My Gay Agenda

So I was reading afterellen.com (again) catching up on the latest for lesbians in the media and read an article about Home and Away and an upcoming lesbian plot line and how the conservatives in Australia are getting upset. Lobby Group Pro-Family Perspectives are throwing around that "gay-agenda" again.
I hate it when conservative groups start talking about 'gay-agenda's' and things like brainwashing and corrupting the youth. I've never really worked out why people have this intense paranoia about what homosexuals want to achieve. I find it endlessly frustrating that my sexuality is always under attack as part of my morality. Homosexuality become synonymous with all sorts of other depravity, some people automatically assume you are going to 'jump' them because you are gay. It's really horrible to have your sexuality criticized on an almost daily basis. I also find my sexuality's reality challenged, people perceive it as choice, and there is nothing worse than been told you just haven't found the right man yet.
The gay agenda however is an almost comical notion that I almost wish was true. I find it sad and sometimes it makes me angry, but if you take a moment to think about it, wouldn't it be wonderful if all those paranoid conservatives were right? What if we did have people working away at government and in large companies working toward the gay agenda. Not that indoctrination they are scared of but the civil rights we desire.
A quick Digg search provided me with a few amusing articles about our apparent 'gay agenda'
Apparently McDonalds are promoting the 'homosexual agenda' and the AFA want you to boycott them. This is because the VP of communications is also part of National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).
Microsoft also are (ironically) in on our agenda because they have diversity policy which includes an internal "affinity employee group" called the Gay and Lesbian Employees At Microsoft (GLEAM). Interesting because Microsoft has been accused of some very homophobic stances lately.
Oh and Hasbro is also on our side because they allow you to pick same sex couples in a downloadable version of the game of life. Which I personally think is awesome.
I think the 'gay agenda' is actually a wonderful thing because to me it denotes all the company's, groups and individuals who are out there and supporting the civil rights of every homosexual out there. These aren't always fuelled by homosexuals who have wriggled into the system to tear it down. Many supporters and company policy comes from 'normal' heterosexual people who understand that if you support gay marriage and don't discriminate because of sexual orientation you are not bringing down the very fabric of society. The term is loaded with negative context because it is used by paranoid right wing conservatives who think that change will bring about anarchy. Which we all know if complete fallacy, we are still struggling for racism to be abolished and for equal rights on the basis of race and ethnicity, but the acceptance of racial diversity has not destroyed society, and neither will sexual diversity.

I might be a term loaded with right-wing paranoia, but I think the queer community has really embraced the term. There is a news site called the Gay Agenda and there is plenty of room for satire and general good humour over the gay agenda. We don't take it too seriously and have a bit of a laugh, because we know what the agenda is and it's not that different to what other people want; equality.

UPDATE: If you're interested AfterEllen.com has another article about the Home and Away Kiss which did air.

Audiophile

I've been doing a bit of reading this week about music piracy. It is a hot topic these days with Section 92a here in New Zealand, which as it slowly crept up to an activation date was finally scrapped. I'm very glad about this, it seemed like a pretty unfair way to punish pirates since it was based on suspicion only. Reading a torrent blog recently (torrentfreak.com) has been interesting as he comments on the situation here in New Zealand.

In my readings this week I read a great point about piracy at torrentfreak. This of course is one of the things that upsets me about the big industry people complaining about pirated music. Sure if people are downloading, burning and selling your CD for profit there is a market they are taking away and they should be punished. However the big business of the music industry seem to not care about the other side of how music piracy can work. Often using P2P and access to other free music is how people discover new bands and check they like albums or artists before a purchase. Sharing an MP3 with a friend helps to spread the word and to promote a band. Up and coming artists are often vary aware of this, and myspace launched a career or two (Lily Allen). It seems the people who are most concerned about these things are the ones who are already rich and famous. Look at Metallica who were well known for their opinion on Napster. These guys are HUGE and well known, which only comes from selling CDs, getting radio airplay and television airplay and doing sell out concerts. All the things that make you famous are what make you money. To get known sometimes takes getting your music out there, at P2P networks and free music helps here. While some artists are embracing this and the new social mediums and new methods of distribution others seem to forget that piracy has just been updated, not more mix-tapes made from the radio or copied off a mate, now you can access songs from anywhere in the world to 'share'.

