Category Archives: theory

Male circumcision is genital mutilation: the sharp unconcerned gender disparity as written by news media language

circ-egypt

Frogtown, USA–I never really thought about the topic of circumcision much, especially in relation to change or making change within–I think my fate is sealed, was sealed before my brain could function enough to say perhaps “no, sounds painful”.

Maybe once in high school though I thought about it being a private matter.  The idea of male circumcision and what it meant.  I still don’t understand much about it, however many males in America are circumcised.  I think the act could be because of religion or because of hygiene, it could be.

You see, I won’t research that.  I don’t care if it is because of “religion” or “hygiene”, they why doesn’t matter.

The matter at hand is that male “genital mutilations” or “circumcisions” happen and there are limited media reports of them in comparison to female “genital mutilation” stories.  I find it odd that a prevalent practice performed on one gender (male) is considered normal while a similar practice performed on another gender (female) is considered a news worthy, and possible criminal charge.  And, as a self-identified male, I find this a bit unfair.  (But that doesn’t fit into the Narrative.) download

I do not believe female “genital mutilation” or “circumcisions” should make the news if, at the same time, a majority of male “genital mutilations” or “circumcisions” do not make the news in an equal capacity.

And yet, why is there little concern that “most adult men are circumcised“.  Does this not concern the media or the activists that wish to protect human rights.  Also, why is male “circumcision” not considered ubiquitously as male “genital mutilation”?

Recent news stories focused on female “genital mutilation” prompted me to delve back into the topic of “circumcision” in males, that, and the experience of having a baby boy.

As a parent I have to decided the fate of my child’s physical dimensions.  There is no cry from protesters or the pundits when it comes to this private and personal decision at the hospital, not view as damage or irreversible harm but rather as an “option” to think about before birth.

So, think about this, as from above most American males are “circumcised”, or have experience “genital mutilation”.  In recent years, however, male circumcisions in America are on the decline.  Why is this?  Perhaps because male circumcision is actually male “genital mutilation”, period, and the mainstream media doesn’t care.

They play with terminology when it works with their ideology, but cutting flesh from one person is the same as cutting from another, no matter race, creed, or gender.  images

In conclusion, the decision to “circumcise” or to “mutilate” not is a highly personal decision, and a final one.  Accordingly, I believe that not only do we need to reconsider how we change our bodies but how we change the bodies of the future.

Moreover, I believe we need to understand and keep meanings and definitions in relation to words and genders equal, especially within news media language and context; we observe male “circumcisions” or  “mutilations” as somehow not as equally alarming as female genital mutilation.  Perhaps the lack of concern shown to one gender over another by mainstream news is the actual shocking news story that everyone wants but no one wants to hear.

As a self-identified male, I haven’t heard of any bills being made to save our (fore)skins, pun intended, in relation to “circumcisions” or actual male “genital mutilation”.  Alike, I think all “genital mutilation”, in relation to all genders, is mutilation, destruction, and potentially a crime which disfigures the human body.  Reconsider this when the idea arises in local reports or national breaking news.  download.jpg

Language is the key to this matter.  You call something “circumcision” and then you call something “genital mutilation”, on the grounds of gender, and you assume a bias in the language you use to describe an action.  Which is which?

That is the crux of this biscuit, the matter at hand.  If we use the somewhat necessary innocuous and accepted language to describe an horrendous act, is that act then acceptable, and should that act be called something different depending on who it is done to?  Because that happens now, today, on the topic put forth above.

***

I am no advocate, activist, or professional on the topic “genital mutilation”.  I am merely stating concern over the potential bias within the media coverage of one agenda over another, one gender over another, through language and terminology.

These are my views.  I am open to free discussion and open dialogue on the topic of circumcision/genital mutilation, please comment as necessary.  Thank you for reading.  No hate please, I try to stay positive.

 

 

An opinion of the 2017 housing market from a millennial who has gone through the home buying process (to a point)

986d4f-20170614-housing-market07.jpg

“Realtor Nene Matey-Keke of RNR Realty leaves a home after a showing in St. Paul on June 7, 2017. Tom Baker for MPR News” – Image from MPR

Disclaimer: This may seem as a lot of fluffy prose and metaphorical goo-goo, but I have no other way of free-playing this into reader’s minds as I wish to. This is not objective science but subjective thought from my experience. Please read this for what it is, an opinion about something I have limited understanding of.

