I Believe In A Thing Called Love...

Okay, I'm fully aware how cheesy this is all going to sound.  I'm in my twenties, and I'm a hopeless romantic.  I don't think my position on this changed at all, as far as I can remember.  My nougat center has only been reinforced by my current relationship, and that of the people I know and admire.

So here is the confession: I often read the Craigslist "Missed Connections" and the Love/Hate section of the Philly Citypaper.  It's not that I'm waiting for some random moment of serendipity of memories, relationships, or crushes of yesterday. I really just want them to find their people.  Most of the posts are people either too nervous to work up the courage to say how they really feel, and I know that feeling. Some are pining away for someone they can never be with. I know that one too!  A few are even addressed to the ever infamous "one who got away."  I had a few get away, and in my non-expertise, if they got away, it wasn't right. The right person, the right time...reminds me of a song.

Anyhow, sometimes I get so cynical and jaded when it comes to issues, I forget that I'm a hardcore optimist. I'm not delusional: I don't think everyone will live happily ever after in a utopian, equal and fair society.  I just think that they should, and could.

I'm not saying (my) life is or should be like some romantic comedy. It sometimes just amazes me that in a world of billions, and not willing to settle for "happy enough," I managed to find someone to be truly happy with.  I'm not sure how long this "honeymoon" phase will last, or if that's what this is, but I'm in love, and it's pretty fabulous.

If you haven't found someone you're looking for, for whatever you're looking for, keep going. Don't be bitter at others' happiness. When other people are happy, be happy for them, and know that love is a thing.  That's what worked for me.  Plus, bitter people are usually creepy.

Peace, Love, and Rock&Roll,
Shayna

It's Pat!

I never was a fan of televangelists. Here's Pat Robertson's most recent verbal diarrhea insinuating that President Obama is clearly the "match to the kindling" responsible for the "revolt of America."

I know this guy is dangerous. He is full of hatred and intolerance toward 99% of humanity. I know he hates me for a multitude of reasons. Still, I can't really take him seriously because I keep thinking of Steve Martin in Leap of Faith. 

I think the problem I have with all these nonsense TV preacher extremists is that (well aside from being bat-$#!+ crazy) is that they all use intense fear-mongering as a form of income.  Radical evangelists and "faith healers" always seem to be Christians, and I'm not saying that in of itself is the BullSpit, but why then aren't there ever any Jewish exorcisms?  When was the last time you saw a commercial on TV advertising the Torah? When was the last time you saw a radical extremist Jew on TV trying to compel viewers to join what everyone already refers to as "the chosen people?"

Something is clearly rotten, and we're nowhere near Denmark.
-Peace, Love, and Rock&Roll
Shayna

"Why Journalists Should Fact-Check" or "America is Ridiculous: Part 1"

Per always, I would like to begin with a disclaimer. I believe in the ideas of democracy, free speech, and am proud to be a US citizen, generally. I believe in the institution of America, but it's the people in it that make me crazy sometimes. Not all the people. The ones with louder voices seem to do more damage than relatively "normal" sane people.

Let me give you an example that doesn't include Glenn Beck. It is too early for me to rage-out like a Lewis Black rant. 

Last Sunday, Matthew Archibald blogged in outrage over an article he'd read stating Michael Moore had proposed that Jesus was gay.  Okay, let's backtrack.  Mr. Archibald, a contributor to The National Catholic Register (sort of like the Wall Street Journal for Catholics: very focused, biased media spun to appease/entertain their demographic) was outraged over an article he read.  Not only did he feel it was blasphemy, but Moore claims Catholicism as his faith of choice and this article and the other paint Moore as a liberal fanatic and bad example for Catholics everywhere. They're officially still not really "down" with the gays yet.


Here is the NCR article:

National Catholic Review: Mr. Moore Jokes About Jesus Being Gay

He didn't actually hear the words or see Mr. Moore.  What he read was this:

Weekly World News "Michael Moore: Jesus Was Gay!"