Sadly if you live outside the US or UK finding decent ways to legally stream and explore music gets harder, in 2007 Pandora shut out non-US users and now last.fm is closing it's streaming services for those not in the US, UK and Germany. I had just started to explore last.fm but without the streaming function I'm not sure I will continue to use other features. International licensing is obviously an issue but it seems the access to free and legal music is sometimes deterred by international borders. New Zealand couldn't access itunes stores until a long time after it's release in the US. Now the legal streaming services are quick to block out users. So how are we meant to legally access music, and of course there is the other question with some streaming and other services, how do we know it is legal? Not everyone is even aware if their activity is illegal. I think it is more common knowledge now, but I think there are still people who aren't even aware you're not meant to download a song from limewire. Most people probably aren't aware how the industry works, that if they hear it on the radio the artist gets paid but if you download it that they don't.

Interestingly the only thing I torrent is Tv Shows, living in New Zealand we don't always get the best shows from the US and UK, I also tend to forget to watch my favourite shows because I go out, downloading lets me keep on top of them. Although streaming TV lets me do this also I find that the networks don't always have the licence for streaming my fave international shows, but I do keep up with local content this way.
TV of course don't complain as much about piracy, because really the American networks aren't loosing out. They make all the money on the first screening, which is the one people record to upload on the internet. They can still syndicate because other places still want to screen the top rating shows, even if their audience drops because of downloads. TV is still a preferred advertising medium so TV does well in spite of piracy because the money comes from the advertising, not the consumer in the case of CD sales, or movie tickets.

Of course the thing about me downloading shows is how my word of mouth can encourage people to watch shows. "Oh I've already seen the new episodes of Desperate Housewives, I actually really enjoyed them" I get recommendations from friends who have already downloaded series that have just started here. I got one friend watching the Skins re-runs on C4 after raving about the new season I'm currently downloading. I also will re-watch my fave shows when they hit the TV screens.

In order to be popular, for Music especially, you need to be exposed to people. This gets harder and harder in this disjointed world. Also for music they are at constant competition with ipods and personal music collections and need to promote new music to people who may not be listening to the radio. In order to do this surely piracy in all it's evil illegal way is actually beneficial to promoting artists.

Currently I am listening to my latest cd purchases. I would highly recommend them, Santogold's self titled album and Tegan and Sara's latest 'The Con'. Both of these artists were recommended to me by friends. Santogold has had a few songs featured on TV shows but has yet to hit the airwaves in New Zealand. Tegan and Sara only get airplay from the local University Station but I know has a pretty good following, plenty of people rocked up to see them play Shadows a few years ago and a few of my friends jetted to Australia at the start of the year to go their concerts. They are being promoted through word of mouth, and probably a few downloads to check out the music.

I think people are too obsessed with money, surely as a musician it would be more important that people love your music, listen to it, enjoy it, share it, dance to it, cry to it and sing along. Instead it seems being able to afford another BMW is of more concern to some, or at least to the record labels that manage them.

I hear those things are awfully loud ...

It glides as softly as a cloud!

I swear it's (Auckland's) only choice, throw up your hands and raise your voice, MONORAIL!

