Lady Gaga

Good for her!

Lady Gaga admits to Bulimia and Anorexia since being 15 y/o, starts campaign for body acceptance.

Dafuq!?

Sigh... Okay, I'd never intended to go on about celebrities in this blog, but I'd say that this does warrant a mention in my blog, as it's something I'd meant to address for quite awhile now.

Pasta-loving Lady Gaga puts on 25 pounds.

Dafuq!?

Okay, I'm not particularly a Lady Gaga fan... that is to say, I don't have any of her CD's, nor are there at present any songs of hers in my iTunes. But I do generally enjoy her music when I hear it. The lyrics are intelligently written and have a depth uncommon in much of today's pop music, and I especially like how out-spoken she is on the issues.

But what this post is about is going to be body image issues... and how society is fucking up generations of people, women and men.

But, I digress. Let's take a look at Lady Gaga. This picture is from 2011, before the weight gain:

...and here she is with some meat on her bones (pun intended):

Now, Lady Gaga is so kind as to not overdress so that we may fully admire analyze her body on this subject. Purely analytical. Yeah. Now, I'm not so sure about the meat-wrapping... but to me, she is still as hot as ever. But, it's in the news as some kind of world-changing, life-altering event. But she still is, and always will be Lady Gaga - the musician, the advocate, and the beauty.

The problem is that society's idea of beauty is such that people should be popped out of a mold. Society as a whole doesn't seem to appreciate beauty in uniqueness, but in sameness. And Lady Gaga, except for being skinny, never really fit that mold. She was never really the empty-headed pop star, staying close to the edge but never really crossing it, that society has come to appreciate. She jumped off that edge. Early on, a lot of half-wits were suggesting that she was in fact a he. Considering that she doesn't seem to own a single pair of pants, I'd say such an assertion is easily debunked.

Now, I'm only using her as an example, so let's step away from the Gaga.

You're still looking for dirty pictures of her on Google, aren't ya?

Well dammit, at least wipe the keyboard!

Anyway, we see it all the damned time. First, it was the models. Okay, we know that those are "beautiful people." Regardless, more and more people started measuring themselves by models' standards. Obviously, that didn't work out so well.  Then other people measuring them up to models' standards. Again, didn't work out so well.

The media started outright saying that if we didn't look like those models, we were grossly obese. We started seeing all kinds of articles with titles like "the Girth of a Nation." Articles from sources that people trust were now calling them fat, disgusting slobs.

Of course, like I often say, this is nothing new. We've been seeing the body image issues being passed down from generation to generation... just that now, it's getting especially vicious. We see concern-trolling mothers telling their daughters that they're just so worried that they seem to be putting on a couple pounds, or not losing those couple pounds. If you mention your body image issues to a doctor or even to a psychiatrist, rather than telling you to first learn to love the body you have, they give you exercise and diet advice. Understandable if the weight is a real health issue... heart disease, diabetes, etc. But I'm specifically talking about ideas of what beauty is. And the ones giving the exercise or diet advice don't even realize that they're contributing to the problem. The psychiatrists/counselors in particular, their area of expertise is supposed to be mental illness and emotional healing. By giving exercise and dieting advice to a patient with body image issues, they are only validating the issues.

I've seen cases where a girl is hospitalized for starving herself almost to death, and those closest to her are saying things like, "but I don't understand - she was doing so well!" Obviously not. Obviously there's a big problem here.

Then there's the idea that models are no different from anyone else; if they can do it, so can we. Perhaps true, but not without some major risks. Eating disorders are fairly routine in the modeling industry and quietly encouraged. I hear of models going on all-liquid diets. A friend of mine who used to be in modeling has said that watching a certain popular fashion show has made her regret every carb she ever ate. Last I knew, this friend was already a size 4 with a body most women would kill for, but she's still not happy.

I do have to give Lady Gaga props for this: Lady Gaga has no intention of dieting to combat weight gain, wants fans to love themselves for what they are.

Sounds good to me.

We'll just leave that part out...

Thought for the night: just as Jesus would probably be pissed at the stuff being done in his name, this nation's founders would be pissed about the stuff their names are being attached to.

