facebook pages that I'm not sure I knew from conversations. What I'm saying is, how can one site dictate how people are going to act? I don't share everything everywhere. I have different e-mail accounts for different things for a reason. My last name is not visible in full for a reason. I never made a nickname/url thing for a reason. If people want to find me they have to know me, know something about me, or know people who know me. I try to maintain a viable amount of control over my account because I don't know who may stumble across my account at any time. But more simply than that I interact differently in different circles. Who I am in front of my Grandma is not quite who I am in front of friends at school, which is still a bit different from how I act in front of friends from high school, cousins, my brothers, my sister, my father, everyone. I act different around different people, everyone does. Fine, I'll concede; not everyone but many people.
I don't think of that type of subterfuge as lying so much as I think of it as protection. Keeping friends close and enemies closer, but what's acceptable in some circles is not acceptable in all circles. I keep my account fairly locked down so people know can access it already know most of me or I'm comfortable with them being in the confidence of knowing more about me. But, with what I share here and what I don't share the world does not need to know. There are but so many people I'm friends with that don't have some connection with at least one other person I know somewhere.
What I'm saying is, how can sharing be the default if people work so hard to maintain different selves? How I present myself in a class is not how I present myself in a coffee shop. I think that's what bothers me more about seeing faculty outside of the academic situation because there's a certain expectation for one place that's different for another place. People know or expect different things and boiling it all down to what's common on both levels leave me as being very little of me as I try not to confuse or offend one or the other.
When you look at what sites say are the short comings of facebook you'll see what I said reiterated, probably in a more logical fashion. "As everything, Facebook is also used for good and bad activities too. In an interview with Mmegi, some critics launched a backlash against this ubiquitous website of modern civilization. They indicated that Facebook could be bad for one’s health - and wealth, career, personal relationships, living arrangements and reputation. They also asserted to the fact that the site can also be disturbingly addictive. With the issue of possible Facebook addiction comes its abuse." (2)
Everyone had different social circles. The biggest issue with facebook is that it wants to connect all of everyone's social circles in one place. That would be less detrimental in my mind if it was focused on one circle and not all circles. What goes on behind closed doors affects what goes on outside but so much. People's religious beliefs or their thoughts on other people's sexual orientation or political beliefs should not affect their jobs, but with bosses and coworkers knowing more about what their colleagues do over the weekends being more prevalent knowledge facebook is a downfall. It's the downfall to privacy and people don't like that. I understand how pleasant it is to have everything aggregated on one website and not having to shuffle all across the internet to interact with different people, but that would probably be the best step forward for social interaction. Keeping things in their various boundaries and comfort zones would probably be a lot less detrimental in the long run.
Sites/Sources:
1: http://www.pcworld.com/article/199162/can_you_really_trust_facebook.html?tk=hp_new - PC World
2: http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=10&aid=66&dir=2010/February/Monday15 - Mmegionline
Jasmine P.
"In January, CEO Mark Zuckerberg had said that his company was updating its systems to "reflect what the current social norms are." So when Facebook announced in April that it would automatically enroll users into new features such as Instant Personalization--which handed users' publicly available Facebook info to selected Websites that users visited--the implication was that users' wishes, not the company's bottom line, prompted the move from a largely private system shared only with approved friends to a largely public system that freely gave data to search engines, marketing companies, and anyone else who wanted it." (1)
That entire paragraph makes oh so little sense. If that was the case people would be walking around, in real life, all the time telling people their full name, their age, sexual orientation, etc, all the time. It wouldn't be something discussed in confidence like it is now, it would be introduced as soon as you met somebody. There are actually things I've learned about people from their facebook pages that I'm not sure I knew from conversations. What I'm saying is, how can one site dictate how people are going to act? I don't share everything everywhere. I have different e-mail accounts for different things for a reason. My last name is not visible in full for a reason. I never made a nickname/url thing for a reason. If people want to find me they have to know me, know something about me, or know people who know me. I try to maintain a viable amount of control over my account because I don't know who may stumble across my account at any time. But more simply than that I interact differently in different circles. Who I am in front of my Grandma is not quite who I am in front of friends at school, which is still a bit different from how I act in front of friends from high school, cousins, my brothers, my sister, my father, everyone. I act different around different people, everyone does. Fine, I'll concede; not everyone but many people.
I don't think of that type of subterfuge as lying so much as I think of it as protection. Keeping friends close and enemies closer, but what's acceptable in some circles is not acceptable in all circles. I keep my account fairly locked down so people know can access it already know most of me or I'm comfortable with them being in the confidence of knowing more about me. But, with what I share here and what I don't share the world does not need to know. There are but so many people I'm friends with that don't have some connection with at least one other person I know somewhere.
What I'm saying is, how can sharing be the default if people work so hard to maintain different selves? How I present myself in a class is not how I present myself in a coffee shop. I think that's what bothers me more about seeing faculty outside of the academic situation because there's a certain expectation for one place that's different for another place. People know or expect different things and boiling it all down to what's common on both levels leave me as being very little of me as I try not to confuse or offend one or the other.
When you look at what sites say are the short comings of facebook you'll see what I said reiterated, probably in a more logical fashion. "As everything, Facebook is also used for good and bad activities too. In an interview with Mmegi, some critics launched a backlash against this ubiquitous website of modern civilization. They indicated that Facebook could be bad for one’s health - and wealth, career, personal relationships, living arrangements and reputation. They also asserted to the fact that the site can also be disturbingly addictive. With the issue of possible Facebook addiction comes its abuse." (2)
Everyone had different social circles. The biggest issue with facebook is that it wants to connect all of everyone's social circles in one place. That would be less detrimental in my mind if it was focused on one circle and not all circles. What goes on behind closed doors affects what goes on outside but so much. People's religious beliefs or their thoughts on other people's sexual orientation or political beliefs should not affect their jobs, but with bosses and coworkers knowing more about what their colleagues do over the weekends being more prevalent knowledge facebook is a downfall. It's the downfall to privacy and people don't like that. I understand how pleasant it is to have everything aggregated on one website and not having to shuffle all across the internet to interact with different people, but that would probably be the best step forward for social interaction. Keeping things in their various boundaries and comfort zones would probably be a lot less detrimental in the long run.
Sites/Sources:
1: http://www.pcworld.com/article/199162/can_you_really_trust_facebook.html?tk=hp_new - PC World
2: http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=10&aid=66&dir=2010/February/Monday15 - Mmegionline
Jasmine P.
June 15, 2010
Intelligence and Knowing You're Intelligent
Disclaimer(?): I'm not trying to sounds vain here, but this is what I've experienced from having "above 'average' intelligence" in school and the education system. Long story short, it fucks you up, or it just fucks me up, we'll see.
----
So, it's pretty common knowledge now that schools and school systems test the shit out of children every year to find out who's 'gifted and talented (GT)', to find out who has the ability for more abstract thinking than their peers, so they can put them in classes to challenge and strengthen this type of thinking. This is relatively easy to do because there are a metric shit-ton of other tests going on generally if you tell a kid they have to take a test, they'll do what you ask.
Well, this is what it was like for me 15 years ago in elementary school when more parents told their kids to sit down and shut up, as opposed to now where it's always a compromise between parent and child. Also 15 years ago when it's not like children weren't respected and spoken to on their level by their teacher, but their teachers found ways to deal with them and it was closer to 1 in 15 being on Ritalin, or something else for ADD, as opposed to 1 in 5.
This isn't about that, this is about being an 'advanced thinker' and having people acknowledge that you're not 'average.'
Yes, as a kid I was proud to learn that I was 'intelligent' enough to be put into a special class for people who understood in second grade why triangles and domes are stronger than straight lines; in a class where in fourth grade I decided to use 'queer' by it's proper dictionary definition. Only odd thing about use of 'queer' is other people in my class laughing so it showed a part of my out-of-the-loop-ness that happens every now and again because I'd only ever known queer to mean something was strange or odd and not an insult to homosexual people.
But I digress. I'm saying from a young age, what...about 8 when I started in the 'advanced' classes in second grade, I was told I was different. I was told I was smarter than my peers. This information went straight to my head, giving me my inflated ego. I mean, who at the age of 8 wouldn't be all over the fact that they were 'better' than someone else? Also, to be honest, I enjoyed the GT course for a few reasons: it got me out of regular class once a week, what we did was interesting, and I was told I was better than other people. (Aside: maybe this started my superiority complex...) Third grade I went to a different elementary school where the entire class was GT, we were doing fourth grade work. Aspects of that year sucked, not the work so much as the school, not an encouraging environment so I went back to my original elementary school. I did get to raise chicks in my third grade class, an now I'm wondering what happened to the chickens and roosters. I don't know why I never did ask that question.
I went back to my primary elementary school for my last three years and went back to a 'pull out' GT program. In middle school I was in a GT program all day, every day, except this time it was called the IBMYP- the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program. Upper level thinking, reading, writing all the time now. I've been taught MLA citation format ever since the seventh grade started. It also introduced me to who would be in most of my classes for the next six years. Seriously, my school system didn't lock down the IB program, in high school at least, but it was fairly contained. Many people took more than one IB class so it was fairly common on the first day of class to see about 1/3 of your first period class also in your second period class. I mean, my graduating class was something around 300-350 students. Of that number I think we had about 75 get the IB diploma, and another 100 or so get one or more IB certificates for the individual IB exams they passed.
Well, I've spent much of my time chronicling my education and what it was like, kind of. We all knew each other, would cheat off of each other and had been told we were special, smart for many years. We got to read multiple banned books over the years. Hell, I think at least one of my teachers tried for everything to be banned, and not just by religious groups, but by anyone. It made for interesting reading to say the least.
