A thought on DADT

May 31st, 2010 by Brianna

There’s been a lot of talk about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell lately, thanks to the recent Congressional vote. This being Memorial Day, I’d like to share a few thoughts on the subject.

Specifically, I keep hearing misunderstandings about to what repealing DADT means. The core of the issue is this:

Repealing DADT will not allow gay people to serve in a hitherto straight military. Instead, it will merely allow formally closeted gay people to serve openly in the military.

This is a vital distinction, especially in light of some of the bizarre garbage (read at your own risk) that has been written about DADT.
Read full post »

On listening to MLK

January 18th, 2010 by Brianna

I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality… I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.
– Martin Luther King, Jr.

I sat down and listened to the “I have a dream” speech today – and realized that I had never actually heard it before! Sure, I’ve read the speech, and others of his perhaps a dozen times, but I never actually listened to it, all the way through, as spoken by the man himself.

It was surprisingly enlightening.

Read full post »

Economics Doesn’t Matter Anymore

April 17th, 2009 by Brianna

When I started this blog, I thought I’d be writing frequently about the economy. I’ve always liked the subject. It’s the easiest way we have to quantify human behavior, and therefore fascinating. And given the current economic state of the world, analyzing it should prove especially interesting. Which money/banking system really works? Will these bail-outs hurt or help the economy as a whole, and will they help the right people? And on and on.

Yet somehow, every time I sit down to write, I can’t come up with anything that’s not half-baked, worthless, or irrelevant. For a time, I thought my problem was lack of knowledge. Perhaps by observing more, by reading more, by increasing my understanding of how the world work, I could begin to really understand the economy.

But I’m not getting it. Things don’t make any more sense now than then. And the more varied economic points of view I read, the more confused I become. Here’s an incomplete list, plus the attendant problems:

Socialists – More government – of the right sort!

So… how do we control it?

Communalists/Ecofeminists – Local Government, and don’t call it that!

Bigger groups always absorb smaller ones.

Neo-Anarchists/Socialists – The government is an evil conspiracy!

And you’re suggesting… what? Anarchy? Really?

Mainstream Liberals – Tax and Spend!

Where’s it coming from? Also, see the next one…

Mainstream Feminists (I’m only talking about economic policy here) – Tax and Spend on the right things!

Who determines that? And how to remove the capitalists without destabilizing everything?

Neo-Conservatives – Spend w/out taxing!

How on earth is that even possible?

Real Conservatives – Status Quo…!

Yes, these people still exist.

Libertarians – Smaller Government! (I still call myself this, by the way.)

What are we going to replace the government with? Private enterprise? My left ear…

All of these groups do have some good ideas. They are all right about some things, even if some are more delusional than others. But none of them really have the answer – not in a way that can be proven, or even truly understood.

But I think I’ve finally decided on the problem (partly inspired by this post): It’s pretty obvious. The world is a powercracy. You can gain an advantage with any of the following:

Capital (In some places)
Intelligence (of the right sort)
Class/Race/Gender/other privilege factors
Physical/Athletic Ability

On the whole, the people who have these things insist on exploiting those who don’t. And no amount of government regulation, philanthropy, or education of the oppressed can change that.

Because the trouble with capitalism is the capitalists.

The trouble with socialism and commualism is the demagogues. (Not lazy people, as some like to say!)

The trouble with anarchy is violence.

And so on. Even if you could somehow remove the capital, the privilege will remain. If some miracle could remove that, the economic intelligence and physical differences remain. Unless you clone all identical people, you can’t get rid of it! (You can’t really regulate it out, either – so long as most people are trying to oppress, regulation just gives those in the government more power, most of whom are also potential oppressors, and so it continues) Some people are simply better at taking advantage than others. That’s the root cause of power, and unless those people decide to stop using their advantage, the world will continue as it is. Unfair, favoring the few.

Here’s what it boils down to: If you’re consuming more than you’re producing, if you’re exploiting more than you’re exploited, you are part of the problem. Not part of the solution. ‘Economics’ doesn’t matter. All that counts is individual influence.

Thus, worrying about ‘money’ is completely pointless.

From an economic point of view, all we need now is a way to correctly measure one’s influence. (And a way to convince the exploiters to stop – but that’s a different subject)

Do we really have a need to be healthy?