I'm still pissed about the TEA Partiers and their blatant ignorance to history. The original Tea Party (you know, that one back in the 1700's) wasn't because of being taxed too much. It was because of a big corporate tax break - the East India Company wasn't being taxed at all while everyone else still had to pay taxes. The corporation controlled the government.

Does any of this sound familiar? Corporations buying politicians? Whining for more and more corporate tax breaks? People getting pissed?

The irony is just wacky.

Meanwhile, while the corporations get more, the average American is getting less. The income gap continues to widen - the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. This isn't capitalism, it's greed!

And the ignorance isn't quite as complete as I wish it was. Ignorance in itself is forgivable, as the ignorant can be taught. However, there are instead active misinformation campaigns. The TEA Party of today kept trying to change Wikipedia to make history closer fit their view of things. Texas chooses to mostly leave Thomas Jefferson out of the curriculum because his views differ from their own as to what America is supposed to be.

History is being silenced. Just as many Christians shun the teachings of Jesus, many self-described patriots choose to shun the founders, only acknowledging the parts that fit their views. So the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 said that America was not in any sense founded on Christianity? That's fine, we'll leave that out of history lessons and make damned sure that "under god" stays in the pledge, and "in god we trust" stays on the currency. Corporate tax breaks were a big part of why we fought the Revolution? We'll just leave out that little detail and say it was because of taxes and tyranny.

If you care (and you damn well should), then it's your duty to make sure history is not silenced. Make no mistake, it is repeating itself. The only differences are in technology and in scale.

If I had a larger following and it didn't seem such a cliche, I'd be tempted to launch my own campaign to "take back the TEA Party," aimed at educating people as to what it was really about.

Bai Mai Stuff!!!

You may have noticed the little graphic there at the upper right hand corner. Yes, I have opened a CafePress store for this blog for the sole purpose of getting all your money spreading my ideas and promoting my blog. Hey, I am a capitalist after all. So since Dodge is being cheap and ignoring my repeated requests for that nice, black Challenger (come on, guys... I promise I'll keep shamelessly plugging you!), maybe you all can help toward that goal. I even put this one on a nice, easy to remove car magnet in case you're driving through Texas... or parts of Arizona.

Anyway, click on the "Bai Mai Stuff!!!" graphic, or there's this URL: http://www.cafepress.com/hackwithablog ... it's still under construction, but it's functional.

Chick-fil-A (again)

Well, I actually got a happy bit of news today: Chick-fil-A agrees to stop funding anti-gay organizations. To me, this is great news, and having started my personal boycott on my own terms, I am now ending it on my own terms, assuming they don't do something else to piss me off. Dan Cathy, that means no more attaching your God's name to your homophobic sentiments. Also, it of course means keeping true to the agreement of no longer passing our money on to anti-gay groups. I won't begrudge people of their rights to their personal beliefs... but I do expect them to return the favor. I'll respect their beliefs as much as they respect everyone else's, and talking about God's judgement if you're anyone other than God is disrespectful. Be honest and identify it as your own judgement. I know, it lacks the convenient excuse of passing your prejudice on to a higher power, thereby avoiding responsibility... but if you actually believe in any god, one would think you'd be afraid to take it upon yourself to speak for Him.

As one might guess, some of the more fundamentalist Christians (probably the same ones who went in and said, "I support your company, because your company hates the gays") are pissed. Take a look at their Facebook page: Chick-fil-A on Facebook. The same Christians who were saying the boycott was childish and anti-capitalism are now talking about doing their own boycott.

Me, I don't care about whether the motive for the change of heart was a financial or moral one. First of all, I think it was the right choice. While I doubt Dan Cathy's personal views have changed, he's realized that people who disagree with him matter, too. This move demonstrates that fact. Next, bear in mind that not everyone who works for Chick-fil-A has shared his views. He doesn't speak for them - he's buying their time, not their souls.

Anyway, to show my support for their change in policy, I happily went over to one of their restaurants and had a couple sandwiches. I did miss that tasty food!

