http://search.deviantart.com/?q=by:evildogfish&section=today deviantART RSS for by:evildogfish en-us Copyright 2009, deviantART.com Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:27:13 PST deviantART.com http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss http://s.deviantart.com/minish/widgets/apple-touch-icon-precomposed.png http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/27633967/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/27633967/ Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:58:18 PDT
“Adult Service Providers” is a blanket term, referring to escorts, erotic entertainers, adult film stars, prostitutes, brothel managers, and adult website managers. Treating this variety of work like any other business would enable the same standards to apply to the sex industry. If a legal adult chooses to become an Adult Service Provider, often known as a “sex worker”, he or she would have the right to do so. Just like other businesses, professions with sex workers would be subject to strict health regulations and standards. This factor would likely lead to a sharp decline in STI/STD and AIDS rates among sex workers (and, of course, among their clientele). Since sex workers and their executives would be under the same laws as other companies; verbal, sexual, and physical abuse laws would now be able to protect millions of men and women from said abuse. As a result of these adult oriented institutions now being subject to strict regulation, persons or institutions that traffic humans or illegally take advantage of minors would be discovered and punished easier.

The current laws against the sex industry are unacceptable, because, rather than attempting to actually fix many problems, they pretend that prohibition will actually end an industry known colloquially as “the world’s oldest business.” It has been well over 100 years since most laws prohibiting prostitution were enacted, laws that have stood only to clutter our judicial system and overfill our jails – while doing nothing to protect the freedom of Americans. In other words, these laws have not ended human trafficking, they have not lowered STI or AIDS rates among sex workers, nor have they prevented minors from being used in sexual exploits.

Furthermore, most harmful pieces of legislation prohibiting the work of Adult Service Providers are “feel good” laws – enactments that serve little purpose other than to seem favorable. The success of keeping traditionally scorned-behavior – prostitution, the use of recreational drugs, etc. – illegal is irrelevant because said laws are not measured by actual success, but by how “safe” the laws make most of its citizens feel – even if millions of Americans suffer in the process. These laws, in essence, take away adults’ rights to their own sexuality, privacy, and freedom. Furthermore, as the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a 2007 explanation,

“Such laws [against prostitution] have traditionally represented one of the most direct forms of discrimination against women. The woman who engage[s] in prostitution is punished criminally and stigmatized socially while her male customer, either by the explicit design of the statute or through a pattern of discriminatory enforcement is left unscathed.”

Unfortunately, conservatives and many liberals actually staunchly support these “feel- good” laws, instead of the commonsense solution of legalization. Among liberals, feminists are debatably the most divided on this issue. Older feminists tend to disagree with the notions behind many sectors of the sex industry, due to its sexist tenancies, and are fine with its inadequate prohibition. However, many younger feminists (“third-wave feminists” recognize that the government should respect a sex worker’s choice in his or her own line of work. On the other side of the political spectrum, some libertarians have come out in support of legalizing the work of Adult Service Providers, but most self-identified conservatives want no change of the status quo. While President Obama has never addressed the issue, due to his repeated actions of backing-away from socially liberal views, one can guess that he would be no more progressive on this issue than Glenn Beck.

Americans need to ask themselves if they are ready to let go of their idealistic world view and start fixing the country. At the end of the day, the sex industry is not going away. We can either embrace it, therefore making America a safer place for all, or we can continue allowing this failed system to waste more time, money, and resources, while simultaneously destroying countless lives. The choice is up to us; for the sake of the nation, I... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/26118155/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/26118155/ Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:41:40 PDT (Cross posted at Daily Kos)

The following is a incomplete list of my many thoughts, objections, and suggestions concerning the current state of feminism and where we should be headed. All of the following points could be expanded upon. They are listed in no particular order.

1. There must be a widespread understanding that feminism does apply to men. Therefore, men who stand up for feminist issues may, and should, be identified as feminist. It is counterproductive and hypocritical to discuss gender equality while simultaneously creating a double standard towards males who share feminist values.

(I think that the phrase "feminist male" should be dropped, as well. A feminist who identifies as female is never addressed as a "female feminist". A man who advocates for feminist ideology should have the same title as a woman who does the same. By buying into the system of calling a feminist who identifies as male a "male feminist", we reinforce the concept that there is something wrong with being a male AND a feminist.)

2. While transsexual acceptance and rights are an important aspect of third wave feminism, it must understood that not every person is as educated on the topic as some are. Unless clear transphobia (a bigoted attitude transsexuals) is exemplified, ignorance should be contacted with empathy and, bluntly, education. Feminist infighting only hurts the cause.

3. Fox "News", World Net Daily, CNS News, Drudge Report, and The Fox Nation are all unreliable, far-right, anti-feminist sources. While some feminists legitimately speak out against the mainstream media's approach to feminism (which is more times than not negative), we must understand that these sources are beyond saving. While more feminists should be encouraged to appear in these sources arguing for the benefits of feminism, feminists should simultaneously discourage the use of them for anything else.

4. Applying make-up, nail polish, shaving legs, and most other sexist, cosmetic double standards are NOT antitheses to being a feminist - the motivation behind the products are. While these products are all derived from the sexist ideal of a "perfect" woman, many women (and men, for that matter) enjoy these items; there's nothing wrong with that choice. However, there is an inherent problem when there is no choice involved. Feminists should be strongly encouraged to consider the motivations behind their habits but not castigated for living them out.

(This logic applies only to minor, mainstream cosmetics. Feminists should be weary
concerning breast implants, skin whitening creams, and vaginal rejuvenation.)

5. Feminists can be from any religion, race, creed, gender, socioeconomic class, country of origin, sexual orientation, relationship status, height, status of ability, experience or lifestyle. While some religions and lifestyles have very anti-feminist sentiments, accepting individuals of these communities will allow us to spread our message to even the most unlikely repentants. Feminism is about equality, not discrimination.

6. As feminists, we cannot allow sexism or objectification to happen to males, like it has to females. As embarrassing as Rush Limbaugh, Micheal Savage, or Bill O'Reilly and their visions of oppressed, white, straight, Christian males are, we must remember that white, straight, Christian, males need to be treated with the equality they deserve.

7. All women who are politicians, actresses, singers, CEO's, or in any position of power are NOT necessarily feminists. While feminism has enabled most of these women to suceed, that does not mean that they currently identify with it. Sarah Palin, Tila Tequila, Michelle Bachman, and Lady GaGa are not feminists due to their success.

8. Despite the Republican party's strong anti-feminist stances, being a member of the Republican party does not mean that one is inherently anti-feminist. Many economic conservatives hold strong feminist values. It hurts the feminist movement when possibly dedicated people are needlessly excluded.

9. Feminists must remember that men are sometimes the victims of sexual assault; not just women. Also, men are not always the assailant. While, statistically, women are usually raped by men at a much greater level, one must never forget that unconventional sexual assault is still sexual assault.

10. While one can be a feminist and personally oppose abortion, taking away a woman's right to choose is an inherently anti-feminist position. There are many people that are pro-choice, but would personally never condone or undergo an abortion procedure. This is a very controversial subject, however an extremely important one as well; feminists cannot be silent or waver on the issue of abortion.

11. In cases of rape, victim blaming is always unaccept... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/24772869/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/24772869/ Fri, 15 May 2009 16:07:14 PDT
[link]
[link]
[link]

It seems frivolous and hypocritical of a "news" station so devout to promoting "conservative family values" to be sponsored by Maxim magazine. As Media Matters has documented, Fox has a history of this inappropriate behavior:

[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link] (Why exactly is Fox [Out Of] Business Channel even covering this story? What does it have to do with business news!)
[link]

Now, yes, sex does sell; truthfully Fox isn't the only station to do this:
[link]


Still, why does the media - mostly Fox - choose to go down this road? Do we - as a society - really need to objectify women to make people watch the news?

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/24771136/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/24771136/ Fri, 15 May 2009 14:17:47 PDT
Now, just like many opinions, hers does NOT stand up to scrutiny - she said that one could "choose gay marriage" which would only be true in 4 states. Unless of course she was repeating the myth/talking point/lie that being non-heterosexual is a "choice", which also does not stand up to psychological scrutiny.

However, "Perez Hilton" is also a trouble maker. Calling her a "bitch" and a "cunt" was not only sexist, but it was unintelligent. He is also NOT an LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) activist by any stretch of the meaning and should not pretend to be (and the media should not act like he is one). He is a blogger - and a lame one at that.

On another note, Miss California was NOT denied the title of "Miss USA" because of her homophobic views. The right-wing will blame Perez Hilton and say that his agenda blocked her win, but this is not true. It has been revealed that she would not have won, even if she was not a bigot.

However, I do find it amusing that a woman who believes that same-sex marriage is a threat to marriage and society (which the Republicans have failed time and time again to prove) and a woman who preaches “family values”, not only has fake breast implants, but she has numerous naked pictures of herself floating around online!

Furthermore, no one mentions the fact that her call to fame was walking around on a stage with less than 6 square inches of clothing on. If she – and the right-wing – wish to discuss what is detrimental to society, let us take a look at the whole “Miss USA” pageant. Pushing women to fit a borderline anorexic body size? Making them trot around on stage like objects in minuscule outfits? Pushing women to be more concerned with their looks then their intelligence? (Especially in the case of Miss California.) Sounds pretty nightmarish to me.

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/23510194/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/23510194/ Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:52:01 PST An abortion is an operation to remove an embryo or a fetus from a women to terminate a pregnancy. During the late 1960's and early 1970's, people began to rally against abortion in mass numbers, labeling the procedure as “murder of an unborn child”. The Roe v. Wade ruling said that it was unconstitutional to bar women from undergoing an abortion, thereby legalizing abortion in every state. In the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the Supreme Court decided that each state government had its right to choose whether to allow funds to go to clinics that provide abortion services. These two court decisions opened the door for the anti-choice rebellion to attempt to chip away at our current laws concerning abortion.
The concept of a fetus or an embryo being labeled as a “human being” has been disputed by many doctors and scientists. Embryologists' research shows that an embryo is merely a collection of cells. The cells divide to eventually, over the course of eight to ten months, create a human being. However, the embryo is considered merely a ball of cells when it is in its early stages of the pregnancy and a fetus only has a few of the major functions associated with a living, breathing human being. Before this stage, the female egg has just been fertilized by the male sperm. At this time, there has been no set plan for the egg. Statistically, the majority of fertilized eggs end up as miscarriages and never make it past the first few stages. Still, it remains inconceivable that cells, merely dividing as directed by their DNA, could possess a mind or feel pain in the same way that grown human beings can. These medical facts seemingly contradict the Christian bible and many other religious texts, causing much argument.
While abortion must remain legal until Roe v. Wade is overturned, the opponents of abortion will stop at nothing to limit the availability of abortions. In 2003, Congress passed the Federal Abortion Ban, banning abortions from being performed after 12 weeks of a pregnancy. Currently, 19 states have laws that stop federally mandated clinics from even suggesting abortion to women. In thirty-three states, women who rely on federal health care are not allowed to receive an abortion. In 43 states, women who are under the legal age of adulthood are not permitted to receive an abortion without a parent or guardian's consent. In early 2009, President Barack Obama reversed the “International Gag Rule” during his first week in office. This legislation banned the United States from funding charitable organizations overseas if their clinics provided abortions.
Recently, the government of North Dakota has taken steps to completely ban abortion. This ban, which is illegal under federal law, will not only ban abortion, but certain types of contraceptives as well. While the bill still needs to pass that state’s Senate, chances look good for its success. Republican Governor John Hoeven, the North Dakota House, and the North Dakota Senate were all classified as anti-choice by NARAL, the biggest pro-choice association in America. The American Civil Liberties Union, NARAL, and the Obama administration have not yet commented on this disastrous situation, but Planned Parenthood has. “[The North Dakota abortion ban] is dangerous, far reaching and allows the government, not women and families, to make critical decisions about health care,” said Sarah Stoesz, President of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota.
Abortion should be legal to everyone without restriction, for it is every human being’s choice to make moral decisions. People who are against abortion would still be able to keep a child or give him or her away for adoption under current laws. If the religious right feels strongly about abortion, why do they continually attempt to change the laws rather than educate people of their beliefs? Teaching people about one’s beliefs is a better solution than painting liberals as “baby killers”, boycotting charities that provide abortion as one of many helpful services to the impoverished, and even bombing abortion clinics. Furthermore, the anti-choice side must cease their assault on scientifically and medically accepted facts; no matter how hard they believe that an embryo is the same as a human, that does not make it so. The Government should not intervene in women's lives to the extent of removing reproductive rights. Politicians and priests are neither doctors nor scientists, so why should they be making decis... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/23362130/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/23362130/ Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:22:30 PST


