Le singe est sur la branche! - Chase's Blog - Bakotopia

Vous ne parlez pas pour moi!

The guy who saw a "Barack out with your cock out" T-Shirt and decided that he was a political activist now represent nothing I stand for. The protestor speaking against gay marriage with points instead of preaching is who stands for me. The person who questions the ramifications of even the positions he agrees with in order to make a move for the betterment of society, not the glamourous, psuedo-activist tools that are the reason that this country can't go anywhere.

If you missed it!

Burn the Witch was great. I'm glad I could make it back to town for the event. Also, Dane Forst is going to be putting on a comedy show on December 2nd at Randolphs, keep an eye out for that. It's good stuff.

Oh also, the Silence Club tore it up at the Silver Fox the after Burn the Witch Saturday night. They are really stepping up their game, make it a point to catch Mr. Novak in action.

Have a Gay ole time - Prop. 8 & The TFP

I was walking to class one day when I noticed (which was not hard) a group of individuals wearing bright red sashes and holding up a 30 foot banner that declared support for the ‘traditional’ family (whatever that means). They were handing out pamphlets which spoke of ’10 Reasons why homosexual “marriage” is harmful and must be opposed.’ So I engaged them cool-ly and rationally. And the representatives for The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP), a Catholic organization.

The opening exchange went something like this:

“So are these 10 reasons, or 10 good reasons?”
“10 Reasons. I mean, they are good reasons!”

So first I have to address their number one point in the list. The first point is that gay marriage is not marriage. More specifically, “calling something marriage does not make it a marriage!” Which I had brought up to the man who was offering me the literature. “If just calling something marriage doesn’t make it marriage, then why should you have a problem with gay people wanting them to call themselves married?” Which unfortunately was met by circular logic which answered a question that I didn’t ask. But I decided to move on to the next point.

Point two: it violates natural law.
“What about if there were a biological component?”

“That is all a lie, there is no biological component, it is all a choice!”

“So where then do hermaphrodites fall into this equation? Clearly there are individuals who possess the sexual organs of both males and females. Where does that put them in the order of things? Isn’t that just damning a group of people for a biological expression that is completely out of their control?”

“That’s what… point 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 percent of the population?”

*(estimates actually put various forms of hermaphroditism, including expressions such as xxy chromosomal types and all other variations, not simply those with ‘true’ hermaphroditism at about 1 in less than 1,000)

“But they do exist, and you can’t exclude them because they make up a smaller percentage of people just so your point is not skewed, gays also make up a small percentage of people.” And unfortunately that was answered with the idea of marriage as a designated structure for procreating. “Where do sterile couples fall into this then?” To which the answer was that you don’t know that they are sterile, but with gay marriage you know you can’t procreate.

Point three: It always denies a child a father or a mother.

“If we are seeing statistics of a marriage failure rate of 50%, then how can you justify denying a child a less traditional family simply because it does not fit the perfect framework. What about single parents? My question too is where adoption falls into all of this. Where is the opposition to adoption by heterosexual couples (one argument was that the child is not blood related to either parent)?

Point 4: It validates and promotes the homosexual lifestyle.

I agree, I think that the homosexual lifestyle has brought with it a lot of vices. Unfortunately, you can’t assume that everyone falls under that umbrella, especially those who are a.) considering marriage to begin with, and b.) those who want to build a family. In the case of heterosexual couples, babies can happen by accident. Families can happen by accident. But with gay couples, you have to plan it all out, meaning you have to think it through more, meaning you will more likely raise a better child than those who said ‘oops.’

Point 8: It imposes it’s acceptance on all society

What it imposes is legal recognition of the same benefits that are afforded to married couples. I feel though that a church should have no legal obligation to marry gay couples. What I feel about the institution of marriage should be applied across the board. If there are legal benefits to be taken from it, then you must separate the legal from the religious. Therefore, if you wish to get married in a church and that priest refuses, that should be their choice.