March 31st, 2009 by Brianna

A sort of continuation of this.

My mother, and many of my relatives, have an obsession with health. They’re into the entire natural foods/the FDA is evil/big-companies-are-out-to-get-us sort of thing. And, they claim that they’re happier and more healthy following X diet or N exercise program. (And that I should do the same.)

It’s not just them. The media bombards us with health products. The government and a million doctors and health clinics tell us how to eat and how much to exercise. According to just about everyone, we’re in an obesity epidemic. What is it now – 65%, 75% percent of adults? Or something like that. And we’re all too stressed, and we have too much unsafe sex, etc.,etc.

Now, some very smart people have good, rational things to say about fat acceptance, legalization of drugs, and other issues. All of this is good. I think it goes farther than that, though.

Think about this for a second:

Exhibit A: We all die eventually.
Exhibit B: Life expectancy in western society is longer than any in recorded history.

Even if you eat crap, drive like an idiot, have sex with everyone you can, are stressed about your family’s disapproval, and are high on drugs the entire time, you will probably live as long (30s) as the average person in many societies, both historical and modern. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that living like that is a good. (As far as I’m concerned, hurting other people is always wrong – the above lifestyle is pretty hard on the rest of society). But while most people would say that such a person is unhappy, that they need help, that there’s something wrong with them.

I’m certain that there were and are plenty of people who knew they would likely die in their thirties who, live perfectly happy, fulfilled lives. So why does it bother us, that some people simply aren’t afraid of death?

I’m simplifying, of course. Something might feel good now, but worse later, it’s a trade-off, blah, blah. But let’s apply this idea to something small. Like eating unhealthily. Or not exercising. Or having sex with a large number of partners. Is it really wrong because it’s potentially unhealthy? It’s wrong if it hurts someone, to be sure. But who’s to say that someone can’t prefer being unhealthy, especially if we’re only considering one unhealthy activity, with minimal impact?

Back to the fat acceptance argument, for a moment. Kate Harding goes into great detail as to why being fat isn’t always unhealthy, and why some people can’t help it. So, let’s say she’s wrong. Being fat really is unhealthy. If you’re fat, you’re going to die sooner. Does that make you a bad person? Really? Even if it makes you happier?

And who defines happiness, anyway? More on that some other time.

(My goodness – I’m in a weird mood at the moment. Oh, well!)

Last Word

March 9th, 2009 by Brianna

Okay, Okay, Okay. I’m going to totally go against popular opinion here. Please don’t kill me! (ha, ha…)

I loved the last episode of the L Word.

Well, maybe not quite loved – really, really, really liked. Lived, perhaps. (Get it? Liked + Loved? I’ll stop now. I usually don’t make horrible puns, but somehow it feels okay here. I think I’m high on L Word juice, or something)

Warning: This going to be super long – I have a lot of feelings at the moment.

Quick summary: I liked the Alice/Tasha/Jamie resolution. Sure, it was a bit artificial in the beginning, but it worked here. And I liked Helena and Dylan’s fight. It never made sense that they would make up so quickly. And I was sure that Jenny had screwed up the impersonation of Nikki’s manager. I felt relieved that Shane found Molly’s letter and the negatives. I loved nearly every scene with Tina and Bette. And I especially liked the last five minutes. (I’ll get to that in a minute.)
Read full post »

On the quality of a musical recording…

March 6th, 2009 by Brianna

Once upon a time, long, long ago, there weren’t any music recordings. Nothing. If you wanted to hear music, you had to find someone to play it.

Then some smart person invented the wax cylinder record and the wire recorder (like a tape recorder, only with a wire). They sounded terrible. Really terrible. From a modern perspective, they are rather hard to listen to.Here are some halfway decent pre-1910, as an example.

But things got better very quickly. Microphones improved dramatically, magnetic tape and vinyl records were invented, all the way to 24 bit DVD audio and $10,000 sound systems. And here’s where it all gets stupid.

Now, recording engineers are obsessed with headroom, with avoiding distortion, with getting the cleanest, ‘hottest’ recording at all costs (it is their job, but still…). Audiophiles, when they’re not buying the latest gadget, are debating the benefits of 24 bit vs 16 bit vs vinyl. And musicians (who were the actual inspiration for this post!) are obsessed with being recorded properly, with getting just the right equipment, and on and on and on.

