Rant of Resurrection

Okay. Time to get back into this. I had hoped to update this weekly, but, like all good web people, I had life get in the way. (Not that anyone, at this point in time cares: as of writing, this is still an unknown blog. If you are reading this, hello reader! I hope you enjoy your stay! Please make your presence known so I don't just feel like I'm talking to myself!)

Anyway, I was in my local office supplies store the other day, doing some shopping (and luckily, out-waiting the big rushes) when I overheard a mom talking with one of the employees. She seemed to be looking for a pencil box, and the only selection on the shelf was a light purple and pink. She turned back to him and said, "Don't you have any boy colors? My son won't want any of these."

And this got me thinking. By whose law and judgement was purple (which is the fusion of red and blue, using subtractive coloring methods) deemed a "girl color" versus a "boy color"? Why is it a cardinal sin in society for a boy to have a pink-colored, well, anything? It's just a color, for heaven's sake! And yet, for an (I dunno - I'm just guessing here) elementary school boy to walk around with a pink pencil box would be the end of the world. Why?

According to my research (aka 15 minutes of googling), it seems that the "Pink for girls and Blue for boys" convention originated no earlier than the 1940's or 1950's, and that it was, at one time, reversed - it used to be accepted, and even expected, for boys to wear pink clothing. The thought was, it seems, that pink, as a lighter shade of red, was more appropriate for the boy, as red is that fiery, fierce color we all know it to be. In addition, blue was associated with the Virgin Mary for a long time, and as such, was more appropriate for young girls. My research fails to find any definite indication of why the switch happened, but clearly it did.

I guess my biggest problem with this whole deal comes from the double standard. In modern American society, it is A-Okay (according to most people) for women to wear or have things that are masculine, such as the archetypal 'wearing pants.' On the other hand, God forbid that a man do something feminine - be it have a "fruity" cocktail, hold a hand bag, or (God forbid!) wear a skirt. After all, when a women imitates a man, so I gather, she is praised for being outgoing, assertive, powerful, strong and other such adjectives. When the opposite happens, we (obviously) get the opposites for the previous list being used.

Huh. It's almost like men who act in a manner considered effeminate are seen as lesser; like that it's a bad thing.

Oh wait. Culturally, it is. Who knew? And, of course, the root of the problem is either homophobia or just xenophobia. Either way, there’s something about men who aren’t manly that leaves a poor taste in most people’s mouths. (Case in point, this: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/utilikilt )Women have it a little easier, since they’re moving up the implied social ladder, but at the same time, we still have the concept of the glass ceiling, an invisible barrier in the workplace that functions as a “No Girls Allowed” sign.

And this carries over from the parents to their children. Every time a parent says “Oh, he won’t like that. It’s a girl color,” they’re passing on the pattern that he should avoid things that are “girly;” that boys shouldn’t like girls’ things. Because, clearly, the aforementioned boy with a pink pencil box means the boy is immediately doomed as a man.

Yes, I understand that kids are cruel, and yes I understand that children will ostracize another over the smallest things; in the third grade, I wasn’t allowed to sit at a lunch table because I was wearing a striped shirt. Arbitrary? Very. Cruel? Probably. Did I get over it? Yeah. The only reason I remember it was because my parents have mentioned it before. So, if people’ll jump all over you for something like that, imagine what a boy wearing pink would have to go through. Life would probably be hell, as he’d be an outcast for not conforming.

On the other hand, imagine what would happen if he was surrounded with friends who didn’t mind. The answer in this case? Nothing’d happen. They’d continue on as usual, no matter what clothes he wore.

The point here is tolerance, and acceptance. After all, there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with boys having pink things – it’s only ‘wrong’ because society has said pink is for girls. Even if we hold onto the custom of pink for girls and blue for boys, no problems arise when people are understanding and tolerant of differences.

None of this would be a problem, however, if there wasn’t that silly little dichotomy between how the sexes are seen. As mentioned, despite all of the steps we’re taken towards gender equality, there’s still the underlying assumption that men are higher than women, in some way. And well, that seems to go against what I thought, for instance, the feminism movement was pushing for. Sure, now it’s understood and widely accepted that women can, should and do anything a man can do, but until the inverse happens, we’ll never have true gender equality. And well, to me, it’s something worth fighting for, a world in which gender expressions of all varieties are accepted and understood to be equally valid without any hierarchy.

