Did Disney Screw Up Your Daughter?

Recent polls have shown that feminism among young women under 30 is at an all time low. Today, only 15 percent of women under 35 consider themselves feminists. I can't possibly give you all the reasons for this, but I can give you one reason I think could be partially responsible.You see, in the 1950's we were in a sort of anti-feminist wave, coming off the hills of the Rosie the Riveter era, and Disney was one of the most visible culprits of this trend. Heroins such as Cinderella and Aurora are a feminist's nightmare. Fast forward thirty years to the arrival of the videotape, and the Disney films of yore were once again distributed en mass to hoards of little girls ready and waiting to be molded. In an era supposedly post-feminist, they were once again indoctrinated with fifties propaganda. And, the Disney company,seeing the success of the re-releases, copied the formula with frightening success. The problem with the wait for Prince Charming message is, it's simply unrealistic. Maybe this is the reason behind a generation of young women who are confused and saddened over why Prince Charming didn't come. I'm not blaming Disney as a whole, but we'd be idiots to assume that our world view is not shaped by our media. Maybe next time, parents and society should do a better job of explaining to our children the difference between fantasy and reality.

Are there limits to rights?

Recently, Iowa has passed a very interesting law allowing legally blind people to own guns. Yes folks, you heard me right, legally blind people can own deadly weapons. What could possibly go wrong? Let me say that I am not hating on the blind. I myself am pretty severely disabled. But even I know there are things that I simply can't do. For instance, I would understand if somebody didn't want me to be a brain surgeon because of my spastic hands.

 The Americans with Disabilities Act mandates reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. Key word here: reasonable. It doesn't say that you get to do absolutely everything that typically abled people get to do. I was particularly offended by the Iowa sheriff who was supporting the law. He said people who oppose this law clearly do not understand blind people and their capabilities. Well, I would disagree since singer and well-known blind guy Stevie Wonder says (and I'm paraphrasing), "Imagine if I had a gun," talking about this very law on Piers Morgan's show, "I think it would be hell on Earth." And yes, I know that blind people aren't all Mr. Magoo driving a car. But I simply don't think we should take the risk?

Am I wrong here? Tell me what you think.

Unholy Alliances

Recently, on the Pat Robertson Show, on the Christian Broadcasting Network, Pat received a question from one of his viewers. The question went like this: "Dear Pat, my sister wants me to be the bridesmaid at her wedding. There is only one problem: My sister's gay, and although I love my sister and her partner dearly, I don't feel it would be right because of my devout Christian background." To which Pat replied, "My advice is to lovingly decline, because to accept would be to deny God. By going to her wedding, you would basically be saying that God's word is wrong." Well, I have a question: Doesn't God speak pretty highly of the cohesion of the family? Isn't Pat worried that by rejecting her sister's wedding, it could bring a lot of tension and strife to the family dynamic, thus weakening that cohesion of their family bond?

But then again, I'm sure Pat Robertson isn't going to give up his Rolls Royce anytime soon. Since when do televangelists actually adhere to the doctrines they're preaching? My advice to anyone: if you are Christian, do not give any money to Pat Robertson or the Christian Broadcasting Network. In my mind, you would only be funding hate and division, which is certainly not something I think Jesus would have preached.

Justice for None

The Trayvon Martin case is probably the most divisive and talked about case concerning race and justice since the Rodney King beating. Some people have said it was a case of self defense. I would say it was a case of racially motivated, cold blooded murder. But, the truth is even though I personally believe Trayvon Martin was murdered in cold blood, we will never know what truly happened. A more important point, however, is this illustrates the different views of the world that blacks and whites still have. Perhaps this is because many white people have never had to experience the level of racial profiling, police brutality, and downright racism that many African-Americans and other people of color have had to experience. Also, why did the media focus on this case so heavily when so many young black teenagers are murdered every day in this country. Truthfully, many people judge this case without knowing what really happened. They say "This was clearly self defense. Did you see Trayvon's arrest record?" Perhaps this proves that much of white America is still very racist. But here's what I think. The best way to stop another Trayvon Martin case is to understand the cultures and experiences of both sides and not just accuse each other of whining or having a chip on our shoulder. Next time somebody says they were profiled don't accuse them of being paranoid because it might be true.

