Dear Consumers,
While many people are choosing to boycott Chick-fil-A and object to their proud homophobia, and others are choosing to celebrate Chick-fil-A in their own nasty ways, some of you are making apathetic comments. You seem to think that we shouldn't care, that it doesn't matter where we eat, that it doesn't matter what a fast food company owner thinks politically.
If I want to buy a new shirt, maybe there are only three stores in town. Store X sells great-looking shirts and makes it a point to hire only part-time employees so it won't have to extend benefits. Store Y sells shirts that always fit me really well and dyes its clothing with some pigment found in rocks dug up by abused children in a foreign country. Store Z sells shirts which aren't as fashionable but treats its employees fairly well.
The money I spend on that shirt helps to keep that store open and fund those business practices.
Other people will see me in that shirt, so I'm providing advertising for its company.
Other people will see my car in the parking lot and will see me in the store, so my very presence demonstrates to others that this is a good place to shop. If they had qualms about the company's business practices, they can assuage their guilt by noticing that they're not alone there; other people shop there, too, so it must not be all that bad.
You're voting with your wallet. When you spend money with someone, you're saying, "Hey, I support what you're doing here." You're supporting the product and the company behind it.
Music fans will make it a point to go out and buy a favorite musician's album as opposed to downloading it illegally because they understand that sales make a difference. When gamers don't like a new feature of World of Warcraft, they cancel their subscriptions in protest. When a big national chain comes into town, some people boycott it and deliberately choose to spend their money with small, local stores to keep those local owners in business.
Why does it matter that the people behind Chick-fil-A are homophobic? For one, corporate culture. If the people at the top are homophobic, they're likely to be homophobic in their hiring practices, in their corporate policies, and so on. For another, they actively support homophobic organizations. They've donated millions of dollars to anti-equality groups. They're fighting against equal rights for all citizens, and you're cheerfully supporting them because you think their chicken is tasty?
Civil rights < chicken?
Maybe civil rights < pizza for you, too. Papa John himself donates millions to Republican campaigns and hosted an exclusive fundraiser for Mitt Romney. Maybe you're a Romney-loving Republican, too. Or maybe you just like that little tub of sauce you get in the pizza box.
Sometimes the decision of where to spend your money is complex. One company funds homophobic campaigns, another exploits its workers, and another does shady things abroad. You start to wonder if you can safely spend your money anywhere. Maybe you'd love to spend your money with one company, but you can only afford the one with terrible practices.
Just as it's up to you to be a responsible citizen, it's up to you to be a responsible consumer. Maybe you didn't know that Chick-fil-A was best friends with Focus on the Family, but now that you do, you can make an informed decision. Maybe you can't afford to shop at an expensive but worker-friendly store, but you can make your opinions known to the terrible store you can afford, and you can continue to vote and agitate for better policies.
I don't care about Papa John's sexuality and I'm not interested in his private life. I do like knowing that the Chick-fil-A family works so hard to entrench homophobia and fight against equality, because I don't want to support that kind of harmful hate. It matters to me because human rights matter to me. I'm not going to giggle over jokes about how no one cares what the Burger King does in bed, because that's not the point and you're well aware of that. I'm not going to throw up my hands and say, "Eh, all corporations are evil to some extent, what can you do!" I expect more.
I hope that someday you do, too.
With love,
Frank Lee
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
Dear Blizzard
Have Group, Will Travel
Summons all raid or party members to the caster's current location. Cannot be used while in combat, and can only be cast while in the outdoor world or near the entrance of a dungeon or raid.
-Guild perk in World of Warcraft
Q: Are you happy with how guild perks worked in Cataclysm? Can you give us an example of what new content guilds should expect? New perks? Is the level cap going to be increased?Dear Blizzard,
A: We are happy with some of them, but others of them went too far in some ways or were just not cool enough in other ways. My overall view of it is somewhat mixed. We do expect to introduce some new perks, even if it is just to swap out some of the ones we feel didn't work out as well. The Have Group, Will Travel was popular because it is one more thing that shrinks the world and allows players to avoid being out in the world. We are trying to put more of an emphasis on players going out into the world to do stuff, so that is one of the ones that we are going to replace with something else.
