TheNog's Blog

Tiny Venue, Big Sound

TheNog — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 10:50:46 +0000

So Tuesday night I opted to go to a show instead of write a paper. And boy oh boy am I glad I did. I think I’ll talk about the show in order of bands I liked the most, which conveniently is reverse order.

I’ve been listening to We Were Promised Jetpacks for about four months now since they were recomended to me by the awesome Stinkweeds guy (awesome record store, awesome guy). Their first album, These Four Walls is a damn-near-perfect example of good, solid, sing-along-able indie rock. I adore everything about it, and apparently my sentiment is shared by the crowd at The Rhythm Room. When Adam, the lead singer, started off It’s Thunder and Lightening he didn’t use (or need) his mic. The whole room was belting it out along with him. For me, the best part of show was how into it the band was. There were maybe 200 people in The Rhythm Room, but they worked that stage like it was a crowd of 2,000. Props guys, you were brilliant.

Next up on my list is Bear Hands, who also rocked my shit. Not quite as hard as Jetpacks, but for a band I’ve never even heard of, they got me up off my barstool. Their sound is pretty different from Jetpacks, leaning more towards a Queens of the Stone Age sound, which I definitely loved. I spent five of my ten precious dollars on their EP, so they must have rocked. (I’ve been listening to it on repeat all day today, FYI) I loved them, they were exactly my kind of indie music. Not like everyone-who-wants-to-be-Metric, new, fresh.

Color Store, well…they kinda sucked. I ran into my poetry professor there, and he said he came to see his friend play with them and I felt kind of bad, because M. and I mocked them and covered our ears the whole time. So I didn’t mention them to him. Aaaaaaawkward. They might have been passable if their vocals weren’t so quiet and the guitars so loud and clangy. Not for me. Sorry prof…

Filed under: College, Music

Dippity Do Da, Hot Dog in a Jungle, Polish the Porpoise…

TheNog — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:02:30 +0000

“I have a masters in sex”
So last week my wonderful RA set up what can best be described as the most entertaining sex ed class ever. Shanna Katz, a bonking doctor (no really, she has a masters in human sexuality) from Fascinations came down to our humble little campus to give a talk on safer shagging. S. was funny, smart, knowledgeable, and, best of all, came bearing enough condoms and lube to sex up a small country. (The approximately 80 people who came took everything. I think there were fifteen or sixteen sample lubes left…) S.’s talk was nothing new, but I did laugh, I did learn a couple of things, and she was around to answer more private questions, which I took advantage of.

“Nobody shaves their vagina. That’s a futile exercise”
She brought along a puppet, Vivianne the Vivacious Vulva, and two (intimidating) rubber penis’ to give us a brief, pre-safer-sex-talk anatomy lesson. (My first real one actually. Everyone say thank you to Ariz.’s wonderful abstinence only sex ed!) This bit was, I’ll admit, a little redundant. It’s not like there’s anything she could show us, anatomically speaking, that we haven’t seen before. But, she was funny, so that was alright. The rest of the talk focused on the wonder of lube and the necessity of condoms; all things I knew already. There were a couple of new things, like put a couple of drops of lube in the condom before you put it on, no one is too big for a condom, (she demonstrated this by putting both, yes, both of her hands inside one) and that flavoured lube is good in the mouth but not down south.

“Lube is Love”
Question time was probably my favorite part. It was definitely the most informative. The horizontal monster mash seems to be a little bit of a miracle drug, helping get rid of migraines, menstrual cramps, stress, and excess poundage. So there you go guys, as if you needed more reasons to make the beast with two backs…

So, get out there readers, read Shanna’s blog, buy some rubbers and do the four-legged frolic.

Love,
TheNog

P.S. If you’re confused by any of my euphemisms, first, look at this, and then get out more. For your own sake.

