Calla's Sixty-Second Post

Do you know what H2O is? No, I am not talking about water. I am talking about this Australian TV show I saw the other day (being yesterday) that is so funny, I laughed like a ghost band! OK, the show itself isn't funny. The concept is hilarious, and thus the theme song is funny like a ghost band. SO, these three teenagers turn into mermaids anytime they get wet! HAHAHAHAHAHA. I don't GET IT. I don't get it AT ALL!!!! They are already made of 70% water, and what? they don't sweat or cry or even BREATHE on themselves. NO SENSE. It is so funny. This is what wikipedia said, and we all know wikipedia has quite a way with words (trying to be all serious about non-serious subjects so that I just crack the frak up!) Ok, this is what it said, "The show's premise revolves around three teenage girls facing everyday teen problems with an added twist: they're mermaids with powers over water." HAHAHAHA. Can you believe that? Oh, too great for words! Really, too too great.

The bad news, the show is filmed at SEA WORLD! EWWWW. Now, here's the thing with sea world. . . I've been an animal lover my whole entire life. So, when I was little I loved to go to the zoo and to Sea World (the one that used to be in Cleveland, which was right near where I used to live.) This is because I did not realize how evil Sea World is. They train animals, we all know that entails beatings and starvation. The animals live in areas too small to engage in their natural, God-given behaviors (ie: use sonar in the case of dolphins). They live in CHLORINE, which is horrendous for their health. Well, also, I'm not sure the Australian Sea World is connected to the U.S. chain, but nonetheless, it is a marine park with abused animals. This is sad to me. It hurts my heart a bit (as all animal abuse does.) I'm kind of a bad person, in that, I feel pretty vindicated (I don't know if that's the right word. I don't think it makes sense. I guess I feel vindication on the animal's behalf. ? .) any time a trainer of a wild animal (ie: someone who abuses God's creation at a circus or a marine park) gets attacked, mauled, or even killed. I'm not kidding. I'm a bad person. I think, "well, you shouldn't've been fucking around with wild animals asshole!" Firstly, it was just a mean thing to do. Secondly, it was just a dumb thing to do. Even house cats can rip holes in your flesh if(when) they want to. Why do you think a lion, whom you are pissing off by shoving a metal rod done his throat, won't one day snap and do the same!? And, probably, you deserved it, because you shoved a metal rod done an innocent animal's throat.

K, so that was the animal rant of the day. Today, for the animals, I wrote Trader Joe's about offering more vegan options. Probably that won't actually do anything. But I also resent the e-mail to the humane certified people because the one I sent yesterday got sent back to me because I typed the e-mail address wrong. So, that mighta been good. Perhaps I will make these people think more about these issues. And if they already consider them strongly, I will be better informed when I am recommending the products which are certified humane to other people.

So, know what else I want to mention? Short Bus. Man, I am one harsh movie critic. What is with all these so-called sex positive messages that turn out to be NOT sex positive!? Just a question. So, Short Bus was a'ight. It was not nearly as good as Hedwig (and how could it be if it wasn't a musical, right?), but it didn't completely suck upon first viewing. Some of the characters were quirky in a non-annoying way, their lives interwove in a believable fashion, all of the actors were good at acting, the ending wasn't so corny, though it was predictable, that you wanted to puke or anything horrible like that. So, it wasn't bad. It was just another hum-drum movie that I probably wouldn't watch ever again, but it didn't bother me on any level. It was only upon further contemplation that the movie got to me.

So, John Cameron Mitchel (if that's at all how you spell any of his names) started off wanting to make a sex-positive movie with real sex. That was seriously the goal. Something about how all the real sex in movies coming out of Europe represents something bad, and sex is something good. His movie, however, wasn't about sex. It was about human connection. And sex was used as a metaphor. So, he is still not positing a positive message about sex, rather he is positing a positive message about human connection. Additionally, in this world, where sex is equivalent to connection, there is no place for the asexual individual. I think I have talked about asexuality before on this blog in regards to the Kinsey Institute adding a 7 to Kinsey's 0-6 scale. (This is dumb. There should be two scales one for homo-hetero and one for a-hyper, if you are a 0 on the a-hyper one, you don't need to fit on the homo-hetero scale. However, people who are like a 1 [mostly asexual] still deserve another number.) Anyway, I think my point is about marginalizing a whole group of people who are currently misunderstood. I am not myself asexual, but I cannot STAND how people don't acknowledge that asexuality exists! In the world of Short Bus, they cannot exist, for if they did, they would have no way of connecting to other people.

Next: what is with the story of the woman not being able to cum!? This has been done so many other times. And it has been done WELL. (see: coming soon. Haha. It's brilliant) So, there is nothing inherently wrong with the story. But John Cameron Mitchel, as a gay male, does not know how to pull this one off. Additionally, to make the entire movie hinge on this one fact, which I admit is an important one in the life of the character, to the point where the FINAL moment is of her cumming, and then only show it for a split second! Like show the gasp and the "about to scream" and then cut to New York City's lights coming back on (Yeah, apparently her orgasm was so great it fixed the blackout) is just cheap. It is still as though, though this is the most important part of the film, the climax if you will (pun attended, hahaha!), you still cannot show it in all it's glory even though we've seen multiple males ejaculate. ANNOYING. Also, to equate it with the power coming back on makes it something special, as opposed to something a woman has every right to experience everyday the same way a man does.

