The Gremlin's Wings

Thank whatever deity is out there that the Christmas season is done…

So, what have I been doing? One thing that I did do today was start following a few links on Twitter and I ended up perusing Carrie Fisher’s Twitter page. Completely randomly, of course; I was clicking on people that were following William Shatner. It was while I was viewing her recent tweets when I saw this update, which contained a link to her blog, where I read this. (Sorry for doing that… but I noted a few people on Twitter were noticing that some tweets got deleted. I want to back my links up, just in case.)

Now, just in case some of you are wondering what the big deal is with this particular person, let me jog your memory for you:

…yeah. Princess Leia. Star Wars.

Anyway, there was this big blowup online where she was blasted because of how she looks now. Apparently people have taken the whole “let’s be jerks on the Internet” liberty and blasted Carrie Fisher about her looks, calling her “fat” and stuff like that. The Internet is useful for many things, and unfortunately this particular part is also what it is primarily used for: uncensored reactions that are saved forever.

For reference, this is a picture of Carrie Fisher that I found online from September 2009:

People blasted her for her appearance. And in her blog, which I linked above, she had this to say:

Amazing as this might sound, I BARELY eat a fucking thing, AND I exercise regularly, get  acupuncture—-AND I take hundreds of these enormous, annoying vitamins……but it would appear that between being 5 foot ONE & 53 years old (in 3 weeks), I’m not going to be shedding a bunch of pounds anytime soon…..I suppose I could completely STARVE myself, but then I wouldn’t have the energy to do my show, be myself AND (most importantly, of course) defend myself on the Internet to those I’ve been upsetting with my increased presence……..

I hate going on these talk show excursions, cause everytime I do, the Internet fills up with what a fat act I’ve become……

First off, sorry for the language. That is the only time I have sworn on this thing so far… and it was not me. Carrie Fisher made me do it.

Another thing I wanted to mention here is that… granted, that is sort of what I thought the first time when I saw this, too, I will not lie. It was the first thought that crossed my mind when I went looking at YouTube videos and saw a recent interview she did on a talk show. Then the second thing that crossed my mind was a sharp dose of perspective, and I believe this is something that culture as a whole has forgotten, and has largely glossed over:

• People change, especially over three decades; and
• The fact she did not dive into plastic surgery was awesome.

The fact that most people associate the Star Wars original trilogy with a good wave of nostalgia – and considering it is one of the most well-known movie series in the western hemisphere – it is not too surprising that people view her as still this young woman in their minds, especially those who are turned on by the first picture. But what people forget is that three decades have passed since A New Hope premiered. Harrison Ford has changed. Mark Hamill has changed – bad break for that guy, too. James Earl Jones and Alec Guiness are dead. Carrie Fisher has changed too.

I remember seeing Miss Fisher – I can not bring myself to call her by her first name, dammit, no matter how hard I try – in the first role I recognized her in outside of Star Wars: Austin Powers. I recognized her there, without having to re-watch the movie. Time is cruel to all of us, and Miss Fisher has had to battle a bi-polar disorder, drug addictions, and Internet trolls since then. Personally, I think she looks good; hey, I do not like the plastic surgery look popular in Hollywood, what can I say?

Notwithstanding, this is something that, I think, is a symptom of Western society as a whole. Apparently, if one does not find sex appeal in a person, especially in females, they are no longer relevant and subject to trashing. Males, on the other hand, unless they go bald, they can get sexier even as they age. Our youth-driven society that values looks over function is rearing its ugly head. But hey, that is what MTV is for, right? Glorifying beauty and youth over everything else? I mean, it was not founded for something silly, like music or anything like that.

If you have not guessed it, I am not really enamored with Western society’s “if I do not want to have sex with with it or view it as competition, it is not worth my time” kick it has been on, but I will admit, I have to fight those urges too; to judge something so readily on looks is a base human instinct. That which is ugly used to be that which could kill you easily. If you thought your baby was ugly back in the caveman days, you would probably eat it and kill off the human race. Desirability in mates is what we all have, but the problem is that we have that thrown into our faces by the media, and we are expected to discard those that have any imperfection, those that do not look like a perfectly-molded plastic doll. Especially in women.