Filed under: College Tagged: Education, Puppets, Sex

Same Fish, Different Room

TheNog — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:03:39 +0000

I would like to welcome into my humble room two new friends : Connor Oberst Fernando Brighteyes I and Portugal the Fish. Free internet hugs to everyone who gets those references.

They seem to be quite happy in their new home on top of my fridge, but we’ll see how long they last in the tender, loving, (unintentionally life-threatening) care of TheNog. I’m not a hundred percent sure what type of fish they are,
I’m very much in love with these fish. Their previous owners, though their intentions were pure, ended up not wanting them at the end of last semester and so placed them in my care (yay!)

When I say in love, I do not exaggerate. I may devote about 25% of my day to watching them swim around the rather sparsely furnished tank. Portugal has an adorable habit of falling over when he gets too excited about food. Or a noise. Or anything really. I don’t even think he has to be excited. I think he just has a screwy sense of balance.
They also may be in love. Can fish be in love? They follow each other around, and more than once, I’ve caught Connor nibbling fondly on Portugal’s tail. I don’t want mutant fish babies, so I hope their relationship is pure;y platonic.
In other, related news, I like having something to take care of. I have a responsibility to feed them twice a day and clean the tank every other week. (That’s my hopeful cleaning time scale. We’ll see how long I can live with a brown tank…) I feel like a mother, which I know is a bit of a stretch, but I do. I am enjoying the responsibility, albeit the tiny, usually-delegated-to-six-year-olds responsibility that it is. Maybe having something aside from me and the roomie in the room adds some sort of aura, but I am enjoying the time spent inside these four, close, collage-covered walls now more than I did in the months prior.
I’m watching Portugal fall asleep, so I think it’s time for the fishies and TheNogs to go to sleep.
Until tomorrow,

TheNog

Filed under: College Tagged: fish, motherhood

New Direction

TheNog — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:22:48 +0000

Hello out there to all (three) of you who read what little I have been posting.
We’re going to start again I think, with slightly more focus, and a lot more energy.
Okay, I’m probably lying about the energy bit, let’s be honest with each other.
So here’s the new direction:
As I’m an 18-year-old college student, this will mainly be about my experiences living in the dorms, existing among my fellow college students, what it’s like to be a journalism student, an aspiring music/travel/political journalist, a woman, a music junkie, and a feminist.
So, hopefully, we can put what pathetic effort I made last semester behind us and start again with a nice, new, bold, broad take on this blog…thing.

