Category Archives: Voting

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.

 

 

Gorsuch’s fate to be decided by bipartisan singing competition, Democrats and Republicans both agree that they love The Voice

ap_17080498237581

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch laying down the law about singing competition as he raises both hands for two questions confusedly during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Photo by MPR/AP

What seemed a strange outcome to what would potentially be a interminable filibuster, which would then transpire into the ever dreaded “nuclear option”, government representatives have agreed to settle their contrasting differences in an unprecedented singing competition, because both parties love The Voice.

Tension soared to new heights on Monday as Democrats poised to block the Gorsuch vote and waste more time just talking (for lack of purpose)–which they have immense practice at, and as the Republicans estimated ways they could eventually change the rules by reinterpreting them as not to break them.  Then, a silver lining, wonderful idea: sing it the fuck out.  Now instead of meaningless jabber, they will serenade!

In this astonishing change of heart, all humility was saved by what was at first a quiet suggestion of a fair competition, one that Russia could certainly not hack or manipulate the paramount results of, and still, a game that would give any one group an option to decide who is more right than the other unequivocally.  That’s when Gorsuch made the suggestions himself.

It was a risky move that was taken–very necessary though, very… to put that novel idea forward into the shark tank of US politics, and for once all parties agreed on something for a total of 20 seconds… an anonymous, yet, highly reliable source onlooker unaffiliated with CNN said.  It was incredible.  God… it was like they wasted the last year and just did something.  Holy shit.  Wow.  This is AMAZING… it’s like a kale salad.  another legitimate anonymous source partaking not associated with MPR said off the record.

Gorsuch went on to graciously expound that he got his unique concept of a singing competition from watching hit network television show The Voice, he thought of fixing all the world’s problems by singing about them seems absolutely realistic, and ironically very similar to a filibuster but more upbeat.  And everyone loves The Voice.

Today politicians are going to use their voices for the voices of the American people because of The Voice, and Gorsuch, and in this competition determine once and for all Gorsuch fate and the future of America.  

Minnesota politician tries new material at Gorsuch confirmation hearing, mistaken for slam poetry open mic

This week a Minnesota politician mistakenly thought the Gorusch confirmation hearing was a slam poetry open mic, the style found at most beat coffee houses and in modern literature press events.  Accordingly the critics in earshot found the new material lackluster, overdone, and out of context.

Unfortunately, the new material Franken had was dry, hyperbolic, one-sided, and as expected, negative, certainly when speaking to Gorusch in thinly veiled exaggerations, said one anonymous official.  A member of the audience expressed that they didn’t know whether to laugh or show sympathy for the long-time poet.

Nonetheless, throughout the week news media outlets have covered how unbelievably interesting and important the Gorusch confirmation hearing is; no one thought that anyone would have any issues with Trump’s pick, it’s a real shocker–headline material.  So these apropos readings of banal poetry broke the tension and left many confused.

Online Petitions (as Pennies in a Wishing Well)

“Everything that is beautiful and noble is a product of reason and calculation.” -Charles Baudelaire

St Paul, MN- In my opinion, petitioning everything we find disagreeable on the internet, that takes place in the United States of America, is like posting a new status on Facebook, or any other social media platform, it becomes useless.  To me, this action does very little, because those forums are monitored and controlled, like throwing a penny into a wishing well–it takes the intention out of the actor’s perception, it takes the accountability out of the petitioner’s (wisher’s) hands and puts the issue in a free fall of liquidity, placing the issue on something larger and misunderstood.  I guess I miss the reason, intention, and calculation of speaking to deaf ears.

Petitioning so visibly against matters on social media creates the same sort of sentiment that one sees when one throws a penny into a wishing well. The shiny object, the cent, goes away from our observation and into certain darkness.  The viewer of this spectacle finds that the actor in this setting has hope, has promise, has a wish with meaning. The penny falls and that is that. There is that nugget of hope left at the bottom of a wishing well. Accordingly, the petition is sent out, put forth, and left on the interwebs away from those with the ability to make change, and there it sits.  (I will attest that these petitions seem a spectacle for the mainstream media to make pennies off of as well, generating a story, while stoking a teasing interest.)

In relation to this metaphor, I aver we do something different for change, instead of a spectacle for others, we create a spectacle for ourselves.  Instead of casting a penny away, as an idea, or as a concern for a concept by writing or signing a petition, that may or may not get seen by eyes with authority and the ability to create change, one must, perhaps, write legislature, or run for office themselves; make the change they desire by becoming this change. Create the change you want by following your wishes or petitions to the top, to the office you aspire to. So often ideas become clouded by group-think and the initial principal becomes diluted, creating very little change.  With an individual seeing this principal through to fruition, those outside forces may be hampered.

The real matter at hand with petitions and pennies, perhaps, may be the level of accountability the person doing the signing, or throwing, or writing cares to do and be responsible for. We sign things all the time, this act is commonplace autonomous. I sign for coffee, I sign for sandwiches, I sign for others, I sign for packages, and I sign for beer. You do too!  How is this any different in a serious way, signing for something that is entirely important or unimportant to me? (Is changing the system important to you?  And how important?)  I find in order for change it must be a step above that kind of signing, a bit more convoluted, this giving up autonomy and comfort for belief.

