Equal Opportunity is Awesome

Like Kathleen, I should preface this by stating a few things about my background. I'm white. I was born into an upper middle class lifestyle. I'm male. I've had a lot of opportunities for success in my life, and I feel like I've made an effort to take full advantage of them.

I'm going to primarily focus on the issue of gender, because I have incredibly strong (some may even call them extreme) opinions on issues of gender equality. Those of you that read my personal blog have already heard a lot of what I'm about to say before, but hopefully this'll be a little more focused and organized.

A while back, there was a wonderful constitutional amendment that nearly got passed. By that, I mean that the only thing left was for three states to ratify it, and it would've been official. It was called the Equal Rights Amendment, and this is how it went:


Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.


I don't know about you, but this sounds like a pretty kickass idea to me. I mean, what could go wrong? It couldn't be much more explicit in saying, "Discrimination based on gender is bad. Stop that." Why would people choose not to ratify it?

The answer to that is rather heartbreaking: people didn't actually want equal rights based on gender at the time, just protection for women. The possible implications of this amendment seemed absolutely absurd at the time. Women being drafted? Men being treated as equals in issues of custody of children and alimony? Worst of all, same sex couples being allowed to get married?

...Yeah, I kind of think that's all a load of shit. Wanting to not lose your special privileges is a terrible reason to fight against the equality that you claim to want so badly. Honestly, this is why most feminists today just kind of piss me off. I love the idea of equal rights, but equal doesn't mean, "Women should have all of the same rights as men... plus special rights that only women should get."

My issue with most forms of anti-discrimination laws is that they don't really seek to solve the problem as much as provide a quick and dirty patch to try to make the injustices on either side cancel out. This is a poor strategy, and I really think that the best idea for handling that is to try to start everyone off with a blank slate as much as possible. Maybe it's just because I've been fairly privileged, but I honestly believe that we all make our own successes and failures. Maybe those things come a little more easily in certain circumstances, but I really feel like the ultimate result is largely affected by our own actions.

However, one of the most tragically omnipresent issues for any minority group still existing today is the issue of hate crimes. People are terrible. People have a tendency to harbor discomfort toward that which is different, and because of this, people have the potential to be full of irrational hatred toward a group or idea. Because of this unfortunate piece of human nature, hate crime laws are still necessary. Special measures do need to be taken to prevent harassment based on race, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, social standing, and more. It's a sad truth, and I hope that we as a society can overcome it someday, but until that day, we need laws to protect these groups.

The most important point that I think I can make is that we really just need to do about discrimination is to figure out how to handle it on a personal level. If you find yourself discriminating irrationally based on one of the above factors, you need to make an effort to change your ways. If you see your friends or family doing it, you should try to educate them and get them to change their ways. If you find yourself becoming a victim, come out of it stronger by defending yourself and demanding equality. Most importantly though, you need to understand that you're not perfect, and you need to not be a self-righteous or self-important asshole. As long as you follow these general guidelines, you're doing your part in a fight that will hopefully be irrelevant in the future.

It's a Matter of Privilege

I am a white female from an upper middle class family. Do i think that Anti-Discrimination laws are still necessary? Yes, I do. Do I think that I have the authority to pass judgement on such laws? Not so much. I suppose my mind is more on matters of race than other matters of discrimination, and perhaps I will address those after I have addressed race.

I think I will start with this comic that I found a little while ago, and had saved waiting for this topic to come up:

Over the past months I have exploring more into racial stuff and the issues of race today. It started back with the Whitewashing of the cast of The Last Airbender (from which the site Racebending.com was founded, which I find as a fascinating education on racial issues in Hollywood), and has been a gradual presence in the internet places I lurk at. But from what I have gathered, as a white person, I am privileged. I have less of a right to speak about racial discrimination because I can not understand and therefore I cannot pass judgement. From what I gathered persons of color still see racial discrimination as a problem, and therefore I believe that they are. 


I admit that at the concept of quotas still bothers me, because I like the idea that a person should be able to succeed by their own merit, not because of their skin color. But we do not live in a color blind world. Saying we should is great, but we don't and therefore Anti-Discrimination laws are still necessary. 


I was just in California, Los Angeles to be exact and it was really strange. I have lived pretty much all my life in a white dominated neighborhood and here was an area that could tell I was out of town because I was white. I felt out of place and wondered if that was anywhere similar to how minorities feel. If so, then Anti-Discrimination laws are needed because no one should feel out of place because of their skin color. 


Before I move on, I remembered one post I saw on Racebending's tumblr page (link here). It interested be because I never realized the degree of decoloring (for lack of a better term at the moment) was done in entertainment magazines and photos, and I think it speaks to the issues of race that are still present in our society. 


And I think that is all I will say on this angle of the topic and move on to my feelings on discrimination based on gender. 


As a female, I do believe I have more of a right to speak on this topic. I may have had more feelings back when it was politically more of an issue and laws and discussion concerning birth control and abortion were being made, but still I stand that men should not have the right to make decisions that specifically concern women. This topic is more concerning Anti-Discrimination laws (which are needed especially in concerns to pay), but the issue of women's health and laws pertaining to it fit into such discrimination. It's just that in this case Anti-Discrimination laws are not the answer, but that laws restricting it should stop. 


I will link a short story that I read back when discrimination against women's health was more of in the light issue, which was when the story was written. ILU-486 short story about a dystopian future with a summary that reads: "In the not-so-distant future of Virginia, the Personhood Act has outlawed abortion and chemical birth control. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, though."

As a women, gender discrimination, especially when it comes to my health, bothers me a lot more. It's inevitable since it is affecting me. I think the fact that a equal pay act has not been passed by Congress, even though there have been attempts too, speaks to the need for it. There are facts all over the internet that show the earning differences that exist between men and women.

I remember reading somewhere that this difference, that women are overlooked for a promotion was because they were seen as eventually becoming mothers and leaving work. That therefore a man was a better "investment" because they were more likely to stick around longer and make the company more money. Perhaps with more women choosing careers over being a mother, perhaps that mindset will change. Though perhaps I am just being too optimistic.

Week of 7/29 - Anti-Discrimination Law

Hey all. Laura's away at Otakon for the weekend doing awesome things, so I'll be announcing this week's topic. I hope you aren't all greatly disappointed.

As long as people have had differences, they've been used as an excuse to look down on others. Be it based on class, gender, race, age, disability, sexual orientation, or whatever, it's been a part of society that laws have either existed to promote or prevent. This week, we're going to talk about laws that have tried to prevent it.

How effective are current laws in protecting minority groups from discrimination? What can be done to make these laws more effective? Do these laws go too far and end up infringing on the rights of majority groups? Which groups should be protected by these laws? Which shouldn't? How necessary are these laws in today's society? These are just some of the questions that we're going to try to address this week, along with talking about some of our own experiences with the subject.

As always, our discussion is primarily going to focus on policies in the United States, as that's where all of us are from, though there may be some international comparisons made.

Kathleen will start us off tomorrow, and I'll be back to weigh in on Tuesday. Can't wait to see what everyone has to say!

Talking about death is sad.

So this has been a really interesting (if sad) week of posts. I think everyone has brought up fascinating and informative ideas and I'm glad to be here to share my opinions.

First off, I agree wholeheartedly with Pendleton when she says that it's not up to us to legislate morality and personal opinions on morality are not bases for laws. On the flip side, laws are meant to protect the people. Personally though, I believe that there isn't any reason to make a law protecting us from ourselves. Laws are to protect us from other people (or other people from us, as the case may be).

That said, there are lots of factors to assisted suicide. A family member on life support can be a huge drain on a families resources, both financial and mental, and one might argue that if there is just about no chance of the person ever recovering (or recovering with serious brain damage), it would be more worth it to pull the plug. Others might argue that doctors can be wrong and if there is any chance then they should continue as long as they are able. I think that falls squarely into the category of personal choice. The person can't stay alive on their own so allowing the person to die naturally is not really assisted suicide. The same (in my opinion) goes for a Do Not Resuscitate order. If the person's body is already self-destructing, letting it do that is just the natural cycle of life and death.

Of course, one could argue that it's the doctor's job to mess with the natural cycle of life and death. Their job is to prolong life, which has led to an increase of a slew of diseases affecting the elderly. Obviously, this doesn't mean we should stop letting people practice medicine, but it does mean there are more things to consider than someone's body self-destructing.

For example, Brandon brought up the idea of Alzheimer's and how he'd hate to life as a shell of his former self. I fully agree. It must be terrible to live that way and I can say first hand how terrible it is to be around. They aren't the person they used to be, and that's terrifying, but at the same time...I don't think I'd want to die. I think life could still hold happiness. I personally really wouldn't want anyone to have to take care of me and deal with me like that but I don't think I'd want to die.

