A few things...
I have a few rants bubbling inside...so, I decided to write one post with four mini-rants instead of four separate rant posts.
I'm lucky to be from Mass and our state basically was cross-the-board democratic party voting. We basically went against the entire mood of the country.
There were two tax-repealing questions on the ballot. And the ads are targeted to low income people. My Grandma was going to vote to repeal it. So, I asked her this:
Me: How much will you get yearly with the repealing the sales and liquor tax? You don't buy alcohol and if you save one hundred dollars repealing the sales tax, I'll be surprised.
Grandma: Okay...
Me: How much do you get in social services? Medicare/health care, food stamps, home health aide, house repairs, fuel assistance?
Grandma: A lot.
Me: If you had that money you'd save from the repeal of the sales tax, would you be able to cover what the state paid for?
Grandma: No.
Me: Exactly. So many people who vote for tax breaks and such are the people who benefit from the services they provide the most.
Secondly, in regards to this election...you see it every four to six years...you have a majority dem party. Things happen economically that no one single person actually can control or cause. There's always economic issues of one kind or another. Job issues. War issues. People get some bizarre "Grass is Greener" mentality and they vote in Republicans. Four to six years later, war issues, job issues, tax issues, blah blah...people vote in Democrats. Rinse. Repeat. I wish people would actually think about the issues that politicians can actually change. And vote based on that. Instead of looking at a world-wide economic downturn and blaming it on, say, Obama...as if he could change it at all?
ETA: This is a tad of an oversimplification. All I know is I see every election Dems and Reps tossing mud at each other irt economics and each party is guilty of spending. Neither has the cred on being fiscally sound. They spend money in different areas. However, there is the truth that no one person can control economics. If there was a single right way to do things, all of the economic experts would agree with each other. There's stuff that can't be predicted or controlled. Economy is global and there are many things that impact how everything turns out in the end.
Thirdly, there's a lot of LGBTQ issues in this current election. I hear a lot of people whining about "the will of the people" in regards to giving/denying equality. I just want it pointed it out that abolishing slavery was never "the will of the people" when it was abolished, giving women the right to vote, /native Americans the right to vote, ending segregation, and all those other minority rights issues, were never a majority "will of the people" vote. Thing is? We can't let the majority decide on minority rights. We need to inflict it on them and tell them to STFU and deal with it.
(And if we're going to deny equal rights to homosexuals because that's what the bible says, we need to deny equal rights to those evil shellfish eating sinners, too.)
I'll be the first to admit that when I click on a McShep, I want to read McShep. I don't really have a deep interest in McKeller--to be honest, it was a cringe-worthy thing to watch on TV. So much awkward and uncomfortable body language between them--and I don't have a deep interest in demonizing Keller as a man stealing harpy either.
There's a deeper issue, though, in post-season 5 McShep with added McKeller/McKeller break up...Keller essentially functions solely as a tool to drive angst with John and/or Rodney and to facilitate McShep getting together. Her other roles as a person, as a doctor, become secondary. It's not so easy to see when she's given a two sentence send off "they broke up weeks ago. Rodney is an ass and is a workaholic" and honestly, I'd prefer that. It's when she gets this huge chunk of the story and she stops being Keller and becomes Rodney's girlfriend, Rodney's ex-girlfriend, the evil lady who may not be evil who is stealing/keeping John's true love forever away from him.
And inevitably, McKeller ends because Rodney loves John more. Either Rodney or Keller realizes this. Why can't McKeller end because of things independent of John. There are loads of things easy to choose. (And it's another rant, but I dislike when people date people they want to change...and before I get the "it's okay to want an asshole to stop being an asshole", I'll counter with "you should never date someone you need to change to continue being with them" in other words...it shouldn't be a dealbreaker if they don't, because that's unfair to the person you're dating.
If you want to write McKeller, then do that. It's cool. It's not my cuppa, but hey...that's what fandom is for...