"The Innocence of Muslims"

Well, after watching events unfold, I figured I'd weigh in on the situation with the American ambassador in Libya being killed. Romney wasted no time in taking advantage of the situation for political gain, something that even some of his fellow Republicans have tried to distance themselves from. Of course, Islamophobes see themselves as the big winners in this, despite the fact that most Muslims, while being very offended by the video in question, were quick to condemn the attack.

The video in question is titled "the Innocence of Muslims," and as I understand, YouTube is taking it down. I watched what I believe to be the video myself - it's about fourteen minutes, and has all the grace and reliability of a badly-made Nazi propaganda film against Jews. It basically goes over the old anti-Islam propaganda, then makes it more offensive with crappy acting telling a crappier story.

Here's the video for those curious. Watch it now, as I don't know how much longer it will remain on YouTube:

The importance of watching it is easily explained: much like the deniers of the holocaust, it seems some are already suggesting that this video never happened... like our old "friend," Rush Limbaugh.

I am not saying the attack was entirely because of the video. That may not even be the main reason behind it. But, if I were to make a similar anti-Christian video (and believe me, there is plenty of material in the Bible to be used for such a video), there'd be many calling for my death. And, it wouldn't be anything new to me. Not on this blog, but I have had death threats over religion on a number of occasions. For my insistence on keeping church and state separate. For my defending people of all faiths as a whole, and pointing out similarities between certain religions that they'd rather not think about. It's always, "but we're right and they're wrong!" Horse shit! Anyone who truly has faith in their own religion doesn't feel a need to make everyone else believe it. To need everyone else believe as you do implies one (or both) of two things: 1) you're insecure in your faith and need everyone else to do it, too, or 2) you're twisting a religion to your own beliefs to gain control and dominion. This goes for atheists or anti-theists, too.

Others are saying that we are blaming the victim in this. After all, we do respect freedom of speech, yes? And this video is only an exercise of such, yes? Well, that depends. I've often pointed out the double standards many hold when exercising freedom of speech. Consider that it's been determined that the Ku Klux Klan is protected by free speech. But what about the Black Panthers? The two really aren't any different. And of course we're well familiar with extremist Christians who say that anyone else asserting rights to their own beliefs are violating the Christians' rights. 

But, if you announce you're going to go kill someone, the police will certainly have a talk with you about that. If you slander someone or print lies about them, you can be sued, to say the least. I think it would be interested if some of the minority religions actually did start suing Christian organizations and authors for libel. So basically, freedom of speech ends where you start infringing on the rights of others... whether it be threats or character assassination by lies. As such, yes, I believe that those who lie to incite violence (whether intended or not) do have some blood on their hands.

Personally, I say that the videos should be left up, simply because of the deniers already coming out. It's a reminder of the ignorance the Muslims are working against. Remember what I said about 9/11 being a wake-up call? Same with this - wake up!

All the bullshit aside, this is the work of extremists. If their motive was purely that video, well, that's about as pitiful as a constipated chihuahua. I doubt that's the case, though. Many people in the Middle East do like us to some extent - I hear the ambassador was actually well-liked in Libya. However, others see our presence as a violation of their sovereignty, and still others are merely desperate and easily fired up.

"Corporations are People"

There is a trend on both sides that annoys me - if a candidate on the other side says something that sounds bad out of context, or sounds the least bit stupid, they latch onto it like a hungry snake. One that the left really latched onto is the, "corporations are people, my friend." Out of context, it sounds like a dumb out of touch rich guy (fair description of Romney, perhaps) saying quite literally that corporations as a whole deserve all the same rights as people.

That's not quite what he was saying, though. Let's put in the rest of what he said for context (thanks to Washington Post for the text):

“Of course they are,” Romney said. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”

That much is true. I won't argue that point. But, contrary to what Romney said, corporations indeed are not people. They are made of people, but in themselves are not people. What the businessmen built were not people, but businesses. Made of people, from the lowly customer service type people who will likely side with the ones who say they're underpaid (liberals) to the execs and business owners who will side with whoever will let them keep the larger portion of their wealth (conservatives) and everyone in-between.

What Romney was saying here was that giving tax cuts to a corporation is the same as giving tax cuts to people as a whole. I'm guessing that he figures it will trickle down. But, remember what I keep saying: the rich really like to just keep their money. Why trickle it down when they could just keep it instead? It's not like there's any limit on how much money they can have.

