The Affluenza "President"

The longest government shutdown in American is over for the time being, and while I am happy that the government has been reopened, I am not thrilled that it will most likely only be until February 15. Yes, there is hope that Congress will come to a deal with Trump to keep the government open beyond that, but I'm not going to hold my breath. If Trump was basically willing to hold the country hostage to get his precious $5 billion border wall once, I'm willing to bet he will do it again. He's a man who is not only selfish and narcissistic, but dangerously out of touch with reality, and I don't think he truly cares about the damage that he has done to this country. I think all that matters to him is that he gets his way.

I've been thinking about why Trump is the way he is, and while I don't want to play armchair psychiatrist like so much of the rest of the country likes to do, I do have a theory. Personally, I think what we're dealing with is a severe case of affluenza.

For those of you who might not know what I'm talking about, affluenza refers to a condition in which a person has spent so much time surrounded by wealth and privilege that they are unable to tell the difference between right and wrong. Not only do they live a life where the only things that matter to them are their wealth and comfort, but they suffer almost no consequences for their actions. If they do end up in trouble, they can just throw money at the problem until it goes away.

I first heard about affluenza back in 2013 when it was used as a defense for Ethan Couch, a young Texas man who stole his father's truck and went on a drunken joyride that killed four people and injured eleven more. His attorney said that since he grew up in a wealthy family and never had to work for anything in his life, he never learned that there could be consequences for his actions and should be treated with leniency. Couch was sentenced to ten years' probation. After he promptly violated that probation, he was sentenced to two years in prison.

When I first heard about Ethan Couch and the idea that someone could basically have no conscience because of their privilege, I thought it was ridiculous. As far as I was concerned, Couch's attorney was grasping at straws to keep a spoiled little sociopath out of prison. And yet, it makes sense the more I think about it. I've heard plenty of stories about wealthy people thinking that the rules simply do not apply to them. I've read about wealthy California residents complaining about watering bans during droughts because they don't think they should live with a less-than-perfect lawn, and I once read about a study that showed that the rich are more likely to lie and cheat to get what they want whenever they can get away with it. It stands to reason that the most extreme version of this would be someone who has no conscience because they never had a reason to develop one. They wouldn't suffer any lasting consequences for their actions, so they would have no reason to think that anything they did was wrong.

So, what does this have to do with Donald Trump? Well, everything. I think it describes Trump to a T. He is the son of a wealthy slumlord real estate developer who provided his children with anything they could want. Donald Trump often talks about the "modest" $1 million loan that he received from his father, but the total amount that he was given over the years was closer to $413 million. He does deserve credit for turning that into a $10 billion empire, but the fact of the matter is that he was given far more than most people will have in their entire lives. Whenever he found himself in trouble - which was often - he always had enough money and power to get out of it without suffering any lasting consequences. Like the spoiled rich kids who are the poster children for affluenza in this country, he lives in a world where he thinks he can do whatever he wants. Now that he is in the White House (I still won't call him President, sorry not sorry), he is doing that on a global scale, not caring about who he hurts or the damage he is doing to our country and its reputation.

There was a time when I found that thought terrifying. It still doesn't sit well with me, but I'd like to think that things are getting better now. Trump's approval rating is sitting at about 34 percent, which doesn't bode well for his chances in 2020. We now have a Democrat-led House of Representatives, and I'm holding out hope that a few of the Republicans in Congress are getting tired of Trump's bullshit. I don't think impeachment is likely at this point unless the Mueller investigation turns up some really damning evidence, but I'm confident that people have had enough of Trump. I know he still has supporters who will vote for him no matter what, but hopefully there aren't enough at this point to keep him around for another four years. As far as I'm concerned, the only good thing to come from this current administration is that people can see how bad things get when we give a spoiled, out-of-touch asshole too much power.

The Trump Administration was a mistake. Let's fix it in 2020.

Because Writing For Myself Is Hard

Writer's block can take some interesting forms. For example, I haven't written in this blog since 2014, mainly because I haven't been able to think about what I wanted to say or even what this blog should be about. It has had kind of a social justice slant, but I've also used it to bitch about Facebook and write movie reviews, so it's really been all over the map. I know I'm supposed to find a niche and stick to it, but I cut my blogging teeth on LiveJournal before it was owned by homophobic Russians, and that was as much of a personal journal as a blog. I guess old habits die hard.

And yet, even though I intended this to be a general blog about my thoughts with a slight social justice bent, I still couldn't think of anything that I wanted to put out there. It's not that I couldn't write; I have a second job ghostwriting blog posts for other sites, so I clearly have been writing. I just couldn't put my own thoughts to paper or a computer screen.

So basically, I've had writer's block, but it was a very specific kind of writer's block, one where droning on about selling things online and finding actionable solutions for leveraging one's influence as a thought leader* has basically killed any desire to write for myself. Yes, I know that kind of writing is important for businesses everywhere, and I can't get upset with anyone who needs that kind of work to be done, but it turned something that used to be fun into a grind. It got to the point where I couldn't bring myself to do it unless I had to.

Despite coming to associate writing with a depressing grind, I've missed being able to write here. I know this blog never got a lot of traffic, and I know it doesn't cover any one niche, but it's mine. It's a place where I can voice my opinions and thoughts about the world, something that I've found to be deeply satisfying. And if I can point to this blog as proof that I am capable of writing something worthwhile, that's even better.

So I guess you can call this a revival of sorts. I will do my best to post here at least once a week. As for what I’m going to write about, I guess that will still be all over the map. I’ll probably stick mostly to social justice topics just because they interest me, but I’ll also be making general observations about society and life in general as long as I find them interesting. I’ll probably write about movies, books and music here too just for the hell of it**. More than anything, I just want to write for myself. I’m not trying to be an influencer or a thought leader, and I’m not trying to sell a product, but because I have things I want to say.

Hopefully that’s still allowed on the Internet.

* Yes, clients expect me to use that kind of language when I write for them. It hurts me every time.
** I'm still a hardcore geek, so expect me to gush about superheroes and all things Marvel in between rants about things that infuriate me.

On Women, Men's Rights and Why You Probably Hate Me if You're a Man

So much for my New Year's resolution to write in this thing regularly. Looking at my last post, I see that it's been nearly two months since I've written anything on this blog. I'm kicking myself about that, since a lot has happened during those two months. For example, there have been no less than three high-profile shootings! That always gives me plenty to work with. I don't think it's worth explaining the details of any of these crimes since by now that's been done by better and more well-informed writers. I do however want to touch on one of these shootings since it's been on my mind more than the others.

By now, just about everyone has heard about Elliot Rodger's May 23 killing spree in Isla Vista, California. Seven people were killed, including Rodger himself, and an additional 13 people were injured. That's old news for most people by now, but something about it is still sticking out in my mind, and I feel like I should talk about it.

When tragedies like the Isla Vista killings happen, people are usually quick to condemn the killers as monsters or write them off as "crazy." Plenty of people have done this to Elliot Rodger, but I've noticed something else that has happened that makes me sick to my stomach. Elliot Rodger allegedly went on his shooting spree because he was frustrated by women not wanting to date or sleep with him. He was a 22 year-old virgin who claimed that since he was a "nice guy" he should be having lots and lots of sex. The guy took his frustration and obvious hatred for women out on no less than 19 people before taking his own life.