There was an episode of SVU that brought up the idea that "there is no such thing as a terminal mental illness" and that's both true and sad. If your body is working fine, your brain can be wreaking havoc and there just isn't a quantitative way to measure that. You can't measure quality of life and you can't say "Well, this is bad enough where you are eligible for assisted suicide but you just have to suck it up." There is no way to draw that line. I think if there are diseases where the person suffering has no effective treatment and desires assisted suicide, then it should be an available option after a certain waiting period. Obviously, this seems like a wide net, but I really mean this for only serious comprehensively life-affecting diseases. This is not for people with depression that can be treated.

As far as physical diseases go, I think the body really has its own way of dealing with things, but a slow, painful death is not something anyone should have to endure if it's the only future ahead of them. And even in situations where it might not be terminal, if it's not treatable (and I mean treatable, not curable), then it really seems like the person's choice as to whether or not they would like to endure it.

Health care is expensive and it seems almost immoral to me to force someone to pay for what I can only assume is ridiculously expensive health care (for such a presumably serious disease) just to prolong a life they don't want to live. If someone really wants to end their life, they can probably find a way, and I think giving them a humane option (after serious counseling and various other screening procedures) is the best thing to do.

Assisted Suicide: Does Legalization Do More Harm or More Good?

As far as my personal opinion goes, I’m not positive on exactly where I stand on the issues of suicide or assisted suicide.  I don’t know if I think that it is our place as humans to decide when to end a life, even if it is our own.  But then again, it’s not up to us to legislate morality either.  However, legalizing assisted suicide does have its sticky wickets that we would have to deal with later.  I’m sure you can tell that I’m still kind of going back and forth even as I write this post, but I promise that I’ll eventually get to a point if you hang in there with me.

Regardless of where I personally stand on this issue (I’m not entirely sure where that is anyway), there are a number of important things that need to be taken into consideration.  The first thing that comes to my mind is the potential slippery slope that could come into effect if assisted suicide was legalized.  What would the procedure be? What kind of opportunities would making this option legal open up to people with the wrong intent?  I guess the ultimate question is whether legalizing assisted suicide would do more harm than good.  And no one can completely answer that question.

The other major point within this issue is whether assisted suicide is necessary.  Many of those who are against assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness urge patients to instead stop their treatments, take painkillers, and allow themselves to die naturally.  Since I’ve never been close to anyone who had a terminal illness, I have no idea how or if this works.  Then on the other hand, in many cases, it could save a family their much-needed money if their terminally ill family member wanted to use the option of assisted suicide so they could die peacefully and relieve their family of financial and emotional strain.

Another major thing to think about is the Hippocratic oath.  I’ve never read the oath in full, but I do know when discussing this issue, that the primary section of this document up for debate is the affirmations that doctors make to “never do harm to anyone.”  The way I see it, this phrase can be used to support either side of the debate depending on interpretation.  “Harm” could be interpreted as purposefully killing someone (even if they asked you to do so) or it could be interpreted as continuing to keep someone alive against his or her wishes.  It all depends on the kind of approach is taken, although I’ll admit the second interpretation is a bit of a stretch for even me.

As I said before, I don’t know exactly how I feel about the morality of assisted suicide, but I don’t believe it should be legalized or banned based on anyone’s opinions on the issue.  That being said, there are legitimate facts and concerns that back each side of this issue; however, if I were to vote on the issue today, I would favor the option to legalize assisted suicide.  Overall, I believe that this option would do the greatest amount of good for the most people.  Taking precaution against any foreseeable foul play that could arise, terminally ill patients should have the option to choose if they want to peacefully end their lives to avoid any further mental, physical, or financial suffering.

Kelsey will be back tomorrow to wrap up the discussion of this week's topic.  Thanks again for reading!

If I Ever Get Alzheimer's, Shoot Me In The Face

To start off, thanks to John for covering for me yesterday. I had my wisdom teeth removed on Monday, and I've been kind of out of it ever since. Not 100% sure how much sense I'll be making, but I haven't taken any painkillers since late Tuesday night/early Wednesday morning, so I'm gonna give this my best shot.

The legality of this issue is a messy one, though really, I don't know if it should be. As Kelsey mentioned, there are a couple of states that allow it, and the conditions on it are pretty restrictive. Multiple doctors need to sign a form saying that you only have a few months to live, and then that's it. It seems like a pretty decent set of restrictions, after all, we can't have people running around getting poison from the doctor whenever they want. This seemed like an acceptable idea, and I actually wrote a research paper in favor of it in high school. However, as time as passed, other situations that it doesn't quite cover have left me less and less comfortable with it.

Most immediately, the issue of terminal illnesses that won't kill you immediately. As the title of this post suggests, the idea of dementia terrifies me. The idea of going on living as this empty shell of who I used to be is just... it's terrifying. I would hate to go on with life that way. It just sounds unbearable.

This may sound heartless, but I don't think that Do Not Resuscitate orders and refusing treatment are that different from straight up going the assisted suicide route. The only difference is that it's passive instead of active as a choice.

What it comes down to is that if somebody is ready to die, then they should have the legal right to do so. The mechanism used to enact that choice isn't nearly as relevant. Forcing people to go on beyond the point where they've ceased to really be people against their wishes isn't right, and I think the law needs to allow this option. I'm not really sure of the best way to adjust the existing law in states that allow it. Perhaps opening the option up to anyone with a terminal illness regardless of how long they have to live, but requiring them to sit on the decision for a certain number of months before they can actually do it? I don't know.

Well, that ended up being rather depressing. We'll be returning to our normal post schedule tomorrow with Pendleton, and again, thank you to John for posting early.

“In the darkest hours we must believe in ourselves.”

Surprise!  I know that you were all expecting Brandon's post here, but...

... Wait, no, come back!  I promise, he'll have his post up a bit later in the week.  I'm just filling in due to extenuating circumstances (and painkillers).

So, assisted suicide.  I worried for a while about this post, because I (among other people) wasn't sure if there would be much variance between the posts - but since we've opened it up from just the legality of the issue (thank you, Kelsey, for an amazingly awesome intro post), I'm much more confident.

Initially, I'll talk a bit about the legality of assisted suicide.  Virginia is somewhat odd in its handling of assisted suicide - there's been no real decision made on the matter, for the most part.  There's a statute which imposes civil sanctions on anyone involved in suicide, but the act isn't clearly defined as criminal.  There's really not a whole lot to debate, there, besides potentially comparing it to other states' policies.  The majority of the United States treats assisted suicide as an explicitly criminal act... which I don't necessarily agree with. Yes, you're aiding in the death of someone, but if it's in accordance with their wishes and desires, should it really be considered -criminal-?  That's not for me to decide, though, so I'm going to leave the legality bit right there.

My personal feelings, on the other hand, run much deeper (and along many more confusing, twisted paths).  First off, we'll look at "Do Not Resuscitate".  I have absolutely no problem with this concept - at least in terms of illness, or other debilitating diseases.  If someone is dying to an illness, and their body fails, then by all means, let them go.  Our bodies are incredibly resilient, and if they go through enough to shut down, I think it does more harm than good in trying to force them to do even more.  I understand that it's hard for people to look on, armed with the knowledge that they could keep someone they care for from dying... but I also believe that allowing nature to run its course in those instances is a good first step toward healing.  I do want to re-empathize that this references only instances involving diseases and the like - if a fairly healthy person ripped off their oxygen mask, or something, then the line would move a fair bit.  I think that refusal of treatment falls into this definition, as well - it's a patient's right to refuse medical treatment, and if their body naturally gives out as a result... well, that was their decision.

So what about non-immediate dangers?  If someone discovers they only have a year left to live, should assisted suicide be permissible?  On the one hand, having that kind of thing over your head can (I'm assuming) be a fantastic motivator to do the things you've always wanted to, and really live life to its fullest.  But is there a specific timeframe where it's acceptable?  If someone has a year to live, and they have no desire to "live it up", why shouldn't they be able to just end their life then, and save themselves (and potentially their family) from unnecessary bills and expenses?  ... I don't think there's a correct answer here, necessarily, but I do believe that a concerted effort should be made to hold off on any form of suicide for as long as possible.  Technology has the potential to increase quickly enough that what seems impossible right now could be semi-commonplace in a year's time.  Is it likely to happen?  Who knows?  But if you can keep the hope of living on alive, shouldn't that be enough to keep you going?

Reduced quality of life... this one is pretty tough.  Let's take a paraplegic, for example.  A "normal, everyday" person somehow gets hit by a car and will be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of their life.  Is this a situation where assisted suicide would be acceptable?  ... Basing my own personal feelings off the idea above, I'd still have to say no.  Yes, the quality of their life would have changed in a (potentially) negative fashion - however, this doesn't mean that their life would no longer have meaning.  Look at Stephen Hawking.  He started being affected by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis at age 20.  It's common for people to pass away within 10 years of being diagnosed with the disease - he's had it for five times that, and he's still alive.  If he had just given up and chosen to commit suicide after his diagnosis... well, I can't even really imagine how things would be different.  If that's not a compelling case, I don't know what is.