A world where I could wear a skirt, if I so wanted, without having my masculinity questioned.

(And, for the curious, it seemed that no, they didn't have anymore. The mother left a little unhappy.)

August 4th, 2010

First, some mood music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRpKmd3vjbk&feature=fvst

Or, if you prefer, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3y3EJSNQBU

But, anyway. To the point. California's Proposition 8 has been deemed unconstitutional by a Federal Court. As such, today is a good day. And of course, being the nerd I am, I promptly started googling for the Court Record on the ruling. Surprisingly, it wasn't terribly difficult.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

I'm thinking I'm going to like this site (having just discovered it for this), but I digress. While the ruling is a huge step forward, it has been appealed, and would've been even if the ruling had gone the other way. And, because of this, we simply have the ruling to help us sleep at night. No legal changes have happened yet.

Which sucks, honestly, but them's the breaks. Really, it's all about baby steps at this point. The key is that this ruling gives a logic to why Prop 8 is unconstitutional, and the reactions to the ruling mostly go to show that the opposition doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

Part of the reason that Prop 8 was overturned this time around was because of how the argument was presented on both sides, but the main key is how the plaintiffs (the ones opposed to Prop 8) structured their argument.The key here was the argument that Prop 8 violated the 14th Amendment, namely the Due Process clause and the Equal Protection clause, which, for the unfamiliar state the following:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Due Process clause argument can be summed up quite easily: people are being denied a right without any due process at all.

In addition, the Equal Protection clause is right on the money. After all, there are many legal and financial benefits to being married - from joint tax returns to visitation rights. In addition, since LBGT is a 'suspect class' - defined on Wikipedia as "any classification of groups meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination" - any law that references them should be under heightened scrutiny. Therefore, because Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection clause by not allowing everyone to marry the person of their choice, it is unconstitutional.

The opposing argument, however, didn't have such nice ground to stand on - arguing on the grounds of (yet again) "Gay marriage ruins marriage for the rest of us" and "Gay families won't raise children correctly."

So, it judging by what I've read in the court record, it was a pretty one-sided argument. However, judging the reactions I've seen online by people who oppose this decision, the arguments are getting flimsier, and come in one new flavor:

"This one judge is overturning the will of the people. This isn't what democracy is about." Well, yes. This one judge did say the people made a mistake. And, well, that's the POINT OF THE HIGHER COURTS. It seems like every time a court rules against a popularly enacted law, we get this reaction. See, the problem is that the Judicial system was put in place to "protect the minority from the will of the majority" (which I probably quoted slightly wrong. But, still). Prop 8 was the majority overstepping its bounds, and it fell to the courts to put things right. I've heard arguments that this is going to lead to a slippery slope leading to the courts taking away our ability to vote. And, well, I can argue for that, at least in the case of the Proposition system. The ability to create legislation through popular vote, to me, defeats the point of having state legislators. However, the ability to vote is a fundamental right granted to us by the Constitution (and Amendments if you aren't a white male) - that's not going anywhere any day soon.

So, for now, those of us who believe in equality can take a breathe, sit back and celebrate this victory, and wait for the next ruling. Everyone, go out and have a gay 'ole time! (pun totally intended.)

2010 Republican Platform, Part 3

Blah Blah Republicans Blah Blah First two parts Blah Blah URL: http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf

blah blah starting with the section "Educating our Children"... oh boy, this should be interesting.

The section begins with "We want to make sure kids learn the basics" - which, I can get behind. The next point, however, is pushing for monolingual (as opposed to bilingual) education, claiming that English is the "language of commerce" - a phrase I didn't recognize, and had a hard time finding information on. My best guess is that they mean something similar to "Lingua Franca" - the ; language used as a common language between two people who don't share a common mother tongue (a definition lovingly ripped from Wikipedia). In addition, the platform calls for a 70/30 English-to-Native-Language ratio in the first year, 80/20 in the second, 90/10 in the 3rd, and full English there-after. I honestly, don't have that many strong feeling either way on this one - while I do support the idea of teaching in English, the official national language, this system strongly penalizes any children who do not speak any English, as they won't be able to understand 70% of what they're being taught. If the curve was a little less steep, or if it allowed for some intensive English education, it would probably sit a little better with me.