Since Elliot Rodger did what he did to punish women for not giving him what he was "owed," men's rights activists, pick-up artists and various other misogynistic pieces of garbage have actually sympathized with him. Some have even called him a hero. That is deeply troubling on many levels, and I think it shines a light on what a lot of these men really think about women. Sexism and misogyny are nothing new, and the brand of hate that Rodger had has been well-known on the Internet for some time. Up until now, I saw it as a petty annoyance, the feelings of some entitled jerks who need to learn how the real world works. Now, I can see how dangerous it is. People have been killed in a very high-profile way by this attitude, and I wouldn't be surprised if more are killed in the future.

I know I'm just one guy with a blog, but I feel like I should say something about this brand of misogyny. This will probably piss a lot of guys off, but I'm well past the point of caring about that. Maybe I'm preaching to the choir here, and maybe what I have to say will be written off by those who need to hear it, but I'm going to say it anyway.

1. Feminism Isn't What You Think It Is

A lot of so-called men's rights activists like to blame feminism on their bad luck with women. These folks like to refer to feminists as "feminazis" and act like they're trying to destroy men. Well, I'm a feminist and a man (shocking, I know), and I can honestly say that real feminism is about equal rights for both men and women. Yes, there are some man-hating "feminazis" out there, but a real feminist knows that they are just as bad as the most rage-filled misogynist. Real feminists work for the benefit of everybody, not just women. If they end up encouraging women to stand up to your misogyny, then the problem lies with you, not them.

2. The Friendzone Doesn't Exist

That's right; there is no friendzone, or at least not how you know it. There seems to be this idea that if a man is nice to a woman, he's entitled to sleep with her or at least date her, as if that's the only thing women are good for. Based on this belief, a woman who only wants a platonic friendship with a man is completely useless. That has to be one of the most disgusting things I've ever heard, yet the idea is widespread enough that men everywhere complain about being "friendzoned" by women when their "nice guy" routine ultimately fails.

Believe it or not, men and women are capable of having platonic relationships with each other. Some even prefer it. There are plenty of women I consider friends, and I'm perfectly content with keeping them as friends. There's nothing romantic or sexual between us, and there probably never will be. I still value their friendship, because I see them as human beings. If there is such a thing as the friendzone, that's it. It's having respect for someone and seeing them as a human being instead of a potential bedroom conquest. Unfortunately, these guys will never see that because they can't see women as human beings, which brings me to my last point...

3. Women Will Never Want Men who Hate Them

People are empathetic creatures. They can often pick up on subtle emotional cues and know what you really think about them. This seems to be lost on a lot of so-called "nice guys" who have no luck with women. Yes, they're being nice to girls, but that doesn't change the fact that many of them hate women. Not surprisingly, women pick up on that. I obviously can't speak for women, but I can usually tell when someone has a thinly-veiled contempt for me based on a short conversation. It doesn't matter how "nice" you are being to a woman; if she picks up on your inherent hatred for anything female, she won't want anything to do with you. As long as you have this hatred within you, your "nice guy" approach will never work. You may be able to manipulate a girl for a little while, but sooner or later she will see through you and sense how much contempt  you have for her gender.

Anyway, that's what's been on my mind since this the Isla Vista shooting. I know most men's rights activists won't go out and kill people after being rejected time and time again by women, but there is obviously a very toxic culture that needs to be addressed. Most of what I've said will fall on deaf ears, and I might even make some enemies with this post, but I just felt that this needed to be said. Please direct all death threats and "not all men..." posts to the comment section below.

On Twitter and Cancelling Colbert

If you spend any amount of time on Twitter, you may have noticed that the tag #CancelColbert was trending about a week ago. It was started by the writer and activist Suey Park in response to the following tweet:

That tweet has since been deleted, but #CancelColbert continued to trend and start a Twitter war of its own. On one side was Suey Park and her followers who claimed that the tweet was offensive and that Stephen Colbert was a horrible racist who should not be allowed on television. On the other side were countless Colbert Report fans who viciously attacked Park and her followers for not understanding satire. The whole mess even caught the attention from the mainstream media.

Yes, #CancelColbert was a big deal for about a week, as was Suey Park, but it looks like things have finally died down. Colbert was not cancelled, and the Twittersphere has moved onto other things. 

In the end, the campaign to #CancelColbert didn't seem to amount to a whole lot. It got people talking for awhile, but that's about it. Still, it did make me realize a few things.

1. People on Twitter are Really, Really Racist

Okay, techncially this isn't something I just realized. Saying that people are racist is like saying that fire is hot or that water is wet. I'm not at all surprised that someone would read the above tweet and think "Hah! Stupid Chinese" and utter every racial slur they can throw at Asians. That happens all the time. What took me by surprise is how so-called socially progressive liberals immediately went on the attack when #CancelColbert started trending. Many of us would like to think that the most racist people in America are the conservatives on the far right who live in gated communities and wouldn't dare venture into "the ghetto" (read: predominantly black neighborhoods) for fear of getting mugged. Sadly, it looked like many of the people who took cheap shots at Suey Park's ethnicity considered themselves progressive liberals. They were the type who would proudly proclaim how racist they weren't by talking about their Asian friends. They would never openly make fun of Asians or anyone else who wasn't white, but it became really obvious that they had some pretty racist attitudes just beneath the surface. All it took was a racially-charged Twitter war to bring it out.

The fact that so many white liberals could be so racist probably shouldn't come as a surprise to me, but it does leave me really disappointed. These are the folks who should be above all of this racist crap. Sadly, they aren't. But that's okay. They aren't really racist. After all, some of their best friends are Asian.

*sigh*

2. People Don't Understand Satire

When I say that people don't understand satire, I'm not talking about Suey Park and her followers; I'm talking about everyone who went after Suey Park and her followers. They seem to think that satire is just "edgy" humor intended to be offensive, but they are totally off the mark. Satire is the use of humor or exaggeration to expose and criticize something negative in our society. It might make you laugh, but ultimately it's supposed to make you question and think about whatever is being satirized. Satire is Stephen Colbert's bread and butter, and the offending tweet was a quote from his show that was meant to make fun of Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder and his attempts to be more culturally sensitive while using his team's offensive name. It was the punchline to a joke, and in context I didn't think it was anymore offensive than anything else on The Colbert Report.

What Stephen Colbert said on his show was satire; what was said on The Colbert Report's Twitter feed was not. It was disgustingly racist, no matter how many people decide to call it satire.

Then again, that's not Stephen Colbert's fault. He's not even the one who posted the tweet. It was someone else associated with his show, someone who doesn't understand satire or Twitter, which brings me to my last point...

3. Sometimes, Twitter Kind of Sucks

Don't get me wrong; I don't hate Twitter. I actually think it's great in theory. It gives people a chance to tell the world what's on their minds in 140 characters or less. It's the closest thing to unfiltered, off-the-cuff commentary on the Internet. Unfortunately, since Twitter comments are unfiltered and off-the-cuff, people don't always think before they tweet. I'm willing to bet that the tweet that inspired #CancelColbert was posted by one person working on The Colbert Report who thought they were being funny and clever. They didn't take the time to consider how offensive it could be, and there wasn't anybody else who could stop the tweet from going live.

