The Blood is on No One's Hand but the Guilty, and He's Dead

I suck.

I have a post on Ferguson that's been sitting in my draft section.  I have yet to post my thoughts about the shootings on those two NYPD police officers and the following marches/voices of support for the police.  Well, no time like the present.
-------------------------------------------------------

In case you missed it, back around late December,

An armed man walked up to two New York Police Department officers sitting inside a patrol car and opened fire Saturday afternoon, striking them both before running into a nearby subway station and committing suicide, NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton said.
The shooting took place in Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. Both officers were shot in the head and rushed to a hospital, where they later died.

At a news conference Saturday night, Bratton identified the officers as Wenjian Liu, a seven-year veteran of the NYPD, and Raphael Ramos, who joined the force two years ago.

"They were, quite simply, assassinated -- targeted for their uniform," Bratton said. "They were ambushed and murdered."......

The gunman, identified as 28-year-old Ismaaiyl Brinsley, shot himself inside the subway station, Bratton said. A semi-automatic handgun was recovered at the scene.....

Bratton said Brinsley had shot and seriously wounded his ex-girlfriend Saturday morning in Baltimore and made posts from her Instagram account that were "very anti-police."

Authorities didn't get into the specifics of the contents of the posts, but a police source told CBS News that Brinsley posted a photo of a handgun on Instagram a few hours before the shooting. CBS News could not independently verify that the message came from the suspect.

"I'm Putting Wings On Pigs Today," the post said. "They Take 1 Of Ours. Let's Take 2 Of Theirs. #ShootThePolice #RIPErivGardner (sic) #RIPMikeBrown This May Be My Final Post. I'm Putting Pigs In A Blanket"

While I have no problem with the public showing support for the police force, what PISSED ME OFF about that whole incident was the belief that the protests about recent police brutality and shootings somehow fueled the idea of violence toward the police, leading to the deaths of the officers. That if you protested the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, etc., that you're against the police.  Take this guy....

Some of his own words:  "Those that incited violence on the streets under the guise of protest that tried to tear down what New York City police officers did every day. We tried to warn it must not go on, it cannot be tolerated," Lynch said. "That blood on the hands starts at City Hall in the office of the mayor."


Let me make something clear.

You can support the police and still be against police brutality.  You can support the police, know that there are many good police officers, and still protest against the unfair deaths of black men at the hands of some police officers.  The police are NOT above scrutiny.

Now with that being said, this happened:

This was taken around December 13th of last year in New York City in the wake of the police related death of Eric Garner.  The shooting of the officers was around December 20th.  Were the protestors in the video wrong, OF COURSE!

But out of ALL the protests that happened across the country, people took this one group - this one instance, and decided that ALL protests against police brutality (at least the ones in New York) caused the deaths of the two officers.  Ridiculous!   

Now were there instances of police officers being assaulted, yes.  People, especially black people are angry and tired of police brutality happening towards blacks.  But that still doesn't make assaulting police officers OK, and I'm sure most of those protesting against treatment by the police agree.  But the minority cases always take the forefront.

Funny.....police complain that the good cops are grouped with the bad; about how they are portrayed, and they always point out that most cops are good cops.  However, when it comes the protests against police shootings and abuse of power, the few incidents of violence during those protests are constantly used to represent the entirety of the protestors.  The good and bad are grouped together.  Look at how many times people brought up the rioters from Ferguson as an example of the protests over there.  The protestors and rioters were grouped together.   

About the shooter.
To blame the protests for his actions is like blaming violent video games/movies for the actions of school shooters.  Or that a movie/music video/show/video game having a character that think it's OK to kill people means that it tells someone that it's OK to believe that in real life and to act on it.  The shooter was already not right in the head.  He even attacked his ex-girlfriend earlier on, but no one seems to ever mention that..... 

In conclusion, as Jon Stewart said:

You can truly grieve for every officer who's been lost in the line of duty in this country, and still be troubled by cases of police overreach.  Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive.  You can have great regard for law enforcement and still want them to be held to high standards.

 Here are some more great comments from people online about the whole thing:

- This phony and logically baffling indignation is similar to that expressed by the St. Louis County Police Association when it demanded an apology from the NFL when several Rams players entered the field with their hands held high in the iconic Michael Brown gesture of surrender. Or when LeBron James and W.R. Allen wore his “I Can’t Breathe” shirts echoing Eric Garner’s final plea before dying. Such outrage by police unions and politicians implies that there is no problem, which is the erroneous perception that the protestors are trying to change.

- It's like people don't understand that the action of a single person does not represent an entire group. Then again, these are probably the same people who think the 9/11 attacks of an extremist group represents an entire culture and religion. Ignorance feeds ignorance.

- In a Dec. 21, 2014 article about the shooting, the Los Angeles Times referred to the New York City protests as “anti-police marches,” which is grossly inaccurate and illustrates the problem of perception the protestors are battling. The marches are meant to raise awareness of double standards, lack of adequate police candidate screening, and insufficient training that have resulted in unnecessary killings. Police are not under attack, institutionalized racism is. Trying to remove sexually abusive priests is not an attack on Catholicism, nor is removing ineffective teachers an attack on education. Bad apples, bad training, and bad officials who blindly protect them, are the enemy. And any institution worth saving should want to eliminate them, too.

And lastly:

The idiots who killed these people are responsible for their deaths!  Can we say that all white people are responsible for over 200 years of slavery, followed by generations of jim crow laws, and now institutional racism?  absolutely not.  some white people are hateful racists, and some are not.  some people are idiots and take the law into their own hands , and others, such as myself,  respect and obey the law.  place the blame where it belongs-on the heads of the idiot criminals who killed these officers!

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (six-time NBA champion and league Most Valuable Player; also an author, filmmaker and education ambassador) also had thoughts to share of his own.  From his article, The Police Aren’t Under Attack. Institutionalized Racism Is:

The recent brutal murder of two Brooklyn police officers, Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, is a national tragedy that should inspire nationwide mourning. Both my grandfather and father were police officers, so I appreciate what a difficult and dangerous profession law enforcement is. We need to value and celebrate the many officers dedicated to protecting the public and nourishing our justice system. It’s a job most of us don’t have the courage to do.

At the same time, however, we need to understand that their deaths are in no way related to the massive protests against systemic abuses of the justice system as symbolized by the recent deaths—also national tragedies—of Eric Garner, Akai Gurley, and Michael Brown. Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the suicidal killer, wasn’t an impassioned activist expressing political frustration, he was a troubled man who had shot his girlfriend earlier that same day.