*

Abortion: Obama has remained staunchly pro-choice throughout the campaign and extending into the first few days in the White House. He has already lifted the infamous “global gag rule”, which cut the funding of charitable organizations offering abortion as an option to women. I doubt President Obama will change on this issue or ever sign a piece of anti-choice legislation.
*

LGBT rights: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights have, for a long time, been viewed as “wedge issues” for far too many Americans and, as a result, are often ignored by politicians. The Obama administration has taken a strong stance in support of LGBT rights. He has pledged to repeal “don't ask, don't tell” rules that bar LGBT civilians from serving in the army, and his administration is the most LGBT-friendly administration in American history. He opposes the use of the word “marriage”, but supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples. However, I cannot see our President opposing same-sex marriage if the issue crossed his desk.
*

Iraq: Despite the polarizing effect of the Iraq war within U.S. politics, Obama has promised to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. On the web site whitehouse.gov, the Obama administration promises “a responsible, phased withdrawal” by the summer of 2010; a realistic plan.
*

Economy: With each new day more people lose their jobs and homes, while more and more industries request to be bailed out. At first, Obama promised to sign an economic recovery package on his first day in office. That day came and went, with no such deal signed. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi estimated that a deal could have been reached in early February. However, yesterday Congress passed a stimulus package for over $800 billion. Despite the clearly partisan manner in which the bill was passed – zero Republicans voting for it – Barack Obama will probably sign this bill into action.
*

Education: In defense of the “No Child Left Behind” act, Former President George W. Bush said, “We don't teach kids to pass the test. We teach them to read, so that they may pass the test.” President Obama has several strong plans to rebuild the American school system. Aside from reforming “No Child Left Behind”, the Obama administration has the “Zero to Five” plan aimed at children before kindergarten, expansion of after school programs, a plan to address the staggering drop out rates, and initiatives to encourage more people to finish college. While at first, these plans seem too far-fetched to be passed, I think that Obama's own success in college will motivate the passage of many of these education reforms.
*

Oil: On the campaign trail, then-Senator Obama promised to eliminate the import of oil from the Middle East and from Venezuela within 10 years. Critics, including myself, questioned whether this plan would really be accomplished, and I still do. The plan itself remains excellent, but the goals are set slightly too high. However, I can see a bill getting passed by both Democrats and Republicans, in a bipartisan manner.
*

Gun control: Despite the rumors and fearmongering, Obama does not want to ban guns from the U.S. or anything like that. While not a friend of the NRA, he has repeatedly voiced his support of the Second Amendment, while proposing measures to ensure guns do not fall into the wrong hands. In my opinion, the ban on assault rifles will be renewed and other smaller restrictions will be enacted, such as time limitations on gun purchases.
*

World stature: Over the past eight years, America has lost considerable respect from the rest of the world. The international sympathy from the September 11 attacks has been turned to a strong dislike over the course of seven years. Whether it be Guantánamo Bay, our rampant xenophobia, the Iraq war, the backlash against Europe, or the embargo against Cuba, every country seems to have its reasons to dislike the US. Already, Obama has ordered the shutting down of GITMO, promised to pull out of Iraq, was interviewed by a Muslim television network, and made a commitment to meet with leaders of countries that the U.S. does not agree with. While our popularity will not fix all the problems, having more friends than enemies will not be a negative.
... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/23362074/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/23362074/ Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:20:13 PST
While the average American faces a one in 18,000 chance of being murdered, a transsexual's chances are much slimmer: one in 12. A transsexual, as defined by the American Psychological Association, is “[a person] who live[s] or wish[es] to live full time as members of the gender opposite to their birth sex”. In other words, a male who has the body of a female - or vice versa. Nowadays, with hormone therapy, a year-long transition, and Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS), transsexuals are now able to live in the correct gender. Still, approximately 55% of transgender youth report being physically beaten every year and 48% of transgender adults reported having been victims of assault or sexual assault. What do people have against transsexuals? To what extent does the media cover transsexualism? How do people in our community view transgender people?


Since Lili Elbe underwent SRS surgery in 1930, the surgery has become an accepted practice virtually everywhere in America. Despite the medical acceptance, transsexualism has its critics. One of the foremost is the fearmongering “Focus on the Family” organization run by fundamentalist James Dobson. He and his group “oppose the ordination of "transgender" and "transsexual" individuals and the celebration of "transgenderism" as one of God's gifts,” going on to claim that, “[t]he modern "transgender" movement is systematically working to dismantle the concept of gender as the Bible and the world have always known it to be. If the transgender lobby succeeds, there will be striking consequences for marriage, family and society at large.”


What Dobson and this viewpoint misrepresent are the true intentions of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender movement, which pushes for legislation such as anti-job discrimination bills and extended hate crime initiatives. The idea promoted by “Focus on the Family”, is that LGBT activists are pushing some sort of anti-religious sentiments onto the Christians of America. Do “anti-discrimination bills” sound detrimental to society, religion, marriage, or family? The complaints of “Focus on the Family” and other similar critics attempt to scare uninformed readers and rationalize “transphobia” - a fear or hatred of transsexuals. Fear tactics aside, these rationalizations are nothing but an attempt to push certain religious beliefs into becoming a deciding factor in U.S. Politics. These attempts to push religion into the political arena is a violation of the First Amendment, which advocates a separation of church and state.

. The only three situations in which transsexualism is discussed in the media are: in the minimal coverage of a murder; in a mean-spirited joke; or when transsexualism receives attention from right-wing pundits. Even so, the limited coverage of a transphobic crime is so pitifully insignificant, some consider it to be a “filler” story, used mainly to fill space. Hollywood treats transsexuality as nothing more than the punch line of a nasty joke. Adding to the effects of questionable media coverage, conservative pundits speak about transsexuality, specifically murders of transsexuals due to their gender, as if describing non-humans. Chris Baker, a radio host from Minneapolis, in describing the murder of a transwoman named Moses Cannon, said, “I believe the media and the rest of the enablers out there, they have this guy's blood on their hands because they create this false sense of reality and they enable people who need serious psychological counseling.” In essence, Mr. Baker blames “the media” - not the murderer! Rush Limbaugh, one of the most popular talk radio hosts, frequently uses vulgar and demeaning terms to describe transsexuals and SRS surgery. In discussing the murder of a transwoman in San Francisco the ex-MSNBC commentator Micheal Savage proclaimed the victim to be a “sychopath”, calling her a “freak” several times, and comparing her to a “junkie”, an “illegal immigrant”, and a “ervert”. He goes on to rant, “You're never gonna make me respect the freak. I don't want to respect the freak,” concluding by saying, “Sick. Everything is upside down.” Are these the types of vitriolic feelings we should have towards other human beings? Should we be rationalizing a murder, demeaning peopl... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22376611/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22376611/ Sat, 03 Jan 2009 15:13:16 PST
]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22247763/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22247763/ Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:00:45 PST [link] by

This is a very nice piece by JadexFace. I think it beautifully illustrates a lot of what's wrong with society these days. It really bothers me when people act as if sexism is no longer a problem and that feminism is dead. I really hope that people realize that women everywhere are still being held down every day; anorexia is one of the many problems women, girls, and all people will have to endure until society is ready and willing to look its inherent sexism right in eye.

There might not be any more posts for a while. However, I am planning a book review of Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person in the World", "LGBT Rights - Part 2", and more. Stay tuned. And if I don't post for a few days -- have a great New Year!

P.S. Barack Obama will be the President of the United States of America in 22 days.

[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22216500/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22216500/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:30:55 PST

[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22216474/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22216474/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:29:21 PST
Stephen Colbert is hilarious. I don't even celebrate the traditional or new holiday of "Christmas", but I found this quite funny. Enjoy it!


[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22214023/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22214023/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:35:46 PST
"Gay Community Is Intolerant, Too" by Ben Shapiro

Did he just admit that the Fundamentalist Conservatives are intolerant? Did he just agree with the Liberal LGBT activists without even intending to?

Pope Benedict made a “shocking” statement Monday. He said the Roman Catholic Church opposes homosexual acts and wishes to help those who engage in such acts. The Church, he said, “should … protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed.”

The previous week, the Rev. Rick Warren made a similarly “shocking” statement. In opposing gay marriage, Warren said, “I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”

The first two paragraphs are relatively fine, Shapiro is simply repeating news of the last two weeks. Aside from the unnecessary quotation marks around the word shocking, my only real criticism stems from Pastor Warren's comments. Marriage has been redefined many times in the past 5,000 years. Marriage originated as a form of trade between families. Eventually, the joining of two lovers became religious, but even since marriage has been redefined. It was redefined 40 years ago to provide more equality to Black people. If Rick Warren is against incest, pedophilia, and polygamy, then why doesn't he protest that instead of normal couples who happen to be LGBT?

The gay community attacked both the pope and Warren with gusto. The Rev. Sharon Ferguson, chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, labeled the pope’s words, “totally irresponsible and unacceptable in any shape or form.” Meanwhile, Brad Luna, director of communications for the Human Rights Campaign, jabbed, “Rick Warren is somebody who has opposed our equality.”

I'm not sure if "attacked" is good diction, because no one has physically "attacked" neither Rick Warren nor the Pope.

Here’s my question: What’s the big deal? It isn’t as though the pope and Rick Warren are articulating anything new -- they’re articulating the same traditional Judeo-Christian perspective that has been a moral standard for thousands of years. So why the hubbub? Warren is not stating that he wants to criminalize homosexuality. And the pope is merely suggesting that sexuality may be flexible, and that sexual behavior can be changed. Where’s the big threat to the gay community?

First off, the threat is that people actually believe the baseless claims that both the Pope and Rick Warren spew. Neither has used actual facts, statistics, or data in their hate speech, only analogies that hardly fit. Shapiro, allow me to ask you a question. How does having the Virgin Marry on the cover of Playboy hurt Christianity? How is Harry Potter a threat to Christianity? Moreover, how are a group of gays and lesbians, most of whom have no interest in being married by a bunch of homophobes, going to threaten the church?

The gay community constantly asks: If we want to marry, how does it hurt you? Here’s a similar question: If religious people don’t approve of homosexual behavior, how does it hurt you? We’re not advocating violence against gays and lesbians -- far from it. We’re not going to invade your bedrooms and toss your same-sex partners in prison. We’re not advocating that you be fired from your job. We’re not saying that you’re rotten human beings. We’re just saying we don’t approve of your behavior. It’s that simple. So how does it hurt you?

It does hurt the LGBT community. I will not divulge into every example of how it can hurt people, but I'll provide the best example: the Hate-Crimes Bill. Many Conservative-Fundamentalists are against legislation adding LGBT to the list of hate crimes. Their reasoning? Some half-brained, untrue, idea that their freedom or religion and speech will be persecuted if such a measure is passed. The only problem with that logic? It's not true. Who is being hurt by not passing this measure? The thousands of LGBT people who are harrassed for who they are... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22214013/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22214013/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:35:14 PST
To start things off, my first "Be On The Lookout" winner? Michelle Maglalang Malkin.

The Editor & Publisher contributor Bronwyn Lance Chester, once commented on Malkin saying that, "[She] habitually mistakes shrill for thought-provoking and substitutes screaming for discussion. She's an Asian Ann Coulter. [...] She’s the worst of what's wrong with punditry today. She adds absolutely nothing to genuine political discourse."

To this, Malkin replied, "I'm not Asian, I'm American, for goodness' sake. I would take the comparison to Ann Coulter as somewhat of a compliment. I have a lot of respect for Ann Coulter[.]"

First off, Michelle, you are Asian. Barack Obama is half-African, Geraldo Rivera is hispanic, and Keith Olbermann is white; they are also all Americans. I do not mean to sound disrespectful or rude, but, if your are a Fillipina-American, then you are also an Asian-American. Ethnicity and race are completely different from citizenship. You don't have to speak another language, you don't have to hang out with people of your ethnic background, but don't try to say that you're not Asian.

Second, conservative or not, you take being compared to Ann Coulter as "a compliment"? Really? Ann Coulter who uses such words as "faggot" and "ragheads" to describe people? The same Ann Coulter who has said repeatidly that the country would be a better place if women did not vote? Ann Coulter, who called Christians, "perfected Jews"? The very same Ann Coulter who made comments directed at widdows of 9/11, by the nature of, "[now] that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy."? You take that as a compliment? The answer? Yes.