This whole incident made me realize that Twitter is a poor platform for comedy. There are no doubt plenty of offensive jokes that get thrown around by the writers of The Colbert Report, but those never make it on the air. Writing a TV show like The Colbert Report is a process that involves a lot of people, and for every offensive joke that is suggested there is someone there to shoot it down or rewrite it into something more acceptable. That same thing can't be said about someone trying to be funny on Twitter. There are times when my Twitter feed is full of offensive "jokes" that are probably only funny to whoever posted them. Nobody is there to stop this crap from going online, so a Twitter comedy account becomes one person throwing out random jokes and hoping some of them are funny.

Does the "throw shit at the wall to see what sticks" approach to comedy work? Sometimes it does, but sometimes it just makes people want to #CancelColbert.

People don't seem to realize that what they do online can have serious consequences. If you're on Twitter (or Facebook, Tumblr or any other social network), please think before you post. There are enough stupid bigots on the Internet without you looking like one of them.

Yes, An Openly Gay Man will Soon Play in the NFL. Deal With It and Move On.

You've probably seen this video by now, but it still deserves a signal boost. It deserves all the signal boosts.

I don't think there's much more I can add to what Dale Hansen said in this video or about the fact that we will likely see an openly gay man play in the NFL. However, I will point out that the supposed "controversy" surrounding it reminds me why I kind of hate professional sports.

As Mr. Hansen pointed out, people are willing to forgive a lot when it comes to their precious star athletes. No matter what these players do, there are always people willing to get down on their knees and worship them for their godlike ability to run fast and throw a ball really far. Was an NFL player arrested for driving drunk? He's probably learned his lesson and will never do it again. Was he caught with a bunch of hookers and drugs in a hotel room? He's just having some fun and we should give him a break. Did he beat up his girlfriend? She probably did something to deserve it. Did a woman accuse him of rape? She's probably lying. As long as he could take his team to the Super Bowl, we're willing to sweep everything under the rug.

But wait! What if he happens to find other men attractive? Well, we can't have that, can we? That would be too much of a distraction and make all the jock-sniffing dudebros uncomfortable.

In a perfect world, nobody would care about Michael Sam's sexual orientation. Sadly, we don't live in that perfect world. It pains me to say this, but I think Sam's sexuality will be an issue for at least the first year or so of his NFL career simply because people will make it an issue. I can see the media making a big deal over it, and I can imagine that there will be plenty of homophobic football fans who won't be able to see past it. 

So, does this mean that I think Michael Sam should never have come out of the closet? Absolutely not. This is something that I think has to happen, if only to prove to the naysayers and bigots that simply having an openly gay player won't affect the game of football. There have always been GLBT people in literally all walks of life, and that includes professional sports. People need to accept that and move on, just as they need to accept the fact that a person's sexual orientation is a small part of who they are.

In some ways, I think the culture surrounding football is a little backwards. A lot of players, coaches and fans seem to hold onto the ideal of the "man's man," a concept that has become painfully outdated. A football player can be gay and be just as tough and just as talented as anybody else on the field. People are talking all about how Michael Sam is a gay man who plays football, but they need to see him as a football player who just happens to be gay. Or better yet, just a football player.

On Commercials, Coke and "Post-Racial" America

So there was a football game yesterday. If you didn't see it, don't worry. You didn't miss much. It was a dismal, one-sided blowout that actually became painful to watch after a while. As usual during this game, a lot of people were more interested in watching the commercials. Unfortunately, those weren't anything special either. There was one that did stand out from the crowd and got a lot of people talking. It was an ad for Coca-Cola that... well, you can take a look for yourself:

This is a pretty sweet commercial. It isn't exactly ground-breaking, but it is nice, uplifting and inoffensive.

That is, it's inoffensive as long as you're not an angry, white, conservative bigot with a Twitter account who thinks the official language of America - and therefore the world - should be English.

Shortly after this commercial was aired, #boycottcoke began trending on Twitter. To be fair, part of the reason for that was because people were trolling bigots, but there were still plenty of folks who posted stuff like this:



And this:



For those who are really upset by this alleged affront to hard-working Americans everywhere, #fuckcoke is also trending thanks to brilliant minds such as this one:



In case you were wondering, of course this outrage isn't just limited to Twitter. Former Florida Representative Allen West called the ad "disturbing" and said that America is "...on the road to perdition." Right-wing aggregator The Right Scoop also had this to say:

"...in a day and age where no political party is willing to fix our porous border, I can understand the outrage. America has a culture of its own, primarily denoted by our official language, English, and there are many in our society who would like to destroy that culture and are working hard at doing exactly that."

I wish I could say that I'm surprised that this is happening, but I can't. I saw this coming as soon as I started watching the commercial. People like to go on and on about how we live in a "post-racial" society and that people of color are now treated just as well as white people in our country, but there are still people who are convinced that being an American means being a WASP (that's White Anglo-Saxon Protestant for those who don't know) who only speaks English. Anybody who isn't white or who doesn't speak English as their first language apparently isn't a "real" American and is therefore inferior to the rest of us.

(Wow. I just realized that the last sentence I typed reads like something from a white supremacist manifesto. That's the first time I've ever actually scared myself while writing a blog post.)

I think it's time to set some things straight, because there are apparently just too many people out there who don't get it.

1. English is not the official language of the United States of America. The U.S. has no official language. You could argue that English has become the country's de facto official language, but it technically has no greater validity than any other language people choose to speak.

2. American culture clearly is not the melting pot we've all been led to believe. The only ones who seem to be unanimously accepted as American are white people from a traditional Christian background. Everyone else has been segregated, marginalized and ostracized in many ways since this country was founded. If we really were the melting pot that our teachers said we were, people wouldn't react so strongly to this commercial. People celebrating being American in different languages would be the status quo.

3. Europeans were not the first people in this country. There were hundreds of indigenous tribes that were here long before Spanish explorers, British colonists or any other white settlers showed up. That means all these dumbass white 'Murricans who want to "keep America American" have no more of a right to be here than "illegal" Mexicans and Muslim "terrorists."

4. "America the Beautiful" is not our national anthem. "The Star Spangled Banner" is.

It's stuff like this that makes me a little ashamed to call myself an American. I was born and raised here, and I haven't lived in any other country, yet there's a reason why I've decided to tell everybody I meet that I'm Canadian if I ever go overseas. I know that the people who took offense to this commercial don't represent everyone in this country, but there are enough of them making their voices heard to make it clear that we are not living in a "post-racial" society.

I'm sure there are people who will tell me that I'm un-American for saying these things, but to hell with them. If being an American means choosing to boycott a damn soft drink company for acknowledging a multi-cultural society, then I don't think I want to be an American.

2014 Resolutions

Now that we are one week into 2014, I guess it’s time to make some resolutions.