How Darren Wilson Demonized Michael Brown - from the Root

Some excepts I wanted to share.....Read the whole thing at the source.  It's pretty good.

Stereotypes are dangerous. And for Michael Brown, they proved to be deadly.

Of all that we heard Monday night about the St. Louis County grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson, Mo., Police Officer Darren Wilson for shooting and killing Brown, what kept me awake for hours after the announcement was made was Wilson’s testimony.

Testimony in which Wilson said that Brown “had the most intense aggressive face. The only way I can describe it, it looks like a demon, that’s how angry he looked.”

It was rife with imagery that dates back hundreds of years as it relates to how white men often perceive black men. His use of vivid language, describing Brown like “Hulk Hogan” while describing himself, in comparison, like a small child holding on for dear life, is troubling. This is the power and danger of racial “stereotypes.”

When we believe that another human being is in fact, not human, we remove ourselves from how we treat, and entreat, them. We justify prejudices. We justify disrespect. We justify dehumanization in ways that can, and often does, lead to tragedy.

.................................

The anger and violence that erupted last night in Ferguson is so much bigger than Brown’s tragic death though. It’s not really about whether Wilson was “justified” in taking a life. Or whether Brown robbed a grocery store for cigars, “charged” Wilson or caused the officer to fear for his life. It’s about a community that feels disenfranchised—and assaulted by the very officers sworn to protect them.

This American tragedy is about a longstanding history of “fear” between white law-enforcement officers and young black men (unarmed, in uniform, in suits or driving while black). And until we address that issue, we will continue to see more teens like Trayvon Martin stalked and gunned down by unarmed vigilantes like George Zimmerman. And we will continue to see the use of deadly force to “subdue” black male suspects who have not been given their fundamental rights of due process.

Ferguson Post Part 1

Well, by now, we all know that Officer Darren Wilson was not indicted for killing unarmed teenager, Michael Brown.  The jury believed that the officer acted within the rules of police conduct and that he was right to feel threatened by Brown.  According to prosecutor Bob McCulloch, the jury reached their decision based on the evidence and testimony from Wilson and black witnesses. 

I don’t know about you, but there’s something fishy going on here.  But I'll save that for the next post.  

Let me take a moment to say this. 

I’m sick of those who are on the side of Wilson, painting those who think he was wrong to shoot Brown as only going by emotion; constantly sprouting that blacks who are against Wilson believe that because Michael was black, he's innocent, and that white cops are always in the wrong!  Or those who believe that racism is only about whether someone is gunned down BECAUSE their black.  Or constantly complaining about Jesse Jackson this, Obama that, the mainstream/liberal media also!  These people miss the point entirely.

Could it be that people are against Wilson because what he did was wrong, and that the evidence and witness testimonies leave much to be desired, even straight up questionable (I'll get to that later).  Many white people say that the right decision was made and it was based on evidence, yet it was mostly white people who cried fowl when O. J. Simpson was set free.  The jury found him innocent based on evidence too....   

Racism isn't only about something being done to someone BECAUSE they're black.  It involves the views, feelings, and fear someone has, and stereotypes people hold, of another person that fuels their actions towards them.  Darren didn't kill Brown solely because he was black, but Brown being black influenced Darren to take actions he wouldn't necessarily have taken had Michael been white or even a hefty white woman.  The point is, many cops out right FEAR black people, especially black men, and that fear causes them to be skittish and jumpy.  And you can't be a cop and feel skittish. 

I heard this on the Steve Harvey Morning Show.  Blacks are used to being "the only one" in groups, whether it be in a class or work environment.  But whites, truth be told, aren't used to that.  Add being sent to areas where there are issues with crime and you got some scared white cops.

Another thing, the protesters in Ferguson being seen as ALL violent really upsets me.  I'm not excusing the rioters, but there were rioters and there were protesters.  Apparently, there was indeed peaceful protests in front of the police station, but of course no one mentions that.  And I got to tell you...while watching the live feed on MSNBC, at times it seems as if the cops were overzealous in controlling the citizens.  For example, threatening to arrest people if they didn't get out of the street and onto the sidewalk....really?  Not to mention at one point sending in TRUCKS that shot out teargas/smoke bombs/whichever it was.  The location where that took place, if I recall correctly, I didn't see any outright rioting.  To make it worse, people claim that tear gas was being flown into people's yards.

Again, I'm not excusing the rioters.  I know that bricks were thrown, a couple of cars set on fire, businesses vandalized, etc.  I'm just saying to not combine the rioters and protesters into one group.  And with the rioters being mostly black, people (especially whites) like to base the entire group on the actions of some.   

Up next, my thoughts on the shooting itself.

Thoughts about Rape and Risks

Something I saw over at Youtube under the comments section:

This comment touches on something I've always wondered about.  Is how a woman dress really THAT MUCH of a factor in increasing the risk of a woman being raped?  Does it really play a role?

We all know that women and girls can wear anything from sweats to a cocktail dress and be raped.  So is there truly any validity to the belief that what a woman wears will increase her chances of being raped?

There are those that believe that rape is about power and those that believe it's more about sex, or more perhaps unhealthy sexual urges.  Because of the latter belief, people believe that if a woman dresses a certain way, whatever that may be, that a certain male sect of the population would target her for rape.  Or something like that.

Here's what I think.  If someone's planning on raping you, they're going to do it regardless of what you wear.  With that being said, unlike the belief that rape is only about power, I see it as being both about power and about warped/uncontrolled sexual desires.  So is it possible for a rapist to see someone wearing something sexy/flattering and be turned on to the point of wanting to rape them?  Yeah I think so...but a pair of skinny jeans and a nice shirt can be seen a sexy, so can a professional pencil skirt or a nice turtleneck.  Does this mean that women should not wear cute skinny jeans, a flattering top out in public, or heck wear workout outfits while jogging (or even jog outside), out of fear of attracting the wrong attention?

Absolutely not.  That's like saying that we shouldn't EVER carry around expensive purses or wear expensive jewelry out in public - AT ALL -, out of constant fear of being robbed.  

Something else I want to touch on.

All this talk of how women shouldn't go off with strange men...what makes a guy a "strange man"?  Many rapes and sexual assaults occur by someone the victim knows so I wouldn't think they would be considered "strange".  So what is a "strange man", one you don't know?  In that case any guy you don't know that well or just met is "strange", which is funny considering how much guys around the "man-o-sphere" hate how females (to them) throw around the word "creepy" when referring to guys they aren't attracted to, who tries to hit on them or stare at them a little too long (God forbid, guys are called creepy because they act, well...obviously creepy).