The involvement of doctors is a bit more clear-cut for me.  One of the most basic cornerstones for physicians through the years has been the Hippocratic Oath (though it's become less widely used).  I believed that people operating under the Hippocratic Oath were sworn to preserve life however and wherever they were able - however, I think that my viewpoint has changed after reading multiple translations of the Oath.  The original version includes these lines:

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman apessary to cause an abortion.


But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

The classic translation of the Oath changes the lines to the following:

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.


And, finally, the more modern translation reads as follows:

If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.


The modern translation seems to provide some form of direction for the issue - it's an unfortunate truth that hospital care in our country is rather expensive, and a prolonged stay will almost certainly strain most people's monetary situations.  At some point, you have to weigh what's potentially best for one person against what's potentially best for others.  Am I advocating doctor-assisted suicide?  ... Not intentionally.  But I do think that they have a place in helping people make decisions about their health and life.  That's their job, after all.

I think I've rambled on enough - I'm going to wrap up with a personal thought.  In most cases, I'm personally completely against suicide as an option (if you can even call it that) for people.  Suicide can seem like a quick fix for life's problems, but the reality is that the person usually just passes their problems on to other people - generally, the ones who care about them.  I've been in situations where friends, family members, and even the people I've cared most about have contemplated (and attempted... and, once, successfully committed) suicide.  The sense of loss that accompanies suicide is tremendous, and not something that I would wish upon anyone.  I only describe myself as against the idea in "most" cases because absolutes are rarely correct - but I'm pretty close.  The other posts so far have been pretty interesting, and I'm looking forward to reading the others as they come.

As always. thanks for reading, and feel free to post any questions, thoughts, or flames below.

The Problem is, How Can You be Sure?

The idea of legally assisted suicide bothers me. Not in a morally wrong bother, but in the idea we are considering one type of suicide as legally okay, but other types of suicide are not. Since most assisted suicide seems to happen in the case of deadly illness, is it because this person knows that they are going to die anyway that it is okay.

When I keep thinking about this topic, I find myself struggling with what to say. Though Kelsey's statement about "Do Not Resuscitate" has sparked my thinking. Or at least sparked my frustration in that I think "Do Not Resuscitate" should be honored. A persons wishes should be honored; there is no need to drag out a person's life is they are not going to be resuscitated. Perhaps then legally assisted suicide is similar in that regards. I do not like the idea of it being completely illegal, charging the people who do it with murder when they were fulfilling another's request, but then how can you always know when that is what they wanted. "Do Not Resuscitate" is easier in that regard because it is something set out, and assisted suicide may not always be so easy or explicitly stated.

It's a stand off with me. I believe to some degree that people should be in control of their own life, even in how they die, but I also have that belief that life is sacred to some degree and should be protected. But then I don't feel like I have any insights on this topic because I haven't quite figured out my opinion myself. It's one of those topics you never feel like you yourself are going to have to confront, so why worry about it a lot. Though I suppose you could say that about a lot of things. It's just that, if assisted suicide cannot be made clear cut in legality, then whether a person's actions falls under assisted suicide or murder would be left up to the discretion of the people involved in the case.

I can see a person's desire to end their life with only a few, painful months to live. I can understand that. But I can see the struggles of a legal system trying to define the parameters of legally assisted suicide, even though I know that's not often why states make it illegal. Though perhaps no matter what our desires and understandings, the moral parameters of death should be kept in place. Maybe it would be a door once opened that we would not be able to close. Or perhaps that's too paranoid and legalizing assisted suicide would actually be rather smooth. Too many what ifs. Or maybe not.

So I can't exactly say whether or not assisted suicide should be legal. I think it should be less... illegal, if that makes sense, but I can't see it being a hundred percent legal in our system, so I know there will always be limitations, as their should be.

I suppose those are my jumbled thoughts on legally assisted suicide. I could have spoken more at length on my frustration with families ignoring "Do No Resuscitate" or trying to extend the life of aging patients who are going to soon die. From what I learned about the topic, it was drain on the medical system and has always felt grossly unfair to the dying patients who families cannot let go. Perhaps that is harsh, but that is how I feel about it. That is my essential feelings on it, addressing it anymore would be ranting and not so much logical discussion. So I believe I shall end my post here, and allow you to go on with your day until tomorrow, when you read another post.

In The Worst Situations

When I saw this topic, I was concerned about having enough to say about it.  I don't know much about the laws or reasons behind assisted suicide, so I though this post was going to be super short.  So, I would like to thank Kelsey very much for her topic announcement and her research on the subject!  I think the questions she posted were great, so I'm going to use them as a semi-guideline, if that is all right with everyone.

Okay, so I started thinking about this topic and the little I knew about assisted suicide.  If someone is terminally ill and only have a few months to live with little hope of ever getting better, there is always a chance that they will surpass the doctor's expectations and live for a year or more.  Doctors can just give an estimate to how a person's body is going to respond to something, but they can't actually tell the person what will happen with complete certainty.  Even multiple doctors can be fooled into thinking one way, and something else may occur.  I didn't want to make this about me, so I will go into a short version of the example that automatically comes to my mind when talking about proving doctors wrong.  Those of you who know this already, bear with me.  When I was born three and a half months early, I had a fifteen percent estimation of actually surviving and a zero percent chance of ever walking.  All of the doctors thought that if I even survived, I would be stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of my life.  Needless to say, twenty years later I am walking and able to do much more than anyone ever thought possible back then.

Off the subject of my lovely life story and back to assisted suicide.  I think if someone doesn't have much time to live and they don't think they have anything to live for, they should be allowed to make the decision of whether or not to commit some form of suicide , assisted or not.  Personally, if I was stuck in a white-walled sterile-smelling hospital with no one to visit me and very little time left to live, I think I would want to at least be allowed the option of choosing when and how I want to die.  I'm not saying I would take it, because I like living way too much and would refuse to die in a hospital anyway, but having the option is much better then not.  If someone wanted to die in their own home instead of a hospital, I say let them.  It's certainly the choice I would make, but I hate hospitals so I may be a little biased.

One of Kelsey's questions was does Do Not Resuscitate count as assisted suicide?  I don't think that it should, because it is the person's own decision, or the decision of their family.  It's what they wanted, so I think they should be allowed to choose not to be resuscitated.  If someone is in horrible pain and chooses DNR, I wouldn't want to bring them back to a world of pain and little hope of ever getting better.

These examples are kind of doom and gloom and extreme, and there are always exceptions and different cases.  All the different situations would be impossible to write in one post, so I'm just generalizing the worst situations.  If someone is able to live, heart beating and brain working, then they should try to do so, because you never know what may happen to turn a horrible situation into a better one.  They may have few people in the world who care for them, but at least the doctors/nurses care for the most part if no one else does.  That's something, right?

The last question Kelsey asked was "Should people be required to live if they are physically capable of doing so, because anything else would be immoral?"  The key words here seem to be "physically capable."  If someone is able to physically live a life, that is very different from actually living a life.  One is "going through the motions" (to take a quote from a Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode), without actually paying attention or caring about what is going on, and actually living is an investment in other people as well as the physically body.  You have to be mentally prepared to live, and want to actually live, not just do what is expected of you.  If you just do what is expected of you without any emotions or caring, are you really living?  Or do you just walk around like a zombie who is as good as dead anyway?

Anyway, this got  long and kind of ramble-y, and I apologize for that and for forcing my life story upon you as an example, even if it was a good example of the that particular idea.  So, Kathleen is up tomorrow, and I can't wait to read what everyone else has to say about this topic.  Cheers.

Week of 7/22 - Legalization of Assisted Suicide

The topic this week is the legalization of assisted suicide. As of right now, assisted suicide is legal in only 2 states (Oregon and Washington), but is that too many or too few? Obviously, this topic is a bit narrow (for instance, my personal opinions on a topic may differ from what I believe the legality should be), so we're trying to broaden this topic to be as interesting as possible.

For example, should assisted suicide be a valid option if you get a certain number of doctors to verify that you have only a few months to live? What about non-life-threatening conditions that greatly reduce quality of life? What if there is a treatment but it's refused? Is quality of life a valid factor? Do "Do Not Resuscitate" orders count as assisted suicide? Should there be assisted suicide options for non-medical reasons? And is it ethical for doctors to be involved in this at all, given that their job is to save lives, not end them?

