A romp through the insanity patch!

I was asked by someone specifically why I hate Valentine's Day. So I figured I'd lay it out here--a week after the fact, but it's getting posted anyway. LJ cut for the sake of your f-lists, and so those of you who don't care don't have to read it.

( Warning: Rant Within )

shake_c_ras, there you have my rationale on why I'm just not big on V-Day. But as I was typing this, a really random thought crossed my mind: spirit_sage_333, you never did succeed with your alleged quest to de-virginize me ♥ *insert Smirk of Evil here*

I was hanging around on Cass's writing journal (found at cassandra_lynn8 for those who want to go say hi), and she was talking about how she figures she's bad at math because it's all about rules and the rules never change, but as a writer, she's constantly bending rules that aren't even concrete to begin with. Writers depend on the fact that they can change and bend the rules. I am a writer myself; ergo, I understand this.

I am horrible with numbers, unless they pertain to music. And usually in that case, you are counting to four...unless you've been doing rhythm clapping for five hours and it's two in the morning. Then you can't even count to one--just ask vixieangel and she'll tell you the same thing. My math and science skills are pretty much zilch unless they apply to music. Cass no doubt remembers us dragging each other kicking and screaming through Algebra II. Math and science are all about rules.

If you look at music, it's the exact same way. There are rules, rules, rules. Then there are specific exceptions to every rule, and those exceptions are written out, to be memorized and referred to. There's a lot of numbers and counting involved, and even the most dissonant, seemingly random piece has a certain degree of structure to it. When you get down to it, that's what musical analysis is: finding the structure according to the rules and their written exceptions.

So here's the real ponderance: why is it that I can take four semesters of Music Theory and (thus far) one semester of Conducting at the university level and get A's straight across the board, but I could barely manage to pull a C in high school Algebra II and Chemistry? They're really quite similar--numbers and structure and rules and exceptions to those rules.

Or maybe I'm just thinking too hard about random stuff when I should really be focusing on my stupid Conducting homework that I hate so very much. *proceeds to killie Conducting homework with a wooden spoon*

Two nations under BUSH'S God...to the rest of the world, half of us are very, very sorry. 49% of us tried, guys. I seriously believe that some people would vote for a horse if their party announced that their candidate was Mr. Ed. God bless America...or maybe I should say SAVE America.

That's all I'll say on that.

It seems like I'm spending a lot of time talking about GLBT rights as of late, but it's really what's out there right now. Tonight drove that home, because I went to see my school's fall play.

First off, I've been trying to get my sister to come up and visit me since I started college last year. Well, she finally came up, to see the play and to spend the night with me here. She's going home again tomorrow because she has to work on Sunday. I've been excited about this all week. Arwen turned seventeen on Wednesday. Yes, I turned nineteen on Saturday, October 30th. We're two years and five days apart, so I took her out for dinner for her birthday, and then we went to the play.

This year's fall play is The Laramie Project. The premise of the play is that a theatre group went to Laramie, Wyoming, the site of the Matthew Shepherd murder, and interviewed a bunch of people about the tragedy and everything. They then took those interviews (there were over two hundred of them collected over more than a year), as well as various speeches and transcripts from the trials and announcements and whatnot, and wrote a play about it. The dialogue is all real, the characters are all real people...and it's centered on a real tragedy.

Maybe I'm an over-emotional sap, but I cried through most of it. Arwen really lost it at one point--there's a part dealing with the trial of one of the two men. The Reverend Fred Phelps (who I would like to hit over the head with a baseball bat) was outside preaching and waving signs that said things like, "God hates fags" and "AIDS cures fags" and such idiotic, close-minded bullshit things. The rest of the cast was singing Amazing Grace, and there was one character, portraying a friend of Matthew Shepherd's, who was the driving force behind the angels--a group of people who dressed up like angels with enormous wings and stood with their backs to the anti-gay protesters, blocking them. Arwen just lost it then.

I had been crying softly through the whole thing, but it wasn't until near the end that I really lost my cool. A friend of mine, named Mitch, at this point was portraying Dennis Shepherd, Matthew's father. Most of the people in the show played more than one role. The prosecution had said they would respect the Shepherd families wishes as to whether or not they would seek the death penalty for the second killer, the one who had entered a 'not guilty' plea and stuck with it.

Mitch recited the speech that Dennis Shepherd made to his son's killer. I was sobbing, Arwen was sobbing, and most of the cast on stage was sobbing. Mitch was even crying while he made the speech, telling this killer (for the life of me, I can't remember which one it is) that he was giving him his life, and he should thank Matt for it. I don't think anyone was unaffected by this at all.

Coming right on the heels of Judy Shepherd two weeks ago (and I cried through that as well), it's definitely a topic that's hot on campus. Truthfully, there were a few of us that were kind of hoping that Reverend Fred Phelps would show up when Judy Shepherd spoke here--because we would take no small pleasure in chasing him off our campus.

If you have the chance to see The Laramie Project, I would advise it. See it. See what happens when people learn how to hate. You might not have your opinion changed, but I think you will walk out of there with a different perspective on what happens when hatred rages out of control.

Thank you, and goodnight.