Look, I'm for taking precautions, but there's that and there's this ever ending list of reasons why you were raped or risks of being raped that's brought up time and time again.  You know, those discussions that happen whenever a girl is raped that focus on what she did wrong.  Even worse are those discussions that focus on what she was wearing.  Why even mention what the victim had on or not have on?  All it does is insinuate that the victim was partially to blame in inciting that rapist.  It's saying....he wasn't going to rape her if she was wearing something else.  As if it was solely because of what she was wearing.  It also insinuates that women and girls have to be careful in what we wear because all men have the potential to be rapists, which is a big lie, and it's something MRAs (men's right activists) accuse feminists of believing and teaching to the masses.    

The ONLY time I think it's OK to know what an alledged victim was or was not wearing is in cases of he said/she said.  Like, if the guy being charged claims the sex was consensual and it was found that the alledged victim did go into his bedroom voluntarily, wearing lingerie at the time.  But even then, one shouldn't automatically disbelieve the victim.

Hopefully this post didn't go all over the place.  Sorry if it did...just wanted to share my two cents, or three, or a dollar lol....

Tweets and Commentary from those in the Ferguson protests

From actor Jesse Williams tumblr site.  I didn't know how to embed the video.  You can see it in the link:

They have 3 [Black] eyewitnesses, which they completely disregard by framing a false equivalency with— and I’m not making this up, "an anonymous caller who did NOT witness the shooting BUT is a friend of the officers"

Whaaaaaat? You’re rebutting 3 eyewitnesses with  an anonymous caller who did NOT even see the events AND is a friend of the shooter? Really?

Where they do that at?

CNN continues, “"an anonymous caller who did NOT witness the shooting BUT is a friend of the officers says Michael Brown was the aggressor, which CNN has CONFIRMED matches the account officer Wilson gave authorities.”

Oh, you confirmed it did you? Of course it matches, she’s representing the guy who will literally say anything to stay out of jail. She already admitted that she could not possibly know if what she’s saying is true, and CNN broadcasts it around the world. Think about that. They use the word “confirmed” in an attempt to add validity to propoganda, while making it sound like they did some work.

Then, as if that wasn’t crazy enough, they immediately play the ANONYMOUS person’s call/version of events on TV!! (With captioning to make sure the narrative really burns into your consciousness.) Her version has literally zero merit. They did not play any of the eyewitness accounts and went straight to a play-by-play from someone who WASN’T EVEN THERE??!!

That is a gross violation of journalistic responsibility and public trust.

The question is not “if” but why; why have news networks chosen a side?

(Granted, none of these accounts are given under oath; none are automatically true. But at least ask people who could possibly be of value.)
------------------------------

If you really want to understand the fear that blacks have toward the police and the anger and claims of racism, visit Jesse's page.  You'll find first hand tweets and accounts of those actually in the Ferguson protests, among other things.  Some examples:

Officer threatens to kill Ferguson livestreamers
Ferguson advance on protestors with guns drawn...
An interesting report from a protestor
People trying to go home, get detained
Police forced Amnesty International to leave
Officers wouldn't display identification...
90-year-old Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein arrested for peacefully protesting...in Ferguson
Autopsy report
"Tonight cops have...."
It's perfectly legal to film cops...
When the media treat white suspects and killers better than black victims

Like I said, these are only some examples.  His tumblr page is awesome.   

And....just in case you don't know who Jesse Williams is:

Yes, he's the one that plays Dr. Jackson Avery on the ABC Television series Grey's Anatomy.

Something else that's pretty cool.  This month he joined in the latest protests in Ferguson.

And I'll end with a link this video of him on CNN

Jon Stewart and Bill O’Reilly Discuss White Privilege

If you want an explanation of white privilege, here it is.

Thoughts on Ferguson

I know the whole Ferguson incident has been out of the media for awhile, but I wanted to get this off my chest.

In discussions and arguments I've read online about the Michael Brown shooting and Ferguson protests, common responses from mostly white people are along the lines of "what about black on black crime" or how no one makes a big deal about black on white crime.

For one thing, the blacks HAVE expressed concerns over issues like violence that goes on within the community.  There have been marches, meetings, etc., they just weren't nationally televised. 

Second point - when it comes to black on black crime, more often than not there's no question of guilt and the guilty party is rightfully put away.  On top of that:

On average, blacks receive almost 10% longer sentences than comparable whites arrested for the same crimes

And while we're at it:

From the Huffington Post

• Drugs. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, among youths aged 12 to 17, the rate of current illicit drug use was 11.1 % among whites, and 9.3% among African Americans. [5] In a previous year, the same survey found that white youth aged 12 to17 are more than a third more likely to have sold drugs than African American youth. [6] The Monitoring the Future Survey of high school seniors shows that white students annually use cocaine at 4.6 times the rate of African Americans students, use crack cocaine at 1.5 times the rate of African Americans students, and use heroin at the same rate of African Americans students, and that white youth report annual use of marijuana at a rate 46% higher than African American youth. [7] However African American youth are arrested for drug offenses at about twice the rate (African American 314 per 100,000, white 175 per 100,000) times that of whites, [8] and African American youth represent nearly half (48%) of all the youth incarcerated for a drug offense in the juvenile justice system. [9]
• Weapons. According to the Center on Disease Control's annual Youth Risk Behavior Survey, in 2001 whites and African Americans reported similar rates of carrying a weapon (whites 17.9%, African Americans 15.2%), and similar rates of carrying a gun (whites 5.5%, and African Americans, 6.5%). [10] African American youth represent 32% of all weapons arrests, and were arrested for weapons offenses at a rate twice that of whites (69 per 100,000, versus 30 per 100,000). [11]
• Assault. According to the Center on Disease Control's annual Youth Risk Behavior Survey, African Americans report being in a physical fight at a similar rate (36.5%, versus 32.5% for whites), but were arrested for aggravated assault at a rate nearly three times that of whites (137 per 100,000, versus 48 per 100,000)

And I'll leave this here for the heck of it.

More about black on black crime.  From the Daily Beast:  The Trayvon Martin Killing and the Myth of Black-on-Black Crime.

