strongchad

Apparently the idea of an all ages show is a major turn-off for anyone over the age of 21 in Boston. Personally, I just want to go hear the DJ spinning and go the the Avalon for the first time.

See, even 18+ years in Boston and there are some things I haven't done yet!

One of my best friends is getting married tomorrow. This time it was actually not by choice but due to some time constraints. However, it does keep alive my streak of weddings flaked on and missed. I'm pushing about an even 10 right about now of avoided weddings. At this rate, I'm liable to miss my own wedding when it happens.

And damn Marko for getting engaged because he already told em the date so how can I miss another one of my best friend's weddings. Dammit!

And why am I writing here right after I said I wasn't going to? Oh yeah, cause I can't log onto Myspace from work. Internet nazis!!!

This jourral is going private for a bit. I'm retooling some stuff, editing some stuff, and making some changes, and adding some stuff I wrote elsewhere, plus haven't been writing ehre enough (damn you myspace), but it'll be back in the public eye at some point.

Sometimes people think to themselves “I don’t want what everyone else wants. I want something different.”

This leads them to deny and just about outlaw the norm. Some decide that it doesn’t work for them and there must be another way. I agree. There is more than the white picket fence and 2.5 kids out there and some people don’t want always want that.

The problem is, people who want something else still tend to become an archetype of something or other in their quest for something different. I saw it on the bus the other day, three kids sitting in the back. Now from first look, one could tell they weren’t the popular kids in their high school most likely. No shame in that, but in an attempt to carve out a niche, they adopted the punk look.

Of course, it’s the new millennium and these kids were not even born when punk was new, but that’s besides the point. So is the fact they probably don’t know what it really stood for and instead fell for the stereotype instead of the fact. I could tell that just by their conversation alone that they had co-opted what is viewed as what a punk should be and not what it was. Once again, not the point.

The thing is though they didn’t find their own thing or create their own way, they just found one already out there and assimilated to that one seemingly nigh complete. This isn’t finding your own way. This isn’t an effective way to be unique. Instead its just filling the expectations of an already existing stereotype.

I’ve seen people fall so into a way of life that they fit the stereotype nearly perfectly as if to assert their difference from others they end up so much like something else we’ve seen before. I’ve seen people who dress and act the part and when I get to know them, I still find their likes and dislikes, habits and hobbies, even fall into the stereotypes pattern and circle of influence.

Punks who like punk music, wear clothespins on clothes purposely tattered and talk about anti-establishment views while they talk about how different they are. Hippies who smoke pot, burn incense and listen to the same music time and again while they laze about smoking pot and talking about things they want to do and about being non-conformist while conforming to just another stereotype. Preppies, who wear a suit and tie to work at a corporate office while going on trips to amusement parks, trying to differentiate themselves from the other common working stiffs with nice home appliances and trips to the Cape talking about being a different breed but looking eerily similar.

There are dozens of them of all shapes and sizes and they all tend to try to be unique by trying to fit in someplace else with others similar to them.

Can’t blame ‘em, of course. It is human nature to try to fit in and find like minded people who don’t stray too far from your course. It is comforting. It makes us feel part of a community. Even those who don’t want to be in the mainstream community have a habit of becoming a poster child for another community.

I’ve played a ton of roles in my time. Nerd. Punk. Geek. Hippie. Preppy. Indie. Corporate schlub. Blue collar schmoe. Intellectual savant. Drunken slob. Responsible rock. Daydreaming drifter. I adapted myself to images here and there, adopted aspects of a sub-culture again and again. And yes, some of those times I was sucked into a stereotype and got caught up in it and lost identity in it for a time.

In the end, no stereotypical role fits nicely. It is easy to play the role though as it is easier to be the expected, easy to swallow archetype. It makes you accessible more readily to other people than being an enigma and an amalgam.

Perhaps when one does not find the mainstream acceptable and society in general does not look like a totally attractive prospect alone to just go with the flow to and a person does not want to the average or be the norm, one shouldn’t just deny it all and take up some anti-hero role and assimilating into another stereotype. Instead, immerse yourself in it all. Or better yet, don’t let anything make you theirs. Instead make your own way through it in your own style, bending the rules of society and it’s roles. In the end, make it all your own.

Was I wrong? Well, probably not, but it doesn't freakin' matter anyway.


Indeed ma'am. I posted, like I normally do, and like I have before many a time I posted something that caught my eye and resembled my mood and thoughts. Sometimes its a quote, sometimes some song lyrics, sometimes I post an article I read about something of interest and humor. This time I posted a poem I found late last night on my computer in a random folder with no name and without really analyzing it.

Then typical over-reaction began when a person ignored the fact it was nameless and also in quotes in case it wasn't mine (since there wasn't a name on said poem and I wasn't in the mood to spend much time thinking about it, I figured a quotation should suffice) and decides I shouldn't use something already in existence that may or may not have been theirs to begin with to describe my thoughts and/or attitudes. But the initial reason it was put up wasn't for authorship or recognition, but because I liked it and it reflected a mood and attitude. Much like I used Lauren's Rush Hour Allegory in quotes and giving her props even though it wasn't mine way back as my first entry. This time I just didn't have an author listed though it could have been mine and was found under my folder. But with a few hundred things written and not all with my name on it, you can lose track from time to time.

Of course, if said person can't let the past go and carries with them a grudge for wronging me in the past for some reason (who knows why at this point), then what is a nice boy like myself to do after putting it in quotes just in case their were discrepancies and no one listed on the thing? Well, in this case, get myself a chuckle and be flattered they still find the time to read my LJ which I figure is only for me anyway and the occasional friend who drops by.