As I was saying earlier, sometimes being 'smart/er' sucked. I got tired of hearing "you're too smart to be failing" or "you're smart, so if you only applied yourself..." That shit never helps, it makes it worse because I'm already irritated that I wasn't passing, I don't need to be reminded that I'm failing, generally for stupid reasons. I said I was never good in a quiet environment, and my ability to focus is a bit worse when I'm in a quiet room because then I start making my own music for entertainment instead of drifting in and out of ignoring music that's playing while I do something. Hell, I've got music playing while I write this and I'm writing alright. I was never good at tests, in testing situation because it was always unnaturally quiet. It was a forced heavy silence, like an extended pregnant silence. Since it felt uncomfortable it distracted me more than noise might have.
Showing you were smart as a kid was just as bad as failing. I have been told 'You speak good English' many times. Every time I smile and say 'thank you' while inside I respond 'you don't.' Every time. I have been called articulate many times, my cousin told me I spoke like 'white people,' but he doesn't use proper grammar or pronunciation, I think he was trying to make fun of me, not to sure though. I was a reader as a kid, I still am. I actively seek out controversial, weird or interesting things to read. When I read comics I like something that questions or critiques our culture, same goes with novels and film. I also turn around and love and appreciate much lower brow humour. I enjoy The Shawshank Redemption just as much as I enjoy Tropic Thunder or The Fifth Element. Yes, Tropic Thunder does have more to it than the explosions and the silly, but that's what people see. I like explosions and boom! I like talking and critiquing, I like getting and understanding 'smart' things and enjoying 'not-smart (?)' things.
With what I've said I still haven't quite gotten to my point. The biggest flaw in being smart if knowing that you're smart. You want to be recognized as such when you succeed and when you don't you don't want people to think too hard about it because it's salt in the wound. There are things I've realized, things I know about myself from sitting and dwelling on it. I wonder, how many people sit down and think about when they stop thinking of themselves as a kid, and actually think of themselves as an adult? I'm not talking about turning 18 or 21 and saying 'I can smoke, drink, vote and die for my country; I'm an adult.' I'm talking about how many people can actually acknowledge and articulate, to some degree, why they think of themselves now as an adult. While talking with Alex this weekend we spoke about this for a minute which drunk, but we both have come to the point in our lives where we're looking less to our parents for guidance and we both want to strike out on our own and forge our own paths. In my mind stopping and attempting to put into words a gradual change like that is a very heady thing to do, thinking and dwelling and focusing.
Being smart, intelligent, gifted has been my life in the education system. No one is more annoying than I am with myself for bad grades. When I try to explain my career plans to my family I can hear the disappointment in their voices when I say I don't want to go into science anymore. That doesn't bring me down as much as it annoys me when I say I want to work for myself, drawing my own comics. They keep trying to dissuade me thinking it's childish precociousness and it's not. They think it's about money, I'll find the money, getting money's the easy part. Working the job, the career, I really want is the hard part.
Want to know another shitty part about being smart? I know why I'm depressed almost every time. Usually it's some sort of 'I don't feel loved' bullshit. Every now and again it's about my mom being dead. Knowing I'm not at a point to forgive my father for all of his bullshit, or any of it, I know I'm not ready and I know why. He won't listen, he won't try to listen. He thinks of me as a child, I'm not a child anymore. I don't think I'm a young adult anymore, I just am an adult. I think I'm finally moving out of categorization limbo, now everyone I know needs to learn this so they don't think of me as less then I am.
See, that thought process right there, I want to be respected on my level; I want to be taken seriously on my level. Not everyone is on my level. I think ultimately that's why I drifted away from people from high school. Not just that they knew the 'old' me, but that they weren't really looking to be Adults yet, they were looking to be Young Adults. I've gone back to speaking with some of them and it seems things are leveling back out, we're reaching our next maturity level.
Jasmine P.
----
So, it's pretty common knowledge now that schools and school systems test the shit out of children every year to find out who's 'gifted and talented (GT)', to find out who has the ability for more abstract thinking than their peers, so they can put them in classes to challenge and strengthen this type of thinking. This is relatively easy to do because there are a metric shit-ton of other tests going on generally if you tell a kid they have to take a test, they'll do what you ask.
Well, this is what it was like for me 15 years ago in elementary school when more parents told their kids to sit down and shut up, as opposed to now where it's always a compromise between parent and child. Also 15 years ago when it's not like children weren't respected and spoken to on their level by their teacher, but their teachers found ways to deal with them and it was closer to 1 in 15 being on Ritalin, or something else for ADD, as opposed to 1 in 5.
This isn't about that, this is about being an 'advanced thinker' and having people acknowledge that you're not 'average.'
Yes, as a kid I was proud to learn that I was 'intelligent' enough to be put into a special class for people who understood in second grade why triangles and domes are stronger than straight lines; in a class where in fourth grade I decided to use 'queer' by it's proper dictionary definition. Only odd thing about use of 'queer' is other people in my class laughing so it showed a part of my out-of-the-loop-ness that happens every now and again because I'd only ever known queer to mean something was strange or odd and not an insult to homosexual people.
But I digress. I'm saying from a young age, what...about 8 when I started in the 'advanced' classes in second grade, I was told I was different. I was told I was smarter than my peers. This information went straight to my head, giving me my inflated ego. I mean, who at the age of 8 wouldn't be all over the fact that they were 'better' than someone else? Also, to be honest, I enjoyed the GT course for a few reasons: it got me out of regular class once a week, what we did was interesting, and I was told I was better than other people. (Aside: maybe this started my superiority complex...) Third grade I went to a different elementary school where the entire class was GT, we were doing fourth grade work. Aspects of that year sucked, not the work so much as the school, not an encouraging environment so I went back to my original elementary school. I did get to raise chicks in my third grade class, an now I'm wondering what happened to the chickens and roosters. I don't know why I never did ask that question.
I went back to my primary elementary school for my last three years and went back to a 'pull out' GT program. In middle school I was in a GT program all day, every day, except this time it was called the IBMYP- the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program. Upper level thinking, reading, writing all the time now. I've been taught MLA citation format ever since the seventh grade started. It also introduced me to who would be in most of my classes for the next six years. Seriously, my school system didn't lock down the IB program, in high school at least, but it was fairly contained. Many people took more than one IB class so it was fairly common on the first day of class to see about 1/3 of your first period class also in your second period class. I mean, my graduating class was something around 300-350 students. Of that number I think we had about 75 get the IB diploma, and another 100 or so get one or more IB certificates for the individual IB exams they passed.
Well, I've spent much of my time chronicling my education and what it was like, kind of. We all knew each other, would cheat off of each other and had been told we were special, smart for many years. We got to read multiple banned books over the years. Hell, I think at least one of my teachers tried for everything to be banned, and not just by religious groups, but by anyone. It made for interesting reading to say the least.
As I was saying earlier, sometimes being 'smart/er' sucked. I got tired of hearing "you're too smart to be failing" or "you're smart, so if you only applied yourself..." That shit never helps, it makes it worse because I'm already irritated that I wasn't passing, I don't need to be reminded that I'm failing, generally for stupid reasons. I said I was never good in a quiet environment, and my ability to focus is a bit worse when I'm in a quiet room because then I start making my own music for entertainment instead of drifting in and out of ignoring music that's playing while I do something. Hell, I've got music playing while I write this and I'm writing alright. I was never good at tests, in testing situation because it was always unnaturally quiet. It was a forced heavy silence, like an extended pregnant silence. Since it felt uncomfortable it distracted me more than noise might have.
Showing you were smart as a kid was just as bad as failing. I have been told 'You speak good English' many times. Every time I smile and say 'thank you' while inside I respond 'you don't.' Every time. I have been called articulate many times, my cousin told me I spoke like 'white people,' but he doesn't use proper grammar or pronunciation, I think he was trying to make fun of me, not to sure though. I was a reader as a kid, I still am. I actively seek out controversial, weird or interesting things to read. When I read comics I like something that questions or critiques our culture, same goes with novels and film. I also turn around and love and appreciate much lower brow humour. I enjoy The Shawshank Redemption just as much as I enjoy Tropic Thunder or The Fifth Element. Yes, Tropic Thunder does have more to it than the explosions and the silly, but that's what people see. I like explosions and boom! I like talking and critiquing, I like getting and understanding 'smart' things and enjoying 'not-smart (?)' things.
With what I've said I still haven't quite gotten to my point. The biggest flaw in being smart if knowing that you're smart. You want to be recognized as such when you succeed and when you don't you don't want people to think too hard about it because it's salt in the wound. There are things I've realized, things I know about myself from sitting and dwelling on it. I wonder, how many people sit down and think about when they stop thinking of themselves as a kid, and actually think of themselves as an adult? I'm not talking about turning 18 or 21 and saying 'I can smoke, drink, vote and die for my country; I'm an adult.' I'm talking about how many people can actually acknowledge and articulate, to some degree, why they think of themselves now as an adult. While talking with Alex this weekend we spoke about this for a minute which drunk, but we both have come to the point in our lives where we're looking less to our parents for guidance and we both want to strike out on our own and forge our own paths. In my mind stopping and attempting to put into words a gradual change like that is a very heady thing to do, thinking and dwelling and focusing.
Being smart, intelligent, gifted has been my life in the education system. No one is more annoying than I am with myself for bad grades. When I try to explain my career plans to my family I can hear the disappointment in their voices when I say I don't want to go into science anymore. That doesn't bring me down as much as it annoys me when I say I want to work for myself, drawing my own comics. They keep trying to dissuade me thinking it's childish precociousness and it's not. They think it's about money, I'll find the money, getting money's the easy part. Working the job, the career, I really want is the hard part.
