johnnynotsid

I do this thing where I'll have some really strong feeling about something, so I'll write about it on here. Every so often (so often) I'll piss someone off. But with every journal where I write in a flurry of passion and opinion, there are always two outcomes that can take place. For one of these to happen is inevitable, but I can not have both of them happen. Whether or not I provoke drama, it does not affect which outcome takes place.

The two outcomes are these:

1) I am extremely proud of the piece merely as a piece of writing.

2) I am indifferent to the piece once I have finished it and do not consider it that great.

Sure, other outcomes I can enjoy no matter which of those take place. I can really enjoy some drama sometimes, I'll admit it. Because I've learned that sometimes it's just fun. Fun to outsmart or ogle idiotic comments. Fun to discuss things. Sometimes, it goes way too far, and it pisses me off, but never for long.

I can also be very unhappy with the response a journal gets.Whether it's an overload of anger or absolutely nothing or even total lauding.

A mistake I seem to make time and time again is writing a piece that comjures indifference to the writing itself, which conjures a great deal of drama. In the middle of the psychotic responses, I will suddenly get an idea and write something. After I am done, I am extremely proud of it and I can't wait for people to read it. But responses to the first journal are still going on and amidst it the one I truly adore is overlooked, or at least it does not get the degree of response I would have liked from  certain people. Later on I realize that I should have waited to post the second blog until the air had cleared and people whose opinions I would want to hear are not off defending me for something else.

Don't get me wrong, I have never posted something I hated or did not like. I like my writing and I want people to give me feedback on everything I post. However, it is just that some posts are more special than others. Some I work extra hard on. Some I  feel so  happy to  speak about  and  I am so proud of  the format and style that I am just giddy. Giddy because I can say "I wrote that" and even put it on a resume in a few years.

The last two journals were examples of this mistake. The Chapter 27 Blog was something I felt needed to be said. Something I was determined to put out there and was glad I posted. But the writing itself? It was not me at my best. I was too concerned with sayng what I felt needed to be said that I didn't want waste any time. The message was the most important thing.

Of course, I mentioned Jared Leto (because he is  in the film) once in the journal, so a bunch of 30 Seconds to Mars fans go batshit. I got sick of it fast since some refused to see the point and some didnt really even read the journal. To get my mind off the headache off the drama I started thing about something else. I got kind of pent up thinking bout politics and the media and this episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart that I immediately started writing. And I was careful. Very careful.

So I posted this patriotism blog.

When I was done, I was thrilled with it. But to my chagrin, it turned out the dramaon the last journal had not ended while I was writing the new one. But I posted it anyways. I figured, Hey, I truly doubt I'll get any crazy fans talking about this. I'll get some people I like and admire to comment. This will be better and a nice contrast to the crap on the last thing.

What happened?

Well, the Chapter 27 blog got over  109 comments. Meanwhile, my Patriotism journal has about 8. Some people whom I asked specifically to comment didn't, no one was interested. People whose opinion I wanted to hear were too busy with their own lives and already were helping me with the Chapter 27 mess so really there was already too much.

If I had waited to post the Patriotism blog, I would have gotten that input after the air had cleared. But I didn't. I was too selfish in epecting people to pay that much attention to my page when they had other things to do. I was too convinced that they could do both. I was too impatient to wait to show some product of my intellect to actually measure the circumstances. It cost me.

So yeah. Lesson learned. Hopefully.

In simpler terms, I think films about how corrupt  our government is discourage Americans from voicing or even having their own opinions which oppose the actions and policies of the Bush administration.

For example, films like Rendition, Syriana  and Lions for Lambs totally defeat their apparent purpose.

I imagine one of the reasons these sorts of films are made is to show how bad the government can be, and to condemn their actions in the Middle East. The government (or one of our government's allies) always pulls off these elaborate sinister schemes in these films that directly injure innocent people due to either selfish gain or lunatic paranoia.

I truly think these are bad when it comes to making people look at the unreasonable and injustifiable actions and stand up and say or do something about it. Here is why.

First of all, you've got constant Bush supporters questioning the patriotism and support towards our soldiers of people who are anti-war. This is partially based on something Jane Fonda did during the Vietnam War and then how an almost entirely different group of anti-war people treated our Vietnam vets when they came back, spitting on them and treating them like shit even though, technically, they didn't have a choice in going.

It's also based on the fact that Bush supporters simply don't want people disagreeing with them and to attack a person's patriotism is the easiest way to undermine critics. That thought of Hey, maybe by saying I hate the war and the government, I am saying I hate my country and turning my back on it. Maybe I am just criticizing my government for my own gain and making something out of nothing.