-Tom Chilton, Blizzard press tour
You've heard from me on this subject before, but let's go over it again.
Your perception of "Have Group, Will Travel" (HGWT) betrays a profound misunderstanding of how your players actually use this perk.
Overall, it's very useful. If I need help, my friend can come right to me; if she needs help, I can go right to her. Want to show someone something cool? Need help killing something? Need a guide? Your friend is right there beside you in a moment. Maybe I want a friend to help me farm old content or go on a transmog run or show me a new mount. One summons and there she is.
My friend might want to hang out with me but might not want to take a tram and a flightpath and a mount ride the whole way out to wherever I am. Maybe she's lazy. Maybe she knows that the trip will take too long and someone else will get to the rare spawn first if she can't get there instantly. Maybe her computer's old and she really wants to get to me but can't risk disconnecting. WOW is a very social game and HGWT allows us to spend time with each other, not time checking off flight paths.
You say that it shrinks the world. For me, it's broadened the world. It's opened up Azeroth and allowed me to be in places I otherwise wouldn't be with people I otherwise wouldn't spend time with.
I'm an RPer and I can say with confidence that HGWT has revolutionized RP. It's brought a lot of energy and fun to the game.
It encourages us to RP in new locations. If I want to RP in the middle of the forest somewhere, before HGWT I would've gotten a lot of "where is it" and "how do I get there," and people would spend time deciding whether the trip's worth it or not. Now, I can summon everyone and get the fun going in an instant. People like convenience, and if the RP spot is one too many flight paths away or in an unfamiliar destination, apathy sets in and they won't bother. You've made it easy to get anywhere in the world, and now we're RPing all over, everywhere, anywhere we can think of.
Sometimes people log in later than expected or don't get the news in time and want to join in an RP event already in progress. If they have to travel the whole way there, they think that they'll be too late and end up not going at all. If they can be summoned in as soon as they want to join us, they can catch up more quickly.
It opens up RP for low-level toons in a new way. A lot of players might say that the real game starts at end cap, but I've never believed that and it's especially true for RPers right now. If I'm on a low-level toon and the RP spot is in a quiet corner of a higher-level zone, my friends can HGWT me right in and I can RP along. My low-level characters can join in RP all over Azeroth and beyond thanks to HGWT.
Not all toons can fly in Azeroth, but HGWT makes the world accessible to everyone. Several times RP events have included stops on mountaintops we can't get to on foot or ground mount, so those who can fly summon us up.
With HGWT, I've been able to visit places and RP in spots I've never enjoyed before. It makes the world fun and accessible for everyone. Without it, I can see the world becoming smaller again and low-level toons being shut out again.
You want players to travel more and get out in the world again. We are out in the world. We RP all over Azeroth. We might not use traditional flight paths to get there, but we're there, having a great time, arguing and laughing and dancing and fighting. While you're making plans for new features and future expansions, please keep us in mind. You may think that RPers are a small minority in your MMORPG, but the more accessible RP is, the more RPers there are. With HGWT, I saw a rise in RP attendance. I hope for more great RP in the future, but will the bulk of it be in Stormwind and other easy, obvious places? Will the bulk of it be among level-capped characters with flying mounts, leaving new RPers behind? As a member of the community, I take some level of responsibility for fostering accessible RP, but it gets harder to do as you remove our resources.
See you in Pandaland!
With love,
Frank Lee
Dear ABC
Homophobia and racism to follow.
Dear ABC,
I enjoy lighthearted physical challenge shows. When a friend and I were looking for amusement, we came across "Wipeout" and gave it a shot.
I've only seen one episode and a part of another, but I came away with no desire to watch any of it ever again. What I saw raised a lot of questions and put me on edge.
A twenty-year-old contestant on a "blind date" episode introduced himself by saying, "I became a man when I was thirteen when I had my bar mitzvah." Your hosts almost immediately began to call him a man-child and continued to make "man-child" comments throughout the show.
A contestant on another episode introduced himself as a karate instructor. Your hosts suggested that he had a "rainbow belt" from the "Bob Fosse dojo."