Filed under: College Tagged: Restarting

Antidisestablismentarianism: Taking Back America

TheNog — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:00:45 +0000

I just recently watched Jesus Camp, an excellent movie that any self-respecting skeptic should watch. It was interesting for reasons other than it preached to my choir on religion and how dangerous it is, namely the repeated idea by those featured in the movie that “we must take back America.” About an hour into the movie this phrase struck me. Take back America? Take it back from whom? Who had it in the first place? As far as I know, America didn’t belong to any one religious group, and it never has. I hope it never will, but it seemed to me, that if 25% of America believes what Jesus Camp said they did, America was turning into a Christian nation. Christian-led, Christian-governed, complete with a Christian set of morals. Government and religion have been separated by the Constitution, the United States was founded on the idea of fleeing religious persecution. However, there has been a steady increase in the thinning of the wall between government and religion. This breaking down of the separation is dangerous as it can disadvantage minority groups, can lead to a ‘forced morality’, and can tear apart communities both religious and secular.
According to countrystudies.us, “a large group of fundamentalist Christians, who regard the Bible as the direct and inerrant word of God,” began to gain political heft in the early 1980′s. This New Right favored using “state power to encourage its view of family values, restrict homosexual behavior and censor pornography.” This use of political power to bring religious issues to center stage has only increased since 1980, and it is now normal, and even expected for politicians to discuss their religious views on the campaign trail, for them to hold ‘prayer breakfasts’ and for religious and moral issues like abortion, gay rights, contraceptives, and evolution to become legislative topics. This issue has reached a tipping point. Those who believe we must “take back America” have grown in ferocity, if not in number.
Religion, when it is kept in the church and in the homes and minds of those who practice, can be an extremely powerful force for good, for change, and for social reform. However, when religion starts to get involved in the government and in the legislation of the country, it becomes a suffocating, restrictive, and sometimes dangerous doctrine of forced morals. This is particularly evident in sex education. At my high school, we did not have sex-ed. We had safety-ed, and in saftey-ed there was about a week dedicated to ‘abstinence education’. I did not receive any sexual education at my high school, save being told that sex was bad and I shouldn’t do it. We had no discussions about condoms, about birth control, about the other types of contraceptives. We had no discussion of ‘safe sex’, of how to protect yourself, no discussions about the myths about pregnancy. We were shown some disgusting slides of STD’s and reminded that sex can wait until marriage. Thankfully, I have parents who are more sensible than that, who sat me down and gave me ‘the talk’. This ‘abstinence only’ approach to education, one being pursued by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer,forces a religious take on sex: That it should wait until marriage. This approach promotes ignorance about dangerous sexual practices and puts students at risk of not knowing the dangers of being sexually active. “It provides human sexuality education programs which are limited to promoting sexual abstinence until marriage, turning a blind eye to the proven benefits of contraceptive education. It puts a minority of people’s religious views above the health of our nations youth.”Sex-ed is not the only area where religious involvement can be negative. Minority groups, like punks, skaters, bikers, anything ‘counter-culture’ is seen as unwholesome, and therefore a threat, by those in the religious right. These ‘culture wars’ have been going on since the 1960′s, during that cultural revolution “when the youthful counterculture and the antiwar movement were pitted against solid citizens” The religious right that has become such an entrenched part of our government is violating the very principle on which the Declaration of Independence was written. That it was there to protect the weak and the unpopular, to protect the punk kids with tattooed necks, to protect sexually active men and women, to protect minority religions, and anything else that may seem ‘unwholesome’ or ‘improper’. It is not the government’s job to dictate a morality; I like my right to swear, buy condoms, get tattoos, get piercings, have sex, watch porn, and go out on a Sunday, and it is not the governments job to tell me whether or not those things pass the moral litmus test that is the religious right.
This idea of forced morality can be confusing. Forced morality is not making a law against murder or rape. It is the decision to make abortion illegal, to allow prayer in public schools, or to endorse abstinence-only education. These are not rules necessary for society to continue to function, these are rules that are imposed by a religious majority onto a non-religious (or differently religious) minority. It is the government endorsing religion, something it has no business doing. If one religion is ‘chosen’ over the others, what happens? Well, in place of a large-scale answer, look at the anti-gay legislation that is popping up all over the country. The anti-gay legislation is prejudiced. It prevents those in the gay community from having the same rights as heterosexual citizens. This is religion getting into government. Marriage is a legally binding contract, and somewhere along the way, America has confused legally binding union with the idea of a ‘white wedding’. Nowhere in the Constitution, Declaration of independence, or any other legal document is the ‘sanctity of marriage’ addressed. The sanctity of marriage is a religious construct. What legal difference does it make if the couple signing the tax forms is homo- or heterosexual? This is a perfect example of religion forcing its way into politics. It has no place there. And, if Jesus Camp is anything to go by, it is only going to get worse.
Not only is religion a destructive force when it is used in legislation, churches who let themselves become politically involved can tear themselves apart, alienate parishioners, and ruin their image as a house of God. “at High Point Church in Arlington, Texas, Pastor Gary Simons showed a video that depicted the views of Barack Obama and John McCain on abortion. His sermon gave God’s alleged view on abortion and told the congregation how to vote accordingly. Some congregants said the pastor seemed to be comparing Obama to King Herod, the biblical monarch who ordered the mass murder of infants. Several members just walked out.”When a church becomes a political machine it risks forcing it’s members to choose one side or another. I make no claim to group every religious person together. There is a wide range of beliefs, and in one church there can be everything from Conservative Christians to Christians verging on Socialist. This is why churches cannot become embroiled in a political debate. Not every Catholic voted for or McCain. They voted according to their personal doctrine, which may not mirror that of their church. To drag your congregation into a good and bad debate about Democrats and Republicans destroys the very nature of what a church is supposed to be– a place for sanctuary, reflection, communion with your God. It is not a place to bad-mouth political candidates. It is not a place to further a political agenda. Religious organizations can lose their tax-exempt status if they participate in lobbying for one candidate or another.

