Suicidal Deers

Okay, so today I was supposed to go to Tallahassee for work. Turns out, someone had other plans for me. I'm driving down the high way within a pack of cars. We are driving in front of an airport out here. Right as I inch up on the airport, I notice a deer. A doe. I can see her very plainly and she's standing right next to the road. As I'm watching her, I can see into her eyes.

Suddenly, I know something bad is going to happen. The deer darts out in front of traffic, right in between two cars, and slams right into the passenger side of mine.

Seriously. The thing hit me!

I freaked, but not enough to slowly pull off into the median and call EVERYONE I know, including the police. I'm crying, my car's damaged, but really I'm worried about the deer. Thankfully, someone stops and takes her out of the middle of the road (as she was dead). I start balling again. I mean, I feel like I killed it! Everyone around here says that the deer down here are suicidal. It's common for them to jump into traffic. It's just...weird. I mean, it ran right in between two other cars to my right, totally missing them. Of course, thankfully it didn't hit them as the accident would of been worse (a side dent like mine is nothing compared to a head-on collision).

And, that's when I remembered something I learned in my Psychology class: You aren't safe in numbers. The more people that are around, the less likely someone is to help.

I believe that fully now. I watched as the cars that were with me on the road kept going. No one did anything! I'm thankful that a guy, coming in the opposite direction who DIDN'T SEE IT, was nice enough to stop and ask me if I was okay (and helped get the deer out of the road). He also stayed until the police came. Also, thankfully my dad was in town and came to see if I was okay.

I'm not really upset that those people didn't help, stop, or possibly even gave it a second thought. It just proves something about human nature. Thankfully, I wasn't hurt (just shaken up). My car, though...well, let's just say that I can't fully open the passenger door. The deer? Well, the man who stopped was a hunter and I let him keep her. I didn't want her. I'm just glad she's not going to waste.

I feel really bad still. Scared, shocked, and sleepy. I missed my trip to Tallahassee for work, but I got to spend time with the fam. I'm still really shaken up about it whenever I think about it. It's scary, you know? A lot of worse things could of happened. Also, I was running late (I was supposed to be meeting up with some people and left late), so that makes it even freakier...oh well. Life is funny like this, right?

I play video games. I read comics (when I can get a hold of one). I like action movies with lots of ass kicking. I'm not an ordinary girl, apparently. I dislike romance with a passion that can only be surmised by the fact that my favorite cartoons when I was younger were X-Men, GI Joe, Transformers, and everything else the little boys watched. It's not that I'm not girly. I love makeup, pretty things, pink, and glittery eyeshadow.

And I'm sick and tired of seeing crap touted to girls that is so...stereotypical. Anime that has "magical princesses" who are all giggly and dumb, but manage to save the world and get their one true love make me gag. Romance novels where the only real action is the woman being all emo and trying to get the hunk of a man to sleep with her make me cringe. ROMANTIC COMEDIES ARE BORING. What do they all have in common? A leading lady who's frickin' dumb as pie. Perfect endings, perfect lives (that are really upset through the lead's stupid decisions), perfectly humdrum, stereotypical, predictive plots.

You've seen them once, you've seen them all. So, why do they keep making them? It's like a conspiracy! It's like, they want to keep the girl dumb. Now, I'm not a fem-nazi. I agree with equality between the sexes, however I'm aware that there are simply some things a man or woman cannot do. A man cannot have babies, a woman cannot have a gun while PMSing. I also agree with the notion of chilivery in it's basic form of respect. Many times women over use a man's generosity go get what they want. Many times men overreact and try to help when their presence isn't needed. But, why keep promoting this "dumb, giddy" leading lady to women?

Maybe it was how I was raised. My mom is a very strong woman. She's very opinionated, very smart, and a very hard worker. As well as my father's mom (my Mamaw), my other Grandmother, and most of my aunts (I hesitate to say all as I don't know some at all and others not well enough). I was taught from a young age that I can go out and do whatever I want. I can be whatever I want. It must of been a natural thing, then, that I always chose my favorite characters as women who were very action orientated and had a sense of purpose. It's hard to find those types in the trivial crap they tout to girls.

