Tag Archives: Thoughts

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.

 

 

FACT CHECK: Trump-Putin handshake proves undeniable evidence of G-20 Summit meeting the media explains, and shocking leaked video of secret handshake reveals so much more, ERMERGERD!

7979af-20170707-trump-putin03

“President Trump shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 Summit Friday in Hamburg, Germany. Evan Vucci | AP” – MPR

Frogtown, USA–In completely obvious proof of being best friends previous to their first-ever meeting, President Trump and true BFF, and closet RNC campaign manager, Vladimir Putin shook hands as the entire world of news media watched obsessively and told you what they thought about it through unbiased objective interpretation not related to their paid sponsors.

The G20 Summit, located in some other country in another part of the world, an important event which no one knows anything about at all, was entirely overshadowed Friday by the first-time in history meeting of long-time extremely close inseparable boyhood friends, Donald and Putin.

A brief handshake and the vivid and graphic secret leaked footage of that handshake leaked on an FBI memo pad by an unnamed high-level from some University lawyer source revealed a lot more, through our unique and special unadulterated interpretation, than most average citizens would gather from reading objective observations, if ever written.

In what is said to be the handshake that caused a redoubling rupture in the center of the earth and massive schism in the minds of intellectuals for democratic justice, the Trump-Putin handshake went down in modern history as the most covered handshake of all-time, maybe until next week. Leaked Video evidence of Russian Election Interference

This integral and intimate handshake was so important numerous news outlets covered it with their own special interpretation of its absolute and exact meaning so readers brains could understand better and handle its true meaning without question, here are just a few interpretations that might fit your ideology: MPR,  CNN, RT, SnopesWashington Post, Wikipedia, etc.

Handshakes like these will forever change the way we view the world through photography of such events, specifically through handshakes, and how the media interprets this standard rite of general introductions, especially with those who win elections together and those who just meet for the first time during everyday life.

In a world where people have two hands and one very small brain, or even just one very small hand–you have to hand it to them–it is incredibly important to remember the importance and deep meaning and objective interpretation of a handshake, an act with roots and ties to anything and everything through media persuasion.

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.

UPDATE: Real ID passes in Minnesota, to go to an immediate recount over outcry from career demonstrators concerned for real IDs of Fantalogists

REAL_ID_Q_A_37898501

A security guard checking a questionable passport of some guy in a leather jacket at an airport somewhere. Photo by Nam Y. Huh, Associated Press

“The Minnesota Senate passed a bill late Thursday to bring the state into compliance with the federal Real ID law as a January 2018 deadline nears”, and moments later, predictably, thousands of career demonstrators gathered outside to protest the passing of the Real ID bill to protect the rights of a small group of Fantalogists living in fantasy world.

Under the new law real fake people, Fantalogists–those religiously living in imaginary fantasy world, would be required by law to change their real fake status–or change their fantasy status, to real person or real citizen.  This change would go against their fantastical real-fake principles said a completely reliable source and in-house resident of fantasy world.

What this new law does actually is cause people who do want to live in fantasy world much stress, it forces them to come into reality and get a card that states that… one anonymous impassioned and disruptive protester explained without listening.  This basically goes against everything we know, you can look at the facts, this literally goes against the religious rights of real fake people, therefore our First Amendment rights–this is a constitutional issue!!!

After the twilight outcry, the Minnesota Senate quickly regrouped with coffee and donuts and started to commence discussion of a recount of sorts.  Those inside agreed that bending to the whims of the outcry would benefit the Fantalogist community, and in turn, help the Senators secure their reelection bids in the future.  Unnamed sources close to the MN Senate would not confirm or disconfirm when or if this recount would happen.

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_

 

 

Thoughts on – Eyes Wide Shut

p23544_p_v7_ae

Eyes Wide Shut – Film Poster

What line of dialogue epitomizes the film?

“She may not even be coming back… (of Domino – the prostitute)” Dr. Harford’s sarcastic response to Domino’s flat-mate before she divulges him with the information that Domino is HIV positive, epitomizes Eyes Wide Shut because it shows the danger of the situation.  Plus, fuck, he really dodged a bullet.

Also, the end line, “Fuck…” as stated by Alice to Bill, about what they need to do as soon as possible.

What shot epitomizes the film?

The shots with the weird Christmas tree epitomize Eyes Wide Shut—because it seems as though the director is trying to evoke the emotionality of the season.

Also the shots where people are masked at the secret party, because Jesus, the low-light shots are done so well.

What did you like about the film?

I like the jealousy of which the dialogue evokes; Alice is uber crazy.  Moreover, I really enjoy the interesting factoid tidbits on this film’s Wiki-page, it’s like Today I Learned about Eyes Wide Shut (and I love(d) it).

The film has been growing on me.   That soundtrack tho…  dun dun dun dun dun.

What did you dislike about the film?

I dislike the way the film focuses on the bourgeoisie of society, it’s as though the lower class are only there for the pleasure of the rich, and this makes the film somewhat one-dimensional.  It may be just and attitude or a critique, but, the direction seems stiff and narrow at times.

Question about the film?

There is much ado about what Kubrick thought of the film, so I ask, what did he think of the film actually?  I know this can never be answered, but I figured I would ask…