Now, I think it's pretty obvious that many of the people in Hollywood are anti-war. Many of them are quite vocal about it. Well, being in the spotlight voicing your anti-war statements kind of makes a person represent the ideals which they claim to believe in and support. And when several famous representatives of Iraq war critics continually make films trashing the actions of the American Government and creating stories about stuff they could also possibly do kind of reinforces this idea that anti-war people hate America and are not patriots.

Sure, they're technically not saying that the country itself is bad, but  when it centers so carefully around one significant part of our country and portrays it as evil  and bad while neglecting to show the numerous parts of our country which are nothing like the government they portray, it comes off as talking shit about  our country as a whole.

Second of all, judging by some of the responses these movies are getting commercially, people don't want to see them. And you know what? Constantly releasing films like this make people more and more disinterested with the real-life issues and actions. So now there is less resistance because people simply don't want to hear about it anymore. They are tired of it. They've been bombarded with this shit non-stop. So yeah. Less people wanting to get involved makes it easier for the government to do what it wants.


People, being a patriot today is not about agreeing with our government. It's about knowing what is going on and actually trying to be involved somewhat. Listen, I don't think anyone is qualified to define how to be a patriot today except one group of people: The soldiers serving overseas.

The other night was the five year anniversary of the Iraq War and Jon Stewart had on as a guest Alex Kingsbury, a reporter  for US News who actually went to write an article from Iraq, interacting with the Soldiers serving there. You know what he said the soldiers think makes a person a Patriot?

"They talk about Patriotism in a very different way than we talk about patriotism. It's not what side you're wearing your lapel flag pin on, but who is more informed about their country. You know, maybe that's a better measurement about patriotism. They don't care if you're for or against the war, they just want you to know what is going on."

Here is the interview where he says it:

 

And if you can't see it, here is the link.


Here's the thing people, you don't have to accept what the government does to be a Patriot. You don't. You can raise Hell and totally get across what you believe and still be one. What these movies fail to get across is that even if we are angry with our politicians and elected officials, we can and (most of all) should still be loyal to and love our country. Because let's face it, we have a beautifully diverse population. We're allowed to voice our opinions and practice our own personal religions. Oh sure, sometimes rights are violated and our Government right now is the definition of Epic Fail, but at least we can progress as a society and make something of ourselves here. And you know what? Our country has done some great things. We've had some great people. Even our current government has done SOMETHING RIGHT (as much as I hate to admit it).

Let me give you all a few examples.


George Washington. 1st President of the United States of America. General of The Continental Army.

Now, here I am going to make three pretty ballsy and crazy sounding claims regarding this man.

1) He without a doubt loved his country

2) He was intensely loyal to the USA and would die for it

3) He was an American Patriot.

Crazy things to say, I KNOW. And you know what else? Here is what he had to say once our constitution was ratified and he was made President:

"I expect this plan will last no more than twenty years"

He also opposed the formation of political parties.

HOLY MONKEY ON A STICK HE CRITICIZED THE GOVERNMENT.

Still a Patriot though.

Another Example:




Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America, writer of The Declaration of Independence, Writer of The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, Co-Designer of the American Constitution.

Now those claims I made about Washington? I'm going to say the same about Jefferson.

Jefferson also drafted actual petitions and documents of opposition to The Alien and Sedition Acts passed by our 2nd President John Adams in 1798. HE ACTUALLY HAD THEM PASSED AND REMOVED THOSE ACTS.

HE TOTALLY CRITICIZED AND STOOD UP TO THE US GOVERNMENT.

You know what actually encourages ME to take more interest in our country? Films and media glorifying great deeds and people in US history. I have taken a greater interest again in US politics and have become more critical of the Bush administration watching the current John Adams miniseries. Because I know watching it that our country is not defined by what Bush and Cheney are doing now. That that is not who or what we are as Americans and that we were not founded or brought up under such principles. I know I can feel angry over the actions of our officials but still feel proud to be American watching things like that, and if I can still feel proud of my country for some things, I know how much bullshit it is to say that I am not a Patriot because I criticize the US government.

So basically, Hollywood lay off on the "EVIL US" shit. You have every right to do so, but it accomplishes NOTHING.

I don't care how much you love Jared Leto or 30 Seconds to Mars. Don't go see this movie.

You know why?

This film is not only total shit according to many critics, but it also rewards a hideous human being for a brutal act of violence towards a wonderful man.

The man Chapter 27 centers on whose name I refuse to state (I will ask that of all people who may comment on my journal, if you do I will delete your comment, no exceptions), was the man who killed John Lennon.