And maybe I am reading too much into the woman cumming thing. And I think perhaps I don't even understand completely what I didn't like about it, but there was something that didn't sit right. If you are a womanist, a feminist, a sex-positive individual, a woman's rights activist, whatever, and you have seen this movie, perhaps you can share your opinion with me.

The other thing I didn't like was how it was such a male dominated cast. This is to be expected of a white, liberal, gay, male I suppose. (If you need me to explain that statement, chances are you wouldn't understand what I mean even after the explanation.) But it still bothered me. I am one of those annoying people who is always keeping score. (i.e.: whose name was shown first in the credits when the male and female lead had the exact same amount of screen time and shared equally in the role of protagonist?) I can't help it. I feel like the majority of people in this country like to assume and pretend that sexism is over, that women have equal rights, and equal treatment. This is not the case. And it is DEFINITELY not the case that women have equal representation in government jobs or high-end corporate positions. Forgive me for wanting to see them represented equally in Indy-Flicks.

Also, what is with the whole idea that this movie is not supposed to turn you on because it is not porn!? Now, it didn't really turn me on, that's most likely because I am probably only a 1 or 2 on the whole asexual to hypersexual scale that I invented. But, I can't see how it is not supposed to turn other people on. There is mad sex right in your face. And why is John Cameron Mitchel all opposed to porn in the first place!? You can't objectify all of these people's bodies for "art" and then say it's a crime against humanity that people are objectifying their bodies for the sake of sex and sex alone. (I did a whole post on this once. Go find it if you care.) If this was designed to be sex-positive, he should be happy to be showing sex for the sake of sex. (That should be a new movement, right? Sex for Sex's sake like Art for Art's sake, only we must be on a closer guard against venereal disease in this new movement I am proposing.) Am I wrong? Should he be showing sex for art's sake instead? Is that sex positive, or just art positive?

So, other than that, it WAS your run-of-the-mill Indy-Flick. Some "deep" movie with grand symbolic gestures that actually seem kind up shallow and useless when one puts on his/her analytical reasoning hat. Except it has real sex; this is how it is different. So, if you can't stomach that for one reason or another, don't see it. Otherwise, probably still don't see it 'cause you could spend that hour and a half or whatever watching actually meaningful things like Battlestar Galactica, Mad Men, My So-Called Life, or Wonderfalls. (Yes, these are all TV shows, not movies. But it stands that they are all better than most movies.)

OK.

That's all for now. I still don't have new kitty pictures, so I think I'll put up this bat picture from Halloween. See, 'cause I told you all about this bat, but I don't think I ever pasted up an image. And if I already have, forgive me for the re-run.




Love, Calla and her kitties.

Calla's Sixty-First Post

Hi. It's Calla. (As it ALMOST always is.) Tabby is writing a blog post. I'm going to write one also! But I don't think I have any kitty cat pictures. This is bad news bears. I will make do somehow. He is writing in his ethical journal, which he must keep for school. He is always confused about what to write in it. So, I am always trying to help him. He seems to think my ideas are always silly-face!!

For example, about a week and a day ago, (no, exactly a week and a day ago.) we ate at Sacred Chow in the West Village near Washington Square Park with Tabby's parents after Church. Now, my food (vegan blueberry French Toast, which turned out to be more like a huge chunk of blueberry bread that happened to be warm and a little bit fried.) came out super-de-duperdy LATE. And the waitress said, "I'm sorry. This is way too late. I'm going to take it off the bill." Now, we came home and Tabby was all "Ahh, I've only written two ethical journal entries so far and I'm supposed to've written 4!" (btw, he is on his third as of present.) So, as I am an extremely helpful girlfriend/fiancé/life-partner/whatever-I-am-considered-after-living-with-him-for-over-two-years, and I am also oh-so-good at noticing how almost every action we make involves an ethical decision, I said "Oh, write about how that waitress took my food off the bill." He thought this was dumb, and not an ethical decision. But it was. That was not her food. It belonged to the restaurant. By taking it off the bill, she essentially stole it. However, by making a customer wait an exorbitant amount a time for her food, the waitress was ethically inclined to right this wrong. She chose to do so by offering me a free meal. . . that, in reality, wasn't hers to offer. This is an ethical decision. Tabby thought it was dumb. So here was a list of other things about which I told him to write. (None of which he did.)

1. Buying things in sweatshops - to support a poor family's livelihood, or to boycott the abuse to which family members are subjected?

2. Eating at restaurants that serve meat - to order vegan food, thus showing the manager there is a market for it, or to spend your money supporting restaurants that do not spend money to support cruel practices?

3. A related note: Tom's of Maine was bought by Colgate and The Body Shop by L'Oreal: Do you buy from them since they've signed pledges to continue their ethical practices? Are you indirectly supporting animal testing, or are you showing the parent companies that cruelty free products sell better than that other crap they produce?

4. Donating to cancer/aids research - obviously these products are tested on animals. Many people would argue it is ethical to do so. They value the lives of humans above the lives of animals. However, with documented cases of the gov. testing phase 1 and phase 2 drugs on FOSTER CHILDREN, one cannot be sure that there money is only going to animal tests (which I oppose anyway.)

