Monday, July 20, 2009

Michael Vick

I was just browsing through google news and happened upon an article about why Michael Vick deserves the opportunity to play football again after "serving time" for brutally murdering innocent dogs. This makes me so angry, I'm surprised I got through that first sentence without cursing somewhere along the way. I mean, are you fucking kidding me? I'm just not even sure where to start because there are SO MANY arguments for why Michael Vick should not be allowed back into the NFL and why I will completely boycott it if he is allowed back in. First of all, if it had been humans that he was treating in this manner, he would have been in jail for the rest of his life. Why are the same rights not extended to innocent animals? Why did he only serve a short time in jail and the rest of the time on house arrest? Why? Because some old white guy somewhere along the way decided (probably based on the Bible) that humans are much much more important than other animals (even though humans are one of the few species with knowledge and intent of the harm they are doing) and so killing or harming a human is just not acceptable and will be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but doing so to an innocent animal, who is much more defenseless than most humans, is only slightly bad and you will recieve not much more than a slap on the wrist.

However, since the law has failed in this case, the NFL should step up and show that their organization does not tolerate such abhorrent acts no matter at whom or what they are directed. Plenty of companies flat out refuse to hire convicted felons of crimes much less violent and grotesque than Vick's, so just because Vick is a somewhat decent football player, he automatically deserves a second chance??? What if he were a child molestor or a rapist? Would he get a chance then? I don't think so. If this was just some guy that worked at your office, would you want him hired back? So why on earth would he get a second chance now? If the NFL decides to hire him back, I certainly hope it's a decision that causes the whole damn business to crash and burn...hard.

The NFL is a sports organization and it's true that the players' purposes are not to serve as role models, but to be good at football. However, in such a popular sport where the players make millions and are considered celebrities, they are going to inevitibly be seen as role models. Does the NFL want an animal murderer representing its name? I certainly wouldn't and I certainly hope they don't.

Clearly, in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of most people, all mistakes are not created equal. Yes, Michael Vick made a mistake in his life, but not a small mistake, he didn't just punch a hooker after she bit his lip, he MURDERED animals on VIDEO, people. It's unforgivable to murder people as it should be when you murder animals. We do not have any more right to life than they do.

I think he should have to register as a convicted dog killer wherever he lives so that his neighbors will know to keep their dogs away from him.

I guess what it comes down to is whether or not you believe that humans are somehow superior to other animals and deserve more justice than the animals do. Personally, I think that the justification that we are superior just because we were lucky enough to have evolved higher reasoning (which lots of people never ever in said situation) is almost as cretinous as Vick's act that these people are defending. There are plenty of players who are just as good as Vick and better who live much more reputable lives. Use these players and let Vick suffer the full consequences of his actions.

Monday, June 15, 2009

Oh, how I love to hate on Sarah Palin

As I've been relatively busy as of late, some things have tempted me, but nothing has prompted me to return to the blogosphere. Now, however, since Sarah Palin's back in the media ranting nonsensically, I've decided it's time for me to write something again. First and foremost, I must admit that I love to hate Sarah Palin. So while I'm ranting about her, I guess I can't complain too much that this moron is back in the news because it gives me so much joy to trash her. I guess I like easy targets. What can I say? ;)

Ahem, now then. Well, we all know that Sarah Palin is an idiot. If you'd like to know precisely why, you should check out earlier posts of mine. This time her idiocy isn't regarding science...although, I think I might be able to make a case for that. No, this time, she's all fired up about some remarks David Letterman made regarding her daughter Bristol. Apparently, Palin is not familiar with the format of the jokes presented on the late-night talk shows because she first mistakenly assumed that when Letterman implied A-Rod impregnated her daughter that Letterman was referring to her daughter Willow who was at the game. Letterman later said he was referring to Bristol which makes more sense given that um...well...there's living proof that Bristol's had sex...and could probably be coaxed into more of it with an oh-so-famous baseball player. The fact that Bristol wasn't present doesn't really matter as jokes on these late-night shows sometimes don't quite fit the situation. Palin's second erroneous assumption is that Letterman was implying rape and/or statutory rape which is clearly not what he said...and um, once again, Bristol certainly isn't a virgin (and we've already cleared up that the comment was about Bristol, not Willow), so what evidence is there that Letterman was implying rape?

