It has come to my attention that religion is not just a belief system anymore and in fact is destructive in this day in age. Religion is not inspiring people to make great art, it is not helping in peaceful negotiations, and it is not bringing families together like it used to. No, today, like many times before it, religion is being used to commit atrocities, war crimes, breaking up families, and destroying our planet. And here's why:
1. Many people who believe in a certain religion cannot explain why they believe in that other than it is the “truth”. Why is it the truth? What makes it true? In Christianity: Why is it that most of the beliefs come from the Old Testament which is Jewish? Christian is an update of Judaism, but if that’s the case, why do so many use the name of Jesus to start wars, breed hate, steal from the poor, and build their own wealth machines? In Islam: Muhammad preached of a Holy War as one that was in response to an invasion. Yet we live in a day where Muslim extremists murder those who have not even touched their land. Another caveat: In a religion that believes they are the holy people, why do they continue to kill each other?
2. People who speak to God are considered crazy. Yet in all three monotheistic religions, the founders spoke to God by themselves without any witnesses. In a rational sense, these people are crazy. Abraham was told by God to kill his only son who was thought of as a gift to the elderly couple. Hmm… Anybody remember Andrea Yates? God spoke to her and just forgot to tell her “Oh, hang on, I was just kidding.” He was too busy planning 9/11.
3. God is supposed to be omniscient. An omniscient God who is described as jealous does not seem omniscient. Not only that, but why would an all powerful God need to kill his “only son” (and for that matter, if Jesus was his only son, what are we, and why does he care about us?) for our sins? If he had the power to stop Adam and Eve from eating the apple? Why would he ever be angry at them then? Everything is his doing. Yet, God has shown his insecurity in this. He was afraid of people’s knowledge so when Adam and Eve became knowledgeable, he cast them out. If he is so insecure, how is he all powerful? Why worship something that is flawed and yet call him perfect?
4. Free will. The idea of free will goes against everything that these religions are found upon. Why would a jealous, all-powerful God give people the power to disbelief in him? If we have free will, isn’t entirely possible that we simply made up God?
5. We shall not judge, for we are not without sin. Yet certainly God has sinned. He killed his only son; conspired to kill Abraham’s son and all of Job’s family; murdered thousands in Sodom and Gomorrah; killed the entire world except for Noah; and countless other things. So God is above the law?
6. Religion is inherently sexist. Come on, this one doesn’t even need to be explained. Eve is the beginning of all sins; Abraham’s wife begged him not to kill their only son and she was considered weak; Lot’s wife turned to look at Sodom and Gomorrah and turned to a pillar of salt; and don’t even get me started on how Christianity treated Mary Magdalene for a thousand years and does one even need to mention Islam? How can any woman find this behavior praise-worthy?
7. Religion is the opiate of the masses. Karl Marx put it best. Religion is used by the powerful to keep the weak in line. Why care about your shitty life when there is a better one just around the corner? The name of God has been used to dumb society down and start wars, commit genocide, and generally put this entire planet to death, just to fulfill a prophecy that the world will end.
8. There is a better afterlife than this life. Why not just kill yourself then? Oh, because it’s a sin. But if Jesus knew he was going to die, didn’t he commit suicide?
9. Hell. Hell is never mentioned in the bible, although other forms of it can be ascribed this way. For many centuries Hell was more of a “purgatory” place, not eternal damnation. This came from the Catholics much later. Which leads to:
10. Religion is invented. None of the founders wrote anything down and neither did their immediate followers. The gospels were not written by people who knew Jesus (obviously from their discrepancies); Moses and his contemporaries didn’t write anything down; Siddhartha Gautama and his contemporaries didn’t write anything down; and Muhammad and his contemporaries didn’t write anything down. Why believe something that has no witnesses? In court, that’s called hearsay. It’s like saying “my brother’s friend’s great-grandfather said that he knew a guy who had his liver stolen once”.