Funny thing, I have heard that we are living in a “post-feminism” world. We are living in an era where women are expected to make their own way and be strong and independent, but still make the men pay for a dinner date. Where manly men are told that they are dinosaurs. Where strength is encouraged in females and feelings are encouraged in males (at least, these examples have been my experience). We silently accept this, because we see it as an inevitable struggle to fight the change in society that we cannot control.

I think people forget that a single snowflake can make the difference in between beautiful snowy scenery and an avalanche of destruction. Of course, one should be careful.

It takes someone to rally and challenge the norms, to strike out in the night and say, “Something is wrong with the status quo.” It takes one person to change the landscape of the world… Alexander the Great, Leonardo da Vinci, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Joan of Arc and others all did it. They saw something was wrong and did something about it. Granted, most of those fought in bloody wars, but the principle is the same, and should be remembered. I am trying to affect some change by pointing it out. If it is ultimately successful or not is up to chance, really. I know I do not have a particularly large audience with this, but I am trying, and that is the important bit.

I am trying to be that single snowflake.

So, now, how does this all relate to Carrie Fisher? Well, in a way, the reaction to her was a symptom of a larger problem that Western society as a whole refuses to treat. To have a blow to your image like that is, I would think, pretty hard to even the strongest individual, and I think we should be giving her some positive comments. Personally, I think she looks great, a lot better than the molded plastic figures we have in show business today.

Since reality seems to be coming to the forefront in the entertainment industry, maybe we should be bringing our expectations back to reality as well.

Before I begin, I need to declare that I mean no offense to any religion by what I do, say, or show in this following blog post, nor do I mean to hurt those that say free speech the most sacred of the freedoms that we hold dear. This is only my opinion on the matter.

And here we go…

Bob Martens posted up an article from the Associated Press on his Twitter, and it moved me to make this post. The article itself is one that touches on something that has become a matter of contention in between Islam and the West in general, about religion and free speech. For those who are not going to click on the link, allow me to summarize: a group of Islamic nations from the Organization of the Islamic Conference are lobbying at the United Nations for an international law that will prohibit defamation of all religious symbols. They are in the very early stages of this particular piece of legislation; there is no formal proposal made to the United Nations General Assembly at this time – at least, not one that I can find online. However, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has promised it will be coming.

Earlier this year, the UN passed a resolution which combated defamation of religions all over the world. The original text, I believe it is this one, clearly outlines what it thinks about defamation of religious icons. It seems that there has been at least two other resolutions on this subject, denouncing religious defamation.

I, for one, agree that we should not defame religion. What I do have a problem with, however, is the wording.

I do not meddle much in the matters of international law too much, specifically because I try to take a standpoint of trying to see both sides of the argument, then trying to compromise a solution that is agreeable to both sides. This is probably my main detractor from getting into politics, because I do not like to take sides, and I just prefer being the one who listens to all sides of an argument and helping the two come to a middle ground. Maybe I should be a mediator…

Well, anyway, back to what I was saying. The few things I actually do not like about the text are:

• The interpretation of the resolution is left very wide open. You could open an eight-lane freeway interchange in the space it leaves for what defamation actually is. Does it cover satire? Commentary? Interpretations of religious texts that do not conform with religious norms (which is illegal in some Islamic states)?

• The mention of Islam specifically in the text of the resolution. So… according to the UN, Islam is more important than all other religions in the world? That can not possibly be misinterpreted at all. And yes, I am against the specifically anti-Semitic resolutions in the UN as well.
• This text, which has noble intentions but basically points the finger at the West:

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

6. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general have become aggravating factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as well as to their economic and social exclusion;

I really wish that people got along. I also wish that people would respond more with gentle words and not bombs or religious epitaphs. In diplomacy, we may have resolutions that make sense, but in this… I can not support any resolution that singles out a single religion or group before any others that constitutes infringing one freedom to protect another.

The title of this particular posting is “The Battle of the Freedoms”. Indeed, this is what at least the Associated Press has led me to believe what is happening: the West strictly opposes this resolution, while the non-West supports it almost unanimously. The United Nations is the battlegrounds for this, and the weapons words. The casualties may be a freedom that you hold dear, whether it is your freedom to say what you want, or the freedom you have to be protected against someone telling you that your religion is stupid. Veterans of wars past, I do not envy your position on this.