 ....in Chicago, 16-year-old Darryl Green was found dead in the yard of an abandoned home. He was killed, relatives reported, because he refused to join a gang. Unlike most tragedies, however—which remain local news—this one caught the attention of conservative activist Ben Shapiro, an editor for Breitbart News. Using the hashtag “#justicefordarryl,” Shaprio tweeted and publicized the details of Green’s murder. But this wasn’t a call for help and assistance for Green’s family, rather, it was his response to wide outrage over Saturday’s decision in the case of George Zimmerman, where a Florida jury judged him “not guilty” of second-degree murder or manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin.

Shapiro, echoing many other conservatives, is angry over the perceived politicization of the Zimmerman trial, and believes that activists have ”injected” race into the discussion, as if there’s nothing racial already within the criminal-justice system. Indeed, he echoes many conservatives when he complains that media attention had everything to do with Zimmerman’s race. If he were black, the argument goes, no one would care. And so, Shapiro found the sad story of Darryl Green, and promoted it as an example of the “black-on-black” crime that, he believes, goes ignored. Or, as he tweets, “49% of murder victims are black men. 93% of those are killed by other blacks. Media don’t care. Obama doesn’t care. #JusticeForDarryl.”

......But there’s a huge problem with attempt to shift the conversation: There’s no such thing as “black-on-black” crime. Yes, from 1976 to 2005, 94 percent of black victims were killed by black offenders, but that racial exclusivity was also true for white victims of violent crime—86 percent were killed by white offenders. Indeed, for the large majority of crimes, you’ll find that victims and offenders share a racial identity, or have some prior relationship to each other.

What Shapiro and others miss about crime, in general, is that it’s driven by opportunism and proximity; If African-Americans are more likely to be robbed, or injured, or killed by other African-Americans, it’s because they tend to live in the same neighborhoods as each other. Residential statistics bear this out (PDF); blacks are still more likely to live near each other or other minority groups than they are to whites. And of course, the reverse holds as well—whites are much more likely to live near other whites than they are to minorities and African-Americans in particular.

.....“Black-on-black crime” has been part of the American lexicon for decades, but as a specific phenomenon, it’s no more real than “white-on-white crime.” Unlike the latter, however, the idea of “black-on-black crime” taps into specific fears around black masculinity and black criminality—the same fears that, in Florida, led George Zimmerman to focus his attention on Trayvon Martin, and in New York, continue to justify Michael Bloomberg’s campaign of police harassment against young black men in New York City.

Now about black on white crime.

It turns out that "most death sentences are handed out for killing white people, even though African-Americans make up 50% of murder victims (they are only 12% of the population)".

In other words,

....if an African-American male had fired ten shots into the SUV of some white suburban kids playing their music too loud, killing one of them, I think we all know there would have been a murder conviction and almost certainly a death penalty imposed.
In case of conviction for murder, African-Americans are 38% more likely to be handed the death penalty than members of other racial groupings.

So basically, when it comes to black on white crime, the conviction of blacks is pretty much guaranteed.  Again, there's not really a questions of guilt.

Then there's this article.

Lastly, one thing that bothered me was the news and media take on the protests.  They basically combined the rioters and the protesters into one group and gave the impression that the protesters were the ones violent.  That was not true; there was no differentiation between the rioters and the protesters.  To make matters worse, the police treated the protesters as if they were the violent ones.  In a continuation post, I plan on posting tweets and pictures recounting the protests and violence from the ones there.

A MUST READ if you're SICK of the lack of diversity in comic book movies!

Here is an EXCELLENT piece I first read on Oh No They Didn't. 

Original source here: On Marvel, Mandarin, and Marginalization by Marrisa Lee - from Racebending.com:

At ComicCon 2012, Marvel Studios announced that Sir Ben Kingsley will be playing a version of The Mandarin, Tony Stark’s traditional yellow peril arch-nemesis, in Iron Man 3. The announcement was a sudden about-turn from previous statements the Iron Man directors have made about the Fu Manchu-inspired villain.....

Kingsley’s casting has made some waves; he is a British actor of partial South Asian descent while the Mandarin was originally of Chinese descent in the comics. It’s complicated by the fact that the Chinese government is virtually co-financing and co-producing Iron 3 through DMG film group; China likely had a say in the depiction of The Mandarin in Iron Man 3. [A stamp of approval from the Chinese government doesn't mean much given Asian Americans who live in the United States as a minority group are arguably more strongly affected by sinophobia and stereotypes than the people of China or the Chinese government. (eg. Han Chinese people living in China have access to unlimited representation of themselves in their domestic entertainment industries; Asian Americans do not.)]

Does the casting of Kingsley serve to perpetuate the stereotype that all Asian ethnic groups are interchangeable? Or does it simply cement Marvel Studios’ decision to shift the stereotypical bad guys of the comics from “yellow peril” to “Middle Eastern/South Asian terrorism”? (The first Iron Man film had the Ten Rings bad guy Raza, played by South Asian American actor Faran Tahir.) Rather than debating among ourselves about which Asian American or Asian actor should have the sad privilege to continue the legacy of the reviled Fu Manchu-esque Mandarin, or hand wringing about how Asian Americans don’t have much say in how to reinvent or salvage unforgivable stereotypes that have caused great harm to our communities, there are more pertinent questions we need to lob at Marvel. 

Questions like: How did we end up with The Mandarin in a Marvel Studios movie before any Asian American lead heroes?

Or even just: Why isn’t Marvel really utilizing it’s pantheon of women heroes or characters of color?

Racial Microaggression (plus 2 links under the cut)

A few thoughts on stuff I've been reading about SMP and such

Before you begin reading this, you may want to look up terms such as "Sexual Market Place", "alpha", "beta".  These terms are used to deal with the dating scene, sexual matters between males and females, and general interactions between the sexes.  A good place to start is Hooking Up Smart created by Susan Walsh.  There are a whole lot of other sites that discuss this subject but personally Walsh's site is more well-rounded.  But that's just my personal opinion.

There are a few things I've been noticing a while when visiting blogs focusing on the SMP (Sexual Market Place) as it's called in circles and blogs focusing on men's issues.  Guys who identify themselves as "beta's" express how upset they are about how eager and how quickly females have sex with "alphas" while with betas, females are less eager and less willing to have sex with them. 

My thing is this though.  Anytime a woman complains about not being noticed by by guys, other men are quick to say "Oh well, you were (or are) just focusing on the alphas/studs/etc., etc.", basically disregarding her experience.  They say that if she, I guess, expand her focus or whatever, that she'll notice more men interested in her.  To them, if you are modestly attractive, then it's almost a guarantee that there are guys attracted to you.  Simply put, chicks have it easy to them.