11. What makes one any more valid than the other? Nothing. No one can say one religion is any better than the other and if they do they are wrong. “Those scientologists are crazy, but I totes get whole ‘God speaks through me’, burning bush, and a talking serpent. Yeah that makes sense.”
Unfortunately, religion is used not show the good life anymore, but as a political maneuver to convince others they are wrong and to get votes. Sure, there are good people in every religion, but where are they? Why aren’t they running for office or getting on talk shows? Because they don’t care enough. Only the people who are truly crazy and hateful really want to spread the message to everyone else.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Monday, December 13, 2010
Politics in Video Games
"Opinions are like armpits. Yours stink and mine smell like morning meadows ." -About a million people and Dirty Harry.
Over the last few years, the video game community has been trying to argue that it is a new art form; in fact, they believe that it can be the most powerful thanks the inherent interactivity that makes up the core of video game experience. If we define art (which is nearly impossible so I'll just throw in the one that seems to get the least flak) as "a piece or body of work that is meant to describe, show, or produce an emotional response" then how can video games not be described as art. But that is not the point of this post. No, this post is about politics and why it pisses off so many people when it goes into video games.
Video games are a young form of entertainment. While it does help that films, plays, music, and paintings have influenced it to a large degree, the fact is that video games are in it's childhood years of development. Only in the last decade has the debate as art really have any credence. Yet, in spite of this, people seem to believe that politics should be left out. One of the most hated aspects is in "Burnout Paradise" where a billboard for voting can be seen with a picture of President Obama's face next to it.
Because of this image, and many like it, numerous people have declared that politics should not be in video games. But I ask why? How can video games ignore politics when they are at the core of many political debates right now. Most notably is the "violent video game" legislation that has been going on since "Mortal Kombat" graced us with its decapitations and disembowelments. Some of the most famous works of art are steeped in politics. 1984 by Orwell, "All the President's Men", "The Crucible" by Miller, and so many others all have political theories and critique as a focal point to the storytelling and artistry of the medium. But this can't happen in "BioShock Infinite"? It is wrong when "MGS4" has themes of Cambodia/Cold War proxy wars? Why is it that video games can't have social or political critique? Well, I think I have the answer.
Clean and Friendly Gaming
Politics in any young medium scares people. Early attempts at politics in films like D.W. Griffith's "Intolerance" were met with production companies crushing them. "Metropolis", now consider one of the greatest silent films ever, was met with harsh criticism and some attempts at banning in the US and other nations until extensive edits were made cutting out controversial elements. At this point, narrative films were only thirty years old, about the same age as narrative video games are today. With that in mind, the early narrative film efforts were short, silent endeavors that had little story if any at best, much like the first ten years of narrative video games. It wasn't until filmmakers like Lang, Griffith, and Eisenstein started sprinkling in politics that narrative film became powerful. This is why it is scary. Any piece of art that has power will frighten and anger those that don't agree with its message.
Strong narrative in films began about twenty to thirty years after the invention of the medium. Looking at the history of video games, this is also the case. While there are of course early works that are the exception, generally speaking, video games didn't have strong storytelling with subtle themes until the nineties. Even then, most of these games were stuck in the RPG/adventure mold of good guys vs. bad guys and you need some ultimate weapon to slay a beast. It really wasn't until recently that games stepped outside of this "black and white" viewpoint for more ambiguous stories.Thanks to games like "Metal Gear Solid" (with its critique of Post Cold War ideologies and nuclear proliferation) and "Final Fantasy 7" (Shin-Ra sucking the lifeblood of the planet, duh), politics were finally driving the narrative of games.
Politics in games is finally hitting it's high points. Games like "BioShock", "Portal", "Half-Life" and even the "Assassin's Creed" franchise have politically driven stories. Hell, even "Call of Duty" is sprinkling bits of politics in the mix. But enough with the examples, let's get with the point. Anytime a new medium tries to use social and political critique it gets backlash because the medium starts out as pure entertainment. The medium needs to draw an audience first before it starts making them think.