Well, luckily I feel more than ok and fine with myself and my high integrity is still intact.That is not in question and no one, especially under these circumstances, would it even scratch it. They don't have the ammo for it.

Either way, I will chalk this up to miscommunication and over-reaction for the simple reason that people in these situations always tend to over react and people always jump to quick conclusions before they think straight. If not, then they need to grow up. Its not like I'm making money or fame off of quoting Ralph Waldo Emerson or putting down the lyrics to a Killers song, it is just a reflection of thoughts and feelings, or perhaps just a enjoyment from topic regardless if it was mine or theirs. And if it is theirs, they should be flattered I came across something I liked and even though I had no idea they might have had something to do with it and enjoyed it enough to share. Well, luckily there is the "friend" ability to use (which I use on a regular occasion so I can post something to people who are hip enough to know).


*editors note: Apparently my friend was just a little misguided. They didn't realize it was one of 3 poems I wrote and sent THEM in Spring 2002! After a little exploration, luckily I had the other files, all labelled sequentially and this one being #2 of 3 and the other ones having no debate over authorship, as well as them with dates of creation on them on my computer. Sweet vindication! Of course, this doesn't mean it does a lick to change someone's mind because they don't want to look wrong or unthoughtful after reacting the way they did, even if there is enough proof to back up my claim or at least put doubt out there and make it so they can understand why I feel I penned this, especially when I'm offered none of the same from someone who, in my opinion, has not always been the most honest person with me in the past (that was then, this is now so no hard feelings).

I'll be a nice enough guy and be the bigger person to at least let it be known while I am quite certain I wrote it and have looked over evidence available to me that backs up my thought, there is a discrepancy since someone else claims it is theirs (funny though how I have to defend something I didn't even take credit for and put in quotes to begin with), I will say that it seems the authorship is up for debate. Thus while the average passerby may not see it, I've decided to keep it even if it is invisible to most, keeping it private.

So, I'll just say it, that the poem was by me or a slight possibility it may be by someone else. Since there seems to be a stalemate on this one, though possibly unreasonable as it may be. Spreading the written word and something of art, not for authorship or recognition, but for the sake of sharing a piece of something that touches me is not something to get riled up about. Its a pity some people do. But in the end, if someone read something, kudos to them. If they enjoyed it, I'm glad someone else did regardless of its origin.

Sadly this is one of those times "the truth" may just end up as whatever the someone percieves it as. But knowing the real "truth" sometimes gets lost in history and the biases of the human mind, so it may never be really known. If the truth is I wrote it, then YAY for the piece and guess what, if someone else wrote it, yay for the piece all the same.

Isn’t it getting a little annoying to see the media focusing on…the media? It has become increasingly self-reflective to the point I’m not sure the news talks about news that doesn’t pertain to the newsmakers anymore. I can’t open up a newspaper or turn on the TV without stumbling into a media bashing article disguised as a news story or another of the eleventh billion news parodies like The Colbert Report or the Daily Show. It has me guessing every time I try to gleam some current events from an outlet if I’m reading the news or reading news about the news.

When did the newspapers become to low class that it frequently resorts to name calling other media outlets and other papers. Notice I say name calling, not reporting actual news about their competitors. If a media outlet was involved in something truly heinous, like the NY Times guy not to long ago who made up a bunch of crap to look good, then that’s noteworthy. Instead, I see papers whining and bitching about one another like 12 year old girls talking behind the other’s back to a mutual friend. Sadly, us, the public, are the annoyed and frustrated friend who likes a little dirt now and then, but we have the Enquirer and People for that usually. You know, the dirty friend who can hook us up with our fix when we need it. But damn, the rest of you “respectable“ friends we don‘t mind being seen in public with, we only want just a bit of dirt from you and some quality time the rest of the time! Instead, its just getting ridiculous at this point. We just want you to both shut up and either get along or pretend the other doesn’t exist like good adults! Play nice or don’t play at all, you little brats.

Boston seems to be a good example of this. First, we have the respectable Globe. By that, I mean, yes we know you have your biases and miss your mark here and there, but you’re #1. The alpha male. But even the alpha male asserts its’ dominance here and there, and they get in their jabs, mostly at the #2 rival, the Herald, making sure it is known to us those folks over at the Herald can’t be trusted with their own sleaziness.

So, now on to #2. The upstart Herald. You’ve been around for what seems to be forever, but always stuck as “the other paper.” You’re a little like the NY Post with higher aspirations and think you’re respectable but try to achieve them in a dirtier fashion. Sort of like a Tony Soprano of print. You even have that book-like shape like the Post, going for that cross between newspaper and porno mag I think.

Day in and day out, we get our dose of Globe bashing from the Herald. “The Globe dropped the ball here” and “the globe fucked up there” and lest we forget “the Globe are a bunch of twacked out dickweeds from the Third Reich’s gene pool.” Ok, they didn’t say anything like that, but after the first few reads you start to think they want to. Yet I remember a time when you seemed like the equivalent in quality reading as the Globe, without the shit-slinging verbal abuse of your brother paper. But as time went on and all around we saw this disintegration They go after the paper in general, specific contributors, and their entire work ethic. I’m surprised it hasn’t resorted to Yo Mama jokes.

But that’s what we have The Dig for. For those of you who don’t know, The Dig is one of those free papers you pick up while waiting at the bus station or taking the subway because you don’t have the 50 cents for the other papers, want something a little more odd, got sick of reading the billboards on the train, or need something to wipe off spilled coffee from your crotch. There are a bunch of these papers out there, but seeing as how The Dig fits the stereotype so well, they get the nod.