Signing a petition on the internet for something you believe wholeheartedly may feel good.  You may feel you have done your part, but what part? Does this signing lack fervor though?  And how much will that well-meant signature do? To make change there must be the same amount of initiative or action or motivation as in the thought that caused it. Putting a status update on social media takes a few clicks, signing your signature is a swipe of the wrist–conditioning at this point–perhaps, neither of these actions are revolutionary (singularly alone). With them, there is only a wish and an idea thrown away, as the penny in the wishing well.  So how important is your status update or your signature for petitioning change in comparison to every other one placed in a universe of texts and signatures?

***

On the video at the top of this essay, and the “Faithless Elector” movement (I didn’t watch it, the thumbnail was nice.  So I used it.) Further, we knew about the electoral college and how it worked many years ago, perhaps it is as old as the American republic.  I will cite, as John C. Dvorak of the No Agenda Podcast pointed out, where some of the inspiration for my piece comes, and I paraphrase–I hope I do justice, change the system, change the law!  Again, I paraphrase, but the gist is there.  Change the way we do things, the system, and change the law.  Hear more from him at No Agenda Podcast.  And if you perceive me wrong, I guess I am witnessing the forest for the trees, I am missing their timber.  Change may take more effort than an online trend, spectacle, or people holding well-made signs.

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.

ALS water dumping blamed for California Drought

ice-bucket-challenge-slide-v2 la-apphoto-california-wildfires-jpg-20140820

Los Angeles Times- Amid California’s drought, many wildfires but no disasters — yet

Los Angeles Times- Western drought causes Earth’s surface to rise as water levels drop

            After the recent ALS water dumping sensation California’s droughts have hit an all-time high, and made-up people of little consequence say ‘there is no end in sight’.  Evidence shows a direct correlation between these two events; ALS water dumping and Californian Droughts.  Currently, millions of super-famous, and generally regular-average-boring, Americans have taken to dumping buckets of water over their heads.  For years California has been promoting the prospect of buying and living where there is no water, and the ALS movement is the last straw in breaking the camels back that brought water to these individuals.  Ever since this ALS sensation took viral, water has been impossible to find, not only in Californian desert lands, but in Californian lands which aren’t described as deserts but actually are.  Unbeknownst to those wasting water in the Midwest, or in other celebrity dense cities, lacking water is possibly worse than having Lou Gehrig’s disease, and much more important. 

          Why is this happening you ask, because humans need water to drink, to survive, to put out fires, and to feed the plants, animals, and babies that they grow.  Without water we will eventually dry up and turn into beef jerky, or dust!  What the ALS doesn’t know is that water is essential to life, in general.  They don’t believe water is important, at all.  The ALS has taken to the streets, and to social media, to promote such atrocities as water dumping…  Sounds familiar you say, well that’s because water dumping is the not-so-distant second cousin of water boarding

          The ALS completely hates water and what it does for humans, plants, and the earth (as a whole).  This is an excerpt from the ALS website: 

“The ALS Association is the only national not-for-profit health organization dedicated solely to the fight against ALS. As the preeminent ALS organization, The Association leads the way in research, patient and community services, public education, and advocacy — giving help and hope to those facing the disease.  The Association’s nationwide network of chapters provides comprehensive patient services and support to the ALS community. The mission of The ALS Association is to lead the fight to cure and treat ALS through global cutting-edge research, and to empower people with Lou Gehrig’s Disease and their families to live fuller lives by providing them with compassionate care and support.” 

          ALS stands for Anti Lake Society, plain and simple.  This means the organization does not like lakes, or lake water i.e. fresh water; lakes are made of water, and space.  Moreover, Catholics and the Government have sanctioned those within their ranks to abstain from the practice- if that doesn’t say something, I don’t know (this is a good thing)…  Apparently the ALS also promotes stem cell research, which is completely illegal if you believe in God, the all mighty, and that blood is made out of wine, and that people can walk on water and magically create fish.  It’s bunny-rabbits motherfucker, not fish.  –Amateur magicians (ha, ha)…  Also, the government doesn’t want politicians promoting stem cell research, because that would just be too difficult to explain to religious voters. 

          All in all, the ALS comes across as innocuous, and as standing for something beneficial, however the idea of wasting water to send a message seems to do more harm than good.  Are we more excited about getting cold and wet and seen on video, or about giving money to benign researchers?  Human beings should back research that leads to cures, medications (useful ones), and understanding, but they should also be mindful of their wastefulness.  California is burning, and the ALS is busy collecting money for this type of promotion; dosing individuals with water, and spreading the word like wildfire- pun intended.  Have we become so vain that we can’t see our own demise in front of us?  Water is a limited resource, whether wasting it for the promotion of an important and positive message, or not.  I got an idea, why don’t we promote using water responsibly, turning off the facet, recycling and picking up trash.   I nominate you. 

Primary Election Results; Remembering that I voted for the candidate with the best name

SONY DSCMPR News: Primary 2014 Results

Not unlike every single election I have ever taken part in, I voted for the candidate with the best name.  A name that stood out this primary was Tom Books.  If Tom Books is your name you are definitely going to get the intellectual vote. 

Aside from that, I knew not the stance of the candidate I was voting for, nor what they thought about high tuition, Sunday Sales Laws, and or equality.  On a whim I voted for Doug Mann, and surprisingly against Phyllis Khan.  I took the opportunity to vote Independent party all the way down because Republicans just fund wars and Democrats pretend to be against wars and fund them as well.  It felt good to vote against an incumbent that hadn’t done much for me (noticeably). 

Candidates should be more transparent, and have better names. 

All in all my vote was cast and counted, and it felt good!  Go Vote!