Around the world, this is a topic that provokes a lot of controversy. For example, in Virginia, assisted suicide is not permitted (no act may be taken to end a life), but withholding life-prolonging procedures does not constitute assisted suicide. In Germany, they can declare someone a Garantenstellung for the well-being of another and if purposeful harm were to befall that person (such as if they committed suicide themselves), the Garantenstellung would be guilty of homicide by omission.

So what do you think? Should someone's life be their choice, including whether or not it should end? Or should people be required to live if they're physically capable of doing so, because anything else would be immoral?

I look forward to seeing everyone's ideas on it this week.

Morals, Music, and Cupcakes

As far as favorite television shows go, I have quite a few for someone who doesn't watch that much TV.  I guess the best way for me to go about organizing my post this week is to start with a few basic categories:

Oldies but Goodies
The Andy Griffith Show
I think it would be so nifty to go visit Mayberry for a day or two.  I know it's so sweet it should give you a toothache, but I think that's just part of its charm and the reason that we love it so much.  
The Twilight Zone (the original, not the series from the 80s)
On a completely different note, I have absolutely no desire to enter into any of the worlds created for this show.  I really like shows that urge the audience to think about what they're watching, and once you go past the creepiness of storyline, you can't help but wonder "what if..." and "what would lead to something like this?"  My favorite episode of the whole series is entitled "Back There," and it's about John Wilkes Booth on the night of Lincoln's assassination (I think the history tie-in was what pushed this episode over the edge in my book!)  Anyway, really, really good episode and good series.

A Somewhat Recent Show
Gilmore Girls
I wish everyone could talk this fast in real life (at least if we could all be as hilariously witty as the characters in this show).  I usually only understand about half of the references in any given episode, but the banter between characters was still great.  And on top of smart dialogue, you still cared about the characters because they were incredibly human.  I tended to like Rory's character less and less after about the middle of the 5th season, but I guess that's true to reality in that people change as they grow.  All of the characters made many mistakes, but they still learned to forgive each other and live with each other's eccentricities.
Law & Order
It's amped up drama, but it's entertaining.  During it's time, an episode would bring up some of the hot button legal and moral issues being discussed in the news at the time.  Like I said earlier, TV that makes the audience think never gets old.

Current Shows
Chopped, Sweet Genius, Cupcake Wars
All in a somewhat similar vein, I just can't pass up a good cooking show/ competition.  I don't know how they do it, but the creativity and knowledge that these people possess never ceases to amaze.  Seriously, if you can make a cupcake with hot sauce in it taste good, you deserve some serious props.
Glee
Once you get past the boundaries of reality and continuity, this show is pretty darn entertaining.  Despite the oft overworked audio engineering, the performances usually turn out pretty well, some are even outstanding.  And every so often when you're feeling fed up with the show's antics, a really amazing number comes from out of nowhere and you remember why you put up with all of nutzy stuff that the writers concoct.  "Don't Stop Believin'" is still my favorite number from the entire show.  The arrangement was excellent, the musicians sounded incredible together, and the story line really made me want to root for the characters without trying too hard.  I just wish this would happen more often.
The Glee Project
You know, I think that this show is more "glee" than Glee itself.  Some of the contestants are a tad bit annoying, but I really enjoy watching these people learn more about themselves as they go through a sort of "performing boot camp" after which one of them will win a guest starring role on Glee.  Sure, it's reality TV and a lot of what we see is either manufactured or cleverly edited, but I think this show does a really good job of capturing the spirit of performance while simultaneously showing the audience a small peek into the reality of show business.
The Newsroom
I've only seen a couple of episodes of this show, but so far so good.  I'll definitely have to watch these episodes again to understand what some of the characters are talking about (newspeople in this show tend to talk really, really fast, which I guess is accurate) but the show seems to be well written, and I'm excited to see where it goes.
Southland
Last but not least, one of my favorite favorites.  Again, very well written, but I think it also provides the audience with another (albeit fictional) point of view concerning law enforcement that we don't get to see in shows like Law & Order.  The show is well written and very well acted.  My great uncle is a retired state trooper, and I can see a lot of the way these characters act and see the world in him.






                

I Grew Up Without Cable TV.

... But I watched a lot of TV growing up.  I don't watch as much anymore, so it's a bit hard for me to identify my favorite TV shows, simply due to the fact that there aren't many that I watch on a regular basis.  I suppose, by default, the ones I do watch regularly would be my "favorites", so... I suppose I'll just talk about them, and whatever else may come to mind along those lines.  Ready?  Let's go.

My first show really has to be The Big Bang Theory.  I'm really not one to enjoy most sitcoms, but this show combines a lot of things that I either enjoy, or at least find fascinating.  There are a lot of references to science (and to a lesser extent, math), and video games (though there have been more than a few inaccuracies that kind of drive me insane), and relationships between socially awkward people and "normal" people.  I like most of the characters on the show, but I feel a particular affinity for Sheldon.  Sheldon is quite literal, deeply mired in his everyday routines, and supremely stubborn... but underneath all of that (deep, deep underneath) he's a genuinely good person.  I find the interactions between the different characters amusing (generally speaking), and the writing is good enough to keep me coming back.  The show's gotten away from its nerdy roots lately, which is unfortunate, but I still enjoy watching it.  One thing of note, though - there is conclusive proof that this show can be a powerful aphrodisiac.  Watch with care.

Next on my list (and coming as a bit of surprise to me) is Hell's Kitchen.  I'm really not that "into" cooking - I can do it passably well, but I have no real passion or drive to be a world-class chef in my life.  Also, I generally don't like reality shows - I used to watch Survivor, but that eventually bored me out of my mind.  Why Hell's Kitchen, then?  Two words - Gordon Ramsay.  If any of you have no idea who he is, go Google him and skim his Wikipedia page (it's the third search result).  ... I find him really fascinating and just kind of all-around awesome.  He's so passionate about what he does, and it just... it really shows.  Plus, I admit that I get more entertainment than I probably should out of him completely ripping apart the chefs (contestants?) when they make mistakes.  I'm a bit hard-pressed to really explain why I enjoy the show, but if I had to take a guess, I'd say it's mostly because of him.

I'm hesitant to include this next show on my list, because I've only seen a single episode of it -- but what the hell, I'm gonna go for it.  I just recently tried out a new series on HBO called The Newsroom, and I thought the first episode was pretty entertaining and interesting.  It deals with a semi-over-the-hill news anchor who's disliked within his station, and his interactions and experiences with a new staff that want to make the news prominent and trustworthy again.  I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this show, given my lack of experience with it, but the first ten minutes of it had me more than a little intrigued.  It's set very firmly within the framework of real life (the first episode revolves around the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico), but... I don't know.  I enjoyed that first episode, and I have the next three saved on my DVR, waiting to be watched.

My next-to-last pick is Avatar: The Last Airbender.  It took a while for this series to grow on me - my first experience with it was in the middle of the first season, in the middle of an episode that didn't seem to make any sense.  It was airing on Nickelodeon, and I dismissed it as "another kid's show" pretty much immediately.  Somehow, I got started on watching it, though, and now it's one of my favorite animated shows out there.  The show strikes a really good balance between silliness and seriousness (though it tends to lean more toward the former in the first half of the series, and the latter in the back half), and the characters are genuinely interesting and likable.  The show was popular enough to spawn a live-action adaptation of the first season (which was absolutely terrible), multiple games (most of which were absolutely terrible), a graphic novel epilogue (which was been pretty good so far), and a spiritual sequel (which was alright, though not as good as the original).  Not bad for an original series from Nick.

The last entry that comes to mind off the top of my head is Married... With Children.  This is an older series that I grew up watching (... not that I'd recommend letting children watch it.  I was a special case), and it has a lot of the same basic plot devices as any other sitcom.  The main characters are a supremely dysfunctional family of losers that fight and argue with each other, and ultimately always work things out as a family.  There's more than a little bit of adult humor within the show, but it's never done in a way that's distasteful or unnecessary (... not in my opinion, at least).  The quality of each episode can vary decently, even within each season, but this is a show where I'm almost guaranteed to laugh while watching it.

Quick mentions:
Firefly - still haven't seen it.  Watched the first ten minutes of the first episode.  Will watch one day.
Power Rangers - specifically, the original series, and the latest one (Samurai).  Because I'm a sucker for both samurai-related things and giant dinosaurs beating the hell out of stuff.
Super Mario Bros. Super Show and Legend of Zelda - these were really awful animated shows from 1989 that I enjoy because of their base material.  Also, the latter show gave us the (classic?) line "Well excuuuuuuuuuse me, princess".
80's/90's cartoons - Thundercats, Silverhawks, Wing Commander, Mega Man, Teknoman, Garfield and Friends, Beetlejuice, X-Men.... I could still watch any of these and enjoy them.  Well, mostly.

I've never seen Seinfeld.  People seem to gape at me when I tell them that.  I'm not sure why.

TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Life

I put a lot more thought into television than is really healthy. I'm pretty sure that most of the reasons that people bitch about television as an inferior medium for telling a story are full of shit, and it has just as much potential as literature or film, if not more. The entire idea of watching characters evolve over an extended period of time and seeing how the world, both in and out of universe, affects how that happens.

As many people have mentioned, Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a pretty fantastic example of what a television show should do. I would say Joss Whedon in general is pretty good at that, but honestly... I dunno. Angel kind of sucked, and I'm not all that familiar with his other work. Honestly, I think that I'd probably hate Firefly if I watched it for the same reasons that I don't like Doctor Who or Mass Effect or Monty Python. I'm also pretty sure that I'm going to get shot for most of what I'm saying in this paragraph, so back to Buffy. It did a lot of things that most shows just don't do well. Long-running plots (*cough* Angel), consistent and meaningful character development (*cough* Glee), and even the musical episode was pretty damn fantastic. As other people have mentioned, it was able to seamlessly go between serious and comical, and that's just something that is hard to pull off.

One show that I've been knitting to lately has been Grey's Anatomy. I went into it not really knowing what to expect, and after getting through the first seven and a half seasons, I think I really like it. In one episode, someone brings a gun to the hospital and begins a killing spree. Despite knowing exactly who would die and who would survive, it kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time. I was emotionally involved in the episode, and I think this is a huge factor in what makes a show good. Too many shows today try to get by on shocking twists as a substitute for actual momentum, and that's terrible. If a show is going to throw curveballs at you, they should serve a meaningful purpose. They should not be cheap, and they should make you feel something.

Another show I've been watching has been Glee, and if you haven't watched it, dear god, don't. It's a terrible and addicting show that's actually as awful as it sounds. I only still watch it because I'm too invested to get out, but I can't think of many episodes that ended in something other than wanting to punch Ryan Murphy in the face. This show has done things that I consider offensive on multiple occasions, and I really don't think I have any positive things to say about the show aside from the music occasionally being really good... I'm not really sure what the point of this was.

Special mention goes to Friends, which I have seen all the way through multiple times. It's kind of my go to example for what a sitcom should do. It also has a lot of issues that I'm very critical of in other shows, but I can overlook them for the most part because it has that special place in my heart. I really like it, and I'm not sure that I can provide much reason beyond that.

All of this being said, I'm looking for new shows to start watching as I'm running out of Grey's Anatomy. Any suggestions?

At the Heart of it, is Science Fiction.

Television is for sure one of the great forms of entertainment. With a long rich history, and a number of forms and genres people would enjoy, it is not surprising people often complain we spend too much time in front of the TV. And with such variance, it is difficult to promote once single television show to the place of "favorite" above all others. Instead, there are slight paths I would like to take you through; different shows to show you that all do have a place in my mind as some degree of "favorite."

I will start of mentioning Stargate SG-1, because it is the show that first got me into television, into lurking about fandom and enjoying a lot of what I do for entertainment today. It is science fiction, a follow up to the 1994 of approximately the same name. It is not a perfect show, nor is it truly close to the greatest ever created, but it is fun, it has good characters and interesting mythology and it will always be one of the first I name when people ask me which are my favorite. It is the first show I ever really got into to the point of having to watch every week, looking up interviews, spoilers, following spin offs because they were related to the original. I would suggest that anyone who enjoys science fiction to check it out because it certainly deserves a larger fan base than I ever thought it got.

Now possibly my true favorite show, the one I would mention first, falls to Battlestar Galactica, the 2004 remake. Also science fiction, and a lot darker, rooted in human survival more than extreme and quirky science fiction. It fulfilled my needs for serious television, yet the characters were good, the story lines within the realm of sci-fi and used real world parallels and commentary. It was just good, and although people debate how much they enjoyed the ending, I was personally satisfied. It was good sci-fi, and stands up there as one of the best science fiction shows of all time.

Well, because there is so much television, I usually divide my view of "favorite" down to overall favorite and to favorite television currently on air. After all, if it is currently running and it could be cancelled, it deserves all the help it could get. Even then, it is hard for me to choose one. There are the ones on HBO like Game of Thrones or the Newsroom or the major networks like The Good Wife or Once Upon a Time. And then there is the British television that some of my fellow bloggers have already mentioned.  But since it is summer, I think I will discuss in more detail my favorite summer show - Suits. It's on USA, it's a lawyer show, but it's really good. Like all the things I love in my television, the characters are great, the dialogue is nice and snappy, and I just love the relationships between the characters. Plus there is great background music. It is definitely the best show USA is currently airing. And next episode, which comes on Thursday at 10, looks to be really really intense. Although there are tons of lawyer shows on television already, this one is good, focusing not on murders but corporate cases and the office politics and struggles within the own firm. It's just damn enjoyable television.

There is a still a lot I could mention, but I think I will leave with the explanation of those three. Although I don't watch a lot of science fiction, the ones I do usually mean hold an important place in my view of television. I hope there is something interesting to find from what I've noted and that my explanations push you into discovering something new.

Television, Glorious Television

Okay, so I'm going to try to keep this post to a manageable length.  We'll see how success that is.

I didn't used to watch a lot of television.  Until the later high school years, I never had a favorite t.v. show.  Then I started watching NCIS and other shows with my parents.  It's all their fault.  So I'm going to try to make a list that is somewhat organized.

I watch a lot of crime shows.  NCIS, occasionally NCIS LA because I like the main guy, Criminal Minds, White Collar, occasionally Hawaii Five-0 because it's in Hawaii, which is new, and Bones are the ones that I can think of now.  I'm kind of behind on Bones, but I'll catch up eventually.  White Collar just started a new season, which is fantastic, mostly because Matt Bomer can rock a fedora.  And then there are the crime shows like the Mentalist, Castle, and Psych, which are just different enough to make them interesting, and Psych has a great sense of humor.  Okay, so Burn Notice gets an honorable mention on this list because I like it a lot, but am several seasons behind on it.

Next.  Hmm, sci-fi and supernatural television next?  I watch almost all of my television on the internet, so getting episodes from way earlier is not a problem.  Brandon got me hooked on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its spin-off Angel, which I still watch when I don't feel like watching anything else.  This in turn led me to Charmed, a fabulous show about witches that ran for seven or eight seasons in the late nineties and ... the decade after.  Next would be Firefly, another show by Joss Whedon that I watch whenever I feel like it, since it only has fourteen episodes.  Firefly's Nathan Fillion is also the reason I started watching Castle.

Okay, so Britain's Doctor Who and Torchwood would not have fit in that same paragraph, so they get their own.  One of my roommates got me addicted, so I've now seen almost all of the new revamp of Doctor Who, plus some of the 1960's episodes (or possibly more than I should have seen, considering how long it takes for anything to happen back then in t.v.).  Torchwood I've only seen most of the first two seasons, but that's okay because I'm pretty sure I could watch John Borrowman's character all day doing nothing.  Or making out with whatever guy or girl happens to come along...  Which may be the real reason I watch.  So, I tried not to go too fangirl-y in this paragraph, and I think I was successful.

The last shows I'm going to mention are kids shows.  My roommate informed me that I need to get caught up on watching Avatar, because I don't remember the episodes I saw previously very well, so that I could watch Korra.  And I'm not sure if this last one makes me super weird, but I also am trying to get caught up on My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.  It's okay if that gets me shunned, because I have three roommates that also watch it.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed looking at my list of television.  It is quite extensive, and I apologize for that.  I'm not sure if writing them out in a list made me feel good or bad about the amount of time I spend watching electronic screens...  Oh well.  Kathleen's up tomorrow, and enjoy reading about the rest of the television shows that people watch.

I still haven't watched Firefly

This week's topic is somewhat unfortunate for me because I have a fairly passive attitude about most passive media. I don't watch movies unless I'm forced to and though I enjoy television more, it's not by much. There are a lot of television series I like, and many I'll await seeing every week, there aren't a lot I feel passionate about. As far as shows that are currently on the air, I watch Glee, How I Met Your Mother, The Big Bang Theory, and The Glee Project.

As far as older shows that either I'm catching up on or I used to watch, there's Desperate Housewives and Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

Almost all of these fall more or less under the category of dramedy (though with The Big Bang Theory having admittedly little drama and Glee having an overabundance). I enjoy shows that can be serious and thought-provoking and also ridiculous at the same time. I think both Buffy and Desperate Housewives did that fantastically, with Buffy in particular keeping a light, humorous tone in the midst of very dark plots. I really appreciate shows that can play with that dynamic and feel comfortable at either side of the spectrum.

The main outlier is The Glee Project because I love singing contest shows and, liking Glee, I really enjoy their take on it. It's nice because it's a combination of the typical talent show like American Idol and the Big Brother-style "watch personalities interact" thing. It lets you get to know the contestants as performers and as characters and I really enjoy that.