Want to know another shitty part about being smart? I know why I'm depressed almost every time. Usually it's some sort of 'I don't feel loved' bullshit. Every now and again it's about my mom being dead. Knowing I'm not at a point to forgive my father for all of his bullshit, or any of it, I know I'm not ready and I know why. He won't listen, he won't try to listen. He thinks of me as a child, I'm not a child anymore. I don't think I'm a young adult anymore, I just am an adult. I think I'm finally moving out of categorization limbo, now everyone I know needs to learn this so they don't think of me as less then I am.
See, that thought process right there, I want to be respected on my level; I want to be taken seriously on my level. Not everyone is on my level. I think ultimately that's why I drifted away from people from high school. Not just that they knew the 'old' me, but that they weren't really looking to be Adults yet, they were looking to be Young Adults. I've gone back to speaking with some of them and it seems things are leveling back out, we're reaching our next maturity level.
Jasmine P.
May 23, 2010
Concepts of Beauty
My Grandmother keeps trying to get me to change what I like about myself. We're supposed to be going on a cruise this August around the Bahamas. When I spoke to her last week she told me what it was like on the boat, "you're going to forget you're on a boat, it's like being in a mall' or she'd tell me about the Governer's Ball which happens one night on the ship, and that I have to be dressed nicely for dinner. I'm like 'alright' and she continues asking me if I'm going to 'get my hair done' or wear earrings, or telling me I can't wear denims, she's old and doesn't usually say 'jeans' for whatever reason.
I try to listen, but when she asks me an honest question I decide I'm going to answer honestly:
-"Will you get my hair done in a beauty salon": no, I like my hair short and natural
-"well, will you go to a barber? How much does it cost?"; between $10-15, and no, my friend can cut my hair;
-"how do you know they can cut hair? What if you don't like it?": I'll cut it all off then let it grow back. Hair will grow back.
-"You're not going to wear a hat every day, your hair won't grow long if you wear a hat all the time.": I like my hats and I don't want my hair to grow long, Grandma.
-"Fine, you're going to wear earrings right?": No Grandma, they irritate my ears, I don't like 'em. As I kid I didn't like them.
"Well, you have to dress nice, you can't go out to eat wearing denims. When you go out with your friends you have to look nice so you can meet people."
You'd think I'd be dizzy from rolling my eyes so much. I finally get her to stop this ridiculous attempt at changing me by explaining I wear and present myself how I like. I don't like dresses or earrings so I don't wear them. I like my hats so I wear them. I have the commonsense to not go to a nice dinner in baggy messy jeans or cargos, but it's the same commonsense that keeps me from going to a messy art class in a really nice shirt. It's neither the time nor is it the place. No, I won't wear make-up, no I won't conform to society's conventions of beauty because I don't like them.
I am me, let me prove to you my life is fine, that I'm happy, when I'm not depressed - my appearance doesn't affect my depression, so I'm happy in how I look, how I dress and ow I carry myself. I have been told that things I have ae nice, that they look good, stop trying to compare me to my mother. Stop trying to compare me to other people, be happy that I'm happy.
I don't know. I could easily just say yes to everything she says I should do, but I wouldn't be happy. It's better to get this stupid non-important argument out of the way now instead of it being a stupid non-important argument in three months when sh sees me to wearing earrings, not wearing make-up, not wearing nail polish. I'll primp to my own tastes not hers. The thing is, like I said, I like how I dress, I like the clothes I wear, I don't want to 'work' that goes into being 'beautiful' and that shit all costs too much. Concealer, mascara, lipstick, blush, facial wash, zit cream, nail polish, nail polish remover, hair rollers, hair relaxant. If I had one of each of those things I'd've spent $100 easy. Why? To fit into what society considers to be beautiful. I want to buck trends and fuck convention.
It's like I questioned in this image http://dichigo.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d1kcwn9 a scribble from a few years ago, I want to go back to it again at some point, but why should I listen to the magazines, the voices outside. To hell with them, if I'm happy how I am, why do I have to listen to people out there who work so hard to change themselves and others to their own conventions and beauty, to what they think society would like. No, that's not me.
When I leave for that cruise I will have some nice shirts, I will have one or two skirts, I will also have sneakers, sandals, denim gouchos, one or two of my hats, either my FreakAngels or Israeli Paratrooper bag, at least one sketchbook, pens, pencils, two or three novels and my DS, plus other odds and ends. I'll have things to look nice in, to look nice with that I like, and I'll have the things I like that are comfortable. It's what I like
Jasmine P.
I try to listen, but when she asks me an honest question I decide I'm going to answer honestly:
-"Will you get my hair done in a beauty salon": no, I like my hair short and natural
-"well, will you go to a barber? How much does it cost?"; between $10-15, and no, my friend can cut my hair;
-"how do you know they can cut hair? What if you don't like it?": I'll cut it all off then let it grow back. Hair will grow back.
-"You're not going to wear a hat every day, your hair won't grow long if you wear a hat all the time.": I like my hats and I don't want my hair to grow long, Grandma.
-"Fine, you're going to wear earrings right?": No Grandma, they irritate my ears, I don't like 'em. As I kid I didn't like them.
"Well, you have to dress nice, you can't go out to eat wearing denims. When you go out with your friends you have to look nice so you can meet people."
You'd think I'd be dizzy from rolling my eyes so much. I finally get her to stop this ridiculous attempt at changing me by explaining I wear and present myself how I like. I don't like dresses or earrings so I don't wear them. I like my hats so I wear them. I have the commonsense to not go to a nice dinner in baggy messy jeans or cargos, but it's the same commonsense that keeps me from going to a messy art class in a really nice shirt. It's neither the time nor is it the place. No, I won't wear make-up, no I won't conform to society's conventions of beauty because I don't like them.
I am me, let me prove to you my life is fine, that I'm happy, when I'm not depressed - my appearance doesn't affect my depression, so I'm happy in how I look, how I dress and ow I carry myself. I have been told that things I have ae nice, that they look good, stop trying to compare me to my mother. Stop trying to compare me to other people, be happy that I'm happy.
I don't know. I could easily just say yes to everything she says I should do, but I wouldn't be happy. It's better to get this stupid non-important argument out of the way now instead of it being a stupid non-important argument in three months when sh sees me to wearing earrings, not wearing make-up, not wearing nail polish. I'll primp to my own tastes not hers. The thing is, like I said, I like how I dress, I like the clothes I wear, I don't want to 'work' that goes into being 'beautiful' and that shit all costs too much. Concealer, mascara, lipstick, blush, facial wash, zit cream, nail polish, nail polish remover, hair rollers, hair relaxant. If I had one of each of those things I'd've spent $100 easy. Why? To fit into what society considers to be beautiful. I want to buck trends and fuck convention.
It's like I questioned in this image http://dichigo.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d1kcwn9 a scribble from a few years ago, I want to go back to it again at some point, but why should I listen to the magazines, the voices outside. To hell with them, if I'm happy how I am, why do I have to listen to people out there who work so hard to change themselves and others to their own conventions and beauty, to what they think society would like. No, that's not me.
When I leave for that cruise I will have some nice shirts, I will have one or two skirts, I will also have sneakers, sandals, denim gouchos, one or two of my hats, either my FreakAngels or Israeli Paratrooper bag, at least one sketchbook, pens, pencils, two or three novels and my DS, plus other odds and ends. I'll have things to look nice in, to look nice with that I like, and I'll have the things I like that are comfortable. It's what I like
Jasmine P.
May 12, 2010
Faceook Privacy Issues and a Rant
Facebook's newest privacy policy
Why does any of my personal information have to be linked to what other people have put up or to Wikipedia? I currently have no information for my education, movies, books, interests or anything because I have to share it, or you can see it because Facebook has really retarded visibility previews. I don't know what anyone other than myself can see in relation to my information, but I disagree that it has to be linked to something else other than either a)Facebook or b) my network. If I want to find more information about what anyone I know has under their information, I can look it up myself without having to use a short cut given by Facebook, or forced upon me. This is bullshit and I feel that it's infringing upon my rights to keep things private. Yes, I want to share my reading or movie interests with my friends, but I don't feel that to do that I have to have it linked to whatever Facebook decides I need to be linked to. Yes, I say I like something, but does that mean I endorse it? Not always, and not for everyone.
I will again share a link I saw a few weeks ago [click here] How to opt out of some of Facebook's new changes that they never really announced. I mean, really, who updates or looks at their personal information every day? Hell, most of the time I only really look at anyone else information when I friend them, I have better things to do than to memorize what my friends love, and just reading it here would make me feel like a really creepy stalker.
[Click Here -2] This is a Facebook page about governing the changes, if you disagree with what they have automatically decided for you to share, you can voice your opinion here, now, let's see if they really care. Irritatingly you have to 'like' the site governance before you can comment, but if I must, I will. Only I plan on voice my opinion, do you? So far only 4 thousand of the few million Facebook members have voiced an opinion about the privacy changes, if you disagree with them say something. The more who do, the sooner we might be able to make our private information private again.
Another stupid Facebook thing I'm getting tired of is having to jump through hoops to see information about a group or idea. Like, if you want to see a list you have to join and possibly share the list with your friends. This hearkens back to about two years ago when there were a million and a half quizzes on the site and to see your result you -had- to share it with your friends to see some inane information. And if you wanted to see it again, you had to send it to more friends. Yeah, no. All those stupid lists and jokes are on the Internet and I'm sure I've seen many of them in some form or another over the years. It's not work it, I have other more interesting things I can be doing than whatever stupid tasks there are to see some group's information. Every day I see more and more little things that make me want to delete my account, clear out everything and leave one link to my main blog where all my other information can be found. My photos would only be on Flickr, what's on my mind on twitter and blogger and this would just be a front to my sites.