~ Candy-chan ^_^

Here at school, we have things called ACES: Academic and Cultural Events Series. What that means is they bring in various acts and speakers and whatnot to lecture or perform and the like. Some are fairly boring (usually the academic ones), but the cultural ones tend to be really good. But last night, there was an academic ACES that really had my attention.

TimeOut is the name of our campus GLBTSA organization. For those of you who don't know, that's Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender-Straight Alliance. It's one of the larger and more active groups on campus, with members of every orientation, straight or otherwise. I'm a member, and proud of it. Earlier this year, they had a drag show on campus--they brought a drag queen in from Des Moines to do a show. I didn't get to go, but I heard about it. One of my residents has a two-year-old daughter, and she took her daughter to the drag show. At one point, this little girl (her name is Liz) jumped out of her chair and ran up to the stage. The drag-queen was just delighted--she picked up Liz and started dancing with her. I think that's just fantastic.

Last night, they brought in Judy Shepherd to speak. Judy Shepherd is the mother of Matthew Shepherd. In case you aren't familiar with that name, Matthew Shepherd was a twenty-one-year-old man; in October of 1998, he was taken out into a field by two men, beaten to a bloody pulp, tied to a fence-post, and left for dead in the cold. He was there for eighteen hours before he was found and rushed to a hospital, where he died a couple days later. He was brutally murdered in cold blood--just because he was gay. Since his death, his mother has started speaking around the country to end the hate, so getting to hear her talk was an experience I did NOT want to miss.

We started by watching a short video, and then Judy herself came out, and started by telling a few jokes--which surprised me. She said she had just turnd fifty and joined AARP, and part of her membership deal was a fan (which she showed us), because she said she was going through her own personal summer. She also thanked us for not having record-breaking highs (it's been getting colder around here--the temperature at night usually drops below thirty as we draw nearer to winter). Then she read us a speech--it was the speech she had written and read aloud at the trial of one of Matthew's killers. The court often asks a family member or friend to make such a speech to try and explain their loss to the court, jury, and everyone else involved. I don't know if I'd be able to do it in her situation.

This was being held in our campus chapel. The place was packed--I'd guess there were at least a couple hundred people there. And I don't think there was a single person in that sanctuary that wasn't affected by her words as she read that speech, talked about her son, the call that told them of his condition, and the moment when they let him go. Many people were crying openly, myself and my friends among them. I truly believe that no matter what everyone's thoughts on GLBT, if they weren't moved at all then they really have hearts of stone.

She talked about hate, and how it does nothing but destroy. She talked about the gay community. And she said something that really made an impression on me. At another speaking engagement, someone suggested to her that there should be one day a year where everyone in the GLBTS Alliance--gay or straight--should paint themselves blue. It might not be realistic, necessarily, but think about it. Conservatively, statistics say that one person in every ten is gay. And then they say conservatively that every gay person has five allies. In reality, it should probably be more like a hundred, but that's neither here nor there. If every GLBT person, and all of their allies did all paint themselves blue on one day, how many blue people would there be? I think the numbers would be amazing, I really do.

It was just a really moving experience, and I really admire her. She made some jokes throughout the talk, she talked about that federal marriage amendment that had been proposed to the Constitution, and the implications of that (*coughBULLSHITcough*). But that she can joke and smile and talk about this is really admirable, I think. She's taken a horrifying personal tragedy and made it into a cause that she's willing to fight for. I do admire her--I don't think anyone, especially a mother, could ever completely get over losing a child, especially in such a brutal manner.

Her son, Matthew Shepherd, has become a martyr for a cause that is picking up speed and volume and won't be silenced. I don't know what everyone's views are out there, but I do have a few thoughts on the matter. I started this LJ...well, initially because Kyte-chan was going to beat me over the head if I didn't, but also as an avenue for my thoughts. Here's what I think on the whole matter.

I was outraged when I heard about the proposed marriage amendment. I don't believe in legislating "morality" because I don't believe it's possible. Everyone's morals are different, and while certain things, like killing and stealing, are bad by almost all standards, there's a lot of gray area that you can't automatically solve with laws and prison terms.

I also don't believe that the Bible holds every single answer. Before any of you go on a religious crusade against me, allow me to make myself clear: I am a devout Christian. I have been my whole life, and a lot of people who know me would be able to tell you the same thing. I'm baptized and confirmed Catholic, though I have a few issues with the Church, and prefer to profess myself simply as Christian. I don't need a middle-man between me and God. My parents always told me to figure out my own beliefs, and one of those beliefs that I have come to realize is that not every answer can be found in the Bible. Anyone can take the Holy Book and interpret it however they want to satisfy their own ends. With so many different interpretations, I don't think it's possible to use it to justify things.

If you look at the Bible, specifically the New Testament, it is the story of a man's life--Jesus Christ. He was born, lived, and died as any other man. He died for our sins. And if there is one lesson I think everyone needs to take from the Bible, it is what Jesus said. "Love thy neighbor." He didn't say love thy WHITE neighbor. He didn't say love thy STRAIGHT neighbor. He said love they neighbor.