Moving along, the next thing worth mentioning is a push to remind teachers that corporal punishment is legal. Wee! Hit your students for fun and profit! (All sarcasm aside, I've never been a fan of corporal punishment, especially in schools - since there's always that one student that drives the teacher up the walls - so then, it becomes a question where do you draw the line.)

The next few things talk about college costs - promoting the reuse of textbooks in colleges(which isn't a big problem) and something about having a 3 tiered system for college tuition - one for in-state, one for out-of-state, and one for out-of-country, and stating that non-US citizens shouldn't eligible for scholarships. The next point, however, is one that doesn't always sit well with me in practice, despite my agreeing with it in principle.

"Controversial Theories – Realizing that conflict and debate is a proven learning tool in classrooms, we support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories, including evolution, Intelligent Design, global warming, political philosophies, and others. We believe theories of life origins and environmental theories should be taught as challengeable scientific theory subject to change as new data is produced, not scientific law. Teachers and students should be able to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these theories openly and without fear of retribution or discrimination of any kind."

Ugh. While, yes, I believe we should be free to discuss all things in class rooms, once again, we see that people have missed the boat on the definition of "scientific theory." A theory is a set of rules that have been shown to hold up to many repeatable experiments, and something that can, in fact be tested. While Intelligent Design may-or-may-not be an interesting idea, there is no way we can test it scientifically to prove whether or not the universe was created by a Higher Being - therefore, ID is not a theory. Yes, theories are open being refuted as new evidence comes to light, however most hold up against new discoveries time and time again. It'd be akin to saying "The Theory of Gravity is just a theory! Everyone - open your mind! Things don't actually fall - God pushes thinks towards the ground when they have nothing to sit on, because He doesn't want things flying up towards him!" which sounds just about as ridiculous (not to mention untestable). On the other hand, as a man of science, if you truly believe in Intelligent Design, I encourage you to find actual, verifiable evidence for it - just don't be disappointed when there isn't any.

In addition, most of the arguments against evolution rely on a misunderstanding of how evolution works. From the argument that one modern animal is "more evolved" than another (there is no such thing as "more evolved" - species all evolve at more-or-less the same pace - there is only more-adapted-to-the-current-environment, and a creature that's poorly adapted to one environment would thrive in another) to the classic "Was your grandfather a monkey?" (No. Homo sapiens has existed as a separate species for several hundred thousand years [the current estimate, I believe, is around 800,000] and it took some time for things to gradually - that's the key word there, gradually - change to make the separate species we have today.) When an argument is based on misunderstandings that one refuses to correct, any debate degrades into a shouting match in the end.

Up next we have a few more things on education - from making kindergarten not mandatory, to not using money from "gambling or any vice that tears at the fabric of society" (an expression that I find a little over the top) for education - despite the fact that, as the joke goes, "The Lotto is a game for people who don't understand statistics."

The next point worth discussing is the one labeled "Multiculturalism," which reads:

"We support teaching the principles articulated by Republican Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., that we be judged not by the color of our skin but by the content of our character and we celebrate positive contributions to our society by members of all cultural groups without emphasizing their differences. We favor strengthening our common American identity and loyalty instead of multiculturalism that emphasizes differences among racial and ethnic groups."

First, I'd like to point out that mentioning Dr. King's political affiliation comes across as desperate, at least to me. In addition... that's my feeling about this point in general. It reads as though the party's trying to deny being racist, but at the same time, asks people to give up their differences. I am of the firm belief that differences are a good thing, as long as they don't harm others. Accepting differences, not eliminating them, is what I think is the solution to the problems of racism and the like. This shows an inability to accept differences is one of the major themes I see running through this entire piece. From forcing LGBT people to conform against their true selves, to supporting religious freedom - because this is a Judeo-Christian nation (a point I will get to shorting) - a lot of the platform comes across as legalizing forced conformity, which, in both fiction and history, doesn't work very well unless the government is a dystopian fascist state. Not that I'm calling names or anything - I'm just pointing out what kind of government we'd need to be able to police all of these things.

Afterwards ,we have bits on requiring the Pledge of Allegiance, the "Texas Pledge" and the teaching of "flag etiquette and patriotic songs" to insure brain washi- I mean, loyal and patriotic citizens. While I understand support for our country and our way of life (mainly because mine is quite comfortable), I'm don't believe in blind patriotism, because, once again, fascist state.