But wait a minute...couldn't the same be said for these betas who are upset at the lack of attention they they receive?  If they are focusing on only the really attractive girls, I'm sure that the less attractive girls or modestly attractive ones are ignored....girls who may be interested in them, if they would only pay them any attention.  It's like a guy who focuses on the "cheerleader" and pays no attention to the "band geek", "the good girl", or "nerd".

There's another way of looking at this too.

Are males and females obligated to consider EVERYONE, absolutely not.  If you're not attracted to someone, then you're not attracted to someone.  The whole issue seems to be the lack of people you find attractive being attracted to you.  Sure there are people out there who are attracted to me...OK.  But if I don't find them attractive myself, then most likely it won't go anywhere, especially considering the fact that I am VERY visually oriented when it comes to attractiveness in men (something that's apparently rare in females).  So while I think it'd be nice for people to expand their horizons when it comes to attractiveness, people have preferences.  But we should realize that when we go strictly with our preferences, we ignore those who may find us attractive who aren't attractive to us. 

Well in the end, I think both males and females struggle with being ignored when it comes to the opposite sex.  I'm sure guys will say that they have it worse, but I wouldn't be so quick to think that females have it so easy.       



In other news....I need to stop taking these big breaks in between posting lol :P

The Trayvon Martin Tragedy and the Media's Handling of News Involving Black Victims of Crime

There has been alot of talk about the Trayvon Martin tragedy, and I have my own views, which I will get to in a moment.  But first I want to discuss the media's handling of the case.

It was around late-March I think when the nation was made aware of the incident (around second to the last week in this month). But here's the thing....

I first read about the case when reading this article.  Check out the date of the article....it was March 7, 2012.  The actual incident took place February 26th!

Now think about how long it took the mainstream media to even mention the case, much less broadcast it nationwide.  In fact, you could consider it a miracle that this case even made it that far into public consciousness.

I see it time and time again...if a victim of an attack, murder, or disappearance is not a beautiful white woman or a adorable pretty white girl, then most likely the media won't pay any attention and report on the crime nationwide.  Or drop the story all together for one missing white woman like CNN did in 2009.  Then there's good ole Nancy Grace.  All the disappearances/attacks/murders she has reported have been of white women and girls. Excerpt from the article How the Media Treat Murder:

Using Birth Control = SLUT????

Rush Limbaugh has once again stirred up controversy with his comments about Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, who - in her Congressional testimony - argued that birth control should be covered by health insurance at religious institutions.  From NY Daily News:

Conservative radio host declared Georgetown Law School's Sandra Fluke "a slut" for arguing that birth control should be covered by health insurance at religious institutions.
The shock jock mocked Sandra Fluke for arguing that her fellow students shell out $1,000 a year in out of pocket expenses. Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, does not cover  birth control as part of its health insurance plan.

Limbaugh dismissed Fluke’s assertion that women may be prescribed the pill for medical reasons and accused her of merely promoting promiscuity.

“What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute,” he said. “She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception.”
Limbaugh went on to insult Fluke’s family for raising a daughter with loose attitudes.

“Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be?” he said. “Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.”

In order to accentuate his point, he played the 1970s soul song “Troglodyte (Cave Man)” by the Jimmy Castor Bunch. He shouted “get pregnant!” over the lyrics about clubbing and grabbing women.

Even the top-ranked Georgetown Law School, a Catholic institution, did not escape Limbaugh’s sexist wrath.

“Well, I guess now we know why Bill Clinton went to Georgetown and why Hillary went to Wellesley,” he said. “Well, all the sex going on at Georgetown.”

.......................

The Case of the 41yr old Teacher and the 18yr old Student

You would have to be living under a rock (or not watch the news) to not know the latest teacher scandal.  From the Modesto Bee:

A 41-year-old Enochs High School teacher in Modesto has resigned and moved in with an 18-year-old student. The reaction has been largely shock, disapproval and betrayal.

The teen's mother has waged a very public campaign on Facebook since last week, when her daughter moved out of the family's home and into a Modesto apartment with the man. He has left his wife and children, one of whom is a junior at Enochs. 

Modesto police are investigating whether there was inappropriate contact before the girl turned 18 in the fall.  And school district and teachers union officials worry that an ethical and moral line has been crossed, even if the student is legally an adult.

James Hooker was placed on paid administrative leave Feb. 3 by Modesto City Schools and resigned Feb. 22, he said Tuesday. Hooker taught business and computer classes, and he was an adviser to three active campus clubs.

"In making our choice, we've hurt a lot of people," Hooker acknowledged. "We keep asking ourselves, 'Do we make everyone else happy or do we follow our hearts?' " Hooker and Enochs senior Jordan Powers said Tuesday in an interview at The Bee that they are making a life for themselves "day by day."

Powers was in Hooker's virtual business class and an associated club until his suspension. They said they met when she was a freshman.

Tammie Powers, Jordan's mother, said she believes Hooker pursued her daughter. She said her daughter's grades fell this year, and Jordan had panic attacks.  "I believe it was the stress of the lie," Tammie Powers said. She said her daughter was "always compliant," kept her room tidy at their Waterford home and minded her curfew. No R-rated movies until she was of age. No lone trips to the mall or the movies.

"I was really, really careful. I wanted her to be safe," she said.  "In hindsight, in retrospect, I should have looked at things differently," Powers said.......

Looking back over phone records, she said she found an estimated 8,000 text messages between the teacher and student going back through the summer. In the fall, about 32 texts a day, starting at 6 a.m. were recorded, she said......

On Facebook, Powers has called Hooker "an arrogant pervert," among other things, and urged readers to "help get the word out" about his involvement with a student.
The hundreds of responses are, for the most part, supportive of her. Many express disbelief.

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2012/02/28/2090490/enochs-high-teacher-resigns-after.html#storylink=cpy

David Wainwright posted that he sees teacher and student as complicit in the relationship, then added: "I just wouldn't of expected this from my fav teacher. What is the world coming to?"
Modesto City Schools Superintendent Pam Able confirmed Hooker's resignation Tuesday morning.

"Allegations of Mr. Hooker having a relationship with a student is the source of great concern for staff, students and parents. I consider student-teacher dating relationships to be not only unprofessional, but immoral," Able said via e-mail.

Modesto City Schools Board President Rubén Villalobos said Tuesday: "Schools need to be a safe place. Anything less than that is a failure." He said he could not comment on the case, but said in general teacher-student romances are wrong "because of that unequal balance of power."