5. Organic vs. local? - Organic local food is ideal, but when you can buy local food that is not grown organically, or food shipped from across the country or globe that is, which do you choose?

6. When you give money to church or a homeless outreach, or nearly any nonprofit that is not associated with animal welfare, that money is probably going to some items (food and cleaning supplies for SURE) that are in opposition to your own morals.

7. Is it better to buy non-vegan food from a company that is dedicated to promoting healthful and sustainable diets, or vegan food from a company that processes all sorts of crap, but happens to have made something that is vegan? Probably it is best to avoid BOTH of these situations, honestly. [This was not a suggestion I gave to Tabby. I just thought of it now. Well, no, I had a conversation with Tabby about it one time in a grocery store, but re-thought about it now.]

Um, I don't know if I suggested other things. Maybe I did. It was over a week ago, so I don't remember. But regardless, he did not like any of my suggestions. HOWEVER, now he is writing about vegetarianism and Christianity, specifically is it pertains to Bartian theology. So clearly, he cannot escape the animal rights activism! :) I love what I created in him. hehehe. He had said how he didn't want all his posts to be about animal welfare, but I think they will be. Once you are this deep into something, you cannot pretend like it does not consume all of your moral opinions. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I know there are other pressing issues, such as racism, homophobia, sexism, genocides, etc. And I do not think people should ignore these. And I, myself, stand up against these and often offer financial support to groups attempting to rectify these wrongs. However, my heart, and thus my time, is spent on animals. When a society has gotten to a point where sentient beings are treated as commodities, stripped of basic care, subject to hostile abuse simply because they are less evolved. . . Well, that attitude and culture taints the rest of society's assumptions and values. It is not OK to say "oh it's only a horse, who cares if it is abused?" That is one of GOD'S CREATURES. One should not treat it as though it were an OBJECT of PLEASURE created for MANKIND. Um, no. And to view the world through such a lens is DANGEROUS and TROUBLE (with a capital T that rhymes with P that stands for Pool. haha. No. The Music Man has nothing to do with this. . . at all. But it's pretty good, right?)

Alright, so that was one of my animal rants for the week. It is almost like I have a quota for those things, huh? And it's ridiculous, because I'm pretty sure they are kind of repetitive.

BUT, for lent I decided I need to do something for the animals EVERY DAY. Seeing as I should be doing more than whining about injustice every day anyway, I'm hoping this conviction sticks long past Lent. Well, I didn't think of this until Saturday night, unfortunately. And so I missed two days! But Wed. I went to a Farm Sanctuary Activist Meeting. Saturday I protested Foi Gras again at two different restaurants. And one of them is looking good. The other guy (Fork and Knife) is pretty much going out of business at this point, [Yet another ethical decision.] which is pretty sad, but also his own fault. Sign the pledge, and the protests will stop, you'll get more customers, less ducks will suffer. Everyone wins. Sunday I delivered literature about Farm Sanctuary to S'Nice. BUT I also left some at my church. Now, I am a fairly anti-social human being, as we have discussed in prior posts. So, though I have been attending St. Luke's for approximately an ENTIRE YEAR, I don't talk to anyone and I don't get involved. Well, I said in the morning, to Tabby I said, "Do you think I can leave some of these at Church?" And he said "I don't know." And then we got to church and all that was out on the table and bulletin board were church related items. So I thought, no. No point in asking. It will just be embarrassing. Well, I noticed in the announcements they had started a new "community' bulletin board that posted items unrelated to church in which people could get involved. And I had to get courage to ask about leaving some Farm Sanctuary lit. So, as a side note, I've been feeling so super guilty for not doing more in the realm of animal rights lately. God has given me this passion. It has been indwelt since I was four. . . or perhaps earlier. But four, the age I went vegetarian without the prompting of an adult or a group of peers, is a clear indication of such passion at work. My 6th grade persuasive essay against animal testing is another. Clearly, this is something that has been with me since a young age. God has also BLESSED me with both creativity and intellect. I have both the brains and the visionary-drive to really amount to something. Unfortunately, I was also given an unnatural anti-social tendency and an uncanny ability to get embarrassed at the drop of a hat! So, these character-flaws (if flaws are what they are) prevent me from using my gifts to their fullest. And lately, that has been plaguing at my soul. OK, well, I had to get courage. And this was a rather distracting revelation. I thought about what I would say all service. I was pretty glad Mother Mary was not giving the sermon, 'cause I had been weird and friended her on Facebook. I was already embarrassed about that fact, and didn't want to draw attention to myself by asking her strange questions. So, Mother Caroline was giving the sermon, and I, for some reason, am less comfortable around her than around Mary or Hugh, so it was still going to be strange asking her about the Farm Sanctuary Lit. Well, in her sermon, she briefly mentioned how saints and Christ and such were friends of the animals. Biblically speaking, a friend of the animals is someone who is Godly. So, I figured that was good. Even though it wasn't the POINT of the sermon, I figured she couldn't possibly say "no" after mentioning that fact. So, after service, I held up the line to leave to ask her about the Farm Sanctuary Lit. And she said, "Well, we can't post every worthy cause, but I don't see why we can't pin one up and leave a few." YAY! So, I only gave her a few. Like 7 probably or 8. I didn't want to overwhelm her or seem unappreciative or pushy. But, if she is pinning on up, even if the Lit. disappears, people will see the flyer and can still visit the website. So, I did that for the animals. And it was hard and SO EMBARRASSING. But I did it. And, unfortunately, it did not relieve me and make me feel like it would be easy to interact with people if it was for the animals. I think, instead, this will be a life-long struggle because of my weirdness. Like Moses, thinking he can't talk in front of people.