A few more Electronics Foundation Frontier (EFF) pages relating to current Facebook changes and Facebook in general
[Click Here 3] [Click Here 4]
[Click Here 5] - A very useful link, did you know your friends list was automatically visible to EVERYONE on Facebook?
Linked from an EFF post [Click Here 6] - Mark Zuckerberg "does not believe in 'privacy'"
Note, some of that information I may have shared in the past.
[Click Here 7] Our 'rights and responsibilities' according to Facebook
"Your privacy is very important to us. We designed our Privacy Policy to make important disclosures about how you can use Facebook to share with others and how we collect and can use your content and information. We encourage you to read the Privacy Policy, and to use it to help make informed decisions." From the beginning of that link. What the hell.
Good luck protecting your privacy.
Jasmine P.
Why does any of my personal information have to be linked to what other people have put up or to Wikipedia? I currently have no information for my education, movies, books, interests or anything because I have to share it, or you can see it because Facebook has really retarded visibility previews. I don't know what anyone other than myself can see in relation to my information, but I disagree that it has to be linked to something else other than either a)Facebook or b) my network. If I want to find more information about what anyone I know has under their information, I can look it up myself without having to use a short cut given by Facebook, or forced upon me. This is bullshit and I feel that it's infringing upon my rights to keep things private. Yes, I want to share my reading or movie interests with my friends, but I don't feel that to do that I have to have it linked to whatever Facebook decides I need to be linked to. Yes, I say I like something, but does that mean I endorse it? Not always, and not for everyone.
I will again share a link I saw a few weeks ago [click here] How to opt out of some of Facebook's new changes that they never really announced. I mean, really, who updates or looks at their personal information every day? Hell, most of the time I only really look at anyone else information when I friend them, I have better things to do than to memorize what my friends love, and just reading it here would make me feel like a really creepy stalker.
[Click Here -2] This is a Facebook page about governing the changes, if you disagree with what they have automatically decided for you to share, you can voice your opinion here, now, let's see if they really care. Irritatingly you have to 'like' the site governance before you can comment, but if I must, I will. Only I plan on voice my opinion, do you? So far only 4 thousand of the few million Facebook members have voiced an opinion about the privacy changes, if you disagree with them say something. The more who do, the sooner we might be able to make our private information private again.
Another stupid Facebook thing I'm getting tired of is having to jump through hoops to see information about a group or idea. Like, if you want to see a list you have to join and possibly share the list with your friends. This hearkens back to about two years ago when there were a million and a half quizzes on the site and to see your result you -had- to share it with your friends to see some inane information. And if you wanted to see it again, you had to send it to more friends. Yeah, no. All those stupid lists and jokes are on the Internet and I'm sure I've seen many of them in some form or another over the years. It's not work it, I have other more interesting things I can be doing than whatever stupid tasks there are to see some group's information. Every day I see more and more little things that make me want to delete my account, clear out everything and leave one link to my main blog where all my other information can be found. My photos would only be on Flickr, what's on my mind on twitter and blogger and this would just be a front to my sites.
A few more Electronics Foundation Frontier (EFF) pages relating to current Facebook changes and Facebook in general
[Click Here 3] [Click Here 4]
[Click Here 5] - A very useful link, did you know your friends list was automatically visible to EVERYONE on Facebook?
Linked from an EFF post [Click Here 6] - Mark Zuckerberg "does not believe in 'privacy'"
Note, some of that information I may have shared in the past.
[Click Here 7] Our 'rights and responsibilities' according to Facebook
"Your privacy is very important to us. We designed our Privacy Policy to make important disclosures about how you can use Facebook to share with others and how we collect and can use your content and information. We encourage you to read the Privacy Policy, and to use it to help make informed decisions." From the beginning of that link. What the hell.
Good luck protecting your privacy.
Jasmine P.
January 29, 2010
I Talk About S-E-X!! (Scandalous)
I'm reading an article talking about why a new edition of The diary of Anne Frank has been pulled from the reading curriculum of a Culpepper County school. They bring up Frank talking about her vagina and sex as the reasons why a parent didn't want their child to study this book. I give the school some credit in just pulling this edition from the study curriculum and not from the system entirely. It is still available to find in the library, which is better than what I normally read in censorship issues.
A disclaimer before I go off the topic of the story, I've never read it, I don't want to. The Holocaust was a depressing era of the collective human history, just like slavery is, specific to me, America slavery of Africans, and the Soviet Union. I respect what the book is and why it was written, maybe one day I will read it, until then I speak on behalf of text I have never first hand experienced.
That said, going off my sex education classes, male genitalia was described in use and anatomically shown by the time I was in eighth grade. I knew the basics of how things worked and that was all described in a scientific and very 70s fashion, because for some reason, newer educational films haven't been made. That said, I don't understand why or how the book in 'too sexual' for an eighth grade class. They've have sex-ed since 5th grade, many have older siblings who have told them things, and most have probably seen porn by that age, or mainstream movies which sometimes have explicit-ish amounts of sex in them. How is real account of someone experiencing what all other girls are going through too graphic for their children? The way I see it, it shows the readers that they are not the only ones to ask certain questions. They may share the same criticisms of their genitalia as some kid who lived 60 years before them, before their parents even. How is something that wasn't written to necessarily to be sexually arousing a negative? It was just her thoughts and her experiences with her body. Everybody questions their body at some point, explores and finally puts a mirror between their legs to see what things look like. If not everybody, than some, probably many, but the point I'm trying to make is teenagers are trying to understand what is going on. To see someone else try similar things, or their thoughts on the same things is not a negative. It's not salacious, it just is, they are the facts of her life for the world to read.
I think that what this parent was doing was a disservice to their child, the blog (second link below) sounds like it was a son who apparently was disgusted by reading a description of a vagina, or a description of mestruation. Which ever. By not reading the book, or having an honest, real life experience with it the smoke and mirrors are still there. In reading someone going through the thoughts of learning their body it is more useful than watching 30 and 40 year old videos about hip kids like them going to class with a hard one, or getting a period, or the other joys of puberty. That kid will have less of an understanding about sex because the technical lexicon used to educate is annoying to dig through. The more relaxed vocabulary that Frank used in the book is probably more akin to what someone between the ages of 12 and 14 would more likely use, time and slang aside.
Along with that, I think that the mystification of sex is a disservice to maturing teenagers everywhere. It is such a taboo that parents give cutesy names to sexual organs, which in turn makes explaining the science behind it more awkward. Calling it a 'pee-pee' is stupid, a penis or vagina is not pee. Twat, cunt, dick, prick, pee-pee, so forth and so on are not useful, they're not correct terms for things. They're stupid euphemisms that parents hide behind when they're too afraid of breaking their child's fragile mind to give things real names. The less special you make something the less a kid will notice. I've seen it first hand, I used the word 'frig' in front of my sister. She didn't notice until my brother told me not to say it, then she noticed the word she didn't know and assumed it was something naughty. That's not how it goes, if it's something common and every day than your kid will hopefully act less stupid about when they're older.
After using proper names for things, parents need to get used to trying to answer the 'hard' questions. The child favorite, 'how are babies made' or 'where did I come from' are not that hard to answer. "When a man and a woman have sex, there is the possibility that a baby will be made, and grow inside the woman's body for nine months, until it is pushed out. Sex is when the penis enters the vagina, it is the primary reason for having each, to make more babies and people." It's simple, not really arousing explains it. Details provided as questions are asked. It makes more sense than the stork bullshit, and the 'love makes a baby' is a lie that shouldn't be perpetuated. To make it more compassionate, you could say love and caring is involved, but what I said up there is a template, it's simple and described in a way how a baby is born.
By giving a child the truth, they learn they can trust you better. What the parents gets out of telling the kids the truth, simple or complex language aside, they are helping their kids understand things. Many children crave knowledge, the answer to the whys and hows of their life. Giving them a real answer is much more beneficial because it is a safe environment to learn something. You are giving them the tools to learn things the right way. I was more bothered when my mother didn't give me a real explanation to things then when she gave it to me straight. I may not have liked the answer, but her honest was nice. I knew I could trust her that much more than hearing one thing and being taught another.
Our society makes sex out to be such a secret, an exclusive club that most adults experience that people have issues talking about it. Let your kid know that masturbation is all right, just to clean up afterward. Explain to them why they shouldn't have sex too early, let them ask you questions. Sex shouldn't be a secret. It is natural, most living creatures experience it to some degree so lying about it doesn't make much sense. It's not inherently dangerous, but not respecting what has the potential to come from sexual intercourse is.
Jasmine P.
Important Links:
Article - Blog Response
A disclaimer before I go off the topic of the story, I've never read it, I don't want to. The Holocaust was a depressing era of the collective human history, just like slavery is, specific to me, America slavery of Africans, and the Soviet Union. I respect what the book is and why it was written, maybe one day I will read it, until then I speak on behalf of text I have never first hand experienced.
