General stuff.
...I dream about singing Transformers.
Yes, I do.
Really.
In fact, I think I actually dreamed the entire storyline of "Redemption" in a quasi-musical format. I don't entirely remember the whole dream, but I remember it seeming like a long dream, so I'm thinking it was the whole storyline. The one thing that sticks out in my mind is Thundercracker singing Madonna's "Live to Tell", which is really funny because that is his theme song in the story. So, it was cool, though perhaps only so for frostymook and me. And I think that bit is especially sticking in my mind because TC sang so badly off-key that my first thought when I woke up from the dream was, "Don't give up your day job, TC." And then there was Skyfire singing "Somewhere" from West Side Story. I can't remember what he actually sounded like...but I'm thankful that it wasn't a duet with Starscream. That would have been painful, yes indeed. I guess this is what I get for thinking about Seekerboys and "Redemption" as I drifted off to sleep.
In other news, I wanted to respond to some of what xuguardianx said in response to a past journal entry of mine here. I've been meaning to reply for a long time now, but just haven't been able to because of the general busy-ness of working life at this point in time. So, rather than replying down there, I'll do it here. But I'll cut it, just to be nice to those who don't want me taking up their entire friends page with my blather. ;)
xuguardianx said at some point in time in my journal:
I don't recall that then Bill of Rights listed ALL of our rights; for example the Fair Use act gives people rights too.
And when have Fair Use rights been infringed upon? As I recall, the act gives people the right to make personal backup copies of, for instance, CDs and DVDs that they legally purchased or to quote limited amounts of printed material for review/research purposes and stuff like that. That isn't the same as sharing all of one's music collection over Kazaa or other file sharing networks, which I'm assuming is what you're getting at. (Not that I'm looking down on you or anyone else for ever sharing music online. If I did, I'd be a hypocrite. However, I fully acknowledge that what I'm doing is...well, illegal, quite frankly. I don't try to justify it, and I've never been convinced by anyone who's tried to justify it to me. They've always come across as people just trying to make excuses for doing exactly what they want to do, even when they know it's wrong.)
Freedom of the Press is being questioned by lots of people now that people are being fired for doing what seems to be their job. Example: the pictures of the flag-drapped coffins. I don't think privacy makes sense as an excuse for firing the reporter: they ARE allowed to show pictures of the fallen that were taken when the dead were alive and they can publish their full names. How could anyone see who was in what coffin?
I'm personally not familiar with the case that you're citing, unfortunately. So, I'd need to know some details about the situation. Most importantly, I'd need to know whose decision it was to fire the photographer in question. Unless the order came down from the government, then it is not an infringement of rights on the government's part. It might or might not be an infringement of rights on the part of the person who did the firing, depending on the situation. But, like I said, I'm uninformed about this instance. 'Tis the price, I suppose, of not having TV and not having newspapers outside of the local one. :)
Another example is Bush's war record, which stated he was AWOL once and his unit did not fight in Vietnam during the war. Those who reported that were fired. Funny how the facts report that was an accurate report but the reporters were fired anyway.
Again, who ordered that the reporters be fired? Unless it was a government mandate, then rights are not being infringed upon by the government, which is what practically everyone says is happening, but I've seen little evidence of any such infringement.
Still on the first amendment, doesn't a woman have the right to choose what method of birth control she uses? What gives a pharmacist the right to deny any and all forms of birth control? That's a real event: a pharmacist down in the deep south refused to fill perscriptions for any medication that was a birth control pill or could be used as such [on the grounds that it violated his religious beliefs].
*laughs* As I see it, this is actually a perfect example of someone fully exercising his own personal rights, not of anyone's rights being trounced upon! The pharmacist disagrees with the concept of birth control on religious grounds and so refuses to sell them in a shop that (I'm assuming; correct me if I'm wrong) he privately owns. That's a perfect example of a person exercising his rights to A) Follow the tenets of his religion as he sees fit and B) conduct his business as he sees fit. I'd be far more upset if the government swooped in and demanded that this man sell birth control products even though he violently opposes them on moral grounds. That would be an example of the government dictating morality to the citizenship. People have many sources of birth control pills beyond privately-owned pharmacies (online, Planned Parenthood, large chain pharmacies, etc.) that they can go to if they want them. Those sources aren't going away, so those people's right to procure birth control pills and devices are not being supressed in any way by one guy refusing to sell them on moral grounds.