And no, it’s not too late to make New Year resolutions. Hell, one year I was making Chinese New Year resolutions because I had put them off for so long. Making resolutions in the second week of 2014 is nothing.

Anyway, here are my three main resolutions for 2014.

1. Overcoming Self-Doubt

The biggest resolution I’m making this year is a little abstract, but it’s still really important. It’s occurred to me fairly recently that I have almost no confidence in myself or my abilities. I never think of myself as a good musician or writer, and when people tell me otherwise it always comes as a surprise. It’s gotten to the point where I don’t fear failure as much as see it as inevitable, and because of that I’m afraid to try anything really ambitious. It’s probably the reason why I’m toiling away at ghostwriting SEO articles for the Internet and why I don’t find many paying music gigs. It’s as if there’s a voice in my head telling me that I’m going to fail if I try anything, even in areas where I’ve been successful in the past. It’s almost crippling, which is why I’ve resolved to do my best to stop listening to that voice and learn to become more confident. I know that won’t be easy, and I may not be able to do it in one year, but I really want to learn to shut out the self-doubt that’s been plaguing me for years.

For the record, I don’t know where that self-doubt comes from. Most of the people in my life have been nothing but encouraging to me, and those who weren’t turned out to be condescending jerks more often than not. Still, that feeling of crippling self-doubt is there somehow, and unless I overcome that I don’t think I’m going to accomplish much in my life.

2. Write, Dammit!

My next resolution is to write in this blog more often. I’ve been doing plenty of writing, but most of it has been ghostwriting. If you read an ad or article online, there’s a small chance that I was the one who wrote it, but you’d never know because my name is probably not on it. With this blog, I wanted to have a place where I could post essays, articles, reviews and angry political rants that actually had my name on them. The only problem is that I don’t get paid to write in this blog. Sure, Google might throw some extra cash my way if enough people click on the ads on my blog, but so far that has amounted to pocket change. I’m broke more often than not, and that breeds a kind of paranoia that makes me afraid to write anything unless I’m getting paid for it. When I don’t get paid for what I write, I can’t help feeling that I’m wasting my time. Naturally, this has led to me going months without writing in this blog, something that will (hopefully) come to an end soon. I plan to write at least one post a week here. As always, I probably won’t exactly have a theme to these posts. I probably should, but it’s my blog, and part of the fun of not having an overall theme is being able to write whatever I want. That might not make much sense, but there you go.

3. Play Music, Get Paid...Somehow

My third resolution is to do my best to make a living as a musician. I’m obviously not going to count on becoming rich and famous with my viola, but having regular paid gigs is something I’d like to aspire to this year. Depending on the way the rest of my life goes, this could mean looking for church gigs in my spare time, or it could mean actually going out and auditioning for professional ensembles. I’m hoping for the latter, but we’ll see what happens.

My Thoughts on the George Zimmerman Trial

By now, I’m sure everyone’s heard about the outcome of the George Zimmerman trial, and I’m sure that everyone has an opinion on it. I know I have my own thoughts, mainly that the fact that we live in a world where a grown man with a gun can confront and kill an unarmed teenager and get away with it is sick and twisted. To say that I’m upset is an understatement. I was actually consoling myself by imagining George Zimmerman being brutally murdered by vigilantes. That isn’t like me; I’m not a violent person. It’s just that the verdict for this case really did make me so angry that I wished a painful death on another human being. If someone were to tell me that justice had been served and that they were glad that Zimmerman was acquitted, that person probably would’ve been picking themselves and their teeth off the ground. Once again, I swear I’m not a violent person, just a really angry one. Now that I’ve calmed down to the point where I’ll only scream obscenities at a Zimmerman sympathizer, I can process my thoughts on this situation. - As much as I hate to admit it, I can understand why George Zimmerman was found not guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter. There wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove what happened on the night of February 26, 2012. Since people in this country are innocent until proven guilty, there was no choice but to find Zimmerman not guilty. And yet, I can’t help thinking that this would’ve gone very differently if Zimmerman was a black man shooting a white kid in the same situation. - I understand that George Zimmerman’s family believes that the man will have to be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life for fear of vigilante justice. Basically, that means that everywhere Zimmerman goes, certain people will always believe that he is a violent, trigger-happy thug who will never be any better than a common criminal. He could also be confronted, attacked and even killed by those people simply because of who he is. I can’t say that I don’t appreciate the irony of that situation. - This whole scenario has also served to remind me why I hate guns. Guns are weapons that exist only to kill other living things, and they are basically fetishized in our country. They are too dangerous, and I would be perfectly fine with most of them being outlawed and made unavailable to the public. And yet, I can’t say that without someone screaming about the Second Amendment and calling me un-Amurrican. Well, I don’t care. I’m going to keep saying it. Trayvon Martin died because George Zimmerman had a gun, and thanks to the Florida’s very scary “Stand Your Ground” law he had an excuse to use it on another human being. There are countless people out there just like Zimmerman who are practically obsessed with owning guns and want nothing more than an excuse to use them. I think this has shown us that we need to take another look at gun control in this country. I’m sure that’s going to offend everyone who uses the Second Amendment as their personal creed, but I’m not sorry that I feel that way. - Finally, I think we also need to take another look at the elephant in the room and talk about race. Before anybody gets all up in arms, I know that George Zimmerman is not white. He’s hispanic, and therefore a member of a race that is just as marginalized in this country as African-Americans. However, he can pass as white. He has a decidedly European name, he’s light-skinned and he has enough money and social status to be able to live in a gated community. Trayvon Martin was young, black, wearing a hoodie and outside after dark. That was enough for Zimmerman to peg him as a “suspicious person” and confront him. Now, I understand that Trayvon was no saint; he had been suspended from school a few times and had been caught with bags containing marijuana residue and stolen jewelry in the past. Based on all evidence of what happened on the night he died, he probably beat Zimmerman up pretty badly. And yet, when it came down to it he died because he was young and black, and therefore a criminal in Zimmerman’s eyes. Zimmerman picked a fight with someone who fit his idea of what the bad guys look like, and when he was losing he used a deadly weapon to end it. But it’s okay, because the only one who died was a thug who happened to wander outside of the ghetto to commit some random crimes. After all, that’s what black kids do, right? This was racial profiling at its “finest.” If Trayvon Martin was a white kid in a polo shirt I’d be willing to bet that Zimmerman would’ve kept on driving and not given him a second thought. If I can take any consolation in this whole ugly series of events, it’s that there are lots of other people who are just as outraged as I am. A more cynical and racist person might assume that it’s just black people getting angry about this, but it isn’t. People of all races and socioeconomic backgrounds are pissed off that Zimmerman can shoot an unarmed teenager in the chest and not be punished for it. Everyone can see that justice was not served here. As far as I’m concerned, a young black man was killed for the crime of being a young black man. I can only hope that people will see how messed up things really are for people of color in this country after all of this.

Why Do We Have to Keep Having This Conversation?

(Trigger warning: rape/sexual assault)

I’m going to try to get through this blog post without destroying my laptop in a fit of rage.

I really wish I was joking, but I’m not. My smartphone ended up getting thrown across a room because of what I was reading on it today. Fortunately, I remained calm and rational enough to aim it at a nice, soft couch cushion.