That said, going off my sex education classes, male genitalia was described in use and anatomically shown by the time I was in eighth grade. I knew the basics of how things worked and that was all described in a scientific and very 70s fashion, because for some reason, newer educational films haven't been made. That said, I don't understand why or how the book in 'too sexual' for an eighth grade class. They've have sex-ed since 5th grade, many have older siblings who have told them things, and most have probably seen porn by that age, or mainstream movies which sometimes have explicit-ish amounts of sex in them. How is real account of someone experiencing what all other girls are going through too graphic for their children? The way I see it, it shows the readers that they are not the only ones to ask certain questions. They may share the same criticisms of their genitalia as some kid who lived 60 years before them, before their parents even. How is something that wasn't written to necessarily to be sexually arousing a negative? It was just her thoughts and her experiences with her body. Everybody questions their body at some point, explores and finally puts a mirror between their legs to see what things look like. If not everybody, than some, probably many, but the point I'm trying to make is teenagers are trying to understand what is going on. To see someone else try similar things, or their thoughts on the same things is not a negative. It's not salacious, it just is, they are the facts of her life for the world to read.
I think that what this parent was doing was a disservice to their child, the blog (second link below) sounds like it was a son who apparently was disgusted by reading a description of a vagina, or a description of mestruation. Which ever. By not reading the book, or having an honest, real life experience with it the smoke and mirrors are still there. In reading someone going through the thoughts of learning their body it is more useful than watching 30 and 40 year old videos about hip kids like them going to class with a hard one, or getting a period, or the other joys of puberty. That kid will have less of an understanding about sex because the technical lexicon used to educate is annoying to dig through. The more relaxed vocabulary that Frank used in the book is probably more akin to what someone between the ages of 12 and 14 would more likely use, time and slang aside.
Along with that, I think that the mystification of sex is a disservice to maturing teenagers everywhere. It is such a taboo that parents give cutesy names to sexual organs, which in turn makes explaining the science behind it more awkward. Calling it a 'pee-pee' is stupid, a penis or vagina is not pee. Twat, cunt, dick, prick, pee-pee, so forth and so on are not useful, they're not correct terms for things. They're stupid euphemisms that parents hide behind when they're too afraid of breaking their child's fragile mind to give things real names. The less special you make something the less a kid will notice. I've seen it first hand, I used the word 'frig' in front of my sister. She didn't notice until my brother told me not to say it, then she noticed the word she didn't know and assumed it was something naughty. That's not how it goes, if it's something common and every day than your kid will hopefully act less stupid about when they're older.
After using proper names for things, parents need to get used to trying to answer the 'hard' questions. The child favorite, 'how are babies made' or 'where did I come from' are not that hard to answer. "When a man and a woman have sex, there is the possibility that a baby will be made, and grow inside the woman's body for nine months, until it is pushed out. Sex is when the penis enters the vagina, it is the primary reason for having each, to make more babies and people." It's simple, not really arousing explains it. Details provided as questions are asked. It makes more sense than the stork bullshit, and the 'love makes a baby' is a lie that shouldn't be perpetuated. To make it more compassionate, you could say love and caring is involved, but what I said up there is a template, it's simple and described in a way how a baby is born.
By giving a child the truth, they learn they can trust you better. What the parents gets out of telling the kids the truth, simple or complex language aside, they are helping their kids understand things. Many children crave knowledge, the answer to the whys and hows of their life. Giving them a real answer is much more beneficial because it is a safe environment to learn something. You are giving them the tools to learn things the right way. I was more bothered when my mother didn't give me a real explanation to things then when she gave it to me straight. I may not have liked the answer, but her honest was nice. I knew I could trust her that much more than hearing one thing and being taught another.
Our society makes sex out to be such a secret, an exclusive club that most adults experience that people have issues talking about it. Let your kid know that masturbation is all right, just to clean up afterward. Explain to them why they shouldn't have sex too early, let them ask you questions. Sex shouldn't be a secret. It is natural, most living creatures experience it to some degree so lying about it doesn't make much sense. It's not inherently dangerous, but not respecting what has the potential to come from sexual intercourse is.
Jasmine P.
Important Links:
Article - Blog Response
January 7, 2010
Why
Fuck the MPAA
I have said time and time again that I don't like the MPAA. I like the idea of it, but it's practice is so fucked up it's not doing much real good. It's a pack of people who are trying ot police other people's families, to police other people. Why? I think that just listing what's in a movie should be fine and not the soul crushing rating of G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17, I don't remember if X is still being used.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its international counterpart, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) serve as the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries, domestically through the MPAA and internationally through the MPA. Today, these associations represent not only the world of theatrical film, but serve as leader and advocate for major producers and distributors of entertainment programming for television, cable, home video and future delivery systems not yet imagined.
Founded in 1922 as the trade association of the American film industry, the MPAA has broadened its mandate over the years to reflect the diversity of an ever changing and expanding industry. The initial task assigned to the association was to stem criticism of American movies, which were then silent, and to restore a more favorable public image for the motion picture business. Today the association continues to advocate for strong protection of the creative works produced and distributed by the industry, fights copyright theft around the world, and provides leadership in meeting new and emerging industry challenges.
And it's parent company, the MPA
Our member companies' films are shown in theaters in more than 100 countries around the world and on television in more than 120 countries. The U.S. film industry provides the majority of home entertainment products seen in millions of homes throughout the world. This complex audiovisual industry is represented globally by the Motion Picture Association.
The MPA was formed in 1945 in the aftermath of World War II to reestablish American films in the world market, and to respond to the rising tide of protectionism resulting in barriers aimed at restricting the importation of American films.
"Today the [MPAA] continues to advocate for strong protection of the creative works produced." Really? I hear time and time again about directors damn near whoring themselves to get a lower rating because they don't believe their film is all that bad. If not for the fact that I have and have seen 'This Film is Not Yet Rated' a documentary from 2006 that discusses how the MPAA works with directors and filmmakers, I'd wonder what the criteria were for hiring someone to the ratings board. The film described it to a minor extent, but the information about some of the members of that years MPAA board intrigued me the most. Not everyone had children, or if they did their children were grown adults.
I continue to say ‘fuck the MPAA’ because they’re not addressing the content of films half the time, it’s the aesthetic of the film. It’s not plot points or ideas more often than not it’s language, violence and sexual situations. Those are more aesthetic than content in the film, and now people are advocating for the MPAA to cut down on smoking by automatically giving any movie where people smoke an R rating. Why? People smoke in real life. As a child I was dissuaded from smoking because I didn’t like the smell of the ash. My mother and grandfather smoked around me. My mom stopped because I asked her to. My mother was the most influential person in my life, and still is, amazingly so with her being dead and all, but ces’t la vie?
My point is that rating a movie R for smoking is akin to rating it R for alcohol, or for humping and sex. They’d soon be rating movies for necking, and it’s annoying enough that breasts are out, and the penis was just about never able to be seen on screen. None of these things are really content wise to the movies, its people who take some sort of virgin or puritanical offense at these things. Ignoring the hypothetical and back to the reality of the situation, the two things that give a movie an R rating in America are sex, and cursing, specifically the word ‘fuck’. Sex is because people have some issue with the human body. Cursing, that’s down right biblical. “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” – Ephisians 4:20 [NIV].
I got sidetracked, my point is what is the MPAA really for? What they seem to be doing much of the time is policing other people and other people’s families and children. A better way for rating movies is to just take the little box from under the rating, make it bigger and call it a day. What box? The one that lists what’s in a movie, like ‘harsh language’ or ‘brief nudity’ etc. Inform people so they can make an educated decision. Parents should work at being positively involved in their children’s lives and not just there because they made them. Ask them about movies they want to see, ask them why. With the MPAA that we have now, families are coddled and parents have become lazy. They expect other people to tell them how to raise their children instead of taking the reins themselves.
I also advocate in parents policing their children because they would then be accountable, but people love not being accountable for things. They run and hide from criticism and accountability because they like having someone else to blame for why their children are fucked up. But the biggest part in them blaming someone else, it ultimately loops back to them and their inability to train and educate their children themselves.
But back to the MPAA and smoking as an R rating. What would that accomplish is what I really want to know. Yes, children would not be able to see smoking in the movies, but what about reality? In walking down a real New York street at least one in every ten or twenty people I saw was smoking. Going to a 7-Eleven the other night a car pulled up, the passenger was smoking a cigarette and the driver lit up a stogie. People smoke in real life. What about period pieces then? Smoking was pretty much considered a health benefit until the late 20th century. I’m saying, are you going to show me a western, or a movie about 1910 or about the settlers and people won’t be smoking.
Yes, smoking is harmful; yes, smoking is dangerous to your health. But remember, people have been smoking for hundreds and hundreds of years and acting like they didn’t isn’t going to help. I’m not advocating ultra-realism, movies are my escape from the doldrums of my day to day life of going to class or sitting around doing nothing. I’m advocating keeping life real enough that people can accept it. I accept and enjoy movies where people don’t smoke at all, I can also accept and enjoy movies where people smoke. It’s an aesthetic not content. Stop worrying about aesthetics and worry about the content that children get to see.
My biggest reason for leaving smoking in a movie is that it’s life. Life happens, if a character would do something, let them. Why change their character just to fit somebody else's moral standards. My standards are not those of my brothers. They make share similarities, but they’re ultimately not the same. But this blog is what inspired me to stick out my hat. It says what I want to say better, and more directly, but mine was not a failed effort.
Jasmine P.
I continue to say ‘fuck the MPAA’ because they’re not addressing the content of films half the time, it’s the aesthetic of the film. It’s not plot points or ideas more often than not it’s language, violence and sexual situations. Those are more aesthetic than content in the film, and now people are advocating for the MPAA to cut down on smoking by automatically giving any movie where people smoke an R rating. Why? People smoke in real life. As a child I was dissuaded from smoking because I didn’t like the smell of the ash. My mother and grandfather smoked around me. My mom stopped because I asked her to. My mother was the most influential person in my life, and still is, amazingly so with her being dead and all, but ces’t la vie?