Now, as much as I hate Sarah Palin's gun-toting, conservative, environment-hating, science-ignoring attitude, I'll put on my feminist hat for just a second. I do think that she has a point about the comments. They were a bit over the top. Saying that someone is knocked up could imply that the woman has little control over the matter (although, I think you could make the case that it doesn't imply anything other than that conception took place as a result of intercourse). However, I am confused by Palin's hypocrisy. How can she decry Letterman's comments as degrading to women, yet be anti-abortion? She would have a woman's ultimate right stripped away from her, yet complain about comments that may or may not have been degrading towards women depending on how you look at it. To me, this is what gives her away. To me, it seems that she's missing her 15 minutes of fame and doing everything she can (including dragging her family into all this crap) and stirring people up to try to get Letterman fired to get back into the limelight. I would just say that she needs to toughen up her skin and learn to take a freaking joke, but like I said, I think she's just using this to put herself back into the mainstream media that she loves to complain about even though she secretly actually loves them. Anyway, as I said before, I'm not exactly complaining that she wants her 15 minutes back because that means I here ranting to you all about her and oh, how I love to hate on Sarah Palin. ;)

Now, if you want to know how I turn this into an argument about'll have to comment or something because I don't think I want to be quite that mean and deface the "clean" image of my blog. ;)

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

I'm just not that into it, in fact, I'm actually quite repulsed by it

So, I just went to see He's Just Not That Into You last night and was horrified. First of all, I read the book and this post will contain spoilers for the book and the movie, so if you don't want to know, stop here. I don't often put on my feminist hat, but I'm putting it on for this post. The movie portrays women as obsessive, can't-define-their-lives-without-a-man psychos. I wish I had taken notes, honestly, to help me better berate this atrocious excuse for a chick flick. Not only did the movie make women look desperate (some guys, too...I guess they actually thought they were adding an element of "balance" which is laughable), but it even encourages their desperation with the positive outcomes of their psycho behavior.

Ginnifer Goodwin plays Gigi who is about as clingy, psycho, and desperate as it gets. Aside from the fact that I don't think she's attractive in the least, she hangs on to every single guy she goes out with by staring at the phone, obsessively checking her voicemail, pseudo-stalking said guys, and talking about nothing other than these douchebags. Apparently, her only goal in life is to find her "soul mate" (because her job at the Spice company must be completely fulfilling...). How obnoxious. And after displaying the appallingly obsessive behavior, she goes on a tirade against the guy who's been giving her relationship advice. Her basic message in the tirade was that she was better than him because at least she was trying to find a relationship when all he was doing was banging random chicks. As the story progressed, the movie would have you believe that she was justified in her tirade. So the message is apparently thus: it's better to be psycho about looking for a relationship than to be realistic and have fun while you're still young. Then to top off all of her female-degrading shenanigans, her loathsome behavior is rewarded in the end when the guy (Justin Long) who's been giving her guy advice decides that he's in love with her. WTF is that supposed to say? Ok, so let me break it down: you act really psycho and obsessive over guys and that will eventually land you a great guy and you're a better person for that than you are for banging random people and being guarded. Riiiiight.

