RANT: Homophobia should not and does not mean bigotry

Homophobia does not mean "Bigotry or hatred against Homosexuals". Why? Well let's break the words down.

Homo meaning Homosexuality

Phobia meaning Fear of

So thus, Homophobia means Fear of Homosexuality.

Now I don't know about the rest of world that doesn't like the sin known as Homosexuality, but I certainly don't have a fear of homosexuality. And you can't change the meaning of words to be "fancy". Phobia does not mean hate, phobia does not mean bigotry, phobia does not mean "religious belief against homosexuality", phobia does not mean ignorance. Homophobia should and does mean "fear of Homosexuality".

And don't give me this crock of a excuse of "well ignorance breeds fear". That's a crock of a reason to mess with the dictionary. I don't see you calling Arachnophobia "ignorance and hatred of spiders". I don't see you calling Claustrophobia "ignorance and hatred of small spaces". No, you don't. Why? Because that's not what they mean. They mean fear of x. So you and every other user of that word need to go back to elementary school (or primary school for you UK'ers) and learn breaking down words again.

Personal disclaimer

Now everyone here knows I'm a Christian. The motto that's always been taught to me is "Love the sinner, hate the sin" and I try my humanly best to follow that. I don't hate homosexuals, I just have a hard time respecting those that attack Christianity and it's followers at every chance they get. Most of us are not out to make your lives miserable. We actually trying to better your life in accordance with God's laws. We do not hate you, those I will admit there are some that do, but if they are true followers of Jesus Christ, they will not and do not hate you. I'm personally tired of being demonized based on my faith by LGBT advocates who think they know what they're condemning but don't. I hope you see this soon. May God take care and bless you. — Aaron

The commenters on HuffPo amaze me

Remember when NPR fired Juan last year for stating he has a brief moment of fear when he see's a Muslim in traditional Muslim clothes on a plane?

These were comments last year about that on HuffPo:

"This is the best news. I have to say what took them so long?"

"Good they should have fired him for a variety of reasons."

"Excellent. Good riddance."

There were also comment about his lack of journalistic standards.

(See More)

Now two NPR excecs resign after calling the Tea Party racist and I guess the journalistic standards went out the window because this is what's being said about the resignations:

"What exactly is the "scandal" here?

Because a fundraiser called out the Tea Baggers for what they are?"

"I am dismayed at her resignatio*n and the big deal made over remarks made by Ron Schiller, NPR's vice president for developmen*t; he is entitled to say what he wants to say when not at work and ironically he works for Public Radio partially supported by public funds in a democracy where we are guaranteed the right to free speech. Both Schiller' should have rolled with the punches. The Tea Partyists are tightly linked to the Koch Brother and John Birch Society. Ron Schiller's hyperbole was closer to the truth than not;"

"Only in this country is telling the truth a scandel."

"Why resign over something so trivial? Who cares if he said the the Teabaggers are racist. Most of them are racist. Besides, this won't stop any attempts at defunding public broadcasti*ng."

(See More)

I'm not surprised they're demonizing which they disagree with as "non-journalistic standards" but when their guys attack a group as racist "journalistic standards" matter little cause it's the "truth". Double standard much?

Copyright protection or pettyness?

Is there something to be said about a company that makes bad business decisions that seem like good ones?

This blog post will deal with the WMG and YouTube fiasco. First a little background, YouTube is a notorious dumping ground for thousands of true copyright violations. I commend a company for protecting it's assets. But I do feel there are other way to go about that than the "Delete now, ask later" attitude.

Since yesterday I had been working on my own copy of a those famous lyrics videos of YouTube. I was using the song "Collide" by Skillet (the song can be found in the playlist to the right). The song is by a Christian rock group that who's current labels include Ardent record, Lava records and Atlantic records. Two of those three are owned by Warner Music Group (WMG). The album this song originally appeared on "Collide" (2003) was originally recorded and released solely by Ardent records. Which, from what I can find in a quick search, is not owned by WMG. So you would think they do not have the right to censor the song, but alas when Skillet signed with the other two labels the next year, the album was re-released by them in a different track order but other than that just the same.

So, moving on, I made the video just like I had done thrice before to three songs by Red who's signed to Essential records which is owned by Sony Music Entertainment. All three of those videos are up and fine. (Watch 1, 2, 3) I got done, waited an hour for it to render, I was proud of it. I went and uploaded to YouTube to share like I did the other three. I expected no problem since there were other videos with the same purpose as mine. It processed, I played it, it played fine, so I decided to share the link to it with a buddy who discovered he could not watch it as it was blocked due to WMG. So, I went and checked the copyright status of the video which said the video was blocked world wide. I deleted it as there was no use of having it there if I was the only one who could watch it. It ticked me off as I ready have a video tribute to my recently deceased dogs that uses "Untitled" by Simple Plan which is also owned by WMG that works just fine. I didn't get it. Still don't some 2 hours later.

Now, as anyone who wastes their time occasionally on YouTube should know, YouTube was so overrun with copyright violations they implemented several features to help the victims companies to still make their money, such as links to buy the song on Amazon and iTunes in the offending video's description and ads for ad revenue. Most companies have "given in" so both parties when, the company gets their money, the consumer gets entertainment (with the small price of 30 seconds of boredom for an ad). WMG on the other hand has not is fighting it to the bitter end, by censoring/deleting first and asking questions later.

