I just find this hilarious.
Articles You Should Read:
1. The U.S. Supreme Court Decision, Corporations, and Politics
Update: I also want to link Glenn Greenwald's "Follow-up on the Citizens United Case" here since I think it's a nice balance to the Sociological Images post.
2. The New Wave of Trans Cinema
3. Witch-doctors reveal extent of child sacrifice in Uganda
4. I've also stumbled across an interesting website called The Gaytheists, “a place for LGBTQ atheists, skeptics and humanists.” I’ve only done cursory read of the blog so far, but I think I’m gonna love it.
I'm including this video because I read a pretty interesting take on it called "The Transcontinental Disability Choir: Disabililty Chic? (Temporary) Disability in Lady Gaga's "Paparazzi"."
Though not everyone will agree on the author's opinion, I still think it's good to read. I also really like the comments, particularly this one:
I think it's a poorly chosen metaphor, though. I read it as a very adolescent revenge fantasy -- "Paparazzi, you'll be sorry when I'm dead...or in a wheel chair." The wheelchair and crutches are props, which are used to draw attention to her victim status...to invite pity and horror. Her movements become less human, almost robotic, and she becomes (if only temporarily) something acted on by the world around her. The wheelchair and crutches are not things that give her power and mobility. They are reminders that the paparazzi and her sex partner/murderer guy have taken power away from her. It's almost as if disability stems from these items. Very troubling from a feminist and disability standpoint.Makes you think.
Special STFU of the week:
This one goes to Matthew Archbold for his post “Atheists Love You. They Just Don't Know Why.” In the post Archbold claims Richard Dawkins is being self-serving in his religious-free aid to Haiti since his intentions are probably to one up religion. Then, after he gets to suggest that idea without having to own it, Archbold then goes on to claim that Dawkins aid is must be proof that god truly exists even if Dawkins denies it.
The gem of the post:
I have to wonder from what philosophical grounding does Dawkins’ altruism emanate? Why is other human life worth anything if there is no God? From what philosophical groundwork is he basing his good works on? Dawkins, it would seem to me, hasn’t defined his terms and is only borrowing our definition of “good.” Because without our definitions he’d have to ask the question, “What is good without God?” And that’s something I haven’t seen answered yet.
This is a pretty standard straw man argument by theists (that there is no good without god). As many of the comments have pointed out, the statement “Why is other human life worth anything if there is no God?” says more about Archbold then he probably wanted to share. What Archbold doesn’t realize is that his statements represent the very sentiment that leads a lot of people to reject religion. Because not only is it morally bankrupt, but it’s also a little too “reward system” for many people.
Quote/Thought that makes me happy:
"Your flaws are beautiful. They’re what make you stand out. Don’t try to be normal, perfect, striving to be something or someone that you will never accomplish. Be annoying, be quirky, be different. In truth, it takes a hell of a lot more strength to resist, than to go along with the flow. Stray from the path. What anyone else thinks doesn’t matter. Let them be boring, let them be the same, as unnoticeable as the people around them. Wear flowers in your hair, mismatching socks, and thousands of multi-colored bracelets. Press all those damn buttons in the elevator, and piss off everyone around you. Have fun now, because there’s always plenty of time to be boring in the future."-Andrea Chiang
Something you probably don’t know about me:
My favorite thing for breakfast is Neapolitan ice cream.