- Daniel
Recently, JK Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, revealed that one of the main characters, the school master Albus Dumbledore, is... wait for it... gay. (see BBC's JK Rowling outs Dumbledore as gay)
This stunning revelation came during a Q&A session in New York's Carnegie Hall on this last Friday, being part of her US book tour.
Gay hero and gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell jumped right on the news. "It's good that children's literature includes the reality of gay people, since we exist in every society." (Oh, good, even fictional societies). But wait, the series is over and there was no mention of Dumbledore's sexuality in the books, so the beloved children's literature still doesn't include the reality of gay people. Tatchell goes on to explain, "But I am disappointed that she did not make Dumbledore's sexuality explicit in the Harry Potter book. Making it obvious would have sent a much more powerful message of understanding and acceptance." Just how 'explicit' does Tatchell require? I think the books were fine as they were. Maybe she can write an adult prequel for the gay community later on, depending on the 'explicitness'.
But that's fine if Dumbledore is gay, really. I still like his character, because JK Rowling didn't fall under the sway that so many writers over here in the states fall under, mainly screenwriters of TV and movies. And that is she made Dumbledore's character interesting and developed for reasons aside from the nature of his sexuality. Often times in film and movies, if a character is gay, he is automatically 'interesting', grounded on the fact that he is gay. They are portrayed as having everything figured out, kind and tolerant, etc. Which is fine, I just think that gay characters need to be interesting for other reasons aside from the fact that they're gay.
The British television show Doctor Who pulled this off with the character Jack Harkness, played by John Barrowman, who is gay, and stars in the last 5 episodes of series 1. His character does not act with the usual stereotypical mannerisms of the homosexual characters often portrayed in American movies and television shows. Also on a side note, John Barrowman was considered for the lead role in NBC's Will and Grace, but was turned down because the producers felt he was "too straight", despite the fact that he's gay, so the role went to Eric McCormack, who in reality is straight. Barrowman expressed his contempt at the idea that all gay men act the same way.
But back to JK Rowling and Dumbledore. She could've revealed this little bit of information at any time. After getting a round of applause, which is pretty easy to do when you advocate gay rights in New York, she said "I would have told you earlier if I knew it would make you so happy."
I don't think the richest woman in the world is worried about making people happy. Her series is ended, and she claims she isn't writing any more Harry Potter novels. The first thing I thought, was this was a publicity stunt. She's trying to stay in the game, keep her name out there. Whether Dumbledore's character has always been gay in the author's mind, I'm not doubting. But the timing of her public revelation is a bit suspicious. Her last book broke records, selling 11 million copies in 24 hours. With this announcement, though, she's bound to get more sales. Imagine all the books that hardcore Christian churches will buy, just in order to burn them.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Moderate Update #02
Okay, so I didn't quite make the deadline, I apologize for that. Last week I fell ill, and was unable to finish preparing an article for posting. But I just finished something else to post. This upcoming Friday, I should have a relatively interesting article coming up. Thanks for the patience.
But I'd like to say something, at least. If anyone out there, who actually reads what I write, disagrees with me, feel free to comment and tell me why you disagree. I'd like this to be an open forum in which we can exchange ideas, and more importantly information. For instance, I know that there is some disagreement on my Mitt Romney article, and I understand the fallacies of my logic, which I apologize for. But this is a great opportunity for anyone out there, who feels that I missed something, to inform us of something I may not know.
One of the things I ask for in the comments, however, is that we regard each other with respect. This comes from my displeasure of entertainment posing as news, in which the show gets (for example) some crazy left-wing man-hating ultra-feminist on one side, and the fundamentalist conservative religious nut on the other side, and have them scream at each other until commercial break, which is usually 2 minutes away. I can't abide this. We are reasonable people, and we can come together and exchange information, so that hopefully we come away learning something. I used to have comment moderation enabled, so it had to go through my approval for comment publication, but I turned that off. I felt like it was getting in the way. Maybe if our readership goes up, and we start getting crazy conspiracy theorists adding their weird comments, I'll have to enable it again.
But thank you all for your comments and support.
But I'd like to say something, at least. If anyone out there, who actually reads what I write, disagrees with me, feel free to comment and tell me why you disagree. I'd like this to be an open forum in which we can exchange ideas, and more importantly information. For instance, I know that there is some disagreement on my Mitt Romney article, and I understand the fallacies of my logic, which I apologize for. But this is a great opportunity for anyone out there, who feels that I missed something, to inform us of something I may not know.