The beginnings of film, television, and video games all started with mindless entertainment. People are attracted to the idea of turning off their brain, especially in a world where we are already overstimulated. Games like "Super Mario Bros" or "Sonic the Hedgehog" don't have any political point; they're just plain fun. Because of these games, though, millions were drawn into buying video games and eventually, games began to evolve past fun like film and television. Developers began to see that they now had a massive audience to make a point to and just like filmmakers, decided they should do so. Yet, those games that are consider mindless entertainment, are not allowed to grow past that.
"Super Mario Sunshine" is a good example of a game like this. The game is the most controversial of the "Mario" franchise and it tends to get a bad rap. But why? The game has great gameplay, lively graphics and sound, and the audacious plumber himself. I believe because it had not-so-subtle themes of environmentalism in it. If you disagree, please feel free to say so, but for a game that really improved on every aspect of "Mario 64", why is it that so many people hate it? Mario is meant to be mindless entertainment and when it finally thrusts that off, it became controversial. And why not? It was trying something new with the franchise, but it didn't work. Hence "Mario Galaxy" being a game with almost no story and definitely no politics in it whatsoever. It's still an incredibly fun and well put together game, but Nintendo learned to leave the politics alone with its poster boy.
Going back to the ad for Obama in "Burnout Paradise", we can see that this issue is still an issue. It's now evolved past just having themes or story driven by politics. It has the possibility of becoming a political battleground. This is what is so scary now. Someone who disagrees with Obama sees that and may decide the game "sucks" because of it. Not only that, but what's to stop other politicians from paying Activision or Electronic Arts to put more billboards for themselves in games? But why aren't people up in arms about McCain or the local governor having commercials in between "Two and a Half Men" but not in say, "Alan Wake"? What makes video games untouchable? Is it because of the fact that many people who play video games are people under the voting age? Or is it simply because by doing this kind of thing it is taking away the mindless escape that many video games provide?
Maybe it's time for us as a gaming community to accept the fact that it is inevitable. Any chance that a politician has to self promote, they will generally take it. And why not? They're trying to get votes and a key market is young people. My generation is one of the worst at actually showing up to vote so of course politicians are going to try and get our attention. I won't be surprised when publishers start looking at the people who buy their games and try to market that to politicians. "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4: Red Dawn" having an ad for "Sarah Palin 2012" wouldn't surprise me, nor would say having "Metal Gear Solid 5: Snake's Retirement Home" have "Obama for Reelection" simply by the publishers doing market research. But you know what? It's time to wake up and see that right now, it's going to happen. And at a time when video games need all the help from politicians they can get, I say, let them do it. Who in the gaming community wants another "Manhunt 2" fiasco?
Wrapping up is hard to do, so I'll make it quick. If video games are to become a form of art in most of society's mind, then it must evolve past entertainment. It must clash with held ideals, and produce strong emotions. The best and simplest way to do that is to have political threads in the game. The fact that it causes debate is a testament to its place as art. Of course, ads for politicians are not art, but art does need to be funded. For video games to get the respect they need as an artistic medium, it must go through the phases of other mediums. And one phase is the acceptance of politics in games. Sure, the advert in "Burnout Paradise" may have been in bad taste, and I'm not saying to embrace it. What I am saying is that video games are not untouchable. They can't be, because if they are, if it comes to the point where politics cannot be in video games, how can it be called art? How will it evolve? How will it ever make people who say that it is corrupting our youth shut up? The truth is that it won't, and video games will not become a medium for just product placement. If you disagree, great! That's the point. We need to have debate as a community, and so should video games. True art makes you think, and politics are the forum to express your opinions. It is a sad day when voices are silenced or not allowed to be heard, and when someone says politics need to stay out of video games, that is what they are saying.
Over the last few years, the video game community has been trying to argue that it is a new art form; in fact, they believe that it can be the most powerful thanks the inherent interactivity that makes up the core of video game experience. If we define art (which is nearly impossible so I'll just throw in the one that seems to get the least flak) as "a piece or body of work that is meant to describe, show, or produce an emotional response" then how can video games not be described as art. But that is not the point of this post. No, this post is about politics and why it pisses off so many people when it goes into video games.