***

Frogtown, USA–The housing market to me is paper thin, ask any realtor what they think about the market and they will say it’s great, it’s a seller’s market. But look beyond that.

MPR and other media cover obvious: the market is booming, it is also hard for Millennials to buy, and to no end. What they forget to mention is the other side. One-sided arguments: this is hard, nothing is changing.

Though, think of that change. The other side of the coin is the market crashing. Ask an honest person, my neighbor, who is a realtor, and she will tell you to save no wand in 5-7 years the market will crash.

As a novice of day-trading and stock market and any financial market in America, in relation to the housing market, I understand there is a pattern: things change.

The housing market is hot now, you can sell anything for far more than it is worth. Many people are flipping and buying flipped homes. Great for them, but this is a fad as everything else. It will eventually fade.

Instead of getting sucked in by low interest rates and ease of attaining a mortgage and buying because everyone else is, think. Because everyone else is and it is trendy now, should you do it?

I use the jump off of a bridge analogy. No, I wouldn’t. Though I almost bought a house with my wife. We realized it’s hard work. I do not envy the fixer-uppers.

Take a walk down the street, everyone is selling. But why? Because people will buy anything they think they need. Now you think you need a home. Something way more expensive than you thought it would be–and it is.

And for why? Yeah, you own it. It may appreciate. It may gain value. But at that price if it doesn’t work out and you lose your job it maybe get bad. That is why. I say wait it out, and others have said this too.

Watch the market collapse. Listen as everyone tells you it won’t. Or they cringe at the thought. Like the stock market, or any capitalistic market it is fragile, fragile yet resilient. It comes and goes.

It will come and go, don’t miss it. But don’t get caught up in the hype, the media juicing it because of sponsors. Listen to the radio. “We buy any house and sell it”, why? Because that is there job.

Realtors and lenders describe the market is ways that keeps them in business. That is why I say the market is paper thin, because it is as thin as the money you don’t have to buy it. I have heard get on the train before it leaves the station in reference to buying a home.

But what if that train is going somewhere I don’t want to be. What if it is a doomed train. I want to read more articles on how the market actually is not what people think of the market, ironically.

I want both sides of the story. I won’t read half of a book if the book isn’t finished, nor will I watch half of a movie. Pundits and those whose skin is at risk tell how it is, but where is the science. Every mountain has a peak and a base.

Look and you may see the man behind the curtain, look at you may see it for what it is. A show that is a market that makes those is the “know” a lot of money. The benefit is to make is seem as though it is a certain way when it is not.

***
Again: This may seem as a lot of fluffy prose and metaphorical goo, but I have no other way of free-playing this into reader’s minds as I wish to. This is not objective science but subjective thought from experience. Please read this for what it is, an opinion I have a limited understanding of.

American news media unanimously agrees to write shorter articles saving readers time, triggering the advent of journalism without words

 

mainstreammedia.png

Frogtown, USA —This week an official report of an official study found that most people don’t read the news because it’s too long and takes too much time to read. In hopes to counter lack of readership and lack of attention to everything the mainstream media has decided to make all articles one to two sentences long, maximum.

The decision to make news articles one to two sentences long in their entirety was unanimously agreed upon by American news organizations on Monday eve after finding that no one reads anymore, or takes the news seriously, and this looming fact destroys potential for more advertisement revenue.

In what seems to be the demise of true journalism, a bastion of hope has been burrowed out of thin air in true optimism, from the idea of less is more, perhaps, and this sea change may just be the beginning of novel style of journalism that doesn’t require words at all, merely assumptions by inflection of personal interpretation. Not a far cry from where we are today, when journalism already doesn’t require legitimate sources at all.

To the news that all news articles would be only one to two sentences long, purposeful and sage Millennials rejoiced in having more time to like things on Instagram and craft new Facebook status updates, now instead of reading through articles with details and objective facts the reader could simply fill in the blanks to their liking. Creating a double positive: the story would be easier to read, and easier to digest mentally.

In a time where there isn’t much time in our busy lives, shorter articles will become a more positive experience for the reader, for the writer, and for the entire world in general; journalism with words, thought, and details will become a thing of the distant past. With the official announcement of shorter articles, the American news media is truly on course for a new style of the literary form, a new style of journalism without words.

