Friday 17 September 2010

CAN I HEAR AN AMEN?!

I am going to get into trouble for this one, I can just feel it, but needless to say, I’m tired, the King has flexed his power and crushed the scheduling revolution us minions were trying to carry out, and I’m all fired up after reading about the Pope’s visit online.

So, I’m curious, when did secularism become such a dirty word? When did not believing in something – a choice every one of us has the last time I checked - garner such scathing judgment especially from those that are supposed to be above such judgment?

The Pope is visiting England this week; for those of you reading tabloids instead of the news (yes, I know, almost one in the same), his visit has been talked about relentlessly for a variety of reasons: the cost of his visit, the actual point of his visit, the ongoing abuse scandals rocking the Catholic church, his past affiliation with the Nazi party, and of course the unique statements that come out of his mouth. [My mother is running through the streets screaming my child is a heathen right about now. Sorry Mom. Blame Dad].

In a speech given the other day, The Pope likened atheists to Nazi Germany. In short, he warned that extreme secularists and their wish to ‘eradicate God’ (his words, not mine) from society, would lead to a truncated vision as in the days of a godless Nazi Germany.

Hmmm, okay. So those of us who do not believe as his eminence does – see, I can be respectful - are lumped in a pile with an establishment that killed over six million Jews. Gosh. Thanks for that. Hey, Mr. Pope (not you sweetie - it happens to be my partner's surname), I have to say I take offense to that. Since when did not believing in organized religion mean that one wants to eradicate God? On the contrary, I’m all for those to believe what they want to believe, and I know better than to think that I fall into the majority when it comes to my beliefs; religion is part of the fabric of most nations. Fine, I have come to accept that, but I’d like the same right without being branded an immoral society killer.

The Pope went on to say that some out there – ahem, us non-believers – not only have questionable morals without the presence of religion in our lives, but seek to privatize it (cause gosh, god forbid people keep their religion to themselves as a sacred, personal intimate thing) and paint it as a threat to equality and liberty. Cause apparently organized religion across the board does not have a discriminating bone in its body. The Pope claims that religion, on the contrary is a “guarantee of authentic liberty and respect, leading us to look upon every person as a brother or sister.”…Unless of course you’re gay, or you believe in another god that Catholicism doesn’t recognize - and there are many opposing gods out there, or you divorce, or oh yeah, you use condoms or believe in a woman’s right to choose. Cause then you’re going straight to hell in a flaming bucket with wings.

I can never understand when people find out I don’t believe as they do, they look at me with pity in their eyes. Like I’m lost from a flock and need saving. Trust me when I say this, I’m okay. I don’t need saving. I’m very very happy for you that you’ve found what you’re looking for, but guess what, so have I, and it’s not in church. As for us secularists being blaspheming immoral heathens, I want you to look around at some of the most religious folks out there – or so they’ve claimed: Jim Baker (embezzler), Jimmy Swaggart (shagged a prostitute), Rabbi Neulander (tried to have his wife killed), Dr. Henry Lyons (racketeering); John Geoghan (accused of molesting over 100 boys over 30 years during his time as a Roman Catholic Priest) – and then talk to me about moral high ground.

I think the National Secular Society of Britain said it best (better than I can anyway) secularism "is not something to criticize, but to celebrate. We have rejected dogmatic religion devoid of compassion; In its place we have embraced and included gay people and given them the right to full equality, given women the right to control their own fertility, given scientists a free hand to seek cures for horrific diseases by the use of stem-cell research."

Here here, now pass the wine and let’s all just get along.

Thursday 16 September 2010

I THINK BRAD PITT IS MELTING

Someone please explain to me the point of celebrity look-alikes? I have trouble with the existing group of individuals we call ‘celebrities’ – as a construct of course, nothing against the people...okay, some of the people - let alone a group of individuals who claim to look like Brad Pitt or Britney Spears. But apparently this is a profession – I was going to say legitimate, but I couldn’t get my fingers to type the word – where one can make a living going to parties, being hired by companies, or appearing at store openings. I’m thinking there must be pseudo celebrity strippers as well. Can’t you just see it, some dude resembling Sly Stallone dressed as Rambo whipping it off for Grandma and her friends.

The funny thing is, half of these people never resemble the celebrities they are supposed to look like. It’s usually some girl with long brown hair and big lips who claims that her entire life she has been mistaken for Angelina Jolie. Usually they tell you this like it’s been an unbearable burden to carry, but one they are resigned to accepting. “I can barely go to the mall without being stopped by a pack of wild teen boys who want my autograph. It's really traumatic.” Or how about the lookalikes that resemble a celebrity no one even remembers or cares about. Now there is a quest for a higher purpose in life. "Don't you know who I am? I'm the principal from 'Saved By The Bell.' Geeesh!" The truly scary types are the ones that take this ball and run with it, not only down the field but out of the stadium. They get plastic surgery to hone their celebrity look, get the same tattoos, wear similar clothing in their everyday life...In essence, they do their utmost to become someone else, a real someone. Cause every one knows that celebrities are ‘someone,’ while us civilians are, well, just that.