Michelle Malkin has unfortunately managed to gain some fame from appearing on MSNBC, C-SPAN, and, of course, Fox "News". In fact, this woman has co-hosted the "O'Reilly Factor" on multiple occaisions. This was, until, Geraldo Revera, made comments about Malkin. He said, "Michelle Malkin is the most vile, hateful commentator I've ever met in my life. She actually believes that neighbors should start snitching out neighbors, and we should be deporting people. It’s good she’s in D.C. and I’m in NY. I’d spit on her if I saw her." Geraldo Rivera is not a liberal. He works for Fox "News". He has made huge critisms of The New York Times. Aside from putting Malkin's "Liberals hate conservative minorities"-bullshit to shame, this quote proves one thing: if a "radical" conservative like Geraldo Rivera despises Malkin, then she must be truly awful.

A quick Google search pulled up two stories which should be brought to light. Both of these stories are not deep-dark secrets from Malkin's past. They are not lies. In fact, she is quite proud of both of these. The fact that someone, being completely serious, could actually think up such vile concepts and actually report them, sickens me.

In 2004, Michelle Malkin released her second book, "In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror". In the book, Malkin attempts to justify the racism that controlled our country during the internment of Japanese-Americans. She then draws comparisons to our current war on terror, enticing prejudice against Muslims and Arabs. I have no problem with intelligently voicing an opinion that may not be my own as long as it is intelligently written. However, this book banks off of an ignorance of different cultures and a fear of anything associated with the Middle East. It seems to me, that Malkin has picked the easiest solution to the issue or terrorism, but not the most intelligent or fair answer.

The second story, comes from an early 2008 controversy involving Rachel Ray and Dunkin Donuts. In a new ad campaign, the Food Network's Rachel Ray was seen in a black and white scarf, to which Malkin expressed great outrage. Michelle notes that, Rachel Ray is "clueless[ly] sporting of a jihadi chic keffiyeh in a recent DD ad campaign. I’m hoping her hate couture choice was spurred more by ignorance than ideology." Does this woman dare speak on others' ignornace? The scarf worn by Rachel Ray, the same sty... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22214009/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22214009/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:34:46 PST


The two women in the video besides Katy Perry are Margaret Cho and Amanda Palmer. Both bisexuals, Palmer, a singer, and Cho a comedian/gay rights activist whose latest work was starring in Proposition 8: The Musical. I have always had mixed feelings for Perry: I supported her enough to defend her from Fox "News" and Bill O'Reilly's homophobic attacks but I was very critical of how positive her song was for the LGBT Community at large. Similarly, I question how good this video will be for the community as a whole and I question the true valor of Perry's pro-gay tendancies.

Personally, I loved the video. I found it very amusing, somewhat attractive, and I enjoyed the message at the end. Katy Perry isn't perfect and truth-be-told I had never heard of Amanda Palmer before this video, but I have been a huge Margaret Cho fan for quite some time. The song, "I Kissed A Girl" is very catchy, too. However, you can read my commentary on "I Kissed A Girl" here -- this isn't what this post is about.

To begin with, I'm not so sure about Perry. Coming from a religious extremist background and starting off her career as a Christian singer, she is no stranger to the far-Right. After minimal success, Perry released an EP entitled "Ur So Gay" which has been accurately labeled as "homophobic" by various sources. The title song is about an over effeminate ex-boyfriend of the singer and the negative aspects of the relationship. In this song the word "gay", is not only used in a derogatory sense, but it is used to describe a feminine-acting male - something all gay males aren't necessarily. Despite this overtone - and the slightly homophobic content of "I Kissed A Girl" - the rest of her first album, "One of the Boys", doesn't seem too bad. During interviews she has admitted to her bicuriosity and, during this performance, Perry has evidently pledged her support to the opposition of Proposition 8.

Onto the performance! Margaret Cho, the one with the purple dildo, and Amanda Palmer ambush Katy Perry amidst her rendition of "I Kissed A Girl". Perry eventually "gives in" and begins to passionately grope and kiss Palmer, while Cho continues to hump Perry. Now, there isn't anything wrong with lesbian sex. However, the LGBT community has long had to fight a battle against the "sexual harassment" stereotype; the stereotype which labels every non-straight person as an uncontrollable sex fiend. When this act ends, a curtain is pulled over the trio, by two men. When the curtain is removed, Cho is costumed as a Christian priest and Palmer and Perry are costumed in wedding dresses. Cho really risks mocking people of religion, but her character doesn't seem to be over-the-top and I cannot see too many people offended by her portrayal. (I now await Bill O'Reilly's response...) For the finale of this act, the curtain is raised again, this time with the words "Fuck Prop 8" written upon it. The two men holding the banner had their middle fingers right up in the air. As much as the crowd, and myself, thought this statement was bold and honorable, we really must watch how we address our anger. The people who are against same-sex marraige are mostly religious people; religion is a very personal sentiment. The LGBT community has no hatred or anomosity towards Christians or religious peoples, but such a debate can easily blur the lines of sensibility.

In my opinion, this video will be received differently by different groups of people. The younger same-sex supporters will mostly see this as a positive pop-culture embrace of love. The anti-gay Fundamentalists - of any age - will view this negatively. The older LGBT supporters, despite most of them agreeing with the "Fuck Prop 8" message at the end, will probably find this video to be frivolous. Still, I cannot see this video gaining much press over the next few weeks. It's the holiday season: a time for happiness, even when a large group of people, such as the LGBT community, is constantly mistreated.


[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22214002/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22214002/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:34:21 PST
Now, if I were to forward this video to every person in America, my strong suspicion is that the overwhelming majority of Americans would see nothing wrong with the song. I good number of those people would probably enjoy it. However, such ignorance should not be tolerated.

Busta Rhymes, the "Break Ya Neck", "New York City Shit", and "I Love My Bitch" hitmaker, has stated in multiple interviews that he is a practicing Muslim. (Source) Still, I do not think this validates the questionable lyrics of the song, in fact it just displays his own hypocracy. If I was gay, I would not say, "fag", if I were black I wouldn't use the "n-word", and if I were Asian I wouldn't use "gook", anymore than I do now. Being a member of a group of people does not validate use of certain derogatory terms or condescending statements. In the song "Arab Money (Featuring Ron Browz)" and "Arab Money (Remix) [Featuring Diddy, Ron Browz, Swizz Beatz, T-Pain , Akon, and Lil' Wayne]" there are many offensive and harmful comments and sentiments against Arabic and Islamic culture. I am aware that there is a seemingly daily release of a new version or remix of this song, but I will stick to the original and official remix for now.

"Bismillahi r-rahmani r-rahim. Al hamdu lillahi rabbi l-’ālamin"
"In the name of Allah, most gracious most merciful. All Praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds." (Translation Source)

This is used as the chorus and is taken from the Surah Fateha (which is from the Holy Qu'Ran). It seems rather blasphemous to take such a holy prayer and put it to use in a rap song with such a materialistic overtone.

“Dropping bombs like the Taliban“
“Sitting in casinos while I’m gambling with Arafat“

Both of these lyrics are grouped together for a good reason: they both link Arabic and Islamic culture to extremism and to terrorism. These lyrics are hardly what needs to be spoken to the already fearful American public.

“While I make you bow down and make Salaat like a Muslim“

This lyric isn't too bad, but I do I believe scrutiny is needed. Busta, are you trying to compare a sexual act which requires "[bowing] down" to a praying ritual of the Islamic faith?

“All the girls love me, yeah pop some bubbly“

Both drinking and promiscuous behavior are not allowed under Islamic law. Why is a self proclaimed Muslim decribing these activites in an Arab themed song?

"As-Salamu Alaykum Warahmatullah Wa Barakatu"
"Peace be upon you" (This is a greeting)
"Habibi"
"My love"
"Al hamdu lillah"
"Praise be to Allah"

These are just a collection of other parts of the song in actual Arabic. I don't really have a problem with these lyrics, other than using the context it is used in: a rap song about exceeding wealth and greed, drinking alcohol, and implied sex.

The Cover:


The cover has nothing directly offensive on it. Busta Rhymes is dressed in expensive clothing (I believe the scarf is from Louis Vuitton), displaying a matching ring and watch, and standing next to a luxury automobile. However, the text that says "Arab Money" and "feat Ron Browz" is written in fake Arabic caligraphy. This style of writing developed over time as a language to worship Allah with. Due to the nature of the cover, the music video, and of the lyrical content of "Arab Money", this text is almost mocking this style of Caligraphy and inherently mocking Allah.


Now, I must give credit to Busta Rhymes and everyone else on this record. This is not the most offensive rap song I've ever heard; the hypocritical religious over tones (such as 50 Cent with Get Rich or Die Tryin' have been much worse than on here. Despite Busta Rhymes' other ignorance, such as his admitted homophobia, I do not believe him to have created this song to be offensive towards Islamic or Arabic culture. Still, he has created one and not possibly at a worse time. Even over seven years since September 11th, a good number of Americans are Islamophobic, believing that all Muslims are terrorists. Such Islamophobia was displayed when Barack Obama's religion was disputed by Fox "News" (and soon by all of the other leeching media sources) and believed by a good number of people. Still, Busta Rhymes may belie... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213987/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213987/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:33:47 PST
I ask you to forget about your biases against MSNBC or Keith Olbermann. I ask you to forget your biases against Micheal Moore or Liberalism. I ask you to forget any anti-Democratic Party bias you may have - this bailout needs cooperation.

YouTube Link and Transcript.

Thoughts?

In my opinion, Moore is correct, although he failed to mention one thing: we need to have a nonpartisan board to review the Big 3's spending. Regardless of whether or not this is a loan, the American people should not have to endure reckless CEO behavior. This is a difficult issue and political party be damned; this bailout has turned into an "every man for himself" struggle. I just hope that our $17 billion is spent wisely. Otherwise, as either Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert once said, "At some point we're going to realize that this is real money!"


[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213975/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213975/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:33:09 PST
In 2006, 빅뱅 came onto the music scene, quickly skyrocketing to the top of the Korean music charts, influencing Korean fashion, being the subject of a reality show, and gaining international attention. In 2006, 빅뱅 had their first number one hit, "거짓말" ("Lies"), making the name "빅뱅" a conversation centerpiece. In the wake of initial success, 빅뱅 managed to keep the hits coming with "마지막 인사" ("Last Farewell"), "D.I.S.C.O." (technically this was not by 빅뱅, it was done by 엄정화, her album being produced entirely by YG Entertainment and the song having a verse rapped by 빅뱅-member T.O.P.), and "하루 하루". 빅뱅 has seen success in Japan as well, after doing considerably well releasing two Japanese EP's and one full album. Despite all of their subsequent success, it was high-time for 빅뱅 to return to their roots: make a new full album in South Korea. "Remember" is just that album.

The album begins, as usual, with an electronica inspired introduction track, namely "모두 다 소리쳐 (Introduction)", which sets the scene for the entire album. The next two songs, "오, 아, 오", "뷹은 노을", and "반짝반짝", follow suit; catchy, electronica, fast-paced pop music: 빅뱅's forté. 승리 comes in with the solo "Strong Baby", what would seem to be Justin Timberlake meets Korea, succeeding in a perfect club-banger. "Wonderful", which is best described as 빅뱅's "Always: Part 2" has a relaxed feel and retains more sentiment than the preceeding song, boasting lyrics such as "Let's party baby/ Shake it, baby / All night long, just one shot, baby!". "멍청한 사랑" is easily the slowest real song on the entire album, but the synth machine being in full effect, makes this song not sound completely out of place and feels like the correct way to end the album.

While there are four more songs on 빅뱅's "Remember", they are all bonus tracks and remixes. Still, I strongly suggest giving these a listening to. Despite the acoustic remix of "하루 하루" feeling awkard and forced at times, this new version does provide another certain depth to the song. The "거짓말" and "마지막 인사" remixes hold true to the originals while adding a new dance/house aspect to these once-overplayed hits. The last track, "Remember", ironically was first added to their Japanese release, "Number One", and recored in Japanese. In this newer version, "Remember" has been re-recorded in Korean and is easily the most out-of-place song on the entire album. I wasn't a fan of it in Japanese and the Korean version sounds just as mediocre. This is the only song that I actually disliked on the album.

Regardless of the country or language, whether the song be in Korean, English, or Japanese, and regardless of who in the group is performing, one aspect has been made painfully obvious: 빅뱅 is on the top of their game when they make fast-paced, techno/electronica-influenced, dancable, hip-hop/pop music. "Remember" is arguably the group's greatest work yet, beating out their first lack-luster album "Since 2007" (despite its 2006 release), their eight EP albums (each following the same guidelines: one or two great songs and three or four throw-away, failed attemps at R&B), and their lame English lyrics that need desperate attention (such as, "It’s getting tough in the scene / The place is jumping now / I grab her hand and proceed / To the crowd that’s tumbling", sounding like a 1980's Micheal Jackson ripoff and 강대성's accent causing "proceed" sound like "pussy"). If 빅뱅 is lucky, a string of hit-singles will find their way into 빅뱅's already bright future. If 빅뱅 is not so lucky, then they will probably only have 2 or 3 hits. Either way, nice job boys: "Remember", by 빅뱅, is an all-around excellent album.