Ok, moving on. Then there's the scenario where Jennifer Anniston and Ben Affleck have been in a relationship for 7 years and still aren't married and one day after a discussion with the aforementioned pscyho (Ginnifer Goodwin), Jenn decides to demand to know whether Ben, who has never believed in marriage, ever intends on marrying her and breaks up with him when he doesn't answer (because clearly, taking relationship advice from the other chick who can't even land a second date is a good idea). But of course, when her dad has a heart attack, Ben comes to save the day and Jenn decides that she'll take him back sans the marriage. So, cheesily as it goes, Ben decides to propose to her despite the fact that he doesn't believe in marriage. Ok, so the second lesson that we are supposed to learn from this movie is that it's ok to guilt someone into marrying you. Riiiight.

Ok, next. Then we have the ridiculous story involving Scarlet Johansson who meets Bradley Cooper at a grocery store. Unfortunately, Bradley is married to Jennifer Connolly (who's been trying to give psycho girl dating advice). So eventually, after a seeing some painful scenes where Scarlet emotionally abuses some poor guy who's in love with her, Bradley caves to Scarlet's advances. He eventually tells Jennifer who blames herself (!!!) and then decides that she wants to save the marriage. So the last straw for Scarlet is when she's forced into the closet when Bradley's wife stops by his office in the middle of one of his trysts because, you know, him being married and doing her at the same time wasn't disgusting, but apparently sitting in a closet while the guy bangs his wife is just too much. The Jennifer Connolly decides that the last straw is when she finds out Bradley has been smoking behind her back, because, you know, having an affair is ok, but lying about smoking is off limits, buddy! I'm not even sure what convoluted, fucked-up message that scenario is supposed to send...Oh and I almost forgot, after Scarlet gives up on Bradley, she decides to date the guy who's been in love with her despite the fact that she doesn't reciprocate the feelings. So one moral of the story could be that, it's ok to bang a married guy, then decide it sucks and take it out on some poor schmuck that's head over heels for you. Hmm, I've learned a lot so far, haven't you? Then after Scarlet finally admits to herself and the poor scmuck that she's not in love with him, he falls in love with Drew Barrymore and the "happy ending" that we are left with is Ginnifer Goodwin and Justin Long happily ever after; Ben Affleck and Jennifer Anniston happily ever after; Drew Barrymore and poor schmuck happily ever after; Jennifer Connolly picking up the pieces of her broken life while a narrator implies that she's alone only to set herself up for something better (because being alone period is just not an option); then Scarlet Johansson being a lounge singer and having the narrator say some other bullshit about pursuing your dreams and finding something better (because once again, being alone is just NOT's NOT, do you hear me? huh?).

Now, my other beef with the movie is that it basically goes against everything the book was saying. The book is written as a collection of scenarios in which various girls make excuses for a guy's behavior that really, actually indicates that he's not into her and that she should just move on with her life instead of hoping that she'll be the exception to the rule. The movie is nothing but an entire collection of exceptions to rules and encourages the types of behavior that are expressly warned against in the book. I believe that would be the loosest interpretation of a book I have read yet! I mean, I thought the Harry Potter movies took some serious liberties! Geez.

Now don't forget: repeat it with me "Being alone is NOT ok".

Anyway, hope you enjoyed my scathing review.

Monday, January 26, 2009

I Very Strongly Dislike Winter

I haven't blogged in quite some time and even now, I don't really feel like I have much to blog about. Between all of the other RD.netters, they generally cover all the topics quite thoroughly, so I haven't bothered lately.

So, since I don't have any current events that I want to complain about, I'll just go on a tirade about more personal things. First and foremost, I hate winter. I hate going to work when it's dark and getting out when it's almost dark. I hate the cold and I hate it when it rains and is cold at the same time and I think this winter has been nothing but rain. I've also been having an endless stint of allergies since I've moved into a place with all carpet (well, I'm guessing that's the cause, anyway). As a result of the depression of winter and all these allergies, I've been feeling incredibly fatigued which is getting in the way of doing things I need to do and want to do.

Anyway, now that I've whined, I won't torture you any longer. My solution to all of that is to move to the equator.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008


I'm so relieved that our country is not so incredibly backward after all!!!! Unfortunately for all of my European friends, I won't be moving over there just yet. :)

Way to go Obama!!!

