Do You See What I See?

Saturday, July 09, 2005

What Can You Really Say?

Last night I was beginning a blog about the joy of the Olympic Games. About the joy that London is feeling at being awarded them and the actual joy and excitement that I experience in 1993 when the Games were announced as belonging to Sydney and the spirit that was so strong during the Games in 2000.

Then my father called me to the television. Sky News were saying there was power surges in London and showing the huge amount of emergency crew. in the area. After watching with my dad for about ten minutes, he told me that it had to be something more. Sadly, he was right.

There were four separate incidents and as I write tonight, more than twenty-four hours after the events, there are fifty two people confirmed dead. Fifty two people too many. Seven hundred people injured. Seven hundred people too many.

As I watched the images on the televisions, read reports on the internet and saw the images and read blogs of people in London, I felt helpless. I was watching this happen and I could do nothing. The tears streamed down and all I wanted to do was something to stop the pain that these people were feeling. But I couldn't.

Only hours earlier, Londoners were rejoicing in the euphoria of being rewarded the Olympics in 2012. Now they were dealing with attacks on people who were simply going about their daily business.

There is a wealth of information coming from the people who were directly there. Especially pictures that really illustrate the extent of the suffering through visuals that really shock you. As much as the modern technology is helpful in some aspects, I feel like such a voyeur being too close to the suffering. It seems wrong.

The incidents have already been politicised. From the moment that Tony Blair gave his first comments after the attacks he was beginning the arrogant mentality that exists - "we're so great and they're so bad". Then he came out with the rest of his G8 buddies to speak again and the only thing that screamed out to me? They were all men. Bush was also there to turn this back to on his little 'War on Terror' as Liberal Serving highlights.

Once again, the media together with politicians have been about to drum up this "terrorist" speak, specifically, the hate towards Muslims. But AmericaBlog points out that not all were doing this.

What we must remember firstly is that the media trying to work out whom to "blame" is futile. It does not matter who did but that it occurred. We must be aware that when we prescribe these events on actions and groups, other information can come out. While a lot of the information is coming through the traditional corporate means (CNN, Reuters, BBC, FoxNews etc), we must look at alternative means such as What Really Happened? Not because either is automatically true or automatically false but for perspective. To give ourselves many sides of the situation so that we can make informed choices as The Stick Figure Man points out, we may be discouraged from doing.

Finally, my thoughts are with the Londoners at this time as innocent people were killed and injured. Just like my thoughts are with the innocent people who are and have been killed and injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Horrific and barbaric attacks are not a part of one culture but sadly, exist in both the West and East. As a Westerner, I believe it is important for us to understand the 'other' perspective. The West's treatment of the East is just as bad as the things that have occurred in New York, Madrid, Bali and London. No, it doesn't make what occurred in London on Thursday night right because the taking of a human life is always wrong.

Friday, July 01, 2005

Yo People, It's Not *Just* Feminism

There are times when I read an article and I don't know whether to laugh my head off or to be freaked out. In the case of this article, I did both. There is so much material in this article that we're looking at a lengthy post.
Lets begin:
He's not a prude. He will say the word "fuck," but he will never, not even in the wedding bed he hopes God has prepared for his future, embody it as a verb. He will make Christian love. What most of us call sex he calls communion, and he believes it can happen only within marriage.
Good to know he is not a prude because man, that is so important. I'm quite scared at the reference to sex as 'communion'. So by that notion, when I took the supposed 'Body and Blood of Christ' when in church and at school, I was actually having *shock horror* sex.
"Abstinence," says Dunbar, "is countercultural," a kind of rebellion, he says, against materialism, consumerism and "the idea that anything can be bought and sold."
What is this obsession with abstinence? Who cares if you are a virgin or have had sex with two thousand and one people? I dislike the self-righteous, "I'm so great" because I'm a virgin sentiment and on the same note, the "I'm so great" because I've done the deed. Big fucking whoop.
Two of his roommates are virgins; the other, a Mormon named Edd Lewis, is a "recycled virgin." He's had sex but won't again until he's married.
I thought recycling was for those "tree hugging" freaks. Yo, Ed(I'm hoping the extra 'd' is just a spelling mistake in the article.) you are NOT a virgin, no matter how many times you try and tell yourself that. You have had s-e-x so therefore you are not a virgin so cut it with this "recycled virgin" shit.
Then, when Dunbar was fifteen, he became "convicted of secular music," which means he decided it was causing him to be sinful.
Blaming that 'secular music'. This blame game is starting a pattern. Which almost makes me think of the introduction to an article that although I disagreed with it's sentiment, had the funniest introduction:
I've listened to my fair share of it["Christian Rock"], too - long drive across the country; busted iPod and there's something so weird about it. It sounds like regular bad music when you first tune in. The lyrics always seem like regular bad music lyrics, too" - I feel your body next to mine/ And that makes my whole life shine" - but after a second or two you realize that they're singing about Jesus, not some girl named Mandy, and the whole thing just seems, well, creepy.
The lobby is packed and loud right up to the beginning of the service, with well-scrubbed men and women greeting one another with chaste sideways hugs. Body to body, chest to chest, says Power, is just too enticing.
It is JUST a hug. Seriously, I think something like that is the problem. Why can't two people hug? Why does it have to have sexual connotations.
Food, after all, belongs to the material world.
Interesting, didn't Dunbar inform us that he believes in abstinence which is a rebellion against materialism. Well, he must be rebelling against food then because all of these people are consistent. Right?
Every encounter must be a kind of threesome: man, wife and the Lord. Without that, it's just fucking.
Eww. I tried to get my mind out of the gutter but the concept of this is icky. Think of it peop--wait don't, that would be therapy inducing.
This is what she finds romantic: a father who gives his teenage daughter a "purity" ring, which will be returned on her wedding day and handed to his daughter's new husband, her virginity passed from man to man like a baton.
Romantic? More like a sexist disgusting situation that treats a woman as a possession. To define a female's virginity in such a way as a relay is simply disgusting. I am a human bring. I have feelings, thoughts and actions. My actions do not deserve to be passed around like some parcel.To trivalised a woman in this way is not only insulting but downright gag worthy. If my father ever dared to give me a "purity" ring I would have screamed blue murder because why aren't the rings being given to the males? Ohhh right, they don't need to be pure really even if we say so, only the girls need a visual thing to show this that is given to them by their father. Incidentally, it is reminiscient of the same reasoning behind an engagement - a visual representation to show that this woman 'belongs' to me because the bloke doesn't wear one - only the woman.
What women really want, he says, "is to be fought for."
I am a woman and I do not. No really there is no fucking way I want to 'fought for'.
In the movies, she writes, secular romance leads only to orgasm, but the real answer to her question is, of course, Jesus.
Not trying to sound repetitive but eww.