So, anyway, today I wrote Obama for the animals. I thanked him for cutting subsidies to factory farms, and encouraged him to give subsidies to farms with "humane" and environmentally friendly practices. I suggested he look at the farms certified by the nonprofit Humane Farm Animal Care. (I don't think any animal should be slaughtered, but raising animals humanely BEFORE you brutally, and with no regard for their feelings, take their lives away is a step in the proper direction.) So, if you like eating carcass, but are feeling either guilty or disgusted about the way that carcass was treated when s/he was a living, breathing being, check out this website. www.certifiedhumane.com/

This is now going to be unrelated to animal rights, at least this little part: I HAD A SNOW DAY TODAY! It is the only one I had during my undergraduate career. And snow days are a BEAUTIFUL thing. It is so so so so so so cold and SNOWY outside. I had to go out to buy my kitty cats food. But instead of going to the pet food store to which I like to go because it is a small business, I went to whole foods because it was closer. If I have to support a Big Box store, I guess Whole Foods is the way to go, right? But other than that trip, I have been INSIDE. I drank co-co, and it was yummy. I pretty much ENTIRELY wasted the day. Like it is nearly 11:00 p.m. and I didn't do anything productive. This is probably bad. But oh well.

SO, my sister has been a vegetarian since, like, I dunno, 2 months? It is good good good of her. She is having trouble giving up eggs, so I told her about the humanley raised people. And, actually, I don't know, for sure, what would be wrong with eating eggs from chickens humanley raised? Perhaps something to do with male chicks that hatch? I don't know if the nonprofit looks at that. I think I'll write to them asking about male chicks on layer-hen farms and veal calves on dairy-farms. Yeah, I have to go do that. But it was wonderful chatting with you. BYE.

Love,
Calla and her kitties. (NO PICTURE!?) I will find a picture of SOMETHING to put here. . . hmmm. . .



This is a GORGEOUS butterfly friend from the Ren. fair this summer. Can you believe people kill bugs instead of capturing them and letting them out the window? (Probably, 'cause probably you do that.) It makes me sad to go in the laundry room in the basement because there is fly tape hanging from the ceiling with dead bugs on it. :( IF YOU LIVE IN THE SUBURBS OR COUNTRY NEAR BATS, NEVER USE FLY PAPER. The wonderful batfriends get stuck in it. :( This makes me want to cry because bats are my most favorite animals. (Yes, I play favorites, but I treat them all with respect and love.)

Post no. 10

So, I am honestly wondering about this 'pick and choose' thing that so many Christian denominations do. I spent many years in the Assemblies of God denomination. (Ha, as a 22 years old 'many' means five!) Well, I spent my eighth grade year and high school years in the A/G church because there was a lot about it that I really appreciated: open to the Holy Spirit, ordain women, don't baptize as infants, more Arminian than Calvinist (who here does not, for the LIFE OF THEM, understand predestination!?), not afraid to empower young people. . . these are all things I also believe.

However, even when I went to an A/G church I could not understand their aversion to gay people, lesbians, and bisexuals.** I looked this up recently, and they performed a study in 1979 that pretty much convinced them all homosexuality is unnatural and sinful or something like that. Now, obviously, a study from 30 years ago is bound to have its flaws. Perhaps if the church performed a new study, their entire doctrine would change, or perhaps not.

So, anyway, this question of hypocrisy was getting the best of me and I resorted to posting this on yahoo answers :

How come the Assemblies of God church allows women to become pastors, but not homosexuals?

Please no one give any nasty responses either way insulting either the church or homosexuals. I am honestly just curious; so let's try to keep this a positive environment.

So, in my experience, the A/G church outright condemns homosexuality. Not only are homosexuals not allowed to become pastors, but they are considered to be living in sin. Meanwhile, many A/G churches have women in leadership roles and some even have them as the head pastor.

Often I am told that the A/G church believes the bible is the infallible, inspired word of God. Thus, if homosexuality is called a sin in the bible, it is a sin. However, the bible states much more explicitly that women are not to speak in church (1 Corinthians 14:33-35), and that women should not have authority to teach men (1 Timothy 2:11-12). Yet, women clearly speak, teach and have authority in A/G churches. This is not considered a sin.

I have been told that Paul is against women as leaders because of the culture of the times, not because Christ was against women as leaders. Thus, the verses do not apply to our time.

However, I do not understand what evidence exists that Paul's aversion to homosexuality is not also cultural. Yes, homosexuality is also condemned in the old testament, but so are many other practices that are now widely accepted. It is my understanding that in the old testament, homosexuality was considered "unclean" the same way a woman's menstruation was considered unclean. These are examples of things that are ritualistically unclean, not things that are necessarily sinful or wrong. Just as Christ never condemned women as lesser than men, he never personally condemned homosexuals. It is only Paul and the old testament that do as much, and these also condemn women.