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

On Socialism

I really intended to write a post about this before now, but better late than never, I suppose. In the late stages of the McCain-Palin campaign, they have started flinging around the word "socialism" and "socialist" along with the phrase "redistribution of wealth" with regards to Obama-Biden. From the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, the definition of Socialism is as follows:
  1. An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
I realize that the connotations of the word are negative because of those governments who have abused their socialist policies, but because these governments abused their power, I don't think they meet the true definition of socialism. So, what I want to know, given the above definition, is why is it so horrible to call Obama a socialist? Even if it were, true, which it's not, the clear motive behind socialism is not control, but concern for the common good of man. Why is it so horrible for us to care about one another? In America, selfishness has become the number one virtue. As I see it, that's the main appeal of being a Republican for those who claim that they are Republicans because of their economic policies as opposed to the social policies. The Republicans' appeal to the selfishness of the public is their only last stronghold. And it has worked at least somewhat. It has worked for many of those who are rich because they are too greedy to give any of their money to the government for the greater good. They think, "I made this money, I want to keep it all". Unfortunately, this appeal works for the working and middle classes as well because of the American Dream. All of us are going to get rich someday and when we do, we want to keep all of our money, too. Screw all of those people who are struggling to make their own American Dream. Granted, I understand that our welfare system has been vastly abused. I've seen it in action working as a Pharmacy Technician in college. I've seen people come through the drive through pharmacy window (which, by the way, was installed for those people who may have trouble walking, not those that are just too lazy to get out of the car and walk inside) in their Cadillac Escalades and Lincoln Navigators and hand me a Medicaid card and not have to pay a damn thing for their prescriptions, or if they were on more than 3 medicines, they had to pay $3 per prescription. I've seen it. It annoys me, too. But that doesn't mean that there aren't people who are in real need of help. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't try our hardest to reform our education system to try to give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed. If all those Republicans could just stop being selfish for a moment and think about what we could all do for one another if we work hard at reforming the government and our education systems, I think the world would be a better place.

And now that I've graduated college and work for the government, I've gotten a new perspective on the selfishness. So many people dislike government employees and complain about high taxes and the money that is used to pay these employees. This is especially common in the Republican party. Yet when something goes wrong, they complain that the government agencies didn't do enough in response or just that they aren't doing a good enough job in general. But what they fail to realize is that the government employees are paid much much less than their privatized counterparts and therefore the government can't compete for the best and brightest employees. Employee retention is worse and half the time, the agencies are understaffed and overworked. But no, we can't pay higher taxes and give the agencies that we depend on on a daily basis any more money because we're selfish and we made that money and we want to keep it all. By the way, government employees pay all the same taxes as everyone else.

As for the phrase "redistribution of wealth", do McCain and Palin really not see that wealth has been being redistributed upward for quite some time now? The oil industry has been making record profits for several years now. Increasing their profits from year to year several hundred percent. This is just one example. But I'm sure that they see it because both of their backgrounds mean that they are benefactors of it. So what they really mean is, "Obama could redistribute the wealth back downward, and we just don't want that, and neither do you" using that same appeal to selfishness, the new American virtue. When are they going to realize that the selfishness is what got us into this financial mess in the first place?

So in conclusion, I'm a "bleeding heart liberal" and I care about other people, even the ones who have abused the system because without everyone working together and without a positive outlook and attitude, we'll never get anywhere. It's time to make caring a virtue instead of selfishness.

Monday, November 3, 2008

Cross your fingers for the U.S.

Well, the election is tomorrow. I am very, very nervous! I guess all we can do is sit and watch! If McCain wins, I will be taking Wednesday off from work to mourn the loss of an important election and to decide which part of Europe I'm moving to. Not that I'm superstitious in any way, but *crosses fingers, legs, eyes, and any other crossable body part I can think of*