My point is that rating a movie R for smoking is akin to rating it R for alcohol, or for humping and sex. They’d soon be rating movies for necking, and it’s annoying enough that breasts are out, and the penis was just about never able to be seen on screen. None of these things are really content wise to the movies, its people who take some sort of virgin or puritanical offense at these things. Ignoring the hypothetical and back to the reality of the situation, the two things that give a movie an R rating in America are sex, and cursing, specifically the word ‘fuck’. Sex is because people have some issue with the human body. Cursing, that’s down right biblical. “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” – Ephisians 4:20 [NIV].
I got sidetracked, my point is what is the MPAA really for? What they seem to be doing much of the time is policing other people and other people’s families and children. A better way for rating movies is to just take the little box from under the rating, make it bigger and call it a day. What box? The one that lists what’s in a movie, like ‘harsh language’ or ‘brief nudity’ etc. Inform people so they can make an educated decision. Parents should work at being positively involved in their children’s lives and not just there because they made them. Ask them about movies they want to see, ask them why. With the MPAA that we have now, families are coddled and parents have become lazy. They expect other people to tell them how to raise their children instead of taking the reins themselves.
I also advocate in parents policing their children because they would then be accountable, but people love not being accountable for things. They run and hide from criticism and accountability because they like having someone else to blame for why their children are fucked up. But the biggest part in them blaming someone else, it ultimately loops back to them and their inability to train and educate their children themselves.
But back to the MPAA and smoking as an R rating. What would that accomplish is what I really want to know. Yes, children would not be able to see smoking in the movies, but what about reality? In walking down a real New York street at least one in every ten or twenty people I saw was smoking. Going to a 7-Eleven the other night a car pulled up, the passenger was smoking a cigarette and the driver lit up a stogie. People smoke in real life. What about period pieces then? Smoking was pretty much considered a health benefit until the late 20th century. I’m saying, are you going to show me a western, or a movie about 1910 or about the settlers and people won’t be smoking.
Yes, smoking is harmful; yes, smoking is dangerous to your health. But remember, people have been smoking for hundreds and hundreds of years and acting like they didn’t isn’t going to help. I’m not advocating ultra-realism, movies are my escape from the doldrums of my day to day life of going to class or sitting around doing nothing. I’m advocating keeping life real enough that people can accept it. I accept and enjoy movies where people don’t smoke at all, I can also accept and enjoy movies where people smoke. It’s an aesthetic not content. Stop worrying about aesthetics and worry about the content that children get to see.
My biggest reason for leaving smoking in a movie is that it’s life. Life happens, if a character would do something, let them. Why change their character just to fit somebody else's moral standards. My standards are not those of my brothers. They make share similarities, but they’re ultimately not the same. But this blog is what inspired me to stick out my hat. It says what I want to say better, and more directly, but mine was not a failed effort.
Jasmine P.
Fuck the MPAA
I have said time and time again that I don't like the MPAA. I like the idea of it, but it's practice is so fucked up it's not doing much real good. It's a pack of people who are trying ot police other people's families, to police other people. Why? I think that just listing what's in a movie should be fine and not the soul crushing rating of G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17, I don't remember if X is still being used.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its international counterpart, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) serve as the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries, domestically through the MPAA and internationally through the MPA. Today, these associations represent not only the world of theatrical film, but serve as leader and advocate for major producers and distributors of entertainment programming for television, cable, home video and future delivery systems not yet imagined.
Founded in 1922 as the trade association of the American film industry, the MPAA has broadened its mandate over the years to reflect the diversity of an ever changing and expanding industry. The initial task assigned to the association was to stem criticism of American movies, which were then silent, and to restore a more favorable public image for the motion picture business. Today the association continues to advocate for strong protection of the creative works produced and distributed by the industry, fights copyright theft around the world, and provides leadership in meeting new and emerging industry challenges.
And it's parent company, the MPA
Our member companies' films are shown in theaters in more than 100 countries around the world and on television in more than 120 countries. The U.S. film industry provides the majority of home entertainment products seen in millions of homes throughout the world. This complex audiovisual industry is represented globally by the Motion Picture Association.
The MPA was formed in 1945 in the aftermath of World War II to reestablish American films in the world market, and to respond to the rising tide of protectionism resulting in barriers aimed at restricting the importation of American films.
"Today the [MPAA] continues to advocate for strong protection of the creative works produced." Really? I hear time and time again about directors damn near whoring themselves to get a lower rating because they don't believe their film is all that bad. If not for the fact that I have and have seen 'This Film is Not Yet Rated' a documentary from 2006 that discusses how the MPAA works with directors and filmmakers, I'd wonder what the criteria were for hiring someone to the ratings board. The film described it to a minor extent, but the information about some of the members of that years MPAA board intrigued me the most. Not everyone had children, or if they did their children were grown adults.
I continue to say ‘fuck the MPAA’ because they’re not addressing the content of films half the time, it’s the aesthetic of the film. It’s not plot points or ideas more often than not it’s language, violence and sexual situations. Those are more aesthetic than content in the film, and now people are advocating for the MPAA to cut down on smoking by automatically giving any movie where people smoke an R rating. Why? People smoke in real life. As a child I was dissuaded from smoking because I didn’t like the smell of the ash. My mother and grandfather smoked around me. My mom stopped because I asked her to. My mother was the most influential person in my life, and still is, amazingly so with her being dead and all, but ces’t la vie?
My point is that rating a movie R for smoking is akin to rating it R for alcohol, or for humping and sex. They’d soon be rating movies for necking, and it’s annoying enough that breasts are out, and the penis was just about never able to be seen on screen. None of these things are really content wise to the movies, its people who take some sort of virgin or puritanical offense at these things. Ignoring the hypothetical and back to the reality of the situation, the two things that give a movie an R rating in America are sex, and cursing, specifically the word ‘fuck’. Sex is because people have some issue with the human body. Cursing, that’s down right biblical. “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” – Ephisians 4:20 [NIV].
I got sidetracked, my point is what is the MPAA really for? What they seem to be doing much of the time is policing other people and other people’s families and children. A better way for rating movies is to just take the little box from under the rating, make it bigger and call it a day. What box? The one that lists what’s in a movie, like ‘harsh language’ or ‘brief nudity’ etc. Inform people so they can make an educated decision. Parents should work at being positively involved in their children’s lives and not just there because they made them. Ask them about movies they want to see, ask them why. With the MPAA that we have now, families are coddled and parents have become lazy. They expect other people to tell them how to raise their children instead of taking the reins themselves.
I also advocate in parents policing their children because they would then be accountable, but people love not being accountable for things. They run and hide from criticism and accountability because they like having someone else to blame for why their children are fucked up. But the biggest part in them blaming someone else, it ultimately loops back to them and their inability to train and educate their children themselves.
But back to the MPAA and smoking as an R rating. What would that accomplish is what I really want to know. Yes, children would not be able to see smoking in the movies, but what about reality? In walking down a real New York street at least one in every ten or twenty people I saw was smoking. Going to a 7-Eleven the other night a car pulled up, the passenger was smoking a cigarette and the driver lit up a stogie. People smoke in real life. What about period pieces then? Smoking was pretty much considered a health benefit until the late 20th century. I’m saying, are you going to show me a western, or a movie about 1910 or about the settlers and people won’t be smoking.
Yes, smoking is harmful; yes, smoking is dangerous to your health. But remember, people have been smoking for hundreds and hundreds of years and acting like they didn’t isn’t going to help. I’m not advocating ultra-realism, movies are my escape from the doldrums of my day to day life of going to class or sitting around doing nothing. I’m advocating keeping life real enough that people can accept it. I accept and enjoy movies where people don’t smoke at all, I can also accept and enjoy movies where people smoke. It’s an aesthetic not content. Stop worrying about aesthetics and worry about the content that children get to see.
My biggest reason for leaving smoking in a movie is that it’s life. Life happens, if a character would do something, let them. Why change their character just to fit somebody else's moral standards. My standards are not those of my brothers. They make share similarities, but they’re ultimately not the same. But this blog is what inspired me to stick out my hat. It says what I want to say better, and more directly, but mine was not a failed effort.
Jasmine P.
I continue to say ‘fuck the MPAA’ because they’re not addressing the content of films half the time, it’s the aesthetic of the film. It’s not plot points or ideas more often than not it’s language, violence and sexual situations. Those are more aesthetic than content in the film, and now people are advocating for the MPAA to cut down on smoking by automatically giving any movie where people smoke an R rating. Why? People smoke in real life. As a child I was dissuaded from smoking because I didn’t like the smell of the ash. My mother and grandfather smoked around me. My mom stopped because I asked her to. My mother was the most influential person in my life, and still is, amazingly so with her being dead and all, but ces’t la vie?
My point is that rating a movie R for smoking is akin to rating it R for alcohol, or for humping and sex. They’d soon be rating movies for necking, and it’s annoying enough that breasts are out, and the penis was just about never able to be seen on screen. None of these things are really content wise to the movies, its people who take some sort of virgin or puritanical offense at these things. Ignoring the hypothetical and back to the reality of the situation, the two things that give a movie an R rating in America are sex, and cursing, specifically the word ‘fuck’. Sex is because people have some issue with the human body. Cursing, that’s down right biblical. “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” – Ephisians 4:20 [NIV].