I am personally happy that the A/G church does ordain women. This is one step above many denominations who still hold to Paul's teaching about both homosexuals and women. But my question is why do they pick and choose? Am I missing something?

So far I have gotten no useful or helpful response. I don't think I was really expecting to. But one individual did post a link to another website with which I may have better luck. I'll keep you updated if I magically do.

**I'm actually not sure where they stand on transgender individuals. . . I don't know how people can be against the T in LGBT. It is a scientific fact that people are sometimes born with an XXY, XXX, XXYY, XYY, a single X or some other "abnormal" chromosome combination. . . Obviously our bodies and minds are not exactly dictated by our chromosomes or everyone would be XY or XX, and everyone would look like they have the combination they have. This isn't the case though. Actually, about 20% of all humans conceived are conceived with "chromosome abnormalities."++ So, even if, scientifically, someone has an XY and they feel like a woman or vise versa, I don't care. But how can people be against transgender people when many of the people they are insulting were born with a "genetic defect." This just seems mean.

++ This is according to the Behavorial Science Department of Palomar College

On a semi-related note: Why didn't HBO broadcast Gene Robinson's prayer? Why was the press only allowed to hear a gay bishop pray?

Calla's Twenty-First Post

What do you think about Paul? Tabby is annoyed at me for even mentioning his name. See, 'cause here's the deal: he writes this beautiful passage about love, and doesn't apply that to the rest of his writings when he writes about slaves or women or homosexuals. So, then it's like. . . um, what? And then Tabby said that Christ didn't preach liberation theology, but told us to turn the other cheek and what not. . . And I said that Christ's actions speak louder than words. So, healing people on the sabbath? That is an affront to legalistic authority. Letting women follow him, sit at his feet, and announcing men can also commit adultery? That is an assault on oppression. Being born to a SINGLE MOTHER. . . Well, if we consider that this is still taboo in today's society, imagine what kind of controversy this was.

So no, Christ did say pay Caesar what is due to Caesar. . . but that sentence ended with pay God what is due to God. And what is due to God, precisely? We must LOVE God and we must love each other and we must love all of creation. . . If not love, RESPECT. (But I'm gonnna go with love. Some people maybe cannot bring themselves to love a rock or a tree or something, but you should still respect it.) So, how do you love? Probably with your actions. Probably with you fight to end oppression. Liberation theology was accurate as far as I am concerned.

So, Paul. . . Well, I have my fair share of problems with Paul in that he doesn't challenge the status quo. Women are subject to their husband's command, slave's to their masters and gay people are full of sin. Tabby says I can't just throw away everything Paul says because of these problems. After all, Paul wrote a lot of letter and was quite influential in the early church and in modern churches. He wrote before the gospels were written down (though they were circulating orally.) So Tabby says, all Christian teachings were influenced by Paul because he was the first one writing so much stuff. . and I say, if that is the case, then why does Christ (in the gospels), through his actions, defy what Paul writes?

So, Paul. . . I like what he says to the Corinthians about love, and who couldn't like that? But if one is to honestly read Paul critically one would realize he doesn't always follow his own advice. Christ didn't talk about sodomy; but Christ talked about love. So if I'm gonna pick and choose pieces of Paul to follow, which one must do if one is to be realistic with his/herself because Paul is a contradictory figure, I am going to choose the pieces that match up with the gospels. As Tabby pointed out, most other writings were influenced by Paul anyway. I assume the first century was full of oral traditions since so few people wrote and read. I thus assume that stories of Christ were already established before they written down (and thus not necessarily influenced by Paul). . . So I therefore conclude that the gospels can stand apart from Paul's teachings, which are FULL OF CULTURAL INFLUENCES. The gospels seem less full of cultural influences because Christ let women sit at his feet, a sign that they were his apostles, a big no-no for women in that time. So see, what this is all about is how we should listen to what Paul says about love but not all the stuff his says that is clearly just the oppressive status quo of the time.

My Reverend one day, when talking about gay rights, reminded me of the story homophobic people always say, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." No what she says at that point? "Yes, God created diversity." And God totally did create diversity. And we need to love that diversity and not criticize people and oppress people and be stupidfaces.

This is so so rambly. I don't think I had a point at all when I started this post, which is why it is so rambly and strange. But the point is I don't really like Paul because he did not challenge oppression even though he told us to love each other, and loving each other definitely includes fighting for each other's rights. So, the further point is, how do I know which point of Paul's to follow? The points that are also in the gospels. . . So this is rambly and also FINISHED.

The End,
Calla and her kitties.

Post no. 5

So, the question remains: what does this mean?

That's an essentially impossible question to answer, especially this soon after the election.

But, I think it means U.S. America is going to have to analyze injustice on a deeper level than it has been comfortable doing. So many people categorize this country in terms of race. We create programs like affirmative action to try to make amends for what has happened to the African-American community through Slavery, Jim Crow laws, Welfare originated for the 'deserving poor,' redlining black neighborhoods, creating a suburbia with mandates to exclude certain 'classes' of people (including Jewish people and Catholics). This has made it easier for U.S. citizens to ignore the broader implications of class and opportunity. I think, with Obama's election, we can do so no longer.