John Lennon of the Beatles.

The guy who wrote "Give Peace a Chance", "Imagine", and "Happiness is a Warm Gun". A funny, talented, warm-hearted person who preached love and peace and human understanding. A an who learned from his mistakes. A man who revolutionized music. a man who SHOULD STILL BE ALIVE.

(Let me put it this way, you can thank John Lennon for Pretty. Odd.  Okay?)

The guy who killed him was a fat waste of breath who had absolutely no talent or use.

The guy who killed him killed John Lennon for one reason:

He wanted to be the guy who killed John Lennon.

DO YOU REALIZE HOW FUCKED UP THAT IS?

You know what is even more fucked up?

We're thanking him for it.

By makinga film and immortalizing his name, we're thanking and rewarding this scumbag for killing this wonderful person. We're giving him what he wants.

Ladies and gentlemen, why do we insist on giving loathesome people rewards for doing terrible things? Why dowe encourage this?

You know who else we did this too?

The guy who shot up Virginia Tech. I forgot his name. WHICH IS HOW IT SHOULD BE. He wanted to be famous. So he shot up a bunch of innocent people. So the press said "Thanks, here is your nice batch of fame! Here is your immortality!"

THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

AND WE DO THIS NOW.

WITH THIS STUPID MOVIE. THIS VANITY PROJECT.

WE ARE HANDING OUT PRIZES AND REWARDS FOR MURDER. WE ENCOURAGE THIS.

You know, we might as well just kill John Lennon all over again. Because we seem to glorify his death so much.

This movie is just another bullet in his back.



Ev'rybody's talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism
Isn't it the most
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Ev'rybody's talking about
Ministers, Sinisters, Banisters and canisters,
Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes,
And bye bye, bye byes.
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

This is totally not like the fake one I did.

This is my real Pretty. Odd. review. This one was originally a comment I made on Ashly's review.

But after the stuff on Bree's Review, I decided to  keep unwanted drama off of other people's pages and deal with my own shit here.

So yeah.

Here it is.

Panic at the Disco
Pretty. Odd.
Decaydance/Fueled By Ramen
Grade: C

It's definitely better than A Fever You Can't Sweat Out and while Pretty. Odd. does not seem to possess the same sort of pretentiousness of Fever there still seems to an attitude all the same. This is them going "oh, look how classicly inclined we are, we're still so artistic but, like, sunnier!!!!" in my honest opinion. That being said, I am not determined to hate this record. The low points come with "When the Day Met the Night" which sounds like the theme of a 90's sitcom. And tracks like "Folkin' Around" and "She Had The World" where they really took the classic rock inclinations too far and actually sounded like they were trying to be a sunnier Johnny Cash. Or Janis Joplin at her laziest. They're best when they are trying to be the Beach Boys.

When they strip shit down they still seem very disinterested with their instruments and rather than take the opportunity to explore and obsess over the sound of one instrument once all the usual accoutrements are gone they seem to just go, "eh, not enough toys to play with, let's freak over the lyrics" Which is fine for some but that's just not what they are good at. Ryan Ross's singing is a pretty good move on their part. It helps keep the record from being over-saturated and Brendon Urie just is not suited for some of the songs they are trying to create.

One of the major improvements is in the fact that, well, Panic just don't have the skills or imagination yet to truly create their own sound, which is what they tried to do oh so prematurely on their first record to disastrous results. (The only thing worse than a record you immediately hate: A record you think you really like, only to figure out months later how awful it truly is). So it's a good thing they are instead essentially playing other peoples' music, which is the wisest choice, given that it enables them to write and release music but still stay students at the same time.

I'll give it a C (3 out of the 15 songs seemed completely unnecessary to me, 3 out of 15 = 80 out of 100%. So yeah. But I'll listen again and see if it grows on me.*

 

 

*Have listened multiple times now since this was written and have not changed my opinion.

How was your easter everyone?

Mine was... Okay

We went to mass and left right after Communion because there was no way in Hell my sister and I were going to be able to last another minute in there without our Ipods.



I love you Jesus.

I just don't love the Catholic Church.

Why?




That's why.

Then we went to my grandparents' home, Sunise Assisted Living, for Sunday Brunch.

On the Menu was Chicken Kiev, Roasted Leg of Lamb, Filet Mignon, and Roast Beef.

For me, this was great, because I am a vegetarian.

Luckily they had veggie burgers on a whole other menu. We just had to wait longer and make the waitress that much more confused. So we had dessert first, which was on a buffet tray.