So that said, do you guys have any recommendations of similar things I might like? I'm always looking for things to watch while I'm knitting. XP

Week of 7/15 - Breather Topic: Favorite Television Shows

Hi everyone! Since we've been discussing some more serious topics during these last few weeks, we're going to lighten this week up a smidge with a breather topic. This week, we'll be talking about our favorite TV shows and why we love them (even if it is sometimes a love/hate relationship.)  Maybe by the end of this week, we'll all have some new shows on our must-watch lists.

Thanks so much for reading, and feel free to respond to posts (part of what makes this fun is reading other people's thoughts, so feel free to jump in!)


      

Modern With a Hint of Religious Cynicism

My views on this week's topic are pretty modern.  Part of this comes from my own personal history with religion - as others have mentioned, my post on that is back at the beginning of our blog, and it'd likely help establish context if you don't already have it.  Part of it comes from the circumstances that I find myself in, particularly in my personal life.  These days, I find people who are seriously traditionalist about their religion to be people that I have little to no interest in spending time around.  This was actually a more recent development - one of my better friends growing up was Mormon, in a very traditional Mormon family.  He could never do anything on Sundays, and his mother had some extremely strict ideas about what was appropriate and what wasn't.  Despite this, I enjoyed spending time around him, and he's still my friend to this day.  Notably, his family has eased up on their traditionalist viewpoint a lot - they've taken on much more of a modern viewpoint, and that's likely part of why things haven't changed between us.  I actually asked my friend and his brother earlier tonight whether they supported WBC, and they looked at me like I was stupid. His brother even said "Hell, no".

Finally, part of this comes from my doubts about taking -any- text as the absolute rule for... well, anything.  Who's to say that this one version of the bible is any more or less historically accurate than another?  Who's to say that any of them are?  One might remember that I mentioned the book Blankets, by Craig Thompson, in my religion post.  (If you haven't read that book yet, you should.)  There's a part near the end of the book where the main character begins to question sections of the bible that have either been altered, or had extra passages added to them, in order to deliver a more positive, uplifting message (as opposed to the original message, which basically said "Screw up and you're damned", or something similar... I'm going off of memory, here).  This awakened a likely-eternal skepticism in me about the validity of -any- parts of the Bible.  How are we to know what the original thing said, and what's been added or modified over the countless years?  We know what we're told, and that's just not good enough for me.

No, my viewpoint is pretty modern.  It's pretty simple.  I've established to myself, generally speaking, what's "right", and what's "good".  I try to be those things and/or do those things as often as I can, even when it's hard (ESPECIALLY when it's hard).  I try to live my life more focused on making the people I know happier than making myself happy... and generally, when I can make other people happy, it makes me happy anyway.  I try not to judge people (... not -too- much, at least), and I don't generally condemn people if their viewpoint is different than mine (unless they're just plain wrong).  Things like that.  It's worked well for me so far.  I can't imagine anyone really taking offense to it, though I'm sure some people out there would.  I don't mind the idea of traditionalist thinking, but in the instance of religion, I don't think the roots are strong enough to be an effective foundation.

Hopefully everyone enjoyed this week.  We'll have a new topic announcement tomorrow!

Intelligent Design is Not Science

For anyone that might have missed my post from Personal Religious History week, go check that out before reading further. It may help with providing a bit of context for my opinions here.

Science is a pretty great thing. Advances in our understanding of the universe and how it works are pretty fantastic, and I think that's just because it allows us to reassess the situation based on new information, and generally, if the assumptions we've made are correct, then it'll work. If they don't work, then we have to rethink our views and find a way to adapt.

This is just how life works. With that, I find it kind of bizarre that so many people can be resistant to that idea when it comes to apparent conflicts between religious texts and science. The idea of, "Well, the Bible says that the world's only existed for about 6000 years, and science says it's been billions of years, so clearly someone has to be wrong."

Though, this might just because of the way that I think of the relevance of religious texts. They're not so much about the details, because let's face it, it's entirely plausible that the details were lost in translation or were never recorded correctly in the first place or were exaggerated to make the impact clearer and... religious texts and ideas aren't perfect, and I think that if they conflict with reason and the overall message that the religion is trying to convey, then there's a problem and you should rethink your interpretation of the text.

The fact that I'm rather irreligious may make it seem like my insinuation that these texts could be flawed is occurring way too lightly, but I really don't think that's true. If I believed in a particular religion, I could believe that someone that believed the same general things thousands of years ago could have made an incorrect assumption or written something down that made sense at the time and doesn't anymore.

To sum up, I think my point is that if your religion tells you to love everyone and be forgiving, then you should let people have dude sex and not protest at the funerals of soldiers. That is all.

It Only Matters if You Hit a Point

This feels like a strange topic to me. Not like, strange because the topic itself is odd, but strange because I'm not quite sure how to frame my viewpoints on it. I mean, I easily lean towards more modern religion, although I see the appeal in have to traditionalism of religion as a steady rock. There is something about tradition that is inherently appealing to human nature; the knowledge that things will not change day to day.

But the topic brings to mind the recent controversy of United States nuns and the criticism by the Vatican as too radial, or in our case, too modern. According to the Vatican, the nuns were not focusing on values they would want to be pushed to be upheld, such as abortions, and instead the nuns were focusing more on the poor, addressing gay issues, just more modern ideas that contrast with the more traditional stance the Church has lately been taking. And the fact I would easily side with the nuns tells me that I stand on the side of modernism, which I did already know.

Inherently, for all the comfort traditionalism can give, its unbending nature is a problem. To many of today's problems are linked to the unbending nature of religion, too much controversy over how everyone wants the world to be. And when change comes, there seems to be a reaction by religion to bunker down on their traditional values, leading to the clashes we see today. So part of me views traditionalism as harmful to the world, that religion has to be allowed to bend is the world is going to become more peaceful and accepting.

It's not even modernism or traditionalism to me, but the ability to be flexible and view all people as having the rights to have rights. I do not feel like I have a stake in religion, but I have a stake in how the religion affects the world. So there's nothing wrong with wanting to hold traditional human values, as long as you aren't harming another person in the process, or recognizing that not everybody holds or will hold the views you do.

So I suppose that's it. I guess you can't be absolutely traditional if you are willing to be flexible so as to prevent the kind of conflict religion is in the middle of throughout the world, but there is no reason to change yourself to be completely modern. I'm not even arguing for a middle here, just enough willingness to recognize that the world is not always the same. But then again, some of the extreme religions don't even feel like pure traditionalism, but instead a reaction and an interpretation of the text. And religious texts have been re-interpreted all throughout history, so I do believe that religion will continue to change in one way or another. Framing it as traditionalism vs. modernism makes it feel like one side verse another, when religion is like a spectrum. There is nothing wrong with a person's religious viewpoints until they reach a certain part of the spectrum, where people start getting hurt.

And there I go rambling again. I do not care what your religious views, whether or not you are more traditional or modern, as long as you believe it is okay that all people deserve rights. Since I am not very religious, I do not see any reason to have a stake in the debate beyond that one hope. As long as religion is able to respect everybody than I think that many of our problems could be solved. So that is all I can say I want. Yeah, I believe I am going to end this post with that opinion.

Modernism with a side of Traditionalism?

Okay, so I don't know much about either of the views of religion that we are debating this week.  So I am going to define what I think these mean, and go with it from there.  I think of traditionalism as a literal translation of something, and modernism as an individual's interpreted view of that same thing.  I suppose since we are talking about religion, that something would be the Bible or some other holy book.  Oh, I guess I should give you my religious background, since I wasn't here in the beginning when you all posted about it.

I'm a Mormon.  My entire family is Mormon, and I grew up surrounded by church and other religious things.  That being said, I'm not a very strict Mormon.  I do most of what they say, like not drinking or smoking or stealing, because I don't have an overwhelming need to do those things.  I can come up with non-Mormon related reasons just as easy for most of the things I do or don't do.  However, I don't agree with many of the viewpoints that the Mormon church has that have to relate to other people.  I am definitely all for non-hetero marriage and other things of that nature, and the Mormon church is, well, not.  For the most part.

Anyways, enough about me.  On to traditionalism vs. modernism in religion.  Mormons are generally traditionalist in their views, I think.  They really like quoting scriptures and talking about what they mean in context and how they apply to a person's life.  They tend to allow individuals to come to their own conclusion on how they want to apply something personally, but they definitely have a decisive idea on what the particular scripture means and how you are supposed to follow it.  So, I can understand the point of a traditionalist view on religion even if I don't generally follow it.