Video games are a young form of entertainment. While it does help that films, plays, music, and paintings have influenced it to a large degree, the fact is that video games are in it's childhood years of development. Only in the last decade has the debate as art really have any credence. Yet, in spite of this, people seem to believe that politics should be left out. One of the most hated aspects is in "Burnout Paradise" where a billboard for voting can be seen with a picture of President Obama's face next to it.
Because of this image, and many like it, numerous people have declared that politics should not be in video games. But I ask why? How can video games ignore politics when they are at the core of many political debates right now. Most notably is the "violent video game" legislation that has been going on since "Mortal Kombat" graced us with its decapitations and disembowelments. Some of the most famous works of art are steeped in politics. 1984 by Orwell, "All the President's Men", "The Crucible" by Miller, and so many others all have political theories and critique as a focal point to the storytelling and artistry of the medium. But this can't happen in "BioShock Infinite"? It is wrong when "MGS4" has themes of Cambodia/Cold War proxy wars? Why is it that video games can't have social or political critique? Well, I think I have the answer.
Clean and Friendly Gaming
Politics in any young medium scares people. Early attempts at politics in films like D.W. Griffith's "Intolerance" were met with production companies crushing them. "Metropolis", now consider one of the greatest silent films ever, was met with harsh criticism and some attempts at banning in the US and other nations until extensive edits were made cutting out controversial elements. At this point, narrative films were only thirty years old, about the same age as narrative video games are today. With that in mind, the early narrative film efforts were short, silent endeavors that had little story if any at best, much like the first ten years of narrative video games. It wasn't until filmmakers like Lang, Griffith, and Eisenstein started sprinkling in politics that narrative film became powerful. This is why it is scary. Any piece of art that has power will frighten and anger those that don't agree with its message.
Strong narrative in films began about twenty to thirty years after the invention of the medium. Looking at the history of video games, this is also the case. While there are of course early works that are the exception, generally speaking, video games didn't have strong storytelling with subtle themes until the nineties. Even then, most of these games were stuck in the RPG/adventure mold of good guys vs. bad guys and you need some ultimate weapon to slay a beast. It really wasn't until recently that games stepped outside of this "black and white" viewpoint for more ambiguous stories.Thanks to games like "Metal Gear Solid" (with its critique of Post Cold War ideologies and nuclear proliferation) and "Final Fantasy 7" (Shin-Ra sucking the lifeblood of the planet, duh), politics were finally driving the narrative of games.
Politics in games is finally hitting it's high points. Games like "BioShock", "Portal", "Half-Life" and even the "Assassin's Creed" franchise have politically driven stories. Hell, even "Call of Duty" is sprinkling bits of politics in the mix. But enough with the examples, let's get with the point. Anytime a new medium tries to use social and political critique it gets backlash because the medium starts out as pure entertainment. The medium needs to draw an audience first before it starts making them think.
The beginnings of film, television, and video games all started with mindless entertainment. People are attracted to the idea of turning off their brain, especially in a world where we are already overstimulated. Games like "Super Mario Bros" or "Sonic the Hedgehog" don't have any political point; they're just plain fun. Because of these games, though, millions were drawn into buying video games and eventually, games began to evolve past fun like film and television. Developers began to see that they now had a massive audience to make a point to and just like filmmakers, decided they should do so. Yet, those games that are consider mindless entertainment, are not allowed to grow past that.
"Super Mario Sunshine" is a good example of a game like this. The game is the most controversial of the "Mario" franchise and it tends to get a bad rap. But why? The game has great gameplay, lively graphics and sound, and the audacious plumber himself. I believe because it had not-so-subtle themes of environmentalism in it. If you disagree, please feel free to say so, but for a game that really improved on every aspect of "Mario 64", why is it that so many people hate it? Mario is meant to be mindless entertainment and when it finally thrusts that off, it became controversial. And why not? It was trying something new with the franchise, but it didn't work. Hence "Mario Galaxy" being a game with almost no story and definitely no politics in it whatsoever. It's still an incredibly fun and well put together game, but Nintendo learned to leave the politics alone with its poster boy.