BREAKING: Russian operatives hack Easter Sunday, little sister wins Easter egg hunt two years in a row

920x1240

A bunch of Easter eggs scattered on the ground, an American tradition Photo: Megan Spicer

In what has turned into worldwide contention, anonymous sources have confirmed for America mainstream news organizations that Russian operatives have officially hacked the results of the 2017 La Crescent, Minnesota family Easter egg hunt, siding the last born child.

The youngest of four siblings won a second year in a row, prompting an immediate recount, massive protests around the nation, and cries that she turn over the highly-demanded $20 from the golden egg–which this years was secretly hidden in a red plastic egg, by Russian operatives, rather than in the shining golden egg.

There has been no confirmation or dis-confirmation of these damning allegations by Russian sources, merely they responded by not responding because no questions were asked, per usual–which means theses assertions hold clout, obviously.  There is no legal reason why the youngest sibling should win 2 years in a row, the outcome is suspect.

Recount: Clinton’s Double Jeopardy; How Hillary will Win the 2016 Presidential Election

“My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment,” said Assange. “Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.”

RT

Firstly, I will say that I am obsessed with the recount. I cannot go for a few hours without checking it, the news. This recount affinity is an intriguing part of my life. I enjoy critiquing the news and pundits and both sides of the parties–that never get’s old apparently, to me. Even though it is shit. Nothing changes–and nothing will. It is as if I still have Facebook. Sometimes I can’t escape it. That kind of social media… Those kind of clicks on a website. It is HUGE. Big money for “real” news. This recount thing is going to make history.

I must also say, holy shit. I never thought I would say this, but I think Hillary will actually win this thing. She will enact her magical double jeopardy of a recount; waiting for the blame to be called first, by Trump, having patience, calling in a favor, and then pouncing with limited time to form a proper and meaningful defense by the presumed winner. It seems too obvious now. The long wait (3 weeks have others have said), the third party candidate comes out of nowhere seemingly for innocuous purposes (globalist), and the media says the recount won’t change anything.

(To cover that last part, the media was wrong about the entire election. What makes them so sure that they will be right this time about the recount? I am not so sure, as a matter of fact I am concerned about how many news outlets say a change in votes is “highly unlikely” or “near impossible” or a “long-shot”. To me this talk directly mirrors the rhetoric used by the media to describe the chances of Trump winning the 2016 presidential election. (Which he did.) Pollsters had it wrong, the media bought in; now the media says they have it right, no count change in the recount, and most are buying in. Fuck.)

Aside from the above hypothesizing, the recount is really good for getting people to read the headline of an article only. Just throw in the word: recount. Put whatever shit you want to in the paragraphs below it: hyperbole, emotion, fallacies, etc. They will read. If you are a mainstream site you’ll get hits. If you are a WordPress blogger, yours truly, you may get someone to look harder at your page for a second. From onset of the recount, one thing I do appreciate is that talking about how horrible Trump’s transition team is won’t hold traction for long, for news sources, this is obvious. I won’t be the person to regurgitate this prediction. Thank you, No Agenda Show.

I posit, with celerity: Trump lost footing from the start by saying in the debates that he would challenge the election results. (No shit. I would too if it were warranted.) His opponent only needed him to say it once before they started pulling it apart; they are lawyers, these are words. Hillary conceded: she plays the victim now–people sympathize–and who couldn’t, only standing up again because others stood up for her. And of course no one will have the energy or time before inauguration to say, hey let’s recount the recount. This is after Hillary is ready to take office. Ready to play the role she has practiced for her whole life.

It sounds stupid, and easy. I know it’s a short theory, half-concocted, ridiculous, and thick with what a regular person would call a conspiracy theory. Yet, as my stepfather said over the phone the other night nothing would surprise him about this election. Certainly the media is making out great with these scatalogical themed stories. They come out ahead, ironically, seldom behind. If by chance something crazy happens in the recount–new votes are found, mysteriously, or if the numbers just don’t add up–don’t be surprised. No one has the right to be. We live in a world where losers no longer lose.

