Dear “Women” (by which I mean “Many Womern-folk”),

We – and by “we” I mean “a number of us men” – don’t always judge you.

On the contrary, you may never quite meet those of us who explode in rage, when we contemplate the unfair standards many of you feel compelled to live by. Indeed, many of us couldn’t tell a size 2 from a T-rex’s left nostril, if presented with the option. (Well, I might, but this isn’t about me). We would question your desire to buy a dress that is too small, or to withhold your body weight (which is frequently lower than ours anyway). We would smite the male who dared, in passing semantics, to fit you into a poorly-drawn gender box.

So, the next time you feel trapped in a sociologically unfair, male-dominated world, remember that that world is merely a reflection of your current surroundings/circumstances, which can and do change. Please stop assuming we’re all the same. Some of us – who refuse to do the same to your gender – find that quite offensive.

Sincerely, “Men.”

2011
06/24
CATEGORY
Thoughts
Write comment

The End of the World (As We Know It)

So, the world is ending – again – and, given our pathetic 3-dimensional senses, we have to wait until the event date shows up. I write this on the eve of alleged doomsday.

I haven’t figured out when, where, or why this new apocalypse day sprung up. I also don’t u– right. I at least understand why it’s a big story: the media, my darling fourth estate, needs ratings. And Americans are bored, and jonesing for news. (Amirite)

My point is that over the next few days – barring a First Contact, or something equally interesting – the media will be trying to make a story out of the ‘disappointed believers’ of Apocalypse-come-and-gone. This would be a tragedy: there are more important topics concerning the phenomenon to be discussed.

For instance, doomsday theories aren’t new. if we were to look beyond the recurrence of Eschatology, we might begin to ponder what purposes it serves. Well, I did, and here’s what I found.

Eschatology – belief about the end of the world – serves an important psychological purpose. The end of the world/universe is a massive, external event that makes every known “thing” (object, person, event) obsolete. If you look at this as a tool for resolving mental conflict, you can see how easily and effectively it might work: Why bother about (insert emotional trauma here) when all of this is going to be obliterated soon enough anyway?

Then, you throw in a spot of (insert random “signs” and proof of prophecy here), and you’ve got yourself a cocktail, I’ll tell you what.

The end of the world is like suicide with a “I’ll take all you sons of bitches when I go” flavor to it. The need for believers to stand out with placards indicates a desire to gloat “when it’s over.” (See, Marty? I told you it was judgment day. But noOoOooO…).

As always, my point is this: If you understand the ends, the means look less absurd. By understanding the ends, you have the opportunity to change the means. If you feel you have no control over most of your life, you’re more likely to (want to) believe the end of the world is soon. If you’re convinced the end of the world is tomorrow, then maybe you think you’re not in control of your life.

Either way, write me on Sunday if you want to talk.

2011
05/20
CATEGORY
Thoughts
Write comment

Dear Fourth Estate,

I understand where you’re coming from. Really, I do. The facts that guide your premise are indisputable: Indeed, news media is changing, and as such, you do need ratings.  It is also indisputable that people don’t like being told how to think.

HOWEVER, with that said, it is irresponsible for you to discard your fact-finding past in favor of this poorly considered approach to news reporting. When there are facts to be reported on – like a US President’s location of birth, or well-documented scientific views on the correlation between human events and global warming – then you report those damned facts, and present documentation to support it.

When there are opinions to be considered – like when a politician says they know “What real Americans want,” or when an authority plans to implement a law that will affect many people -

That’s when you let people “decide” what the truth of those opinions are.
That is when you present a news story, or a news column, which outlines your (presumably informed) opinion, and ask people to decide on how these events affect them.
That is when you present them with an outlet for expressing those opinions.
That is when public opinion – in the context of a news story – is relevant.

When you write a story with present, non-debatable facts – like a US President’s state of birth, or documented views on the correlation between human activity and global warming – it is incredibly irresponsible to ask people to “decide” on their factuality, because you imply that the supporting facts are open to public speculation. This diminishes a report’s credibility, the facts supporting it, and in turn, reduces your credibility (for reporting it). Why report something that isn’t… oh. Of course, you need the ratings.

To conclude, please stop with the “you decide” bollocks. If you must, restrict it to opinion news, and be sure to clearly distinguish between that and informative news, if such a thing still exists.

Yours in passionate neutrality,

A dude.

2011
04/08
CATEGORY
Thoughts
TAGS











Write comment

I see a pattern here.

Party wins majority of one (or both) houses of Congress.

Media shifts to highlighting and analyzing purported splits within majority coalition.

Media speculates on whether the splits will lead to collapse of majority.

Majority party loses election. Another party wins majority.

Repeat cycle from second sentence.

***

 

2011
01/26
CATEGORY
Thoughts
TAGS






3 comments

On the Arizona Shooting

Yes, we all want to blame each other for the shooter’s actions. It would be too easy for one side or the other to pick an argument and stick with it, given the rather nebulous nature of the shooter’s possible motivations. Yet it is this very fact that we should keep in mind.

The shooter, Jared Loughner, has interests and exhibited behaviors that could easily be associated with one or another side of the political spectrum. These are ultimately peripheral to the reality of his actions. Reasonable discussions we should be holding at this time, should include the topic of gun control in America, the valid observations concerning our heated political rhetoric, and even how such (occasionally) inflammatory rhetoric may play a part in influencing the mentally unbalanced. Throw in references to First Amendment rights, for good measure. And above all else, we should be uniting as a nation to ensure that the fringes of our society don’t feel isolated enough to liberally apply bullets to the rest of us.

I feel it would be incredibly irresponsible for media outlets to turn this into a referendum on Sarah Palin. Again, I admit the prospect is a tempting one – but this event has NOTHING to do with her. This event is a reflection on those who distrust Politics enough that they feel the only effective source of change is violence. Ignore Sarah Palin, and whatever nonsense she might spew about this. This isn’t about her; it’s about America and her(not Sarah’s) future.

2011
01/12
CATEGORY
Thoughts
TAGS



2 comments
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.