Then again, I’m not sure who worries me more, the people trying to look like a public figure, or those encouraging their behavior. If I am having a party, I want Alexander Skarsgard there in the flesh, thank you very much, not some tall Nordic guy that walks around with plastic fangs in his back pocket for when he gets ‘recognized.’ I suppose those that are utterly fascinated with the notion of celebrity take what they can get. I’m thinking these are the same individuals who stand in line for hours at Madame Tussaud's wax museum so that they can take a photo of themselves standing next to Robert Pattinson. Who by the way is NOT Robert Pattinson. It is wax. Do you hear me, you are photographing WAX. It’s not like you can even say, oh I was out at this restaurant and I saw Brad Pitt and I snapped him on my iphone. On the contrary, the best you can muster is that you went to London – which should be the high point of your story – waited in line in the pelting rain (odds are it was), and then fought the crowds with the other questionable sorts to take a photo of a wax figurine. It’s like going on a virtual vacation or eating fake food. It’s not actually happening, people.

Wednesday 15 September 2010

DE-VEILED

The French senate just approved a ban on any veils covering the face, including the burqa – the full body covering as worn by some Muslim women (Muslims which make up 6% of France mind you). The law passed by a huge majority making France the first European country to pass such a law, and according to a poll, the people of France backed the ban four to one. I have to say hearing this left me a bit speechless.

It is hard to believe we live in a day and age where something like this could happen. Then again, I can’t say that I’m surprised at all as I am a big believer that we are heading into George Orwell territory fast and furiously (in fact, I think we're already there). Whether or not you support such a move or are dead set against it, it has set a monumental precedent. And the message: the government has full power to tell its people what it can and cannot wear. Which, as far as I’m concerned is one step closer to a fascist state. And no, I’m not being dramatic.

The French government’s justification is that essentially the burqa is damaging to the dignity of women, the community, and helps enforce inequality between the sexes, even if it is worn voluntarily. And if this law is defied, it can be met with a substantial fine and/or imprisonment. On first blush I must admit that I wasn't so aware governments cared about inequality between men and women, cause as far as I can tell this has been occurring for years upon years, be it in pay, treatment in the workplace, domestic abuse situations, hell, just being pregnant puts us at a disadvantage....sorry, I digress.

Staying on point, I’m not a supporter of the actual wearing of a burqa; I can’t say as a woman I understand it – submission is really not something I’m good at, and I always hated my school uniform (and not only that, but the damn thing looks so hot especially in mid eastern temperatures)! But this said, I am not a Muslim, and I am one that wholeheartedly believes that if one chooses to do something, i.e. wear something that they believe in for whatever reason, then it is up to them to decide this, not me and certainly not their government. And moreover, their wearing of the burqa has no effect on me whatsoever. It is not contagious, it does emit some noxious fumes or upset my quest for fashion, in fact, it has always reminded me of the habits the nuns at my school used to have to wear all the time (why doesn't the French government have a problem with those, cause they look mighty constricting?? )

I think if a law like this doesn’t terrify people around the world it should. It may start with a burqa, but the floodgates are now open for a government to decide what clothing they deem fitting for society, and this is a very scary thought. Tomorrow it could be hoodies because they suggest anti-social behavior (according to those making laws), or T-shirts that say inappropriate phrases, or even better, suggestible clothing that one’s government suggests could incite sexual behavior. (Although I would not be sad to see half shirts disappear).

See this is yet another thing about America I love – and curiously 2 out of 3 Americans opposed the ban – no matter if some idiot next to me is wearing a shirt that says "I hate Lebanese Americans (that’s me) and want to see them beaten like dogs," he’s allowed to wear it. In fact, we pride ourselves on being a country where one is granted freedom of speech, expression, and religion, like it or not. In fact, I've often thought of wearing a veil just to prevent sun damage - SPF is just so clogging to the pores. I wonder what Sarkosy would have to say about that?

Tuesday 14 September 2010

THE BIG O

I’ve been watching Oprah for 25 years. That statement is terrifying even as I write it, as it makes me feel old, [and aside from breathing I really haven’t done anything consistently for twenty-five years]. But when it comes to the big O, I started young and never left the flock. My best friend and I used to come home from our respective high schools, meet at her house, park it on the sofa with various snack foods and watch her without fail. Back then Oprah was in competition with Sally Jessy Raphael, Donahue, Geraldo etc, who were all determined to break the bounds of sensationalism. You know the topics: incest, domestic abuse, cheating, racism, and so on. Whatever it was, it didn’t matter, my friend and I would tune in, talk during the entire show – cause of course we had to weigh in about her outfit, her hair, how she looked, how hard the guests cried. It was interactive television at its finest.

