So, how about them speeches, hmm? There were quite a few politically and socially driven speeches behind particular wins, like Best Original Song ("Glory"), and Best Supporting Actress (Patricia Arquette, "Boyhood"). In a way, these unpredictable social speeches made me uncomfortable, especially with my parents present and watching along with me. However, that irksome feeling is something we all need, I believe; the feeling that despite everything we have nowadays, there are still obstacles needing to be hurdled over. We need to have all these pretty people tell us that there are still persistent (and most of the time unacknowledged) social issues plaguing our country. If we don't listen to the choice politicians who personally care about these problems, then who will we listen to? The people of Hollywood, of course!
I'm glad that there were some who took to the stage and regained their civil liberties by blasting the awards with demands for the public and elite. This public outcry will hopefully stoke the fires of social injustice once more, and possibly provoke our powdered-wig government to actually listen to the country rather than adhere to hefty money-bagging lawmakers.
A big "however": in light of all this hurrah and call to action, Patricia Arquette went a little backwards and asked the LGBT and colored communities to take a stand for women's rights, "to fight for [them] now". How about we all just work together to help each other out and not make it a priority race? I can only hope that there will be people who take the latter outburst from her post-award speech, and apply it to the fact that all people deserve to have equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, gender, or color. Let's leave it at that, Arquette, and say we are in this fight together for equality for all.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Monday, February 23, 2015
Saturday, January 24, 2015
Health Concerns of the Mind
The wonders of sharing articles on Facebook brought me to read one story regarding a survey done by the Oklahoma State University Department of Agricultural Economics. Their results stated that 80% of Americans support mandatory labels on food that contain - wait for it - DNA.
If I'm not mistaken, DNA is the molecular compound that carries the biological make-up of an organism, and passes such things like traits, diseases, and evolutionary information down to its offspring. It is the fun molecule that (possibly) every educated American had to build from scratch for their biology class at one point or another. From this survey, it is apparent that now people have another thing to fear when making food choices.
Meanwhile, at some bar, there's a man with a beer bottle in hand, after having way too much, that clearly states "[alcohol] impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery". Instead of reading it prior to drinking and thinking, "Ok, I'll wait it out after a few", he winds up stumbling out the door, gets into his car, and t-bones a family of four going out to dinner for the night, and injures, or possibly kills, a couple family members. Apparently, engaging in vehicular homicide is how some people like spend their Friday nights.
My question is: if similar warning labels on widely-known harmful products aren't stopping enough people from harming themselves and others, then why the hell do we need something as insignificant as a warning stating that the product is organic? Also, who the hell even brought this up for debate?
What's a bigger problem is that, if anyone ever read this or seen it on the news a while ago, there was a story about how the government will have their own class of scientific "experts" manage and regulate America's agricultural decisions. In short terms, "scientists" who are in for the money and not for the benefit of all humankind.
So the next time you open up a bag of chocolate cookies, or are about to dive in to the greasy goodness of a burger joint, look up what you're eating. It's cheap, it's wonderful to the taste, but oftentimes is extremely detrimental to your health and hardly ever expressed or made immediately visible. There's a fat compound in potato chips that triggers your brain to want more chips/fat, and it becomes a never-ending cycle. Certain fast-food fries are loaded with sugar and weird-ass chemicals that seem to be fit for cleaning your bathtub. Frozen dinners are loaded with preservatives and will preserve your excess body fat for years to come. Yet people wonder why America is so obese and unhealthy. Our government "experts" allow food manufacturers to get away with poisoning our country, and the one thing that makes headlines regarding health this week is a matter of labeling foods with f***ing DNA in it??
That is where hypocrisy runs amok. Look up what you're eating, people, and educate yourselves instead of being spoon-fed answers you should already know.
All seriousness aside, I would love to see what kinds of Instagram photos there will be if there becomes a DNA-less fad diet. "A plate of DNA-free Earth dirt with a glass of water. #nofilter."
What are some highly chemical/questionable things you've found in your food?
If I'm not mistaken, DNA is the molecular compound that carries the biological make-up of an organism, and passes such things like traits, diseases, and evolutionary information down to its offspring. It is the fun molecule that (possibly) every educated American had to build from scratch for their biology class at one point or another. From this survey, it is apparent that now people have another thing to fear when making food choices.
Meanwhile, at some bar, there's a man with a beer bottle in hand, after having way too much, that clearly states "[alcohol] impairs your ability to drive a car or operate machinery". Instead of reading it prior to drinking and thinking, "Ok, I'll wait it out after a few", he winds up stumbling out the door, gets into his car, and t-bones a family of four going out to dinner for the night, and injures, or possibly kills, a couple family members. Apparently, engaging in vehicular homicide is how some people like spend their Friday nights.
My question is: if similar warning labels on widely-known harmful products aren't stopping enough people from harming themselves and others, then why the hell do we need something as insignificant as a warning stating that the product is organic? Also, who the hell even brought this up for debate?