"Independence Day"

We Americans like to think of ourselves as a very independent people, but nothing could be further from the truth. All of our products, and basically everything we do in our modern life, comes from somewhere else. We pay money to buy someone else's product that we didn't make. We depend on the electric company for our light, and we depend on places like Wal-Mart and other superstores for our food and we depend on technology companies like Apple and Microsoft for our entertainment. The point is, there aren't that many Americans anymore who can honestly say, "Yes, I get up at three in the morning to milk the cows, and then grow my tomato plants."

We don't grow our own food, we don't make our own clothes, and we import a lot of electronics and other manufactured goods. So if we are fundamentally dependent on third parties to sustain our modern lives, are we really that independent in any meaningful sense? You tell me.

Pro Life or Pro Lies?

In recent years the pro life antiabortion community has taken to having people claiming to be abortion survivors like Gianna Jessen. She claimed her mother tried to abort her using a saline abortion in 1977. This left her with cerebral palsy. But it seems rather strange considering that most saline abortion survivors are left burned, blind and totally deaf. Gianna is neither blind, deaf or burned, an amazing feat. I'm not saying this to be hurtful or mean. I just think it's scientifically almost impossible for a child going through that type of abortion to survive with barely a scratch. And also consider her odd resemblance to Idina Menzel. Coupled with the odd and almost impossible outcome, it just seems odd to me that it would be true.

Hey! What the hell are we reading to our kids anyway?

Many of us grew up hearing the classic tales of the brother's Grimm, but many of us never think of the hidden messages within. What am I talking about? Take for example Hansel and Gretel. In many versions, including 20th and 21st century versions, the witch is often depicted as hook-nosed, a common stereotype of Jewish people of 19th century Europe. She also wants to cook children, similar to the myth of blood libel. This claimed that Jews would steal Christian children and use their flesh and blood to make meals for their rituals. Also consider the overt contrast between the witch and Hansel and Gretel. The children are portrayed as sweet Christian children led by a dove, a common Christian symbol. Also consider the end of the story when they come upon the witch's piles of gold and wealth, another common anti-Semitic stereotype of the wealthy money hoarding Jew. And, finally, they are once again led home by the dove. All in all, although it is not overt, if     you know the history of anti-semitism in Europe those symbols are clear as day. Next time you think the books on your child's shelf are just harmless stories, think twice.

Hey Lady! Who's Brain is this Anyway?

If there's one thing I hate it's something I like to call backseat thinking, analyzing someones actions and guessing what their motives are. Such is the case with a young woman named Abby Martin on the RT political network, who spoke on the topic of Bill Maher's opinion of the NSA surveillance program. He said, "I really don't see why everybody's so outraged. I support surveillance. I'll admit, it's not because I'm brave. It's because I'm scared." To which Martin responded, "Oh Bill, still kissing the ass of your establishment masters?" As you can tell by this statement you can see where Martin stands concerning surveillance. Even though I agree with Martin more than Maher on surveillance, I really hate this idea that if you disagree with someone and you're in the public eye, your only doing it because your corporate puppet masters tell you.
The same goes for Rahm Emanuel and Cenk Uyger. Recently, on his Young Turks program, Uyger criticized Emanuel for his decision to close several schools with mainly African American students, with the explanation that they were low performing schools. Quoting Uyger, "This decision proves that Rahm Emanuel is not a progressive democrat. He's just a dirty Chicago politician who loves picking on the powerless while keeping his rich friends happy.
My issue with both of these statements is that neither of these self proclaimed mindreaders seem to see beyond the disagreeing statements so they dislike the person.

Will the Real Paul McCartney Please Stand Up

Many of us have seen the film Invasion of the Body Snatchers but have you ever thought of this possibility in real life. No, not aliens; I'm talking about people disguising themselves as politicians and celebrities to either keep these people safe or take the fall. Saddam Hussein, for instance, was famous for having a body double when he would go out into crowds. But you may be wondering why I called this post Will the Real Paul McCartney Please Stand Up. Well, according to some conspiracy theorists, Paul McCartney was murdered in a car accident in 1967 and was replaced by a look alike body double so that the CIA could monitor John Lennon for his views on Vietnam. But there's a big whole in the doppelganger theory. Say you were a politician, perhaps a rather unpopular politician. You would probably have many death threats on your life. If you were to hire a body double to go out into a crowd, do you really think he would risk his own life for yours? Probably not. Personally, I think this is just another insane trip down the rabbit hole but it's interesting to think about.