I had this:




My dad had this:



However, it turned out that the entrees were so bad that my sister and Dad were actually envying me my veggie burger.

Their lamb made them sick.

Which is only fair, as they took me to Chima's  Brazillian Meat restaurant the night before.

At Chima's, you have a card on your table, and when you turn it over, dudes with giant slabs of meat come over and cut you slices.

Slices like these:



They have a huge salad bar.


That day also, my sister Sarah brought me to lunch at Macaroni Grill, where they have THE BEST MUSHROOM RAVIOLI EVAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then she took me shopping for an Easter outfit and an outfit for my Class Ring Ceremony where girls can not wear pants, skirts above the knee (very intelligent move on my school's part, because we all know the stores are selling long skirts now that Spring is sort of happening), or show the most sexual of body parts, the shoulders.




I know you're totally looking at this chick's shoulders right now.

But no doubt, the best part of my Easter weekend was seeing my mom totally drunk outside of Chima's and yelling "GOD DAMN IT!!!!" in front of a bunch of people.

(It ws a funny drunk, not  tragic drunk, trust me, my mom is totally sober most of the time)


Fin.

Avenged Sevenfold (or A7X) had their presence so eagerly anticipated and dramatized that they had to put up a fifteen minute countdown on the monitors before they took the stage, which was completely re-adorned and refurnished for their set. Read more...

Buzznet has some great exclusive content from the Taste of Chaos tour here.

little girl fights for her life, and her last wish is to see her father, but that wish may not come true.

"They didn't expect her to be here still. She's fighting, day by day, minute by minute," said Vonda Yaeger, mother.

if (self['plpm'] && plpm['Mid-Story Ad']) document.write('

');if (self['plpm'] && plpm['Mid-Story Ad']){ document.write(plpm['Mid-Story Ad']);} else { if(self['plurp'] && plurp['97']){} else {document.write(''); } }if (self['plpm'] && plpm['Mid-Story Ad']) document.write('

');

10/11 has followed the story of 10-year-old Jayci Yaeger as she battled tumors in her brain. Now doctors say she is about to lose that fight.

Her last wish is to spend what time she has left with her father, but he is in a federal prison for drug charges.

Less than six months ago, Jayci was energetic, fun and upbeat. Now she's just a shadow of herself lying in a hospital bed.

Jayci has brain tumors and doctors say she's dying.

"What doctors say? They say there's nothing they can do for her. The tumors are growing and hemorrhaging, and right now nothing they can do for her, just keep her comfortable," Vonda Yaeger said.

In less than two months cancer turned an energetic little girl into someone those who know her hardly recognize. During the fight, her family has been hopeful, but now reality is setting in.

"It's really hard to say it, but it's time now and she doesn't need to suffer anymore. She needs to be where she can be peaceful and happy and not in pain," Yaeger said.

There's one more thing Yaeger said her daughter needs -- her father, Jason. But he's in federal prison in South Dakota and has been denied repeated attempts to grant him a 30-day release.

"She expressed many times that she misses him, and he talks to her on the phone now and she cries. That's the only time I see her cry," Yaeger said.

In fact, Yaeger said the need to see her father is the only thing keeping Jayci going.

"I think she understands. She knows what the outcome is going to be. She's very scared, and I think she's holding on for her father," Yaeger said.

Yaeger said denying Jayci's last wish is cruel, and goes beyond punishing Jason for any crime he ever committed.

"She didn't do anything wrong. He was there for her when she was born. He should be there for her when she goes," she said.

Jayci's family said they aren't looking to get Jason out of prison, or shorten his sentence. They even asked for him to be put on electronic surveillance while was in Lincoln and he offered to serve double his remaining time when he went back.

The Yankton Federal Prison Camp did not reply.

Jayci's family just hopes they have a change of heart before it's too late.

[Source: kolnkgin]

WHAT THE FUCK???

NO ONE IS ASKING FOR HIM TO GET ANY BREAKS OR FOR HIM TO END HIS PUNISHMENT. THEY ARE ASKING FOR HIM TO BE ALLOWED TO SEE HIS DAUGHTER SO SHE CAN GET HER LAST WISH. I REALLY DOUBT THE GUY CONSIDERS IT A LUCKY BREAK TO WATCH HIS DAUGHTER WASTE AWAY AND DIE.

You know what? The guy did some bad things. And he deserves punishment. and he is serving it. He was given an official sentence. That is what should be honored. But really? Making a little girl suffer? She can't visit her daddy. Most inmates get to see their kids on visiting days if only through a pane of glass. He doesn't. His little girl is dying and he has to live with that. And now instead of keeping his children safe from harm by way of his crimes,you're insuring that they will.You're toturing a little girl andfor what?The family is willing to make every compromise possible. No dice.