If you want to get technical about the Bible, it also says "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone." I have yet to meet ANYONE who is completely spotless (no matter what they say). This includes me--I ain't perfect, and I'm not claiming to be. Does it not also say that only God is fit to judge? So stop judging. And if you want to get REALLY technical about crimes against God and going against the Bible, how about this? Have you ever eaten shellfish, worked on a Sunday (and I'm sure this includes homework, for all us procrastinators), man who has ever shaved his beard (for men), and spoken out or gone against your husband's wishes (for women)? Congratulations! You have gone against the Bible. Hell, there's actually a law in some translations/interpetations of the Bible that say the day after the wedding, the newly-married couple is supposed to display the bloody sheets to prove that they consummated their union and that the bride was a virgin. I don't know ANYONE who has done that--are they going to hell?

Also, all these Christians who say to be gay is a crime against God and you're going straight to hell if you are? Please shut up. I have no patience for the people who created a website that actually lists the number of hours that Matthew Shepherd has supposedly been burning in hell. Those kind of radicals are giving the rest of us a bad name.

Then there's all this talk about the sanctity of marriage. Excuse me while I laugh. If I may quote Judy Shepherd, "The sanctity of marriage, Senator? Is that your first marriage, your second marriage, your third marriage...?" She got a full round of applause for that. When the divorce rate in this country drops again, when abuse cases go down, when deadbeat parents start paying up, I would love to hear what they have to say about the sanctity of marriage. Frankly, I don't believe in it. I know that sounds sad, and maybe I'm just disillusioned or cynical or whatever, but it's the truth.

And my final argument (for this journal entry, at least) is the argument of marriage as a foundation of our society--I take serious issue with that. At best, I'll say it's arguable, and throw a few back at you: without even thinking about it. A hundred and fifty years ago, slavery was a foundation of our society. A hundred years ago, the idea that women were inferior to men and not even intelligent enough to vote or work outside the home was a foundation of our society. Fifty years ago, the idea of 'seperate but equal,' discriminating against African Americans was considered a foundation of our society. Anyone seeing a pattern? That's at the kindest, saying that the 'foundation' idea is arguable.

At the risk of sounding bitchy (not that I overly care), I think the 'foundation of our society' argument is flat out WRONG. The foundation of our society is the fact that a group of intelligent, able individuals (must...not...make jokes...about...the President...) got together and decided that they would risk their lives for their cause, that they wanted to be freed from the grasp of a tyrannical leader. The true basis of America is that idea--freedom from oppression. Anyone else see the irony in that? Anyone at all?

It does break my heart that the leaders of one of the world's most powerful nations (not necessarily well-liked at this point, but let's not be nit-picky...) would try to continue this tradition of ignorance and intolerance. We should be working towards understanding, educating each other, so that someday there will be tolerance and eventually, ideally, acceptance. Perhaps I'm a bit of an idealist in that idea, but what's the alternative? More Matthew Shepherds? Innocent people murdered for who they are? That might be a bit of an extreme, but it's a frightening thought--to me, at least.

Because maybe I'm strange, maybe I'm crazy, but I just don't understand why the government and so much of the population seeks to oppress and punish their fellow human beings for doing something that many of these people apparently haven't learned to do yet--they're harming people for knowing how to love. And that doesn't seem to leave much hope for the rest of us.

Until next time,
Candy-chan

"Unleash your imagination and free your soul."

That's the statement on the fanfiction.net logo. Unfortunately, we've come to discover something quite unpleasant: this motto only applies if your creativity and soul comply with the formats they have deemed worthy or appropriate. Does anyone else see something wrong with this?

The latest aggression of ff.net against its many loyal users is the banning of script-format stories, which has apparently been a "long-standing rule" that nobody knew about. As a result, many outstanding stories have been taken down, whether by the idiotic powers that be or the authors themselves to avoid getting into trouble.

Supposedly, script format is considered to be exactly the same as "chat room." I can understand the chat room fic thing--most of them actually aren't very good, at least the ones I've read. But some of the best stories I've ever read were script-style or similar to script-style. And now we're being deprived of reading these wonderful stories because some idiot moderator or whatever decided that it's not appropriate, for whatever reason.

Can someone explain this to me, pretty please? I don't understand it. I don't believe in censorship as it is, and that's what this amounts to, for me. Censorship. You can't put creativity in a box, restrict it, and then expect it to flourish. It doesn't work that way!

The whole thing just pisses me off, and I've read that several authors are already rallying the masses and sending off emails in protest of this action. Some have even highlighted their own fics--we're talking big names within the fanfiction community--as examples, at their own risk. Some script fics should not see the light of day, but there are those shining ones, too, those ones that could not be written any other way, that make us come back for more because they are just so fantastic. There is no excuse for taking these outstanding stories away from us.

I, too, plan to send in my two cents about this. Some of their rules, I can understand, but the reasoning behind this one completely escapes me. Could someone explain it to me? Pretty please? If someone can give me some logical reasoning behind this ban, then I'll accept it happily. Until then, I stand quite angrily against it, along with many other authors of the fanfiction.net community.

"Unleash your imagination and free your soul." Quite trying to put a goddamn leash on my imagination, and let my soul--and my creativity--be free!