Every so often I like to break into song and The Simpsons have provided some lovely songs over the years. Lyle Lanley's song advocating the Monorail for Springfield is one of my favorites as you can tell. This is mostly because I think my own city, Auckland, seriously needs to look at its public transport issues and find some system than would connect the sprawling city in a way that didn't leave commuters frustrated.I personally feel a monorail could be the answer, plus I can sing the great Simpson's song and substitute Auckland for Springfield to make my point.
I am really not a fan of Auckland City public transport, it is the most frustrating experience in my fair city. When waiting for buses, they sometimes don't show up at all, at some times of the day you need to wait half an hour for one. Once I was waiting for a bus on a Sunday, they only come every half an hour, I was on time for one that didn't show up so had to wait another half an hour for the next one to arrive. Other times three will show up at once, but are all full so you have to keep waiting as they sail past. This often happened to me on Dominion Road when I was attending university. Perhaps one of the worst things is that after midnight the buses all stop, if it's a Friday or Saturday you can wait to get the hourly night-riders but say you work late on a weeknight in the city you are screwed to get a bus home. I used to work in a bar on the other side of town, finishing at around 3-4am my only option was an expensive taxi home. Staying out past midnight one would have to taxi home. Really the system is appalling, in the evenings and weekends buses are few and far between but still prone to simply not showing up. During peak commute times the buses are often overcrowded, it's no wonder most people just drive places.
The trains are a little bit faster and cheaper, but you can only get a train to certain places. There are only 3 lines running from central Auckland, so if you don't live near a station it's not practical and the trains are also prone to simply not showing up. They do have 'park and ride' which is useful if you live in say, Pukekohe and worked in Central Auckland, or Newmarket. But if your work isn't walking distance to the train station why bother leaving your car at another one.
Auckland is too concerned with it's cars and is very unfriendly to other transport. Many other cities are taking note to create car-free zones and toll areas to reduce the congestion. Auckland however will not remove cars from the streets to make room for buses, trams, or a monorail. Instead the roads are made wider and we a subject to construction, if these roads are so important for bus routes why do they not make them bus only? This could be feasible in the central city for Queen St and Symonds Street.

Having been to other cities in recent years I have become even more scathing of a system I already hated. I have been on the tube in London, I've been through the network of the Metro in Paris. Oh and I took a train from Sydney Airport to right up the road from the hostel I was staying in. When I returned to Auckland from Sydney I had to get a rather expensive bus into the city then get another bus up the road to get home. There are wonderful examples of cities where public transport is successful, where there has been active effort to reduce car use and make cities more pedestrian friendly. Why is Auckland, our council and our government so opposed to this?

Auckland needs two things in my opinion.
1) A link to the Auckland Airport.
There has been discussion of a train service to the Airport, but nothing yet. I think it is simply appalling that as a city that tries to claim international status there is no easy link from the central city to the international airport! We are hosting the Rugby World Cup soon, I think it is going to be a huge embarrassment that there is no train service for people to use to get from the airport to the city. I think the transport to and from the stadium will also be an embarrassment, currently when a rugby match is let out there is a huge influx of people to cram into public transport, to wait for the few trains or buses that may (or may not) show up to take them into the city. The surrounding area is packed with cars and taxis. I imagine the scene after a world cup match would be even more chaotic! Extra services are often put on when there are events on, but these aren't always that useful. It is cringe worthy to think what tourists will have to say when they try to get to and from the games at Eden Park, even if additional services are put in place.

2) Circular transport routes to connect suburbs.
Currently there are very few services that connect the many widespread suburbs or our isthmus city. At a sprawling 1,086 km² Most of the services run radial. Running down the major Auckland Roads (Greath South, Great North, New North, Dominion, Remuera Rd, Mt Eden rd) going back and forth from Britomart or another stop in the central city. To get from one Suburb to another requires first going into the central city. Travel between suburbs can be difficult and rarely direct. When I lived in Grey Lynn and Worked in Parnell my commute required me to either take two buses or walk a stretch to work. My typical morning commute, 10 min bus and 15min walk, wasn't much shorter than my evening walk home which took about 45min. There are a couple of services that connect suburbs, you can get from Dominion Rd, Mt Eden, to Broadway, New Market. There is a bus that runs from out St Heliers to Pt Chev, but there needs to be more of these sorts of services. Auckland is a sprawling city, but driving from destination A to B is often the best choice because the public transport is so rubbish.