I'd give it an...8.5 out of 10.


[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213965/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213965/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:32:40 PST
In 1870, President Grant signed a law making Christmas Day a federal holiday, a national day of celebration. Congress overwhelmingly voted to make that happen and Grant understood that this was not a trivial gesture. The nation remained deeply divided in the aftermath of the Civil War and the federal government was looking for ways to reunite the people. Since Christmas was loved by almost everyone, the national holiday became a symbol of healing and unity.

However, Bill leaves much out of this tale. 1870, anything un-Christian was simply unheard of. It was a completely different time for America. Twenty years before 1870, war was waged largely upon a question of whether or not African-Americans were slaves or not. We, in 2008, have just elected our first non-White President. Still, Bill misses the point; the first Amendment is fairly explicit in the Seperation of Church and State. If "Christmas" is religious then it is un-Constitutional. The only way for Christmas to Constitutionally be a National Holiday is if it is Secular.

Now, America is divided again, this time over social behavior. Traditional Americans want to hold on to the beliefs and institutions that, they believe, have made the country great, while secular-progressives lobby for aggressive change—things like redefining marriage to include homosexuals and other redefinitions of tradition.

I highly doubt that people started saying "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings" because of LGBT rights. In fact, Wal*Mart (one of O'Reilly's favorite targets because of the store's policies against saying "Merry Christmas") scored a 40 out of 100 on the Human Rights Campaign's 2009 Buyer's Guide. This is a simple logical fallacy.

Thus, deep divisions are growing in America and, somewhat shockingly, Christmas is right in the middle of it.

How? I see that there are huge political and social divides due to the issues of abortion and LGBT rights, but Christmas? Really? How many stores have been bombed for saying "Season's Greetings"? How many Matthew Sheppard's have there been due to them wishing others "Happy Holidays"?

A few years ago some retail companies ordered their employees not to say the words "Merry Christmas" because they might offend people who do not celebrate the national holiday. Of course, that was insane. These companies were marketing the gift-giving season that accompanies Christmas but were refusing to utter the word? Please.

The Christmas season co-exists with the Jewish Hanukkah season, the Islamic New Year and their Eid ul-Adha celebration, the Hindi Kartik Poornima festival, the Buddhist Bodhi (or “Enlightenment” Day, the Agnostic and/or Atheist's Winter Solstice, and the non-religious New Year's Celebration. (I left out regional holidays such as "Boxing Day", but be aware that there are many local celebrations that are not directly Christian.) Granted, most people buying gifts are probably Christian and most shoppers (Christian or not) could give a damn less whether or not they are told to have a "Merry Chirstmas" or not. But, still, why attack stores for trying to be tolerant?

After an exposition of this by me and some other media people, millions of Americans decided not to spend money in the offending quarters, and the banishment of Christmas quickly ceased. I guess money trumps offending people all day long.

Really? Where are the statistics? Where are the facts? Since everyone knows that your infamous boycott of French products failed, why should we believe this claim? In fact, your boycott of French goods failed so badly, that French imports into the US increased! Unlike, Bill O'Reilly, I have the facts to back this up, right here.

This season there is another Christmas controversy, this one engineered by some atheists who want to display signs on public property if Christmas or Hanukkah symbols are present. So far, only Illinois, Wisconsin and Washington state have caved in to the atheists, but it is just a matter of time before the non-believers come to a state house near you.

What really got O'Reilly's goat, per se, was a sign that was posted at a Washington state nativity scene, which read, "At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." I'll admit that I have mixed feelings about the sign. First off, why was there a nativity scene at a Government building? Second, I do think that they have just as much of a righ... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213954/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213954/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:32:01 PST
Several months ago, a woman at a John McCain rally approached the Presidential candidate with a concern about Barack Obama: “I don't trust Obama. I have read about him, and he's an Arab.” To this, John McCain replied, “No ma'am, no ma'am. He's a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues.” While this may appear to be in defense of Barack Obama's Christian faith, this remark proves to be deeply disturbing. The implied Anti-Arab and Islamophobic sentiments are offensive and moronic. From John McCain's comment, it can be deduced that being a “decent family man” or a “[U.S.] Citizen” are the opposite of being an Arab. Obama was often negatively linked to Islam at other Palin/McCain rallies. There are over one billion Muslims in the world – millions in the US alone – yet large numbers of uninformed Americans still think every Muslim is an extremist, American-hating, suicide bomber. The media eventually began covering these intolerant remarks, but only after Obama's race was brought into the picture. Evidently, shouted derogatory comments about homosexuals, Muslims, and other minorities remains perfectly acceptable and not newsworthy. However, this all turns around when Obama's African-American ethnicity becomes the main topic. Suddenly, “race” becomes the prominent issue, while numerous other minorities are completely denied media exposure.

Similar insufficient media coverage occurred in the 2000 Election. Back then, McCain, in describing his guards at a Vietnamese war camp, said, “I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live.” The word “gook” is derogatory U.S. Military term for people of Eastern-Asian decent, specifically Koreans and Vietnamese. In response to the minimal criticism he received, McCain rebutted by saying, “I was referring to my prison guards, and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends.” By this logic, if his captors were of African descent, then the use of the N-word would be perfectly acceptable. It is unthinkable that America can become enraged with a sarcastic comment from Don Imus, yet John McCain can use hate-filled epithets against over 13 million Americans and the subject remains untouched. America has a long history of racism against Asians, dating back to our first few decades as a nation. The unequal payment of Asians' work on the Transcontinental Railroad, the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, and the Chinese Exclusion Act are all prime examples of our sad history. Even worse was McCain's failed attempt at justifying his comments rather than simply apologizing, as he should have done. While McCain truly has endured pain and torture for our country, his grouping of large populaces remains unacceptable.

However, the largest populous of people grouped together ignorantly in the recent election, were women. In mid-summer of 2008, nearly 18 million Hillary Clinton supporters seemed up for grabs to the two main presidential candidates. With many voters displeased, John McCain could have made many intelligent, strategic moves at this point, but what he did can only be described as awful, out-of-touch, and sexist: he picked Sarah Palin. At first this new-comer from Alaska seemed like a VP-pick from heaven: she reassured the fundamentalist Republican base, she was a “lively” speech-giver, and she had executive experience. However, it soon became painfully obvious that John McCain picked Sarah Palin for one reason: she was a woman. Despite being the political-opposite of Hillary Clinton, despite views that contradict the majority of women in America, and despite being too much a “maverick” to answer simple questions, her gender was more important to the McCain campaign then her quality as a politician. This move was not only completely sexist – assuming that women everywhere would vote for another woman, solely based on her gender – but it was imbecilic: to say that Hillary Clinton's 18 million voters were all women – who voted for Senator Clinton's gender – was completely offensive and not correct. All different ethnicities, religions, races, and sexual orientations make up the women of America; grouping them together and acting as if they all have the same political views demonstra... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213948/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213948/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:31:36 PST
Second only to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) community, the small, middle-class business owners of Connecticut will benefit the most. Along with the actual wedding comes receptions, services, cakes, food, performers, photographers, honeymoons, hotels, and many more related services. Connecticut will be receiving the monetary stimulus that it may need, especially in these hard economic times. In California, the most recent state besides Connecticut to legalize same-sex marriage, an economic boom was predicted by analysts. They predicted that $684 million would be spent on marriage services, such as receptions, photographers, and cakes, $64 million would be generated from tax revenue, and $9 million dollars would be gained from marriage licenses. Granted, California is a much larger state than Connecticut with more LGBT residents, but the fact still stands that Connecticut's scenery and natural beauty is superior to the other states with same-sex marriage.

If you are a Connecticut resident, it is doubtful that you will notice many changes, yet the positive effects from same-sex marriage legalization will still be bountiful. If you are LGBT then you now have statewide rights to become legally married to a person of the same gender. The same rights as heterosexual couples will also apply to you and your partner of choice. The allure of gay marriage and scenic Connecticut will entice much needed tourism. Whether it would be the coastline in summer, the famous orange, erubescent, auburn trees in autumn, the winter wonderland of Hubbard Park in the winter, or the daffodils of the spring, Connecticut is a picturesque location for couples to wed. This influx of tourists into Connecticut only denotes positive results for our fine little state. Millions of dollars in tax revenue and marriage licenses will be generated, as well as the creation of hundreds of new jobs.

Nonetheless, the homophobic conservative fundamentalists will stop at nothing to push their own agenda on every single American. Do not let openly homophobic groups with bright names such as “Focus on the Family” or “Concerned Women for America” fool you: they are more interested in pushing their own questionable agenda then letting the American people decide what is right for themselves. Despite these groups failing to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, they have moved on to California in an attempt to beguile the residents into limiting peoples' rights by supporting their agenda, known in California as “roposition 8”. Proposition 8 would not only take away the few rights that honest, hardworking, LGBT Americans have, but it would completely annihilate the economic stimulus that Californians deserve. Regardless of California, the same dark fate could possibly happen to Connecticut if we allow religion to control our secular nation.

One of the finest features of the same-sex marriage laws in California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut are the freedom that every single citizen is allowed to have within the law. Specifically, no citizen will ever be forced to be married in a heterosexual or same-sex marriage. Those who have problems with homosexuality, whether it be for religious or personal reasons, will not be forced to be involved or supportive in any way with homosexuality and those who identify as LGBT may be married as they wish. With the laws the way that they are, everyone wins. Yet, in an effort to go against the First Amendment, the Religious Right feels that their own opinions and ideals are more substantial than others'. We can only hope that the voters can see through their facade in November.


[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213934/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213934/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:30:57 PST
It is completely fair to state that campaigns cannot be won by projecting only positive points. Speaking negatively towards an opponent does matter to the independent or undecided voters. Yet, the entire prospect of a candidate being negative seems to not resonate well with the public. For instance, many of Hillary Clinton's campaign tactics were panned by the general public because it seemed too negative. The irony of it all is that being “too nice” receives criticism as well.


Of course, one might blame this harsh political environment on our two party system. If there was more than two parties then criticisms would be less intense and the pundits would have a less direct enemy – not to say that Bill O'Reilly wouldn't still hate Liberals, just that he would be forced to preach more pro-Republican and less anti-Liberal propaganda. Pundits, critics, journalists would probably give more encouragement for their audience to vote for their candidate of choice, rather than against the other guy. But, regardless, this is all irrelevant because we do have a two party system.


I am, by no means, suggesting that pundits and the mainstream media are completely off the hook. To state the truth bluntly, controversy brings ratings, while being “fair and balanced” do not. While it is neither the time nor the place to discuss bias within the media, there is no doubt in my mind that they are leeches who suck the controversy right out of the politicians' mouths until there is nothing left. However, the media is not all bad and even if you believe it to be so, then it is a necessary evil. I do not hate the media, but I do question its approach to scandals and controversy.


Still, both of the candidates have promised to run smear-free campaigns. Upon first hearing an announcement of this variety, one may be led to believe that this means there will be a positive campaign with no insults towards the opposite candidate. However, this was not the case. What “smear-free” campaigning really is, is nothing less than promising honesty. It is very sad when one proclaims that they will tell no lies about the other candidate and they are regarded as a change or a maverick from politics as usual.


Personally, I do not believe negative campaigning to be a problem, however telling lies is. There is nothing wrong with digging up information on one's opponent as long as the facts are present and not completely embellished. For example, speaking about Sarah Palin's support of the bridge to nowhere or John McCain's vote against making Martin Luther King Jr. Day a national holiday may seem like negativity, but they are facts. At the same time making ridiculous statements concerning Barack Obama being a Muslim, being in favor of the so-called “artial birth abortions”, and supporting teaching sexual education to kindergartners simply pushes the line. Why? Because the information is simply not true!


As long as there will be candidates, elections, and dirt to dig up, there will be negative campaigning. It is unrealistically unavoidable and does in fact help undecided voters further understand each of the candidates. Negative campaigning may seem harsh, but as long as it stays truthful, the people have a right to know about their future president.


[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213928/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213928/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:30:27 PST
Beyond the Palin
by Cathryn Michon

OK, here's the deal. I've spent the last week obsessed about Sarah Palin, and what a disaster and embarrassment she is intellectually, spiritually and ethically for ambitious women everywhere.