I understand that you have a lot of contestants and a casual audience, so you want to create narratives around the contestants to make them easily memorable so that watchers will follow along more readily. A woman says that she's descended from samurai and a man says that he wants to be a ninja, so you create a narrative about them being a samurai-ninja couple. However, since the friend I was watching with missed that couple's introduction, when you spent the entire episode referring to the Asian couple with stereotypically Asian terms, she thought that you were being racist. You were feeding right into a racist narrative.
Do you really need to refer to Zachary Botterman as "Man-child" throughout the episode as if that's his name? Do you think that we'll pay better attention or care more that way? To be entirely frank, your commentary came across as anti-Semitic because it played right into anti-Semitic narratives. It was also gender-policing and body-policing.
The main hosts in the booth are two white men with nearly identical body types named John Something-son. Vanessa Lachey is in the "on the field" role, interacting directly with the contestants. On one hand, it's great that of your three hosts, one is a woman of color. On the other hand, the entire show is based around two white men standing to one side spouting running commentary on women and people of color and other contestants at their expense. It's like an unending series of micro-aggressions. As I watched, I kept wanting to give you the benefit of the doubt. After all, if she says that she's descended from samurai and he says that he wants to be a ninja, how accountable should I hold you for playing into a racist narrative? They brought it up themselves, right? If the woman portrayed as sex-hungry and desperate for a hot guy just happens to be the thickest of the women there, that's just a coincidence, right? You're not making her say those things.
But you're the one editing. You're the one deciding what to air. You put together the commentary. You decide which narrative to push. You know which stereotypes you're perpetuating. So I end up watching a show with two white guys observing the action and telling me all about the Asian samurai-ninja couple, the man-hungry woman who just so happens to be not very skinny, the Jewish man-child, and so on. When I tried another episode and got to the gay "joke" mentioned above, I had to stop watching.
In the future, try to come up with narratives that don't reinforce racist stereotypes or other nasty themes. Or don't come up with narratives at all. Let your contestants simply be contestants with their own names. Use team colors or team names to identify them. Maybe find more interesting, witty hosts, as well. There are very funny people in this world who would love the job.
With love,
Frank Lee
Dear ABC,
I enjoy lighthearted physical challenge shows. When a friend and I were looking for amusement, we came across "Wipeout" and gave it a shot.
I've only seen one episode and a part of another, but I came away with no desire to watch any of it ever again. What I saw raised a lot of questions and put me on edge.
A twenty-year-old contestant on a "blind date" episode introduced himself by saying, "I became a man when I was thirteen when I had my bar mitzvah." Your hosts almost immediately began to call him a man-child and continued to make "man-child" comments throughout the show.
A contestant on another episode introduced himself as a karate instructor. Your hosts suggested that he had a "rainbow belt" from the "Bob Fosse dojo."
I understand that you have a lot of contestants and a casual audience, so you want to create narratives around the contestants to make them easily memorable so that watchers will follow along more readily. A woman says that she's descended from samurai and a man says that he wants to be a ninja, so you create a narrative about them being a samurai-ninja couple. However, since the friend I was watching with missed that couple's introduction, when you spent the entire episode referring to the Asian couple with stereotypically Asian terms, she thought that you were being racist. You were feeding right into a racist narrative.
Do you really need to refer to Zachary Botterman as "Man-child" throughout the episode as if that's his name? Do you think that we'll pay better attention or care more that way? To be entirely frank, your commentary came across as anti-Semitic because it played right into anti-Semitic narratives. It was also gender-policing and body-policing.
The main hosts in the booth are two white men with nearly identical body types named John Something-son. Vanessa Lachey is in the "on the field" role, interacting directly with the contestants. On one hand, it's great that of your three hosts, one is a woman of color. On the other hand, the entire show is based around two white men standing to one side spouting running commentary on women and people of color and other contestants at their expense. It's like an unending series of micro-aggressions. As I watched, I kept wanting to give you the benefit of the doubt. After all, if she says that she's descended from samurai and he says that he wants to be a ninja, how accountable should I hold you for playing into a racist narrative? They brought it up themselves, right? If the woman portrayed as sex-hungry and desperate for a hot guy just happens to be the thickest of the women there, that's just a coincidence, right? You're not making her say those things.