Some of my favorite characters were:

Storm, X-Men (more so now than before)
Jean Gray/Phoenix, X-Men (more so now than before)
Rogue, X-Men
Psylock/Ravanache, X-Men
Lilandra, X-Men
Emma Frost/White Queen, X-Men
Chung-Li, Street Fighter
Katana, Mortal Kombat
Jade, Mortal Kombat
Melina, Mortal Kombat
Princess Leia, Star Wars
Padme Amidala, Star Wars (Yes, I was in high school when the prequels came out!)
"The General", Star Wars (the game Knights of the Old Republic: The Sith Lords, though I played Revan as a girl too! But, for sake of cannon, only the general was female...I'm a geek.)
Sarah, The Labyrinth
Rei, Sailor Moon (Yeah, it crosses the romantic Anime line, but Rei was a good character! Feisty!)
Buffy, Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Jem, Jem (from that funky 80's cartoon about the rock star)
Hermione, Harry Potter
Luna Lovegood, Harry Potter
Bellatrix LeStrange, Harry Potter
Catwoman, Batman

I'm sure there was more, I've just forgot. These women were all very strong and went above and beyond to get what they wanted. Yes, all were "good guys" (with the exception of Milena and Bellatrix/Emma Frost and Catwoman are still open to debate), but they were all capable of doing not so good things to get what they wanted. These were the types of characters I tried to model myself after. They had the qualities I valued for a strong woman: Tough when need be, sensible when it was called for, but never backed down when they knew they were right. They knew that what they wanted wouldn't just fall into their lap. Kicking ass and taking names is sometimes necessary, and they don't feel bad about it.

To me, it's funny that these character archetypes of a strong woman can be found in the more traditional markets for boys (with the exception of Harry Potter, Buffy, and Jem). So, what gives? Why are we still marketing the dumb crap to girls? Because it sells well? Would it sell so well if girls were used to the strong figure and not a dumb one? *insert deep breath here* Or, maybe the girls and their parents are so scared to go against tradition that they teach/tell themselves that the comics, cartoons, movies, etc...usually marketed to guys won't have anything of value to a girl?

It's a tough question and I sincerely think the answer isn't definable. It's different for everyone. It's people afraid of branching out. It's people being taught not to like something. It's so many things and yet, it's nothing all at once. My point is simple: We need more female figures who are strong. Romantic Comedies are good, if you enjoy shallow humor, cliches, and want to just relax from every day life. But, in the action flicks, I want to see more women leads! Not the sex-kitten crap like Barberella and Barbwire, but like in X-men and Mortal Kombat!

Hey, you writers! Take a stand and try something new. You never know, you might tap into an audience you never knew you had!


Disclaimer:

I write strong female leads in my stories. I play them in my RPG games. I read enough, watch enough, see enough to know that more and more girls are "coming out of the closet" on this issue. They are admiting they enjoy the more action oriented stuff. I'm just saying that for as far as we have come, there are still things setting us back. This issue is one of them.

I love reading. It's like a guilty pastime of mine. I'll ready just about anything, provided that I can understand it. I really enjoy fantasy and historical fiction; however scifi, mysteries, and nonfiction are just as good. Granted, I know that most people don't read a lot. Watching TV is apparently so much better. Though the tweens and teens of this day and age are finding that good books aren't so bad. But, I do have one problem: When a book is touted as the "best thing since sliced bread"...and it's really not, I can't stand it.



Like.......................Twilight, by Stephanie Meyers.



Now, I liked the Harry Potter series (the ones I've read so far) by J.K. Rowling. It was enjoyable, her writing style was fantastic, it made you think, and yaddayadda. It had it's down points as well, mostly that it could become too wordy and she kept characters and killed others off who I disagree with, but that's another blog.

