Change! You got Change!? Aw come on, help a guy out!

I forgot to mention.

There was something I wanted to address in my last post that I forgot. I don’t want to re-edit the post, I’m kind of a stickler for keeping things the way they were.

 ...uuuuuugh...

Along the lines of “We were founded when women were thought of as inferior”, we need to realize that the concept of women being equal is fairly new. Women didn’t start to leave the household until the 1940s-50s. And it wasn’t until the 1960s and 70s that the idea that women were genuinely equal was accepted in mainstream America. We have only had about forty years of this idea of accepting women in jobs and roles that were once reserved to men. Change takes time. We still have a lot of people who remember the days before the 1960s. But with each new generation, we move past the injustices of yesteryear and grow a little. The pay gap is shrinking and more women are moving up the ladder. I just don’t think it’s fair to compare the wages of a woman manager of five years to a male manager of 20 years.

We cannot have sudden radical change overnight.

Put yourself in this picture: You, your father and his father were slave owners. Society has been dictated by 200 years of tradition. It has been clear for generations that you as a white land-owner are superior to your black slave. The hierarchy is clearly defined. Then one day you wake up and suddenly find out slavery is now morally wrong and has been abolished. All of your slaves have been freed. And now, you are told that your former slave is now equal under the law and could potentially be your boss or elected leader.

I’ll let you pick up your jaw from the ground.

This is what happened during Reconstruction after the Civil War (although the change wasn’t “overnight” and there was obviously a lot of anti-slavery sentiment in the years leading to the war). Add to the fact that your nation just lost a war, your money is worthless, your property was destroyed, and it may be given to your former slaves. The reaction of the white southerners to Radical Republican rule is hardly surprising. Even though it was in the 1870s when the first African-Americans were elected to Congress (in states backed by the US army and set up to be loyal to Radical Republicans in Congress), it was about another hundred years before another African-American entered the halls of Congress not as a cleaning man. The reaction to Reconstruction gave us Jim Crow laws, Plessy v. Ferguson, and 80 years of segregation. We are still trying to overcome these injustices.

We could not have a sudden overnight transformation of the American woman led by Congress. As the Feminist Movement in America entered the 1970s, it started to get more radical (“only lesbians can be feminist” beliefs) and we got people like Phyllis Schlafly. The “Big Government can solve all problems” welfare state of Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s gave us the “Government is not the solution, Government is the Problem” Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Roe v. Wade gave us the immediate pro-life movement, creating more opponents to abortion as it was slowly becoming acceptable state by state.

Look at Egypt. Do they have a fully functioning democracy with institutions and fully formed political parties yet?

Change takes time. It can be reversed but with vigilance, we will continue to move forward.

Remember, Breaking the glass Ceiling means the glass is going to fall on you...

Well, it’s Women's History month. Since February, I’ve been in white male reactionary mode. Can you blame me? I’ve been raised in a typical Silent Majority household in which the last 40 years of trying to reverse the hundreds of years of injustices committed against minorities and women makes me, the white male, the new victim of persecution.

Woe is me! I now only make 11¢ more per dollar than my female colleague instead of the 19¢ a few years ago! The slight inconvenience of not getting a scholarship is the same as hundreds of years of forced bondage and a hundred years of second-class citizenship!

With sarcasm out of the way, I do have a problem with some feminist complaints:

“There are not enough women in politics! These country’s have more women in their Parliament/Congress/Representative body than the US!”.

What I really hate is the numbers game. First, I would like to point out that some of these countries have small Parliaments. Second, how does having women in power make a country better? Ok, Rwanda is #1 (It only has 80 seats in their Parliament). Although the country has improved since that whole ethnic cleansing thing in the 90s, I still wouldn’t go there. Let us look at other countries on that list that beat the US:

#4 Cuba

#11 Angola (tied with Costa Rica)

#15 Tanzania

#23 Belarus

#24 Uganda

#35 Mexico

#37 Viet Nam (37???)

#38 Sudan

#55 China (tied with Italy)

#58 Nicaragua

#62 El Salvador

#69 Kazakhstan (Dude!)

#71 Venezuela

How many of these countries either have one or a combination of these problems: massive electoral fraud, corruption, dictatorship, censorship, ethnic cleansing, drug wars that have left thousands dead? Yes, Germany, France, the UK, and Canada did beat us out too. The point is, the number of women in your parliament does not make you a better country. The USA did beat out Russia, Brazil, BOTH Korea’s, Japan, Ireland, India, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

“It took until 1920 for women to vote!”

It is true that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and even Germany beat us to the punch. But we did give women the right to vote before Britain (1928), France (1944), Mexico and Japan (1947), China (1949, do they even have a right to vote or free elections?), Switzerland (1971), South Africa (1994), and the United Arab Emirates (2006!).

“The US has never had a female head of state/government!”

