Pushing the Envelope

Lady Gaga likes to be outrageous for the sake of being
outrageous. She's disturbing.

Ready For Another Let's Blame Abstinence Education For Teenage Pregnancy Article?

Here ya go. Let's forget that teenage pregnancy has been down the
past few decades.

More Feminist Than the Feminist

It must be frustrating to liberals that strong conservative women like
Sarah Palin are entering the political arena because why else would they
write stuff like this? Liberals want to portray conservatives as sexists.
Since Sarah Palin is in no way sexist, how else can they label her a sexist?
Well call her traditional Christian beliefs sexist!

Premise: Sarah Palin is a self-proclaimed, far-right conservative,
Christian fundamentalist, which connotes a literal interpretation of
the Bible.

Problem: She cherry-picks to make her message more palatable
to the public and ducks the subservient role of women her church
believes in.

Too bad the media who interview Sarah Palin don't know their
Bibles and the fundamentalist theology Palin says she lives by. If
they did, Palin would have to answer the following questions based
on the fact that according to her own church's beliefs, she shouldn't
even be in politics.

First of all, Palin is not a Christian fundamentalist. I've never heard say
anything that would put her in the fundamentalist category. I have never
heard her say she takes the literal view of the Bible. It's kinda like when
the liberals labeled George W. Bush a Christian fundamentalist even
though he believes all faiths lead to heaven (not a traditional Christian
view), believes in evolution, and isn't a regular churchgoer. WHAT A
FUNDIE!!!

Mr. Schaeffer points to 1 Corinthians 11 as proof she's not being obedient
to "sexist" Biblical scriptures. Apparently he didn't read the whole chapter.
The chapter is about women covering their heads during prayer:

But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying
disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is
shaved.

6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off;
but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved,
let her cover her head.

7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and
glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;

9 for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for
the man's sake.

10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head,
because of the angels.

11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor
is man independent of woman.

12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his
birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God
with her head uncovered?

Does Schaeffer know of any American Christian woman that covers her head
while praying? No. Here's the thing: Christians are wise enough to take into
cultural and historical considerations when reading scriptures. Head covering
during Biblical times was the norm. It isn't now. Things change. Here's
something else he forget to mention: In the same chapter where it says men
should be the head of women it also says neither isn't "independent" of each
other. My understanding of that is that each depend on each other and need
each other. None is better than the other.

And to his scriptures about submissiveness there is this response I found:

The difficulty with understanding Paul’s command to wives to “be
subject” to their own husbands is that our grasp of the meaning of
the word “submit” is too narrow. Generally speaking, we think that
the word “submit” is synonymous with the word “obey.” We are
inclined to restrict submission to refer only to our response to those
who are in authority over us. Very often, this is the case—but not
always. Paul’s instruction in verse 21 is directed to every believer.
Christians, without exception, are to “be subject to one another,”
without any exceptions. Submission, then, must not only work
“upward” (in terms of authority), but also downward.

Submission doesn't mean not having a mind of your own and just being
obedient. Speaking of obedience....isn't funny how he is shocked to find
that Sarah Palin isn't obedient to her church. What a sexist!

Every weekend I go to church it is full of women. There is often times
more women at the service than men. Having traditional Christian values
doesn't mean you're a sexist. Having politically conservative values doesn't
mean you're a sexist either.

Culture Shock

I can relate to these people. I've lived in a small town before and it
is a culture shock, if you are not accustomed to it. And I'm sure small
town people experience culture shock when they move to urban areas.
Although, I think it is good to get out of your comfort zone every once in a
while. I'm hoping to move to the New York City or D.C. area this year.
That would be a drastic change. I think rural, suburban and
urban areas all have their advantages. It is about deciding what you
need for a certain period of your life.

Gay Marriage Doesn't Equal to Civil Rights

Interesting Read.

Study: Virginity Pledges are Ineffective

Virginity pledges might be ineffective in most cases but there's still no
question that abstinence is 100 percent effective in preventing teenage
pregnancy and diseases.

Reality TV

Ok, I usually don't cover celebrity news here my blog. However,
how dishonest it this:

LOS ANGELES – Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag don't appear to be
any closer to getting legally hitched.