Its free because it isn’t big enough to probably warrant a monetary exchange and if you count actual news items or interesting editorials towards your purchase of your newspaper needs, then the ratio of The Dig is somewhere less than next to nothing. it’s the LA Weekly without the interesting conspiracy theories and odd articles about an obscure city councilman but with just as much escort service advertisements in the back. Yes, you can go lower than the LA Weekly. The Dig not only proves it, it becomes a new standard all unto itself. You read The Dig, not for news, but to laugh at amusing, childish wordplay in their descriptions and for the profanity-laced random letter to the editor they publish weekly bitching about random things. Take these two real gems: a letter about a slovenly fat roommate who eats you food and doesn’t do the dishes, a flat tire on New Years, or a waste of air girl who makes her money being one of those “fake statutes” you see in Quincy Market or on Venice Beach who doesn’t like being made fun of…which I guess could be remedied by, I don’t know, getting a real freakin’ job! Folks, you need a new profession when fry cook at McDonalds is a step up from your line of work. But I digress…

The Dig is the epitome of media-bashing papers but delivering us nothing of consequence. It is one of those “I’m too hip for you” papers that’ll tell you which bars to go to or which music to listen to and what the hell cool is nowadays without probably anyone on the staff being that cool. I can tell you how they decide…the more obscure it is, the more likely it’ll be recommended, the more well known, the more they say the shit stinks but with more consistency than one of those indie hipster kids who actually listens to the music a little and has a guilty pleasure for Lance Bass. You know, one of those inverse ratio things we heard about when we slept through algebra in the 7th grade.

And that’s basically how they roll…like 7th graders. Hell, they actually taper off a section just for bashing the other media outlets in Boston, most specifically the other newspapers. Hell, they don’t even save it for the Globe and the Herald, they even go for the other cheap-o papers in Boston like the Metro and the Improper Bostonian. Wha-? Who the hell is the Improper…uh screw it, never mind. I won’t digress from this nitpicking, self-grandizing paper that spends more time bitching about how other people report news than actually reporting anything. The closest I think I got once was reading an article about one of their “reporters” walking through a protest about gay marriage rights, but read like a left out kid making fun of both sides to feel better about himself.

It is for that reason that I appreciate the wit and sarcasm of the Daily Show with their well crafted ribs and intelligent insight. Because The Dig and its brethren aren’t nearly as smart or witty and instead make up for their lack of this with base humor, insults, and well, acting like a frustrated junior high kid.

Where the Daily Show and to a lesser extent, The Colbert Report, may make intelligent analysis and utilize witty sarcasm, The Dig and its ilk are more of a “you suck you . This usually equals funny sounding words that do in fact amuse… like jizz-box or bitch-shoe. This is funny and they can amuse, but they don’t actually have much to say after the name-calling is done. Sort of like watching a Kevin Smith movie minus any attempts at a point or substance of any kind. Dick and fart jokes without Ben Affleck (but in a worse way).

If only this trend was limited to only the print media, but it seems to actually have its roots, or at least its strength, from its TV counterparts. After all, it was the Daily Show that first made it big as a news program with the laughs. Of course it was SNL that did it best first with its Weekend Update as far back when the words “I’m Chevy Chase and you’re not” was uttered back in the 70’s, but The Daily Show made it a full half an hour with Craig Kilborne straight from SportCenter that it started to take off. Then after Kilborne left, John Stewert took over the reins and it really blew up with his dry wit and slight odd goofiness.

There are just too many rip offs out there trying to do the same thing. I feel like even the “serious” shows are trying to steal from the Daily Show too. Except they take themselves seriously when they attack the media and don’t go for the real reasons to do it, but attack every freakin’ thing just for the sake of making the other look bad. We think of them as respectable, but its all a cover until we’re lured into the name callin’ like its recess at school. They are just cruel when it comes to blasting other media outlets. Relentless. And they are all giving everyone one of them a bad name.

Honestly, we all know Fox News is biased, MSNBC is biased, and “Hannity and Colmes” should just be called “Hannity and that other guy who’s here to make Hannity look good.” Let’s not beat dead horses even if I brought a club with me. Hell, you even have Comedy Central’s “Man Bites Dog” out there…a show parodying a news show. Isn’t that just The Daily Show without the facts or is it just Reno 9-11 with reporters? Ok, either way, it still blows.

If there were more intelligent and honestly done shows instead of these seemingly childish antics passing as news programming or journalism, I probably wouldn’t be worn out daily and wondering if it’s a waste of time to pick up a newspaper or watch the news. I can read Maxim if I want to read amusing articles or turn on Degrassi to see high school immaturity.

Its like that hippie friend of mine. Though they are fun to hang with because they make quite the class clown and are always up for a good time, they take them self too seriously and thinks of them self as an enlightened sort. They truly think they know something you don‘t, but its just a crock of shit they‘ve convinced them self of at this point. They give you a holier-than-thou attitude as if they should be respected for being lazy and immature because they can just rationalize a “noble” (I.e. Bullshit misperception) reason for their actions (or inaction). They think they know something we don’t, but instead they are hindering their own progress instead. Just like them, these media outlets and newspapers give off the impression of respectability by talking a good game,. Hell, just like that buddy, they’ve got their head so far up their asses sniffing their shit, they buy their own lies. In the end though, they are taking the easy way out too, just with lazy sleaze and trashing the other guy. Some are just more sneaky than others.