One cannot deny that Obama had opportunities in life that, with the failings of our urban public-school system and inequality in law enforcement, many 'minority' children do not have. (I put the term minority in quotes here, because I am not sure, if unregistered immigrants are included in the count, that the U.S. has a majority 'race' any longer. [I am putting the word race in quotes because definitions of race are everchanging. Ask an Italian immigrant, who arrived on our shores at the turn of the century, if s/he was considered 'white' when s/he docked in this 'promiseland.' {and there I hope I don't need to explain the quotes}]) One cannot deny that it is not only the 'minority' children that do not have these opportunities, but poor whites as well. With an African-American/Black/Bi-racial/whatever-you-want-the-label-to-be man as the President of the United States, one is forced to examine how he made it. And through this examination one cannot help but be reminded that one man reaching the pinnacle does not represent equal opportunities throughout the land. However, it makes one consider for whom EXACTLY are these opportunities sparse?

This is not to say Obama's victory as a black man is not earth-shattering. It is not as if, since Obama went to Harvard Law, he had an easy road ahead of him. No, it speaks to Obama's courage, endurance and desire for change that he applied to Harvard Law in the first place. . . or that he ran for senate at all! (Until January, the count remains 16 women and 5 'minorities' in the senate out of the entire 100 senators. . . Oh so far to go.)

All I am trying to say, is that now that Obama has reached the highest office in the land, non-white children are more likely to have the self-confidence and strong reaffirming-self/community-image to do the same. . . HOWEVER, I fear a greater shift to socioeconomic divide. Middle and even lower-middle class children of all races, I am SURE, will have the dreams and aspirations to achieve greatness. What about children of all races who live in the ghetto and don't have the skills or support system or time to even graduate high school because our industrial cities are only falling deeper into disrepair? Black, White Latino/a, Asian, American-Indian, alike, when will the hope come for those children? And this is not to say that Obama hasn't inspired hope in these communities. . . because I am sure he has. . . But I guess I just fear the U.S. American people will forget about this issue of social-class, which is arguably a larger obstacle for success than race. . . and an obstacle that many children, in this system, will not yet overcome. Basically, we have a lot of work to do. . . and race is just one of many areas we need to examine. I do believe, though, that Obama's life story will lead us to examine these other social barriers.

On the upside of things: What does this mean!? The fact that white U.S. Americans could cast their vote for a black man, son of a Muslim, means that we are on our way to eradicating racism. Once again, this is not IN THE LEAST, to say we have surpassed any sort of racial divide. . . It is nonetheless, a symbol of the world ahead. . . an idealistic world that now seems within grasp.

On a related note, I can say I am proud of U.S. America to actually be ahead of much of planet earth on the race issue. Obama had a much better chance of being elected President in the U.S.A. than he would've had in Kenya. Obama's father (and thus Obama) is a member of the Luo ethnic group. In the 2007 elections in Kenya, Tribalism played a huge role in who got elected. . . And guess what, the Presidency didn't go to the candidate of Luo ethnicity. I point this out so that I can reassure myself that the still-present racism in the U.S. is surpassed by the greatness of other countries' racism. . . (Not that it's good that other countries have racism.) But it lets me realize, that for the U.S., an essentially non-racist future is a possibility. Perhaps not in my lifetime, unless I live to 106, but this gives me a hope for it.

Also: HOW GREAT WAS OBAMA'S SPEECH!? He ADMITTED we have massive work to do. . . and. . . GET THIS! That we, as an entire NATION, need to work on it together. He has called us all to service, because no man (or woman) can produce the change Obama has promised on his (or her) own. And Obama's willing to ask for our help, to reach out to Republicans asking for their support as well, and to warn us it will take more than one term to get the job done. This is good to admit, for sure.

More disappointment: California's proposition 8 passed, banning gay marriage. 2 steps forward, one step back, right? I guess U.S. citizens have to have some group to oppress. . . If this will be harder to do along racial lines with a black President, at least we still have our homophobia. To sum it up, this made me sad. :(

More uplifting news: Massachusetts banned betting on dog races!! Essentially, this serves the same purpose as banning dog races. Who REALLY wants to watch grey hounds run in circles if there's not a little sumthin-sumthin to be made off of the helpless animals' hard work? My only fear: the initial repercussions will include many poor, defenseless, little, loveface, doggies abandoned. :( I mean, I know these dogs get abandoned anyway when their racing careers fade. . . However, as this happens little by little, shelters can better afford, and are better prepared to take them in. So what happens when ALL of them are surrendered or abandoned at once!? A lot will probably have to be killed :(. . . or, for all my sensitive readers out there, ''put to sleep."

Additional news from Cali: Farm animals have to be allotted enough room to stand, sit AND TURN AROUND. Listen, this seems like a marginal victory. . . But when it comes to animal rights, I will take what I can get and shout, 'HURRAY!' One more step to acknowledging humans are not the only species with a central-nervous system. . .


(These kitties feel pain too, because they have central nervous systems.)

I have to go to sleep now.

Calla's Eighteenth Post

"Barack Obama. Too Radical. . . HURRAY" That is my response to the commercial that says "Barack Obama. Too Radical. Too Risky." He doesn't seem particularly radical to me. But I'll take the McCain ad's word for it and vote for him because it tells me he is a radical like I am! Yay for radicals. And that is all I have to say about that.

Cindy McCain's eyes look like kitty eyes. MEOW. MEEEEEOOOOOOW. hehehe.