Whenever I read the Twilight series, I felt it after reading them that it was very shallow. Bella is so wrapped up in her own life it's sickening and having a character like Edward fall into "puppy dog romance" with her and follow her around everywhere just got old after a while. Mostly everything is from Bella's point of view, so it's really one sided. Yes, she does cook for her father every night (though he managed to do it for, what, 16 or 17 years himself before she came to live with him?), and her mom is flighty (but apparently she knows a lot about relationships and suddenly seems smart when she speaks about them) so she had to raise herself. But, honey child, she ain't experienced nothing I haven't (with the exception of a vampire) by the time I hit 17. Her character is a loner, a thinker, a pretty wall flower. Well, at least that's what I thought when I first read the first part of the first book. But Mrs. Meyers could of expanded on Bella's character so much more than she did. And everyone else's too! It seems that the way she wrote everyone they were just "fillers" for Bella and Edward-who become the stars of the play. It didn't matter what anyone else said, did, or think because "little miss emo princess Bella" was going to have her way!

And on that note, what's with the Cullin's being so damn perfect? I mean, they are all beautiful, rich, and talented. They have expensive cars. They have a gigantic house in the middle of no where full of windows and priceless objects. I know Bella makes an excuse that it was through Alice's gift. To me, that's an excuse, not an explanation. If Mrs. Meyers worked so hard through the mouths of Bella and Edward to drive the point down that Alice's gift varied with people's mind's changing, then how could it be so accurate with the stock market? Unless she saw it crash, or go up, but then again, isn't that illegal? And in today's market, if someone played it like they knew what was going to happen, well, expect an investigation. I know, I know, I'm thinking too much into it. Okay, so that part is a write off. After all, what good guy in fictional stories isn't rich or somehow seemingly all powerful?

So then why is James, the main protagonist character, ugly? Bella commented on how even though he was a vampire, he was still...lacking in the looks department. Which meant he was very bad looking as a human. That's so cliche. Seriously. It's cliche enough to have the good guys rich and perfect. But to have the bad guys linked to a nomadic existence and the main baddy not so good looking when the good guys are all....again rich and perfect, it's ANNOYING. Life isn't like that. Good fiction isn't like that. At least with the HP series, HP himself doesn't flaunt his money like the Cullins do by wearing super expensive clothes, driving overly nice cars, and all.

Plus, the other books really stretched the series out farther than it needed to go. Especially in the last book, I felt there was a sense of her writing just to write. It got really wordy, really detailed, and the story started sucking. Bella gets everything she wants, and even though she endures some pain, she comes out a perfect newborn vampire. More perfect than any before her, apparently. Because, we didn't see that one coming.

Okay, so I've dogged it a bit. Now, why did I actually read the entire series? For "the best thing since sliced bread" it is not, but it had some good points. Mrs. Meyers is good at detailing emotion through thought (albeit emo-ness emotions). She's also good with character interactions and character confusions. Her thing with Bella and Jacob was expertly well written. This I know because of how many people hated Jacob for trying to steal Bella from Edward, when when Edward left her and did such a horrible thing to her. Believe me, having someone leave you when you've wrapped yourself around them so completely isn't easy. I can relate to her feelings. Her way of dealing with this loss is realistic, as is her behavior when he comes back. She loved him no matter what, and would forgive him for anything. This kind of thing happens in real life too, though usually it ends badly. Basically, I read it because the character interaction was good and I had nothing else to do at the moment.

Now, onto the movie.

I loved the movie. The book was a guilty pleasure, as was the movie, but the movie was better. By far. It dealt more with the outside world, not Bella's views. True, some things were changed, but it wasn't so bad. There was still a lack of character development, but the fashion choices sort of made up for it. It seemed that people's personalities were really given through their clothes. However I doubt it's anywhere near the feelings I have for Batman Begins or The Dark Knight. Haha, sorry, but those are way higher up on my list.

I think that if Mrs. Meyers decides to publish another novel she'll need to work more on character development and to not be so cliche with her story lines. Maybe even cut back on what to write. When a story felt like it could of ended at two other points along the way (It could of ended after the first book, or even after Bella had her baby), then let it end. There is always room for more. She could publish a series about Bella's daughter. Or, do what she intended to do before an editor decided to muddle her fun by illegally posting a copy of her early concept for a book that mirror's Twilight by making it from anothers perspective. I've not seen many that jump back and forth between people's perspective and keep it flowing like Mrs. Meyers did. That could be a signature move should she decide to keep going.