Point 10: It offends God

This is my biggest problem right here. I had spoken with the guy and said that they are arguing a religious argument, and not a logical one. He continually denied that, saying that the majority of their opposition lies in logic. Secondly, isn’t this point in contradiction with the aims of point 8? Isn’t that imposing your God onto everyone else?

I agree, there are some slippery slopes to be hit when it comes to these sorts of debates. Fortunately, it is easier to avoid than you might think. And I think I’ve come up with an original idea, at least I think it’s original. Separating Church and State. If we make our decisions based off of what is logically beneficial for our citizens, rather than or congregations, then we can more easily sort through these types of conundrums. Abortion? That is difficult, regardless of religious affiliation. That one is tough. Gays getting married too? Not so tough.

It’s not about morals, its about reason. And if you force a group like the gay community into the margins of society, you force them to react with much more ostentatious means, which causes the type of effect that most people fear: the attempted forcing of acceptance rather than tolerance of a group.

Also printed in Bakotopia magazine, issue 40, 10-30-08

I was walking past a black guy...

I thought I was racist when I was walking down a street late at night and this slightly intimidating black guy was walking toward me. I noticed I got a bit attentive to my surroundings at that moment and then I thought "I shouldn't think like that". I was a bit disappointed in myself because I had any thoughts like that.

But then another night I was in a convenience store late at night and aside from the cashier there was one other man in there. He was white and had a slightly odd demeanor. I noticed that I got more attentive to my surroundings at that point and was more concious of his position to mine. And then I realized, I'm not racist, I just watch too much television.

When I was walking past the black guy, I had imagined the worst case is that he would beat me and rob me. When I was next to the white guy, I imagined the worst case was that I would end up living in his dungeon wearing a gimp mask for five years. So I guess in that respect, I think black guys are less frightening.

Rumour Has It

Rumor has it that if you watch Brighthouse on Demand (channell 300) and go to the Damaged TV episode featuring Relapse Trigger, you will get a chance to see a quick set I did at Sandrini's one night. I have no way to verify this but through you people, so let me know eh?

Hello!

So I am sitting here in San Diego after finally having got everything situated. The important things are: a.) I have a house and b.) I have a job.

I am going to be extremely extremely busy this next semester, I am taking 6 classes, working, hopefully getting some outside work done for this wonderful site here, and I am continuing to do some stand-up. I have my first San Diego gig this coming Sunday night at the Comedy Store in La Jolla.

Anyway, just wanted to keep those who care enough informed as to my happenings. I'll check in soon. Peace!

Chase

Over the grapevine and down the 405

Well everyone, this is my last day here at the Bakoffice. I have been busy getting everything together for my move to San Diego, and it doesn't stop when I get there. So in case I am out of the fray for a couple weeks, just know that I am sitting in beautiful weather, breathing some clean air, and wondering why my lungs are burning. Even though this isn't goodbye forever, it is a goodbye. Thanks to everyone who has shown me that this town is not as bad as people think (as long as you are 21). Haha. So thanks again everyone. Wish me luck!

P.S. To Annie, Joe, Don, BLT, and anyone else who I've had some fun debates with over the year: OBAMA '08!

I've been whitewashed.

I think the problem with race is this: until somebody tells us that things might be happening because of our skin color, we have to assume two other alternatives. The first is that we are doing something short of what is necessary to achieve our goals, and the second is that we are hindered by other personality prejudices or other character incompatibilities.

But now I want to bring up something that I’ve started to see that is no doubt controversial and up for debate. I was watching CNN’s “Black in America” this weekend (which you should watch if you get the chance, it is very well put together).

The controversy deals with the notions of ‘acting white’ and ‘selling out to whitey’. And the thing is, that perception seemed to be communicated by a number of the mainstream hip-hop community and other members of the black entertainment industry. Basically, my abbreviated point is this: there is a particular group of the entertainment industry that rails against the powers that be (the white authority) and uses that message to elevate themselves into power positions. This method has proven effective in getting them up into those positions of power which many thought unattainable for black people. But now, with the evidence proving that getting there is possible, those who currently hold the power are feeling threatened. If we have reached the point where we have seen the potential of minorities to reach the highest office in the land, we have clearly begun to (not completely) overcome many of those issues which have divided us as a nation throughout our history.