Going back to the ad for Obama in "Burnout Paradise", we can see that this issue is still an issue. It's now evolved past just having themes or story driven by politics. It has the possibility of becoming a political battleground. This is what is so scary now. Someone who disagrees with Obama sees that and may decide the game "sucks" because of it. Not only that, but what's to stop other politicians from paying Activision or Electronic Arts to put more billboards for themselves in games? But why aren't people up in arms about McCain or the local governor having commercials in between "Two and a Half Men" but not in say, "Alan Wake"? What makes video games untouchable? Is it because of the fact that many people who play video games are people under the voting age? Or is it simply because by doing this kind of thing it is taking away the mindless escape that many video games provide?
Maybe it's time for us as a gaming community to accept the fact that it is inevitable. Any chance that a politician has to self promote, they will generally take it. And why not? They're trying to get votes and a key market is young people. My generation is one of the worst at actually showing up to vote so of course politicians are going to try and get our attention. I won't be surprised when publishers start looking at the people who buy their games and try to market that to politicians. "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4: Red Dawn" having an ad for "Sarah Palin 2012" wouldn't surprise me, nor would say having "Metal Gear Solid 5: Snake's Retirement Home" have "Obama for Reelection" simply by the publishers doing market research. But you know what? It's time to wake up and see that right now, it's going to happen. And at a time when video games need all the help from politicians they can get, I say, let them do it. Who in the gaming community wants another "Manhunt 2" fiasco?
Wrapping up is hard to do, so I'll make it quick. If video games are to become a form of art in most of society's mind, then it must evolve past entertainment. It must clash with held ideals, and produce strong emotions. The best and simplest way to do that is to have political threads in the game. The fact that it causes debate is a testament to its place as art. Of course, ads for politicians are not art, but art does need to be funded. For video games to get the respect they need as an artistic medium, it must go through the phases of other mediums. And one phase is the acceptance of politics in games. Sure, the advert in "Burnout Paradise" may have been in bad taste, and I'm not saying to embrace it. What I am saying is that video games are not untouchable. They can't be, because if they are, if it comes to the point where politics cannot be in video games, how can it be called art? How will it evolve? How will it ever make people who say that it is corrupting our youth shut up? The truth is that it won't, and video games will not become a medium for just product placement. If you disagree, great! That's the point. We need to have debate as a community, and so should video games. True art makes you think, and politics are the forum to express your opinions. It is a sad day when voices are silenced or not allowed to be heard, and when someone says politics need to stay out of video games, that is what they are saying.
Monday, June 7, 2010
She & Him at Millenium Park
The opening act "Hollows" leaves the stage as cheers float across the crowd as the realization hits... The real show is about to begin. The young teens scream and the sound is deafening. The hipsters clap politely in their matching glasses and nod to each other as if they understand something that no one else can possibly know. My roommate and I rush to the front and jam ourselves as close as we can, snapping pictures and joking with people as they squeeze in. Thousands sit behind us, confused how we managed to get past the barricade that is clearly marked with an entrance sign. And finally, when the tensions are at a boiling point, She (Zooey Deschanel of "Weeds" and "A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Fame") & Him (M. Ward) take the stage modestly as if no one is there.
The Millenium Park Amphitheater was packed to the brim. There was no seats available, and security was desperately trying to get people out of the aisles. We, along with many others, managed to reach the pit where it was crammed so tight, you could lift your feet off the ground. The backing band joins them and together they begin with the song "Black Hole". Finally the crowd snaps to attention and the mood gets low.
For a free show, this was by far the best free show I have ever seen. Deschanel has the pipes most people only dream of and M. Ward wails on his guitar like the best. Mixing up their set with covers like Smokey Robinson's "You've Really Got a Hold on Me" and Stevie Wonder's "I Put a Spell on You" was definitely the highlight of the show, but this by no means discredits their own compositions. Their new song "Thieves" which hasn't even hit the airwaves just yet, is something to listen for when it does on June 14th.