But you're the one editing. You're the one deciding what to air. You put together the commentary. You decide which narrative to push. You know which stereotypes you're perpetuating. So I end up watching a show with two white guys observing the action and telling me all about the Asian samurai-ninja couple, the man-hungry woman who just so happens to be not very skinny, the Jewish man-child, and so on. When I tried another episode and got to the gay "joke" mentioned above, I had to stop watching.
In the future, try to come up with narratives that don't reinforce racist stereotypes or other nasty themes. Or don't come up with narratives at all. Let your contestants simply be contestants with their own names. Use team colors or team names to identify them. Maybe find more interesting, witty hosts, as well. There are very funny people in this world who would love the job.
With love,
Frank Lee
Dear First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs
Dear First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs,
I've heard that you recently coerced your pastor not to perform a wedding in your church because the bride and groom were black. The couple in question, Charles and Te'Andrea Wilson, attended your church regularly and had already finalized plans with the pastor, but you didn't want a black couple's wedding to be performed at your church so the pastor performed the ceremony in another church instead.
As you can imagine, I find your racism to be absolutely disgusting.
The Wilsons have attended your church. You'll share the Word and break bread with them, but you won't allow them to get married in your church? Some churches don't perform the ceremony for non-members, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Your specific problem seems to be that the Wilsons are black. And you were willing to eject your pastor from the church entirely to get what you wanted.
I would assume that, as Christians, you believe a Christian marriage to be a good thing. But it's not a good thing when black people do it. It's such an intolerable abomination that it must not come to pass before your altar, certainly. I wonder if you realize how intensely hateful you're being or what a hideously racist message you're sending. No matter how Christian they consider themselves, black people aren't Christian enough to get married at your church. Generally, the task of Christians is to evangelize, to bring more people to God, to spread the Word, to share the good news of Jesus Christ and His message for us. Instead, you're turning people away. Shoving them aside, rejecting them and anyone who supports them. You're treating them as inherently not good enough to be Christian, too sinful to be cleansed. Their skin is too dark for you. Their souls are too dirty for Jesus.
Denying someone's God's love is about as hateful as a Christian can get.
I hope that you come to understand exactly how atrocious your behavior is and exactly how damaging your mindset is. I hope that you learn to accept all of God's children into your church. I hope that you learn to love.
I hope that the Wilsons enjoy a very happy marriage.
With love,
Frank Lee
I've heard that you recently coerced your pastor not to perform a wedding in your church because the bride and groom were black. The couple in question, Charles and Te'Andrea Wilson, attended your church regularly and had already finalized plans with the pastor, but you didn't want a black couple's wedding to be performed at your church so the pastor performed the ceremony in another church instead.
As you can imagine, I find your racism to be absolutely disgusting.
The Wilsons have attended your church. You'll share the Word and break bread with them, but you won't allow them to get married in your church? Some churches don't perform the ceremony for non-members, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Your specific problem seems to be that the Wilsons are black. And you were willing to eject your pastor from the church entirely to get what you wanted.
"The church congregation had decided no black could be married at that church, and that if he went on to marry her, then they would vote [the pastor] out the church," said Charles Wilson.I've been made to understand that, within the bounds of Christianity, marriage is a sacred covenant with God. It's certainly touted as a wholesome and beautiful sacrament. Why would you not want this good, Christian ceremony to be performed within your church? Presumably you permit white people to wed there. So it's only for people of color that this becomes an issue. Such a grave issue, in fact, that you'd fire your pastor over it.
I would assume that, as Christians, you believe a Christian marriage to be a good thing. But it's not a good thing when black people do it. It's such an intolerable abomination that it must not come to pass before your altar, certainly. I wonder if you realize how intensely hateful you're being or what a hideously racist message you're sending. No matter how Christian they consider themselves, black people aren't Christian enough to get married at your church. Generally, the task of Christians is to evangelize, to bring more people to God, to spread the Word, to share the good news of Jesus Christ and His message for us. Instead, you're turning people away. Shoving them aside, rejecting them and anyone who supports them. You're treating them as inherently not good enough to be Christian, too sinful to be cleansed. Their skin is too dark for you. Their souls are too dirty for Jesus.
Denying someone's God's love is about as hateful as a Christian can get.