I am (relatively) open-minded, and I don't care much how other people decide to follow the rules set down in their holy book of choice (or no book).  Unless it's screwing their life up.  But, that's not on topic.  I think a person should have enough good judgement to have the ability to decide for themselves what is right, wrong, and which one they are going to choose.  Consequences will generally follow, but they should be able to at least know what they are doing and how it should affect them.  Now, there are exceptions to everything, but that would take way too long to cover, and I am already rambling.

Okay, to wrap up, since I'm not sure I actually made any sense in this post.  I think most people try to have a more modernism view, because then they can have a more flexible set of rules to follow and decide how much they want those rules to have an impact in their life.  This topic required a lot of thought and rambling, so I hope you all got something out of it.  Kathleen will post tomorrow, and I can't wait to hear what everyone else has to say on this topic.

I'm going to hell, aren't I?

As you may recall from my religion post (all the way back on week one), I struggled a lot with Christianity and how it related to the Bible. Basically, I decided that if the holy book of Christianity was the Bible, then I was going to follow everything in it to the best of my ability. The problem lay in the fact that I couldn't believe what the Bible told me to. I couldn't believe that Jesus was the only way to get to heaven. I believed (and still believe in) a lot of the moral teachings Jesus preached about loving your neighbor and not casting the first stone and removing planks from your own eye before the sawdust from your brother's (Jesus was a cool dude), but I couldn't just take the Bible at face value, even taking into account what may be metaphor. Because of this, I looked at various religions and eventually decided my answer was "none of the above."

That about sums up my last post on religion (it was very, very long, so if you haven't read it, I'm trying to make it so you don't have to). Of course, this seems to be fundamentally based on the idea that being a Christian requires believing everything in the Bible, and that's significantly because that is what I believe. This week's topic is traditionalism versus modernism in religion and I have to say I fall squarely into the traditionalism category. I believe if that something as important as a religion, something that wants to be the center of your life and values and judgments, is malleable, can change with interpretation and from person to person, then what does it mean? It's a very closed-minded view of things, I understand, but just...what's the point of having a holy book with teachings and beliefs if they aren't meant to be followed and...believed? Obviously, we can't know what God thinks about the Internet and that's something that would have to be interpreted, but as far as things that are explicitly in the Bible...I don't see how you can not believe it and then call yourself a Christian.

I just don't understand how the word has any value if it isn't consistent. I don't mind people that have views that differ from the Bible and still call themselves Christians but I just don't actually...I don't know. I can't consider you as such unless you are evangelizing the hell out of me, and if you are, then I probably won't want to talk to you.

I guess I just believe that if your religion is something you think is personal and between you and God, then that's fine. If you want to call that relationship Christianity, then I expect you to have certain beliefs that, frankly, most people don't have. If you think the only way to get to heaven is through belief in Jesus Christ, then you, as a Christian, should be perpetually terrified about all of the people in your life that are going to hell. I don't know anyone that can live life that way. I know I couldn't.

This post ended up being full of things that came off very offensively. Please understand that I do respect and love most of the people in my life that identify as Christian. I just have very strong opinions on religion that I don't like speaking about because I don't like offending people. I also know that this week's topic was on religion in general, but my perspective is limited mostly by my experiences with Christianity. In general, I believe that if you subscribe to a religion, then you have all of the beliefs that that religion entails. I don't believe in reinterpreting things to fit with today's moral values, because if the religion doesn't fit with today's moral values then maybe that's a problem with the religion. I don't believe you should have to fumble around awkwardly ignoring parts of your holy text just to make you feel comfortable like I did.

Foundations and Interpretations

When I think about the dichotomy between traditionalism vs. modernism in any religion, I try to examine how we use each approach to determine the ways we should go about living our lives according to our religious beliefs.

A traditional approach tells us that all of the answers can be found in the scriptures.  Followers of a religion need to base their lives on their scriptures, but there can be a risk of using individual scriptures to answer a question, instead of considering the entire body of work to determine the intent of the higher power for one’s life and behavior.

A modern approach can focus more on the individual’s application of the scripture to his own life and behavior.  This more often includes a consideration of the entire body of the scripture, but can leave the believer open to misinterpretation of the intent of the scripture.

According to most religions, scripture covers everything, but I believe that it needs to be critically applied.  Context is very important, and I think that approaching religion from a purely traditional viewpoint often causes us to miss out on what the faith itself stands for.  My own religious beliefs, and the beliefs of many others, are based around the concept that we should love God and love one another. However, I think that the concept of loving one’s neighbor often gets lost in the translation when we read scriptures for their face value and forget to apply the concept of love to the principles of our faiths.  (See 1 Corinthians 13.)  A lot of times, traditionalists and modernists alike can get bogged down by judgment and “straining gnats while swallowing camels.”   Following a combination of both forms can help believers stay true to the overall concept of love for one another.

Week of 7/8 - Traditionalism vs. Modernism in Religion

Our topic for your perusal this week is traditionalism vs. modernism in religion.

These days, most religions (among other things) tend to have at least two differing viewpoints within the same framework.  There are those who believe in a more traditional, literal view of their holy scripture, and adhere to that - for example, the commandment to "Remember the Sabbath, and keep it holy".  The most immediate examples of this that I can think of are the restaurant franchise Chick-Fil-A, which is inevitably closed every Sunday, and the Westboro Baptist Church, which... ... well, topic announcements are supposed to be neutral, so I'll just say that they're very vocal about their beliefs.  The other viewpoint(s) that we'll be looking at for this week's topic deal with a more modern-day view of messages and teachings, and a belief in a more open-minded, accepting view of society and people in general - for example, a church that openly welcomes non-hetero members into its fold.

We'll be looking at these differing viewpoints across (potentially) multiple religions throughout the week.  I'm interested in seeing what thoughts will be shared about the validity of either (or both, or all) sides of the issues, and how our contributor's experiences may have influenced their thoughts.  Pendleton will start us off tomorrow, and I'll be back on Saturday to wrap up.

Does Anybody Actually Like Visual Art?

Art is a tricky thing. Our goal this week was to figure out what it is, and of course, I cheated. My first instinct was to go to dictionary.com and start looking for my favorite definition, which is pretty much how high school debate works. Everything it gave me was... kind of useless. It was all too vague. There had to be a good definition somewhere that I could base my post on.

Actually, who am I kidding? If art wasn't such a ridiculously vague idea, we wouldn't need a week's worth of posts to discuss what it is. So much for that approach.

I think that there are too many unnecessary connotations tied to the idea of art. Almost everybody so far has gone straight to visual art as a focus for their discussion, and that makes sense, because in elementary school they send us to art class and we play with crayons for an hour and that's art. There are those guys a long time ago that painted or drew or carved some pretty cool things that are supposed to carry a lot of meaning, and I'm sure that they do, but it doesn't really evoke any kind of emotional response from me, most of the time.

A lot of the definitions that I looked at dealt with the idea of beauty and ideals, and the first thing that came to mind was this.

Math is beautiful. I can already hear people groaning, but those people are wrong. Mathematics is the most basic and pure entity in the entire universe, and there's not really any way around that. In the immortal words of Vi Hart, "Simple rules, complex consequences." It's practically a requirement for high school algebra students to just take a few minutes to play with the different kinds of functions that they can put into their graphing calculators, just to see what kinds of things they can make. My desktop background right now is a rendering of the Mandelbrot set from Wikipedia. Why? Because math is beautiful. I could go on about this for a while, but let's get back to figuring out what art is.

Another huge idea behind art that isn't really addressed by the simple beauty definition is the idea of expression. The way I see the world, art needs to be able to convey some kind of emotional meaning. It needs to forge a connection between the artist and the audience. It needs to give some kind of deeper look at the nature of either of those parties, or perhaps just the world at large. It just needs to say something, and this is where modern art fails miserably.

I'm not a person that really thinks about art all that often, but when I do, I think the key factor that I judge it on is what it makes me feel and how intensely it evokes that feeling. John'll have a new topic for us tomorrow. Have an awesome week, and try not to spend too much time counting the spirals on all of the plants you encounter.

Pictures are Worth a Thousand Words

I don't really know how to define art.  To me, art is a picture on a wall.  I like landscape pictures, normal ones that tell you exactly what you are looking at.  The abstract ones that have crazy colors and you stare at it for hours trying to figure out what it is?  I don't like them.  I like simple, plain backgrounds.  People are okay, but I prefer ones without them.

I'm not sure if that says anything about art.  But this post is going to be super short.  Sorry about that.

My definition is apparently 'Most things except for art'

I've always believed that art was something that made you feel emotions. Music is art. Books are art. Video games are art. Oddly, the only thing I was never sure was "art" under my definition is actual fine art like paintings and such.

So I guess the other thing about art is that it takes creativity to produce. Arithmetic is not art. Anyone could get that 2+2=4 (and anyone who doesn't is wrong), but developing a mathematical proof? That's art. That involves delicately weaving ideas through facts and melding assumptions and hypotheses into a unified concept, one that's solid and can stand the test of time. "Mathematics is the poetry of logical ideas."