Okay, if you have heard of Weekly World News before, you know what I am about to say.

IT'S A MADE UP ARTICLE. Moore didn't say that (that I'm aware, anyway).  What Archibald read was

“You know those 12 men Jesus was always hanging out with?” he said to laughter. “You know what that means.” He went to explain that it wasn’t a joke and that he has done extensive documentary research and talked to people that have examined artifacts that prove Jesus was gay.  Moore even talked about Jesus loving musicals.  “He was a real song-and-dance man,” Moore  said. ... Moore said his “Jesus Was Gay” documentary will be out in time for Christmas this year.  “It’s my gift to Christians.” Moore said."

  I have said this time and time again. When you are someone whose job it is to report factual, credible information, it would behoove you to fact-check.  At least if you're going to complain about an inflammatory blog posting, have the common sense to read one or two of the comments below before writing an ACTUAL article passing off satire as fact.  The jackassery must end soon. The opinion of Moore's credibility/lack of respect/morality is not relevant.  It is just a call to remind that just because you have the power to do something, i.e. publish something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

I think I will make this a multi-post series, illuminating other idiotic things that unnerve me, a la Mr. Black.



Today, have an extra large double-caff cup of common sense and fresh whipped literacy. On the house.
Peace, love, and rock and roll.

Dear Dr. Fausto-Sterling:

As I always preface everything I say and write with some disclaimer, I maintain true to tradition. This is not actually a letter addressed to Dr. Fausto-Sterling, although I would probably consider her opinion and experience to be vastly more substantial and legitimate than the sources of this article.


I don't regularly peruse CBS news's website for articles, but this one caught my attention and nearly knocked me off my chair.  In an article published just over two years ago, at www.cbsnews.com that asserted that women who take oral contraceptives are choosing the "wrong sex partners." 

Admittedly, I read the article, because I thought it was about something completely different, but alas, it was an article that is probably more fitting confined to the pages of Cosmo magazine than affiliated with a news organization boasting the careers of legitimate journalists like Diane Sawyer, Mike Wallace, and Barbara Walters, to name a few.

The information was published from WebMD. That in of itself should find the author of the article unemployed.  I have no idea where he is today, but I would venture a guess he is not a medical correspondent for CNN.

Loosely, the article, which can be found in its entirety at the link above, states that in a study of 60 HETEROSEXUAL women, when taking oral contraceptives, they found a correlation linking the desired pheromones of the men they were attracted to, as well as their genetic similarity to the women surveyed.

I am not a medical detective, despite my addiction to House, but I'm certain if I tried to publish a "study" of only sixty people and neglected to normalize the data at all, I would receive hearty laughter and a few raised eyebrows.

My larger concern, and the reason for the blog rant has more to do with the title. Dr. Fausto-Sterling (who is also a renowned professor at Brown University School of Medicine) would probably either completely dismiss this ignorant lack of comprehensive data, or completely attack the heart of the non-scholarly issue.  Someday if I ever meet Dr. Fausto-Sterling in person, I doubt this will be the first question on the list.

Anyhow, take care and have a pleasant day!
-Shayna

On Gay Marriage and Growing Up: Things I Want, Eventually!

So the other day, in a news-worthy state senate vote, New York passed gay marriage, by a margin of about one vote.  This is a big deal for a few reasons. First, there is another nail in the coffin of bigotry and discrimination, nationwide.  Second, there is no residency requirements to have a marriage license in New York state, which means anyone can run, fly, drive, train, or swim there and get married to any qualifying person they choose! (By qualifying, I'm guessing the only things stopping a marriage license in NY would be if an individual is already married to someone else, underage (and not emancipated) or not legally competent. So apart from the children, mentally incompetent, and  polygamists, this is a pretty awesome day!