A brief tease for the fourth season finale of MTV's "The Hills" that
aired Monday seemed to indicate that the reality TV couple have
made their unofficial Mexican wedding ceremony a legitimate marriage
in California. The pair were shown walking into a courtroom with
Pratt's sister, Stephanie Pratt, while a judge smiled down on them from
the bench.


"I, Heidi, take thee, Spencer," Montag coos in the preview.


Despite all the official trappings, the tease of legitimate nuptials for the
pair may be just that. A Los Angeles Superior Court official said Tuesday
that MTV was recently granted permission to shoot in a courtroom in
Beverly Hills, but it was done after hours — and that's not one of their
judges sitting on the bench in "The Hills" footage.


MTV was granted permission to film "what purported to be a wedding
outside of court hours" at the Beverly Hills courthouse, court spokesman
Allan Parachini said Tuesday. He did not know who the participants were
in the wedding, but Parachini said court officials wanted the filming to be
treated as a news event.

Exit question:Is MTV the most immoral channel on television or does Fox still
hold that title?

American Election Overseas

If there is any doubt your mind that the United States is still a superpower then
take a look at how closely they are following our election overseas. A recent poll
showed that 83% of the Japanese were closely following the U.S. elections. That's
also why Sen. Obama was able to draw a huge crowd in Germany.

Last month my parents visited Spain for the first time. While vacationing there
they able to catch some Spanish television while at the hotel. They thought one
show was particularly funny so when they came back home they looked it up
online. I guess I can describe it as the Spanish version of Talk Soup. In a recent
episode they were talking about the Paris Hilton response ad to John McCain. You
can view video here. Here's a screen cap of the show:



I just find it amazing how closely the world follows our elections and politics. We
have influence outside of the United States. What we do affects others. However,
I don't think we should vote the way foreigners want us to. The people who have
America's best interests at heart are, indeed, Americans.

I would also like to talk about the cultural element here that goes beyond politics.
I would like to note that when you see something on television or in a movie that
irritates or shocks you, more than likely it's not only Americans seeing it. If you
watch the video I linked to earlier the host joked about Paris Hilton. They knew
who Paris Hilton was! Yikes! We distribute our media and conversely our pop
culture worldwide. That's one of the reasons why I think it's important to care
what's on our television sets, movie screens, and radio. I'm not calling for any sort
of censorship but more of an awareness of the full of effect of media has on us and
those we distribute to.

'Sex and the City' Didn't Revolutionize A Darn Thing

In a couple of weeks the movie version of "Sex and the City" will be released in
theaters nationwide. Here's the trailer:



I've repeatedly heard this show described as "revolutionary" and "empowering" by
commentators on culture and television. Take, for example, this quote from a
Newsweek article :

Yet for all the hype and adoration, was "Sex and the City" really
all that revolutionary? The show definitely, and loudly, explored
uncharted TV territory. It was naughty and bawdy and was one of
the rare shows— along with "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" and
"Murphy Brown"—to ask the provocative question: is it OK for a
woman to be alone? The fact that the four characters—the thoughtful
writer Carrie, the razor-witted lawyer Miranda, the defiantly romantic
Charlotte and the sexually voracious Samantha—demanded sexual
satisfaction was refreshing, even empowering.

Or take this statement from a sex therapist who appearing on "Good Morning
America":

Sex therapist Laura Berman said the show helps women feel
more comfortable when talking about sex and relationships.

"I think the greatest thing about Sex and The City is it's really
bringing sex out of the closet, so to speak," Laura said on
ABC New's Good Morning America. "Women are feeling more
empowered. The message it gives is that women should take
control of their sexuality.

Give me a break! "Sex and City" didn't revolutionize or empower a single thing
and for the news media to continually portray it as so shows their stance on loose
sexual standards. All the show did was glorify women having rendezvous after
rendezvous with men (and sometimes other women).

Some feminists will celebrate such sexually "free" depictions of single women. I,
however, will not. We now live in a country where 1 in 4 teenage girls have an STD.
So, I will not celebrate. We live in a country where 28.4 percent of households
headed by single women are poor, according to this source. If these two statistics
show empowerment for females, then perhaps we need a little less of it.