But I have to say, I think Arianna Huffington is right on the money when she says the one thing the GOP has always exploited to their advantage is the tactics of distraction.

The GOP is trying to distract us with Sarah Palin and her endless drama, and it's working. It's the best free advertising they've had in this election cycle.

This is a presidential election, the GOP has a disastrous administration and a horrible candidate whose big idea is more of the same. This woman threatens to suck all the oxygen out of the room. She's distracting everyone from the fact that McCain is a terrible candidate and will make a horrible president.

We should ignore her. We should focus on the positives of Barack Obama, his concrete detailed plans for change, his tax cuts that will benefit 95% of American families, his detailed energy policy endorsed by people as disparate as T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore, his amazing ability to manage people, time and resources. We should focus on his ability to inspire, command respect, and build actual working coalition bridges between entrenched parties. We should focus on his determination to run a respectful, diplomatic campaign about the issues, focused on the difficult task of turning our country around and regaining our reputation abroad.

If you think running Alaska 's budget is like running America 's budget, think again. Alaska is the Saudi Arabia of America. They're awash in the oil profits that are killing the rest of us. If you think Sarah Palin is not in the pockets of big oil, ask yourself why British Petroleum sponsored her inauguration party. Don't be fooled by the big brag, know that it's a con and move on to the real topic.

McCain.

Our pain about this topic is the GOP's gain. They now have a Teflon lady attack dog (if you attack, or even question her, you're automatically sexist) and they are expertly using her to distract us with conversations about sexism and privacy and a bunch of things that divide us and have us clawing at each other and divert everyone from the real topic at hand.

John McCain would make a terrible president. This is a presidential election, not a vice presidential election. The job only becomes relevant if the President dies, and if you've seen John McCain's 2,000 year old mom, I think you'll agree he'll last 8 years.

Let's follow our candidate's lead. He refuses to be distracted by Sarah Palin, and I happen to think he's very wise about things like this.

When we focus on Palin we are playing into Karl Rove's hands. We are doing exactly what the GOP wants, focusing on the non-issue of an unqualified Vice Presidential candidate whose draconian neo-con views have energized their base in a way their lackluster candidate could not.

The more attention you pay Sarah Palin, the more emails you forward to your friends about her, the more it becomes a story the MSM is justified in covering (and they LOVE covering it, she's pretty, she's quippy, she's the new Tina Fey!) and the more free advertising you give the GOP and they more of their voters that would have stayed home will turn out. Especially women, who will be incensed that the "liberal media" is picking on her.

Undecideds will decide this election, and if you give women undecideds a grudge that makes them turn out for McCain, all will be lost.

Seriously, it's a given that she's a bad candidate, but you must focus on the positives of Obama, motivating people to vote FOR Obama.

Sarah Palin and Karl Rove are Lucy, holding a football, enticing you to kick it.

Every time we focus on Sarah Palin we are Charlie Brown, falling for it, doing exactly what they want. They are masters at the politics of distraction.

If you believe Obama should be the leader, then follow his lead. Ignore her. Be uninterested in her. Stop letting her turn the election into a combination of Desperate Housewives and American Idol.

And never forget, we are a nation where more people vote for American Idol than for president.

Please, I beg you, be smarter than this. Stop doing exactly what Karl Rove wants you to do. Stop getting involved in the politics of distraction. We all agree she's a rotten candidate, but it's a meaningless office. She's not the reason to convince people to vote for Obama and against McCain.

If you give it heat and energy I promise you, it will backflip on you.

Sarah who?

And when this is all over, if we still enjoy the drama of C student... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213919/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213919/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:29:51 PST
-- Kanye West, (Source), (Video)



Ever since 2004 when Kanye West first released his first album, College Dropout, people knew Kanye was not a force to be reckoned with. But, it wasn't until an MTV interview in 2005 that, in my opinon, Kanye showed how much strength he truly had. While talking about the song "Hey Mama" off of his Late Registration album, he got into his personal gripes concerning homophobia in hip-hop, a topic rarely, if ever, discussed in public.





"And what happened was, it made me kind of homophobic, 'cause it's like I would go back and question myself,"



But, at one point in his life, he learned that his cousin was gay.



"It was kind of like a turning point when I was like, 'Yo, this is my cousin. I love him and I've been discriminating against gays.'"



"[Hip-hop is about] speaking your mind and about breaking down barriers, but everyone in hip-hop discriminates against gay people."



He then spoke the most memorable part of his speech:



"Not just hip-hop, but America just discriminates. And I wanna just, to come on TV and just tell my rappers, just tell my friends, 'Yo, stop it.'" (Link)



This is one of my personal favorite sentiments of his career. Imagine the world if more people said to their friends, family, lovers, or even their enemies, "Yo, stop it." Not to say that this is the answer to all the homophobia out there, but, from personal experience, it works better than saying nothing. Kanye recalls an incident with some fellow rappers in which he used this strategy:



"We started rhyming about beating up gays right in front of him. .. People always say, 'Kanye's conscious, Kanye's conscious' - well, my conscience kicked in, and it said, 'Yo, that was kinda wack.' Things have been clicking ever since. I found out my cousin was gay years ago, and even just dealing with my interior decorator, having to travel with him, I've had to deal with issues. There was a point I wouldn't even get in the car with him 'cause I didn't want people to see me with a gay person. I didn't want it to hurt my career." (Link)



At some point in time I would really enjoy to do an editorial on prejudice within rap music and I probably will. But, for the time being I would really like to extend my deepest respect and admiration for Kanye West. Keep doing what you're doing, Ye!

[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213909/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213909/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:29:22 PST

It seems that every day that more signs of John McCain's old age are being brought to the table. At first he admitted that he is neither a Mac nor a PC person, for he does not use a computer. (Link) Then, his eyesight grew weary when he couldn't even tell a topless peep-show from a beauty contest. (I wonder if his second wife could either...) (Link) The most recent account of his seniority is his forgetfulness: I could have sworn he has been calling Barack Obama 'inexperienced' for the last few weeks. (Link) He then turns right around and chooses Sarah Palin to be his running mate, who is not only younger than Obama, she has also spent considerably less time in Washington then him! (Link) What are her previous roles in government, you ask? She has been the mayor of a small town (the population is 8,471 – small is an understatement!) and Governor of Alaska (which is the 3rd LEAST populated state and the LEAST dense state – only 0.46 people per kilometer!). (Link)(Link)(Link) Now, chances are you are asking yourself: why in hell would John McCain flip flop for this clearly unqualified candidate? The answer is between her legs and on her chest.


John McCain is known for his respect and admiration for woman and clearly regards them as equal to men; if only I were not being one-hundred percent sarcastic. He disapproves of equal pay for women. (Link) He does not think that women should have the right to choose to have an abortion. (Link) We all remember his remarks concerning his enjoyment in seeing his second wife in a degrading, sexist, topless contest. (I should really stop berating him for this. His excuse of complete ignorance is really a good one.) So, following que, he once again banks upon what he perceives as women's ignorance. He is going on the logic that there are hordes of unintelligent women that just want to see a woman in office, regardless of how disturbing her views on the world are.


Sarah Palin qualifies as your average batshit insane Christian fundamentalist politician: anti-choice, anti-gay, and an NRA Member. In fact, she is not just an NRA member, she is a lifetime member. She has attempted to pass legislation removing polar bears from the endangered species list, because she doesn't believe in global warming. Yes, you read correctly. She does not believe that global warming is occuring. This is not the first time she has openly disagreed with countless scientists and educated professors: she is an anti-Evolutionist (also known as a creationist). She believes that we should teach our kids that – allow me to quote myself: “[...] the earth and every single creature was created in under a week by an invisible force and the only two humans were placed into a utopian garden with a maniacal talking snake.” (Link) She also believes that by not teaching about contraceptives in public schools that our teen pregnancy and abortion rate will drop. Makes perfect sense, right? It certainly didn't help her seventeen-year-old, unmarried, pregnant daughter named Bristol. (Link) This is definitely the type of Vice President we need. (Link)



Unfortunately, this will pose a threat to the Democrats. The common criticism of John McCain, namely, that he is corrupt and has become too familiar with the Washington lobbyists will no longer work. You can't become familiar with the Washington special interest groups if you were never in Washington! Her age will also work for her advantage. The common theme of “Change” that has been popularized by Barack Obama is now in her favor. Since there has never been a woman in the Vice Presidential position, the public will identify her as a “Change”. I cannot help to agree: if she is elected we will have a change – for the worse!



Our fight for gender equality has been a long and rough one; no one can dispute this. Hillary Clinton's historic run was simply beautiful and we can hope that fate will allow her to run again in 2012. Opportunities for women in the world, specifically in America, have never been better, still, we have a long way to go. But, you're not stupid. Sara Palin and John McCain do not believe that women deserve equal rights as men do. I know that many of you have waited your entire life to see a wo... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213898/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213898/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:28:47 PST

One of my major dislikes about the book stems from its non-use of quotation marks. Allow me to show you an example of what this would look like in average colloquial writing:


Normal Respectable Literature Style:

“I'm going to the store,” said John, “Do you want me to get you anything?”

“No, I'm all set,” replied Mary, “I'm going to go later anyway.”


“Old School” Style:

I'm going to the store said John Do you want me to get you anything?

No, I'm all set replied Mary, I'm going to go later anyway.



Did Mr. Wolff believe this to be artsy? Was he just a lazy? Was it a mistake? To this day it is unclear to me why he left quotation marks off. It truly did make certain passages difficult to read and I would be forced to reread sections several times before I could fully understand the segment.



Although there is nothing truly offensive about these books they are just not an enjoyable read. They are better than any book written by Ann Coulter, but they are less interesting than one of hers. I would not suggest Old School by Tobias Wolff.


I'd give it...4.5 out of 10


[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213885/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213885/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:28:07 PST

A one word answer: Yes.

A two word answer? Most definitely.

A more detailed response? Read on...



Unlike Hilary Clinton or Joe Liberman, Joe Biden isn't a necessarily well-known name for the average voter. So, let's begin by exploring Biden's politics. Joe Biden is both pro-choice and pro-life; he supports keeping abortion legal. He is a pro-gay candidate. He strongly supports keeping the drinking age 21 but he has opposed increasing the penalties for drug crimes. Joe Biden believes that the real issue for American education are the large class sizes; his plan is to hire more teachers. He is also opposed to drilling off shore for oil and for pulling our troops out of Iraq. (Link) This is only a flavor of what Joe Biden's politics are and I would suggest you visit his website for more information. (Link)



Joe Biden and Barack Obama's politics match up pretty similarly, but Biden does have something that Obama needs: experience. Joe Biden has been in Washington for over 30 years. (Link) Biden has considerable expertise in foreign affairs. Ever since the primaries, Barack has been taking considerable heat from Republicans and critics alike regarding both his experience in Washington and of his Foreign Policy. Joe Biden puts both of these criticisms to rest, with some ease.



Of course, Joe Biden does have a few minor criticisms. The biggest, was a racially insensitive comment made about Senator Obama, a few months back. (Link) I am not going to attempt to justify the statement; it was wrong. But, if Barack Obama has forgiven him, I think the voters should as well. Plus, Biden is most definitely not a racist. The NAACP rated Biden a 100% their score card. (Link) The comment seems to just have been a lack of judgement on Biden's part, yet he must remember not to run his mouth too much in the next few months.



Republicans are also beginning call hypocrisy on the Democrats. They say that Obama has been criticizing McCain for being in Washington for so long, yet Biden has been in for quite awhile as well. The fact of the matter is, Obama has criticized McCain for becoming too cozy in Washington and too familiar with the special interest groups; in other words becoming as corrupt is he is old. (Link) This image of a corrupt, old, McCain is quite different from Biden, who actually knows how many houses he has (Link) and who takes the train home from Washington whenever his work was finished. (Link)



Regardless of who Barack Obama picks, this election will be a difficult one to win. Will Biden's experience, Catholicism, (Link) and strong morals be enough to carry us to victory? Or will his religion, mouth, and smears lead us to disaster? It looks like we'll have to wait until November to find out, but we can hope for the best.


[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213874/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213874/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:27:28 PST


“More guns equals less violence.”



...

What!?



Of course, it's doubtful that anyone has put it that way before, but in essence that's what pro-gun enthusiasts believe. Today, we're going to explore why this logic is asinine, how the second amendment doesn't actually say that one can own guns (and why the Supreme Court is wrong), and arguments often times made by pro-gun enthusiasts.





