Fortunate's Sanctuary

It's True! The Mainstream Media is Liberal!

2009-08-01T10:49:00.005-04:00

We've all heard the accusation from conservatives that the mainstream media in America has a liberal bias. Well, maybe they're not liberal, but they do have less sympathy for conservatives—probably because the majority of them are psychotic.

It makes sense to me that the media is biased. They're journalists. They go out of their own environment and learn new facts, experience other realities, and in many cases, they end up empathizing with people who are different from them. It's not that they're biased in favor of liberals or Democrats; they're biased in favor of facts, and how dare they?!

At least, that's true for the journalists themselves. The executives are biased too, but instead of being biased in favor of facts, they're biased in favor of making money. That's what prevents the media from actually displaying their bias in favor of facts.

The problem is, not everyone in this country makes decisions based in reality. Treating them as if they do is simply dishonest. What comes off as objectivitiy in the media, is actually just popular bull shit that makes money.

Despite the journalists' personal opinions, they still do an amazingly good job of treating the crazies with as much respect as people who are based in reality. A damn shame.

Jesse Ventura 2012

2009-07-20T16:09:00.006-04:00

I happen to believe that the two party system could work in this country if its citizens became fervently and radically empathetic. If that were the case though, any system could work, even anarchy.

But that's not the case, so we have to work with what we've got, and from what I can tell, we ain't got much. I'd be happy to see the Republican party die, because at least then we could have a genuine debate within the Democratic party. Still, I'd prefer that both parties die. 2 is the exactly wrong and the worst number of parties to have. It drastically oversimplifies everything to the point where you pick a letter at age 25 and stick with that alphabetical character for the rest of your life.

Worse, you swear allegiance to it over your country. The best system would be no political parties. Next to that, many—as in, 6-10+—parties would be acceptable, then a one-party system, then a two-.

But here's the thing, the people have spoken, and they want simple. We're not in this situation by chance; we're in it by choice. As a previous post indicated, in 1960 45% of Americans said they thought neither the Rs nor the Ds were best fit to handle the country's problems, and we've been on a steady decline ever since, now near 14%. And what?! The parties have gotten better since then?! Fuck no! They've never been worse!

I tend to have very little hope for my country and for people in general, but if we ever had a chance, it just might be right now—if the economy stays bad, and gets worse. If it gets better, people will continue along, content to live the simple life, driven to acquire more money and more objects, to feed themselves and their egocentrism. At this moment, their capability to fulfill their greed is on the line, so now, they're getting serious.

I don't necessarily think Jesse Ventura is a particularly brilliant guy like Obama is, but at least he really does have the correct intentions. Ventura is definitely not a know-nothing like Bush or Palin. He's more than sharp enough to know whom to listen to, and in a role as massive as President of the United States, that's what's really important.

He's had his mistakes, but he's serious about terminating the sovereignty of the corporation over the "people's government" in this country.

I Support Outlawing Political Corruption!

2009-07-19T12:58:00.004-04:00

It is illegal to pay a citizen for his or her vote in an election. Makes sense, right? We don't want millionaires just buying their offices, do we?

Then, why is it totally kosher for a special interest group to pay a politician for his or her vote on a bill? Of course, there's no explicit "deal" there, but the understanding is clear. If such an implicit agreement were made for a citizen's vote, however, both the campaign and the citizen would be prosecuted.

Both our political parties do this obviously, but on top of that, this is also what Republicans do for rich people via unnecessary tax cuts.

Instead of letting the citizens profit off their votes, we let lobbyists and the rich profit off their invested contributions. Of course, that's basically what most U.S. voters are trying to do, but there's a big difference: the corporations are successful in this effort, and in amounts many times greater than the citizens are even hoping for themselves.

An entertaining video from The Onion cleverly illustrates this everted system which seems to be incidental, but is actually a carefully designed arrangement by the powers that be:

If we don't want our politicians to be corrupt, making corruption illegal might be a good first step in that direction. Of course, the only people who could ever do that are the people who would never do it.

An Atheist's Consolation

2009-07-11T09:26:00.006-04:00

I used to be quite frustrated by the idea that there is no afterlife. It was such a depressing thought that one day, it would all be over. I thought it was such an anti-climactic ending.

