Rant

03/14/2007, 1:36 pm -- by | 4 Comments

Tom is away at a job interview today, so we present a post from the Best of Tom, originally written on January 13, 2006.

 
The Defense Department recently gave $50,000 to Wellesley College’s Centers for Women to advise the Pentagon on developing “a victim’s advocacy office for military women who have suffered sexual assault or harassment.” We’ll get to the name later. This all seems innocuous, a way for those in power to protect and empower our nation’s bravest women. It. Is. Not. Specifically nocuous is the inclusion of the word “harassment.” And I’ll tell you why.

Women often like feeling bad. Paying to watch a sad movie to feel sad, wearing uncomfortable shoes, picking fights — these are good examples of women actively seeking discomfort. Another is choosing to become offended with people, things, actions, and phrases.

One example under the present system was the case of Lt. Bryan D. Black, U.S. Naval Academy faculty member. Twice he spoke crudely and out of turn: once about his excitement at boarding a battleship, the other about his ex-wife. The first comment was made to a group of people that included a female, but the second was said only within earshot of a female. Now the woman who complained received an apology from Black, and Lt. Black received a letter of reprimand and counseling, so the initial investigating officer felt that was adequate punishment for the ‘crime.’

Enter initial female’s female superior, Lt. Commander Michelle Whisenhunt. She heard of the matter and launched her own investigation. She conducted extensive interviews, really did her homework, but she forgot there are two genders in the military, and so only interviewed women. Black wound up court-martialed, charged with three crimes: failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation, conduct unbecoming an officer, and indecent language.

Now, something a little more close to home, but regrettably more vague.

Scene – my bedroom, Tom sitting at desk.

Ted enters room, steps over piles of refuse, notices stuffed microbe on desk, theorizes as to other disease-causing micro-organisms Tom might own in plush form.

Ted – “I wish you had the AIDS virus.”

Tom immediately places out-of-context quote in away message.

–fin–

An out-of-context quote can be comedic dynamite in the proper forum. In theory, the reader should take a look and think, “Surely, someone cannot wish a fate as horrible as HIV infection on old Tom!” The reader should then chuckle to him or herself for several moments, then return to a hawklike vigil over Tom’s away message status.

But this scenario did not come to fruition in every case. One particular time, a woman read it and SERIOUSLY thought, “That’s offensive. Babies in Africa have their parents die from AIDS, yet Tom is using a humorous out-of-context quote about it to bring a little ray of sunshine to the dreary existence of his readers. What a jerk!”

Were I in the military, I’d have two Marines knocking on my door in the morning to drag me off to the brig. You may think these scenarios aren’t connected. But I doubt those brave sailors were any less offended, short-term, than this girl was.

The name of that advocacy group I mentioned earlier? Naturally, it’s the Office of Victim Advocacy. Men in the military, beware! If you aren’t lockstep politically correct, it’s to the dungeons of OVA for you. And if that happens, may God have mercy on your soul.

That is, if She’s not already offended with you.

Bible Discussion: Genesis 5-9

03/14/2007, 9:00 am -- by | 12 Comments

This week, Bweinh.com looks at the next five chapters of the Bible, Genesis 5-9.

Read our take on Genesis 1-4 here!

 
INTRODUCTION:
Steve:
We start with a genealogy where thousands of years pass and countless sons and daughters are born, live, and die without being introduced to us. And then we see, perhaps, the reason why: wickedness has expanded upon the earth, and God can no longer suffer such a perverse world to continue. In a way, these five chapters are a microcosm of the entirety of human history. So many wasted lives, so much gone wrong, yet always abiding, the hope of redemption. Here, an ark. Soon, a cross.

Job:
They say most cultures have a flood narrative as part of their cultural tapestry — Greek, Germanic, Asian, Incan, etc., all have Great Flood stories as part of their heritage. While most of these stories explain the Earth was flooded because of an angry deity, they fail to explain why that Deity was upset with the detail and character development of this passage.

Continued here!

Being “Individual”

03/7/2007, 11:12 pm -- by | No Comments

It’s only fitting how the concept of individuality can take such different forms in different people. You can claim your style of dress sets you apart, or your taste in music, the sports you like to watch, the sports you like to play — even the sports you like to dislike. Political party affiliations or opinions, hair and make-up style, or views on any philosophical idea can be expanded to become, in one’s mind, the trait that sets self apart from other.

The idea of individuality’s “forms” came to me while I mused over the meaning of a recent dream. I briefly considered using a “meaning of dreams” Google search to find a “professional’s” opinion of what my dream meant, but quickly pooh-poohed the idea. Knowing as I do that dream “interpreters” will, like psychics, psychologists or actuaries, keep their ideas as general as possible, I felt it futile to even bother looking. Then it occurred to me that an idea applied to everyone can still be applied to me. Just because something is a mirror in which anyone can see his reflection does not mean he can’t use that image to spot the crumbs in his beard.

For years, our culture has loudly and superficially valued uniqueness as one of the most admirable character qualities, while subtly rewarding those who maintain the status quo. The subculture as a concept exists to allow a piece of society to swallow one person’s view of his own uniqueness, rendering him as much a sheep as any other member of society. By clinging to their superficial individuality, these people become even more seamlessly integrated with their fellows.