So, damn you Daily Show even though you’re a good show. Damn you for starting this trend to turn the news-takers into the newsmakers. As soon as there was some doubt in the public’s mind, the media grabbed a hold of it and used it for their own ends. First they get the American public to not trust each other so we don’t want to go out anymore and be friendly to our neighbors (especially that hot one down the street…yummy) and now we’re told every possible little thing that the news can say about each other until we’re not even sure we can or want to trust the news either? Just freakin’ great!

I mean, what’s next? People making news out of the news that attacks other news? Oh wait, I just did, didn‘t I? Damn!

Screw this. The Daily Show is on.

What is a friend? Who are your friends? Are you a good friend? I’ve been giving lots of thought to that lately. Why? Well, that isn’t important, but what I’ve come up with may well be. Mostly because I moved and on top of that, I moved back to Boston where I grew up, I gave it some thought after things have shifted all round and figured it might give me perspective.

I’ve have been lucky enough to have been blessed with some good company over the years. I’ve even put some of those friends over the years in a separate category, the friends who were considered at one time or another some of my closest. Now even after traveling back and forth across the country, leaving old friends, meeting new ones, leaving them, and even meeting up again with older ones, I’ve kind of gotten a handle on seeing people as ones who are really good friends even better. Sure, I am here and making new friends, but sometimes I’m finding out, even if they are “old news” and “familiar” and though new things are exciting, it is just as good to regrow and strengthen bonds between old friends.

The other day I went down to the beach for the 4th celebration. First of all, it was great to run into some a bunch of my friends from high school. Now I’ve been hanging out with some of them since I’ve been back while making new friends, and its been great. Even though I’ve changed and they’ve changed, for some of them, its at times like I never left. And even with all the changing and being different, in some cases going in very different directions, we remain friends. A good friend and a good person is friends with another at their core and even some change doesn’t mean a friendship should suffer or be diminished any.

And on the 4th I ran into Dominic, one of my closest friends from high school. I hadn’t seen him in years nor talked to him. In fact, the last time we hung out was one the 4th of July weekend, the day he met his future wife. That’s right. He’s gotten married and has a kid on the way. Now if that isn’t different, then what is? But we ended up hanging out for most of the night, talking, catching up, laughing, joking around, and it felt as if it were almost as it was in 1997. And I’ll be heading back down to hang out on Monday (is that tonight? Geez, I’m up late for no good reason). It takes a good friend and person to be like that after all this time.

Over the years, I’ve found out I’m lucky enough to have friends that stay friends even through time and distance (most of the time). Now that I’m here I find a lot of my old friends have been great at making me feel at home and also many friends in California have kept in touch and made me feel like I’m welcome there as well, making me miss them too (and wishing I was where there was a little less humidity).

Sure, I’ve been betrayed by some, let down by some friends over time and I’ve let some down too, most notably in high school when I went through an “asshole” phase. But at least it taught me to be a better friend. I trust my friends or try to even though I have been burned. I am open with my friends and hide very little from them if anything at all even when I am faced with the prospect of it not being so in return all the time. I give my opinion as much as I listen though and though I am opinionated at times, I respect theirs (is it my fault I like a good intellectual debate now and then). Still, I try to treat them with respect and trust. Since then, I have always tried to be honest with them, like for example, telling them how I feel on a matter or about something even if it has occasionally backfired or it caused a problem unintentionally.

I rarely hide anything from my friends, especially those I consider the closest. I believe that you should respect people enough to tell them what is going on and be honest. And even if things change, like when I moved to Cali, I didn’t ever consider anyone less of a friend or forget about them. I still feel I can trust many of them just the same. Hell, I got to be someone’s sounding board the other day and instead of whining about hearing people complain, I realized how nice it is to be trusted like that to have them talk to you and even nicer was that even after all this time, all the changes, all the problems we may have had at one time or another, they were true to the friendship. And that it is not something I would ever want to betray, which is why I haven’t since I was a stupid kid. If someone trusts me, they can be sure I will do my best to make sure I deserve that trust. And I also trust friends and once I trust them, that means something as a friend. And even when I’ve had that trust broken, been disappointed, or the friendship got rocky for a while, I feel you should always try to get past it and things good again.

I’ve always try to give them the benefit of the doubt, something not in our natures often enough, and not a reflex. I find I want to give them another chance, even if things aren’t going as well or something went wrong because I know if the position was switched, I’d want one too and I know what its like to not be given one. Hell, I ran into a friend the other night whom I can say honestly we did not leave off at a good point, but why wouldn’t I want someone I was once great friends with to be in my life and communicate with (even if they did sleep with my sister, but at this point, who hasn’t).

Of course, not everyone feels this way. I have lost a few friends over the years. Sometimes they or I did something the other thought was wrong or things got weird or we both started to fall out of touch. More often than not, sure it wasn’t a close friend, but a small number of times it was or at least, I thought it was and maybe it just wasn’t. Mostly people I knew when I was younger and one or both of us were immature at the time and didn’t fully appreciate friends the same way where as now I view many of my friendships as familial bonds, that even, like a family member may get on your nerves sometimes or do something bad, you don’t sever your ties with them just like that and forget about it, but you keep that bond and you work it out and build it up again.

Is it any wonder that doctors actually tell patients who are experiencing depression to not go out and change things up too much and meet a bunch of new people but instead focus mostly on developing the bonds between friendships and connections you already have? New people are great and I still want to meet new people because they can develop into close friends too, but they aren’t meant to replace them, sadly as so many people tend to end up letting happen accidentally or purposely. It really cheapens any friendship if it becomes easy to toss one away or to let them deteriorate without trying to mend it.