This is not justice.This the actions of a truly fucked up and corrupt individual.

My heart goes out to little Jayci.

"Rep Kern:

On April 19, 1995, in Oklahoma City a terrorist detonated a bomb that killed my mother and 167 others. 19 children died that day. Had I not had the chicken pox that day, the body count would've likely have included one more. Over 800 other Oklahomans were injured that day and many of those still suffer through their permanent wounds.

That terrorist was neither a homosexual or was he involved in Islam. He was an extremist Christian forcing his views through a body count. He held his beliefs and made those who didn't live up to them pay with their lives.

As you were not a resident of Oklahoma on that day, it could be explained why you so carelessly chose words saying that the homosexual agenda is worst than terrorism. I can most certainly tell you through my own experience that is not true. I am sure there are many people in your voting district that laid a loved one to death after the terrorist attack on Oklahoma City. I kind of doubt you'll find one of them that will agree with you.

I was five years old when my mother died. I remember what a beautiful, wise, and remarkable woman she was. I miss her. Your harsh words and misguided beliefs brought me to tears, because you told me that my mother's killer was a better person than a group of people that are seeking safety and tolerance for themselves.

As someone left motherless and victimized by terrorists, I say to you very clearly you are absolutely wrong.

You represent a district in Oklahoma City and you very coldly express a lack of love, sympathy or understanding for what they've been through. Can I ask if you might have chosen wiser words were you a real Oklahoman that was here to share the suffering with Oklahoma City? Might your heart be a bit less cold had you been around to see the small bodies of children being pulled out of rubble and carried away by weeping firemen?

I've spent 12 years in Oklahoma public schools and never once have I had anyone try to force a gay agenda on me. I have seen, however, many gay students beat up and there's never a day in school that has went by when I haven't heard the word **** slung at someone. I've been called gay slurs many times and they hurt and I am not even gay so I can just imagine how a real gay person feels. You were a school teacher and you have seen those things too. How could you care so little about the suffering of some of your students?

Let me tell you the result of your words in my school. Every openly gay and suspected gay in the school were having to walk together Monday for protection. They looked scared. They've already experienced enough hate and now your words gave other students even more motivation to sneer at them and call them names. Afterall, you are a teacher and a lawmaker, many young people have taken your words to heart. That happens when you assume a role of responsibility in your community. I seriously think before this week ends that some kids here will be going home bruised and bloody because of what you said.

I wish you could've met my mom. Maybe she could've guided you in how a real Christian should be acting and speaking.

I have not had a mother for nearly 13 years now and wonder if there were fewer people like you around, people with more love and tolerance in their hearts instead of strife, if my mom would be here to watch me graduate from high school this spring. Now she won't be there. So I'll be packing my things and leaving Oklahoma to go to college elsewhere and one day be a writer and I have no intentions to ever return here. I have no doubt that people like you will incite crazy people to build more bombs and kill more people again. I don't want to be here for that. I just can't go through that again.

You may just see me as a kid, but let me try to teach you something. The old saying is sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you. Well, your words hurt me. Your words disrespected the memory of my mom. Your words can cause others to pick up sticks and stones and hurt others.

Sincerely

Tucker"

Source: Scienceblogs

Congrats Tucker. You are an incredible person.

except.. Timothy McVeigh was at best an agnostic. Not an extremist  christian or Christian by any stripe.

I do not lie.

"

Man arrested for 'having sex with lamp-post'

By Bonnie Malkin

A 32-year-old man has been arrested in Wiltshire for allegedly simulating a sex act with a lamp-post.

Worker caught having sex with Henry Hoover Man who had sex with bicycle sentenced The incident is the latest in a spate of bizarre sex crimes involving inanimate objects.   The incident was witnessed by children A police spokesman said officers were called to a road in the town of Westbury on February 16 after they received a report of a man acting indecently outside a block of flats "occupied by several young women". When they arrived they arrested him on suspicion of outraging public decency. The man was released on bail, but following an investigation into the incident and several interviews with witnesses - including children - he was recalled for questioning. He has since been re-released pending further inquiries. The Wiltshire police spokesman said: "We are awaiting a decision as to whether there should be a prosecution". The incident echoes a similar case last week when a Polish contractor was caught on his knees with a vacuum cleaner in a hospital staff canteen. A security guard walked in on the man in the middle of a compromising act with the Henry Hoover appliance. He later claimed he was cleaning his underpants. He has now been fired. Last year, Robert Stewart was placed on probation for three years after being caught trying to have sex with a bicycle. The 51-year-old was naked from the waist down when two cleaners walked in on him at the Aberley House Hostel in south west Scotland. He paused only to ask, "What is it, hen?", before continuing to "move his hips back and forth as if to simulate sex". In 1993, Karl Watkins, an electrician, was jailed for having sex with pavements in Redditch, Worcs.