Yeah, they'll spend some money, and that will help keep other businesses in business... but in general, they will not hire more workers than they really have to, and they will not pay said workers much more than they have to. Raise the legal wages? Fine, they'll raise prices and lay off workers, then keep even more profits to themselves. That's the way it works. Trickle Down is a rotten lie. But, in general, the rich like it. It moves their responsibilities to a "good faith" footing.

Hey, Republicans - don't look at me like that. I said I was putting the quote in context, not that I was defending Romney.

The Obligatory 9/11 Post

I actually hadn't planned on doing a 9/11 post, and was leaning against doing so. Not because I don't care... but more for the same reason I dislike Valentine's Day and Christmas - as they have become overly-commercialized, 9/11 has become overly-politicized... well, perhaps it always has been rather than having become.

Shortly after it, in a surprisingly short time really, the Patriot Act was created. The name itself draws criticism to those who would oppose it, so most didn't even bother reading it - the nation was still in shock that we'd been attacked on our own soil. Historically, pretty rare. America has the luxury of only having two major nations nearby, along with a few smaller island nations. So we don't live under the constant threat of attack like many other nations, such as in Europe, the Middle East, or Africa. In parts of the Middle East or Africa, such attacks sometimes seem like an everyday occurrence. Often, we have a part in that fact. Many Americans cheer when they hear it. Then they don't understand how someone else can be pissed at us for it.

The fact is that many of us are ignorant. We don't pay attention to world events. We treat war like a football game - we wear our teams colors and cheer as the other guys get their butts kicked. I'd say that Americans overwhelmingly support Israel, but I'm not sure that one in five could tell you about the six day war, or why the Palestinians would be pissed at them. I guess it's easier to cheer when you don't know the facts. It's much easier to say "bad guys/good guys" than it is to learn actual motives.

That said, 9/11 was definitely a tragedy. A lot of people died who didn't deserve to. I'm not going to play devil's advocate for bin Laden, he doesn't deserve it, and I'm glad he's finally out of the equation. There were a lot of heroes who risked and in many cases sacrificed their lives to save others. They won't be and shouldn't be forgotten.

On that same note though, let's see war and death for what it really is. It's pain, it's death. Those who have the least to lose are the most willing to die... think of the suicide bombers. Seriously, a vague promise of 72 virgins after death really wouldn't seem that appealing to someone enjoying life who isn't seeing death all around anyway. If you're going to die anyway, then why not with glory, right?

We should not surrender to or negotiate with terrorists. But, we also have to accept that people are going to be pissed when we ignorantly and unquestioningly cheer for foreign policy that affects them negatively. Learn the facts, then decide from there.

Living Wage

This is something that's been getting increasingly common, and is supported by liberals and hated by conservatives. For my part, I'm generally seen as fairly liberal, but I don't love it or hate it. The idea behind the living wage is pretty simple - some areas are more expensive to live in than others, so the federal minimum wage simply doesn't cut it. Of course, that is likely the case nationwide - that the federal minimum wage doesn't cut it. But, as I've said before, wage increases simply don't work like we'd like them to. Rather than execs or business owners taking a cut in their pay, they lay off workers and raise prices, thus causing more unemployment and higher cost of living across the board, thus being a self-perpetuating problem. It's ugly, but that's the way it works. A city raising its living wage also will encourage businesses to either open up just outside of town or to move just outside of town to avoid having to pay the living wage.

That is not to say however that current, even living wages, are sufficient to get by on, as many Republicans suggest. For my part, I live in the southwest, so that's the area I'm most familiar with. The federal minimum wage is, if memory serves, $7.50/hour. The Santa Fe living wage is $10.29/hour - the highest in the nation, or so I've heard. Now, Santa Fe has always had a high cost of living - that's no secret. A big part of it is that they have ordinances saying that it shall always remain a small city, no buildings over two or three stories without a special permit, that sort of thing. It's for the tourists.

So, let's do the math here:
$10.29/hour ˣ 40 hours per week = $411.60 per week, or if we go by the average 2 week pay period, $823.20 per pay period. Using two pay periods (4 weeks) to represent a month, as most bills are due monthly, that's $1,646.40 per month.