Of course, it also sucks to be on the end of the one sided friendship while trying to be friends or fix things when things get rocky and you end up being someone else’s trash after being close friends. I look back and I find a few people I went through too much with and was close enough to them to not wish for being regulated to mere acquaintance so I wouldn’t be a good friend or learned anything if I didn’t try to or want to have my friend back.

Pro-? : The Abortion Debate

In one of the touchiest subjects out there, one that sparks debate and divides people into an us or them category so succinctly (or at least as the media would like us to believe) is abortion. The woman’s right to choose over a fetus’ right to life. In fact, I purposely left the initial title blank so not to alienate nearly half the readers right off the bat before they even get into the glut of the wording because I know, like every other politician knows, that voicing your decision even in one word causes a rift and brings in every preconceived notion and every already held belief by someone right to the forefront, making about anything said afterwards either into speaking to the believers or to those who are planning on disregarding or ripping to shreds everything said afterwards to solidify their already made decision.

That being said, now let’s start unintentionally alienating people (about half) with two little words: I’m pro-choice. There goes half of you right there. Poof…they just tuned out, turned the page, or just got in the mindset where no matter what I say will be ignored or tuned out. But wait, don’t go just yet. I’m not done. Maybe you ought to know why I make that decision.

I am pro-choice because in this society I see no way that it can’t be an option for a woman. You see, while my hope and dream is that, while keeping the option for a woman‘s right to choose what to do with her own body, we can have a society where the other options to abortion are more viable, more attractive, and in a perfect world, not even needed. In a perfect world, or at least closer to one, we’d be pro-life by default because the other alternatives would be more reasonable and the causes for so many of the pregnancies that end up in abortion would be nearly nil. That being said, we don’t live in that world.

Yet, it is almost humorous that for once it is the right that are idealists, not the left. The very same right that calls the left dreamers and peaceniks (actually, I don’t think anyone has called them that in decades but you get the idea), take on the abortion topic as if this is already an ideal utopia when it comes to conceiving, birthing, and raising a child. Instead, it is anything but that. In fact, it is the right and more aptly the religious conservatives’ own beliefs that are assisting in keeping pro-choice being a much needed option.

I won’t even begin to go into the fact that teenage pregnancy is hard enough, especially for all the teenage girls without the stability of a spouse to help with the parenting and financial responsibilities. It goes without saying the difficulties faced being a single parent at a young age, the short comings of our welfare system and daycare for children, the stigma of being a teenage girl with a child, and a weak community support system for them in place. That alone makes raising a child in less than livable standards a high probability.

Instead, we should focus our energy on the shortcomings of the systems and aspects of our society, sexual education, birth control, and adoption, that make a pro-choice society necessary. Only when we can create working models for these systems of education, assistance, and alternatives can we begin the shift to not fearing the option of abortion and letting women choose.
__________________________________________________________________________

Part 1

Abstinence is for Suckers


Let’s talk sex education and birth control. This is the perfect example of the right being so idealist it makes them out of touch and blind to the reality of the situation. They have been twisting and degrading our sexual education system slowly over the years. The government and the religious right have been instituting a reform of our sex ed programs, wishing to replace comprehensive sexual education that cover more completely a responsible and educated sexual lifestyle with religion friendly abstinence-only programs.

In fact, in 1996 they passed an act that gave 250 MILLION bucks to programs that promoted abstinence as the ONLY acceptable solution to the problem. The result? Forty nine states decided to give them a shot (California being the exception because they had already tried them and found them lacking).

They are not working. And don’t take my word for it. Ask the people who ran studies. Including the states themselves.

Out of the 11 programs by the states to publish evaluations, only a few showed that they created a “positive attitude change towards abstaining” but NONE found any long term benefits or changes among the sexual activities of their participants. Sounds like all they did was teach the kids that its ok to feel good if you’re not getting any, but it didn’t stop them from getting some when they could. Even in Iowa and Pennsylvania, who did straight up comparison groups with regular sex ed, found the impact of abstinence programs versus the sex ed groups resulted in no difference in attitude towards sexual behavior in the long run. By 10th grade, all the kids were in the same mind set again. In fact, time and again, studies were showing that even if the programs had a short term benefit, by the time these kids were turning roughly 15, they were showing no change in sexual behavior as if the program was non-existent. Gosh golly gee, are all our politicians so old they forget what puberty was like?

What’s that old adage? “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.” Well, showing abstinence is fine in theory doesn’t stop them from taking a drink. Not only that but it wasn’t just that they were mostly ineffective, but in some cases making the problem worse. That’s right my friends, in some places they just turned the dial up all the way up to “suck.”

The Associated Press reported that an ongoing study in Texas (you know, Bush’s former state) showed that the Bush administration’s abstinence programs were not only ineffective, but in fact there were more high school teens than in previous years engaging in sexual activity when all they had were these programs to rely on. For the sake of being fair, there was no comparison group to tell us if they would have just started getting busy more often even if they had a regular sex ed program, so this should be taken as possibly coincidence, but in the very least it does show it was still ineffective curtailing sexual activity either.

Still better yet, take Duval county in Florida which consistently has one of the highest rates of STD infections in the country and more infections total than neighboring counties with larger populations according to a 2002 Free Republic article. The UF professor of nursing Sharleen Simpson blames, what else, the abstinence programs which teach teens nothing of how to protect against STDs.

"They don't talk about condoms or things like that," Simpson said. "We've spoken to teen-agers, and they told us they don't know anything."

Since we’ve already seen that these programs do not deter the sexual activity of teens, it can only compound the problem when teens seem to be having sex just the same, then in places like Charlotte, North Carolina, teachers and administrators can’t even use words like “condoms,” “contraceptives,” or “dental dams” (seriously, I just like saying that word).