You know, all these comparisons to fascism are probably unfair. After all, Republicans are fiscally conservative, and a fascist state requires a massive amount of government resources to run properly. But, that's the price you pay for enacting social policies.

Up next, we have a section on school prayer. Which is something, as an agnostic, that I really could care less about. The platform calls for a Constitutional Amendment (which, once again, seems like a rather trite use of the amendment process) with the text: “Neither the United States nor any State shall prohibit student–sponsored prayer in public schools, nor compose any official student prayer or compel joining therein.” Of course, the number one problem with this is that if you allow student-sponsored prayer, it becomes a problem when a student who doesn't want to participate feels uncomfortable when 'everyone' is asked to join in, among other things.

After that, there's a few things about schools needing to inform parents if they're going to do surveys or sex education - and of course, the bit about sex education includes this bit: "We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until heterosexual marriage," which I think I've beaten to death in the previous section.

The last thing I'd like to address in this section is the following:

"Traditional Principles in Education – We support school subjects with emphasis on Judeo-Christian principles (including the Ten Commandments) upon which America was founded and which form the basis of America’s legal, political and economic systems. We support curricula that are heavily weighted on original founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and Founders’ writings."

So, if I'm reading this right, they want schools to induce analysis of how religion influenced the Founding Fathers of America, and on analysis of the original documents of the founding of America - ignoring all of the years of analysis and interpretation that's taken place since. In addition, what about subjects that have nothing to do with America - such as Math and Sciences? Okay, that last sentence completely misses the point, but still. The problem with this is that the country has changed since 1776 - society has changed. Back then, slavery was still mostly seen as an okay deal, and well, by focusing on the "original founding documents," students miss out on seeing opposing viewpoints on how the founders were and are seen. And that directly contradicts the earlier section, where they claimed that "conflict and debate is a proven learning tool."

So, this reads to me as "We want to be able to argue our side of things, but not let you argue yours."

And, with that, we move on to "PROMOTING INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND PERSONAL SAFETY." First up is the right to bear arms, which isn't something I have a strong opinion on. The next point I'd like to address, is the 4th one: "As America is a nation under God founded on Judeo-Christian principles, we affirm the constitutional right of all individuals to worship in the religion of their choice." - which strikes me as very similar to the Dr. King bullet point above. This, to me, reads as "We're Christians! But-you-can-worship-what-you-want." The problem is that, despite the peaceful teachings of the Judeo-Christian philosophies, there is a history of violence towards others who don't believe the same way. The next bullet point is a doozy for me.

"We affirm that the public acknowledgement of God is undeniable in our history and is vital to our freedom, prosperity and strength. We pledge our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and toward dispelling the myth of separation of church and state."

Wait. What? The separation of church and state is one of the main points of the First Amendment - if church and state become too entangled, the evolution of a state church (which is a clear and direction violation of the Amendment) is not too much of a logical leap. I am of the honest opinion that religion and politics should be kept as far apart as possible - while you can't keep politics out of religion, we can keep religion out of politics. The other key point is that when they reference "God," in this context, generally, people aren't referring to God in a global sense, but to their specific version of God.

After a few points on privacy (which, for the most part, I'm Okay with not letting the government spy on me.), we get another fun bullet point.

"We deplore all discrimination. We also deplore forced sensitivity training and urge repeal of any

mandate requiring it. We urge immediate repeal of the Hate Crimes Law. Until the Hate Crimes Law is totally repealed, we urge the Legislature to immediately remove the education curriculum mandate and the sexual orientation category in said Law."

So... you dislike discrimination, yet oppose punishments for it? In addition, above all else, you want to be free to discriminate against LGBT people without retribution? Gee. Isn't that special.

Actually, after that - there isn't much more to address, so I think is going to wrap it up for the 2010 Texas Republican Platform by yours truly.

Until next time - if you read this, I still want a catch phrase!

-Simon

Review: The World Ends With You

Let me start this by saying that I love The World Ends With You (or TWEWY as I'm going to call it from now on), and I purposefully picked something I like to review first; also, something that a lot of people might not have heard of, or played. Why? Well, first and foremost, the game's kinda weird. Everything from the setting to the music to the gameplay have the potential to be off-putting at first, but on the other hand, represent a creative risk as far as game design goes. And, in my opinion, the risk pays off. So, let's take an in depth look at this.