Be Realistic, Except for the Naughty Parts

Recently, a mother in Pennsylvania tried to get Anne Frank's unedited diary banned over explicit passages about her emerging sexuality. But let's be real here. The passage wasn't exactly Fifty Shades of Grey but more like an awkward girl in health class talking. Basically the quote was "the thing is so small, I don't know how a baby comes out or a man goes in." Personally, I find it more disturbing that there's an edited version of the book. We should not sanitize what Anne Frank went through because some prudish parents feel uncomfortable about their children learning about the natural world and their bodies. Let me be clear, I'm for parents giving permission before letting a kid read questionable sexual passages but there shouldn't be an edited version of history.

Don't Get Out Your Rainbow Flag Just Yet

Recently, Jason Collins made history as becoming the first active NBA player and the first of a major America team sport to publically affirm his sexuality. Although I support Collins and I think it's good that he is breaking the stereotype of the weak gay man, I have to admit I'm a little pessimistic about Collins' future in the NBA, not because of his teammates or coaches, but from the evangelical family groups who might star boycotts. The point is, there are still a lot of people who are opposed to change on this issue and they will perceive him as a bad influence and a stain on the sport. And the people who run the NBA might see a money loss from the boycotts and they might throw Collins under the bus. Hopefully this won't happen but don't be surprised if it does. But let's hope that the American people even those Evangelical Christians are now socially accepting enough to care what a player does on the court, not off the court.

Rand Paul, Hypocrite

Many of us remember Senator Rand Paul's historic filibuster of Obama's choice to head the CIA due to the Obama administration's refusal to rule out the killing of Americans on U.S. soil with drones. But now Rand Paul seems to be changing his tune. In a recent interview on Fox news he said, "I've never been against the use of technology when it comes to dealing with an eminent threat. For instance, if somebody comes out of a liquor store with a gun I don't care if a drone kills him or  a policeman. The only issue I have is I don't want drones flying over me in my hot tub, or my family's farm." This seemed a far cry from the real life Mr. Smith Goes to Washington show that he gave on the Senate floor. Could this be because he is planning to run for president in 2016? More disturbing is that I haven't seen any of Paul's supporters condemn him for this obvious flip flop. To me it just proves something about the Pauls that I knew all along, just like when Ron Paul only got upset about the TSA when his son was detained and abused by TSA staff. This proves to me that they are nothing more than two career politicians posing as constitutional defenders of liberty. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if for the entire thirty years Ron Paul was in Congress he was merely posing as a Libertarian, when in actuality he was nothing more than a Republican career opportunist politician who took advantage of populist anger at the establishment.

Bildeberg Conspiracy Has Anti-Semitic Origins

When I was very interested in conspiracy theories, there was one that I could never avoid running into. That is the Bilderberg Group conspiracy. If you are not aware, let me break it down in simple terms. Like Sophia from the Golden Girls would say, picture it, Holland, 1954... a hundred or so wealthy businessmen, including Prince Bernhardt of The Netherlands meet in the Hotel de Bildeberg in Oosterbeek Netherlands. And basically they say, "Hey, instead of these stupid elections, why don't WE pick the guys. They get all the blame and we run things from behind the scenes." That is, if you believe this conspiracy theory. Surprisingly, it's even been picked up by some well known television networks, such as the BBC, Russia Today and CNN International. But here's the dark secret the TV networks or these conspiracy theorists won't tell you, and that's that the person who started this conspiracy theory is a man named Westbrook Pegler. In the 1940's Pegler was one of America's most respected journalists, even winning a Pulitzer Prize. But by 1956, he had become a bitter, increasingly hate-filled anti-Semite. The readership of his column had shrunk tremendously by this time, and he had been grasping at straws. Until he ran an article which he called "The Puppet Masters". On a recent trip to Italy, he had come across a source which told him that a group of wealthy Zionist Jews calling themselves the Bilderberg Group, were plotting to take over the world for Israel.