Without the benefit of a full sex ed class teaching and promoting birth control methods and the need to protect oneself from sexually transmitted diseases, is it any wonder that one of our greatest fears should not only be unwanted teen pregnancy, but also teens who do not have the benefit of education and knowledge to protect themselves from STDs and HIV? Its asking for trouble through planned ignorance and words will not be able to describe the forthcoming shitstorm.

Supporters of abstinence-only programs will tell you we shouldn’t have comprehensive sex ed because it promotes teen sex. Apparently so do abstinence-only programs if they still end up with the same sexual attitude as the other teens regardless. They’ll discover it just like every other animal knows how to get it on without formal training. Fido didn’t take sex ed in obedience school yet he knows what to do when he’s feeling frisky in the springtime with the neighborhood husky. Bobby and Jane probably will too and they’ve got their friends, television, movies, music, and books to figure out what goes where and their hormones will fill in the blanks for them. Teens will figure out how to have sex, they don’t need us to leave out that there are least responsible choices they can make if they do decide to engage in it to keep them safe.

And don’t go believing the stories that “virginity pledges” have a lower rate of STDs, which will be reported by supporters of abstinence-only programs time and time again as their messiah study. I’ve read those too. After all, there should be more than one side, right? Instead, that’s another load of bunk the administration wants us to believe.

You see, this is no real study. The “virginity pledge” program is completely voluntary. The people taking the pledge are more likely than the average person to go through such a program, they are ones who choose to go through it. There is no random sampling of people. There is no real comparison group. And with most of the “evidence” that pro-abstinence-only program folk cite, it has usually been faulty, skewed, and smelling a little too much like a steaming load. The story may, and more than likely, would be different, had anyone bothered to take a few complete schools at random, ran the program and required all the students to enter the program and waited for the results. That, my friends, is how science really tells the truth. We should tell the truth especially when it is so important and we certainly shouldn’t resort to misinformation to scare people and trick them.

There was a Washington Post article that reported that abstinence programs were not only failing, but were resorting to distorting truths and telling outright lies to teens that abortions lead to suicide, half of gay teens have AIDS, and that you can pregnant just by touching someone’s special no-no spot among other doozies. It is one thing to try and fail, but to mislead our teens with lies and scare tactics (and also still fail) is even more disheartening.

The administration may be quick to point out that our unwed teen mother rate has been dropping. Yet, there is no proof that these abstinence programs have had any major impact on this outcome. In fact, a study conducted by the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that between 1988 and 1995, three-quarters of the decline in teen pregnancy was due to improved contraceptive use among sexually active teenagers, not that they stopped having sex. Hell, these abstinence only programs did not even develop on a large scale until after 1995, so they couldn’t have had an effect on the already dropping rate. Yet we shifted gears anyway to this new approach. Why you ask?

It has become a moral issue. That is how our administration defines it. Yet all that truly means is that it is a religious issue with more politically correct terminology. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. The church has been less than successful in two millennia to stop premarital sex as it is, but this new tactic, circumventing the separation of church and state through intimidation and manipulation and coercing the government to enact their doctrine on a grander scale on the country’s entire populace, is a feel good approach. As in, it makes them feel good! It is this very same “moral” decision of theirs that makes it their right, being oh so pious, to choose an option for a woman.

Our very own government and the religious right are naïve to believe abstinence programs are the key to solving our problem. The church does not want to admit that people will have sex. They want to believe some idealistic (or is it archaic) notion that people will only have sex when married or not at all. Yet they also hold two values that out rightly oppose one another and by supporting one makes it harder on the other. I’m speaking of the church’s (and Bush’s “moral” administration’s) belief that ANY birth control method is wrong and then also believing in taking away a woman’s right to choose. They are logically opposed as in this age doing one worsens the results on the other end.

Think about it logically for a moment. That’s it…stew on it…let it ruminate in your noodle. You get it, don’t you? It isn’t so hard. You tell people birth control such as condoms, IUDs, the pill, etc. are evil, you tell them do not use them or better yet, just forget to teach them about them at all and leave out thus leaving them uneducated about them. This limits the exposure to information and education on birth control that people, especially teens who need it the most, could use to make better choices. Then what do you get? Well, let’s think about that for a sec…since people aren’t having less sex with these abstinence-only programs, you get…ta-freakin’-da…more pregnancies.

Don’t be naïve and think only married and/or stable couples are getting pregnant. Even the law of averages is going to tell you that more pregnancies overall will mean more on all parts of the bell curve. In fact, you might even get a rise in the lower class due to even less resources and education available to them to begin with (that of course, is a thought, not a fact, so don’t quote me on it, though I’m sure it’ll get taken out of context at some point).

What I don‘t understand is they do not believe in abortions and believe the practice immoral (what, you didn‘t hear?). Yet even if it may be an undesirable choice, the church’s stance on birth control and sexual education only helps make it more a necessary option. Unprepared mothers who may be too young to cope need this choice. Unwed mothers who face a life of strife and hardship, not to mention the child who will grow up in the face of the very same turmoil, need this choice. Yet, how many, if taught more thoroughly with a comprehensive sexual education program would have benefited and not wound up having to make this particular choice to begin with?

Simply put, teens have the right to accurate information about sex and should have access resources, yet we are not teaching our population all they should and PURPOSELY not giving them the tools and information necessary in order for them to make wise decisions. It is as if we don’t respect our own children enough to make responsible choices and also give them a handicap when they are faced with decisions about sex. Until we can teach our children and teens all the options and give them real alternatives and the means to avoid having unwanted pregnancy an issue for them, then it shouldn’t even be up for debate yet whether or not abortion should be illegal or not until we can rectify the problems that make it a necessary option in our times.