I got sidetracked, my point is what is the MPAA really for? What they seem to be doing much of the time is policing other people and other people’s families and children. A better way for rating movies is to just take the little box from under the rating, make it bigger and call it a day. What box? The one that lists what’s in a movie, like ‘harsh language’ or ‘brief nudity’ etc. Inform people so they can make an educated decision. Parents should work at being positively involved in their children’s lives and not just there because they made them. Ask them about movies they want to see, ask them why. With the MPAA that we have now, families are coddled and parents have become lazy. They expect other people to tell them how to raise their children instead of taking the reins themselves.
I also advocate in parents policing their children because they would then be accountable, but people love not being accountable for things. They run and hide from criticism and accountability because they like having someone else to blame for why their children are fucked up. But the biggest part in them blaming someone else, it ultimately loops back to them and their inability to train and educate their children themselves.
But back to the MPAA and smoking as an R rating. What would that accomplish is what I really want to know. Yes, children would not be able to see smoking in the movies, but what about reality? In walking down a real New York street at least one in every ten or twenty people I saw was smoking. Going to a 7-Eleven the other night a car pulled up, the passenger was smoking a cigarette and the driver lit up a stogie. People smoke in real life. What about period pieces then? Smoking was pretty much considered a health benefit until the late 20th century. I’m saying, are you going to show me a western, or a movie about 1910 or about the settlers and people won’t be smoking.
Yes, smoking is harmful; yes, smoking is dangerous to your health. But remember, people have been smoking for hundreds and hundreds of years and acting like they didn’t isn’t going to help. I’m not advocating ultra-realism, movies are my escape from the doldrums of my day to day life of going to class or sitting around doing nothing. I’m advocating keeping life real enough that people can accept it. I accept and enjoy movies where people don’t smoke at all, I can also accept and enjoy movies where people smoke. It’s an aesthetic not content. Stop worrying about aesthetics and worry about the content that children get to see.
My biggest reason for leaving smoking in a movie is that it’s life. Life happens, if a character would do something, let them. Why change their character just to fit somebody else's moral standards. My standards are not those of my brothers. They make share similarities, but they’re ultimately not the same. But this blog is what inspired me to stick out my hat. It says what I want to say better, and more directly, but mine was not a failed effort.
Jasmine P.
December 17, 2009
New Wave of Plus Sized Models
http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/42159348.html#cutid1
So, I went back to skimming things on Oh No They Didn't and came across this, an article about how Glamour or some such stupid magazine will be featuring plus-sized models, and people who look like they actually eat. Ever. I was "Oh, okay. Next." But decided to skim the comments and was getting annoyed with the callous idiocy I was seeing there. People were disgusted that overweight people would be featured in magazines. They were complaining that they just lost weight, and now their last weight size was going to be considered 'acceptable' for magazines. I really don't know how much of what was written in the comments was serious or sarcasm, but if as much of it was serious as I thought when reading it these people have issues.
Yes, I'm overweight, I don't really care. I eat what I like which includes Brussels sprouts, and also chicken nuggets. I'll eat a salad, tacos, burritos, nachos, baked chicken, fried chicken, rotisserie chicken, fish, pork, beef sometimes. I don't care for exercise, but I miss fencing, but current medical crap hell, it's not even current anymore, just medical crap makes fencing a bad idea. It's my fault I weigh what I do, but it is encouraging for impressionable children that the people that get seen on television and in magazines show not just one unhealthy size.
I wonder how that change in ideals came about. I mean, in the span of about 100 years, the 20th century people went from thinking that big women were best to waifishly unhealthily tiny people were the most attractive. In the past weight meant wealth, you were able to feed your self and the children you'd have. Underweight, tiny people kind of look like their underfed. I know people who would be asked if they had problems at home because of their low weight, but in actuality the would eat.
More of my thoughts from that post are about the people who bitched and moaned about losing weight and working off baby fat. You don't work off baby fat, it goes on it's own. You work off real fat. But I say eat what makes you happy, just be logical about it. I mean, I love peanut butter and unless I get an allergy I always will, but I don't gorge myself on it. I gorge myself on improperly fed chicken and coffee. I am more disgusted when I see tiny, underweight people in magazines then when I see normally weighted people. I don't want to see special definitions for each weight class, just show me models. And how the fuck did they become 'super' models? What are their powers? What do they do, going above and beyond to help people?
This rant is all over the place. I've had a headache for the past few days, nothing really helps. My next one should be better, and I have a personal 'year in review' thing to post.
Jasmine P.
So, I went back to skimming things on Oh No They Didn't and came across this, an article about how Glamour or some such stupid magazine will be featuring plus-sized models, and people who look like they actually eat. Ever. I was "Oh, okay. Next." But decided to skim the comments and was getting annoyed with the callous idiocy I was seeing there. People were disgusted that overweight people would be featured in magazines. They were complaining that they just lost weight, and now their last weight size was going to be considered 'acceptable' for magazines. I really don't know how much of what was written in the comments was serious or sarcasm, but if as much of it was serious as I thought when reading it these people have issues.
Yes, I'm overweight, I don't really care. I eat what I like which includes Brussels sprouts, and also chicken nuggets. I'll eat a salad, tacos, burritos, nachos, baked chicken, fried chicken, rotisserie chicken, fish, pork, beef sometimes. I don't care for exercise, but I miss fencing, but current medical crap hell, it's not even current anymore, just medical crap makes fencing a bad idea. It's my fault I weigh what I do, but it is encouraging for impressionable children that the people that get seen on television and in magazines show not just one unhealthy size.
I wonder how that change in ideals came about. I mean, in the span of about 100 years, the 20th century people went from thinking that big women were best to waifishly unhealthily tiny people were the most attractive. In the past weight meant wealth, you were able to feed your self and the children you'd have. Underweight, tiny people kind of look like their underfed. I know people who would be asked if they had problems at home because of their low weight, but in actuality the would eat.
More of my thoughts from that post are about the people who bitched and moaned about losing weight and working off baby fat. You don't work off baby fat, it goes on it's own. You work off real fat. But I say eat what makes you happy, just be logical about it. I mean, I love peanut butter and unless I get an allergy I always will, but I don't gorge myself on it. I gorge myself on improperly fed chicken and coffee. I am more disgusted when I see tiny, underweight people in magazines then when I see normally weighted people. I don't want to see special definitions for each weight class, just show me models. And how the fuck did they become 'super' models? What are their powers? What do they do, going above and beyond to help people?
This rant is all over the place. I've had a headache for the past few days, nothing really helps. My next one should be better, and I have a personal 'year in review' thing to post.
Jasmine P.
December 4, 2009
Early Morning Musings
I've been spending some time over the past few days reading things off the site 'Stand for Christmas' http://www.standforchristmas.com/ and mostly been laughing at these ultra conservative Christians. In part it's from ignorance and non acceptance of other holidays that happen to take place in the winter. If you look at the ratings list for Best Buy people were all pissy and up in arms because the site and circular promoted the Muslim holiday, of Eid al-Adha, which as my meager research on wikipedia told me is a day about prayer and giving from one's flock to the poor. Seriously, that and Best But says nothing specific about Christmas.
I see these people up in arms angry that Christmas isn't getting the 'respect' they think it deserves. I say one comment for Old Navy that said, and I quote "I logged in to this sight to leave a positive feedback for Old Navy because in my local store I noticed the Merry Christmas tees and also gift cards with Merry Christmas on them---a big step up from past years, but I was unaware of the add including Christmas with Kwanza/soltice (the ice skating one is fine with me;goofy, but fine).” So sad that they took one step forward and two giant leaps back." How is being aware of a not-holiday, Kwanzaa in my opinion, and solstice taking two steps back. These people seems to forget that there are many religions in the world that have some sort of festivity in the winter. I know there are plenty of people who believe that Christianity, or factions of, are the 'only religion' it just seems implausible that everyone who decided to write on that site feels that way.
I think saying 'holiday' is fine because there are so many celebrations, religiously based or not. Using the non-reputable source that is Wikipedia, once more, let's see just the sheer number of holidays, festivals, remembrances, or celebrations there are LISTED for the 31 days that make up December. 38 different events around the world, that's not counting the smaller events that take place during the month. It's not just Christmas, there's also Chanukkah which I think is the second largest religious celebration in the month. On December 25th there are also these events:
# Re) birth of Sol Invictus. The winter solstice feast in the Roman Empire from 274 to 391
# Quaid-e-Azam's Day – Pakistan
# Constitution Day – Republic of China now based in Taiwan
# The feast day of Anastasia of Sirmium
# Yule
# Malkh-Festival. Sun festival in pre-Islamic pagan religion of Nakh people. Chechenya and Ingushetia
True, not all of them are celebrated anymore and are known more out of historic necessity, but they're still there. I'm sure there are plenty more. I don't get the fuss that people use 'holiday' over 'Christmas' when so much else goes on. Any why get so hard up for one day? It's about family? So is Thanksgiving. It's about giving? If you truly want to give to other people, give when you don't feel obligated. These people are making it about the material, if they want to really make it about a part of the true aspect of the day, Jesus and giving, they would go out into their communities and help those who are less fortunate instead of opening hundreds or thousands and thousands of dollars worth of things that they'll forget the next day.
With my tirade I'm not saying I don't like getting things, but I remember and like the gifts that I made for people a lot more than any of the stuff I've bought. Back in 2006 I made ornaments for my family and friends. I love those. In 2004 or 2005 I drew my brother a dragon, framed it and he still has it. I'm proud of those gifts. Last year I thought carefully about what people would appreciate, but I don't appreciate the gifts as much, I have to think hard to remember what I gave them. But I remember what I made, that had love, time and compassion not just money. Scupley costs money, and a lot of time, but those gifts were awesome.