It turns out, we are the climax.

Buy Fur?

2009-07-09T08:47:00.010-04:00

(mature content, viewer discretion advised)

Unless you've ever been skinned alive, you really don't have any business buying fur, ever, in any form.

Go to this page and do everything you can. Take the pledge to be fur-free. Take the opinion poll. Donate (come on, you can spare a few bucks). And tell everyone you know.

We Could Care Less

2009-07-07T16:41:00.007-04:00

Not only do we not care, but we're caring less and less.

The most recent percentage of people who are apparently not supporters of one of the two major parties was 14%, a smaller portion of the vote that independent candidate Ross Perot received in 1992. That's about a third of what it was 50 years ago.

But, hey! We could still care less, and we're gettin' there!

Empathy

2009-07-05T15:29:00.003-04:00

Empathy is the greatest virtue a human can have. Genuine empathy, not an emulation of the behavior it engenders, while frustrating and burdensome, is so valuable to our world.

I often hear my fellow Americans complaining that the people in this country are stupid. When I try to suggest that most countries aren't much better, they are quick to proclaim that it's just us Americans, that no other country is as stupid (regardless of whether or not they've ever actually been to another country).

20% of people in England think it takes one month for the Earth to complete a revolution around the sun (it takes a year, in case you don't know). It's not just us. Look at our average IQ scores. We're well above average.

Still, the majority doesn't accept the theory of evolution, so how smart can we really be? We might as well not accept the theory of gravity. That's about empathy too, or the lack of it, which is apathy. It's just so much easier to say, “God did it.”

France has an 85% voter turnout. The United States? 43%, and sometimes as low as 20%. Now, that's the percentage of people who actually show up and vote on Election Day, let alone actually pay attention to anything, ask questions and think critically.

A genuinely empathetic person cannot settle for simple, superficial, feel-good answers. No, an empathetic person is compelled to analyze, to find the truth, to make fact-based decisions, regardless of consolation.

I remember not that long ago hearing the common sentiment that, “If only everyone was just a little bit nicer to each other, think how much better the world would be.” I'd laugh to myself, and think how idealistic and naïve that mentality was. Granted, I perceived those people to be talking about trivial things such as politeness, which they probably were, but I failed to see how obviously true that idea is. Assuming the standard that the less pain there is, the better, then aiding each other would inexorably improve the world, as far as human actions are concerned.

The issues in America that are most important to me—in no particular order, the environment, health care (health), equality, poverty, etc.—all boil down to selfishness. People would rather convince themselves the Earth is going to be just fine, that “only God can end the Earth”, than take a serious look at the evidence. They'd rather not focus on the obstacles that the less fortunate face. They'd rather save that time for later and use it for themselves. It's not that Americans are stupid. It's that they're apathetic.

With all the wonderful ideas of forms of government, nothing will improve America, or the world, the way empathy can.

School Is Not for Everyone

2009-06-29T16:35:00.005-04:00

As a young person, it is very widely expected that I plan to attend college, am currently a student, or have already graduated. Whenever I've told someone that I do not qualify for one of those three things, that person is typically baffled, and usually immediately tells me that I "have to get an education," and that I'll regret it if I don't.

Unfailingly, these people are talking about themselves, not about me. They assume that I want the same things they want (usually money), that I'll need it because they needed it, or some other fallacy based on the idea that they know me, and they almost never do.

When I plainly explain that it's just not for me, they simply can't accept my answer. But that's their problem. The fact is, some of us are unlike you.

I'm sure for most professions, for most people, school is the best path. But for some of us, perhaps a tiny section, it's just an extremely expensive and long process for buying a piece of paper.

Do not make the mistake of thinking I underestimate the value of knowledge. Yes, information and exposure to varying ideas are both very important, but there's not just one path to knowledge.

Above all, it is critical that one has a strong mind capable of intricate thinking. Many of those graduates of even the most prestigious schools still lack that.

Is President Obama a Political Coward?

2009-06-16T17:45:00.006-04:00

I'm in complete agreement with the sentiments Bill Maher expresses in this video.