One of the things I ask for in the comments, however, is that we regard each other with respect. This comes from my displeasure of entertainment posing as news, in which the show gets (for example) some crazy left-wing man-hating ultra-feminist on one side, and the fundamentalist conservative religious nut on the other side, and have them scream at each other until commercial break, which is usually 2 minutes away. I can't abide this. We are reasonable people, and we can come together and exchange information, so that hopefully we come away learning something. I used to have comment moderation enabled, so it had to go through my approval for comment publication, but I turned that off. I felt like it was getting in the way. Maybe if our readership goes up, and we start getting crazy conspiracy theorists adding their weird comments, I'll have to enable it again.
But thank you all for your comments and support.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Mitt's whole "Mormon" Thing
- Daniel
Mitt Romney didn't start out a career politician. He's a business man, specializing in turning-around companies and making them successful. He did the same for the Utah Olympics, and he claims he'll do it for America. But the media can't find any skeletons in his closet to dig up. So instead, they've found other reasons why he's not a good candidate. The fact that he's a Mormon is his biggest downfall. In addition, as a Republican nominee hopeful, a large percentage of that party consists of fundamentalist Christians, who act like they control the party--which they probably do--and view Mormonism as nothing less than the devil - despite the fact that most Mormons share similar conservative ideology.
But the media's taken a fascination with asking Romney all sorts of questions about Mormonism. In a recent Newsweek article by Jonathan Darman and Lisa Miller, they note his biggest weakness is his reluctance to talk about his faith. His second weakness is his "flip-flopping" on issues.
How many of these people, who are dying to hear what Mormonism is all about from Romney's own mouth, have at some point slammed the door in the face of Mormon Missionaries who've knocked on their door? It's not Mitt Romney's job to be an ambassador to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). The Church has thousands of full-time missionaries whose job it is to talk about their church. If people are curious, ask one of them. Romney's a politician, he needs to focus on his job, not appeal to religious discourse. Just like JFK, as a Catholic--one of those other unlikeable Christian religions in America--focused on his job.
As for Romney's "flip-flopping"... Remember when that used to be called "changing your mind based upon further information"? Adapting to changing conditions and information is a valuable skill, and the sign of a moderate. How many people want George Bush to change his mind on the war? Anyway, Romney was a Republican governor of a very liberal state, and he got that way by being moderate in his ideology. The problem isn't that he's "flip-flopping", the problem is he can't be a moderate and run for President as a Republican - let alone as a Democrat. Instead, he has to adhere to the partisan extremism of his party. And because of that, you have a candidate that reforms himself as a more stern conservative than he once was. It's really too bad, too, because I like him more as a moderate.
But I gotta hand it to the media. It's usually pretty easy to dig up dirt on presidential candidates, them being the natural slime-bag liars that they are. It must annoy them that Romney's got a clean record. But the Mormon thing and "flip-flopping" will keep them busy and distracted enough to avoid the real issues that need to be talked about in this country.
Mitt Romney didn't start out a career politician. He's a business man, specializing in turning-around companies and making them successful. He did the same for the Utah Olympics, and he claims he'll do it for America. But the media can't find any skeletons in his closet to dig up. So instead, they've found other reasons why he's not a good candidate. The fact that he's a Mormon is his biggest downfall. In addition, as a Republican nominee hopeful, a large percentage of that party consists of fundamentalist Christians, who act like they control the party--which they probably do--and view Mormonism as nothing less than the devil - despite the fact that most Mormons share similar conservative ideology.
But the media's taken a fascination with asking Romney all sorts of questions about Mormonism. In a recent Newsweek article by Jonathan Darman and Lisa Miller, they note his biggest weakness is his reluctance to talk about his faith. His second weakness is his "flip-flopping" on issues.
How many of these people, who are dying to hear what Mormonism is all about from Romney's own mouth, have at some point slammed the door in the face of Mormon Missionaries who've knocked on their door? It's not Mitt Romney's job to be an ambassador to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons). The Church has thousands of full-time missionaries whose job it is to talk about their church. If people are curious, ask one of them. Romney's a politician, he needs to focus on his job, not appeal to religious discourse. Just like JFK, as a Catholic--one of those other unlikeable Christian religions in America--focused on his job.
As for Romney's "flip-flopping"... Remember when that used to be called "changing your mind based upon further information"? Adapting to changing conditions and information is a valuable skill, and the sign of a moderate. How many people want George Bush to change his mind on the war? Anyway, Romney was a Republican governor of a very liberal state, and he got that way by being moderate in his ideology. The problem isn't that he's "flip-flopping", the problem is he can't be a moderate and run for President as a Republican - let alone as a Democrat. Instead, he has to adhere to the partisan extremism of his party. And because of that, you have a candidate that reforms himself as a more stern conservative than he once was. It's really too bad, too, because I like him more as a moderate.