First and foremost, a bit of background. TWEWY was a game designed by Square Enix, of Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts fame. Released in America to critical acclaim in 2008, the story follows a teenaged anti-social boy who wakes up in the middle of the Shibuya shopping district in Tokyo with no memory of who is or how he got there - also, no-one else can hear or see him. He's soon joined by a girl named Shiki, and between exposition from her and several other characters, we learn:

a) They're all dead, but existent on an alternate plane of existence known as the Underground

b) They're all participants in what is known as the Reaper's Game: survive 7 days, completing various tasks and get restored to life (maybe).

c) Oh, and there's a bunch of monsters known as Noise floating around that, without a partner to fight with, will kill you off for real.

The gameplay is unique, and it's a game that could only be played on the DS. The battle controls involve controlling Neku with the DS stylus on the bottom screen and his partner on the top screen using the directional arrows. This was both a unique approach, but also by far the most frustrating part of the game - as a player, you have to keep your mind on both screens at the same time, and this gets complicated after a while. Luckily, the game gives you the option to set your partner on auto-pilot (of course, the AI isn't the best even, but it's good enough, especially if you're good with Neku) Of course, the touch screen is occasionally difficult to use, especially the controls for moving Neku around the battle field.

The graphics are very well-done: stylized, but they work with the game's flavor. However, they don't hold a candle to the game's soundtrack - which is unlike any video game soundtrack I've ever heard. It features a wide selection of songs in very modern, urban styles; and unlike most RPGs, the background music for, say, generic battles changes from battle to battle; if a song gets annoying, just finish the battle and a new one'll start playing. I highly recommend checking it out - Youtube's a great place to look.

Now, let's look into what, in my opinion, is the single most important part of a game - the narrative. Fitting with the unusual nature of the game, the plot is explained slowly, only telling the player what she needs to know at any given point - and often, important points are explained in flashbacks (one memorable example being a flashback to events of a scene that took place after the game cut away from said scene.) But, the twists and turns of the plot are like the twists and turns of a mountain road - difficult to navigate at times, but always worth it and frequently with beautiful sights (interpret that how you will).

The characters are, by far, the strongest part of the game. Neku's evolution (from an anti-social kid who claims that he "doesn't understand people" to someone who's willing to go to extreme measures at the end of the game to save his friends) is masterfully handled, never spoon-fed. In addition, every character in the game, from Neku's allies, to the various enemies, to even the random people walking around the streets have a story that progresses with time, and it's that human element that helps move the game forward - even in the clustered mess of a big, busy city, each person walking around has their own life, their own view of realty.

In short, this game is amazing - and I promise not to do any more good reviews for a while; mainly, because they feel like a gushing rant, as opposed to a more objective analysis.

On that note - expect the 3rd part of the Texas Republican 2010 Platform by the end of the week.

Until next time - my catchphrase is still missing.

I can't think of any witty or interesting way to introduce this, so let me just make this quick and simple. I want to review stuff. As an avid fan of internet shows such as Atop the Fourth Wall, the Angry Video Game Nerd, and the Nostalgia Critic. However, my biggest problem with the listed shows is that their reviews are restricted to bad comic books, bad video games and bad (old) movies respectively. I, as someone who takes great pride in his knowledge and interests of a wide spectrum of nerd culture, want to not be held to only one medium, or even just terrible things. I want to talk a look across the board, at anime, manga, movies, comic books, video games, and talk about the best AND the worst in my eyes. I of course, I'll be keeping the focus seen... in the last 3 posts.

Is it just me, or does anyone else think my ego's hitting the walls at this point? Does anyone else even read this?

Why heck should I care? My blog, my rules. And I say I'm going to be reviewing stuff, good and bad, new and old, from various angles, in addition to ranting and talking about current events.

Heck, I don't even know why I'm not just reviewing something, as opposed to writing this little blurb in the first place.

So, I'll start a new post, with a review of: The World Ends With You, a game for the Nintendo DS.

2010 Republican Platform, Part 2

Okay - last time we covered a good part of the section “Preserving American Freedom." of this:

http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf

The rest really isn't that exciting - there's a bit about the judicial system, a comment about people running for office having birth certificates, and that "American Symbols" should be honored - including the Ten Commandments, which I honestly fail to see as a truly American symbol. Now, we get into the good stuff - the section entitled "Strengthening Families, Protecting Life and Promoting Health".