The thing that’s gotten me so pissed off right now is the coverage of the rape case in Steubenville, Ohio. By now, I don’t think I have to explain which rape case in Steubenville I’m referring to. However, I’ll give you an abbreviated description just in case you’ve been living under a rock.

Back in August, two high school football players took a 16 year-old girl to a series of parties where she got drunk and was sexually assaulted. The two boys who did this took photos of the girl and tweeted about what they were doing to her. She claims to not remember any of this. After a public outcry, the two boys were convicted of rape and sentenced to one year in juvenile hall this past Sunday.

On the surface, things look like they’re as close to okay as they can be in this kind of scenario. Two teenage boys did something horrible to a teenage girl, and they will pay the price. It sounds like an open-and-shut case. Surely everyone will see that these two boys are criminals who deserve to be punished, right?

I think I’ve been giving people too much credit.

On one of my first posts on this blog, I said that I was heavily involved in a movement to combat the Rape Culture, that sick and twisted part of our society that normalizes and even forgives rape and sexual assault. I’m still involved in that movement, and the things I’ve been hearing lately have only served to remind me why. I really wish everyone would agree with me when I say that the two boys who were convicted of rape in the Steubenville case were entirely at fault and that the girl who was assaulted is a blameless victim of a crime. Unfortunately, that’s not what I’m hearing. What I’m hearing is the sad tale of two innocent lives ruined by a too-harsh sentence. I’m hearing stories of promising football careers brought to a tragic end because people don’t know “harmless” youthful indiscretion when they see it. I’m hearing stories of a stupid, slutty girl who had too much to drink and deserved what happened to her. In other words, I’m hearing the same rape apologist bullshit that I hear whenever something like this happens.

Once again, people are placing all the blame on the survivor instead of on the rapist, and I am fucking sick of it. Should this girl have gotten drunk? No, she shouldn’t have. Such behavior is dangerous and irresponsible. Does the fact that she was drunk mean that she was at fault for what happened? Hell no. In the end, the decision to rape her was made by the rapists. She didn’t consent to anything because she couldn’t give consent. She was probably unconscious for the worst of it, so she had no control over what was happening to her. How anybody could place the blame on her for everything that happened when she was drunk is beyond me, but that’s exactly what a lot of people are doing.

Another thing about this whole thing that pisses me off is that this almost didn’t go to trial. The only reason why the criminals involved were prosecuted and ultimately convicted is because the hacker group Anonymous pushed for it to happen. This whole thing was going to be swept under the rug because, apparently, boys will be boys. Nope. Sorry. The world doesn’t work that way. These boys didn’t play a harmless prank on someone; they violated another human being in the most disgusting and degrading way imaginable. They shouldn’t be excused because of their age, the alleged sluttiness of the girl or the fact that they’re high school football heroes. Rape is rape, and these little fucks are rapists.

The only consolation I can take from this whole scenario is that justice was technically served. I say “technically” because these boys deserve much more than one year in juvenile hall. This, ladies and gentlemen, is Rape Culture at its “finest.” In a perfect world, everyone who laid a finger on this girl when she was drunk would go away for a long time. They don’t deserve any sympathy, and the rape survivor doesn’t deserve any of the blame.

* * *

Okay. My laptop is still intact, I haven’t punched a hole in my bedroom wall and nobody around me was brutally murdered. I think I’m alright. Hopefully the next post on this blog won’t be quite so angry. I think I’ll try to ignore the news for a few days just in case.

The Straight White Male Activist

If you take a look at some of my previous posts on this blog, you’ll notice that I often talk about feminism, GLBTQ issues and racism. It should come as no surprise that I’m not shy about being a feminist or that I’m quick to point out homophobia, racism and other intolerant bullshit. You could say that I’m an activist, although I don’t do nearly as much about it as some people do. Unfortunately, there’s one thing that makes me feel kind of guilty sometimes. I may be a feminist and GLBTQ ally who rails against racism and bigotry, but I’m also a heterosexual white male. It’s not that I feel particularly guilty about being a heterosexual white male; it’s that sometimes I’m worried that I might become part of the problem instead of the solution.

I’m probably not making a whole lot of sense to some of you, but hear me out. One could argue that it’s easier for a member of a persecuted minority to engage in activism because they are standing up for their own rights as well as the rights of others. Unfortunately, since society still doesn’t treat certain minorities with much respect, some of this activism falls on deaf ears. Society is still largely dominated by heterosexual white males who have probably never experienced the bigotry that women, people of color, the GLBTQ community and other minority groups experience on a regular basis. Many are blind to the problems that minorities face every day, so they don’t understand why activism is so important. Some laugh off efforts to make positive changes, while others are openly hostile. Many others just choose not to see the plight of anybody who isn’t like them. In the end, they resist any positive changes that people try to make, which is why activism can be so difficult.

However, every so often you can find straight white males who are on board with an activist cause. They are right there on the picket lines standing up for persecuted minorities, and since they are members of the dominant culture, people take notice. Suddenly, a cause that may have been ridiculed or ignored has some validity. If these “normal” guys are standing up for it, it must be important after all.

Personally, I have a huge problem with this. I don’t have a problem with straight white male activists since I think standing up for social justice is always admirable. What I have a problem with is this notion that minorities need to be “saved” by the dominant culture. Whenever a straight white male openly stands for something, I can practically feel people’s minds changing in ways that just don’t happen when anybody else stands for the same issue. Yes, it’s great that it grabs people’s attention, but in a way it also contributes to the bigotry inherent in society. It tells me that the only people that matter are the straight white males, and the only things that matter are the things that are important to them. Meanwhile, any causes that don’t find the right champions are kept on the fringes of society where they remain invisible.

This is something that I’ve been struggling with. I am a straight white male who stands up for causes that don’t affect other straight white males. I may not have a lot of influence, but people will be more willing to listen to what I have to say just because of who I am. I could look at this as using my white privilege for a good cause, but I can’t help thinking that I’m contributing to the bigotry inherent in our society.

Activists shouldn’t need straight white guys like myself to validate their causes. Sadly, mainstream society often says otherwise, and I don’t know how that’s going to change. It’s really a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. Straight white culture is still considered the norm, and lots of people will reject anybody who doesn’t fit into the norm. It’s sad and frustrating, and I wish I could say that things could be different.

So, what does all of this mean for me? Well, I’m certainly not going to give up standing up for what I believe in. I can’t do that any more than I can change who I am. I’m also not going to tell other straight white males to turn their backs on other activist causes. I just think we need to be conscious of this sad and frustrating fact while working towards a future where everyone is respected and nobody needs to be “saved” by a dominant culture.

Les Miserables: A Review

When I heard that the musical Les Miserables (or Les Mis to its legions of fans)  was going to be made into a movie, I wasn't sure what to think. I've always loved musicals, and Les Mis has been one of my favorites for years. I’ve seen it on stage twice, and at one point I had the original Broadway cast album practically memorized. I’m definitely a fan, but I wasn’t sold on the idea of a film adaptation. As much as I love musicals, I don’t care for the way they’ve been treated by Hollywood over the last several years. Between non-singing celebrities being cast in lead roles to movies that just seem to lack the energy of a live performance, most recent movie musicals just haven’t done it for me. I remained cautiously optimistic about the movie adaptation of Les Mis, but I was fully prepared to be underwhelmed.