"Democracy is great in that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid."


Okay. So, maybe I'm a bit slow in my issues. Maybe I like to pick and choose depending on my mood. Maybe I'm just random. Hey, it happens. Anyway, onto the topic at hand. I was reading some articles about voting. They came from MSNBC.com mostly, though I did see a few others in other places. I also read the comments and people's reactions. The main points in these articles were:

1. Vote.
2. Doesn't matter who/what/where/when/why, just vote.
3. Don't vote as it doesn't do anything.
4. Don't vote because if you do, you're responsible for whatever happens.
5. Don't vote if you are uninformed/were told to vote for a specific person/yaddayadda...

And any interaction between any combined set of ideas from the list above.

Well, this dilemma got me thinking. Voting is important. We were given the right to vote by our forefathers in an attempt to keep us away from a totalitarian government. They understood that by giving this seemingly simple yet ultimately complex power to the people we would have a say in whatever happened. I believe they hoped we'd always value our freedoms over anything else (as that is basically what the President's sole responsibility is, to defend the Constitution). However, they also understood that even though we have this responsibility, it can be used against us. Enter the Electoral College.

The Electoral College was created to address two concerns when forming the US rules of electing a President. Basically, one side was strictly for the populus. They believed that voting for a President should be in the hands of the people. After all, that's why they had come together in the first place. The other side argued that "common" people (people who didn't spend their days dealing in politics) hadn't the knowledge to be able to make a truly informed decision. They wanted the Senate to choose. Addressing both sides, our forefathers wrote "Article 2" of the Constitution, creating the Electoral College. The Electoral College, although free to decide themselves who wins the election, usually votes for the popular vote (our vote)'s choice. This isn't always the case, but a majority of the times it's true (according to Wikipedia's article on the "United States presidential election" it's something like 93%, where the other 7% of times were laid with controversy in some way).

Does this mean voting is any less important? No. As I've stated in my previous blog, we directly vote for our Senators and our House of Representative members. We directly vote for amendments to our US Constitution and state constitutions. If we disagree with someone enough, we can vote them out of office. Our vote still has power, we just forget where the real power lies. After all, the President is important, but really serves as a glorified figure head for most of the time.

Okay, so we've seen that voting is important. This raises another (and quite valid) question: Does being informed make a difference? Logically, it would, but I'm personally stuck between a rock and a hard place on this. I'll admit that I'm not always informed enough to vote when it comes to smaller things like the relabeling/redrafting/etc...of laws in my area, or those who sit on the council in my state. Why? Well, politics get really dry when you have to deal with it every day. It's not my favorite subject and often I don't have time to look up anything when I get busy between work, school, and my chaotic social life. And, I'll shamefully admit that I often don't vote in smaller elections unless I really know what's going on. I have voted on issues that I didn't exactly know what they meant and then later kicked myself when I found I should of voted the other way. But, hey, I exercised my right. Was it worth it?

And, since I vote, I'm responsible for whatever happens. If I don't vote, I'm still responsible because I could of changed the scales and caused the opposite reaction to happen. You know, this is a burden I bare with humility. I'd rather be burdened with guilt than not have the chance to vote because of where I live. If you don't like it, then move. There are plenty of places that you can go where you don't have to worry about making decisions. They are made for you. Just don't go to some countries where voting is mandatory. You might feel pressured to do something! Oh no!

At the end of the day, I'm still sitting on my fence. Voting is important. So is being informed. By process of elimination, not voting is still...voting...

"What we need is more free speech worth listening to."



So, I'm reading the news on MSNBC.com. I see an article in their Political section entitled: Congressmen: Obama wants Gestapo-like force. I'm intrigued. I mean, I don't talk about who I voted for and I tend to try to look at both sides of an issue before I jump the gun. Try to, at least. I'll post some of my old blogs from MySpace here about my opinions on the elections a little later (you can also find them at myspace.com/selenameeka).