It appears to me that Obama's bipartisanship is hamstringing him into doing nothing of serious consequence, not just on gay issues like DOMA and DADT, but on all the major issues. Very disappointing.

The Art of Self-Service

2009-06-15T14:09:00.014-04:00

In the U.S. Senate, a hate crimes bill is attached to a tourism bill. The military's useless anti-gay policy that helps no one, and hurts many, is enforced in full because our president doesn't want his popularity to decline. President Obama also defends an incredibly unconstitutional law that denies citizens rights, and even infringes on state sovereignty, again only for the sake of approval ratings. In New York, a gay marriage bill is being used as a tool in a play for political power. Across the nation, where majority is supposed to rule, thousands upon thousands of citizens in each state are denied rights that the majority believes they should have.

The graph below, composed by Jeff Lax and Justin Phillips of Columbia University, demonstrates the incongruence of public opinion with public policy.

Each unfilled circle past the halfway line represents a set of rights or protections that the majority supports.

Why is this? Isn't this a country of majority rule? Well yeah, it's the country of the majority political party rules. The lower on this list you are, the more likely it is that you're looking at a red state. Red state, meaning Republican rule. The base of the Republican party, the people who the Republican politicians truly obey, are anti-gay. These politicians obey the organizations and people who have given them the most money and the people who voted for them. Therefore, the politicians in these states are anti-gay too, even if it means they're ignoring the 51%-80% majorities of public opinion that are pro-gay.

In truth, I myself don't make the argument that these laws should be dependent upon public opinion. It's fundamentally wrong on every level to put the well-being of minority citizens up to a vote for the majority to decide on. But I don't make the argument for majority rule; the other side does.

Somehow, whether or not the majority of the public agrees with them, justice is served as long as they get their way. If 2nd parent adoption is illegal in Alabama, "Well, that's majority rule." And yet, when there's no protections for gay Pennsylvanians from discrimination in housing, "That's the system at work." And if a court does its job by checking the tyranny of the majority in Iowa, "They are activist judges legislating from the bench."

What has four legs and one gender?

2009-06-12T22:36:00.003-04:00

A homosexual couple, apparently.

Minister Leroy Swailes at D.C. elections board marriage hearing.

Sesame Street Marriage

2009-06-12T22:17:00.002-04:00

Come Out.

2009-06-10T11:15:00.010-04:00

Having not followed American Idol, I don't really know how true it is that Adam Lambert is a much better singer than Kris Allen, or how his rumored sexual orientation affected the contest. But knowing how popular he is, I'm glad he came out. I'm sure he opened a lot of minds, and that's exactly what needs to be done.

Coming out is the easiest and possibly most effective thing any of us can do to help the cause for the equal rights of the GLBT community and its safety. And when I say "us", I don't just mean the gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgender people. I'm talking about everyone. Straight people can come out too-- as supporters of this community. Especially in our societies that value conformity so much, the voices of straight allies are extremely important. Stand up for your friends, your family members and your fellow citizens.

I always hear people say, "It shouldn't matter who I love." Yeah, you're right. It shouldn't matter, but can't you see that it does matter? The only way to combat ignorance is with the truth.

Even if every country all over the world suddenly gave GLBT people all the rights they deserve, we'd still have work to do. We can pass all the laws we want, but until hearts and minds are opened to equality, there will still be hate. Even hate crimes laws don't prevent hate crimes. That's something we all have to do in each of our own families and communities. We shouldn't have to, but we do. I see it as a moral imperative and a social obligation to all other people that you come out as long as it doesn't put you in any serious danger.

If you can't bring yourself to come out for your own sake, or it simply doesn't matter for your own sake, so be it. Don't do it for yourself. Do it for future generations, for today's queer and questioning youth, and for your fellow disenfranchised GLBT citizens.

Acceptance

2009-06-09T09:15:00.009-04:00

On May 28, speaking on his Sacramento morning radio show, Rob Williams called transgender people "freaks" with "mental disorders" and claimed that the "transgender movement" is phony. A co-host, Arnie States, said, "If my son, God forbid, if my son put on a pair of high heels, I would probably hit him with one of my shoes. I would throw a shoe at him."