I’d like to offer a simple solution. It doesn’t matter! Listen to this recording. And this one. Yes, there’s clipping, noise, distortion. Yes, Armstrong’s trumpet sounds strange and muted, significantly different from the true sound. Yes, the tape hiss on the Heifetz is almost as loud as the music at times. But they both are wonderful performances! Would it really make a difference if the recordings were better? Really? Sure, I might listen to the better one if I had it (or not! I’d have to hear it first – I’ve been known to prefer live versions of e.g. the Indigo Girls over studio versions.), but would I enjoy it more? I somehow doubt it.

Maybe all that really matters in music, is, well, the music.

Just a thought.

This ends today’s impassioned rant.

Do humans have a collective need to exist?

February 21st, 2009 by Brianna

I probably shouldn’t be reading Making Light – I only started because I thought the insights into the publishing industry were interesting. But the blog is just another non-feminist liberal blog, and those usually annoy me.

They just published another post about the wonderfulness of immunizations, wherein they do a nice job of steamrollering over any opposing arguments. But I’m not going to write about that.

During the lack of discussion, Roxanne said this;

Vaccinations are a gamble: Will the reduced chance of a future disease outweigh the chance of complications now? Everyone has to make the choice for themselves. No medical procedure – and that includes vaccination – should be required by law. Period. End of sentence.

and then, Giacomo said this:

Roxanne, I’m sorry but you are wrong on “No medical procedure – and that includes vaccination – should be required by law”.

The right of the human race to survive as a whole overrides the right of individuals to be careless. If an epidemic is endangering society as a whole, collective and democratic bodies have the right to impose vaccination. I think this thread made it quite clear.

Is that so?

Say that the population is falling from too few births. Does the ‘right of the human race to survive as a whole’ trump the right of a woman to refuse to have children? Not quite ‘being careless’, I suppose, but still the same principle.

And there is hardly an epidemic that is endangering society as a whole. For the sake of argument, though, let’s say that there is, or say that if a significant number of individuals don’t take some action (preventing themselves from being sterilized by radiation, perhaps) or any other event, human race will become extinct. Is there some moral mandate to preserve the race at all costs?

Another fun example – some people seem to think that it’s extremely important that we place a ‘backup’ of humankind on a planet. That way, if decide to nuke ourselves, human life will be safe! After all, everybody knows that human existence has made such a valuable contribution to the advancement of the universe, that it is imperative we continue existing.

Remind me again: How does the universe determine value? Why do you care what happens after you and those you care about are dead? If humans suddenly, painlessly, ceased existence, why would that bother you? And if we die out naturally, where is the loss? Heck, some ecologist-types believe we deserve to become extinct!

Here’s the point: if it is wrong to not be vaccinated, or if anything else is wrong, it is wrong because it hurts people. Not ‘the human race’, not ’society’, but individual, specific people, whom are hurt by your specific, individual choice. You don’t have proof that anyone beside yourself exists. Humans are not a hive mind. We do not exist collectively. We infer others’ existence, and we act based on that, but we only care because we assume they are like us, that they feel our pain. Even more specifically: I care about you, because you are like me. Nothing more.

More on this later, when I can come up with some counterarguments.

‘Real’ Journalism and self-referencing

February 14th, 2009 by Brianna

I’ve been thinking about this comic strip for a while. What would happen if ‘real’ journalism disappeared? Not much. There would just be more money to pay news bloggers. Besides, ‘real’ journalists aren’t really real, after all. They’re just as fake as anyone else.

But the self-referencing thing really gets to me sometimes. Someone writes an article, perhaps announcing something, or reporting on something. Sometimes this is a blogger, sometimes it’s an online version of a newspaper, etc. Then, a bunch of people link it, and link it, and link it. For every original article, there’s ten or a hundred links. Now, on one level, this is simply how people find out about things. But it does seem a bit worthless at times to read the same article, with minor commentary, on ten sites!

And then there’s the clearinghouse sites. Slashdot for computer friendly people, Feministing for feminists (for the most part), etc, etc. Someone writes an article, a bunch of people link it, it gets popular, a clearinghouse site picks it up, even more people link it, ad infinitum.