Onto the article! I'm reading it, giggling because these things are funny. It doesn't matter what side you're on, when someone makes a claim like this it's usually just someone really upset and wants to mudsling. Anyway, the Congressman, Republican Paul Broun from Georgia, claims that Obama "will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship." (according to the MSNBC.com article) Apparently, Congressman Broun was citing some speech Obama made in July referencing an idea from the Bush Administration calling for a "civilian reserve corps that could handle postwar reconstruction efforts such as rebuilding infrastructure."

The article sites a small sentence from the speech:

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Broun believes that if Obama has this "civilian national security" enacted that they will answer only to him, he'll ban gun laws, and it'll turn out like Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.

Really? Seriously? Doesn't the military answer only to him? The office of the President is our Commander-in-Chief. According to the Constitution: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...Now, he cannot declare war or make treaties without the Senate, but he still controls the military. His word is final when it comes to what happens during war.

Also, ban gun laws? It's against the Constitution. Now, I'm not saying he won't. Lord knows that some people are stupid enough to vote "yes" or "no" to a law just because their party endorses or rejects it without the person actually reading the notion and deciding for themselves what will actually help the nation. But, so far Obama has been more for banning the stupidity that comes with everyone and their mother having guns than banning the law. To quote an interview from the 2008 PA primary in April, Obama said:

"I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets."

He also stated that:

"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it."

Now, any logical-minded person would agree at least in partial terms with his statements. Who, in their right mind, would want a paranoid schizophrenic who has anger problems and a history of violence (not that they all do, but a very small percent have the capability--though this is another issue) to be able to buy and own a gun? Any Psychologist, any Police Officer, any Public Defender can see the potential harm this situation can do. One wrong thought mixed with a bad day and a lack of proper medical care (or lack of taking pills) and BOOM. A media event of the century happens.

And, Congressman Broun's last thought: We will end up like Nazi Germany or whathaveyou. Honestly. If the Bush Administration endorses (and came up with the idea of) a "civilian national security" unit, and also endorses the "Patriot Act" and President Bush himself feels that he need not let Congress know when the FBI abuses it (he signed the bill into law and added an amendment to the law himself that stated he didn't feel obligated to inform Congress if the FBI overstepped their bounds-according to an article in the Boston Globe called "Bush Shuns Patriot Act Requirement"), as well as trying to appeal a ruling by the federal court in Oregon which banned the central core of the Patriot Act by stating it gave too much power to the government when it came to them snooping into our private lives (according to Wired Blog Network's article "Bush Administration Appeals Patriot Act Ruling") then doesn't it seem more like Bush is trying to do it (or was, as he only has a few more months left in his second term)?

It seems to me like this Congressman from Georgia is a bit scared in having a Democrat in office with a Democratic cabinet. I mean, I love how he related Obama to Karl Marx's views by saying: "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

And then by saying "We can't be lulled into complacency. You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential of going down that road."

Right, your not comparing him to Hitler, your comparing him to Stalin. If you are reading this, then mentally see me rolling my eyes.

We don't know yet how good or bad of a President Obama will be. We cannot make a final judgement on him yet until he has served at least part of his term in office. All we know is where Obama came from and where we've come with Bush. The people of the United States of America voted Obama in with the belief that he represents change. If he ends up sucking, well just don't vote him in for a second term. Or revolt. We have that option too, thanks to the Constitution.

Remember, the president's ultimate job is to protect our rights and freedoms. It's in his oath when he swears into office:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If he breaks the oath, well..........that's like a breach of contract. So, figure out yourself what we can do.



Disclaimer: I am NOT slamming Republicans, Democrats, or any other political party. I do NOT write my opinions to endorse one party over another. I simply enjoy pointing out stupidity in politics and politicians, media figure heads, and anyone else who says or does something that's really...well...stupid. That's all.

I DO endorse free speech, free thinking, and encourage people to know both sides of an issue before they react. No matter what your political affiliation is, it's important to shun those who simply seek to cause waves by mudslinging. That's free speech that's not worth listening to!