From a more political standpoint, this ruling is a really, really, really big deal, because not only did it fail two years ago in a Democrat controlled state senate, but it passed, now in a Republican dominated senate.  Almost immediately after the ruling, Pres. Obama released a comment saying he's happy about the ruling, but that he still doesn't support gay marriage. Um excuse me? He wants equal rights for all, but just not that legally binding ceremonial thing that comes with tax benefits, hospital visits, adoption, and stuff.  I think he wants that other type of thing, whereby two gay men or lesbians just live together and get introduced as "my friend, [so and so]." 

I wish that the leader of the free world had more gall to stand up to his own convictions and previous promises to fight for LGBT rights ( um that means gay marriage, too, Mr. President.) instead of caving and turning these last few months before primary season into some quasi-conservative thing so John Boehner and the rest don't run him out of Washington.

It would be a lie if I said I didn't comprehend it, but the worse, and truer fact of the matter is, at the point where the president has such a high approval rating, (um ending both wars, finding Bin Laden, DADT, and so on and so on) now is the time for BOLD action.  If he truly wants to go down in history books for being as great or greater than his predecessors, it stands to reason he wouldn't want to look like the shy kid on the playground, pushing dirt around with the toe of his shoe, mumbling "Aw, shucks," while trying not to make eye contact.


NYC's Road to Gay Marriage

Op Ed from Times June 27, 2011

 Well, I believe that that dead horse has been beaten enough.  Now on to "growing up."  I doubt this will be what you were thinking it might be, but here goes anyway!!!

I'm still working on that fine balance between living as an adult, and behaving like a teenager.  I've found that I'm not particularly fond of going to bed early, eating cereal with some form of bran in it, and skimming the WSJ on my way to a "nine-to-five" are not appealing aspects of life to me at all.  So if this is what you were thinking I was going to say, congratulations, you managed to evade my fake-out reverse psychology. I'm super-mature, as you can tell.  Honestly, since I don't drink anymore, there's nothing I do that requires me to be more than a teenager anyhow.  I miss the simple days, as a friend recalls fondly, "of just waking up on Saturday morning, eating cereal and watching cartoons.  Those days rocked." 

We live in such a fast-paced, cutthroat industrial technological culture that we actually spend very little time interacting with real people in person.  A few weeks ago, I was walking down Broad St. (in North Philly) and passed dozens, if not a hundred or so people.  Nearly every single one had an iPod with ear buds in, or were busy maneuvering the sidewalk traffic, trying not to spill hot coffee, or lose that ever important game of Angry Birds.  Not one would make eye contact or return my "good morning."

When did adulthood become synonymous with self-absorbed?  Manners weren't exactly beaten into my childhood as one might suspect from meeting me.  I believe in being polite, courteous, and waiting my turn.  The drill sergeants in basic training instilled the obligation of greeting everyone you encounter.  Not only is it a good way to meet people, it shows some level of respect.  I don't expect that the dozens or so of relatively affluent people I encountered needed my respect or attention, but none even looked up long enough to reciprocate making eye contact.  These are the things that make me feel as though I'm from a different time, transported here against my will and better judgment, to see how well I can acclimate.

Kidding aside, my personal belief still remains. It is easy to actually be kind to strangers (a quality I've observed many times over in my girlfriend) if you actually care about people.  By virtue of statistics, it is easy to conclude most people don't really care about a random stranger.  I must also factor in the crime-potential, as well. *

This last part is more of a mental note to remind me of the imperfect, selfish nature of people, so that I don't chuck my hot coffee at some arbitrary person who happened to pretend to ignore me so that he or she could get to that next level of Angry Birds.  I have some bran to eat and stock market numbers to decipher.

Peace, Love, and Manners,
Shayna

* So it could also be a potential factor that I live in not a particularly safe neighborhood of a major city, and that people indigenous to the area are more accustomed to not making eye-contact, as to avoid attention. 

"ayes 33, nays 29." PA evolve already.

OMG! I was trying to Google something and it auto-filled after "who is a-" http://bit.ly/fZB7Kp googlediscriminates