There might be a reason why a woman has not been elected President. The US was founded at a time when women were not considered equal to men. They were too emotional to be allowed to vote and their duty was to stay home and raise and educate the kids. So, this notion persisted for quite some time. If you look at most of the countries that have female Heads of State/Government, most of them are new countries (India, Indonesia, Israel, former Soviet states). At the time of their Independence, the idea that all people (men and women) were equal was more common. Coming off of colonial rule, they embraced this idea. Of course these nations and their people/customs have existed farther back then their date of independence. India still faces problems with women’s rights. I’m not sure if I understand this argument as well, but it’s a thought that popped into my head as I tried to drown out my coworkers.

We did elect a woman as Speaker of the House in 2007, Nancy Pelosi. And I think (I have not done a lot of research) we were the first to elect a woman to our legislative branch, Jeannette Rankin 1917-1919 and 1941-1943 (Beating out the UK and Australia!). 229 women have served in Congress since 1917 (hey, it’s better than zero…).

France has never had a female President. Russia/USSR hasn't (if you don't count Czars). Many other nations have never had a female head of state/government. Germany and the UK has had one Chancellor and Prime Minister respectively.

A friend told me after the Democratic Primaries finished in 2008 that it proved the US was more sexist than racist.

Hold on.

Timeout.

This is a horribly over simplified analysis of the Democratic Primaries.

One, An African-American and a Caucasian Woman beat out a handful of white men. That sounds like some progress to me.

Two, the last two candidates were a black man and a white woman. If Clinton had won, my friend would have told me it proved we were more racist than sexist. I’m sorry but we can only choose one person to run, SOMEONE would have to lose. Clinton happened to be the loser (and now she is Secretary of State, not a bad job. In fact, three of the last four Secretaries of State were women).

Three, Clinton had baggage. Saying her very name is enough to anger some people. She had high name recognition in 2007, but was very unpopular. She was infamous. Eight years under her husband (or should I say Monica was under her husband? Ha Ha Ha. Sorry…) and her failed Healthcare proposal in 1994 gained the ire of conservatives and Republicans. She was the butt of jokes, like mine up there. Obama was an unknown with charisma and had no real baggage.

“We need a law mandating an X amount of seats in Congress should be held by women!”

I hate “equality of results”. We should not force women into Congress just to fill a quota and make us feel less guilty about the past. Like I said before, the numbers game means nothing. I don’t know what stops a woman from running for office. If there are high barriers to women being able to run, then they should be torn down to allow for the “equality of opportunity”. I hate this phrase but “the best person for the job”. I hate it because it makes it sound like women (and minorities) are not the best qualified for a job and that it will always go to the white male. That is not true. It made me sick when a woman said that women in the military should not serve in combat duties because, on average, women are weaker and smaller than men. What about the number of women who CAN perform the duties associated with combat, no matter how statistically small the numbers? Why should some women be denied the right for advancement because others cannot? Yes, do not force unqualified women into combat roles, just as you shouldn’t force unqualified men (like me!) into combat roles. But give them the opportunity if they are capable!

I think women should be more involved in politics. A lot of women suffered to obtain the right to vote. More suffered to demand equality and enjoy rights like divorce and property ownership. There are a lot of intelligent and ambitious women in this country that I think would make a good elected leader.

I have no objections to voting for a woman. My first election, I chose Hillary Clinton for the Senate in 2006, because I thought she was the best candidate. All you Liberal Women out there; would you vote for Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, or Christine O’Donnell just to have them be the first female president? No, you wouldn’t. You would not like these candidates because you care about more than gender. Issues and experience matter.

I h8 Huckabees

Well, I’m finding a new Republican that has gone off the deep-end; Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee was governor of Arkansas, a Baptist preacher, and lost a lot of weight (making him one of the few Republicans to support Michelle Obama’s healthy eating initiative’s). He came out of nowhere in 2008 to win the Iowa Caucuses and stayed in the race longer than Mitt Romney. He was the focus of the Colbert-Conan-Stewart feud during the writer’s strike of ‘07-’08.

I really liked Huckabee. I wouldn’t vote for him as I thought he was too religious. But he had a good sense of humor (my exposure of him came from the Daily Show), he seemed kind and compassionate, and I respected the personal initiative he took to lose weight. His stance on “pro-life” expanded the typical conservative definition and included the fight for a child’s life after birth; a clean environment, good schools, and access to healthcare.

But recently, this man has gone crazy. A few days ago, he attacked Obama for his upbringing, and wants to know where he comes from (politically speaking). He incorrectly claimed Obama grew up in Kenya. His comments seem to be echoing Dinesh D’Souza’s argument that Kenyan politics shaped Obama’s radical anti-colonial/American beliefs.

I’ll get back to Huckabee in a second.

For you D’Souza,

One, Obama’s father left him when he was two and he met him briefly again when he was 10. How did such a his father who was vacant in his life influence him so much? Because Obama’s book is called Dreams from my Father. Clearly that means Obama took his beliefs from his dad. Also, according to The American Thinker, five years is not enough time for Obama to write a book which means he didn't write it. But that's another story...