Frankly, I admire this guy. I wish I could stick to my moral guns that well, personally...
The gay marrage law is very similar to that too. It's enforcing a religious belief on everyone, not a moral belief or something based in any real facts.
You know, I really don't want to get into a huge discussion about the gay marriage issue here. I'm actually contemplating writing down my thoughts about the entire issue (Not just the gay marriage issue, but the entire issue of homosexuality and my accumulated beliefs on the subject), if only to solidify everything in my mind. See, it's an issue about which I am torn on many levels, and I find that writing things down helps me to sort through scattered thoughts. Now, I don't know if I'll share said writing because I don't know if I'm really in the mood to argue about all the issues with people...but I might share them, perhaps as a "friends only" entry or something. So perhaps we can save this discussion for a later time?
For now, I'll just say that I'm not sure why there's such a fuss about the gay marriage thing. Many states are becoming far more open to granting marriage-like rights (like hospital visitation, legal inheritance of property, adoption rights, etc) to gay couples, and many large companies now acknowledge domestic partners as equal to spouses in terms of granting them health benefits. Right before I stopped working at Home Depot, for instance, they began to grant health insurance to all employees' domestic partners. So, I tend to think that the whole gay marriage issue is a bunch of smoke...but, like I said, I really, really don't want to argue about it at this point in time. Honestly, I think that if a big deal hadn't been made about it to force the issue, then most likely equal rights would have been granted to gay couples eventually. But now that a big deal has been made, both of the extreme sides have gritted their teeth and dug in their heels and made a big, huge mess of something that didn't have to be a mess. But, in the end, I'm still not convinced that anyone's rights have been infringed upon. After all, up until now, gay couples have never had the "right" to be married. Not even in ancient Greece, where homosexuality amongst men was considered normal.
Since we can only follow the path of their religion, do we still have the chance of following the path of the religion (or lack thereof) that we opt to follow? Even if the religion we follow contradicts the law? What if there's medical reason for the woman to use birth control?
I have not seen any evidence of anyone being forced to follow any one specific religious doctrine, Christian or otherwise. That, after all, is what the founding fathers were very careful to avoid when they set up the US governmental system. And, although sometimes the issue is taken to bizarre extremes that it was never meant to be taken to, it does work. And it's a good idea. Even though I'm one of those "fundies" that everyone fears is going to strip them of their rights and/or suspects of having some sort of coercive, brainwashing agenda (Neither of which is true, at least in my case), I recognize that. And, as I see it, the gay marriage issue isn't really a religious issue at all but more one of traditionalism vs. progressivism. The way I see it is that many people, regardless of their religious views, are very afraid of change, and no matter how you look at it, allowing people of the same sex to marry is a very, very big change. As I said, it has never been "allowed," at least not in Western society. It's hard to change thousands of years of tradition and, to me, that -- not any religion -- is the heart of the issue. And, like I said, people made a bigger issue out of it than it needed to be, which doesn't help.
IMO that seems too close to a Biblical story where everyone was obligated by law to do something that violated God's law.
IMO, that seems more like paranoid fear. It seems to be a popular condition these days. Or maybe I just live my life with blinders on. I leave that up to others to decide.
In a final bit of realization...While having a long philosophical discussion with frostymook last night (We have a lot of long philosophical discussions; that's one of the things that I love so dearly about her.), I realized that one of the people I dislike most in the world is a person that I've never seen and with whom I've never exchanged a single word, not in person and not online...and it isn't someone famous. He's just a "normal" guy. Weird, isn't it? Well, I thought so, anyway..