I hope that you come to understand exactly how atrocious your behavior is and exactly how damaging your mindset is. I hope that you learn to accept all of God's children into your church. I hope that you learn to love.
I hope that the Wilsons enjoy a very happy marriage.
With love,
Frank Lee
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Dear Readers
Dear Readers,
How embarrassing. I seem to have misspelled Chick-fil-A in two recent posts. I'm not interested in apologizing to Chick-fil-A, since I don't care about the company, but I do want to extend my apologies to you for my oversight.
I'll endeavor to be more careful in the future.
Thanks for reading!
With love,
Frank Lee
How embarrassing. I seem to have misspelled Chick-fil-A in two recent posts. I'm not interested in apologizing to Chick-fil-A, since I don't care about the company, but I do want to extend my apologies to you for my oversight.
I'll endeavor to be more careful in the future.
Thanks for reading!
With love,
Frank Lee
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Dear Gun Enthusiasts
Discussion of guns and sexual assault ahead.
Dear Gun Enthusiasts,
Many of you seem fond of the notion that arming potential victims is the way to go. Whenever there's a mass shooting, you pipe up eagerly to say something like, "If those people had been armed, they could've shot the shooter and ended the whole thing!" Whenever there's a discussion of rape, you're quick to suggest that we all arm ourselves to ward off future rapists.
It is true that some people feel safer with guns. It is also true that some people don't.
It is true that in some situations, if you brandish a weapon, a rapist might back off of you. It is also true that in some situations, a rapist might escalate.
With that said, let's look at five reasons rape victims and survivors might not want or have guns:
1.) Many people who are preyed upon are minors. At age five, or eight, or thirteen, a kid might not have a gun in her backpack ready for brandishing when her teacher starts crossing boundaries.
2.) Many people are assaulted in times and places a weapon isn't handy. You keep a gun locked up for safety, and you're raped in your own bed. You keep a gun under your pillow, and you're raped in the kitchen. You keep a gun at your house, and you're raped at a party at your friend's house. Do you take your gun to work? Do you leave it in your purse? Do you keep it on your hip at all times, even during a pool party?
3.) Many people are assaulted by close friends and family. Many people are assaulted by people they aren't prepared to shoot. How many people do you know who are genuinely, willing to shoot their own grandfather? Their own mother? Their own boyfriend?
4.) If sexual predators become aware that more people carry guns and more potential victims are armed, won't the sexual predators themselves be armed in preparation? An arms race between predators and potential victims might lead to a lot of dead rapists. It also might lead to a lot of dead victims.
5.) The prosecution rate for rape is dismal. Right now we're seeing survivors prosecuted for all sorts of offenses. If I can't prove that someone raped me, but he can prove that I shot him, who's going to jail?
"If only you'd had a gun, this wouldn't have happened" sounds too much like "if only you'd dressed differently," "if only you'd stayed home," "if only you made better friends," "if only you weren't so flirtatious," "if only you were a better judge of character," "if only you'd fought back harder," "if only you'd taken that self-defense class," "if only you'd been more careful." Yeah, if only. If only that asshole hadn't been a fucking rapist.
The hyper-vigilance demanded of people (usually women) to guard themselves against rape is brutal. Now you want to add
No.
If some people choose to live that way or feel that they have to live that way, that's their decision. But you cannot expect it and it's victim-blaming bullshit to ask it.
Melissa McEwan has said all of this before and very well, so I'll go dig up a few links and add them at the bottom.
We have too many guns around already. Too. Goddamned. Many. The solution to violence is not more violence, it's stopping the violence to begin with. Instead of focusing on what the victims can and should and might do, let's focus on fighting rape culture and teaching men not to be rapists in the first place.
Thanks for your help.
With love,
Frank Lee
P.S. Here is Melissa McEwan's must-read post on Rape Culture 101.
P.P.S. Either this is a coincidence or my subconscious is working overtime, but here is Melissa McEwan's post on self-defense.
Dear Gun Enthusiasts,
Many of you seem fond of the notion that arming potential victims is the way to go. Whenever there's a mass shooting, you pipe up eagerly to say something like, "If those people had been armed, they could've shot the shooter and ended the whole thing!" Whenever there's a discussion of rape, you're quick to suggest that we all arm ourselves to ward off future rapists.