That's before taxes.

For filing single, the federal income tax looks to be about 15% in this bracket. So, $1,646.40 ˣ 0.15 = $246.96. So, we subtract that from our original figure: $1,646.40 - 246.96 = $1,399.44. But, we're not done yet. Let's look at the state income tax. The state income tax for New Mexico is 4.9%, so subtract 4.9% from the original figure: $1,646.40 ˣ 0.049 = $80.67, so let's go ahead and take that out of the $1,399.44 figure = $1,318.77. Looking around online, it seems that the Social Security withholding is 6.2%, although I think it's probably more. We'll go with the 6.2% though. $1,646.40 ˣ 0.062 = $102.08. So, let's take that out of the 1,318.77 = $1,216.69. There are other deductions, but the big three will work as a jumping-off point. We already know that Santa Fe has a high cost of living, so let's apply there living wage numbers to a nearby larger city with a lower cost of living. Because I have some experience with it, I'll use Albuquerque as an example.

I used to have a low income apartment there, where they got their profits in part from tax credits for providing the low income housing for qualified tenants. I was paying $600/month for a one-bedroom apartment, all utilities included. Not bad... so let's take that out of the $1.216.69 = $616.69. Me, I don't have car payments - my car was bought straight-away from a private individual rather than a dealership, and I get pretty reasonable mileage. But, if you have car payments, that can take anywhere from another $200-$400 out of that $616.69... and someone with this kind of income, well... often, the predatory types are the only ones who will sell a vaguely modern/reliable car to someone with this sort of income. Let's do kind of a conservative estimate and say payments are $250, and take that out of the remaining monthly income = $366.69. Insurance is probably another $70/month, roughly, so that brings us down to $296.69. $200 a month seems about right for groceries, right? Assuming one's not going on an all-Ramen/mac and cheese diet (really unhealthy). How about gas? Right now, it's about $3.70/gallon.

Well, with those figures, you'll be lucky to break even... that's assuming no incidentals, like medical bills, car repairs, etc. With those, hopefully you'll have some savings, but not too likely. Your option then is to get a roommate or to find a cheaper apartment. Like I said, that was already a low income apartment. Maybe find a studio? Maybe a cheaper part of town (like the war zone)? And roommates aren't often all that great, either. I've known best friends to turn into worst enemies for that.

"But minimum wage is just for people flipping burgers!" Not really. People working call centers/customer service make about that Santa Fe living wage. As do many people working in the medical field with "certified" or "assistant" in their titles - medical assistants, certified pharmacy techs, certified nurse's assistants, etc. They often have to take more than one job to make ends meet, and their hours don't always make it easy to plan around to have another job. Also think of your waitresses - they generally make below minimum wage (there are special exceptions for jobs that get tips), and survive off their tips. Bank tellers also make around that Santa Fe living wage.

Yet, with all that financial stress of their own, all these people are nonetheless expected to show up every day dressed nice and with a smile and cheerful attitude to help you out.

While a living wage is not the answer for the reasons I've mentioned in previous posts as well as toward the beginning of this post, I think that we do need to find an answer.

Have I gone nuts or something?

Two topics today:
First, how the hell can I like both Johnson and Obama?

This is a question that I've been asked by a number of people, I suspect in attempts to discredit my knowledge of politics. Of course, we all want to believe that those who disagree with us are idiots, or at the very least, ignorant on whatever given subject... and we generally measure the knowledge of others by how much they agree with us. Arrogant, to say the least - to act in such a way assumes that we are the ultimate authority on a subject.

On the surface, perhaps, it would seem that the two are complete opposites - more so than Obama and Romney, even. But, that's only true if your attention is only focused on the current hot-button issues. Government spending, certainly... Obamacare... stuff like that. What about liberties and equal rights? Johnson supports equal rights for same sex couples, and so does Obama. On women's issues, hard to compare... they are pretty close. I guess it would depend on perspective. Obama said he would get rid of the Patriot Act, but sadly renewed it. I figure Johnson would be the one to actually end it. They both advocate internet freedom, although it's easier to trust Johnson's hands-off approach on this. Johnson wants to legalize marijuana, Obama has kept quiet on the subject... but has admitted to smoking the stuff in the past. Gun rights... well, I was nervous about Obama at first, but he has so far stood up for them pretty well even in the face of foreign leaders practically demanding that he tighten gun laws or ban them altogether.