"It's a long-standing joke in "the guy world" that there exists some mysterious "Friend Zone." Guy gets to know girl, but doesn't sleep with girl within some magical time frame, and becomes trapped in this "Friend Zone" from which guy cannot escape. This time frame varies depending on the type of girl, primarily, but typically guys realize that they've reached the Friend Zone when their girl calls them to talk about her boy troubles. Some might say that this is the exact moment at which the guy should have sex with the girl, but from what I've seen, this simply leads to the girl feeling as if the guy took advantage of her (and she is right). To be honest, it takes something special to escape the Friend Zone and it is a challenge no matter how much you would like to have it be otherwise.

I've seen best friends whom everyone thinks should date, friends that other people are jealous of their relationship when they have boyfriends and girlfriends of their own even, people you look at and tell yourself, damn, they are great together, that is what a relationship should be...that still get stuck in this psycholgical rut.

Of course, any situation which doesn't result in a Relationship seems to fly directly in the face of one key thing: aren't we supposed to get with our best friends? All other things being equal, that's probably true. Sadly, it doesn't seem to work well, especially at the younger ages for men and women.

It begs a new question:: who better to date than someone with whom you already share some chemistry? Someone with whom you're already friends. Someone who still likes you after you've told him of the 37, 14, or 1 guys with which you you've slept/fooled around/made out? Someone who likes you after seeing you without makeup? Someone who likes you even though you watch Married By America? Obviously I'm not saying that every male friend would make an ideal boyfriend - physical attraction is important - but as one of my gal friends says "who better to date than someone you already like?" Unfortunately, she's in the female minority.

I know a girl who just married her former best friend and now Official Best Friend™, wedding-band certified. They were friends for a number of years, and she got drunk and made out with him one night (not his doing, thus, relieving him of the aforementioned nut-kicking). They began dating, and it was "weird" at first. After all, you're used to being with someone but not making out, and now you're supposed to make out?

I wonder what's so wrong with that. After all, dating is fairly ridiculous. These days it's not rushing things to be "making out" by the second date - how well do you know the person with whom you're swapping spit by the second date? Not so well. Friends = safe. Strangers = could be an axe murderer. Right? I've had many intimate moments with friends. I've had women cry on my shoulders, hug me, even fall asleep in my arms. Would it be weird to kiss them, if the feeling was mutual and that's where things took us? Not for me. And chemistry? Well, if there is chemistry enough to be such good friends, then there is only a slight shift to being "more than friends." All it takes is letting oneself enjoy a kiss or a compliment, appreciate a sweet gesture, letting yourself feel some romance even though you aren't used to it with that person or it feels "weird" at first.

Women - younger women especially - long for a fairy tale romance. They want to be swept off of their feet. They want a whirlwind "love at first sight" magical evening with a guy. They want to be surprised. They want adventure. They want intrigue, mystery. They want... something new. You? You're old. They know you already. They know what kind of movies you like and where you go out to eat (and what you order). There's little chance you can surprise them. Love at first sight? Sorry, guy. Girl has probably seen you in shirts with chocolate ice cream stains on them. It is Hollywood and fairy tales telling us what they think romance should always have to be. Why can't it go the other way around? Intimate friendhsip blossoming into romance?


But guess what? Guys want the same thing. They want adventure, mystery, intrigue, and a girl without chocolate ice cream stains on their shirts. Unfortunately, what we want in life is not always what's most practical or what's best for us. I find myself understanding the "I want something new" point of view, and at the same time personally disagreeing with it. I think comfort is sexy. Connecting with someone on an emotional level is an intimate experience that should be cherished and nurtured. I'm friends with several women whom I'd date, given the right circumstances, and I don't think it'd be terribly awkward at all. After all, what's more exciting than learning something new about someone whom you already care about? To me, that's every bit as exciting as learning something new about someone new, especially if that new girl turns out to be an axe murderer.

Going for a Relationship is worth the risk to me. There's always the chance you'll realize that it's not meant to be, and at that point two people can return to being friends. At least you gave it a try for some time, tried out what it'd feel like having a little romance and affection from somehone you know and trust and already connect with. If it goes on longer, well, then I'll fall back on "'tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all." I'd rather have dated a girl for five years as I did than have her as a friend for life and never found out between us when we gave it a try. Life is a risk-reward trail, and in this case, the reward - the near-perpetual happiness and joy that the right person can bring to your life - is worth nearly any risk.

The Friend Zone is an excuse. The Friend Zone is "I'm afraid of being hurt" or "you're too ugly to date but telling you we're friends seems like a nicer way to put it." The Friend Zone is the land of excuses and lies. To people who are honest with each other, there is no Friend Zone. You have relationships, and those relationships are deep and run their course. If they involve an attempt at dating and possibly some nookie along the way, well, so be it.

I want to be with my best friend. I want to be with the girl with whom I am the most comfortable. But I've always said that I want "to be happy" when asked "what do you want to be in ten years?" If someone makes me happy and I make them happy, we are comfortable and trust one another, then it sounds as though it is worth trying."


_______________________________________

Not mine, I borrowed this.

I'm just at the library wasting time on my break.

First, I'm curious. What is your thoughts on euthanasia? I've been faced with some issues about it recently and it has me questioning my beliefs on the subject.

Is it the right thing to do if someone is in pain? Suddenly, is it selfish to think suddenly they should squeeze what a person can left out of life with what they have left or let them end their suffering? What if you're not sure their suffering justifies it? What if you're not sure you're just not being selfish?