The section starts off opposing homosexual marriages - not that's a big surprise. In addition, they call for Congress to prohibit courts from hearing cases on the matter (which, to me, smells suspiciously like fear), and to amend the constitution to only recognize marriages between a natural man and a natural woman. Nothing unusual here.

The next bullet point reads: "We affirm that this section is a response to the attacks on traditional family values. These include wellfunded, vigorous political and judicial attempts by powerful organizations and branches of the government to force acceptance, affirmation and normalization of homosexual behavior upon school children, parents, educational institutions, businesses, employees, government bodies and religious institutions and charities. These aggressive, intolerant efforts marginalize as bigots anyone who dissents."

Okay. Let me see if I'm reading this correctly. They claim that this section of their platform is in direct response to "attacks on traditional values," including attempts "to force acceptance, affirmation and normalization of homosexual behavior," and that these are "aggressive, intolerant efforts" that "marginalize [dissenters] as bigots." So, by teaching acceptance, we're being intolerant? By naming people who commit hate crimes bigots, we're marginalizing people who are just dissenting from the popular belief? I would also like to note that the first group who has the "normalization of homosexual behavior" force upon them is school children - once against, the argument is "Think of the children!", and once again, I fail to see how teaching children that there is more than one way of life is a bad thing.

This is followed by a desire to make issuing a marriage license to a gay couple a felony, and then with an attack on homosexuality itself. For this, I'm going to need to go point by point.

"We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases."

Nothing new or even worth commenting on, except that (if I recall correctly) the practice of heterosexuality also spreads the same diseases.

"Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans."

First and foremost, I'd like to mention the idea of separation of Church and State - ie that religion and politics, at least in my view, should be separate. In this case, claiming that part of your party platform is to uphold "truths that have been ordained by God" seems to edge towards violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment. After all, what if my religion holds that a set of other truths are, well, truths? Does this statement, then, not violate the Establishment Clause - enacting laws that are supported by only some religions? Secondly, a quick Google search on "Founding Fathers" and "Homosexuality" returned nothing but heavily biased results (on both sides), so I'll leave that alone; just like I won't argue that the majority of Texans believe one thing or another.

"Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” "

I'd like to comment on the use of quotation marks here to indicate disagreement with how the terms inside the quotation marks are used. That is all.

"We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin),custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits."

My confusing over the grammar aside (at first glance, this reads like they're opposed to refusing to recognize special privileges), this crosses a line with the second listed item: the refusal of allowing homosexuals to have custody of children. If they are opposed to single parents, then it's a little less outrageous, but it raises a few interesting questions of what would happen to a parent with custody if they came out of the closet. Or if a gay person with children had the misfortune of moving to the state.

"We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."

At first glance, this seems to say that people who are against homosexuality should not be penalized for their beliefs. A little closer, and I can see implications of making it not-illegal to openly oppose homosexuality through means of discrimination... or force. In addition, they make no mention of people who oppose homosexuality for other reasons (whatever those may be) - should they have criminal or civil penalties? Probably just an over-sight, but a big one.

And that ends that bullet. Let's continue with:

"We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy."

Okay. Might I introduce this "We" to a Supreme Court case known as Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which struck down anti-sodomy laws as unconstitutional. So, if this appeal to Congress is granted, wouldn't that mean that Lawrence v. Texas will stand, since the Supreme Court has the final say on what's allowed? Just a thought.

Afterwards, they make a motion to prohibit pornography, and then we move on to the next section - which is all about abortion.

The section begins with the simple comment that they oppose abortion, in all of its forms; that several steps should be added to the abortion process (officially to inform women of all of the facts, but I'd argue that some steps are simply to try to scare women out of having the abortion). Next, they state opposition to the "Morning after pill," among other things. At this point, I'd like to simply state my opinion on abortion - that I don't really have a strong opinion on abortion itself; but I feel that each person should be allowed to make up their own mind.

After aboration, there's a few things on anti-stem cells and anti-cloning, and it ends with a comment against altering the genes of living humans. Which is, once again, not unexpected but it leaves me wondering if they know how such a process works - since it's nearly impossible to alter the DNA in the cells of a human - at least after he or she is born; if they are against genetic alterations in the womb, that's actually something I can support.