Well, after seeing the movie for myself, I can honestly say that my fears were unfounded. It’s not perfect, but I think this version of Les Miserables will please fans of the stage show.


For those unfamiliar with Les Mis, it tells the story of Jean Valjean, an ex-convict in 19th Century France who violates his parole to create a new life for himself. Over the course of several years, Valjean befriends the dying prostitute Fantine, raises Fantine’s daughter as his own and gets caught up in the failed June Rebellion of 1832, all while being pursued by the fanatical police inspector Javert. It’s a story that covers a period of nearly two decades and involves several supporting characters, but the main focus is on Valjean’s journey of redemption and the lives affected by it.


Director Tom Hooper famously made some interesting choices as the director of this movie, the most significant of which was his decision to have the actors sing their parts live on set as opposed to lip synching to pre-recorded music. This may seem like an insignificant change, but it helps the film stand out from other musicals. The actors may be singing their lines, but since they’re doing it “live” they dictate the rhythm and timing of what they are singing and make it sound more like natural spoken dialogue. It also allows for far more emotional performances, which is a plus considering that Les Mis has always had a reputation of being a powerful tearjerker of a musical.


Another interesting decision that was made was to shoot most of the big musical numbers in close-up using long, uninterrupted takes. It seems like an odd choice, but it puts the focus on the performers and the emotions that their songs are supposed to convey. For example, Anne Hathaway’s much talked-about rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream” probably wouldn’t be as poweful as it is had the camera not focused so closely on her. The song has always been about Fantine breaking down and losing nearly all hope, but because it’s shot in close-up we feel every bit of her pain and heartbreak. It gives the number a more intimate feeling that turns an already powerful performance into something that people will be talking about for a long time.


As for the performances themselves, they are quite good for the most part. Hugh Jackman isn’t the best singer to ever play Jean Valjean (he has to strain to hit the high notes), but he has a strong and expressive singing voice that lends itself well to the role. It also helps that he seems to be an actor first and a singer second. He seems to be more concerned with conveying emotion than with singing perfectly, and it helps him carry what is a very emotional musical. As Valjean’s adopted daughter Cosette, Amanda Seyfried reliably hits all of her high notes and is likable enough, as is Eddie Redmayne as her romantic interest, the revolutionary Marius. Samantha Barks brings a Broadway-honed singing voice to her role as Eponine, a street urchin in love with Marius. She’s easily one of the best singers in the movie, and I found her far more likable and engaging than Cosette. Meanwhile, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter bring some much-needed comic relief as a pair of crooked innkeepers.


All of these actors are good in their roles, but the real scene stealer is Anne Hathaway as Fantine. She actually has little screen time compared to many of the other characters, but to say that she leaves her mark is an understatement. Everything she does tears my heart out, and as strange as it sounds I’m kind of glad that she makes an early exit from the movie. I found myself caring for her enough to want her suffering to end, even if that means seeing her die in a hospital bed. She really is that good, and the fact that she can convey such deep sadness and despair while singing and hitting every note is pretty damn incredible.


The only real complaint that I have about this movie is that I didn’t care much for Russell Crowe’s Inspector Javert, which is a shame because Javert was my favorite part of both live performances of the stage show that I’ve seen. To me, Javert should have a menacingly deep baritone voice and an intensity that borders on psychosis. Valjean spends the better part of two decades running from him, and I like to think that part of the reason is because he’s a little afraid of the guy. Javert is scary in his fanaticism and single-mindedness, and that should be conveyed with an intense performance that demands the audience’s attention. Sadly, Russell Crowe doesn’t deliver the goods. Instead of being frighteningly intense, he just comes across as too nice, a little weary and too boring. Plus, his singing voice isn’t anything special. It’s pleasant enough and he does manage to stay on key, but any actor who plays Javert needs to do more than that.


Yes, Russell Crowe is a little weak as the story’s villain, but fortunately it isn’t enough to ruin the movie. Overall, the film version of Les Mis manages to hit most of the emotional highs and lows that the stage version does. I’m not sure I’d recommend it to those who don’t like big epic-length musicals, but die-hard Les Mis fans should be pleased.

The Life Cycle of a Social Networking Site

I have a confession to make, a confession that I’m sure will border on sacrilege to a lot of people on the Internet.

I don’t really like Facebook, and the only reason why I have a Facebook account is because just about everyone I know has one.

I think I did like Facebook once, back when only a handful of people used it as a networking tool and before I felt like I had to check it twelve times a day. Having a Facebook account now just seems like a lot of work for very little reward. Ideally, I should log on once or twice a day and read interesting things that my friends have to say or learn the details of a party that I’m invited to. Instead, logging on means reading trite “inspirational” quotes, getting bombarded by invites to games I don’t want to play and seeing memes that stopped being funny weeks ago. It gets really irritating, yet everyone from my social circle to the mainstream media wants me to stay glued to my Facebook wall lest I become hopelessly out of touch with modern society.

Basically, Facebook has become more annoying than useful, but I think it’s actually following what I think is the lifespan of a typical social networking site. Before everyone on the planet had a Facebook account, just about everyone on the planet had a Myspace account. From a technical standpoint, I liked Myspace, and to be honest I thought it was better than Facebook is now. Myspace pages were more customizable than Facebook walls, there were message boards and chat rooms that let you easily talk to users that weren’t on your friends list, and it is still the preferred network for unsigned musicians. Of course, it started going downhill once people started to discover Facebook, but I don’t think it was out of any hatred for its interface. I think what happened was that Myspace became overcrowded with annoying users. The message boards and chat rooms were full of trolls, and it became way too easy to stumble into a really gaudy and poorly designed personal page. I would often see things like ditzy teenage girls who had way too many glitter effects on their pages and suburban white kids who had pictures of themselves flashing gang signs while loud gangsta rap plays. On top of it all, it seemed like everyone was using Myspace to bitch about other people or try to get laid by messaging random users.

Like the rest of the world, I eventually gave up on Myspace and moved on to Facebook. At the time, Facebook seemed like the more mature alternative to the drama-filled teen hangout that Myspace had become. College students and graduates used Facebook. They talked about their college courses. They talked about their careers. They talked about life, politics and society in a respectful manner. In other words, the Facebook crowd acted like adults. As someone who was tired of the constant trolling and high school drama on Myspace, I couldn’t sign up for a Facebook account fast enough.

Unfortunately, just as Myspace became too big and too crowded by stupidity, so has Facebook. Facebook’s interface usually keeps me from stumbling into pages that annoy me as much as some Myspace pages did, but between the sappy quotes, cutesy pictures, game requests and drama-filled status updates there’s plenty to keep me annoyed. Just as I got turned off of Myspace, I’m getting turned off of Facebook, something that I think was inevitable. It’s probably part of the social network life cycle. A shiny new networking site gets people’s attention, people flock to it and have a blast catching up with old friends for a few years, there’s an overload of annoying stupidity after a while, and people leave for the next big thing. Facebook may be the most visited site on the Internet now, and it will probably be going strong in a year or two, but if I’m right it will decline in popularity. People will move on to another social network, and Facebook will be the ghost town/punchline that Myspace has become.