It is true that some people feel safer with guns. It is also true that some people don't.
It is true that in some situations, if you brandish a weapon, a rapist might back off of you. It is also true that in some situations, a rapist might escalate.
With that said, let's look at five reasons rape victims and survivors might not want or have guns:
1.) Many people who are preyed upon are minors. At age five, or eight, or thirteen, a kid might not have a gun in her backpack ready for brandishing when her teacher starts crossing boundaries.
2.) Many people are assaulted in times and places a weapon isn't handy. You keep a gun locked up for safety, and you're raped in your own bed. You keep a gun under your pillow, and you're raped in the kitchen. You keep a gun at your house, and you're raped at a party at your friend's house. Do you take your gun to work? Do you leave it in your purse? Do you keep it on your hip at all times, even during a pool party?
3.) Many people are assaulted by close friends and family. Many people are assaulted by people they aren't prepared to shoot. How many people do you know who are genuinely, willing to shoot their own grandfather? Their own mother? Their own boyfriend?
4.) If sexual predators become aware that more people carry guns and more potential victims are armed, won't the sexual predators themselves be armed in preparation? An arms race between predators and potential victims might lead to a lot of dead rapists. It also might lead to a lot of dead victims.
5.) The prosecution rate for rape is dismal. Right now we're seeing survivors prosecuted for all sorts of offenses. If I can't prove that someone raped me, but he can prove that I shot him, who's going to jail?
"If only you'd had a gun, this wouldn't have happened" sounds too much like "if only you'd dressed differently," "if only you'd stayed home," "if only you made better friends," "if only you weren't so flirtatious," "if only you were a better judge of character," "if only you'd fought back harder," "if only you'd taken that self-defense class," "if only you'd been more careful." Yeah, if only. If only that asshole hadn't been a fucking rapist.
The hyper-vigilance demanded of people (usually women) to guard themselves against rape is brutal. Now you want to add
1.) get a gunto the list.
2.) become an expert shooter
3.) know how to shoot to injure/maim
4.) be willing to shoot to kill
5.) have the gun with you at all times and in all places no matter what
No.
If some people choose to live that way or feel that they have to live that way, that's their decision. But you cannot expect it and it's victim-blaming bullshit to ask it.
Melissa McEwan has said all of this before and very well, so I'll go dig up a few links and add them at the bottom.
We have too many guns around already. Too. Goddamned. Many. The solution to violence is not more violence, it's stopping the violence to begin with. Instead of focusing on what the victims can and should and might do, let's focus on fighting rape culture and teaching men not to be rapists in the first place.
Thanks for your help.
With love,
Frank Lee
P.S. Here is Melissa McEwan's must-read post on Rape Culture 101.
P.P.S. Either this is a coincidence or my subconscious is working overtime, but here is Melissa McEwan's post on self-defense.
Dear Chik-fil-A
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”Dear Chik-fil-A,
-Dan Cathy, founder, Chik-fil-A
Glad to hear that you're so happy in your marriages.
I'm puzzled by your recent homophobic statement about "the biblical definition of the family unit." What exactly do you think that the Bible's definition of "family" is?
Of all of the books of the Bible, I didn't notice Dictionary being one of them. When I did a search for the word "family" in general, I got 205 results. Try it for yourself!
Aside from the typical stuff about someone wiping out an entire family because God desired it, I found some interesting, sometimes conflicting information.
For one thing, people seem very concerned with building a family
Genesis 16:2and preserving the family line
New International Version (NIV)
2 so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”
Abram agreed to what Sarai said.
Genesis 30:3
New International Version (NIV)
3 Then she said, “Here is Bilhah, my servant. Sleep with her so that she can bear children for me and I too can build a family through her.”
Genesis 19:32at all costs.
New International Version (NIV)
32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
Genesis 19:34
New International Version (NIV)
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.”
Here's a note on familial duty:
Deuteronomy 25:5Who, exactly, is a member of the family?
New International Version (NIV)
5 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.
Judges 11:2Are women, wives, daughters, important members of the family?
New International Version (NIV)
2 Gilead’s wife also bore him sons, and when they were grown up, they drove Jephthah away. “You are not going to get any inheritance in our family,” they said, “because you are the son of another woman.”