Following, there's the section on the ever-present children. This including raising the age of consent to 18 (again, something I can support) to allowing parents freedom to choose their own child care (again, supportable for the most part) to prohibiting homosexuals from adopting.

Look - I can understand that you are against same sex marriage. But why can single heterosexuals adopt when single (because they can't be married) homosexuals cannot? This is fundamentally giving one group of person a privilege that is denied to a second - I believe the term for this is discrimination.

And, I think that's all for this batch - next post is planned to be a break from this (which should continue onto a 3rd and 4th part), but then we'll get back into it! Until next time - I still need a catch phrase!

2010 Republican Platform, Part 1

So, recently, as I was wandering the dusty alleyways of the internet (because ‘surfing’ is such a 90’s term) and I came across something that I felt like sharing:

http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf

For anyone who doesn’t click random links in blogs, and doesn’t just read urls, this is a link to the 2010 Texas Republican Party Platform. Let’s take a look, shall we?

The document is broken into 7 major sections: “Preserving American Freedom,” “Strengthening Families, Protecting Life and Promoting Health,” “Educating Our Children,” “Promoting Individual Freedom and Personal Safety,” “Strengthening the Economy,” “U.S. Sovereignty, Leadership and Foreign Policy,” and “Legislative Priorities.” Clearly, since this is the Republican party platform, the party on the economy is going to be all about cutting spending, so I’ll skip over that. Let’s start with the first bit, shall we?

Preserving American Freedom

This section starts off with the standard message off limiting the power of the Federal Government - a very classic conservative platform, including holding government officials under the same laws as other citizens, removing the parts of the Patriot at that violate civil rights, removing affirmative action... wait. Some of these issues are very state-specific, but some of these national things are, well, enough to completely enrage me.

As I was going through this section, I noticed a little something tacked onto the end of it.

"Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) – We oppose this act through which the federal government would coerce religious business owners and employees to violate their own beliefs and principles by affirming what they consider to be sinful and sexually immoral behavior."

Not knowing a thing about this, I decided to do my homework. To quote Wikipedia (because that's the number one source of information in the world these days): "The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is a proposed bill in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity for civilian nonreligious employers with over 15 employees."

So... they are against an anti-discrimination bill. Gee, and they wonder why people call them bigots?

To my further outrage, I discovered the website http://www.endahurtskids.com/ .Which, in short, offends me to my very core. I'm not very verbal about my political stances, usually, but I am highly opinionated in some cases. I'm very much pro-LGBT rights, but the area where I have the most emotional investment is by far the Transgender area. And so, when I see things like "Do you want men dressed as women teaching your kids?", it makes me want to do something dramatic and violent.

That statement alone shows a complete and utter misunderstanding and bigotry against Transgendered people. Sure, there are people who walk around in drag. And sure, there are people who do it people it arouses them. Those people aren't transgendered. A transgendered person honestly feels like their body is the wrong gender, to the point where it causes them discomfort and distress. Apologies if this is not news, but there still seem to be a ton of people who just don't get it, nor do they try to understand, but instead hide in their hate, because people who aren't 'normal' are weird. And weirdness weirds people out.

But, really, enough of my rabble rousing here. The argument here against ENDA seems to be that it offers Federal protections to the LGBT community, and protects them from discrimination in the workplace, including public schools. Which means that if a teacher is transgendered, then the school is not allowed to fire the teacher on these grounds alone, and as such, the teacher is allowed to continue teaching students. This puts children in close contact with this teacher, and this is apparently a bad thing, because it teaches the students that this alternate lifestyle is just as acceptable as a traditional one. And it's here that the argument loses me, as it never is explained why children accepting alternative lifestyles is a bad thing. Of course, there's the strong appeal to pathos and strongly-worded language through out, as I have already mentioned.

The main problem is this piece is not designed to convince anyone who doesn't already agree. If you already were against the argument, you probably aren't going to read this website and think, "Oh, gee, now that's an interesting point I hadn't thought of. Maybe these guys have some merit." When an argument descends to the point of using slurs, that to me states that it doesn't have a leg to stand on.

And I think that tangent's going to be the end of this post for now. I'll pick up where I left off, at the bit that prompted this one, next time.

Until then, I need a catch phrase!