The thing is that both candidates really want about the same thing, though Obama's more a politician (if you've been keeping up with my blog, you know that that's not exactly a compliment). They both want to improve the economy, but they have different plans. They both want America and its people as a whole to be better off, but go about it different ways. Different paths to (hopefully) the same goal. Obama's idea is to give more government aid, while Johnson's is to have the government back off. Both ideas can work, and both ideas can seriously fuck things up, all according to how it's done.

The Republicans, for example, claim to want government to back off. However, their idea of backing off is to deregulate for corporations and to give more and more tax breaks to the wealthiest, and will do any favors they can for the wealthiest while screwing over the rest and and accusing any who object of "class warfare." They are, after all, helping themselves out in doing so. Kind of like voting themselves an off-the-record pay raise. But, that's the extent of their "small government" - they still want to legislate your morals.

The Democrats on the other hand... the nannies. Their legislation tends to intrude on personal decision making, such as Bloomberg's ban on big soft drinks. And while well intentioned, raising the minimum wage in itself isn't going to work - it'll cause lay-off's and price increases, thus increasing the overall cost of living. Let's remember, business owners and execs (even the ones that really are rolling in the money) don't want to take a pay cut just to give their workers pay that they can actually live on. Also, while I don't support relaxing current environmental regulations, tightening them unnecessarily in the US really won't do much until other nations catch up. Comparatively speaking, we're not doing too terrible hear. However, look at China. Look at Mexico. Fiscally speaking, it would take much less for them to catch up to us. We should still always look for improvements, but let's also let our own businesses catch up on their profits a bit and encourage other nations to catch up on their pollution controls.

Anyway, between Obama and Johnson, I think it would be a win if either one of these candidates won. Romney, not so much. For me, the tie-breaker may be Obamacare, which brings me to my second topic:

How the hell can I support Obamacare?

Won't it completely bankrupt the healthcare industry? Think of it this way - you're driving your brand new black 2012 Dodge Challenger (WANT!), then someone runs a red light and smashes into your new beauty of a car. No problem, insurance will take care of that... oh? What's that? The other driver doesn't have insurance? Damn... well, guess it's a good thing you had to pay extra for that uninsured driver coverage, huh? Except while the hell should you have to?

Consider this: a lot of Americans don't have health insurance. It's not because they're irresponsible; it's because they can't afford it. Or they get denied because of pre-existing conditions. Not all employers provide health insurance, after all... my last two jobs didn't. Nonetheless, if someone walks into a doctor's office in extreme pain or in need of emergency help, legally, they have to help at least to stabilizing the patient... thankfully. The value of someone's life shouldn't depend on how rich they are. This leaves the patient with a debt to the doctor's office/clinic/hospital... and in many cases, the patient will not be able to pay off said debt, leaving the doctor's office/clinic/hospital with a bad debt and not much they can do to collect it.

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) addresses these issues. First, insurance companies won't be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions... and make no mistake, they will find any asinine reason they can to do so. Childhood asthma, depression, PCOS (Poly-Cystic Ovary Syndrome... fairly common, many cases go undiagnosed and untreated)... the list goes on. Insurance companies are a business after all, and they want their profits.

Next, the question of insurance companies being hurt, or them jacking up their rates. Obama essentially called bullshit on the insurers on this one in the form of the 85-15 rule. That is, 85% of their funds go to patient care with the remaining 15% used for whatever they feel like - administration, whatever. 

As for the question of the metaphorical uninsured driver... that's where the especially controversial individual mandate comes in. Basically, everyone is going to pay into healthcare somehow, if not through insurance, then through a fine or whatever you want to call it, that is withheld from tax refunds. I suppose you could call said fine your annual insurance dues.

I think that Obamacare does deserve a chance. It likely will reduce overall costs associated with healthcare on the private level as well as the government level as well as giving everyone at least minimal health insurance of some kind.