To start off, the logic just doesn't make sense. I'm sure that you've all heard the phrase, “Guns don't kill people, people kill people.” (the Right-Wing's rebuttal). These two statements, together, are the NRA and the Republican's main answer to violence in the USA. They believe that all people have the right to bear arms (Link), they believe college students should be allowed to pack heat on a campus (Link), and they think that our children should be educated about guns as early as possible (Republican Logic: Teaching kids about accepting people that are “different” is a no-no, but teaching them about rifles is acceptable.) (Link).



To back this all up, the NRA uses the Second Amendment to back them up. What does the Second Amendment actually say, you ask? Well, allow me to quote:



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

-- Second Amendment (Link)



In those times, people feared a government growing as large and tyrannical as the one of the British. At the same time, the police, military, and navy were all English controlled. Lucky, the majority of the soon-to-be-Americans were farmers, who owned guns of their own. Militias were soon formed all over the colonies, as groups of citizen freedom fighters would take the law into their own hands. Now, it should be evident to you that we do not have these Militias anymore, as they are a thing of the past. (Link) Unfortunately, in a recent Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, it has been decided that the Second Amendment somehow extends to an individual's right to own a firearm for personal use. (Link)



Pro-gun enthusiasts have often won many debates with a few, yet simple arguments. Below are the most common statements I hear plus how they are inaccurate.





· “If the people in [Insert Recent Tragedy Here] happened to own a gun, they probably wouldn't died.”

o This is quite possibly the most used argument that I hear. The problem here is that they are not talking facts, they are talking “What If” and playing into a scenario that everybody wants to hear. What one must remember is that if everybody owned a gun there would be a lot more tragedies than if no one did.\



· “The problem with gun control is that the only people who will have guns will be the bad guys!”

OR

· “Do you want the bad guys to be able to break into your house and hurt you or your family?”

o This is another commonly used argument. The only people who will own guns will NOT be the bad guys. The Police will have guns too! Your house “armed” with a good security system, movement activated lights, reenforced doors, an alarm system and even security cameras are all relatively inexpensive ways to keep your family safe. Having a phone with 9-1-1 on speed dial isn't a bad idea either. In other words, if you are truly concerned with your families' protection, there are other non-gun related ways to protect them.



· “Would [Insert Ridiculously Complex Name Of A Specific Firearm] be alright to own under these gun control laws?”

You: I'm not sure of what type of firearm that is, so I'll have to get back to you on that --”

“Hah! You don't know your facts!”

o This is a common place attack to make one sound like they have no idea what they are talking about and it is hard to pull out of this “hole”. The easiest way to attempt to recover from this shady tactic is to respond with a broad answer about gun control and not to attempt to understand the unnecessarily complex gun-type previously mentioned.





Unfortunately, the false of idea of the Second Amendment has been so ingrained into Americans' lives that it is hard for any President or other elected individual to overturn it. While I personally would enjoy to see this happen in my lifetime, it is unlikely that it will occur. So, we must attempt to elect people who will slowly, over-time, introduce gun control. Starting off with overturning District of Columbia v. Heller, protecting the ban on assault weapo... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213858/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213858/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:26:49 PST
Immortal Technique is his own type of rapper. He focuses not on cars, women, and guns, but on socialism, the Bush administration, and inner city crime. If either of these two albums ever made it to the top ten lists, it is likely that there would have been much controversy and it is not hard as to see why. He is a Communist, he is a large critic of the United States government (particularly the Republicans), and he is extremely explicit in his descriptions and metaphors.

He is a conspiracy theorist (although he denies it all in his song “Bin Laden (Featuring Mos Def & Eminem)” and there is really no doubt about that. This doesn't really detract from his music, in fact in some instances it makes it more interesting to hear his point of view – even if you disagree with it completely. Although I do believe there is a large number of corruptions in the Republican party and the U.S. Government, I do not agree with all of the sentiments that Immortal Technique says. Regardless, it does make one pause, stop, and think about the government that we pledge allegiance to, almost blndly.

Both records, namely Revolutionary Vol. 1 and Revolutionary Vol. 2, are extremely well made and some of the best hip-hop/rap albums I have ever listened to. While they are both excellent albums, the first album features more of Immortal Technique's lyrical skills with more emphasis on his similes and wordplay rather than the second album which goes deep into his political and religious views. Neither of these are better than the other and both albums have their strengths and weaknesses.

The biggest weakness in both of his albums are his homophobia and his sexism. Now, I will not get into homophobia and sexism within hip-hop/rap (that's a completely separate topic), but I find clear hypocrisy within his music because of these two prejudices. Racism is one of the biggest problems that Immortal Technique sees for the US and the world. He is also a very strong believer of radical values, such as equality for all to the point of Socialism. Yet, it seems that simply bigotry is not above him. It confuses me how he can have so much hatred for the unfair bias that he sees in the Bush administration and on Fox News (not that he's wrong about that), but then he turns around to berate homosexuals and females. Put it simply, you cannot choose to be black and one does not choose to be gay or a girl; homophobia, racism, and sexism all pray upon parts of peoples' lives they have no control over.

On each album, there is one song that may send you into tears. “Dancing With The Devil” and “You Never Know (Featuring Jean Grae)” are both easily the best written songs (not to insult the others). Although I do not wish to give anything away, both songs are extremely disturbing do to how truly realistic they both are. Do not take either lightly.

The best aspect of these albums are the thought process you have after listening. Immortal Technique really does basically trash everything you thought about the government and the United States. Some of the most intelligent parts come from his religious ambiguity and when he discusses religious tolerance and freedom. If you can self-identify as a racist or one with religious intolerance, this album may open your eyes to the truths of the world, but if you are not, you may be left with a strange sensation that Immortal Technique's views are a tad bit ridiculous; trust this sensation, because it is true.

While I disagree with the strong Communist values, the absurd allegations, and the prejudices, the albums are a damn good listen never-the-less. The man hates Fox News (who can blame him?), isn't afraid to say what he feels (even if it's outrageous and incorrect), and really does put the freedom of speech to the test (listen to “Freedom of Speech” on the Revolutionary Vol. 2 disc) and all with considerable ease, a smooth flow, and an immense vocabulary. I do not think I can suggest this album highly enough.

I'd give it a...9 out of 10

[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213847/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213847/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:26:04 PST
What does “LGBT” stand for?

LGBT stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender; LGBT is often used as the all encompassing term for anyone who is not heterosexual or for anyone whose gender is not certain. I will use this term as well as the word “queer”, a once offensive term which is synonymous with “LGBT”. I'll explain all other vocabulary as we continue.


I've heard of “homophobia” before. What is this?

“That's so gay”, “What a queer”, “Fag”, “No homo”. Have you ever heard anyone say one of these homophobic comments? Homophobia is any type of discrimination and/or hate against LGBT people. It is a type of prejudice, just like racism or sexism and it is just as bad. Homophobia extends from small little “jokes” to horrific hate crimes, such as the Iranian mass homosexual murders (Link). While small comments are nothing compared to genocide, it all must be stopped. Homophobia is our generation's prejudice that must be ended.


Why would someone have this type of prejudice?

There are many reasons for homophobia, but none that are truly justified. The most prevalent reason would be religion. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all forbid homosexuality in ancient texts, labeling it as a sin. (Link) (Link) Most religious texts date back thousands of years where the world was a different place, making some information inaccurate by today's standards. For example, in the Christian Bible, Leviticus 25:44 (Link), it is stated that people may own slaves if they are purchased from another country. Does this mean that Americans are allowed to own Canadians? In Exodus 35:2 (Link), it is written that people who work on the Sabbath should be executed. Does this mean that we should murder everyone who has a job on a Sunday? In the beginning of the book of Leviticus (Link), it goes into extensive details of properly sacrificing animals to God. How many churches have you seen burning the carcasses of animals outside? The world of the 21st Century is MUCH different than the world before the year zero.

Other accounts of homophobia date back to the 1980's in which the AIDs epidemic was just beginning to be realized. AIDs is transferred through sexual intercourse, whether it be male-on-male, male-on-female, or female-on-female. Urban legends were passed along that the government and homosexuals were the cause of AIDs and the ones who primarily spread it, both were proved untrue, yet a large number of people still harbor fear because of this. (Link) This style of homophobia has recently been attributed to poorer areas of the United States. I have even heard some reports of people believing that homosexuals are the creation of “The White Man”. (Link) Not only is this statement racist it is also untrue, since there are LGBT of all races. (Link) (Link) (Link) AIDs is indeed a big issue for queers, but people who are heterosexual are also very much at risk. (Link)

The rest of homophobia is usually felt by those who feel it is “not natural”. Their take on the world is that love is between a man and a woman; that is how it always was and how it should be. Of course, if these people opened a book they would discover that history was filled with homosexuals. (Link) They ,might even realize that animals such as sheep, orangutans, and dolphins mate with other animals of the same gender. (Link) Despite all this, what even is truly 'natural' these days? Your food is not natural. (Link) Synthetic fibers are not natural. (Link) How's 'natural' marriage doing these days, anyway? Last time I checked there's a 50% divorce rate in the United States. (Link) In other words, for every two married couples you see, one couple will get divorced. I do not understand how people could possibly think that legally allowing two people who are truly in love to join together would be a negative influence for our country. In fact, gay marriages could generate around $684 million dollars in the United States alone. (Link) In fact...


Gay Marriages – The Original Stimulus Package: How does generating close to $700,000,000 for our economy sound?


What is being queer like?

Being queer is different for every person. Some will move to a gay town and live happily ever after. Some will grow up in an accepting town and never move, yet still lead a fulfilling life. Others may hide their true selves fro... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213819/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213819/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:24:47 PST

“This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time.”
-- Narrator / Edward Norton


From the homoerotic scenes in the beginning to the twist ending at the end to the intense sexual encounters with Marla Singer (played by Helena Bonham Carter) the movie keeps you watching. The nameless narrator, played by Edward Norton, keeps you enthralled of his story of Tyler Durden (played by Brad Pitt) and somewhat of their “Fight Clubs” (which were, ironically, some of the smallest parts of movie). The movie plays out in a “flashback” sense, with the movie beginning at the end of the plot; the narrator telling you his story from the beginning. The direction of the movie is top notch as were the beautiful graphics and special effects. The soundtrack (available for purchase by The Dust Brothers) fits perfectly with the dark futuristic feel that Fight Club has. The camera views of the narrator and of Tyler Durden are very well done, but you will only understand why after watching the movie more than once (I am trying not to give any spoilers away).


“On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.”
--Narrator / Edward Norton


This movie has very little problems with it. The plotline is very complex and may be confusing to some people. The story is also very disturbing and intended for mature audiences only. That's what the “R” rating is for. The dialogue is filled with excessive cursing (too many four-lettered words to count), the speech is often very dark, depressing, and somewhat apocalyptic (intricate discussions about life threatening diseases, suicide, wishing to die, and an overall apathetic approach to God), and overall disturbing content (stealing removed fat from liposuction clinics, taking advantage of support groups, and poking fun at car crash victims). There is a lot of violence and blood in the movie, so much so that several friends of mine would look away at every fighting scene. The sexuality of the movie is also very gratuitous (several bare breasts, a “nice big cock”, and a suspected vibrating dildo owner, to name a few). If you are able to stomach the disturbing content, then I believe that you will enjoy the movie as a whole.


“...like the first monkey shot into space; without pain, without sacrifice, we would have nothing.”
-- Tyler Durden


The movie also calls upon us all to take a look at each of our own lives and size everything up. It calls for us to look at our own materialism and ask, “Do we really need all this?” It is difficult to not see at least one aspect of Edward Norton's nameless character in oneself. If you are like myself, you will find yourself quoting it nonstop.


Overall, Fight Club is a win. I cannot suggest seeing this movie highly enough. It truly does have something for everyone – but leave the kids at home; this movie is not for them, not that this detracts from the overall feature in the least bit. It is rare that a critic gives anything a perfect score, but this movie has earned it.


I'd give it...10 out of 10



“The first rule of Fight Club is: You do not talk about Fight Club.
The second rule of Fight Club is...YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB.”
-- Tyler Durden

[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213811/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213811/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:24:18 PST

Allow me to elaborate. I have a very strong dislike for the president of Iran. He murders his homosexual citizens of his country and then he pretends as if they do not exist. (Link) However, it is not because he is Islamic or because he is a very conservative fundamentalist Muslim. It is because he has done and said detestable things.


“But,” You say, “You've made rash generalizations about the people of the South, the Bible Belt, and Red States as a whole. How is this not bigoted?”


Unlike in Iran, in America, and other such civilized nations, we have freedom of speech. No one is forcing you to believe in anything, say anything, or do anything. Your hate is your own choice. Sure, you may be raised to believe something, but with the so-called “Liberal” media, the internet, and Hollywood there is no way that anyone these days does not have the capacity to think outside of the box. Although, sympathetically, I do feel bad for the kids out there who are constantly being brainwashed by their anti-Choice, Fox News-watching, Creationism-believing, Bible-humping parents, because I am not kidding: there are an alarming number of families similar to this.