Myself, I'm gay, not trans, but this is infuriating all the same.

When I first read about this, I wanted to write something to express my anger and frustration. I wanted to say that I'd like Williams to be forced into estrogen treatments and castrated, so he'd know what it's like to be a male on the inside-- the weak in mind, despicable, pathetic male that he already is --and female on the outside. As I read on, though, I learned that my anger was unnecessary.

At first, these two defended their comments, saying they were "jokes" and that they have the right to their opinions. Their tune took a very different note after losing huge sponsors, including Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Carl's Jr., Nissan North America, Verizon, and more.

Currently on the show's homepage, you will find a letter from Rob Williams:

To our loyal Rob, Arnie and Dawn followers,

We have failed you. As a show, as people, as broadcasters, we have simply failed on almost every level.

We presented our opinions on a very sensitive subject in a hateful, childish and crude fashion; and then, given the opportunity to retract those remarks, we defended them.

Since then, you, our loyal listeners, have made it clear to us that we went too far. The response has been overwhelming. None of you said that we couldn’t have opinions, yet so many of you said that the way we gave them crossed the line. Further, you said that our attempt to mask our comments as “jokes that would be understood by our audience,” was unacceptable. I would say now that it was worse than that, it was cowardly. You have made that clear.

We have reached out to various groups and asked for a chance to make this right; to respond, with their participation, to the education that our audience has provided us. That opportunity has been graciously granted this Thursday morning, June 11th. at 7:30 a.m.

The word apology appears no where in this letter for a reason. We already hid from doing the right thing once and we’re not going to make that mistake again. Apologizing in a written, posted statement is a form of cowardice. We will say what needs to be said this Thursday.

On a final, personal note, as the leader and owner of the show, I have made the decision that we need to refrain from broadcasting new episodes until we can address this on Thursday. We will return to the air at 7:30 a.m. June 11th.

Rob Williams
Rob, Arnie and Dawn

It's entirely possible, and in my opinion likely, that this letter wasn't even written by Rob Williams, and he simply acquiesced to its publishing to save his show and job. And yes, it's disappointing that he ever thought like this in the first place.

Still, this is a heartening indicator of where we are today. With so much bad news, it's nice to see that there is some intolerance for intolerance. The fact that these corporations decided it was important for public relations to pull advertising from this station demonstrates that this kind of hate speech is unacceptable.

The third co-host, Dawn Rossi, stood up for transgender people.

Individuality

2009-06-06T12:12:00.003-04:00

I'm just as much -- if not more -- of a homosexual as any other person who identifies as gay. I'm not interested in fashion, I'm no one's "girl friend", I don't like pop music, and I'm not feminine. I don't "act" masculine. I am not straight. I'm not "straight-acting". I'm just being myself. I'm an individual, and I just happen to be a male who is attracted other males which is what makes me gay.

There's nothing wrong with being a feminine male, or a feminine gay male. There is something wrong with generalizing singular examples of this and others similar in order to encompass vast portions of a population.

It is wrong because it's a device that reduces a group of persons' individuality, which is key to being human. If you don't see me as an individual, you don't see me as a person, and that makes it difficult for you to respect me as a person. Instead, you see me as a political issue, and some people see me as a religious or moral issue.

"Gay", when used in reference to males, is not synonymous for "feminine", or at least, it shouldn't be. Just as "black" should not be synonymous with "degenerate". It's not just about femininity though. It's about all the stereotypes: promiscuity, drug usage, weakness, etc. If you put such a large group of people into such a little, isolated box, those people become simply a phenomenon, something that happens in the world. You think you know about this phenomenon, and understand it, and that justifies your judgments of, and your votes on, how these people live.

If you recognize my humanity, you can empathize with me, and then you should be able to recognize that I'm not that different from you. You should be able to see that I want love, and a family, and I wish all the best for others. I have many of the same values as you. I have dreams, aspirations, thoughts, feelings, troubles, goals and beliefs, just like you. Most importantly, you should be able to see that a gay couple's love is no less worthy than a straight couple's, and our families are no less important.