SOOOOO that seems to be all I have to write right now. (haha write right.)

It is like an hour later, and this is what I have to say now. I have to tell you something else that is funny that was on wikipedia but that is from cosmo. (HA! HOW AWFUL/ SEXIST IS THAT MAGAZINE!) So, it is not AS funny as a ghost band, but it is still funny. It says this, 'Cosmopolitan founder Helen Gurley Brown once advised women to, "Spread semen over your face, [it's] probably full of protein as sperm can eventually become babies.'" How moronic is that? Oh so moronic. . . semen is PROBABLY full of protien BECAUSE SPERM CAN BECOME A BABY! Um, last I checked, (and maybe things have changed. . . no, I promise they haven't) sperm doesn't just grow into a baby!!!!! AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Also, I want more political jingles.

Also, why does Jon Stewart think hermaphrodite is an insult? People need to stop being stupid-faces.

love,
Callakitties

Calla's Seventeenth Post

Mama is sideways and I don't know why! Maybe I will fix her some day soon.

This news article is strange to me. I am concerned now for my well-being because it bothers my head.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/30/AR2008103004757_pf.html

So so confusingly strange. The president of the Republican club at Liberty University says, "Aside from moral issues -- homosexuality and abortion -- I advocate small government." Yet is also "hesitant to criticize Bush." This is strange to me. Bush has not done anything to prevent abortion (you should look to the section on abortion in Post no. 4 [from October 2008] to see my full opinion on this) or gay rights (not that I would want him to) and has let the gov. grow 40%. . . Um, what? That is my response "what?" It is the only response I can muster because I am oh so perplexed by young Republicans. Additionally, I don't understand how someone in my generation can be against gay rights anymore than I can understand how someone in my generation can still be racist. But alas, there is racism and homophobia among even us 20something-years-olds. So, right that is strange to me. Yep. Strange and a half almost. . . But true and a half also.

Also, the culture element of Liberty University is surprising. It is surprising because it is NOT surprising. (hehe. . . didn't see that one coming! Did you?. . . um, did you?) What I mean is this: They dress like everyone I know, drink Starbucks like everyone I know, watch The Office like everyone I know, listen to Indie Rock like everyone I know, and wear shirts proclaiming I [heart] such-and-such like people I used to know in high school. (Let's be clear, I only personally approve of the skinny jeans [and with BOOTS not sneakers and not Uggs either] and The Office because I've never seen it so I can't judge. Nonetheless, they are like everyone I know.) So, what this leads me to believe is that the way my school is full of fake liberals, people claiming that want to change things and pretending they are activists, Liberty is probably full of fake conservatives, claiming they want to change things and pretending they are activists for the opposite things for which people in my school pretend they are activists. The reason I think this is because anyone who regularly supports a giant corporation like Starbucks is clearly content with the status quo, or hasn't thought critically about the status quo. It is just surprising to learn this is a two way street– students repeating things they have heard from their parents runs on both sides of the left/right political split.

Ok, so this is going to be one of the two weirdest parts of the article. This girl who is president of the Republican club is black. (That's not the weird part.) The weird part is, that by the other 9% of black students at Liberty University, she is considered a racial traitor because she's campaigning actively for McCain, AND the white students in the Republican club fear she is an 'Obama plant' despite the fact that she is their president. . . Once again, um. . . WHAT? In what alternative universe is Liberty University, where the entire student body, absent one girl, vote solely on race? OK, not to generalize (because the article does point out that some liberals go to Liberty and there is even a Democrat club), but I'm willing to BET you that most of the students at Liberty, black, white, hispanic, Asian, American Indian alike, have similar political views (be them fake or part of a deep-running conviction). So why are all the black students voting for the Democrat? Additionally, are a lot of the students there so racist that they can't understand why a black woman would vote for McCain, even one who is PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLICAN CLUB? Is it wrong of me to be confused by this weirdness? Am I missing something obvious. Please explain the obvious thing I am missing, because I would truly like to know what the heck goes on in the minds of these students.

Ok, so the other weirdest part says this:

Not all of Ayendi's friends at Liberty are in political lockstep, made evident by the arrival of Ray Woolson, a biology major who pulls up a chair. Woolson is ripe for ribbing: His Razor scooter is in the back seat of his Volvo, which bears an Obama bumper sticker. And not just any scooter.

"A scooter with a cup holder!" Ayendi teases. "When you want to come over to the real world, you can come over to my side. How can you be a liberal?"

Woolson is calm. "I think being a liberal is the most compassionate thing you can do," he says. "Jesus was a pacifist who chose to spend his time with the poor people. They weren't Big Oil, they were prostitutes."

Ayendi shakes her head in pity. Woolson gives it back. "There are a lot of kids at school who are blindly conservative," he says.

"Americans have gotten too soft and expect too much," Ayendi says.

"Like affordable health care?" Woolson asks. "The conservatives want to have tax cuts for Big Oil CEOs."

They could debate for hours, and they often do, but Woolson has to take off. When he leaves, Ayendi says: "Ray is so random. I'm not. I do as I'm told. I'm really proper. Liberals are very indie, very emo, just very fun. When we go out, we put on button-downs and Sperrys. I think ahead. I'd rather dress like this now, because when I'm in law school this is how I'll be dressing. Liberals are like, 'Live, take a load off!' My friends at home say I have to be perfect 24 hours a day. It's just who I am."