Proverbs 17:2
New International Version (NIV)
2 A prudent servant will rule over a disgraceful son
and will share the inheritance as one of the family.
John 8:35
New International Version (NIV)
35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever.
Jeremiah 35:3How large is a typical family? How many wives do you have?
New International Version (NIV)
3 So I went to get Jaazaniah son of Jeremiah, the son of Habazziniah, and his brothers and all his sons—the whole family of the Rekabites.
1 Chronicles 7:4I don't know. I don't see a definition of family here, but I do see a lot of signs that you should do anything and everything to procreate wildly. It's great that you're still married to your first wives, but you might want to add in at least a second and third if you really want to be biblical about it.
New International Version (NIV)
4 According to their family genealogy, they had 36,000 men ready for battle, for they had many wives and children.
With love,
Frank Lee
Edited to add: click here, please.
Dear Muppets
Dear Muppets,
I heard recently that the people who run your careers over at the Jim Henson Company ended their dealings with Chik-fil-A. The executives at Chik-fil-A have proven themselves to be proudly homophobic, so the Jim Henson Company made the smart, considerate move of severing ties.
In Chik-fil-A's version of events, they ended things first. I don't really care, but I'm less inclined to believe them than I am to believe your people, partly because I love all of you so much and partly because the Jim Henson Company's statement included this line:
I'm sorry that your toys won't be available through Chik-fil-A, but you have to be careful who you become friends with and who you make deals with and who you throw your support behind. What I've learned from all of this is a very good lesson: better to ally myself with a furry monster than with a homophobe.
With love,
Frank Lee
Edited to add: click here, please.
I heard recently that the people who run your careers over at the Jim Henson Company ended their dealings with Chik-fil-A. The executives at Chik-fil-A have proven themselves to be proudly homophobic, so the Jim Henson Company made the smart, considerate move of severing ties.
In Chik-fil-A's version of events, they ended things first. I don't really care, but I'm less inclined to believe them than I am to believe your people, partly because I love all of you so much and partly because the Jim Henson Company's statement included this line:
donate the payment we received from Chick-Fil-A to GLAADHow great is that?
I'm sorry that your toys won't be available through Chik-fil-A, but you have to be careful who you become friends with and who you make deals with and who you throw your support behind. What I've learned from all of this is a very good lesson: better to ally myself with a furry monster than with a homophobe.
With love,
Frank Lee
Edited to add: click here, please.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Dear Pranksters
Dear Pranksters,
Let's talk about pranks.
Here's an easy one. Let's say that Jane is sensitive to cold and Lisa is sensitive to heat. They sit together at a table on a hot day in August. Lisa gets up to add ice to her drink. Knowing that Jane is unsuspecting, she waits until her hand is chilly from the ice, then plants her hand on the back of Jane's neck.
Jane, surprised, gasps and jerks away in distress.
Lisa laughs.
This is a prank.
Pranksters consider themselves to be funny people out for a laugh.
Who's laughing in this situation? Lisa.
What is she laughing at? Jane's distress. Her own cleverness in taking advantage of Jane. "Ha ha, I really got you!"
Maybe Beth was at the table, watching. Maybe she laughs, too. This makes it even funnier for Lisa, who has a witness to her antics. This also means that Beth saw Lisa sneaking up on Jane and, instead of warning Jane of Lisa's intentions or warning Lisa away, sat in silent complicity or egged Lisa on.
Maybe Jane is a close friend and loves pranks. Maybe Jane is a common target, someone Lisa and Beth have been bullying for months. Maybe Jane enjoyed the prank and laughed along. Maybe Jane laughed because she was startled, because she was nervous, because she's been socialized to play along and not ruin everyone else's fun.
If you take advantage of me and prey upon me and then laugh, you're not being funny, you're being an asshole. Pranks are designed to startle people, to scare them, to upset them, to hurt them. "Ha ha, you're in pain!" That's not hilarious, that's sadistic.
If you're genuinely a funny person, you'll be able to find other ways to enjoy a good laugh without pranking someone.
If you have fun with pranks, give careful thought to who your victims are and what sorts of pranks you enjoy. There is a line between shared jokes and bullying. Please don't cross it. A lot of people laugh along with pranks because we're socialized to do so whether we genuinely enjoy the "joke" or not.
