Sunday, November 25, 2007

If your name ends in -acy/i, don't marry a Peterson

America's Most Wanted - Missing Persons - Stacy Peterson

Yeah, I don't really have much to say in the way of controversy, I just found this whole case ironic. We have a Peterson, we have a very similar named wife who goes missing...this is some sort of Peterson-centric conspiracy. What are the odds that there'd be 2 missing wife cases involving Petersons and women with similar sounding names (Laci and Stacy)? Stacy wasn't pregnant, but her story gets more interesting with the fact that Drew's third wife apparently died of accidental drowning in the bathtub. This was after their divorce and they were settling things up...and e-mails of Stacy reveal a 'troubled marriage'. Drew doesn't like it when girls take their ball and go home?

I know I'm not the first to make this connection, and I won't be the last. Stay away from the Peterson men, ladies.

And how about that Natalee Holloway case?
(look at this, she has a frickin Wiki! So do Laci Peterson, Scott Peterson, and Drew Peterson...)

I guess it's been too long since we had a missing persons case, they had to drag an old one up. Then of course, the Stacy case is a remake of an old one; change a few names, lose the fetus but add a 3rd dead wife, and bam, new controversy!

Sometimes, I wonder if we really are God's reality show?

Saturday, November 3, 2007

And for my first post...

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,,2204577,00.html

Coffee-flavored condoms in Ethiopia! God bless FARK, forum of all that's not really newsworthy but ends up being so due to popular demand. I love how my first official post concerns condoms, AIDS, infidelity, and the church all in one fell swoop. And really, most of my commentary will come from articles gathered from FARK, because I'm just not as current as the official blog mistress.

So long article short, we've got a charity who produced coffee-flavored condoms, sells them on the cheap, all in hopes of stopping the spread of AIDS. You see, Ethiopia is apparently where coffee originated (way to go!), and they're coffee nuts there, so it would be like making beer-flavored condoms for America, or tea-flavored condoms for England, or hey, while I'm being biased, whiskey-flavored condoms for Ireland?

So we sell condoms for cheap, with a pleasing flavor, to stop the spread of a serious health issue, and keep people from unwanted pregnancies and other STDs. Why would we have an issue here? Everyone wins!

Eh, of course there's a spokesperson quoted from a church that promotes sex only after marriage that doesn't like the idea of the condoms. They're saying that it's besmirching the good name of their coffee (and I must say, macchiato is DELICIOUS, try it with caramel!). I say more power to them, people aren't going to stop having sex outside of marriage EVER. Better to give them creative, affordable options to help prevent the issues that this sex can bring about, rather than take away said options.

I do have to highlight one passage that got me:
"I hate coffee-flavoured condoms," said Tadesse Teferi, 37, a mechanic. "But I use ordinary condoms when I have sex with ladies other than my wife."

Now, not only is this guy playing the field, but I would assume he's also batting for the other team. Why would HE care what flavor the condom is? HE'S not putting it in his mouth.

...or IS he?

I'll leave you to ponder that, and also whether Mrs. Teferi reads the newspaper.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

When children no longer feel safe

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/ap_on_re_us/teacher_sex_abuse_ii


This makes me sad for these children that they had no one to go to, no one to comfort them in their time of need, and the people they chose to go to for support took too long to do something about it. But there are some issues being raised that I feel in all honesty are fair to consider. What if the children coming forward now ARE lying? It's natural for one to think that children wouldn't lie about such a thing, but does anyone remember the McMartin Trial? Where people were accused of molesting children at their family run preschool for everyone to find out that the children WERE lying and being pressured to by the prosecution and the child psychologist they were sent to see and sometimes their parents. The stories got wilder with accusations of secret tunnels and satanic rituals. The end result? The preschool was leveled, the family members good name was tarnished, the prosecutor was never reprimanded for evading the protocol for discovery disclosure.