Unfortunately, once again, much of the crowd managed to stay obnoxious throughout the show. But at a free concert this is to be expected. The drunk preteens, confused crack and methamphetamine addicts roaming around without a clue as to what is happening, and the people who have no idea who they are seeing is a drag on the experience, but She & Him managed to keep things under control and I'm sure there are many converts waiting for the record stores to open, or just to get to a computer or iPhone and download it.
She & Him will be performing at Bonnaroo Music Festival in Manchester, Tennessee right before Tori Amos this weekend. Headlining acts include Dave Matthews Band, The National, and Kings of Leon. If you are going, be sure to stop by "This Tent" around five and catch this group.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Iron Man 2
While not the greatest movie to ever hit the theaters, it probably is the funniest film based on a serious comic book. Robert Downey Jr. is perfect once again as he reprises his role from the first film and the quips fly like a bird caught in an updraft. Nearly every line is hilarious.
Sam Rockwell, Don Cheadle, and (unintentionally) Mickey Rourke are absolutely uproarious. The only downside is Mickey Rourke, whose steroid infused muscles will scare even the toughest little kids. His accent is a bit off, and he doesn't seem to act in half of his scenes. This is not the same man we saw in "The Wrestler", which either says something for it's director Darren Aronofsky, or something against Jon Favreau.
Yet, the action is top notch. Scarlett Johansson is just the right sexy a has little speaking roles, meaning her poor acting isn't even noticed, and she can definitely kick ass. The fight scenes are fast paced, funny, and exciting like when Favreau, playing the Alfred character, is beaten to a bloody pulp after taking her lightly. "Iron Man 2" is a fun, eventually forgettable film that will make a great collection to any action fans DVD collection, but don't expect it to be more than it is. At least it realizes that.
Sam Rockwell, Don Cheadle, and (unintentionally) Mickey Rourke are absolutely uproarious. The only downside is Mickey Rourke, whose steroid infused muscles will scare even the toughest little kids. His accent is a bit off, and he doesn't seem to act in half of his scenes. This is not the same man we saw in "The Wrestler", which either says something for it's director Darren Aronofsky, or something against Jon Favreau.
Yet, the action is top notch. Scarlett Johansson is just the right sexy a has little speaking roles, meaning her poor acting isn't even noticed, and she can definitely kick ass. The fight scenes are fast paced, funny, and exciting like when Favreau, playing the Alfred character, is beaten to a bloody pulp after taking her lightly. "Iron Man 2" is a fun, eventually forgettable film that will make a great collection to any action fans DVD collection, but don't expect it to be more than it is. At least it realizes that.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Point Break Live
A group of young men and one woman stands in front of an exuberant audience doing jumping jacks and proving to be the best mediocre actor possible. One stands out as his Keanu Reeves accent has that perfect touch of monotone. He is quickly pulled into the fray as men in masks modeled after Nixon, Regan, and Carter storm the crowd demanding cash to be doled out. Luckily for the audience, they have their survival kits which contains fake money, a napkin, and a poncho because this show will get messy.
Taken from the film "Point Break" directed by recent Oscar winner Kathryn Bigelow, "Point Break Live" is a hilarious and unabashedly satirical mess that demands to be seen. The amount of water, fake blood and hair dust sprayed only scratches the surface what can only be called one of the most enjoyable shows in Chicago. Using the ridiculousness of the show as its comedic inspiration, the show manages to entertain every minute; the highlight being the member of the audience chosen to play Johnny Utah every night. They fall constantly, miss their cues, and are overall bad actors just like Keanu Reeves. In a word, it’s perfect.
Located at the La Costa Theater on Irving Park and Elston, the show should not be missed. Its mix of humor, surprising improvisation, and bad special effects makes it an exhilarating ride. You’d be on the edge of your seat, but that makes it easier to get robbed by the “Ex-Presidents”.