And Two, a lot of people are anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, anti-interference. A lot of people on the left and right (those darn Libertarians) do not like America’s involvement in world affairs. The first thing you see when you enter Maryland south on Route 15 are two “Get US out of U.N.!” Why two? They probably forgot they had one up. In fact, Republicans were highly critical of Clinton’s foreign policy in the 1990s. They didn’t think it was necessary for the US to be involved in affairs that didn’t impact us.

Dinesh D’Souza, take your conspiracy theories elsewhere and shut up.

Back to Huckabee.

In another story, CNN reports “Mike Huckabee says that President Barack Obama has a ‘different world view’ that was ‘molded out of a very different experience’ because ‘most of us grew up going to boy scout meetings, and, you know, our communities were filled with rotary clubs, not Madrassas.’”

If you don’t have a traditional American upbringing, you’re a radical anti-American! Huckabee stated he misspoke about Kenya and meant Indonesia, where Obama did spend a few years there. (Of course, how would that explain the mention of the Mau Mau rebellion that happened in Kenya, that he claimed influenced Obama’s father...)

Three things I would like to bring up about Madrassas:

1. Obama never did attend a Madrassa. He attended an international school.

2. Madrassas can be secular or religious. They do not all have to teach strict Islamic beliefs. It can refer to any educational building.

3. Even if they were all religious schools, how the hell is a Madrassa different from a Catholic school in the US?

After attacking Obama, Huckabee moved on to Natalie Portman.

One of the things that's troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, 'Hey look, you know, we're having children, we're not married, but we're having these children,' and they're doing just fine,'…

Not everybody hires nannies, and caretakers, and nurses…Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that's the story that we're not seeing, and it's unfortunate that we glorify and glamorize the idea of out of children wedlock.

Why does this remind me of Dan Quayle?

Portman is pregnant, but she is engaged to be married. But it doesn’t help that she and Hollywood are encouraging this reckless behavior!

Of course, teenage pregnancy has declined since 1988 (I know I provided you with a link claiming it is rising again. The point is it has been falling for over 15 years).

And more people than ever between 15 and 24 have remained virgins according to a recent study just released. (Also, women without a high school degree are more likely to have a same-sex encounter than women with college degrees! Take that, those who think college encourages homosexuality!)

Looks like Huckabee is just trying to scare up his supporters. Who needs facts and legitimate arguments when fear is what it takes to get the voters to the polls?

I'm not saying Huckabee is Hitler, but...

The other 'L' word. I think I know why it is called 'Lost', because I am.

Was 'Lost' just an experiment to see how much random crap they could throw at an audience and pass it off as genius and creative?

I asked this question on Facebook the other day and I thought it required a little more explanation.

Yes, like ‘Glee’, I have not seen ‘Lost’. I have seen a few clips of the show. I would have watched an episode once but another show was on for some reason, and my sister’s friend liked it, and it was about a father-daughter team of assassins/secret agents or something, and they were going after the mother who worked for the other side, and then the daughter starts to give birth and the family works together to get her to safety and the mom being an evil bitch then betrays them and runs off. The father of the newborn baby is still alive. Oh, SPOILER ALERT! I don’t remember the show; it was four years ago dammit!

Anyway, I really haven’t seen any of ‘Lost’. All the knowledge I had about this show came from my sister from the beginning and now from Cracked.com.

My question is this; why was the show a hit? Reading from Cracked, it just seemed like it was one random plot twist or added mystery after another. This might not seem too bad if the writers had a plan for it and explained everything in the end. But, IT WAS MADE UP AS THEY WENT. There was no rhyme or reason to anything they did. “Let’s add a polar bear and give the kid mind powers!” This kind of show should have made everyone mad as they kept insulting the audience’s intelligence. I don’t want a show to make me feel stupid, but it shouldn’t because they weren’t trying to convey anything!

What if ‘Lost’ was like this?

 (Like this, but taking itself seriously and not trying to be funny)

This is how random I think ‘Lost’ is.

I don’t get how anybody could think this was genius or creative or existential or whatever. It was just “A plane crashed and a lot of weird shit happened, 50% of which we’ll explain!”

Because of its complexity, I feel you can’t just sit down in the middle of the series and start watching. You need to see every single episode in order to be able to understand what is happening. With nearly every other show, you can see a random episode and get hooked. You can watch episodes in any order without needing to see other episodes. Although it does bug me when shows are too episodic and there is no feeling of continuity or arc, just random problems happening that get solved in half an hour and all history provided in the last 300 episodes no longer matters.

 I’m looking at you, Simpsons.

I think Arrested Development and The Venture Brothers had a good balance between long story arcs and contained episodes.

I swear, I plan on reviewing a show I have watched and do like.