There are plenty of women out there doing wonderful things and fighting real
oppression. However, I see not such example in the characters of Carrie, Miranda,
Charlotte, and Samantha. Earlier this week I read this horrific story out of Iraq.
These are they type of women who need a revolution and empowerment.

California's Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

From the AP:

SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights
movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved
ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex
couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage,
the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered
as news spread of the decision.

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a
loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and
responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the
individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.

I will just make a couple of points on gay marriage. I'm not for courts overturning
what the voters wanted. The voters of California made their voice clear and it was
pointless. I also don't like gay marriage being called a "civil rights" issue. If marriage
is a civil rights issue then isn't every single person being denied a right? Also, I find
it ironic that the definition of marriage has become such an important issue when for
decades we've been told it's "just a piece of paper" and it's an archaic institution. It's
only an archaic institution when it's between a man and woman, huh?

New Show on CBS About Swingers

Network television has just been HBO-ized. Why even waste your money
on premium cable anymore? From the New York Times:

WHEN the television series “Swingtown” has its premiere on
June 5, viewers can expect to see the following scenes in the
first episode: a ménage à trois; a high school junior smoking pot
and later flirting with her English teacher; the flagrant enjoyment
of quaaludes and cocaine; and the sight of the neighborhood scold
unwittingly stumbling upon a groaning and slithering orgy.
“Why don’t you kick your shoes off, Mom, and join the party?”
is how a middle-aged participant, clad only in mutton chops, says
hello.

Debauchery, however, is only an appetizer for the main
story line: the open marriage of an airline pilot and his wife,
who, in pursuit of new partners, set about seducing the
businessman and housewife who have just moved in across the
street.

Seems like something that would be right at home on HBO or Showtime,
where programs tend to loiter in the muck of moral ambiguity. But
“Swingtown,” a one-hour scripted drama, will appear on CBS. Though
perhaps not as prim and upstanding as it was when shows like “Murder,
She Wrote” and “Touched by an Angel” defined its airwaves, this network
tends to be more decorous than others where sex is concerned. So basing
a series on sexual experimentation and other taboos, even if from a
bygone era — “Swingtown” is set in the mid-1970s — is a notable
experiment in and of itself.

Here's the trailer:



From what I can gather from the trailer the point of the show is the "good ol' times"
weren't as innocent as they seemed, which is probably true. I was born in the 1980s
so I'm no expert on the 1970s but if not mistaken the main difference between the
debauchery of today and back then is that we didn't try to give this type of behavior
any normalcy by putting this smut on prime time network television. This show
almost makes the 1990s, with television shows like "Friends" and having to hear about
the sex life of the president of the United States on the nightly news, as the "better
days."

Redefining Normal

I don't watch Oprah anymore but I had been hearing buzz about an interview
she did with a pregnant 'man.' I viewed a clip of the show on Youtube and just
when I thought Oprah's philosophy couldn't scare me more, it just did:



Here's a quote from Oprah from this clip:

We are evolving to a new way of being and a new definition
of what diversity means for everyone and redefining normal.

What is she talking about? I'm assuming she's wants to evolve past a definition of gender.
Does Oprah want a genderless society? A society where men having babies is
normal?

Let me say clear and with moral clarity: For a society to survive we need social
norms. They exist for reason. For example, females have children because most
(not all) are biologically capable. I can't believe I have to say this. Shouldn't it be
understood? When someone wants to redefine societal norms, they are redefining
a whole culture and playing with fire.

Scary stuff.

Thought of the Day

We live in the information age. Never has information been more accessible
than at this very moment time. We have it at the palm of our hands. However,
I don't believe we are the wiser or smarter for it. Why is that?

Instead, the internet is used to spread silly conspiracy theories and idle gossip.
What a shame.

Saudi Women Make Protest By Driving

This is absolutely awesome (hat tip: The Jawa Report):

Saudi women's rights activists have posted on the web a
video of a woman at the wheel of her car, in protest at the
ban on female drivers in the kingdom.