I personally think a monorail would be the perfect solution. It is too late in our city's infrastructure to put in underground trains connecting all the many suburbs, it would be too complicated and we don't have existing tunnels that cities like London did. So we should look at something we can construct above ground. The structure of a monorail should be easy to build above our current road systems. Perhaps I'm a bit idealistic, after all I have no engineering knowledge of the logistics of putting in a monorail. But still just imagine a speedy monorail over the southern motorway, zipping down to the airport to pick up passengers. Once the Airport connector is in place other monorail lines could be built to connect the many suburbs in ways the current train and bus services fail. Perhaps the monorail could even run after midnight! Wouldn't that be amazing! And I'm sure we can have an electric monorail, it would be very environmentally friendly. We love our clean green image, even though we are only now getting electric trains (100 years after everybody else) and are too stubborn to part with our cars.

Auckland really needs to sort out its transport woes and building more roads won't fix the problems. Building more roads for buses doesn't fix the already poor system where you can't always get a bus from A to B, especially if it's late, or if your bus doesn't show up. Having a more accessible system should come before speed and congestion of the roads those systems use.
Electrifying our trains only now seems to point out how old our systems really are.
The simple fact we have no quick and easy transport to and from out major airport is simply an embarrassment. I am fearful of the influx of tourists for the rugby world cup.

If only someone who held power would open their eyes to a bigger picture and would stop pumping money into pointless roads and look at fixing the basic ways our transport operates, if we can get people out of the cars and into the buses there will be less congestion on the roads anyway. If we had reliable public transport surely people would be more interested in using it. Currently the National government has reduced funding to public transport, making our public transport look even more dismal before the 2011 rugby world cup. If there ever was a time to look at improving our public transport surely the influx of tourism from the world cup would be a reason. We need some sort of train service to connect all the suburbs and since an underground system isn't possible we should look at something else, say a monorail.

There is an organisation onto the right track, Campaign For Better Transport so go check them out, they have some really good ideas to make Auckland better.
Although they haven't picked up the idea of a monorail ... yet.

Water Water everywhere ...

Campbell Live did a piece on one of my favorite new drinks recently. Looking at Vitamin Water, and of course the other variations in the market. The bottom line of the article, handed down by the New Zealand commerce commission was "Don't waste your money". The company is also up against some false advertising claims due to its promotion as a healthy option, although Vitamin Water is meant to be referred to as a "Lifestyle drink".
Somehow my opinion of the product has not been changed at all. I can see how people would have a problem with a drink that seems to promote itself as a health drink. The thing is you should really only need half a brain to read a label before you purchase something.
"Each 500 millitre bottle contains half the sugar of a can of Coke and less than 1 per cent fruit juice." - Sydney Morning Herald
Of course it contains sugar, it's FLAVOURED water, the first time I picked up a bottle of the stuff I was aware I was going to be taking a good hit of kilojoules I would be needing to burn off. I do not kid myself when making a purchase of something that is bright PINK that it is necessarily the best option for me. I am also skeptical of the health benefits of something like this.
I agree there are some problems with the way these drinks are marketed and promoted, they can certainly be deceptive. But I think people are far too willing to blame advertising and packaging when they fail to take the time to simply educate themselves on the product.
At around NZ$3.50 a bottle this stuff isn't cheap, but the price of a Coke, Red Bull or a V isn't cheap either. Personally any time I buy a beverage I consider it a 'treat' item ... even plain bottled water I consider on this level, not on a healthy eating 'treat' but a financial one. So when looking over my options for a treat I want something that tastes good, I want something that will make me feel good, even if it is a guilty good or just a caffeine hit. Vitamin water has become one of my top 'treat' beverages if I want to grab a bottle of something, it tastes good, it has less sugar than a Coke (less cancer than diet Coke) and there may be some small benefit in the added vitamins.
It worries me however that consumers don't seem to take the time to educate themselves about the products they buy, I feel like there is a lot of blame placed on marketing and on the evils of corporate giants like McDonald's. I don't think McDonald's makes anyone fat on purpose, granted they spend a lot of money on marketing and branding, the golden arches have become synonymous with obestity yet people still eat there. The problem is not the food, in all its grease-soaked glory, the problem is how simply uneducated most people are about basic nutrition. It's also testament to how lazy or simply unequipped people are that they would pour hard-earned money into the corporate pockets than turn on an oven. We need to teach people and motivate them to look after themselves. I don't think it's lost on them that eating fastfood is making them fat, I think they just don't know how to survive without it, a lack of time or knowledge to prepare real meals.
Don't blame Vitamin Water, don't blame McDonalds, at some point we have to take responsibility for our own health, we need to take marketing and packaging with a grain of salt and make decisions based on the nutritional panel not the brand name.