But I gotta hand it to the media. It's usually pretty easy to dig up dirt on presidential candidates, them being the natural slime-bag liars that they are. It must annoy them that Romney's got a clean record. But the Mormon thing and "flip-flopping" will keep them busy and distracted enough to avoid the real issues that need to be talked about in this country.
Moderate Update #01
Well, I'm off to a slow start. My goal right now is to have content updated every Friday. That means a new article. But for the 1 or 2 readers out there, I'll try to keep with that schedule and we'll go from there.
So I'm going to post something new today. And yes, I know it's Saturday, so I'm behind schedule already. But by next week I should be more consistent, even if it is sparse.
So I'm going to post something new today. And yes, I know it's Saturday, so I'm behind schedule already. But by next week I should be more consistent, even if it is sparse.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Finding Jesus, One Criminal Act at a Time
- Daniel
Dog-murdering hero Michael Vick, Atlanta Falcon quarterback, last month after his plea bargain, announced his conversion to Christianity. "I found Jesus and turned my life over to God. I think that's the right thing to do as of now."
It seems like the tradition in the South is to claim personal reformation in the form of Christianity to exempt yourself from further responsibility. Vick gets to join a list of other criminal converts this year, including Ashley Miller and Heather Johnston, who, back in March robbed a bank in
I suppose if hiding behind Jesus gets you less jail time, it's only natural to go that route. But the whole thing about Christianity is it demands reconciliation. And that may require facing jail time for violations of society's laws, no matter how good of an athlete you are or how much you love Jesus.
In his attempt to prove to the world his change of heart, this week, Vick failed his drug test.
Too bad Jesus doesn't condone marijuana use. The judge is going to throw the book at him, and this time it won't be the Bible.
GM sheds retiree costs, UAW gets job commitments and GM employees get time to play Halo 3
- cgedge
I had a hard time believing the GM strike this week would last very long. Of course it would effect the economy, and sure the labor union wants to ensure jobs for its members and the ability to add new members to its union. But GM was looking to be more competitive in the global economy, and how can they do that with the growing cost of retiree heath care? Thankfully the two groups were able to come to an agreement in a matter of days. However I think that’s just a cover for the real story--employees just wanted to play Halo 3.
Now I know the initial reaction is to think that GM employees would be bigger fans of Grand Theft Auto. Who wouldn’t think that? Most people who have been victims of auto theft end up having to purchase a new car and there is always the chance that the car could be a GM.
However, GM employees could’ve picked any weekend to have this strike. Why now? Do they expect me to believe it’s just a coincidence that the strike took place during the release of Halo 3? The 25th of September was a big day for gamers, with many stores staying open for the midnight release. GM employees didn’t start the strike until the 24th, which left them plenty of time to wait in line to pick up the new game. The workers continued the strike on Tuesday. Who wants to go to work when you’ve just spent the previous night playing videogames? No one in their right mind wants to camp out in front of a store just so they can go to work the next day. Why wait? Gamers make time to play and the strike made the perfect cover. Not only did they get time off to play, they didn’t have to call in sick the next day—like other people I know.
Here’s the thing, we all knew GM and the UAW would work things out. What we didn’t plan on was the ingenuity of the GM employees to have their union call for a strike during the release of Halo 3. Any gamer can make time to play but it takes a truly diehard group of fans to plan and execute a strike as a cover up to mask their gaming addiction.
The Moderate Mind
Today is the official launch of my blog. It is intended to be political, although right now is tending more towards the satirical.
In this age of extreme American partisan news, I've started to grow weary of the division in the political line. I hope to express ideas from a moderate point of view, as well as express ideas from any side of the political spectrum without delving into the trite extremisms of our political parties.
If there is a difference of opinion, I'm hoping it can be expressed without the venomous taint so often accompanying the "debate forums" on CNN, Fox News etc.
While I'm fumbling around with this idea, I'm hoping that eventually I can reach that point.
Also, today, I have an article written by my sister, which I'm very excited about. Anyway, for the two or three readers out there, enjoy.
In this age of extreme American partisan news, I've started to grow weary of the division in the political line. I hope to express ideas from a moderate point of view, as well as express ideas from any side of the political spectrum without delving into the trite extremisms of our political parties.
If there is a difference of opinion, I'm hoping it can be expressed without the venomous taint so often accompanying the "debate forums" on CNN, Fox News etc.
While I'm fumbling around with this idea, I'm hoping that eventually I can reach that point.
Also, today, I have an article written by my sister, which I'm very excited about. Anyway, for the two or three readers out there, enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)