Dumbledore out of the closet

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/10/20/harry.potter.ap/index.html
Here's the one that I read and they're pretty much the same thing...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071020/en_nm/rowling_dc_1
----------------------------------
I read this on Yahoo! News... I just think it's kind of odd that she would just randomly say something like that when the article didn't say anything about a person in the audience asking and I fail to see the relevancy to it all and how it adds to the series as a whole. The only reference I see to it is that a director in the 6th movie almost put something in about Dumbledore's lost love and was going to say it was a woman, and that's when she corrected him about Dumbledore's sexual orientation. What's the big deal about being gay? You either are or you aren't. It's ridiculous that the way someone is born made "headline news"-- especially since the person is question is a FICTIONAL character [insert hand gestures]. I think it's sad to see that this made news on CNN when we have more pressing matters in the world. If I wanted some gossip fodder I would watch E! not CNN. I watch that show to know what's going on in the world.

Edit: Okay this is just getting fucking ridiculous.
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/ap_en_ot/books_potter_dumbledore

I for one, fail to see how Dumbledore being gay will help tolerance. The books are catered to children. Children learn to hate differences as they get older and from their environment. And yes, adults read the books too. I love the series as I like reading most things fantasy/magical. A book is not going to make someone go-- "Oh that character is so awesome, I refuse to hate gay people because of it." That's idiotic to think that.

I think it is disrespectful to the GLBT community for people to think that a FICTIONAL character will help make strides in making people become more socially tolerant, especially a fictional character that is in a fantasy/magical story about a kid with a scar on his freakin' forehead trying to avenge his parents and save the day. If you're going to think that a fictional character will help social tolerance then why a Harry Potter character? Why not become more socially tolerant because of movies like "Boys Don't Cry", "A Girl Like Me: The Gwen Araujo Story", or I don't know... "The Matthew Sheppard Story"? Those stories that have been depicted in film are based on ACTUAL stories and teach a lesson that hating someone for something they can't help is just plain ol' stupid and causes irrevocable damage. In my opinion, this just cheapens the Gay Civil Rights Movement by saying that a fictional character has more impact in the world than the people who were apart of the Stonewall Rebellion.

A controversial issue

Edit: This is the reason why I posted my thoughts on this issue.
Link to article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071010/ap_en_ot/dear_abby_gay_marriage
-----------------------
I love gay people. Some of them are my best friends... But is it so wrong of me to say that I'm against gay marriage in some respect? Some of you may think that, "oh shit... She's a homophobe." FAR FROM IT. I've been apart of NCCJ, support GBLSU. I believe in equality and DO NOT agree with segregation of any kind. So why don't I agree with same sex marriage?

It is not that I don't agree with same sex marriage... It's because in my eyes, marriage is a religious rite. And if America is going to claim "a separation of church and state" then constitutionally gay marriage cannot be legalized since the U.S. does not have jurisdiction over it. Religious practices are something that every citizen has the right to practice. But religious doctrines/dogmas have their own views of what is acceptable and what is not. I do not believe that homosexuals shouldn't be ALLOWED to be married. I do not agree with dogmas that think of them as evil for being born the way that they are. It is not due to genetics. It is how God or whatever-higher-power-you-believe-in, made that individual.

I do not agree with America banning same sex civil unions and domestic partnerships (even a civil marriage would be fine-- since that is the legal concept of it). That is something the country has power over. It is unconstitutional--especially since they claimed that not giving someone the right to vote because of gender or skin color was wrong all those years ago, then the same goes for sexual orientation. That is discrimination in my eyes, and just leaves a bitter taste in mouth every time I think of it. I don't think it's fair that partners aren't listed as next of kin and have no jurisdiction on what should happen to their spouse in case of medical emergency. That's ludicrous and disrespectful to the commitment that two individuals have made for each other. And if you're spending the rest of your life with someone, you should be able to claim them on your taxes. It seems like people are slow to accept ANY form of homosexual union because the whole religious aspect and just on a monetary level. Do you have any idea how much America is making by homosexuals not being able to claim their spouse of their tax return?

All in all, I'm just looking at it from a purely legal standpoint. I am not basing this on religion, so please don't take it that way. I am just of the mindset that America does not have the power to allow gay marriages if you are thinking solely in the religious aspect. That is up to whatever religion that an individual practices. However, homosexuals have the right as U.S. citizens to be recognized on a social and governmental level because if they can fight for their country, give their life for it and pay taxes then whatever union they want should be recognized by their country. Why do you think the right to vote got bumped down to 18 historically?

Why blogging?

I want to write about current events and give my thoughts on how I feel about said news that is being published. I want to talk about issues that seem to make the world go round and post it on a place where others can possibly appreciate it.