Hooker knows his decisions may have cost him his teaching career. He taught business courses for 15 years and advised three campus clubs — Future Business Leaders of America, Mock Trial Club and Virtual Business Club.  Extra jobs such as the clubs earned Hooker $28,000 in added pay in 2009, the latest figures immediately available. District records show Hooker made $110,537 that year.

Hooker and Jordan Powers said their relationship was strictly teacher-student until mid-December, when they started talking more frequently and then dated. "I just kind of knew that she's the one," he said.

Powers turned 18 on Sept. 5, and Modesto police say that makes her a consenting adult. However, Lt. Rick Armendariz said there is an ongoing investigation involving a high school teacher and student.

Hooker confirmed Tuesday that he remains the object of a police probe. He said he is confident he will be cleared of accusations that any physical relationship started while Powers was a minor.  "There's no evidence of that. There's no proof of that. It didn't exist," Hooker said.He said the criticism is part of a campaign of lies he and Powers face online and in person. "I've been portrayed as a monster through all of this," Hooker said. "I'm not a monster. I'm not any different than I've always been."....

Hooker said he hopes to get a job in the private sector. "We're just taking it day by day," he said.

And We're Supposed to Be in a "Post-Racial" Time....

For those who say that racism or racist tendencies is no longer a big issue, or that we're "post-racial", check this out and get back at me afterwards....

From the The Huffington Post:

The unexpected emergence of Jeremy Lin from the depths of the New York Knicks' bench has been a dream for headline writers and just about everyone who loves puns. The "Linsanity" has spawned some Lincredible wordplay as well as some really unLinteresting phrases.
And, now, we may have found our most offensive headline from a mainstream media outlet.
Several hours after the Knicks' Lin-spired winning streak was snapped by the New Orleans Hornets, ESPN ran the headline "Chink In The Armor" to accompany the game story on mobile devices. ESPN's choice of words was extremely insensitive and offensive considering Lin's Asian-American heritage. According to Brian Floyd at SB Nation, the headline appeared on the Scorecenter app. The offensive headline was quickly noticed, screen grabs, Twit pics and Instagrams were shared and it began circulating widely on Twitter.

The use of the word "chink" is especially galling as Lin has revealed that this racial slur was used to taunt him during his college playing career at Harvard. After a brief run, the headline was changed to "All Good Things.."

...........................

TAXES - a Necessary Evil

A few moments ago, I had a little chat with my Dad about Republicans and taxes.

We were watching the local news about Virginia Beach public schools possibly undergoing what will probably be the worst tax cuts in years.  Things like no summer school, no sports for middle school, and teachers having to do 3 furlough days (temporary unpaid leave), just to name a few.

We then got on the subject of Republicans and how they always brag about (or want to brag about) not having to raise taxes or stopping the raising of taxes, which then leads to cuts on schools and needed programs.

I don't like the idea of raising taxes, no one does, but the question is, where will the money come from???  How can we pay off our debt (or at least try to)?  I would rather pay taxes than to have budget cuts on schools, space research, social programs, etc.

Speaking of which, Romney claimed that he doesn't need to focus on the poor because they have a "safety net".  However that "safety net" is what he and other Republicans want to cut funding for in the first place!

Ahem...anyway, by no means am I an expert on politics, but really though....it makes me sick that Republicans want to try so hard at not raising taxes, but at the expense needed programs, especially those for children.  It seems like schools are the first thing to have it's funds cut.  Is it really worth it?  I don't think so.

To me, taxes are simply a necessary evil. 

Homosexuality and Public Acceptance Based on Sex

In today's day and age, people have become more accepting of homosexuality.  Now as a Christian myself, I have my own views about homosexuality, but that's another topic for another day.  This is more of an observation that I've been noticing.


About a year ago, I was watching an episode of ABC's What Would You Do on a Friday.  There was a segment dealing with homosexual couples and the public response to them openly showing affection for one another. 

In one scenario, two gay men were showing off public displays of affection (or PDA) for one another while sitting on a public bench out in the open.  While onlookers looked on, the couple snuggled, kissed, held hands, etc., etc.  Nothing graphic.  However many people looked on in disgust.  One woman even called the police, and an officer came on to the scene and calmly told the couple to refrain from displaying any PDA.  It turns out though, that the officer was aware of the scenario being for a show and was in on the whole thing.  With all this happening to a gay male couple minding their own business, one would think that the same thing would happen to a lesbian couple.  Not so fast....

In the scenario of the lesbian couple, while there were still people who looked on in disgust at their PDA, there were also men who looked on in interest.  The segment even showed men approaching the couple and starting a conversation.  In a few instances, the conversation leaned on the flirtatious side.  Now let it be said that with the gay couple, they were also approached by a few women, but the conversation didn't appear to be flirtatious in any instance (unless women just have a different way of going about it).  In fact, in one example, a woman seemed to be striking up a more supportive conversation, if you will.  Something I didn't witness with the lesbian couple.

These differences in the interaction with couples such as these is the main point of this post, which is the observation of how society treats gay couples vs. lesbian couples.

All you have to do is to look at TV and movies to see how vastly different gays and lesbians are treated and viewed by society based on their sex. A lesbian couple is more often shown on TV, movies, music videos, etc. compared to gay couples.  If one wants to incorporate sex into something and attract a male audience, then either a hot lesbian couple or simply how chicks making out. However, with a gay couple, showing them in media is seen as something more controversial than hot.  Sometimes it seems almost like pulling teeth to simply show two guys kissing.

Take the kiss between Madonna and Britney Spears, then with Christine Aguilera on one of the past MTV awards.  The media considered it hot.  But with Adam Lambert kissing one the members of his band during a performance on TV, it was considered offensive, and too much.  Why???  

A common attribute that I notice is that these views and receptions seem to be "male-based", as in, beautiful looking lesbians or women making out are many times seen as hot to men, thus they are seen often in the media compared to handsome looking gays or men making out.  Two men kissing are not seen as hot to men, hence you don't see those images often.

Now....why are the opinions and sexual turn-ons of the male audience the foremost concern?  Do they believe that women aren't turned on by two men kissing (fanfiction and the internet in general disproves that idea lol)?  Why is the media quick to show two beautiful women making out?

Here are bullets of other observations on this subject:

• Why do guys get seemingly "squeamish" when it come to gays, or go out there way in voicing how grossed out they are by it?  I rarely see this reaction when it comes to women and lesbians.  Is it because gayness is related to "weakness" and strength (or different forms of strength) is a known characteristic of masculinity ("be a man")?  
• Why do people wonder about the sexuality of an actor who plays a homosexual in a movie, or on TV, but people aren't that concerned when it comes to actresses who play lesbians? 