Wajeha Huwaider talks of the injustice of the ban and calls
for its abolition as she drives calmly along a highway.

She says the film was posted to mark International Women's
Day. Thousands have viewed it on the YouTube website.

The last such public show of dissent was in 1990 when dozens
of women were arrested for circling Riyadh in cars.

Last year, Ms Huwaider and other activists circulated a petition
which was sent to King Abdullah urging him to lift the ban.

Here's the video from Youtube:

The Branding of Obamamania

It's often said that young people are looking for authenticity and want to "keep it
real." For a demographic (for which I'm in) that repeatedly says that we are searching
for something real and authentic, we sure seem to continually seem to fall for mass
produced, aesthetically appealing ad campaigns with awesome slogans. I think this is
the case with Sen. Obama getting the youth vote. I read this interview with graphic
designer Michael Beirut in which he discusses the branding of Obama's campaigning.
Here's a portion:

That's his "logo," right?
Right. A lot of times when he's at a podium what you'll see is, centered
right beneath him, at the very top of the blue field that usually says
something like "Change You Can Believe In," it'll be just that little symbol,
functioning in the same way the Nike swoosh does. People look at that and
know what it means, even though it's just an "O" with some stripes in it.

Has any other campaign ever "pulled a Nike"?
Well, Bush did that the last time around with the letter "W," to some degree.
You would see somebody with the letter "W" on a bumper sticker, and it would
kind of work that way. But Obama has gotten there much quicker and a little
more gracefully, if you ask me.

How else is Obama's design different than what has come before--
or what rival campaigns are doing?
He's the first candidate, actually, who's had a coherent, top-to-bottom,
360-degree system at work. Whereas, I think it's more more common for
politicians to have a bumper-sticker symbol that they just stick on everything
and hope that that will carry the day.

The thing that sort of flabbergasts me as a professional graphic designer is
that, somewhere along the way, they decided that all their graphics would
basically be done in the same typeface, which is this typeface called Gotham.
If you look at one of his rallies, every single non-handmade sign is in that font.
Every single one of them. And they're all perfectly spaced and perfectly
arranged. Trust me. I've done graphics for events --and I know what it takes
to have rally after rally without someone saying, "Oh, we ran out of signs, let's
do a batch in Arial." It just doesn't seem to happen. There's an absolute level
of control that I have trouble achieving with my corporate clients.

Then if you go to the Web site, it's all reflected there too--all the same elements
showing up in this clean, smooth, elegant way. It all ties together really, really
beautifully as a system.

I agree with Beirut that Obama's campaign has the best designed logo, Web site, and
slogan. It's simple and sleek. Beirut suggests his effective campaign advertising means
it could lead people to believe he'll be an effective president.



As a young person, I'm tired of being marketed too. I've grown up with sleek advertising.
It's disturbing when I see this in a political campaign (as noted in the article this is not
the first well-designed campaign advertising) because I'm not being asked to buy a product
but buy into a political philosophy. What also bothers me is how my age group contradicts
itself. We talk about seeking authenticity and substance but when it comes to making a
choice that's not what we choose. There's no longer a place in our society that doesn't
have advertising. Now even our politics is to be sloganeered.

Video added:

The Anti-Grey's Anatomy?

I just finished watching a brilliant scene from the show E.R. (hat tip ThinkChristian).
I don't watch the show but from this clip I think it might be the anti-Grey's
Anatomy:



I think we live in a world that wants real answers and authenticity and
moral relativity isn't cutting anymore.

Turning Left

Flickr image source

America is turning to the left politically and culturally. I think this election will prove
it. This month one of the most liberal senators in Congress raised $32 million for his
presidential bid. The pendulum is swinging left after being in the right for a couple of
decades. Throughout history we've seen American society has take different shifts in
direction, it's just part of changing times and a culture. In the Republican Party, which
is usually the home of conservatives, a candidate who has a record of disagreeing with
the right wing of the party looks like he might be on the way to the nomination. I just
want to point out that I think most of the attacks being thrown at McCain are unfair.