I am all around bewildered by this portion of the article. I would like to hear these debates they supposedly have for hours because all this girl did was shake her head at her friend without actually offering a response. Then, she ENTIRELY offended all liberals by implying we are indie and emo. . . like, what? I am not emo, and I also enjoying thinking ahead which is why I fight global warming and such. Also, when she is in law school will she ALWAYS wear button downs and Sperrys (what's a Sperry? I guess I'm too liberal to know.) Does she sleep in them? Also, does she imply conservatives aren't any fun, because I think many may be offended by that statement. Also, many liberals are not like "live, take a load off!" (whatever that even means) because we do not feel we can stop fighting for the social changes we deem vital anymore than she feels she can. Also, why does she admit to doing whatever she is told? That seems like a sign of complacincy. . . that is not always such a good thing to be. I am just confused. . . what's with the cupholder remark anyway? Oh and I really like when that Ray guy says Jesus hung out with prostitutes, because it's a good reminder we are not above anyone. (Seriously, how cool was Jesus? Coming to earth to redeem everyone)

Ok, that is all. This article was strange to me. Oh my.

UNRELATED ALERT: In Galactica, Sharon Agathon's call sign is Athena. Do you think this is because she was always grown up and Athena sprung out fully formed from Zeus's head? MAYBE

Love,

You know WHO!

Calla's Ninth Post

So, it turns out I'm racist, but not homophobic. If anything, I'm heterophobic.

Harvard.edu has all these Implicit Association Tests up that are supposed to determine what you subconsciously or implicitly believe and think. I took a lot of them, starting with two about the current presidential candidates. It turns out that I don't implicitly prefer either Obama or McCain. That is the first thing I learned about myself, and it's obviously not an insightfully interesting fact. What was much more interesting was how "American" and Christian I found the candidates.

"Your data suggests a much stronger automatic association between Christian and Barack Obama, compared to John McCain

Your data suggests a moderately stronger automatic association between American and Barack Obama, compared to John McCain"

You see that MUCH STRONGER automatic association? That's the highest it goes. The results range from strong, moderate, slight, no, slight, moderate, strong. Ok, the website explains it better. It says this, "Depending on the magnitude of your result, your automatic associations may be described as 'slight', 'moderate', 'strong', or 'little to no preference or difference in association'. How implicit associations affect our judgments and behaviors is not well understood and may be influenced by a number of variables. As such, the score should serve as an opportunity for self-reflection, not as a definitive assessment of your implicit thoughts or feelings. This and future research will clarify the way in which implicit thinking and feelings affects our perception, judgment, and action. If you have any questions about this study or if you would like to find out the overall results, please email feedback@projectimplicit.net."

The Obama Christian thing makes a lot of sense because his Reverend was broadcast all over the media for like EVER and I've never heard anything about McCain's religion like at all. The American thing is the weird one. McCain is the one who always brags about being a POW and what not. . . But whatever, this is just how I implicitly feel about the candidates.

Onto Race: My data suggests a slight automatic preference for European Americans compared to African Americans. So, that's not good, but it's only slight.
OK, so I like white people better than black people, but also. . . "Your data suggest a slight association of White Americans with Weapons compared to Black Americans." Does it then follow that I like weapons!? I don't think I like weapons, but I associate white people slightly with weapons and I slightly prefer white people to black people. . . hmmm. . . whatever.

Ok, so combining this race thing with the American thing, this is what I found:
"Your data suggest little or no association between White Am. and Native Am. with Foreign and American." and "Your data suggest a strong association of Asian American with American and European American with Foreign compared to European American with American and Asian American with Foreign."

A STRONG ASSOCIATION WITH ASIAN AMERICANS AND AMERICAN SYMBOLS. That is the result that only 2% of the people who took the test got. Does it come from being in love with Tabby Cat? No, I think this test was flawed. They only showed Asian people and white people and almost all of the foreign images were from Europe. Well, I certainly don't associate Asian people with Europe and I certainly do associate white people with Europe. . . I associate them both with U.S. America though. . . So, you see what I mean, right? Most people who took this test musta just been confused about the world in general to associate Asian people with European images . . . but whatever.

Ok, so now onto the homophobic bit. My data suggested a moderate automatic preference for gay people compared to straight people. Does this make me heterophobic? Am I so obsessed with social change that I am just drawn to people who face injustice? (No, that is contrary to my slight liking of white people over black people.) I do give money to Human Rights Campaign every month. . . their newsletters musta gotten to my subconscious.

On to sexism. . . "Your data suggest little or no association between Male and Female with Career and Family" So look, I'm not sexist. . . or AM I? My data ALSO suggests a moderate association of Male with Science and Female with Liberal Arts compared to Female with Science and Male with Liberal Arts. I DON'T THINK WOMEN CAN BE SCIENTISTS!!??? I'm a bad person I guess.

However, I am not antisemitic. I actually like Jewish people better than people of other religions. Like 17% of test takers, "Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for Judaism compared to Other Religions."

Also, I like older people slightly more than young people and thin people moderately more than fat people. I blame my mother for this last point.

OK, that is all. Search Implicit Association Test, and Harvard and the tests will come up. They are a superfun waste of time.


Love Calla and her kitties and her subconcious