This seems petty to me. Why would you tick off hundreds of potential consumers and thus possibly cost yourself millions of dollars, when you could make millions more with the ad/links system?

I found one such story on the internet where a guy's wife made a slideshow of a reunion using like 8 songs with an undetermined amount being owned by WMG. For the sake of falling under fair use, before he uploaded it to another video sharing service, Vimeo, he degraded the sound. And this bunch of joyous memories went live. Some time later the video was deleted on a copyright claim by WMG. Now of course the songs are still copyrighted but as he put it's that "...Warner Music Group/Time Warner would actually care about some random slide show of 40-somethings getting drunk at a suburban New Jersey synagogue set to 15 and 20-year-old low-quality monaural rendered audio that they happen to have rights to is just extremely sad." The link to the video that was deleted is in the article and the video has not been restored some 9 months later.

Another story I found is where a person used WMG-owned music in two satirical Sesame Street videos. The second video was blocked worldwide. Though I personally believe she/he could have one, they decided not to challenge the blocking and thus the video remains blocked.

Other videos blocked by WMG and the like include covers of their songs, be it, music or vocal.

Some have tried to start a boycott over these blockings.

Eventually this has got to stop, I respect copyright laws and the companies invoking them but when you start messing with people's memories. You've gone a little far. I strongly believe just like companies embraced the online sharing of music files (e.g.: Napster) that born online music stores like the iTunes Store, companies will eventually embrace this as another revenue stream. This will be another case of the public directing corporate traffic. The corporations just have to listen.

WMG, unlike other companies has refused this additional revenue. And in my opinion, look like idiots for it. Some may say they have the right to look idiotic this way, and they would be right, but they will eventually have to listen because the free market is ever-changing.

As the old saying goes, "the customer is always right". Well the customers want to listen to videos of songs, Music videos and TV clips on places like YouTube. Are you listening, Corporate America? I hope so, for all our sakes.

POEM: "Alone"

ALONE
By Aaron Giddens

Why do I feel alone?
I have friends.
I have family.
I have God.
I am not truly alone.

But is there a girl?
No there is no girl.
There is no girl to make me
feel loved on an intimate level.

There is no one that is there for
me as a life partner.

Where is my “The One“?
My heart longs for her.
But she is no where to be found.

As I stare up and the moonlit sky.
I have no one to share the moment with.

And as I lay my head down for another night of sleep,
There is still no girl to share the night with.

God willing, I will not die alone.
God willing, my lonely nights are almost over.
But for now, I am alone.

Remember the Expos, St. Pete

I just finished watching the documentary on the Montreal Expos on MLB Network called "Triumph & Tragedy: The 1994 Montreal Expos" (clip).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/imuttoo/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

And after watching it, I got to say the situation they had is eerily similar to the one the Rays are facing today. The question is are we gonna learn from their mistakes or repeat them?

Here's what I mean by it being "eerily similar": In 1994, the Expos fielded what many consider to be the team of the year, even though they never got near the postseason due to the strike shortened season. It was essentially do or die for them because like the Rays today they had financial problems as well. As it is well known now, they were forced to die, thanks to a player/owner dispute that brought on the 1994 baseball strike. And with the strike the '94 season was over, no finish to the season, no division champions, no league champions, and no World champion.

Now, I know what your saying, "But, CR90, the Rays 2010 season was not strike shortened." And this is true, but it was ALSO do or die for them as well. As we know now, that the Giants are the champs, the closest the Rays got was Game 5 of the ALDS against the Rangers. As after this season the team would be split apart due to financial straits. The team ended the season with the best record in the American League and only one game short of the best record in baseball held by those pesky Phillies. The 2010 Rays are dead with only a division championship. So the team is now split up, where the player who are free agents end up will be seen in the coming weeks, but it will almost guaranteed not be in St. Pete.

Back to the Expos, after the '94 season which had no postseason, the Expos missed out on money they needed to keep the team together. So came the infamous '95 Expos firesale. which is similar to the Rays offseason currently underway. Many of their best players ended up with success elsewhere because of lack of money. And the team never recovered for this and one other reason, and this other reason is the main reason I say the Expos situation is eerily similar to the Rays situation: They were denied a new stadium in a central location by their government.

Just like St. Pete is doing, the government in Montreal refused to pay for a new stadium. This ultimately meant the end of baseball in Montreal. And 9 years later after the denying of the stadium, the Expos moved and now reside in Washington, D.C. as the Washington Nationals. Baseball no longer lives in Montreal.

St. Pete is repeating the mistakes of the Montreal government. In 2004, it cost them their franchise, as most expert agree that a new stadium would most assuredly saved baseball in Montreal. It would have revitalized the fan base, brought back attendance and along with it, the money.

This, in my honest opinion, proves the people that say "A new stadium won't fix attendance" wrong. As it would have saved the Montreal club, I see no reason why it would be any different for our Rays. You move the Rays to a more central location and boom Attendance will go up, cause just like in Montreal, the Tampa Bay Area loves their club. And I'm sure deep down keeping the team is more important to them than some stupid lease. With a lease you only get so much money, but with a new stadium, that money which you spend to build it would be payed back and then some for YEARS to come.

The Expos are considered one of baseballs biggest tragedies. Are the Rays next on that list. Or will we wise up and learn from Montreal? It's too early to tell at this point. But we will find out soon enough. By 2028, we will know. So St. Pete, the ball is in your court, what are you gonna do?