It has me in quite a tizzy and I'm actually feeling that I shouldn't be put in this position, especially right now. It isn't something I can imagine easy to ask of anyone, but someone in my position? I keep meaning to talk to someone about it, but I haven't been able to.

I've had quite a week and a half. Up and down like mad. Last week, down, Saturday, up. Sunday, middle of the road. Down at the moment. I feel like I'm on the outs somehow and I'm wondering if it's all in my head or if certain people are, well, weird? Uncomfy around me? Tired of old news? As if I'm boring?Something...tough to explain. It'd be nice to have them let me know one way or another if I did something, said something, or it's just something else. *cough*

Also, I want to have some fun.

Ah Lauren, I wouldn't say I have too much faith in the universe. I'd call it not enough faith in humanity to be strong enough yet to be objective enough and admit that at times their "truths" can sometimes be wrong in a larger sense. Perhaps thoguh, you don't either enough credit.

First, I'm not arguing for some mystical truth. Not some meaning of life. I'm talking about an objective truth. The real. Not scientific claims per se, since we've discovered that humanity has made some false claims(the world is not flat, etc). I mean an objective truth. The way thigns happened, how they led to other things, why we really do things we do, etc. For ourselves and for the world in general.

If anything proves an objective truth is two things. First, the conflict of subjective truths between perspectives. Secondly, there is some logic to the universe. St. Thomas Aquinas uses this as one of his theorems for the existence of a higher power (or underlying force).

Yes, math works. Physics are logical.Though we don't understand them fully as they are too complex for us at this time, 10000 years ago no one could have imagined figuring out gravity or using computers, so saying we may never understand would be foolish and limited. Just like I can't say that people may never be self-aware enough to be both subjective and objective enough to see a much larger picture.

I know it is easy to say that because we are human we are subject to our human fallibilities is easy, as if to say I give up and there can only be subjective, and that because we only have our perception we are forever limited, but through living our life, we always have an idea of what it may be to transpose ourselves into other perspectives. Saying we are so limited in perhaps a tad short-sighted.

This truth I speak of isn't a search of a Utopia. I'm not even saying its fate. But I believe there is an objective truth out there for everyone.

This doesn't mean we each don't have a subjective truth. We do. I agree with you on all those points we talked about. And they can be satisfying. They can be fulfilling. They can also be depressing and detrimental. We can learn from them all nonetheless. There is nothing wrong with subjective truth. Though I think we could stop being so much so and gain enlightened wisdom.

For example, the insane have a subjective truth. One guy can think he's Cleopatra in ancient Egypt. It is HIS subjective truth, but is it an objective one? No, it isn't, no matter how one wants to twist a philosophical slant to it. "If he thinks he is, then isn't he?" No, he's still not.

Take our memories. They are malleable just like anything else, but what we remember may be skewed in some fashion due to mixed synapses or subconscious molding, it doesn't change what happened. Even history books, bias as many are, can't change the fact that certain things happened certain ways that helped time come to this point regardless of how we record them (and that recording is still part of a larger objective truth).

Example: After 9/11, many people reported seeing the first plane crash on tv as it happened and that is how they found out. Yet, the first plane crash was not live on tv and the footage played much later. Yet, they have a subjective truth that they saw it, no matter that it couldn't have happened. Objective truth: They didn't really see it live. Subjective truth: they think they did.

People do things sometimes without realizing their could be other reasons why, some they don't want to admit. People make selfish choices and try to find a good reason for them. People make illogical choices and focus on the reasons that best defend their choice. People do things and have their reasons why, but don't imagine that there could be other reasons in their psyche that lead them that way. We could do well to consider other possibilities for why we do things, even ones we don't always like.

Do you truly want only blissful ignorance of yourself just because solely accepting each of your subjective truths as truth is comforting? Is it easier that way to not see possibilities in other truths and find how they lead to something less than wholly subjective?

Are you going to not read this just because it brings up another perspective?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

This was in repsonse to:

So in an attempt to further the range of philosophical discussion: I’m posting a current discussion of truth, and what exactly “truth” means. Is this intellectual whoring? Probably. Could I care less? Absolutely not.

“If life is a game self-mastery the aim with little to gain, well then there's little value in a name, as it was, as it is, all the same, all the same - with variable discourses to legitimize a claim - truth, at its best, is pure subjectivity.” – Lauren (blatant poetic nonsense)

---------------------------------------------------------

“...there is a non-subjective truth out there. We're just too subjective a being to let ourselves see it.” Chad (investing too much faith in the Universe…j/k)

---------------------------------------------------------

“I'm not entirely sure that there is a non-subjective truth. There's the truth we attempt to adhere to scientific claims: but is that truth? Does it further the understanding of ourselves, does it make any real contribution to our understanding of truth, and better our lives in ways other than knowledge hoarding?

I think that there is an underlying force, an underlining energy that propels all things: nay is the inertia of all things, but is it's purpose a final purpose? Is it's goal an ultimate understanding and reaching for an inevitable utopia? I don't think so. Not to sound nihilistic, which is not my point at all: simply in saying that there is no "Final, Ultimate Truth," does not mean that in searching for our own subjective truths we are not brought closer to discovering our own purpose in life: because we are.

Fate? We fool ourselves into believing that. Utopia? Pipe dream. Understanding oneself in an effort to lead a life more true to our own moralities and consciousness? The only goal we will ever be able attain. And a satisfactorily attained goal, I might add.” – Lauren


Chip in your 2 cents: if it’s all subjective then that must mean I have no idea what you’re thinking.