A more realistic way of looking at things would be to acknowledge the fact that any and every aspect of your life is duplicated almost exactly in countless other people. There’s no need to resign yourself to this fact, because the sum of these disparate aspects is certainly unique. Focus on doing things you enjoy, follow trends if that’s what you want, and accept that your horoscope was spot on – you did meet someone and gave them a second chance to make a first impression, and they turned out to be a totally cool person!

Just don’t dye your hair, clothes and taste in music black, and think it makes your sheep black too.

Bible Discussion: Genesis 1-4

03/7/2007, 10:30 am -- by | 30 Comments

Every Wednesday, Bweinh.com will discuss a passage from the Bible. And this week, we start at the very beginning, looking at Genesis chapters 1 through 4.

 
INTRODUCTION:
Steve:
It seems there’s a widening dichotomy these days between those who read the opening to Genesis as a scientific textbook, and those who see it as an ancient creation myth, on par with the claim that Earth rides on the back of a giant turtle.

I stake a claim between those two positions, believing wholeheartedly in the divine creation of the universe as told in Genesis, while remaining largely unconcerned about specific details undefined by the text. This story was not meant to answer all the scientific and philosophical questions surrounding the origin of the world; if it had been, it would have befuddled all its readers, ancient and modern. What it tells us is enough, and what it tells us is not only perfectly compatible with the discoveries of science, but God’s simple and singular command for light to ‘be’ seems more and more apt as the Big Bang is explained theoretically.

Job:
I’ve always wondered if this springboard to the Bible, these first four chapters, is where most people in their darkest hour flip – having turned to God in anger, frustration, pain or confusion. Subsequently, I’ve always wished that the Gideons would put their “recommended reading” page right between the first and second chapters. An ambush of sorts.

  Continued here!

Clash of the Titans II: Blondes v. Brunettes

03/6/2007, 11:30 am -- by | 2 Comments

In this corner, arguing for the supremacy of blondes, we have Tom!

 And in this corner, arguing that brunettes are #1, we have Josh J!

Vickie Lynn Hogan. Norma Jean Dougherty. Two lovely young women. Two talented young women. But two beloved American icons? Not without a little something extra. A little something I like to call Vitamin B – Blonde!

Long before tragedy tore these blindingly brilliant bombshells from the frantic grasp of the collective adoration of their public, the common thread woven through the lives of Anna Nicole Smith and Marilyn Monroe was just that – commonality. But with a little luck, some old-fashioned gumption, and a bottle of peroxide, two legends were made, not born.

Is this only a statistical anomaly? Success based on hair color alone? One merely has to look at the culture beyond Hollywood to find the answer. Blonde hair is described as golden, historically a metal highly prized for its hue and sheen. Even the “cheapest” of artificially blonde hair is called platinum, a metal even more highly valued than gold. For third place in the Hair Olympics, blonde comes along yet again, with silver. The best a brunette can hope for is a little bit of red somewhere in her hair’s muddled tone, so she can settle for the ‘honor’ of “coppery” tresses.

Throughout history, blonde hair has been the most highly valued hair color. Evelyn de Morgan’s classic depiction of the legendary Helen of Troy does not find her lamenting her mousy, tangled locks. No, a veritable halo of spun sunlight cascades down her back. She even lifts a delicate handful of golden curls as if to say, “My sisters! This, this is the hair that launched a thousand ships!”

While it is true that natural blond hair is a natural rarity, that scarcity is part of its charm. After all, a young lady presented with a floral incarnation of her paramour’s affection might scoff if it takes the form of the common daisy. But a man who presents his beloved with an edelweiss plucked from a barren cliff face miles from civilization will find a much warmer reception. Scarcity is the mother of demand.

Much like a speech impediment, it can come from pure genetics, or it can come from a bottle. Only her stylist knows for sure. Either way, it’s indisputable: blondes have more fun.

When I first took this assignment, I didn’t stop to think about the potential pitfalls of making this argument: my blonde friends, the blondes I’ve dated (well, there’s only been one, but still), even my blonde sister. I’m sorry, ladies. You’re all beautiful, but I’m sticking to my guns.

I’m all about the brunettes. My first crush was a brunette, as was my first girlfriend. Any time I enter a situation that involves meeting new women, it is invariably a brunette that catches my eye.

The fact is, Tom is actually in danger of offending innumerably more women (as is to be expected). I don’t have any exact figures, but brunettes certainly outnumber blondes by a wide margin. Brunettes are akin to the largest high schools that dominate athletics becuase they have the widest talent pools from which to draw performers. You just have better odds of finding a gorgeous brunette – brown hair is the dominant trait. In addition, because dark hair is so common, you’re in no danger of finding one of those ladies who acts like she is better than you, simply because of the color of her hair.

I’m not alone in my preference. A recent national survey reveals that 75% of men would choose to marry a brunette, and 80% would rather bring a brunette home to meet dear old mom. Even more amazing, I didn’t just make up those stats.

A less skilled or inspired commentator might resort to a few blonde jokes, or cracks about their collective intelligence. I won’t stoop to that level, but I will say that I certainly find intelligence very attractive. Anyway, I change my light bulbs by myself.

Brunettes are natural, mysterious, and offer a wide array of cultural traits. But for all the wonderful things I could say, for me, the entire debate about the appeal of brunettes and blondes comes down to one simple quote:

“Every decade has an iconic blonde like Marilyn Monroe or Princess Diana, and right now I’m that icon.” — Paris Hilton

{democracy:3}

« Previous Page