Along this similar line, it's always baffled me how video games being art is even a debate. Even more so with the idea of "Can a video game make you cry?" Well duh it can. I can list 5 examples off the top of my head (Professor Layton, Crisis Core, Final Fantasy X, Final Fantasy VIII, Mother 3). Existentials are always really easy to prove. You just need one example and bam, the question of "Does a video game exist that can make you cry?" is proven true. Yes, there are some games that are very straight-forward (Move left, jump on baddies), and there are many, many games that involve characters with in-depth motivations and personalities going through an involved plot in a carefully constructed setting. I fail to see any difference between that and a novel, except for the beauty of interactivity allowing the player to contribute to shaping the story.

The fact is that fine art such as drawings and paintings and sculptures does require creativity. You have to take something from within yourself and shape it into something real and that makes it art. To be honest, though, it's never really called to me. My only reaction to museums has been an overwhelming desire to find where they're selling food and then to be offended by the exorbitant prices they're selling it for. I've been to a notable amount of art museums and I cannot tell you a single thing that has interested me. The only thing that even comes close is that one giant Lego city in that one dive bar in the Florida Keys. That was fascinating and engaging and told a story. Several stories, really, and one of which involved Harry Potter fighting Godzilla. To me, art needs to make me feel something, and even though a sculpture has never made me feel anything (aside from technically impressed), there are obviously people who feel that way. That is enough to make it art even if it isn't in my own personal little world.

In sum, I think pretty much anything can be art if it requires creativity and if it means things to people (preferably people other than the creator, but I guess not necessarily). I feel like programming is art. Not just design but taking characters and grouping them together into commands that, when compiled, produce an actual working application...that couldn't be more beautiful to me. Someone else might disagree, but I feel like the fact that anyone really believes that something is art means it is.

That said, where are my video game museums?

But he isn't wearing any clothes!

I think it would be appropriate to begin my entry for this week by saying that the only thing I actually know about visual art is that I either like something or I don’t.  But either way, regardless of whether the majority of people like a creation, whether it be visual or acoustic, it can still be regarded as art, in my opinion, as long as it evokes some kind of emotion from the people who experience either seeing or hearing it. 

When I first read our topic for this week, one particular artist came to my mind.  About a year or so ago, I went with a small group to see a travelling exhibit of some of Pablo Picasso’s works that had come into our area.  I said earlier that I am not an art expert, and I’ll add on to that statement by saying that I haven’t studied Picasso since my last elementary school art class, so I knew next to nothing about the artist before we went to the show.  But we knew that an exhibit like that wouldn’t likely come anywhere close to our area anytime soon.  So, why not go see it?  Anyway, the exhibit was pretty massive, and it had a number of Picasso’s works from the many different periods of his artistic life, starting with the earliest and moving progressively.  I thought that most of his earlier works didn’t look like what we think of today as typical Picasso.  And maybe I’m a little bit boring, but my favorite piece in the entire exhibit was in one of the first rooms; it was called “La Celestine.”  I don’t even really know why it was my favorite, other than the fact that I was really intrigued by the elderly woman in the painting and I wanted to know more about what her back story was, even if the painting wasn’t done from life and the subject was completely fictional.  I also sensed a kind of eerie tone in the portrait with the lighting and positioning of the figure.  This piece is an example of what I think is art.  I was intrigued by it, even though I didn’t love enough to want it in my house. 

As we continued on through the exhibit and into one of the last rooms that contained Picasso’s later works, we saw another piece that kind of stumped us as to why it was even put in the exhibit.  It was a bicycle seat and handlebars welded together entitled “Bull’s Head”.  None of us understood how this piece was considered a work of art, especially compared to the other works or art in the collection.  I started to think if it was like the situation from "The Emperor's New Clothes." I don't know enough to say for certain, but I wondered if maybe the joke was on us and there really wasn't anything to this piece other than the fact that Picasso made it.  But, apparently someone with artistic credentials thought it was important enough to be included in the exhibit, so maybe the qualities that made the piece a work of art was that Picasso was the first person to think to create it, and it’s controversial, so it elicits emotion from those who see it.  I guess the jury is still out on this piece.  I thought it was interesting, but I don’t know if anyone would have called it “art” if it had been created by a random person who knows how to weld and wanted to make something out of parts of a old bicycle for whatever reason.  But I don’t want to entirely write off this piece either, because there had to be some kind of creativity behind the creation of it.  It’s certainly not something I think any random person would come up with and think to construct.  It’s certainly something I wouldn’t have thought of. 

I know this post is already running long, but I didn’t want to finish without bringing up one last musing.  Jackson Pollock.  One of the most controversial and widely known artists to date.  A few years ago, I stumbled upon a documentary called “Who the @#$% is Jackson Pollock?”  I ended up watching the majority of the film because I thought the premise looked interesting.  This documentary followed a retired female truck driver on her quest to find out if the painting she bought for a few dollars at a yard sale was indeed an authentic Jackson Pollock painting.  In fact, at the time of purchase, the woman was unaware of who Jackson Pollock was.  It was her son (I think, it’s been a while since I’ve seen the movie) who encouraged her to have the painting examined and appraised.  So on her son’s advice, she took the painting to a number of art/ Pollock experts, and some believed the painting may be authentic while others believed it wasn’t. 

So, getting back to the point of the discussion, art experts told her that the painting would be worth a great deal of money if it was real, but it would be worth next to nothing if it wasn’t.  And I guess this is really a scenario of determining value rather than what the intrinsic worth of art is, but either way, shouldn’t art be worth something other than a price attached to the name of its creator?  I remember hearing that Pollock had an interesting process for creating his paintings, but I don’t know what it is that sets him so far apart from the rest.  Not to bash his creative process in any way, I can’t really do that when I don’t understand what it is myself.  I guess my point is that a huge component of how we figure what should be classified as art is the process behind its creation.  So, it seems to me the reactions any given piece elicits from those who experience it and the creative process behind the creation is what classifies something as art.  How we as a society choose to value art seems to be an entirely separate process.      

"Modern art" is stupid.

So, art.

I took exactly one art class while at school, and that was only because it was mandatory.  It was a long time ago, so I don't remember a lot of the exact details, but one thing in particular stood out to me.  I hate looking at art as some kind of competition.  When we were given a specific thing to create, I couldn't help but compare my finished product to the others, and art is one of the very few things where I almost completely lack any sort of self-confidence.  There was always something better about other people's works than mine.  That still exists, to this day... but we might visit that a bit later in the post.

The only project that I remember from that art class is one where we were studying Egyptian death masks.  The subject itself was interesting to me, and the project was to create our own masks out of clay.  There was no "right" or "wrong" way to make a mask (beyond the obvious, anyway).  I really enjoyed that assignment, because I didn't have to worry about... well, anything, other than how I wanted it to look.  The end result was multi-colored (where most other masks were monochromatic), and I even used a bit of extra clay to make tear-like-things below the eyes. Why?  I don't know, I wanted to at the time, and it didn't matter.  I got an A on the assignment.

Art, to me, is pretty simple.  Art is entertainment.  Art is an expression of emotions.  The saying "A picture is worth a thousand words" is so, so true, as long as the person who made the picture put their heart into it.  I know several people who can draw things several million times better than I could ever hope to.  Despite this, when I put a real amount of time into drawing something (which is usually, at most, once a week, for the weekly schedule decoration), I take a fairly large amount of pride in it.  Yes, other people could do it better, and yes, it's not great, but I like what I did.  Will my work(s) ever be displayed in a museum?  Hell no.  Are they still something that I consider "art"?  Absolutely.

I used to do a lot of animated stick figure stuff.  I still have a fair number of them saved in various places online.  Stick figures are absolutely not what anyone would instinctively think of as "art"... but again, I put a lot of time and effort into each of those, and I'm proud of them.  Does art have to be fancy, with advanced techniques and massive amounts of detail, to be acceptable?  I don't think so.  I actually prefer simple art.  Sometimes things don't need to be perfect to be pleasing.

This was kind of a random post, but I hope that I've gotten at least a few of my thoughts across.  In my opinion, art is very simply a means of expressing creativity and emotion that both the creator and others can find enjoyable.  It's nice when art makes sense, but it isn't always necessarily a requirement.  ... Except for modern art.  Modern art is stupid.

Week of 7/1 - What is Art?

Welcome to July! We're kicking off this month with a somewhat different topic: What is art?

Art is something that isn't clearly defined, and this week we're going to try to explore what art means for each of us. This week is going to be less about forming a convincing opinion on a subject and more about personal experience, and I'm interested to see what everyone has to say.

John will be kicking the week off tomorrow, and I'll be back on Saturday to finish it off. Enjoy!