I'll end this with saying, I don't mind breaking up McKeller and getting McShep together. I'd just rather the reason McKeller breaks up has nothing to do with McShep.
My sexuality is not easily boxed into one-size fits all label, but I end up using the most accurate label anyhow because why should I have to explain it anyhow? I get attracted to someone's personality/mind first and then comes physical attraction. Genitals are irrelevant to me in that I don't care which the person has. Bi is easier to use than whatever my sexuality actually is.
If there wasn't social stigma on being in one of the big three: gay, straight, bi, I believe more people would be genital irrelevant. I'm not saying there aren't people who only go one way or the other, I'm saying I think that more people would go either/any way if it weren't for this stigma about being in a tidy box.
The same thing goes for gender, too. If there weren't this huge stigma on being one of the big two: male, female, I think more people would identify as both, neither, trans, etc. I hate these enforced societal rules about these things because it makes so many people unhappy.
I don't watch a lot of tv comedies. I get annoyed by them. They're usually haha fat people, haha old people, haha cougars, haha minority, haha stereotypes....and it's generally trying to get you to laugh at these people instead of at the characters for being ridiculous. Or, the character is a privileged guy and he's acting like an ass, but the intent isn't to make you laugh at him for being a fool, it's a sort of weird celebration of his bad behaviour.
I love Red Dwarf. Basically, the joke is that these guys are losers. You laugh at them for being ridiculous. Rimmer makes a gay joke. Kryten calls him on it. And the joke isn't haha gay people, the joke is that Rimmer is a bitter man with many issues. Rimmer and Lister kiss and the joke isn't eww gay kissing, it's ewww Rimmer. There's a joke that Lister is losing his figure, and the joke isn't haha fat people are gross, it's Rimmer is scheming and Lister is easily conned.
Lately, there's a lot of "let's being intensely offensive *wink wink*" and it's funny because we know it's offensive that makes it okay. And I don't find it funny. I find it intensely offensive.
I believe Psych is the only comedy I currently follow and it has its moments of intense fail. But there's enough of a win to fail ratio to make it watchable.
I'm lucky to be from Mass and our state basically was cross-the-board democratic party voting. We basically went against the entire mood of the country.
There were two tax-repealing questions on the ballot. And the ads are targeted to low income people. My Grandma was going to vote to repeal it. So, I asked her this:
Me: How much will you get yearly with the repealing the sales and liquor tax? You don't buy alcohol and if you save one hundred dollars repealing the sales tax, I'll be surprised.
Grandma: Okay...
Me: How much do you get in social services? Medicare/health care, food stamps, home health aide, house repairs, fuel assistance?
Grandma: A lot.
Me: If you had that money you'd save from the repeal of the sales tax, would you be able to cover what the state paid for?
Grandma: No.
Me: Exactly. So many people who vote for tax breaks and such are the people who benefit from the services they provide the most.
Secondly, in regards to this election...you see it every four to six years...you have a majority dem party. Things happen economically that no one single person actually can control or cause. There's always economic issues of one kind or another. Job issues. War issues. People get some bizarre "Grass is Greener" mentality and they vote in Republicans. Four to six years later, war issues, job issues, tax issues, blah blah...people vote in Democrats. Rinse. Repeat. I wish people would actually think about the issues that politicians can actually change. And vote based on that. Instead of looking at a world-wide economic downturn and blaming it on, say, Obama...as if he could change it at all?
ETA: This is a tad of an oversimplification. All I know is I see every election Dems and Reps tossing mud at each other irt economics and each party is guilty of spending. Neither has the cred on being fiscally sound. They spend money in different areas. However, there is the truth that no one person can control economics. If there was a single right way to do things, all of the economic experts would agree with each other. There's stuff that can't be predicted or controlled. Economy is global and there are many things that impact how everything turns out in the end.