Show a little intelligence and take control of your own life. I'm not going to stop buying Vitamin Water because I've been told it's a waste of money, I was always aware it was, it makes me think other people are pathetic that they need an expose on a television show for them to realise the product may not be all it appears at first glance.

Jumping the Shark

In my usual check on Afterellen.com I read an interesting article on a 'lesbian kiss of death' which related to a Sun-Times Article which related the lesbian kiss to jumping the shark. (referencing to Happy Days when the Fonz literally jumped a shark)

I found this very interesting because in a time when visibility for normative homosexual relationships seems so low the Lesbian Kiss is still such a winner as a ratings stunt. The Kiss in Question is for Desperate Housewives. I won't tell you who or the circumstances, I personally haven't seen the episode, because we are far behind the US here in New Zealand. Anyway what really irks me here is how a show like Desperate Housewives can create a certain positive portrayal of male homosexuality but lesbianism is still treated like a titillation. I am often made to feel like my sexuality is something that is cheap to be flaunted for people to gawk at. The media only enforces that women kissing each other is simply 'hot' and these characters rarely are involved in long term relationships with female partners, usually they're sleeping with men in the next episode. The Sun Times article seems to prove this point in the examples it lists to try and claim the point of the 'jump the shark'. Most of these women are straight, the other woman is a guest star, The OC is one example where there was a relationship, but this was a short lived one. Although I don't think this really reflects the end of the show or a jump the shark moment, I think any show that has sloppy enough plot and would resort to any stunt (Shark Jumping or Sweeps Kisses) is doomed to fail. These shows are usually already floundering, or there was some other moment that followed that was far worse. The example of The Simpsons simply makes me cringe as that show has been on a steady slide of quality for many years, the writing has long since moved into gags and buffoonery, long abandoning it's traditional narrative structure and more witty parody. These shows are grasping at straws, and apparently 'hot lesbian kiss' is one of them. Somehow controversial enough to be a good stunt but with a good dose of titillation.
I really wish there was more positive representation of lesbians on Television. There are always glimmers of hope here and there, I've been watching the third Season of the UK series Skins (E4) which has been very promising, although there has been some criticism of the show I do feel it is a fairly honest portrayal of being young and dealing with sexuality. The bright side here is the largely positive response that seems to come out of shows that are aimed at younger, often more niche audiences. I also think of South of Nowhere which largely centered on the character Spencer coming out and her subsequent relationship with on again off again girlfriend Ashley. Skins and South of Nowhere both develop honest relationships for the characters, both shows certainly have their weaknesses and I find the characters situations generally unrealistic, but the honesty behind the intentions is palpable, it comes through with characters and relationships people actually care about. Feedback on the E4 website for Skins has been outstandingly positive for the Naomi and Emily characters and the developing relationship.
American network television is all about the big ratings though, however Desperate Housewives has introduced a gay male couple to the picture perfect street. Building a sort of normality to the concept of monogamous homosexuals, although I find Lee a bit of a stereotype and some storylines a bit ... frustrating. Overall it does have positive visibility for homosexual men. So where the hell are the happy lesbians? Why are they all 'bisexual' but only tend to date men? Why are they always so preoccupied with pregnancy? (I remember our own Shortland Street using this tried lesbian storyline). The L word is now done and dusted, the 6th season and shuffled off (personally that show 'jumped the shark' a couple of seasons back, and it STARTED with lesbian kisses) so where is the new way for lesbians to see themselves as real people? America sure isn't churning out much. Still I'll be keeping an eye on Afterellen.com to keep me updated, after all I've been hearing some positive things coming up on the Aussie soap Home & Away. Shortland Street I must admit has been pretty good with it's lesbian visibility, Mia has been on the show for quite a few years now and for the most part is just part of the cast.