Thoughts to Ponder.....

• HPV vaccine regarding girls and boys. 

Back when there was controversy surrounding possible mandatory vaccinations of girls, I found myself thinking, "Ok this is a good idea, early prevention and all that...". So when I read some of the reactions of parents and officials, was rather confused and annoyed.  It's one thing to have concerns about the safety of vaccinations (that's understandable), but to not agree with mandatory HPV vaccinations because you're not comfortable with the thought of your daughter loosing her virginity and having sex is ridiculous.  Looking back I remember reading comments from parents and people in position saying something like how they'll be teaching their daughters abstinence and how they were too young getting vaccinated against something related to sexual activity.

I wanted to tell these parents to GET A GRIP!

Don't get me wrong.  I'm a Christian and all for abstinence.  But I'm also realistic. 

A parent can teach their child how they should save themselves until marriage until they're blue in the face, and that child may still decide to have premarital sex.  Not to mention that a woman can wait to have sex until marriage and STILL catch HPV because her husband had engaged in casual sex before or adultery during marriage.  A girl receiving the HPV vaccine will not in and of itself encourage her to have casual sex.

Interesting thing though.  I remember reading a long time ago about the HPV vaccine possibly being made for boys.  Recently CNN has had articles saying that HPV vaccine was effective in males and that vaccination of boys is encouraged and even urged*.  It seemed that the main concern in this case was potential health risks for the boys.  NO mention of possible repercussions toward their sexual activity.  Hmmm......But that was when it was first being considered, a few years ago.  Maybe today people are as concerned with their supposed potential sexual activity as well.  Seriously though, what's wrong with taking precautions if the vaccine's proven to be safe???

Speaking of sexual activity.....

• Plan B

As you all know (if you've been watching the news), Plan B was pretty close to being available over-the-counter for females of all ages.   However, it didn't happen:

For the first time ever, the Health and Human Services secretary publicly overruled the Food and Drug Administration, refusing Wednesday to allow emergency contraceptives to be sold over the counter, including to young teenagers. The decision avoided what could have been a bruising political battle over parental control and contraception during a presidential election season..... 

I have to say, I was kind of disappointed with the decision.  Again, I am a Christian but I am also realistic.  If there was a chance that a young girl can avoid an unplanned pregnancy with this pill being widely available then that's a good thing.  I mean, you have condoms being available for boys of all ages.  Why not have the pill be widely accessible for girls of all ages if it proves to be safe to use?

Of course there is the question of when life actually starts.  I don't know, but personally I don't really believe it starts right at conception.  Maybe it's the biology major-side of me....Anyway, while I think abstinence is the best way to go, there are young people that will choose to have sex.  And I would rather a girl use Plan B than have an abortion.

I might make a post of this by itself so I can expand on this more.

• Trigger warnings

From the website Objectify This - What is a Trigger Warning:     

Anyone who reads feminist blogs has come across “trigger warnings” before graphic images or descriptions of rape or violence to women.  The intent of a trigger warning is to advertise the potentially emotionally triggering content of a piece, which might revive memories of rape or sexual assault for survivors.  Survivors of sexual assault are especially sensitive to such images because they are traumatized, and like other traumatized people, this may affect their whole world-view. Some survivors experience post-traumatic stress disorder.............The trigger warning also implicitly validates survivors of sexual assault, by recognizing their existence and their potential needs and offering them control over some of what they process.

I understand the need for trigger warnings.  The consideration for victims is noble.  However, why are trigger warnings exclusive to mainly rape and sexual assault victims?  Not to mention where does one draw the line?  If there are trigger warnings for rape and sexual assault, what about overall abuse (I have indeed seen warnings for domestic abuse), murder, physical assault....violence in general?  Like I said, it's noble to be considerate of victims of sexual assault and rape, but I do wonder if it's leaning closer to coddling.  I know, that sounds mean, and I'm really trying to explain my point in such a way that I don't come across as a b*tch.

What I'm saying is, this world is violent and will pretty much remain violent until Judgement Day.  I guess what rubs me the wrong way is this idea that victims of rape and sexual assault - most of which are women - need to be sheltered and protected as if they're these weak, helpless beings, something that for thousands of years have been associated with women. 

I don't know...I still don't think I really expressed what I was thinking on this point that well :-/

Sandusky vs. Polanski

Sometime during November of last year, I was over at good ole' Oh No They Didn't where I was reading a post entitled Polanski, Paterno, and the Press.  This was during the time which the whole Penn State debacle started.  The article originated from a site called American Thinker. 

If any one lesson was learned these past weeks from the Penn State scandal, it is that our progressive friends have not quite figured out what is right and what is wrong.
On November 5 of this year, for instance, the Huffington Post broke the news to its readers of former coach Jerry Sandusky's arrest for sexually assaulting minors.  Appropriately, there was no irony in the article, no mirth.
"This is a case about a sexual predator who used his position within the university and community to repeatedly prey on young boys," Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly was quoted as saying.
A month earlier, however, the Huffington Post ran a piece by Regina Weinreich on the American premiere of the new Roman Polanski movie Carnage.  Wrote Weinreich approvingly, "At Alice Tully Hall Friday night, where the movie opened the New York Film Festival, audiences cheered Polanski's credit, knowing that this master Academy Award-winning filmmaker would not attend."
At the Zurich Film Festival a few weeks earlier, which Polanski did attend, he received a ten-minute standing ovation and the lifetime achievement award.  Although every sentient person in the film world knows why Polanski missed the New York event, pre-Penn State, they were clearly untroubled.

Here the article talks about the case and the testimony from the victim:

According to the grand jury testimony of Samantha Geimer, Polanski had approached her and her mom about taking photos of Samantha for a fashion magazine.  Impressed and reassured by his celebrity, the mom agreed.  After a couple of outdoor shoots, Polanski and the girl ended up alone at Jack Nicholson's house. 

Wrote Polanski in his memoir, Roman, "I could sense a certain erotic tension between the two of us."  At the time, Polanski was a worldly 43.  Geimer was a thirteen-year-old seventh-grader.

At Nicholson's otherwise empty house, Polanski plied Geimer with champagne and had her take her blouse off for a shot in the jacuzzi.  He then gave her a Quaalude.  "Why did you take it?" asked the prosecutor.  "I think I must have been pretty drunk, or else I wouldn't have," Geimer answered. 