What's a bigger problem is that, if anyone ever read this or seen it on the news a while ago, there was a story about how the government will have their own class of scientific "experts" manage and regulate America's agricultural decisions. In short terms, "scientists" who are in for the money and not for the benefit of all humankind.
So the next time you open up a bag of chocolate cookies, or are about to dive in to the greasy goodness of a burger joint, look up what you're eating. It's cheap, it's wonderful to the taste, but oftentimes is extremely detrimental to your health and hardly ever expressed or made immediately visible. There's a fat compound in potato chips that triggers your brain to want more chips/fat, and it becomes a never-ending cycle. Certain fast-food fries are loaded with sugar and weird-ass chemicals that seem to be fit for cleaning your bathtub. Frozen dinners are loaded with preservatives and will preserve your excess body fat for years to come. Yet people wonder why America is so obese and unhealthy. Our government "experts" allow food manufacturers to get away with poisoning our country, and the one thing that makes headlines regarding health this week is a matter of labeling foods with f***ing DNA in it??
That is where hypocrisy runs amok. Look up what you're eating, people, and educate yourselves instead of being spoon-fed answers you should already know.
All seriousness aside, I would love to see what kinds of Instagram photos there will be if there becomes a DNA-less fad diet. "A plate of DNA-free Earth dirt with a glass of water. #nofilter."
What are some highly chemical/questionable things you've found in your food?
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Playing The Blame Game
Despite our country's efforts to come off as a progressive nation, it still harbors the kinds of people that give it a backwards impression.
An article released on CNN.com today states that a woman who was victim of a rape is now being blamed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office and is in part responsible for the crime. The victim, a typist at a state prison, was strangled and raped by an inmate who had a record of sex assault crimes back in 2013. She and her attorney filed lawsuits against the state for lax regulations on inmate access to areas in the prison facility, allowing them to move about unsupervised. The inmate had been sentenced to life in prison, and the superintendent of the prison was removed, so you could say the typist's case was justifiably resolved.
Yet, according to the attorney general's senior deputy statement, the typist was responsible for being raped, saying (as if to cover the government's ass) that "contributory negligence" is a valid defense for the state to have used in the federal lawsuit. In short, the typist knew what she was up against when working in a prison facility. Totally her fault for being raped by an inmate.
Although this is one story from Pennsylvania, who knows how many other cases are being made (or not made) against rapists, and how many of the victims are facing this form of public embarrassment from their own government. It is shameful that high-end officials cannot assume responsibility for their own flaws and misgivings; it's what they knew they would get into when they accepted their position in office. The whole reason behind our governments -- local, state, and national -- is to provide its citizens with protection against injustices and criminals. Then why the hell would the state do something as childish as blame a citizen for a crime they were a victim of?
Also, terribly sick and tired that women are in part responsible for their own rape. They're too weak, too attractive, dress too promiscuously, don't say "no". In lieu of Emma Watson's speech at the U.N., it is time for both men and women to join together to put an end to sexism. In a country where we pride ourselves over our freedoms and liberties, it is terribly ironic that the majority of us have limitations in our own nation. Where's the sense in that? It is time that we, as citizens, make sure that our safety and liberties are protected by reliable officials in government, instead of leaving it to miscreants who can't handle the burden of acknowledging their faults and claiming responsibility.
An article released on CNN.com today states that a woman who was victim of a rape is now being blamed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office and is in part responsible for the crime. The victim, a typist at a state prison, was strangled and raped by an inmate who had a record of sex assault crimes back in 2013. She and her attorney filed lawsuits against the state for lax regulations on inmate access to areas in the prison facility, allowing them to move about unsupervised. The inmate had been sentenced to life in prison, and the superintendent of the prison was removed, so you could say the typist's case was justifiably resolved.
Yet, according to the attorney general's senior deputy statement, the typist was responsible for being raped, saying (as if to cover the government's ass) that "contributory negligence" is a valid defense for the state to have used in the federal lawsuit. In short, the typist knew what she was up against when working in a prison facility. Totally her fault for being raped by an inmate.
Although this is one story from Pennsylvania, who knows how many other cases are being made (or not made) against rapists, and how many of the victims are facing this form of public embarrassment from their own government. It is shameful that high-end officials cannot assume responsibility for their own flaws and misgivings; it's what they knew they would get into when they accepted their position in office. The whole reason behind our governments -- local, state, and national -- is to provide its citizens with protection against injustices and criminals. Then why the hell would the state do something as childish as blame a citizen for a crime they were a victim of?
Also, terribly sick and tired that women are in part responsible for their own rape. They're too weak, too attractive, dress too promiscuously, don't say "no". In lieu of Emma Watson's speech at the U.N., it is time for both men and women to join together to put an end to sexism. In a country where we pride ourselves over our freedoms and liberties, it is terribly ironic that the majority of us have limitations in our own nation. Where's the sense in that? It is time that we, as citizens, make sure that our safety and liberties are protected by reliable officials in government, instead of leaving it to miscreants who can't handle the burden of acknowledging their faults and claiming responsibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)