Then over the years, Oprah started to evolve as the other talk shows died away. She got more spiritual – or at least started to discuss it; she created book clubs, charitable foundations, television movies, even her own reality show, which of course had a good cause behind it (I was dubious at first, but let this one slide cause she was the big O). And with all of this her hair changed styles, her weight fluctuated - and was heavily documented and discussed - and her shoes got more expensive, not to mention her jewelry budget (she has these diamond earrings that are the size of small boulders, they are truly awe inspiring). Of course by her side through all of this was her best friend Gayle, I’m thinking one of the luckiest women in the world as she had a front row seat to just about everything…you thought I was going to say Steadman, didn’t you. Over the years, she also got a hell of a lot more fun. She still had the periodic guest with the tragic story that would leave you in a heap of tears on the floor (okay okay, it is a woman centered show), but she'd also show you that being a billionaire with a platform to do or say just about anything was a damn fine place to be. Be it the celebrity guests, or the roadtrips with Gayle, or the inside look into her life - the Big O isn't afraid of bearing all, she would put it out there.

But the best part of her evolution was her move into the world of philanthropy, as there is nothing better than watching someone hideously wealthy give away their money. She’d give away cars to her entire audience (yes, cars), or her ‘favorite things’ every Christmas (which usually ranged from food items to the more expensive luxuries like espresso machines and refrigerators) vacations, redo houses, give makeovers, fulfill dreams – I mean literally, if someone had a dream, she would make it happen on her ‘dream show.’ The sky was the limit – I’m thinking with a billion dollars in your bank you have a bit to work with. Recently she started her last and final season by sending her entire studio audience to Australia for eight days. That is 300 people all expenses paid on an eight-day excursion half way across the world. You don’t see Jerry Springer pulling that move, now do you.

My point of all this, is we need more Oprahs in the world. Love her or hate her (I find it is usually men that have a problem with her. My suspicion is that they feel threatened that a woman has done as well as she has. But that’s me.] having a billionaire woman with a philanthropic heart determined to change and enlighten the world is a good thing. Not to mention, any woman (especially a heavily endowed black woman, not some stick thin blond bombshell) that joins the billionaire boys club in four-inch Louboutin shoes is a good step for the women’s movement.

Monday 13 September 2010

BANG BANG YOU'RE DEAD

A nice uplifting story for our Monday morning – you know I’m being facetious, don’t you? Over the weekend a man in Kentucky shot and killed five people, followed by himself; why did he do this? Because apparently his wife with whom he shared his trailer did not cook his eggs the way he wanted them cooked. Yes, that’s right. His eggs were scrambled instead of fried. His answer to this was to grab his shotgun, shoot her, their daughter, and then go on a rampage in the trailer park and shoot three of his neighbors. This is precisely why I don’t speak to my neighbors. If I want a cup of sugar I go to the store.

Seriously, are people this angry? And how are we not more worried about the state of the human race when people are going Rambo on their neighborhood over dairy products? Okay, fine, the man clearly had deep-seated issues that had nothing to do with his sunny side up yokes, but it’s hard to imagine that the trigger (pun intended of course) of this horrific event was something so mundane. Then again, perhaps it always is.

What is even sadder is that in the lovely country where I’m from, one is allowed to have a rifle sitting in their trailer that they can freely use for human target practice. Yes, yes, calm down, right to bear arms, second amendment, blab la bla. Trust me, I’m all about taking the constitution very seriously, but guns are one of those things it is next to impossible for me to see a positive side to. For starters, they are used to kill people, not to mention aid in a variety of violent crimes; they are used to kill animals; they kill thousands of kids a year in accidental shootings in the home…and moreover, any nut job can go and get one. In some states, the accessibility to buying a gun is downright frightening. In fact it’s harder to buy porn and cigarettes. The problem is, these days I do not have enough faith in my common man for everyone to carry a gun. I want severe and profound psychological testing before someone is given a firearm. It seems like a no brainer, no? Finding out of the person has a propensity for, I don’t know…killing (!!) before they are handed a gun seems like a good reason not to give them one.

Australia and Britain do not have guns, certainly not like we do. The police do not carry guns (unless they are part of the armed response unit) and the news is not rife with shootings on a weekly basis like in America. When I tell people who are not from here that the police do not carry guns, they are astounded. They always ask – as I did when I first heard this – what do they do when they’re trying to apprehend a criminal?? As far as I can tell, as the criminal most likely does not have a gun, a baton and taser probably does the job. I know, amazingly civilized, right? “Stop, or I’ll club you like a seal!”

It is nothing like my fair country where criminals practically carry uzis (actually, I think they really do) and the police have to go into heavily crime-ridden areas with armored tanks and rocket launchers. And this is because we believe so heavily in the right to carry guns; cause apparently there is such a need to protect ourselves from revolutions. At this point, I’m more scared of my neighbor’s wife serving her husband waffles when he wanted pancakes.

Latest Posts