Let’s reduce redundancy! Let’s link to whole sites and blogs as well as articles. And let’s only link to really interesting things, not to everything that moves. Less redundancy == more information consumed. (I don’t know who I think I’m talking too – the few people who read this probably don’t have the problem! It’s the people who run the big site that are really responsible. Oh, well)

A little rant on spoilers

January 30th, 2009 by Brianna

So there I was, sitting harmlessly in my fiction writing class, participating in an interesting discussion about symbols in literature, when someone decided to bring up Harry Potter. And what were the first words out of her mouth? “Has anyone not been spoiled?”

Sigh…

I don’t understand this. Is it really true that a person’s enjoyment of a story could be dependent on not knowing what’s going to happen? Look – there’s only one ending to any story: “They died.” It doesn’t matter whether the story goes, “She lived happily ever after in a little house on the coast,” or “He was pushed off the cliff by a pack of wolves,” the end result is the same. “and then they died.” Okay, okay – I suppose, “they lived for eternity,” is a possible ending, but that make… two? You know how the story’s going to end already! This applies to Harry Potter too – guess what! He’s going to die, either now or later.

Get over it.

And the plots in the middle aren’t much better. I once read a Dickens novel (Hard Times, I think it was), which had an introduction containing this sentiment: (paraphrased) “Nobody but a small child would read this book to find out whether the [protagonist] foils the [antagonist]. Instead, we read it for the characters, the emotional meaning.” I think that this is true of everything. Remember Shakespeare? He’s supposed to be a pretty good writer, right? (I happen to think that he’s overrated, but still…) Get an edition of his plays containing plot summaries of each play, and just read the summaries. Than go read the ’soap update’ in TV Guide. Shakespeare’s plots suck! They really do! Now, I suppose you could make an argument that they were fresh and original when they were written, but I doubt it. Fortunately, we don’t watch and read Shakespeare for the plots – in his case, it’s the language that matters. And that goes for most other books. You read Austin and Tolstoy and Alcott for the characters, Asimov for the ideas, etc., etc., etc.

That’s not to say that plot only exists to provide a vehicle for characters and language, of course. I’ll argue all day that the plot is the main feature of The Handmaid’s Tale. (It’s mostly indirectly expository, but still plot) But in order for a plot to be worth caring about, it has to stand up to scrutiny, to bear repeated readings or watchings, not fall apart when you find out the ’secret’!

So please, people, don’t be so crazy about being ’spoiled’. If it was worth seeing in the first place, it won’t hurt anything to know about it beforehand.

Note: Spoilers for games are a legitimate worry – if you know the solution to a puzzle, it’s often not as much fun. But: 1. Puzzles are usually meant to only be solved once, and 2. These sorts of games are not literature!

The Last* Word on Subtext in Xena

December 12th, 2008 by Brianna

(*Yeah, right!)

And now for something completely frivolous!

Xena fans have expended an astonishing amount of effort on analysis of lesbian subtext. Is it really there? How intentional is it? How much of it is there? Let’s make a complete list of every possible subtext moment in every single episode! Let’s make subtext the whole point of the show, and interpret every single phrase out of context! Let’s declare that that scene/line/episode never happened, because we don’t like the implications it has on X&G’s relationship!

Now, don’t get me wrong – there is nothing wrong with any of this. In fact, it’s amazing what we have accomplished – the fan fiction alone is absolutely amazing. And I certainly appreciate the need to re-imagine something in order to identify with it. But in the end, I like to think that the authors’ story is, well, the real story! Call it artistic integrity, if you will. (I’m guessing that my classical music background has a lot to do with my opinions on this subject – ‘composer’s original intent’ and all that.)

Anyway, I’m going to try and write something that I haven’t seen yet – an analysis of Xena subtext that is completely canon. (Excepting, of course, the intentionally out-of-character comic moments.) It will consider all of the relationships, and try and ‘connect the dots’ in a reasonable way. In other words, it’s the story, told as I would have wanted to see it, without ignoring what was actually written. And as a bonus, it’s yet another take on the Xena chronology; I make no claims as to accuracy.

So, here goes!
Read full post »