As a conservative girl, I don't mind the turn. I will still hold true to my conservative
ideas, I'll just be swimming against the current this time. Perhaps, while American
liberals have found their voice, we'll find ours.

Sanctity

There's this beautiful scene in the movie "Under the Tuscan Sun"
when a young couple deeply in love finally get approval from their
family and get married. There are many reasons why I love this scene.
I love the traditional, religious ceremony said in Italian. Absolutely
gorgeous. I also enjoy the joyful reaction of the main character, Frances
(played by Diane Lane), in the scene. You see Frances is a recent
divorcee who moved to Tuscany to make a change in her life.
She has been hurt by love. However, in this scene you can see that
she regains her faith in love and, perhaps, the institution of marriage.

I think many in American society have lost faith in the institution
of marriage. More young couples are deciding to live together and
forgo marriage. And really who can blame with them with the high
divorce rates that have been consistent for the past two decades.
Many probably come from families of divorced parents. However,
let's not lose heart and give up on marriage and families. Marriage
at its best is the uniting to two souls who make a covenant to God
to honor and love each other forever. Marriage at its worst is simply
a legal document.

Cultural Change: Where Are We Headed?

Click on picture for image source

American society and culture is ever changing. Some would
even say there is a culture war going on right now. Ok, I'm
exaggerating Bill O'Reilly says there is culture war against
social progressives and traditionalists. I don't want to discuss
the 'culture wars' in this post. I do want to talk about how war
brings about cultural and societal change.

Throughout modern history the trend is to fluctuate from more
traditional values to progressive ideals. It seems each generation
backlashes at each other. After War World II, we had the 1950s
a more subdued American culture where church attendance was
high and there was a large societal sentiment of conservatism
and anti-Communist feelings. As we know there was also racial
inequality and restrictive gender roles during this time period.

Then came the 1960s and the counterculture, which was basically a
backlash from from the social norms of the 1950s. In 1964 The Civil
Rights Acts was passed. Another movement happening during this
time period was the Sexual Revolution. Some of the sexual taboos
of previous generations were broken down. During the 1970s there
was disillusionment with government because of the Vietnam War.
The 1980s saw us back to more conservative and economic prosperous
times. There was more talk about about "family values" and the rise of
religious conservatism. Of course, there were contrary trends during
these time periods. For example, the 1980s saw the birth of MTV and
a high divorce rate, which really contradicted the pro-family agenda
being talked about by the government.

Ok, I just gave this brief synopsis of how culture has changed
through the decades to help us see where we might be headed right
now. Sometimes reflecting on the past helps decide what road we
want to take next. On September 11, 2001, we were shaken as a
people and were greatly united. We are now in a war against terrorism.
The war in Iraq again has brought us disillusionment in our government.

I think this is a pivotal time for us as an American people to decided
what is important to us as a collective. What do we care about?
What are things in our society we want and can change? What do we want
to keep the same? What are the moral values we want to show the next
generation?

I hope we can find a balance between traditional and progressive values.
Traditions aren't always bad. Sometimes traditions are the ties that bind
us. They can also get in the way of changes that need to be made. We should
always be striving for social progress. We always want to be challenging
ourselves to be better as a people. However, let's not just kick down social
norms and traditions because it feels good.

I like to put a up a video that is related to my topic. I found the video below on
Youtube. Although it mostly deals with pop culture; I think it does a fine
job on defining culture.

Going down the tubes

(Video via Hotair)

Laura Ingraham was on the Today Show and briefly
talked about how our culture is going down the gutter.
I totally agree with her. Our media has become too violent
and over-sexualized. The only problem I have is that I have
NO idea what to do about. I almost feel helpless in the matter.
Like Ingraham you can't just turn it off because it is everywhere.
And we don't want the government to censor people, that is not
what democracy is about. I've also given up on the media entities
stepping in and taking responsibility for the material they put out
because money talks and trash sells.

I'm honesty frustrated about this issue. The problematic thing
for me is now there is the internet so it's basically just doing
what junk television and tabloids having being doing for years
just to the 10th power. I see things getting worse and I have
no idea what to say or do about it more. Tell me what you
guys think?