Thirdly, there's a lot of LGBTQ issues in this current election. I hear a lot of people whining about "the will of the people" in regards to giving/denying equality. I just want it pointed it out that abolishing slavery was never "the will of the people" when it was abolished, giving women the right to vote, /native Americans the right to vote, ending segregation, and all those other minority rights issues, were never a majority "will of the people" vote. Thing is? We can't let the majority decide on minority rights. We need to inflict it on them and tell them to STFU and deal with it.
(And if we're going to deny equal rights to homosexuals because that's what the bible says, we need to deny equal rights to those evil shellfish eating sinners, too.)
I'll be the first to admit that when I click on a McShep, I want to read McShep. I don't really have a deep interest in McKeller--to be honest, it was a cringe-worthy thing to watch on TV. So much awkward and uncomfortable body language between them--and I don't have a deep interest in demonizing Keller as a man stealing harpy either.
There's a deeper issue, though, in post-season 5 McShep with added McKeller/McKeller break up...Keller essentially functions solely as a tool to drive angst with John and/or Rodney and to facilitate McShep getting together. Her other roles as a person, as a doctor, become secondary. It's not so easy to see when she's given a two sentence send off "they broke up weeks ago. Rodney is an ass and is a workaholic" and honestly, I'd prefer that. It's when she gets this huge chunk of the story and she stops being Keller and becomes Rodney's girlfriend, Rodney's ex-girlfriend, the evil lady who may not be evil who is stealing/keeping John's true love forever away from him.
And inevitably, McKeller ends because Rodney loves John more. Either Rodney or Keller realizes this. Why can't McKeller end because of things independent of John. There are loads of things easy to choose. (And it's another rant, but I dislike when people date people they want to change...and before I get the "it's okay to want an asshole to stop being an asshole", I'll counter with "you should never date someone you need to change to continue being with them" in other words...it shouldn't be a dealbreaker if they don't, because that's unfair to the person you're dating.
If you want to write McKeller, then do that. It's cool. It's not my cuppa, but hey...that's what fandom is for...
I'll end this with saying, I don't mind breaking up McKeller and getting McShep together. I'd just rather the reason McKeller breaks up has nothing to do with McShep.
My sexuality is not easily boxed into one-size fits all label, but I end up using the most accurate label anyhow because why should I have to explain it anyhow? I get attracted to someone's personality/mind first and then comes physical attraction. Genitals are irrelevant to me in that I don't care which the person has. Bi is easier to use than whatever my sexuality actually is.
If there wasn't social stigma on being in one of the big three: gay, straight, bi, I believe more people would be genital irrelevant. I'm not saying there aren't people who only go one way or the other, I'm saying I think that more people would go either/any way if it weren't for this stigma about being in a tidy box.
The same thing goes for gender, too. If there weren't this huge stigma on being one of the big two: male, female, I think more people would identify as both, neither, trans, etc. I hate these enforced societal rules about these things because it makes so many people unhappy.
I don't watch a lot of tv comedies. I get annoyed by them. They're usually haha fat people, haha old people, haha cougars, haha minority, haha stereotypes....and it's generally trying to get you to laugh at these people instead of at the characters for being ridiculous. Or, the character is a privileged guy and he's acting like an ass, but the intent isn't to make you laugh at him for being a fool, it's a sort of weird celebration of his bad behaviour.
I love Red Dwarf. Basically, the joke is that these guys are losers. You laugh at them for being ridiculous. Rimmer makes a gay joke. Kryten calls him on it. And the joke isn't haha gay people, the joke is that Rimmer is a bitter man with many issues. Rimmer and Lister kiss and the joke isn't eww gay kissing, it's ewww Rimmer. There's a joke that Lister is losing his figure, and the joke isn't haha fat people are gross, it's Rimmer is scheming and Lister is easily conned.
Lately, there's a lot of "let's being intensely offensive *wink wink*" and it's funny because we know it's offensive that makes it okay. And I don't find it funny. I find it intensely offensive.
I believe Psych is the only comedy I currently follow and it has its moments of intense fail. But there's enough of a win to fail ratio to make it watchable.