The other part of my musings is on the concept of being politically correct. Thinking that it's more pc to be called 'African-American' is wrong for -me- because I'm not African. I'm 1/2 Dominican and 1/2 American. I only have American citizenship, and I don't know how many generations far back are off a boat from any part of Africa. I call myself 'black' or even just 'American' because that's what I am. I don't care so much about that aspect of American history. I respect it for what happened and all that shit, but I have more important things to be looking for in my future. That's what my status from the other day was about, someone on deviantart was talking about how with some Scandanavian comics she draws and posts people comment about where their family's from. I don't really care about my ancestors. It's not to be disrespectful, but that's not -me- so much. I don't want to go to Africa and see what it was like for them there, I don't really want to go to the Dominican Republic, I don't speak the language. I more often just think of myself as American because I don't speak Spanish. I was raised by my mother's side of the family and more often than not think about things they do than things my dad's side of the family does. I don't not love them, I just don't know them. It's different.
About being politically correct for the holidays, I don't see it about being disrespectful, it's about respect for more people. People seem to have a problem with respect. What if I worked retail and wished ' Happy Chanukkah' or even forwent December and started with 'Happy New Year'? That's non-denominational, just different countries or religions, follow different calendars, its offensive to calendars?
I go for politically correct terms because I don't like to be insulted. Once I know what will and won't mess with a person, I'll use it. I say 'I'm fat' not 'overweight' because it's fat, my body has an excess of it. If you have an excess of weight, it's not always fat, it could be water or muscle. I have an excess of fat, and I don't always have a problem with it. Buying clothing is when I have a problem with it. I say all sorts of ridiculous things; I know I say things than can be misconstrued as being disrespectful, but it's not out of disrespect. Sometimes it's due out of ignorance, which is different than going out and being rude. I think a large part about being politically correct is who you're interacting with. Some people mind and others don't. Listen to how I talk, I say ridiculous things EVERY DAY, sometimes on purpose, sometimes it just is what it is.
I know I’m politically correct when I speak. I do it for me because it feels right. I use more or less the same language in front of someone or behind their back, profanity aside. If I don’t know I’ll ask, and I’ll apologize if I think I said something wrong. The other day I was at a hookah bar when it was closing. I was curious what language some of the other patrons were using, so I asked. I had assumed it was Arabic, it was when I asked,. I had the chance to ask a question, so I did. I will. I have asked Muslim women one my few occasions, questions about their head wraps. I was curious about them, I know very little about those practices. I had an Indian friend in high school and I think she sometimes had the red dot on her forehead. I think I asked her what it was about, but have since forgotten. I’m curious and try not to be rude, I’ll admit I don’t know because I think it lets whomever I’m speaking to know that I’m honestly curious.
You know what, I’m not sure where exactly I wanted to go with my thoughts on being politically correct aside from questioning them. I don’t understand why people seem to have an issue about not offending other people. I want respect and to get it I have to give it equally. I understand terms change and I’m not always in the venue to learn when or why they changed. Za told me she learned that the new PC term for ‘Native Americans’ is ‘First Americans’. I really don’t see what’s wrong with ‘Native American’ but there’s a new term. I know I use ‘Indian’ more often, and I don’t know if I’ll ever use or need to use ‘First American’ but it’s a new term. Now I want to know why they changed it, what was wrong with calling them ‘Native’? Where would ‘aborigine’ fit in? It’s time I get back to the work I put off to write this, but I kept thinking about it. Now to work for a bit, sleep, then work some more. Joy. Good day, everyone!
October 25, 2009
American Flaws
I just read a journal posted on deviantart by a member called Humon. She's been posting cute and silly little comics mostly about Scandinavian countries, but also other countries around the world. She's getting flack from people who don't like how she's portraying their own countries and consider her to be racist. She kind of just wants people to let the jokes and silliness stand, but also to not take things so personally. It's based on stereotypes, which in a way are based in truth of how other people perceive something to be. I perceive people who wear all black and dye their hair black and one other stupid color to be emo, that's not always the case, but it's a stereotype. Just like how back in the early 20th century women were considered to unstable to be able to vote o do a man's job. Blacks were considered to be too ignorant to to do anything other than menial labor, ever.
This all come back to an ignorant comment written by someone who was bore in 1993. that's... 16 years old. Someone else posted the valid point that they're some America and laugh at how America is depicted. That's fine, the issue I took was from the 16 year old who said 'Why not laugh at America, there are SO many flaws.'
It's that type of thinking that starts hate to begin with. No country is perfect, if that were the case people would be flocking there because the land would be made out f rainbows and sunshine. Puppies would be given away free on every street corner, there'd be no need for most of our laws because those issues would be nonexistent. People would be hired solely on their ability, skin color would play no part, so in theory there would be an even mixture of every skin-tone.
That is not the case. Yes, I agree that America has flaws, I see them pretty much every day, but I don't think the answer is leaving this country. In looking at British tabloid-news and the flack that's been falling there about Jan Moir's insensitive article and Nick Griffin now being lambasted in the public for being a Nazi, let's say sympathizer, those are issues in Britain. In talking in my not-really American Literature course we spoke about how few rights there are for women in other countries. All that are flaws. But if America is so fucked up, why are people flocking to come here. Some legally, some not, but in some instances all people want is to move to America. Some Americans want nothing more than to move out. Yes, this country has it's flaws, but in today's era of time they're not that bad, sometimes. In the past 100 years we have learned what to do and what not to do and things have changed. There are voting rights across the nation, people can't be barred from the polls. There are equal opportunity rights for rental, purchase, hiring et cetera in this nations. Laws are being passed every year to protect more people who in the past have gotten the short end of the stick. Not every country can talk about working towards that sort of acceptance for so many countries.
I'm not saying America is perfect, and I'm not saying it's a hellhole. It's another country, like so many other First World Countries where our issues are bourgeois such as 'oh no! there's a scratch in my car' or 'oh no! the screen on my 80 bajillion dollar electronic is cracked' and not something like 'oh shit! My neighboring country is invading and killing all my villagers' or 'oh shit-fuck! That factory up river is dumping billions of gallons of chemical waste into the river where my cooking water comes from' or 'oh shit! I now have HIV, am passing it onto my kid, an am dying of malaria.' I'm not trying to trivialize every issues that Americans may have, but when they're compared to the lives of people who don't have what we have, safety regulations for pretty much everything. People are trying which counts for more that people want to think.
Yes, America has it's flaws an I see them much more glaringly so than other countries because I haven't bee to other countries. Every country has different flaws for where they are in having money so they can work to bettering things for their country. America has made it so far and in the youngest major power in the world. That counts for something, but with such rapid progress and change, some corners were cut and events that happened hundreds of years ago are now happening in America.
I don't think I properly addressed what I wanted to say, but it kind of ties into my journal from a few weeks ago about people complaining about attending college at ODU, or complaining about America while still living here. I'll end this with one of my mother's mottoes. ''It could be worse, so I can't complain.'
Jasmine P.
This all come back to an ignorant comment written by someone who was bore in 1993. that's... 16 years old. Someone else posted the valid point that they're some America and laugh at how America is depicted. That's fine, the issue I took was from the 16 year old who said 'Why not laugh at America, there are SO many flaws.'
It's that type of thinking that starts hate to begin with. No country is perfect, if that were the case people would be flocking there because the land would be made out f rainbows and sunshine. Puppies would be given away free on every street corner, there'd be no need for most of our laws because those issues would be nonexistent. People would be hired solely on their ability, skin color would play no part, so in theory there would be an even mixture of every skin-tone.
That is not the case. Yes, I agree that America has flaws, I see them pretty much every day, but I don't think the answer is leaving this country. In looking at British tabloid-news and the flack that's been falling there about Jan Moir's insensitive article and Nick Griffin now being lambasted in the public for being a Nazi, let's say sympathizer, those are issues in Britain. In talking in my not-really American Literature course we spoke about how few rights there are for women in other countries. All that are flaws. But if America is so fucked up, why are people flocking to come here. Some legally, some not, but in some instances all people want is to move to America. Some Americans want nothing more than to move out. Yes, this country has it's flaws, but in today's era of time they're not that bad, sometimes. In the past 100 years we have learned what to do and what not to do and things have changed. There are voting rights across the nation, people can't be barred from the polls. There are equal opportunity rights for rental, purchase, hiring et cetera in this nations. Laws are being passed every year to protect more people who in the past have gotten the short end of the stick. Not every country can talk about working towards that sort of acceptance for so many countries.
I'm not saying America is perfect, and I'm not saying it's a hellhole. It's another country, like so many other First World Countries where our issues are bourgeois such as 'oh no! there's a scratch in my car' or 'oh no! the screen on my 80 bajillion dollar electronic is cracked' and not something like 'oh shit! My neighboring country is invading and killing all my villagers' or 'oh shit-fuck! That factory up river is dumping billions of gallons of chemical waste into the river where my cooking water comes from' or 'oh shit! I now have HIV, am passing it onto my kid, an am dying of malaria.' I'm not trying to trivialize every issues that Americans may have, but when they're compared to the lives of people who don't have what we have, safety regulations for pretty much everything. People are trying which counts for more that people want to think.
Yes, America has it's flaws an I see them much more glaringly so than other countries because I haven't bee to other countries. Every country has different flaws for where they are in having money so they can work to bettering things for their country. America has made it so far and in the youngest major power in the world. That counts for something, but with such rapid progress and change, some corners were cut and events that happened hundreds of years ago are now happening in America.
I don't think I properly addressed what I wanted to say, but it kind of ties into my journal from a few weeks ago about people complaining about attending college at ODU, or complaining about America while still living here. I'll end this with one of my mother's mottoes. ''It could be worse, so I can't complain.'
Jasmine P.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