"

Source: The Telegraph


Wow.

Just.

WOW.

If you were to have sex with an inanimate object (excluding sex toys), what would it be? A mailbox? A tenis racket? The Possibilities are endless.

Attention friends:

 

John (Ounceofwentz) and I (Johnnynotsid) are starting a Buzznet music History group and we need YOUR help!

 

Despite the stereotype of people our age (17 and 16 respectively) we are totally aware that we don’t know everything. Not even about music. And while we know enough to have our background range in icons from Aretha Franklin to Frederic Chopin to Led Zeppelin to Cole Porter; we can’t know, let alone educate, on all forms of music. So we really need your help so we can get people to stop spelling Jimi Hendrix’s name wrong and claiming that Hayley Williams is one of the only female rock singers around.

 

We also need to prove that we can do Rossstar’s job better than he can.

 

We’re looking for experts in all sorts of music, but in particular:

 

Reggae

Metal

Soul

Jazz

Rap/Hip-Hop

Techno/dance

Classical

Gospel

Opera

Folk

Polka

 Note: We're not looking for one person to cover a certain genre. We are looking for people with knowledge. No one gets "dibs" on anything.

So anyways what we also want to do with this is not just expose other people to different music but also to strengthen the banks of knowledge in order to be able to crush al those God damn music snobs out there who will tell us we know nothing of music because we listen to My Chemical Romance.

 

At least be active for that reason.

 

But this is supposed to be fun, not boring and/or snobby. Within this stuff we’ll make it really fun and we totally want member contributions.

 

The group has not been  created yet, but I will make sure anyone who responds to this with a PM or comment will get an invite when we start it. And it will rule. Hard.

 

Cheers!

 

Background image:

PS: Now some entertainment for your enjoyment!

Worst day ever. Seriously..

First, after reading my revised thesis statement to my engllish teacher (he had liked the first one, he said there was nothing to improve, but I wantedto anyways) he tells me "Eh, I think you should not do the beat generation, just do on the road and write about that" So 75% of the reading, researching Ive been doing for three weeks + my entire statement and outline and source reports? Totally scrapped. Meaningless. I have to do it over. I have been obsessing over making that thing immaculate and now... I'm way behind. Like I don't feel worthless and inadequate enough already.

Then second major blow of the day, this time not academically but it was basically a big slap in the face.


During Chemistry, I get a note from one of the boys who sits at the back table who always laugh at me when I ask a question or try and mess me up (especialy today). He drops this letter in my lap and it reads something like this:

Dear Wendy, I have a love potion and it hasyour name on it! your amazing spirit and magnificent ambiance fill me with magical feeling, I would be honored if you would go to the junior prom with me. Please take this into consideration.. Yours etc"

Meanwhile, his friends are snorting in the back. I already know it's a joke. I look at him and go, "who wrote this?" he points to and tells me it's this other boy (even though it was his name on the note).

They all deny it and I make a point of ripping the letter in front of them. So at the end of clss one of the guys (who I was sort of friends with once) says (after  his crew were laughing and making fun of it and everything for therest of class and basically making fun of me) "actually Wendy, it was So and So and he totally meant it." So, while I was still pretty sure it was a big joke at my expense because a) basically no teenage boy I know (except onesin major commitedrelationships, and are totally unlike these guys in how they act)  would ask in that sort of language and use phrases like 'magnificent ambiance' b) The dude who gave me the note denied it and pegged it on the other guy and never spoke to me after class even when I asked him about it c) I've said all of 3 words to this guy d) he was taunting me in class today for not getting molar mass calculations immediately; I start to worry that maybe just maybe this guy was sincere and I just totally crushed him.

Major guilt for about three hours. Until I see my old ex-friend again and ask him to tell me who wrote the note and tell him to tell his friends that I do not appreciate jokes like that. He tells me both the guy who gave me the letter and this other boy wrote it, and he saw them at it.

So basically I was treated like dirt and basically taunted with my datelessnss by virute of them trying to get my hopes up or whatever their thoughts were.