Taken from the film "Point Break" directed by recent Oscar winner Kathryn Bigelow, "Point Break Live" is a hilarious and unabashedly satirical mess that demands to be seen. The amount of water, fake blood and hair dust sprayed only scratches the surface what can only be called one of the most enjoyable shows in Chicago. Using the ridiculousness of the show as its comedic inspiration, the show manages to entertain every minute; the highlight being the member of the audience chosen to play Johnny Utah every night. They fall constantly, miss their cues, and are overall bad actors just like Keanu Reeves. In a word, it’s perfect.
Located at the La Costa Theater on Irving Park and Elston, the show should not be missed. Its mix of humor, surprising improvisation, and bad special effects makes it an exhilarating ride. You’d be on the edge of your seat, but that makes it easier to get robbed by the “Ex-Presidents”.
Everyone Draw Muhammad Day
Ten days from now, Muhammad is planning on making an appearance across the internet. To say that this is offensive and morally wrong is probably correct, but dammit, if someone won't be that way than this world would be so boring.
Unfortunately, a few extreme people claiming to be Muslims (which means "those who submit" in Arabic) have decided to make death threats against the creators of "South Park", Matt Stone and Trey Parker because of their episode "200". While this is old news, it is older than many may think. For the last six years, every time a major source of media, like the Swedish newspaper, attempts to show the prophet Muhammad, they get threatened. This is exactly the problem. The fact that Comedy Central censored the episode is why this extremists have the power they do. According to Michael Cavna of The Washington Post wrote, "To invoke the revivified phrase: The terrorists win." We are afraid and that is unfortunate.
I'm not saying do the same to Muslims. The fact is, most Muslims are perfectly nice people, but because of the extreme treatment of women in some circles, the whole terrorist and jihad thing, they tend to get a bad rap. Which is unfortunate. But probably the most unfortunate aspect of this whole thing is that I missed out on the South Park episode. I really wanted to see that.
So, when May 20th rolls around, I will make a image of Muhammad and post it on this blog. Sorry Muslims. It's nothing against you, just the extremists that pretend to be you.
P.S. Here's a link to the entire episode: http://stagevu.com/video/jkeakqioxcgw
Unfortunately, a few extreme people claiming to be Muslims (which means "those who submit" in Arabic) have decided to make death threats against the creators of "South Park", Matt Stone and Trey Parker because of their episode "200". While this is old news, it is older than many may think. For the last six years, every time a major source of media, like the Swedish newspaper, attempts to show the prophet Muhammad, they get threatened. This is exactly the problem. The fact that Comedy Central censored the episode is why this extremists have the power they do. According to Michael Cavna of The Washington Post wrote, "To invoke the revivified phrase: The terrorists win." We are afraid and that is unfortunate.
I'm not saying do the same to Muslims. The fact is, most Muslims are perfectly nice people, but because of the extreme treatment of women in some circles, the whole terrorist and jihad thing, they tend to get a bad rap. Which is unfortunate. But probably the most unfortunate aspect of this whole thing is that I missed out on the South Park episode. I really wanted to see that.
So, when May 20th rolls around, I will make a image of Muhammad and post it on this blog. Sorry Muslims. It's nothing against you, just the extremists that pretend to be you.
P.S. Here's a link to the entire episode: http://stagevu.com/video/jkeakqioxcgw
New Blog
Ok, let me start by saying that this blog won't be about how amazing I am and everything that has to do with me. Instead, I plan on putting up my political viewpoints, conflicting ones, reviews of things I recently saw and projects I am currently working on along with some of my friends/associates.
So don't worry, I will not be talking about how cute Jessica's shirt was, what makes "Glee" the best show on television, and why you should all listen to my boring life. Hm. Guess I'm not a good blogger then.
So don't worry, I will not be talking about how cute Jessica's shirt was, what makes "Glee" the best show on television, and why you should all listen to my boring life. Hm. Guess I'm not a good blogger then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)