In recent years, this conspiracy still survives in a sanitized form. Instead of the Rothschilds and the Jews, it's Bernhardt, the Rockefellers and the Globalists. Why do the proponents of this theory not tell their viewers or readers the origin of this famous conspiracy? Is it because the cottage industry of books and DVD's would be threatened by such a toxic revelation? I'm not saying that they shouldn't talk about it, but I do think that responsible news organizations should at least tell their viewers the true story of the Bilderberg Group and who they truly are. They do actually exist, but they are nothing more than a boring business and banking club that seek to promote world unity.  

Droner In Chief

Remember when we all were outraged when George W. Bush was spying on Americans without warrants or judicial review? Well, now it seems Mr. Former Constitutional Law Professor thinks he can be judge, jury and executioner when it comes to assassinating American citizens with drones. Don't know what I'm talking about? Take the case of Anwar Al-Alwaki, a New Mexico born, radical Muslim cleric. Ever since he was killed by a drone strike in 2011, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the efficacy of targeted assassinations. What's even more disturbing is that now I see several so-called liberal Democrats acting like bloodthirsty neo-cons now that Obama's doing the killing.

My question is; why are we so willing to give Barack Obama a pass on his continuation and expansion of some of the Bush administration's worst War On Terror policies?

I think Barack Obama has gone too far this time. When are we going to reclaim the rule of the Constitution and not the rule of Presidential whim. I think it's worth considering impeachment.

Don't Say Gay, Unless You're a School Counselor

As a person who has gone through counseling, I was confident that whatever I told my counselor would stay between us. But this will no longer be true if Tennessee Republicans have their way. They're trying to pass a law that requires all school counselors to report students to their parents if they even suspect they might be LGBT. As a person who has struggled with feeling gay in the past, I can't tell you how comforting it was to know it would all be said in confidence. Not only does this bill destroy the counseling profession's rule of therapist-patient confidentiality, it puts young people in danger. I hate to say this, but I'm beginning to think Republicans are basically trying to make a political and/or religious point at the expense of potentially putting our youth in harm's way.

To any counselors who might read this blog: could you live with yourself if you comply with this law, knowing that a child could be kicked out of his or her home, ostracised, or in the most extreme case killed? Any school counselor who complies with this law can no longer call themselves a counselor.

Don't be afraid to stand up for the safety of your students and the integrity of your profession. Peacefully disobey this law.

Consideration or Separation

When some think about political correctness, they think of certain oppressed and marginalized people trying to get more respect. Others think of Big Brother and the p.c. police trying to stifle their free speech. Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle. I do think those trying to promote political correctness do so out of genuinely good intentions, but I think trying to shield a group of people from jokes, criticism or hurtful words too much separates them and puts them into another class entirely: the untouchables: those people who you must constantly worry about offending for fear of hurting them or breaking them into little pieces. Where did this fear of offending come from? I personally think it began in the late 80's and early 90's with people like Tipper Gore and Janet Reno. Their wars against violent and offensive content on television created such a backlash that now it's considered the "in thing" to constantly flip off the p.c. police in an attempt to say, "Screw you. I can do what I want." As the old expression goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Morgan 1, Jones 0

Recently, I watched an interview between Piers Morgan and right wing conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones. Morgan had Jones on his show because Jones had started a petition calling for Morgan's deportation simply because of his views on gun control. A synopsis of the interview went like this: Morgan tried to have a civilized debate and Jones ranted like an idiotic madman. I don't know about you, but if I were a pro-gun enthusiast, I would not want Jones speaking for me. He only enforces for many Americans the stereotype of the right-wing gun nut.

However, I think Piers is also somewhat in the wrong here. I think he only had Jones on because Jones made him angry, and he knew he could make Jones look foolish (although Jones didn't exactly need help with that one. This is, after all, a man who said that the government was behind 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing, and was putting chemicals in juice boxes to make children gay and control the population...). Though I am not pro-gun myself, I know many gun owners who would never talk about 1776 rising again if the government "tried to take their guns." But, I have to say, I believe Piers Morgan is one of the bravest men I have ever seen, because, to put it simply, there are gun owners and supporters out there who would burn you at the stake for talking about gun control in any form, if they could legally do it.

Finally, I think it exposed Jones as the fraud that he is: Jones claims to be a pro-Constitutionalist, but he wants to deport a law abiding citizen simply because he does not like his views. Frankly, that sounds more like a tactic of Soviet Russia than the United States of America.