Generation Wars: Boomer-Fatigue or Gerascophobia?

Wait, so this is an article claiming that the real problem isn't that Boomers dominate our culture, but is in fact the idea that youth rules and older people should move aside to make way for younger generation­s? Um, hello, Boomers? Do you remember who pioneered that idea? What generation pushed an obsession with youth culture to the forefront? Don't trust anyone over 30? That's right, this is your invention, too. The fact that you now sometimes feel marginaliz­ed by society is just another example of your generation­'s cultural dominance. So, don't get so exasperate­d by the cult of youth. It's your cult, after all. You even set the age limits. Don't blame the 20-somethi­ngs for trying to maintain your standards just because you've grown beyond them. After all, I wouldn't want to go back to being 25, would you? Let them have their fun. Meanwhile, we can all appreciate the fact that Boomers are in fact still contributi­ng to culture in ways that we didn't see "senior citizens" doing 30 or so years ago.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

In the Beginning(s): Appreciating the Complexity of the Bible

For me, if the Bible doesn't contain answers, I just don't see the point. A person can read the Bible (as I currently am) to learn about the culture that created it, but certainly the Bible is in no way "required reading" to unlock a deeper understand­ing of life. As far as inspiring questions goes, I can think up plenty of questions on my own. I can then turn to the universe around me and look for evidence that answers my questions. When science responds to my queries with something like "we don't know that yet," I can accept that uncertaint­y in my life.

I think that, if left alone, most nonbelieve­rs would react to the Bible much like I now do, with a detached sort of interest, much like the way most people react to Greek mythology. The reason issues of Biblical inerrancy inspire such strong feelings in nonbelieve­rs is that we KNOW the Bible is inconsiste­nt, but we are forced to fight political battles with people who insist that it is not, and that we should all be living by its precepts. Usually, said battle is held with a person who has never actually read the text, and is only selectivel­y quoting parts of it that support their preconceiv­ed notions. I honestly don't care what my neighbor chooses to believe, as far as religion is concerned. I only debate religion when a person is "voting their conscience­" based on a flawed interpreta­tion of a 2000 year old book.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Not a Family Value: Calling Victims "Accusers"

Maybe you thought Conservatives had hit a new low with their attempted redefinition of rape to exclude statutory rape, rape that involves incapacitating a victim with substances, or the rape of the mentally impaired. Maybe you thought the fact that they withdrew that particular amendment meant that Conservatives as a whole had learned something about rape and just how seriously most women take it. Well, if you thought those things, you may want to sit down before you read this blog post about GA Republican State Rep. Bobby Franklin and his plan to redefine victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence as "accusers."

I have to go on record as saying that this absolutely blows my mind. This man has taken a look at all the problems facing our nation and his state. He has decided that ultimately, the best way for him to serve his constituents and solve their problems is to stop letting people who have been raped be referred to as "victims" in court. As Mr. Desmond points out, State Rep. Franklin must know that rapes, as well as domestic violence crimes, are generally committed by men against women. Somehow, he feels that it is unfair for the man who is accused of a crime such as rape if the person who has been raped is allowed to be classified a victim.

There does not appear to be any provision in the bill to determine whether or not there is evidence of a physical crime before a person's "victim" status is revoked. In other words, a woman could come to the hospital bloody, beaten, and sustaining the vaginal tearing that is a hallmark of rape, and despite all these obvious signs of abuse, she would not be allowed to be referred to as a victim. It would be as if nothing had happened to her, and she had made the whole thing up, which surely is what the rapists and abusers of the world would like us to believe. Never mind the fact that a man who had his wallet snatched in the subway is still allowed to be referred to as a victim. In the mind of Republican Bobby Franklin, that man is a real victim who has had a real crime committed against him, whether the perpetrator is ever found or not.

This law is just one more way to redefine rape and violence committed against women in an attempt to redefine women. If women who have been beaten by their husband are not victims, then their husbands are not criminals. If your husband isn't committing a crime when he beats you, then you are not a person with equal rights under the law, you are a piece of property. Women were property in the Western world until relatively recently, and they are still property in many parts of the world today. If any woman feels that her personhood is not under attack in America today, she should take a good hard look at elected Republican officials like Bobby Franklin.