So, if my theory about the rise and fall of social networks is correct, what will the next major social networking site be? Tumblr is already popular for blogging and photo sharing, and Google Plus (or Google+) has been trying really hard to become a Facebook killer. Maybe Myspace will have a renaissance and become king of the Internet again. It recently relaunched with an updated interface, and I would be willing to give it another chance if I knew enough people who were willing to do the same thing.

Until then, you could say that I’m suffering from social network burnout, or at least Facebook burnout. Feel free to continue updating your Facebook page and posting to your wall. If I’m not too annoyed, I might see it.

Then again, maybe I’ll be on Myspace. Hopefully I won’t be the only one.

(Just like my last "I hate Facebook" post, this will probably be shared on Facebook. I am well aware of the irony of that fact, so there's no need to remind me.)

Discussions about Sandy Hook

By now, there’s probably not a whole lot I can say about the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut that hasn’t already been said, but I feel like I should still weigh in on the subject. It’s not like I’m anybody of any real importance or anything, but when we are faced with a tragedy of this magnitude I feel that we as a country should be talking about it. It gives us a better understanding of how and why it happened, and what we can do to keep something like it from happening again. We’re already having what feels to me like the first serious discussion on gun control in years, a discussion that I think is long overdue. If there can be any positive outcome to this tragedy, that would be it. I can’t think of any good reason in this day and age why military-grade assault weapons should be made available to civilians, and we need to do more to keep them out of the wrong hands.

I definitely think there’s a lot we can learn from discussions about the Sandy Hook massacre or the many other shootings that seem to be in the news these days. Sadly, for every worthwhile observation that is made, there seem to be ten that end up doing more harm than good. They focus too much on horrific details, unsubstantiated rumors and fear mongering in an attempt to present the “truth.”

A couple of days after the Sandy Hook shooting took place, a certain quote went viral on Facebook and other social networking sites. Here’s an excerpt:

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why. It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody."

Somebody somewhere decided that this was from a statement made by Morgan Freeman. That somebody is wrong. Morgan Freeman didn’t say any of these things, and he isn’t happy that people think he did. The fact that this was going around as a statement made by Mr. Freeman is an example of Internet stupidity at work.

That doesn’t mean that there isn’t some truth to the quote. Whenever a horrific act of violence grabs the nation’s attention, one of the first things that the media likes to do is dig up as much information on the perpetrators as possible. Before long, we know all about what kind of people the killers are, what their methods were, what kinds of weapons they were using and what could’ve driven them to do such horrible things. The victims are mentioned, but they're never given as much attention as the killers who are all but elevated to legendary status by the press. With that in mind, it’s no wonder why certain people are inspired by them instead of horrified.

The Sandy Hook shooting reminds me of when the Columbine massacre happened in more ways than one. In the weeks following that particular tragedy, it seemed like every high school in the country received bomb threats from kids who wanted a "fun" way to disrupt class and stick it to their schools. For the most part, these threats didn't amount to anything; they were tasteless "jokes" meant to capitalize on a tragic event. Not surprisingly, I see the same things happening now. It seems like I can’t turn on the news without hearing about someone threatening to open fire on a school or doing something else to kill lots of people. As with all the threats that went on after Columbine, most of these threats probably aren’t serious, but it's too risky to make that assumption about every one of them. For every ten kids who think they’re being funny by saying how they’re going to shoot up a school on Facebook, there’s at least one who is actually planning a massacre and would carry it out if given the opportunity. These folks might hear about incidents like Sandy Hook and get just a little bit bolder, and the sensationalism that I always see when things like this happen just makes things worse.

I also think sensationalism in the face of tragedy plays up what seems to be another factor in violent crimes: mental illness. It’s been reported that Adam Lanza, the man responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre, had Asperger's syndrome, a form of high-functioning autism. I haven’t done a whole lot of research on Lanza or his mental state, but I haven’t heard a lot about autism driving a person to mass murder. I don’t doubt that an autistic person can kill, but a quick glance at a handful of headlines on the Internet suggest that there are plenty of people who think being on the autism spectrum makes a person a ticking time bomb.

I think this is just the latest example of the notion that mental illness makes a person dangerous. I know the general public is much better informed about mental illness than they used to be, but I still believe that there are people who lump all mentally ill people into the category of “crazy.” “Crazy” people are irrational and dangerous, and at any moment they can snap and commit mass murder for no apparent reason. Since autism is seen by many as a mental illness, those with autism must be “crazy” and therefore dangerous.

Anybody who has known people with mental illness in general and autism in particular should know how wrong the previous statement is. Autism doesn’t turn a person into a violent killer, and neither does chronic depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. There is rarely one single psychological factor that drives a person to want to commit murder, and for anybody in the media to suggest otherwise is irresponsible and immoral.

Like I said before, I think we should talk about tragedies like the Sandy Hook massacre. There’s too much we can learn from these discussions, and turning our backs on what happened would be a huge disservice to the victims and survivors of the shooting. We need to be careful about how we talk about things, though. The sensationalism, fear mongering and misinformation that I see when something like this happens does far more harm than good.

Why Gangsta Culture Isn't Funny

Last Friday, Minnesota Vikings punter and famously outspoken blogger Chris Kluwe (a.k.a ChrisWarcraft on Twitter) wrote a series of tweets about a new massively multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG) concept he came up with. The following is what he had to say in his feed:

Heard lots of rap lyrics reference "The game", so while running I came up with an MMO rules structure for "The game". #lookoutWoW
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012

Name generation in "The game" begins with a normal name, Harold Douglas for example, which is then randomly altered to be contextual.
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012

The name database will create a combination of words from "young", "yung", "little", "lil", "big", "old", and random "z"s thrown in.
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012

Character classes depend on gender selection. Males can choose from "gangsta", "pimp", "hustla", and "playa". Prestige class is "real".
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012

Female classes include "ho", "skank", "bitch", and "meat receptacle". Prestige class for women is "fly honey".
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012

"The game" will have permadeath, because YOLO. Unless, of course, you unlock the extremely rare [Tupac] perk. All dungeons are autotuned.
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012

Any out of game communication on strategies or hints will result in loss of level, because snitches get stitches. Now to find a publisher...
— Chris Kluwe (@ChrisWarcraft) November 23, 2012

I would ask if all of this is racist, but I’ve always been of the opinion that if you have to ask if something is racist, then it almost certainly is. This is unfortunate, because I don’t think Kluwe was intending to be racially insensitive. This is an attempt at satire, and taken from a certain point of view it’s actually kind of funny. Kluwe is making fun of “gangsta” culture, something that I’ve always found stupid, offensive and deserving of all the scorn and ridicule we can throw at it. Unfortunately, many people see “gangsta” culture and African American culture as one and the same. There are just far too many people who will read something like this and just assume he’s making fun of African Americans in general. To make matters worse, many of these people will “agree” with him that all black people are like this and find it hilarious.