With love,
Frank Lee
Let's talk about pranks.
Here's an easy one. Let's say that Jane is sensitive to cold and Lisa is sensitive to heat. They sit together at a table on a hot day in August. Lisa gets up to add ice to her drink. Knowing that Jane is unsuspecting, she waits until her hand is chilly from the ice, then plants her hand on the back of Jane's neck.
Jane, surprised, gasps and jerks away in distress.
Lisa laughs.
This is a prank.
Pranksters consider themselves to be funny people out for a laugh.
Who's laughing in this situation? Lisa.
What is she laughing at? Jane's distress. Her own cleverness in taking advantage of Jane. "Ha ha, I really got you!"
Maybe Beth was at the table, watching. Maybe she laughs, too. This makes it even funnier for Lisa, who has a witness to her antics. This also means that Beth saw Lisa sneaking up on Jane and, instead of warning Jane of Lisa's intentions or warning Lisa away, sat in silent complicity or egged Lisa on.
Maybe Jane is a close friend and loves pranks. Maybe Jane is a common target, someone Lisa and Beth have been bullying for months. Maybe Jane enjoyed the prank and laughed along. Maybe Jane laughed because she was startled, because she was nervous, because she's been socialized to play along and not ruin everyone else's fun.
If you take advantage of me and prey upon me and then laugh, you're not being funny, you're being an asshole. Pranks are designed to startle people, to scare them, to upset them, to hurt them. "Ha ha, you're in pain!" That's not hilarious, that's sadistic.
If you're genuinely a funny person, you'll be able to find other ways to enjoy a good laugh without pranking someone.
If you have fun with pranks, give careful thought to who your victims are and what sorts of pranks you enjoy. There is a line between shared jokes and bullying. Please don't cross it. A lot of people laugh along with pranks because we're socialized to do so whether we genuinely enjoy the "joke" or not.
With love,
Frank Lee
Dear Mitt Romney
In remarks that may prompt accusations of racial insensitivity, one suggested that Mr Romney was better placed to understand the depth of ties between the two countries than Mr Obama, whose father was from Africa.Dear Mitt Romney,
“We are part of an Anglo-Saxon heritage, and he feels that the special relationship is special,” the adviser said of Mr Romney, adding: “The White House didn’t fully appreciate the shared history we have”.
You're running for President of the United States of America. This would be a good time to put your best foot forward. You're under a lot of scrutiny. We're paying attention not only to what you say and do but who you surround yourself with.
The people speaking in that linked article seem to be members of your foreign policy advisory team. Other countries, you know, are full of "foreigners" and, in many cases, people who aren't as white as you are. Being advised on foreign policy by racist assholes might lead to racist foreign policy ideas and decisions. That's not a good thing.
There are many, many foreign policy experts you could've brought onto your team. You chose this one. You let him (encouraged him) to speak to the press. He's speaking for your campaign, speaking for you.
I want to suggest that you surround yourself with better people, because I believe that if you're around better people you might become a better person, too. On the other hand, if you continue to surround yourself with douchebags, maybe voters will be disgusted and vote for Obama instead, which would be great.
Even if you're happy with their racism, you should replace your foreign policy advisers on the basis of their bad ideas. Basing foreign policy decisions on shared ethnicity seems like a bad way to go. Isn't that one of the reasons that the president must be a natural-born citizen? So that President Schwarzenegger doesn't base foreign policy on what benefits Austria instead of what's best for the USA? It seems as if foreign policy decisions are already fraught with all sorts of racism and other biases, and it's hard enough to make sound, rational decisions without adding in some wink-wink nudge-nudge you know I'm on your side because WASPs rule, right?
Do you remember how people were worried about voting for Kennedy because he was Catholic and might make decisions based on what the Vatican wanted? Are you aware that people have similar concerns about your Mormonism? Do you really want to make it so clear that you'll steer the nation according to your personal affiliations?
Please work on your racism and your boys' club tendencies. You're running for POTUS. This would be a good time to strive to be a fair, ethical person.
With love,
Frank Lee
P.S. He feels that the special relationship is special?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)