I mean, I'm not disappointed or ashamed of myself for the fact that I haven't had a boyfriend since last summer. I don't feel lonely and I don't need some high school boy trying to feel me up in his car to feel fulfilled or good about myself. In fact, even when I was taken for the majorityof last year, I was way less happy than I am now and I would be lying if I said I don't think either of my boyfriends contributed to that. I have way more important things on my mind and if that were not enough, I've been hit on by enough college guys while out to make the attentions of the high school set completely unimportant to my self esteem.

I mostly tune most of the people in my school out anyways, except for the ones I like. It's not worth it letting yourself notice much of the behavior of pricks when it comes to real life. It's so much easier to do something stupid if you do.

Sure, I was insulted, but it was mostly because this could mean they thought I wasso stupid as to buy this and make a fool of myself in the process.  My vanity is based more on my intellect than my looks so this assumption was a blow to my pride. But that was not reallywhat was so bad.

But what truly bothered me was that they would actually go out of their way to intrude on my unawareness of them and openly do something to truly bully and HURT me in such a way. That maybe whatever they find weird or insult-worthy about me (rubbing on my shoulders when my ecksima is bothering me, how loud my voice is when I say something, the constant scribbling in my journal, my habit of picking at/filing my nails, my red lipstick/ the fact that I use words like "customary" and "exhilarated" casually) made it just so worth it to interrupt a class and write some idiotic note to make me think that one of them might be interested in me. That's just... so disturbing to me.

Like what kind of effect were they hoping for or expecting? and why do I have to be the subject of some stupid experiment like that.

I don't expect them to understand me, but to immediately assume that I felt bad about not dating anyone and that I would be pulled into a happy misbelief that one of them was interested in me is just uncomfortable. Even more so that they would be so mean about it.

Like, why me? I have not done anything to them. Ever. There are far more annoying people to bully. Do I seem like such an easy victim?

It just.. gah.

And you know, for a little while, they actually did make me eel bad about not having a date to Junior Prom. I've never felt bad about it before. The one homecoming dance I went to without a date was the one where I actually had a lot of fun. And I usually feel good to be so free of boyfriends and worries over boyfriends and not needing a guy to validate myself.

And for a second, they made me forget that.

That was what was the worst of all

Ok, so I was shamefully scrolling Perez Hilton and what do I see?




The accompanying article

"One in four teenage girls in the United States has a sexually-transmitted disease, a study has indicated.

The study, by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found an even higher prevalence of STDs among black girls.

Researchers analysed data from a nationally representative sample of 838 US girls aged 14 to 19.

A virus that causes cervical cancer - HPV - was the most common, followed by chlamydia, trichomoniasis and herpes.

The CDC says the study is the first in its kind to examine the prevalence of common sexually transmitted diseases among adolescent girls.

It found that nearly half of the African-American girls surveyed had at least one STD, while the rate was 20% among white and Mexican-American teenagers.

Human papillomavirus, or HPV, affected 18% of the girls surveyed, chlamydia 4%, trichomoniasis 2.5%, and herpes simplex virus 2%.

Screening recommended

The CDC's Devin Fenton said it was a serious issue because the diseases could lead to infertility and cervical cancer.

"Screening, vaccination and other prevention strategies for sexually active women are among our highest public health priorities," he said.

The CDC is recommending annual chlamydia screening for all sexually active women under 25, and HPV vaccines for girls aged 11 to 12, followed by booster injections.

John Douglas, the CDC's head of STD prevention, says screenings are underused because teenagers often do not think they are at risk.

Analysts say some doctors are also reluctant to discuss screening with teenage patients because of confidentiality concerns, knowing parents would have to be told of the results."


WHAT.

THE.

FUCK.

Now, just so you know, the article is not what I'm wtf-ing about. Oh no. I'm not surprised at all about those statistics. What with the enforcement of abstinence training and refusal to teach about contraception (like it's the freaking 1930's) I am seriously not surprised that 25% of girls in my age group have an STD. I mean, the lack of information given plus the fact that some parents refuse to get their girl vaccinated against HPV because they think it will make their girls have sex (wtf???? SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS LOGIC TO ME!!)

Oh, and let's not forget about how we convict mothers of felonies for teaching their kids about sex.

No, I'm not shocked.

I'm pissed.

I'm pissed because this type of neglect is shown towards my generation. I'm pissed that because people are so afraid of TEH SMEX that they won't teach kids how to protect themselves or get people vaccinated against diseases THAT NOT ONLY HAVE MULTIPLE WAYS OF BEING CONTRACTED BUT CAN ALSO CAUSE CANCER. I'm pissed because this is just another product of society's maniacal and idiotic views on sex.

"Oh no! We can't teach our kids about condoms! Otherwise they'll use them! If you teach kids about condoms, they're going to have sex immediately, get pregnant and acquire STD's! The only way to stop them from getting STD's and becoming  pregnant is to not use and/or teach about condoms!"