Now, to eat lunch! :)
Yes, I do.
Really.
In fact, I think I actually dreamed the entire storyline of "Redemption" in a quasi-musical format. I don't entirely remember the whole dream, but I remember it seeming like a long dream, so I'm thinking it was the whole storyline. The one thing that sticks out in my mind is Thundercracker singing Madonna's "Live to Tell", which is really funny because that is his theme song in the story. So, it was cool, though perhaps only so for frostymook and me. And I think that bit is especially sticking in my mind because TC sang so badly off-key that my first thought when I woke up from the dream was, "Don't give up your day job, TC." And then there was Skyfire singing "Somewhere" from West Side Story. I can't remember what he actually sounded like...but I'm thankful that it wasn't a duet with Starscream. That would have been painful, yes indeed. I guess this is what I get for thinking about Seekerboys and "Redemption" as I drifted off to sleep.
In other news, I wanted to respond to some of what xuguardianx said in response to a past journal entry of mine here. I've been meaning to reply for a long time now, but just haven't been able to because of the general busy-ness of working life at this point in time. So, rather than replying down there, I'll do it here. But I'll cut it, just to be nice to those who don't want me taking up their entire friends page with my blather. ;)
xuguardianx said at some point in time in my journal:
I don't recall that then Bill of Rights listed ALL of our rights; for example the Fair Use act gives people rights too.
And when have Fair Use rights been infringed upon? As I recall, the act gives people the right to make personal backup copies of, for instance, CDs and DVDs that they legally purchased or to quote limited amounts of printed material for review/research purposes and stuff like that. That isn't the same as sharing all of one's music collection over Kazaa or other file sharing networks, which I'm assuming is what you're getting at. (Not that I'm looking down on you or anyone else for ever sharing music online. If I did, I'd be a hypocrite. However, I fully acknowledge that what I'm doing is...well, illegal, quite frankly. I don't try to justify it, and I've never been convinced by anyone who's tried to justify it to me. They've always come across as people just trying to make excuses for doing exactly what they want to do, even when they know it's wrong.)
Freedom of the Press is being questioned by lots of people now that people are being fired for doing what seems to be their job. Example: the pictures of the flag-drapped coffins. I don't think privacy makes sense as an excuse for firing the reporter: they ARE allowed to show pictures of the fallen that were taken when the dead were alive and they can publish their full names. How could anyone see who was in what coffin?
I'm personally not familiar with the case that you're citing, unfortunately. So, I'd need to know some details about the situation. Most importantly, I'd need to know whose decision it was to fire the photographer in question. Unless the order came down from the government, then it is not an infringement of rights on the government's part. It might or might not be an infringement of rights on the part of the person who did the firing, depending on the situation. But, like I said, I'm uninformed about this instance. 'Tis the price, I suppose, of not having TV and not having newspapers outside of the local one. :)
Another example is Bush's war record, which stated he was AWOL once and his unit did not fight in Vietnam during the war. Those who reported that were fired. Funny how the facts report that was an accurate report but the reporters were fired anyway.
Again, who ordered that the reporters be fired? Unless it was a government mandate, then rights are not being infringed upon by the government, which is what practically everyone says is happening, but I've seen little evidence of any such infringement.
Still on the first amendment, doesn't a woman have the right to choose what method of birth control she uses? What gives a pharmacist the right to deny any and all forms of birth control? That's a real event: a pharmacist down in the deep south refused to fill perscriptions for any medication that was a birth control pill or could be used as such [on the grounds that it violated his religious beliefs].
*laughs* As I see it, this is actually a perfect example of someone fully exercising his own personal rights, not of anyone's rights being trounced upon! The pharmacist disagrees with the concept of birth control on religious grounds and so refuses to sell them in a shop that (I'm assuming; correct me if I'm wrong) he privately owns. That's a perfect example of a person exercising his rights to A) Follow the tenets of his religion as he sees fit and B) conduct his business as he sees fit. I'd be far more upset if the government swooped in and demanded that this man sell birth control products even though he violently opposes them on moral grounds. That would be an example of the government dictating morality to the citizenship. People have many sources of birth control pills beyond privately-owned pharmacies (online, Planned Parenthood, large chain pharmacies, etc.) that they can go to if they want them. Those sources aren't going away, so those people's right to procure birth control pills and devices are not being supressed in any way by one guy refusing to sell them on moral grounds.