Posted in secularism Tagged: church and state, secularism

Murrow, Cronkite, and Subjective Journalism

TheNog — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 03:25:24 +0000

Is it better to do what you feel is your moral duty as a journalist, or is objectivity the true goal? People like Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow are unarguably two of the most admirable journalists the business has ever seen. And yet, both of these men broke one of journalism cardinal rules: be objective. But they were doing what they thought was right, right?
I think it’s an interesting idea to explore. What makes a great journalist? Is it high moral standards, a commitment to uncovering the truth, being willing to crusade for justice? Or is it objectivity and an unbiased presentation that makes an anchor, a reporter, an editor worthy of admiration? Can you be both? Can you be Walter Cronkite covering Watergate, and still report on the earthquake in Thailand?
I think so. I don’t think it’s one or the other that make you a good journalist, or an admirable one. You must be willing to do both. If the only thing you can do as a journalist is to hunt down stories, to report on their moral and ethical status, like Murrow in the McCarthy era, or Cronkite during Watergate and Vietnam, then you lose what credibility you may have. Especially now, in this era of integrated journalism, where any schmuck with a laptop and a camera (much like me) can report on whatever they want. There are blogs against Bush, against Obama, against abortion, against gay-marriage, for immigrant rights, conspiracy theory sites, the list is endless. But how do these sites establish credibility? They are all doing what Murrow and Cronkite did, they are finding a story, and following it to the bitter end, because they feel a duty to do so. To express their opinion on a topic. But to have any sort of standing within the ever-expanding world of information, they must have the facts. They must be objective. They don’t have a leg to stand on if they simply present an opinion. “Bush is stupid” doesn’t prove anything to me, you have no proof, there is no reason for me to believe what you’re saying. But if you can prove to me that Bush is stupid, then that’s a different story. His test scores, his grades, an IQ score, then we’re talking. Then I might believe you.
So why has the emphasis shifted? If you look at journalism today, particularly broadcast, the emphasis is on objectivity. Very rarely do you see an anchor going out on a limb like Cronkite did and telling a story he or she thinks deserves attention. The first example that springs to mind is the beginning of the Iraq war. I watched a lot of the coverage, and I don’t think I can remember one journalist standing up, on the air, or in the paper, and saying No, this is wrong. That is excluding shows like The Rachel Maddow show, people like Bill O’Rielly. Their broadcasts are editorials, I’m talking hard news journalists. They all reported the story, ad nauseum, but the ethical issues were never addressed on a subjective level. I think there’s something wrong with that. I think we have perhaps lost some of the virtue and some of the power of journalism when we let subjectivity go. There’s a power in opinion that ‘just the facts’ can’t compare to. As long as it’s supported by the facts, forming an opinion is what everyone does, and there’s no reason I can think of that journalists shouldn’t be able to utilize that.

Compare that to any of CNN, MSNBC, or any other networks news broadcasts, it holds so much more weight. It has so much more intensity.
Cronkite felt that Watergate deserved his attention, even when his studio disagreed. But he felt morally obligated to expose what he saw as a huge scandal. He turned out to be right, but he went on his gut. He took what facts he had, formed an opinion, and used his power as the anchor of the CBS news to help uncover one of the biggest political scandals in history. When was the last time Wolf Blitzer did that?

Posted in Journalism Tagged: Journalism, Objectivism