What will the outcome be?

I sit here, watching the Internet for the next salvo to be fired off.

I am worried, not because I like to make fun of religions and that sort of thing – which I do not unless it is Scientology – but it is because of what this law can be mutilated in to.

If I question my own existence in a way that is offensive to the core tenet of a belief of one particular religion, will that make me a criminal in the law’s eyes?

If I am to state an opinion about a policy that a church adopts that is unfavorable, does this mean I will have people calling me a blasphemer?

If I say that I believe a prophet of one religion may be related to another, will I have people calling for my head?

I state these, because this is what does happen in some countries. I believe you can do some of the research on this particular point yourself, because there are many examples of where this does happen and will continue happening. The real question I have is… how far will certain countries go to enforce this law in other countries? In this aspect, this is both where the UN both fails and succeeds: it is the democratic way of the member nations, but fundamentally wrong to accept resolutions of this nature that are so open to interpretation.

Because I do not think either of these should be in charge of anything:

And with this… this particular piece of legislation, if it ever passes, will be what has been done.

As I was traveling on the train the other day, I saw someone reading a book about morals. The title of the book escapes me at the moment, but I clearly remember the sub-title of the book: “How to live a moral life in an immoral world”. I can not find the book by a Google search by this string, unfortunately, but that is not the important bit. What is important is this: while I do appreciate a good read every once in a while, this one just seemed to get me chuckling inside, the more I think about it.

Now I know you are probably wondering what I am talking about at this particular point in time.

Truth be told, they inherently are. Most moral codes are instilled in us while we are still young and impressionable. By the time we are teenagers, we have this set of ethics and morals that is harder to change and usually forms the core of our beliefs. Morals, ethics and beliefs are are so closely intertwined that it is difficult to discern where one ends and another begins. Is it the moral thing to chop someone’s hand off if they steal from you? Not in Western culture, but it is a practice that still persists to this day in some parts of the world.

Is your own sense of morality horrified at this?

What is surprising is that mine is not necessarily. They stick to their guns of what they believe in. A belief is what we base our own personal moral codes behind. Again with the Godwin’s Law, Hitler believed the Germans were the Master Race, and all others should be eliminated. He had the moral that he protected Germans at all costs. Then again, Hitler was a crazy man. Beliefs help us shape morals, and are an integral part of the process of creating our morals.

So why did I find this book funny?

Well, it all comes down to why the person would need that book.

I understand self-confidence issues; I have about ten billion of them. However, what I was laughing at was… if someone does not stand up for what they perceive as a moral wrong, what good is it for them to read about other people’s morals? I can sit here and tell you what my morals are. Do I expect you to take them all as your own? No. Most self-help books – and this was the way this book was coming off to me as – promise something of a how to for dealing with life challenges. Personally, I think they are all a joke.

Is it morally right for them to publish these books?

Then again, I guess it may be. Maybe I am wrong in this. Maybe what these books do is inspire people to stand up for what they believe in. Maybe. I do not know. hey, maybe I can get in and write one, see where it would take me. “How to Not Get Ridiculed In My Blog”. Has a nice ring to it, no?

But truth be told, this title also got me thinking about something. Something very dark. Something that makes me question things, to see if I have strong beliefs, good morals supporting them.

What would you give up your morals for?

Would you give up your morals if the alternative was to starve to death?

Would you give up your morals if your child’s life (or for the people who do not have kids, the life of the person you care deepest about) was threatened?

Would you give up your morals for large amounts of money?

There are people I know who would not do this whatsoever. There are others that I know would. Some may say that the morals of the people in the military are quite high – at least, the good ones that defend their country – but I submit that some may have turned over their own morals for enlistment. We are taught from a young age to not hit or fight with others, and yet soldiers all they do is fight for our freedom by killing those that would take it away from us. I respect that in them, and I respect that their moral code is changed significantly from what mine is. But still, they gave up some of their own morals to protect our ability to set our own.

I think I will leave this one here, because I want you to feel out the answer to this question yourself. I invite anyone who read this to comment below about what they thought about what they would give up their own morals for. Would it take desperation, a noble cause, love to give it up?

Think about your answer before you say that you would not.