“We get it. You're not a Christian,” You say, “But, what do you believe in?”


Well, I'll be honest. My beliefs are personal and I do not feel that everyone should be put on display. I think having a crucifix in every room of a house is tacky. Wearing a Star of David is unnecessary as is putting religious quotes on a bumper sticker (on Facebook or on a car; I dislike them both). But, since my faith has been questioned, I'll be frank: I am an Agnostic with Atheistic-like tendencies. In a sense what this means is this:


There is not enough proof to prove that a God exists. Similarly, there is not enough proof to prove that one does not exist.


This being said, I personally do not think that a God exists. However, I do think that there is a possibility of one. I personally do not view it as a big issue whether or not I think that there is or is not a God. I don't think it's a big deal whether or not you think Jesus was white or black (Although, it's pretty obvious that he was middle eastern, so his skin would look similar to Saddam Hussein's). I also do not think that whether Jesus is or is not the Messiah is an issue. What is an issue are peoples' actions. It doesn't matter what religion you tell people you are if in the end you are a terrible person. Adolf Hitler was a proclaimed Christian, yet this makes him no better than if he had been an Atheist.



Allow me to make this simpler. Several months ago (or last week if you watch Fox News), Barack Obama's religion was being questioned. Was he a Muslim or a Christian? For what seemed to be weeks people disputed this. Ever since 9/11, there has been a huge fear of Muslims and Islam. The general public does not believe that they can trust someone like that. The general public has much prejudice. So, while everyone was asking similar questions, I knew that it did not matter. Maybe he was a Muslim, maybe he was a Christian. Hell, he may even be Jewish (Although this is unlikely). But, does it matter? It hardly matters what faith he is, but what actions he makes! He may be Islamic, but if he leads this country to success then, dammit, what's wrong with that?



Nothing is.


I do not dislike people of faith nor do I make assumptions based upon them. They are just "another person" until they make choices or comments which prove that they go against my personal morals. I do not personally think what I write and do is "hate", for two wrongs do not make a right. Without people pointing out the evils of Southern racism, schools may have never been segregated. When fixing this problem, no one thought of the poor souls of the Ku Klux Klan. I view ho... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213798/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213798/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:23:44 PST

Rev. Jerry Falwell, and his organization the “Moral Majority” (which, ironically, is not a majority) was one of the first interviewed. In one segment of the two hour long show, he explained that he believed 9/11 was caused by God's wrath for abortion being legalized. This was one of many anti-choice opinions voiced on the documentary. You see, the hijacking of planes was done by God, not Al Queda. All the pre-9/11 violence? All the post-9/11 Taliban resistance? The video of Osama bin Laden discussing the 9/11 attack and laughing? Nope! It must have been God. (For all of you who cannot tell I am trying my best to be completely and utterly sarcastic.) This is really the only point that he makes other than vaguely observing that society is progressing in the wrong direction.


“Okay,” You're saying, “The next people should be a little more intelligent and less completely insane, right?”


Wrong.


As the documentary continues on, the people being interviewed appear more and more brain dead. About halfway through the show, a family who removed their children from the public school system is interviewed. Basically, the family feels that brainwashing their kids and keeping them sheltered in an unrealistically pristine environment will benefit them in life. At home, they teach their kids the alphabet using biblical flash cards (no joke) and teach them the “correct” way that the earth was created. Which is, namely, that the earth and every single creature was created in under a week by an invisible force and the only two humans were placed into a Utopian garden with a maniacal talking snake. With stories such as this, it's hard to believe that there are any scientists remaining. (Sarcasm, again.) Apparently, this family feels that their views, despite all the scientific evidence and despite the majority of the country follow contradictory beliefs, that the schools that EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN pays for should follow a shallow, closed minded view, from a single religion (see: First Amendment).


The closing segment on the documentary surrounded a some-what controversial figure: Ron Luce. Of course, he follows the sickening conservative values, anti-choice, anti-gay, and he is against keeping religion from our publicly funded schools. Since he believes that pop-culture is “raping virgin teenage America on the sidewalk, and everybody's walking by [...]” (an exact quote) he aims his message to teenagers and young people. He started the “Battle Cry Campaign”, because apparently sexuality in the media is bad, yet violence and war are not. He has children recite, "I will keep my eyes on the battle, submitting to Your code even when I do not understand." (Yes, this is an exact quote) Translated into English, this means “I will listen to Ron Luce and other fundamentalists even when he seems hypocritical and foolish”. The documentary showed them at a pre-”Battle Cry” event in San Francisco – one of the most pro-gay and Liberal cities in the United States of America. Of course, their hate filled rally was met with opposition, but little time was spent on the opposite side. If they say that there is not enough love in this world, then why do they hate gay people? The large Evangelical organizations in America try to play it off like they are victims, yet how many of them have been murdered for being who they truly are? (Link) If you were to ask Ron Luce, Jerry Falwell, or most fundamentalist conservative Christians about Lawrence King, I'm sure that they would respond with a mention of “Thou Shalt Not Kill” (Link), but with anti-gay rallies, large concerts entitled “Battle Cry”, and with the bombing of abortion clinics (Link), I'm not quite sure how sincere they are. Before I conclude, allow me to quote your Bible:


Love thy Neighbor.

--Leviticus 19:18



Overall, I was not impressed with “God's Christian Warriors”. I was angered by the large bias towards Christian fundamentalists and the bias somewhat against gays. There seemed to be no one defending LGBT people, abortionists, OBGYN doctors, or non-Christian victims of religious prosecution. I would expect this type of bullshit from Fox News, but not CNN; I am very disappointed. On the other... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213788/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213788/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:22:57 PST
The first claim came from a fashion choice that the Illinois senator decided upon: not wearing a pin with an American flag on it. Let us pause here. Let us take a step back for a moment. Are people really going to stop supporting a candidate based upon their choice of dress? Really? (Link) Personally, I am not sure how wearing or not wearing the pin is going to make you a worse or better leader for our nation -- wearing it certainly didn't help Bush. Regardless, Barack defended his choice. In essence, he wasn't going to wear the flag like everyone else while our veterans return from our wars and aren't given the medical help that they need and deserve. Although I personally would have not done such a protest, I respect and can understand where Senator Obama is coming from.

The second attack stemmed from an email forward, shortly after the flag pin fiasco: (Source)

"Obama Explains National Anthem Stance

Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. 'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'

WHAAAAAAAT!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president. I, for once, am speechless . . ."

This ridiculous email scam was debunked by the nice people over at Snopes.Com (For all of you who don't know, Snopes.Com is a website that has been debunking rumors, myths, and ubran legends since 1995 [link] ) Now, I'm not going to repeat much, since the entire article is up for you to read at Snopes.Com (Click Here), however, I would like to publicly state that this email is FALSE. Unfortunately, there are pictures online of Barack Obama without his hand on his heart. While I personally stand up, remove my hat, put my hand on my heart, and recite the pledge (with exception to the "Under God" part -- but we'll save that for another time), this is what most people do. For some reason, Barack Obama didn't. Now, he has since made sure that he says the pledge correctly, it is still not a huge deal. He has clearly said the pledge before correctly and he does now. He made a mistake. I understand where some minor criticism may stem from, but honestly, one slip up is not enough to turn most people away from a candidate. One slip up does not prove he does not love America. One slip up is not enough to prove he is a Muslim.

The third claim of anti-patriotism came from a comment made by his Cum Lade award winning, Princeton University and Harvard Graduate School graduating, Vice President of Chicago Hospitals, wife, Michelle Obama. (Link) Michelle Obama made the now-infamous remark, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my
country and not just because
Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.” (Link) Of course, her critics left off one critical word in her statement: "really". If it was not for this one word, then her statement would have been completely outrageous; it would have been appalling. But, with the "really" included in her comment, it puts everything into prospective: she is happy that people are now ready to change. Of course, this line hurts Barack's support from the older generations. For younger voters, the last eight years of Conservative tyranny have seemed like an eternity. For a lot of people, Barack Obama represents the strong change that these people have been waiting for.


Of course, these are just the recent attacks on Liberalism. To help out, I have taken the liberty of writing this following chart, which should clear up any other misconceptio... ]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213784/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213784/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:22:17 PST
"Love to sit in on the Senate
And tell the whole government
Y'all don't treat women fair
She read about herself in the bible
Believing she the reason sin is here [.]" - America, Nas

While the album only has one or two songs that will be radio friendly, it is clearly a bright light in a year where hiphop has been lacking. With much disappointment from Lil' Wayne's Tha Carter III and from the mixed reviews of G-Unit's T.O.S.: Terminate on Sight, Nas truly shows that hiphop may still have a chance. He clearly makes a lyrical progression from rap we've heard so far, at least in the mainstream. Unlike 2pac or even G-Unit, Nas seems to have moved on from popping bottles of champagne, guns, drugs, and from degrading women and homosexuals. The album contains very few truly misogynistic lyrics and no anti-gay lyrics. Nas also differentiates himself from the Notorious B.I.G. (as well as Lil' Wayne, who is not in the Notorious B.I.G.'s league) by staying away from complex (or corny) similes. These separations will turn a lot of potential buyers away while, hopefully, pulling a new crowd of listeners in.

"Reception, deception
Comcast Digital Satan
The Fox has a bushy tale[,]
And Bush tells lies and [Fox trots]
So, I don't know what's real [.]" - Sly Fox, Nas (Source)

The first part of the album may be inspiring, but it accomplishes this in a rather subtle fashion. No real bombshells are dropped. No one is called out (with exception to a small insult towards 50 Cent). On track four, "Make the World Go Round", Nas is joined by two - now - hiphop veterans. Chris Brown drops a average hook while The Game drops an average verse (by this I mean, he uses the "Game formula" of similes and name drops). After this, in my opinion, the album really begins. The first single, Hero, is an anthem to the streets. It does prove that there can be good hiphop radio singles. "America" is an awe-inspiring song into the look of Black America while the next track, "Sly Fox", is a diss song aimed at Bill O'Reilly and Fox News (who some say would enjoy destroying Black America). The rest of the album, for the most part, discusses racial relations, the "n-word", and other issues concerning Black America. In "Fried Chicken", Busta Rhymes and Nas jokingly describe stereotypes. "We're Not Alone" touches on the environmental crisis - an issue rarely ever discussed in rap. The final track, "Black President" is a pro-Obama support song.

This album is truly one of the most Liberal albums I've heard in years.

As you let the above statement sink in, think about these prevalent themes in hiphop. I am usually caught in a tight spot, half of me wishing to defend rap as Freedom of Speech the other half of me wants to pan it off as violent, racist, misogynistic, sexist, and homophobic. I also cannot agree with the glorification of inner city life. Yet, this album gives me a new found hope for hiphop, for it breaks away from what people have grown accustomed to in rap.

Pro's

* This is a very inspirational and moving album.
* Very different from other mainstream rap albums released in 2008.
* Nas shows maturity from his other work.


Con's

* The selection of beats on several songs could have been better. At times they blend together.
* It may seem extremely racist to some listeners.
* While there is a lot of discussion of important topics, the album only scrapes the surface. I want to hear more about sexism! More about the dislike for the Bush administration! Something about black homophobia! More details would have been nice.

Overall, I do not think that I can suggest this album highly enough. It is, in my opinion, a hiphop classic. This is also a must buy for any Liberal.

I'd give it... 4.5 / 5 Stars

"Too many rappers, athletes, and actors
But not enough n****s in NASA
Who give you the latest dances, trends, and fashion?
But when it comes to residuals, they look past us [.]" - America, Nas. (Source)


[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213774/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213774/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:21:46 PST
According to Wikipedia (Link), the song "I Kissed A Girl" by Katy Perry was released on May 6th, 2008. Upon its release, I felt that it was nothing too special. My opinion of the song is as follows:

Pros:

* It is really great to see, in this day and age, a song laced with LGBT-themes topping the charts. Such success would not have been achievable thirty years ago.
* The music industry (and especially pop-icons such as Katy Perry) are usually aimed at teenagers. The fact that such a song could achieve such success truly shows a large population of voters (or future voters) that are pro-gay or have no problem with gay rights.
* In all honesty, it is a very catchy song.