As for American TV, I'll keep watching Desperate Housewives even if it is just another American show exploiting my sexuality to try and boost its ratings. It's a guilty pleasure of mine. I also hope it hasn't jumped the shark, it hasn't always been on the ball but I've found it generally has a good balance of mystery, drama and comedy. Pity there isn't a nice dose of positive lesbian visibility in there, but I don't really expect that from the big rating American sitcoms.

Twitter and the fast moving world

I've often been a person who picks up on new trends and at least gives them a go. I love new technology and am always fascinated with the way that people interact with them. I took papers on Sociology and Media when I was at university and this has always been a strong interest. The uptake of the mobile phone and the always changing landscape of cyberspace.
There has been a rise in social networking over recent years, I myself have Bebo, MySpace and Facebook profiles. I spend all my time on the latter and these days mostly ignore the other two. However the one new rise in online media and social networking as left me a little confused, but mostly disinterested.
Twitter, as far as I can tell, is just a bunch of status updates. Now I can see some benefits for celebrities, websites or other businesses. Twitter produces quick snippets of information to send out to people. But when it comes to my friends, frankly I don't care that much. I don't need constant updates on what they are doing, what they are thinking. I feel like we are becoming more and more disjointed as a society, despite this level of connectivity, as we don't take the time to really ENGAGE with other people. This is perhaps me being old and cynical (Early 20's and somehow I am made to feel old!) but I think we need to spend more time sitting around and talking to people. I'm sick of everything speeding up, quick updates, fast food, text messages. I hate that language is reducing to 'txt speak' where people don't bother to spell anything. Now I am a terrible speller, possibly worse at grammar, but I still think it is important that we communicate in standard English, reducing the language to text speak will surely lead to confusion. I remember a TV advert where a boy in a supermarket receives a text, "get chps" and he thinks "Chops, or Chips?", with people spending less time on the communication they put forward are they taking less time to think about the interpretation? With new media there isn't always a way to convey a tone of voice, and with so much information so accessible to many people how do you know that a joke between friends won't be misconstrued as something incredibly offensive by another friend. If we keep speeding up and reducing the communication surely we are simply going to loose an important level of interaction.
Of course perhaps it is progress and should not be so nostalgic for a time that was. Although I spend a lot of time on the internet and far too much time on facebook I like to take the time to really connect with my good friends, my favorite pastime is enjoying a meal with them. Sitting down and taking the time to have a meal, or a glass of wine, or a coffee and to really talk to my friends is so much more meaningful than 'cyber stalking' them. I like my facebook, it is a wonderful tool for connecting with my friends, an easy way to contact them since we are all addicted, and is diverse so we can share events and invites.
My opinion of Twitter is in the name, 'twitter' is just a bunch of background noise I don't really pay attention to.

Although with all my criticism of the new phenomenon I haven't bothered to create my own account and actually take the time to explore. Perhaps I will soon be drawn into the new 'it' thing. With all my interest in new mediums it is highly likely I will at some point have to join the masses and start 'twitting' my life.

Welcome

I was told that to be a good blogger I need to be witty and comment on current events. I quite like the idea of being a successful blogger, maybe getting a column in some magazine or newspaper after becoming a great internet success.
But the question remains, am I witty and interesting enough? Can I say something new and interesting, bring a perspective to current events that has been unheard.

Perhaps I can, I am opinionated and believe passionately about some things. I can be quite funny, but really only sometimes.

So I'm going to take a crack at writing a blog and trying to be witty and relevant.

So who am I?
Well I'm in my early 20's. I was made redundant so am currently job hunting. I'm female, by default a feminist. I'm a lesbian, and feel strongly about queer politics. I guess I'm a bit of a socialist, but also believe capitalism would work if people weren't greedy and corrupt. I believe in democratic process but think must political systems are flawed.


I'm Jennifer, nice to meet you, I hope you like my blog and my opinion on the world.