Now "kind of dizzy," Geimer still managed to resist Polanski's increasing demands.  "I want to go home," she told him repeatedly.  He would have none of it.  Finally, he cornered her on a couch, put his head in her lap, and started performing "cuddliness" on her -- her word.

"I was going, 'No come on, stop it,' but I was afraid," Geimer continued.  Lacking protection, Polanski sodomized the girl and climaxed therein.  The testimony rings entirely true.  Polanski pled guilty before fleeing and tells much the same story in Roman, though he remains shocked that "I should be sent to prison, my life and career ruined, for making love."

Given this attitude, the film world's Polanski fans have no reason to believe that he has stopped preying on young girls.  Indeed, two years before the Geimer incident, he had an affair, such as it was, with 15-year-old Nastassja Kinski.

............................

Goldstein used the word "misdeed" more than once to describe the child rape that had caused Polanski to flee the country.  In the same article, actor Warren Beatty called the crime a "mistake."

Goldstein concluded that "we" always "forgive [artists] their transgressions" because, in the end, good art trumps bad behavior.  Weinrich came to much the same conclusion in 2011.  "At what point do we say, enough is enough?" she protested of Polanski's seeming persecution.

Weinrich was hardly alone in her indifference to Polanski's crimes.....A month later, the Times editorialized in regard to Penn State, "No one connected to the university should feel anything but shame that the institutional leaders did so little to protect the children involved."

On October 3 of this year, the Wall Street Journal ran a celebratory article about the Carnage premiere.  "Mr. Polanski, of course, isn't allowed in the States," wrote the Journal before citing a joke by Polanski's fellow director Paul Feig, "though maybe he's somewhere here disguised as an old woman." 

A month later, the joking was over.  Editorialized the Journal about Joe Paterno, " ... the coach fulfilled his legal obligation, but not his moral duty, to look after the well-being of that child and others who may have been victimized later."

So what's going on here?  How is one more acceptable than the other?

Is it because in some circles, it is seem as natural for an adult male to be attracted to a mid to late pubescent girls due to evolution and biology?  For example, an ephebophiliac is an adult who has a sexual preference "for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19".  The definition goes further in saying: "In sexual ethics, it may be defined as a sexual preference for girls generally 14–16 years old, and boys generally 14–19 years old".  Due to most in this age group having physical characteristics near (or in some cases, identical) to that of full-grown adults, some level of sexual attraction to these young people is known to be common among adults.  But even then, Polanski (43 at the time) gave a 13 year old girl alcohol to the point of her feeling "dizzy" and then forced himself onto her.  That in itself is rape.  She said "no" repeatedly; she even said that she wanted to go home!  Even if she freely accepted the alcohol, he had no business giving her any of it!  Really it shouldn't even have gotten to the point where they ended up alone at Jack Nicholson's house.  

Did people think that because it happened years ago, and the girl - now an adult - as seemingly moved on, that it should no longer be acknowledged?

In this case, why is Sandusky treated differently?  Is it because the victims were boys?  Yes, homosexual behavior between men and boys were acceptable at some point in the past (for example in ancient Greece), but for most of human history, it was not acceptable.  Or is it because most of the boys seemed to have been pre-pubescent (before puberty).  Not to mention that it wasn't just one victim, but at least 8.

In the end, I agree with the article.  Regardless of difference between the two situations, both men were wrong.  People shouldn't just "forget" or not acknowledge what Polanski did.  Yes, I believe that a person who made mistakes and committed crimes can overcome their past and move on.  I believe in redemption.  However the only way to do so is to realize and acknowledge that some of the things you did in the past was wrong and be sorry for the things you've done.  In Polanski's case, not only does it appear that he isn't sorry for his actions, but he doesn't understand why people had a problem with what he did.  He even fled the country to escape imprisonment (though the claim is that he was possibly bamboozled by the courts in some way even though there was plea deal - going off memory here so correct me if I'm wrong).

I'll leave you with a final quote from the article:

The phrase "double standard" does not do justice to a media that can write approvingly of a slimy predator like Polanski and harshly of an otherwise decent man like Paterno who failed to react to a predator in his midst. 
"Double standard," after all, implies that the media have any standards to begin with.

       

My Thoughts on Halloween

As a Christian, Halloween has always had a slight negative connotation, with all the ghouls, goblins, devils, and other monsters walking about.  In fact, my church has held a community function called “Harvest Fest” for years as an alternative to Halloween.  With Harvest Fest though, children and other participants could never dress up as these monsters.

With all that being said however, I actually like Halloween…always have (and no, it’s not all about the candy).  On Halloween, we have the chance to be someone else (similar to what Joe mentioned in his video).  We can be different than who we normally are 364 days a year.  We have the opportunity to be kids again and play dress up and make believe. 

Another aspect of Halloween I like is the fact that it’s the only time of year where we as a society collectively become more aware of the mysterious, unknown things of this world.  Personally I am fascinated by paranormal and things of a mystifying nature.  There’s so much we don’t know about this world and I would like to believe that there is indeed more to this reality than what we see.  I just can’t accept that this is all there is. 

In the end, I simply enjoy Halloween for its strange, paranormal nature and the chance to have a new persona so to speak (plus the candy :) ).  It doesn’t conflict with my beliefs at all.  Halloween’s fun, and that’s it.

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

Sidenote here, but I did some digging as to the connection between dressing up in costume and the spooky aspect of Halloween. 

Over at History.com*, it said that Halloween originated from the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain (pronounced sow-in).  The Celts (who lived 2,000 years ago) celebrated the new year on November 1, a day often associated with human death (perhaps because it marked the end of summer/harvest and the beginning of dark, cold winters).  It was believed that on the night before the new year, the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead became blurred. On October 31 they celebrated Samhain, when it was believed that the ghosts of the dead returned to earth.  During this event, people would light bonfires and wear costumes to ward off roaming ghosts and tell each other’s fortunes.  Over time, Samhain became All Souls Day, a day to honor the dead.  It was celebrated similarly to Samhain, with big bonfires, parades, and dressing up in costumes as saints, angels and devils. The All Saints Day celebration was also called All-hallows or All-hallowmas (from Middle English Alholowmesse meaning All Saints’ Day) and the night before it, the traditional night of Samhain in the Celtic religion, began to be called All-hallows Eve and, eventually, Halloween.  There’s a lot more to the history, but it’s not my intention to write a book lol.

* http://www.history.com/topics/halloween