Cons:

* Lyrically (link), I have a few problems with this song:
o " I got so brave, / drink in hand. / Lost my [discretion]" Unless Katy Perry's "drink" was water, it is suggested that she was intoxicated at the time of her kiss. Does this suggest her heterosexuality when she is sober? Is this a positive message? No, but it is not my main concern of the song.
o " It's not what good girls do. / Not how they should behave." This is the part of my song where main my criticisms accumulate. Why should girls not kiss other girls? Is being a girl and bisexual or a lesbian not acceptable? Why add this lyric? In reality, this segment may have just been included for "appeal", but it is not clear enough to really tell.
o " I kissed a girl just to try it, / I hope my boyfriend don't mind it." Regardless of clarity in Katy Perry's sexual orientation, it is implied that she is either bisexual or bicurious, yet pushing ANOTHER stereotype onto bisexual people everywhere: that you're a whore.
* My last point of concern are the other stereotypes presented here. While I am not one to insult pretty (and famous) girls who are bisexual or even bicurious, there does seem to be an undertone of sexism here. Unfortunately, this song falls under "Tila Tequila"-syndrome which is, simply, a situation in which if a bisexual/bicurious male were to attempt a feat he would fail, yet a bicurious/bisexual female is able to succeed due to society's sexism.


Despite my careful analysis, I don't think that the song is meant to be taken too seriously. It was meant as a light ditty to our generation and 99% of kids will understand its meaning perfectly. Of course it will gain controversy from red state citizens who think that Katy Perry will single handedly shove the "devil" down our generation's throat through a corny hit-single.

None of this really bothered me much until it really hit the mainstream media. "Faux News" (some call it "Fox News") is the number one watched news network in the United States of America (Link) and the number one watched news show is "The O'Reilly Factor" (Link). These two statistics bother and scare me for reasons that will be explained in great detail in many posts to come. But, "The O'Reilly Factor" annoys me for its enormous ignorance and bigotry, especially his views on the song, "I Kissed A Girl". O'Reilly contests that this song will encourage kids to, in essence, become lesbians.

Will watching Ellen Degeneres turn you into a lesbian? She has more overall appeal than Katy Perry, she has been on television for longer than Katy Perry, and is more successful than Katy Perry. In fact, she's admittingly lesbian! While, I personally believe that Ellen is a better role model than Katy, the analogy still fits.
Also, people must take this into consideration: when has Hollywood ever had good role models? When has it not been amoral and dirty? Since its beginning there has always been drugs, money, greed, and even sex tapes! So, when has it even been a good idea to base your life, beliefs, or sexual orientation on the tinsel-town role models? It hasn't been.

TL;DR * : Katy Perry's new song is cathcy but not meant to be taken too seriously. "Faux News" takes it too seriously and ends up making yet more homophobic comments. People will be gay, straight, or bisexual regardless of what a song tells them to do.

[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213760/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22213760/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:20:51 PST I witnessed an act of horrifying injustice. I saw hundreds of Asians
tipping over buses, hurting Police officers, and other such atrocities.
I had assumed the crowd to be the Communist Red Party of China, the rogue
nation of North Korea or possibly the Chinese military against the
innocent civilians of Tibet, but I was quickly surprised that it was a
civilized Democratic country. It was, in fact, South Korea. (Link) My surprise
at the pandemonium overshadowed by my shock at the Anarchist state that
Seoul was in, especially due to their own ignorance. The same beef that
is shipped to American supermarkets is the beef that is being shipped
overseas to Korea.

I did a little research on what people had told me
about "Korean-beef" being made in factories while "American-beef" was
taken from naturally grown cows. I actually found this to be incorrect
- unless specially ordered, all cows are "made" in factories. Yet,
America has no mad cow disease outbreaks. The intelligent parts of the U.S. (most parts with exception to the majority of the South -- see Bible Belt) haven't started
tipping over buses in D.C. We haven't started hurting our fine officers
of the law. We haven't had anarchy. (Link)

So, what's wrong with this picture? What may be disguised
as a simple complaint against our fine American policies, intelligent
politic followers have realized this to be an
act of, simply put, Korean egotism. Think about it: there is no real
issue here. Asia has been home to even worse treatments of animals.
There is one popular Asian method of cutlery, in which a cow is
confined to a small box and is disallowed from getting any physical
exercise until its' dying day. Oh, and did I mention that this is done
all in factories much worse than the ones that you spoke of? In
reality, this is not attack on American beef or American farmers - this
is an attack on America. It appears that Koreans are sick of America
being the only superpower in the world. And, yes, we are. It seems that
Koreans are sick of having the world superpower help them in "their"
country. In my opinion, it is quite a foolish reason to cause public
hindrances as well as harm to the Police. I surely hope that President
Lee can get this situation under control, but with his approval rating
at around 21% (lower than George W. Bush's) I know better. (Link)

[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22211835/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/22211835/ Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:04:07 PST
I am going to begin using dA as another Blog. So, I apologize in advance if any of my journals flood your inbox. It feels good to be back, yet again!

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/17665820/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/17665820/ Thu, 03 Apr 2008 11:21:32 PDT
I'm sorry! Much love to all of my supporters over the times...please visit my new Blog:

[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/16253581/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/16253581/ Sat, 05 Jan 2008 03:09:31 PST

Please, repost this in support of your friends and loved ones who are gay. Love is not defined by color, creed, preference, gender (or lack thereof) or anything else except your own mind. Feel free to add your own story to the end.

I am the mother who is not allowed to even visit the children I bore, nursed, and raised. The court says I am an unfit mother because I now live with another woman.

I am the boy who never finished high school, because I got called a fag everyday

I am the girl kicked out of her home because I confided in my mother that I am a lesbian.

I am the one working the streets because nobody will hire a transsexual woman.

I am the sister who holds her gay brother tight through the painful, tear-filled nights.

We are the parents who buried our daughter long before her time.

I am the man who died alone in the hospital because they would not let my partner of twenty-seven years into the room.

I am the foster child who wakes up with nightmares of being taken away from the two fathers who are the only loving family I have ever had. I wish they could adopt me.

I am not one of the lucky ones. I killed myself just weeks before graduating high school. It was simply too much to bear.

We are the couple who had the realtor hang up on us when she found out we wanted to rent a one-bedroom for two men.

I am the person who never knows which bathroom I should use if I want to avoid getting the management called on me.

I am the domestic-violence survivor who found the support system grow suddenly cold and distant when they found out my abusive partner is also a woman.

I am the domestic-violence survivor who has no support system to turn to because I am male.

I am the father who has never hugged his son because I grew up afraid to show affection to other men.

I am the home-economics teacher who always wanted to teach gym until someone told me that only lesbians do that.

I am the woman who died when the EMTs stopped treating me as soon as they realized I was transsexual.

I am the person who feels guilty because I think I could be a much better person if I didnt have to always deal with society hating me.

I am the man who stopped attending church, not because I don't believe, but because they closed their doors to my kind.

I am a warrior for my country serving proud, but can't be my true self because gays aren't allowed in the military.

I am the person who has to hide what this world needs most, love.

I am the person ashamed to tell my own friends I'm a lesbian, because they constantly make fun of them.

I am the who isn't sure what she is. I am the who is rejected by her "best friends" because of a less-than-conventional crush.

I am the girl who suffers in fear of disappointing her Catholic parents and the God she loves so much.

I am the boy tied to a fence, beaten to a bloody pulp and left to die because two straight men wanted to "teach me a lesson."



This is the boy, Matthew Shepard. On October 7, 1998 Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson lead him to a remote area east of Laramie where they demonstrated unimaginable acts of violence. Matthew was tied to a split-rail fence where he was beaten and left to die in the cold of the night. Almost 18 hours later he was found by a cyclist who initially mistook him for a scarecrow. Matthew died on October 12 at 12:53 am at a hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado. KILLED BECAUSE HE WAS GAY!!!

---IF YOU BELIEVE THAT HOMOPHOBIA IS WRONG... REPOST THIS.

---IF YOU ARE IGNORANT... IGNORE

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/14852263/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/14852263/ Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:57:28 PDT [link]

To start off I am now at Boarding School. I don't trust the internet and/or the IT Dept. here enough to post the name of the school, but I assure y'all its a nice school. Unfortunately, in the summer time there was a hacking of the mainframe, and the head of the IT Dept. quit, and a new one has been brought in. And he quite hasnt figured out the correct settings for students' internet and it is exceedingly slow. Like, on most nights if I go to "[link]", it will take the internet LITERALLY 20 minutes. No joke or exaggeration. 20 fucking minutes.

This also means that for all my deviantART watchers/watchees I have not posted in the journal, posted any new work, and I have marked all of the new journal posts and artwork as "Read". I am terribly sorry, there were just too many to handle.

On a lighter, and even happier note, I have recently "come out" and I now identify myself as bisexual. I have known of my bisexuality since last late November. It's especially funny due to this post from a while ago: [link]

Haha, have a good day, y'all!






VVV ....EDP Blog.... VVV
[link]

As many of you know, I, The F, have parted ways with all other EDP members. It's a long story and we all are still on talking terms, but we kinda have all separated. At the same time, my internet connection is quite sketchy most of the time, so running a website is quite hard. I'm also trying to think of a purpose for EDP. Stay tuned, fans!

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/14066682/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/14066682/ Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:24:32 PDT
First off, thank you all for bearing with me. It's been hard. I have a lot of pressures.

Second off, happy b-day, y'all. [link] Enjoy it!

Third, I hope to get to your comments and such ASAP.

Peace.

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/13021607/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/13021607/ Sun, 20 May 2007 05:32:18 PDT
The Original Shot of my 1,010 Views

[link]

Fake Pic of Myself With 1,000 Views:

[link]

Thanks guys! I owe/love y'all!

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/13011245/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/13011245/ Sat, 19 May 2007 09:16:20 PDT
Anyways, comment back!

---
People/Clubs I Watch:
http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/12720442/ Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:40:38 PDT You can ask me THREE questions
No matter how crazy, inappropriate, or random they are
I will answer 100% truthfully. (or as close to the truth as i can)

Now Here's The Dare.
You Must Put This in Your Journal
See What Other People Will Ask You

Shout out to
---
People/Clubs I Watch:
http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/12707201/ Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:27:50 PDT
1. I'll respond with something random about you.
2. I'll challenge you to try something.
3. I'll pick a color that I associate with you.
4. I'll tell you something I like about you.
5. I'll tell you my first/clearest memory of you.
6. I'll tell you what animal you remind me of.
7. I'll ask you something I've always wanted to ask you.
8. If I do this for you, you must post this in your journal!

Stole from , haha thanks, man!

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/12344957/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/12344957/ Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:44:04 PDT My Gift...
...for y'all.

I hope you all enjoy this day for me as much as I do!
---
People I Watch:
http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/12214136/ Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:46:46 PDT
* First off, I never knew that if you "favorited" news that it would create itself in a nice lil' box on your page. The first one I favorited (mostly for a test, but I enjoyed the subject matter), called "Doggy Style". It was pics of dogs people.

* Lastly, if you will draw your attention to below, you will see that I am watching EXACTLY 50 people. w00t.

---
People I Watch:
http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/12192037/ Thu, 15 Mar 2007 10:20:46 PDT People I Watch:
http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/11419879/ Sat, 13 Jan 2007 08:56:16 PST I meant to post this first....awwwww...

Thanks to !

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/11256382/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/11256382/ Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:51:57 PST EDP Blog > Award Nominees

I guess the post above should be explained. Every year EDP sets aside numerous events that deserve the attention. The winners will be posted tonight/tomorrow at 12:01 AM, Jan. 1, 2007.

That is, if the Y2K7 bug doesn't kick in.... *crickets*

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/11119866/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/11119866/ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:27:16 PST Personal Blog: One More Day

Blogger's Back, And So Will Be EDP

Enjoy!

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/10908773/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/10908773/ Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:00:33 PST [link] by : Lostboy Productions: ) in my wishlist. Now, I'm not gay, but I don't mind them. It just bugs my to be labeled like this. None of the people in my school understand art! Goddamn it!

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/10863660/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/10863660/ Mon, 27 Nov 2006 02:50:46 PST
1. w00t! w0t0! Yea! Ya! Oui! Mais Oui! MY LAPTOP IS BACK!
[link]

2. Happy Black Friday!
[link]


EDP Blog:

3. The Writing Process
[link]

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/10519006/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/10519006/ Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:19:01 PDT Cleanin' out my closet...ummm...CD Spindle...:
[link]

My Personal Blog:
My Stories:
[link]

P.S. I am soon trying to find a way to get these on DeviantART easily.

]]> ~evildogfish http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/10509869/ http://evildogfish.deviantart.com/journal/10509869/ Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:19:49 PDT
[link]
==or==
[link]

My latest message on my personal blog is here:
[link]

The latest post in the EDP Blog is here:
[link]

I was sad to report the news in EDP Blog, yet I need to keep on moving with the future.

]]> ~evildogfish