In other words, Chris Kluwe wasn’t trying to be racist, but he ended up feeding into the racism inherent in our society.

This whole thing got me thinking about “gangsta” culture and what it really represents. I’ve already said that I think it’s stupid and offensive, but I didn’t talk about why I feel this way. The way I see it, “gangsta” culture, or the version of it that has been glorified by rappers since the 1990s, is just one example of institutionalized racism. It delivers the message that African Americans are violent criminals, and it tells poor young black people everywhere that this is the best kind of life they can hope for.  Meanwhile, predominantly white businessmen make millions of dollars by perpetuating negative stereotypes and giving an entire race a bad name.

Like I said before, I’d love to see someone use satire to tear down “gangsta” culture and reveal the racism behind it, but Chris Kluwe isn’t the one to do it. Kluwe is a smart guy who can be very insightful and funny, but the fact of the matter is that as a white male he’s not in the position to make these kinds of jokes. Too many people will see him as just another racist making fun of black people, which is really sad.

In a perfect world, it wouldn't matter that someone is making these kinds of jokes. People would understand that Kluwe is making fun of a certain subculture that happens to be related to African American culture but isn't representative of African American culture as a whole. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where racism exists, and where people like to believe that the worst stereotypes of an entire culture are true. Since we live in that world, I can't read something like Chris Kluwe's tweets about "the game" and find them funny.

Why I Hate Debating Abortion

The 2012 Presidential Election is almost upon us, and like every election year abortion is a major issue. As always, there seems to be two main camps with regards to abortion: those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life. Those on the pro-choice side believe that having an abortion should be a legal option for women facing unwanted pregnancies, while those who are pro-life believe that abortion is ethically wrong and should be outlawed.

This argument is not new; it has been around since before the landmark Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court ruling in 1973, and I don’t think it will go away anytime soon. If abortion were made 100 percent illegal with no exceptions until the end of time, there will still be people fighting tooth and nail for a woman’s right to choose.

Yes, the debate over abortion rights is a complex one that often leads to some spirited arguments, and I hate it with every fiber of my being.

It’s not that I don’t think abortion is a complex issue or that it isn’t worthy of discussion. It’s a very complex issue with a lot of grey area, and there are few things I enjoy more than a spirited debate over a complicated topic. I should be happy to jump into an abortion debate and come out swinging, but I’m not. Aside from this blog post, I try to avoid the issue like the plague.

The only high-profile politician who has said anything about abortion recently that I can totally get behind is Vice President Joe Biden. At the recent vice presidential candidate debate, he said that he believes abortion is wrong. However, he doesn’t believe that he or anybody else has the right to make decisions regarding abortion for other people, and I agree with him. I don’t believe in abortion, and if I were a woman I would never consider it for myself except in very extreme circumstances, but I won’t force my beliefs on others. If someone were to tell me that she’s having an abortion, I wouldn’t stop her. I’d tell her that I disagree with her decision if she asked me how I felt, but in the end it’s her decision to make. Besides, outlawing abortion will create its own problems. There will always be women seeking to terminate their pregnancies, and if they can't do it legally and safely they'll resort to dangerous methods that could endanger their lives.

Technically, I would be pro-choice; I’m all for letting women make this personal decision on their own without interference from the government. Sadly, I don’t think I can tell people that I’m pro-choice, because all certain people will hear is that I’m perfectly fine with killing babies. I could clear things up and say that I don’t personally believe in abortion, but that would place me in the pro-life camp, which means that I don’t believe women should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies.

That’s the problem I have with the abortion issue: too many people see it in black and white while ignoring the shades of grey. Like I said before, abortion is a complex issue, and expecting someone to take one of two opposing stances makes absolutely no sense to me. If I were to take any hard-line stance on abortion, I would be seen as a horrible person by those taking the opposite stance. Since I don’t completely agree with either side, I just choose to not take a side even though that’s apparently not good enough for a lot of people.

So that’s all I want to say about abortion. I understand that it’s an important issue, but until people can talk rationally about it and see how complex it really is I prefer to keep out of it.

Hello. I'm a Straight Ally.

Yesterday was International Coming Out Day, which is of course a big day for the GLBTQ community. Since I’m not GLBTQ myself, I couldn’t really take the opportunity to come out yesterday. I’m not gay, I’m not transgender and I’m pretty sure I’m not bisexual. What I am is a straight ally, something that I believe I’ve mentioned on this blog before. This means that the only way I could really celebrate International Coming Out Day was to share an image on Facebook of a name tag that says “Hello. I’m a Straight Ally.”

Yeah, I’m sure you’re thinking that I’m one of those people who think that “liking” or sharing a status on Facebook makes me an activist. Believe me when I say that I know better. The people who think clicking “like” on Facebook brings us closer to solving all of the world’s problems are irritating to be sure, and I hope I don’t come across as that kind of person. Still, I’d like to think sharing that image meant something. I am a straight GLBTQ ally, something that I think is still important.

It’s pretty clear that things have gotten a lot better for GLBTQ people, but they’re still far from perfect. For example, Minnesota has a constitutional amendment on the ballot next month that will define marriage as between one man and one woman. Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Minnesota, but a constitutional amendment would make legalization next to impossible. It would limit the civil rights of a large part of the population and effectively invalidate long-term same-sex relationships, relationships that I feel are just as special and important as any “traditional” heterosexual marriage. On top of this pretty blatant attack on civil rights, GLBTQ people are still treated as pariahs and freaks in many parts of this country. They face discrimination, harassment and even threats of violence just because of who they are.

The reason why I feel being a GLBTQ ally is so important is because it would be too easy for someone like me to turn a blind eye to all of this. I’m a white heterosexual male; I’m not personally affected by the plight of the GLBTQ population. I don’t have to worry about not being able to marry the Love of my life. I can go out with her in public and not have to worry about being harassed or attacked. When I hear about the prejudice faced by a queer person, I could just say “Well, that sucks,” and come home to my wife without giving it a second thought. A lot of people do exactly that. In fact, they’re all but expected to do exactly that. Many people still see homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and all things queer as deviant, immoral and sinful, and us straight people are expected to heap scorn and ridicule onto queer people for not being “normal.” Some would say that I’m not supposed to side with queer people lest I be seen as one of them. I know this attitude isn't as prevalent as it was ten or fifteen years ago, but it’s still out there.

As a white heterosexual male, I’m part of the majority. I may not have a lot of influence in anything personally, but when I go out in public I’m still more likely to be acknowledged than a lot of other people. I have a voice, and as much as I hate to admit it, my voice is more likely to be heard above others just because of who I am. A recent report from the Williams Institute found that only about four percent of the country’s population identifies as gay, bisexual or transgender. That’s a fairly small minority, and if these people were left to stand alone they would remain marginalized. They need support just to have the same rights as everybody else. I’m happy to provide what little support I have to offer, and I’m always glad to find other straight allies who feel the same way.

For what it’s worth, I’m proud to be an ally of the GLBTQ community. I’m proud to stand up for the rights of others, even if those “others” aren't always popular. I can only hope that there are enough people out there who agree with me.