I’ll be straightforward with you, I got nervous the second people started discussing the date of December 19th, when the electoral college places their actual vote. I didn’t even know that was the date. And I have written more on the electoral college than most of my ex-progressive liberal alt-left friends have, the ones who came about and told me I was stupid for thinking that the electoral college would vote for us all, so don’t vote. Well, they did. And I did. Oops. Probably should have read that history. Now they want to change the rules of the game they played so hard to win. What do you do tho?

So, on December 20th, when you wake up to find Hillary Clinton has been elected president, don’t be surprised. It’s Clinton’s Double Jeopardy, she can’t lose the recount, even though she already lost the election; it was set in motion at the debates–when no one would accept the results, really. I mean, it is entirely possible. Don’t for one second skim through the headlines and think, oh, it couldn’t happen, because that happened to the majority of the popular voting people of America. They thought they had it. Don’t be like them. Don’t be sad.

Jill Stein and the Green Party’s Petition to Recount; Money, Promises and Politics as Usual

It’s hard to imagine that still, nearly two weeks out, people are contesting the 2016 presidential election as if it never happened.  The electoral college spoke.  And we cannot be satisfied with losing, we must challenge the game we banked so much on, emotion and passion.  We must recount.  To be right!  All that I can think of after hearing about a recount, one donated by the people to a political leader is, too little, too late, and if you can’t beat them join the.

This week, Black Friday–eh, surprising deal(!), a Green Party petition to recount the 2016 presidential elections results within Wisconsin has been submitted at the ever-exciting deadline.  (The media lucked out.)  Jill Stein has been the outlier, the iconoclast, the pariah throughout this election, as one half of the Green Party, now she perhaps has turned Democrat on the idea of a recount, and with your money.  Asking for funds to prove an accurate count through a serious recount.  She is contesting for change, to be certain because of said foreign “hacks”–of course by Russia.

This hacking revelation is no shocker–the more you talk about something–the idea of Russia being puppet-master– the more it is true.  The real shocker here, I posit, is that Stein cannot guarantee if the money will actually go towards a recount, or if it will go towards something more self-fulfilling.  Pundits have suggested the funds will go to the Green Party itself as it may lack future federal funding due to less votes in the 2016 Presidential election.  So, let me get this straight, you want money for something, but it might not go to that purpose, but you want more money?  Ok… I don’t know what that’s called.

After this election, again, as the dust settles, again, and again, we can all take a count, or a recount, ourselves, of politics as usual.  Those on a soapbox telling us they will create change for the masses, especially if the money is there to be had, shame.  The more donations and shares and inquiries on social media, through crowdfunding, surely the higher chance that will we sway the results, I mean, maybe.  It makes sense.  We will have to see, and see where that spending happens to make change.

Throughout the 2016 election, I felt that Jill Stein stood for something other than what the two main parties stood for, something other than big corporations and self-gain; I felt the Democrats and Republicans stood for money, power, and capitalistic influence, this last-ditch effort from the sidelines has suggested more of the same from a different party.

For intrigue of what most likely won’t happen, I am not that confused or conflicted about Stein’s decision to act, but rather how she chose to go about this challenge: raising money.  This situation has played out before in 2000, it was just less focused and by one of the two main parties, and the money came from elsewhere I imagine.  Either way, if the money goes to a recount or to the posterity of the Green Party, it serves a purpose, it keeps a mindset going, one that can not, and will not, accept a reality set forth by the framework of reality setters in America that a reality was set within.

If this petition to recount goes through and the 2016 presidential election results are actually changed it will set an incredible precedent for big government, one that won’t be opposed, presumably, until the recount of those results.  It will show that no matter how we think our national system is set up, it can be changed to our liking, no matter how fickle, diluted, or biased they may be.  Which perhaps, I assume, may be a good thing?  And that is why I never bet more than I can afford to lose, thank you Darrrin.

***

Keep in mind, if you like what you have read here on my blog, donate.  This kind of writing is unimpeded by corporate ideologies and mindsets.  All of the money, I can guarantee will go towards upkeep and future materials on my wonderful blog.  Hit the button in the corner.  Much thanks for the read, the share, the donation, and the love.  TS_

 

 

U Libraries a priceless resource

MN Daily U Libraries editorial.JPGhttp://www.mndaily.com/opinion/letters-editor/2015/12/02/u-libraries-are-priceless-resource