Frankly, I admire this guy. I wish I could stick to my moral guns that well, personally...
The gay marrage law is very similar to that too. It's enforcing a religious belief on everyone, not a moral belief or something based in any real facts.
You know, I really don't want to get into a huge discussion about the gay marriage issue here. I'm actually contemplating writing down my thoughts about the entire issue (Not just the gay marriage issue, but the entire issue of homosexuality and my accumulated beliefs on the subject), if only to solidify everything in my mind. See, it's an issue about which I am torn on many levels, and I find that writing things down helps me to sort through scattered thoughts. Now, I don't know if I'll share said writing because I don't know if I'm really in the mood to argue about all the issues with people...but I might share them, perhaps as a "friends only" entry or something. So perhaps we can save this discussion for a later time?
For now, I'll just say that I'm not sure why there's such a fuss about the gay marriage thing. Many states are becoming far more open to granting marriage-like rights (like hospital visitation, legal inheritance of property, adoption rights, etc) to gay couples, and many large companies now acknowledge domestic partners as equal to spouses in terms of granting them health benefits. Right before I stopped working at Home Depot, for instance, they began to grant health insurance to all employees' domestic partners. So, I tend to think that the whole gay marriage issue is a bunch of smoke...but, like I said, I really, really don't want to argue about it at this point in time. Honestly, I think that if a big deal hadn't been made about it to force the issue, then most likely equal rights would have been granted to gay couples eventually. But now that a big deal has been made, both of the extreme sides have gritted their teeth and dug in their heels and made a big, huge mess of something that didn't have to be a mess. But, in the end, I'm still not convinced that anyone's rights have been infringed upon. After all, up until now, gay couples have never had the "right" to be married. Not even in ancient Greece, where homosexuality amongst men was considered normal.
Since we can only follow the path of their religion, do we still have the chance of following the path of the religion (or lack thereof) that we opt to follow? Even if the religion we follow contradicts the law? What if there's medical reason for the woman to use birth control?
I have not seen any evidence of anyone being forced to follow any one specific religious doctrine, Christian or otherwise. That, after all, is what the founding fathers were very careful to avoid when they set up the US governmental system. And, although sometimes the issue is taken to bizarre extremes that it was never meant to be taken to, it does work. And it's a good idea. Even though I'm one of those "fundies" that everyone fears is going to strip them of their rights and/or suspects of having some sort of coercive, brainwashing agenda (Neither of which is true, at least in my case), I recognize that. And, as I see it, the gay marriage issue isn't really a religious issue at all but more one of traditionalism vs. progressivism. The way I see it is that many people, regardless of their religious views, are very afraid of change, and no matter how you look at it, allowing people of the same sex to marry is a very, very big change. As I said, it has never been "allowed," at least not in Western society. It's hard to change thousands of years of tradition and, to me, that -- not any religion -- is the heart of the issue. And, like I said, people made a bigger issue out of it than it needed to be, which doesn't help.
IMO that seems too close to a Biblical story where everyone was obligated by law to do something that violated God's law.
IMO, that seems more like paranoid fear. It seems to be a popular condition these days. Or maybe I just live my life with blinders on. I leave that up to others to decide.
In a final bit of realization...While having a long philosophical discussion with frostymook last night (We have a lot of long philosophical discussions; that's one of the things that I love so dearly about her.), I realized that one of the people I dislike most in the world is a person that I've never seen and with whom I've never exchanged a single word, not in person and not online...and it isn't someone famous. He's just a "normal" guy. Weird, isn't it? Well, I thought so, anyway..
Now, to eat lunch! :)