What this means now is that a message which held relevance in the past is in need of modification. But if that message – the one which has evolved to say minorities will always be held down by the white man and there is nothing they can do about it but rap and play sports and be pseudo-revolutionaries with no real goals but dreams without meaningful action – is not modified, then we will fail to see any great progress made in race relations in this country.

But unfortunately that’s a roadblock I have seen as far as race relations are concerned. The idea that being educated is being white, that speaking coherently is being white. Which is not true, because I’ve known plenty of white people that can’t speak coherently or have the reading level of a 4^th grader. Education does not make you white, education allows you to make informed choices and draw conclusions based off reality.

We will all be treated differently. Whether it is for skin color, hair color, demeanor, posture, gesticulation, there are an infinite number of reasons people will modify their behavior toward us. So it is not about saying “We can never be” it is about saying “We will still be, regardless of”

I wrote this late a few nights back.

This is my philosophy on politics: it is not who is more right, but who grabs the most attractive position first, regardless of it's grounding in good evidence.

Don't get me wrong, abolishing slavery and woman's suffrage were good ideas, but what happens when subjects change and the 'progressive' wisdom doesn't seem as legitimate as it has been in previous years? The same thing that happens with any group that gains power - it's preservation is fought for out of fear of losing that power.

I've been thinking lately about the nature of power and the power of argumentation over rationale. Because unfortunately fallacy can be a powerful persuader of the common man.

Why is it that a black person can say "Nigger" and a white person can't? Reverse racism, that's why! How come gays can say "Fag" but it's homophobic when a straight person says it? Because we are trying to protect the gays right to speech but smother dissention to that lifestyle! But really - why? Simple, because the terms have been laced with connotations that reach down much further than it being "simply a word." So we try to stop ourselves there. We try to prevent ourselves from stepping on the toes of the historically oppressed and we try to present ourselves as 'enlightened' and 'progressive', because the term 'Conservative' has become an insult in the minds of many. So then we continue moving in our shroud of 'progressive' tendencies and develop a smug sense of self-satisfaction that keeps us warm at night in our blogosphere/don't have to really do much but 'imagine a world' to be considered forward-thinking... o-dome.

I'm tired of forward thinking. I want forward doing. And not only that, I want forward-doing that doesn't run the risk of becoming so 'enlightened' that it loses all grounding in reality simply because the premises of what has been makes you feel better than facing what exists now. And furthermore, I want to meet the forward-thinker who denounces bigotry and actually means it. The one who calls for questioning authority and truly means just that.

Because questioning authority isn't merely some concept that means listening to your music really loud and disrespecting "The Man!" It is a calculated and self-reflective tool that relies not only on your ability to disagree with those in power, but also to agree with those in power if they are in the right by means of discriminating between sound and unsound arguments.

But we are all about fashion today. Fashion sets off a visceral comfort that makes it so much easier to play make-believe than to actually make reality.

I want to meet the person who wants to combat poverty, but not be ignorant to the fact that it isn't just the system that keeps people down, but sometimes the people themselves. I want to meet the person who realizes that welfare checks aren't going to set people up to live a life of luxury and that maybe circumstances just force that position in some. I want to meet the person who can acknowledge that feeding a family of 6 is not an easy thing to do, and that help should be implimented, but also that personal choice dicates where some of these people go and trying to address that isn't going to dis-enlighten you or make you an evil Republican.

So where are these people?

It's late, I'm going to sleep. I know there isn't enough written here to truly get at what I mean, maybe I'll elaborate when I have time and you feel like reading 500 pages of self-inflated bullsh*t. Ta.

Hello there.

Welcome back to another exciting week of Bakotopia, the internet edition. If you missed this weekend, you missed some crazy things... I tell you what!

That's all for now! Stay tuned!