.............

Right, because every kid in the world who knows how a condom works is definitely having sex. In fact, they're doing it right now.

Now,  I don't think I'm being crazy when I say that teenagers for the most part are very hormonal. And I think it's also safe to say that a decent amount of them are having sex. And I think it's also safe to say they will do it whether or not they know how condom works.

So we'd rather have kids as exposed as possible to all sorts of diseases and risks than have them know of a way to protect themselves?

Oh, there's always the abstinence pledge. Oh yeah. That works.

Here are a few statistics for you:

Girls who take the Abstinence Pledge are eight times more likely to engage in oral sex than girls who don't.

Girls who take the Abstinence Pledge are three times more likely to engage in anal sex than girls who don't.

GUESS WHAT PEOPLE? YOU CAN GET STD'S FROM BOTH ORAL AND ANAL SEX! IN FACT, IT IS MUCH EASIER TO ACQUIRE AN STD TAKING IT UP THE ASS THAN IN VAGINAL INTERCOURSE!!!!!! TRUE STORY!!!!!!!!

WHY DO WE WANT EVERYONE TO GET HERPES? SERIOUSLY? ARE THERE PERKS TO HAVING HERPES  THAT I AM UNAWARE OF?? DO HERPES GIVE YOU ABILITY TO FLY? IS THE PUS REALLY THE ELIXIR OF LIFE? IF YOU RUB YOUR SORES AGAINST SOMETHING, WILL THEY TURN THE OBJECT INTO GOLD?

OR IS IT AIDS? ARE WE REACHING FOR A MASS AIDS EPIDEMIC IN THE US? ARE WE THAT DESPERATE TO LOSE WEIGHT?

GUESS WHAT PEOPLE?

I KNOW PLENTY OF GIRLS WHO KNOW HOW CONDOMS WORK.

THEY ARE STILL VIRGINS.

FOR REALZ.

And courtesy of Kia, I give you this information:

"mpacts for Title V. Section 510, Abstinence Education Programs: Final Report, from Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. late on a Friday, that is exactly what the Bushies are doing.

“After 10 years and $1.5 billion in public funds these failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs will go down as an ideological boondoggle of historic proportions,” said James Wagoner, President of Advocates for Youth.

“The tragedy is not simply the waste of taxpayer dollars, it is the damage done to the young people who have been on the receiving end of distorted, inaccurate information about condoms and birth control. We have been promoting ignorance in the era of AIDS, and that’s not just bad public health policy, its bad ethics”.

“This report should serve as the final verdict on the failure of the abstinence-only industry in this country,” said William Smith, vice president for public policy of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS). “It shows, once again, that these programs fail miserably in actually helping young people behave more responsibly when it comes to their sexuality,” Smith continued.

In 1996, the federal government attached a provision to the welfare reform law establishing a federal program for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. This program, Section 510(b) of Title V of the Social Security Act, dedicated $50 million per year to be distributed among states that choose to participate. States accepting the funds are required to match every four federal dollars with three state-raised dollars (for a total of $87.5 million annually, and $787.5 million for the eight years from fiscal year 1998 through 2006). Programs that receive the Title V funding are prohibited from discussing methods of contraception, including condoms, except in the context of failure rates....

Guys read this and see what you think about the PLEDGES OF VIRGINITY THIS IS A STUDY!
In a study released March 18, 2005 in the Journal of Adolescent Health, Hannah Bruckner and Peter Bearman report new results that show that young adults who took virginity pledges as adolescents are as likely to be infected with STDs as those who did not take virginity pledges. Bruckner, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Yale University, and Bearman, Professor of Sociology at Columbia University were surprised by these findings. "Pledgers have fewer sex partners than non-pledgers, they start having sex later, and they marry earlier, so they should have lower STD rates, but they don't." One reason is that sexually active pledgers were less likely to use condoms at first sex than non-pledgers. Because most pledgers are sexually active (in fact, 88% of the sexually active pledgers have sex before marriage), lower rates of condom use increases STD risk. Just as important, pledgers were less likely to seek and obtain STD-related health care, possibly because of increased stigmatization or misperception of infection risk among pledgers. Because pledgers are less likely to be diagnosed and treated for STD infections, they may be more likely to have those infections for longer periods than non-pledgers. Bruckner says, "if pledgers have infections for longer periods of time than non-pledgers, this is a reason for concern." Bruckner and Bearman note that even though pledgers used condoms at the same rate as non pledgers at the time of their last interview, the fact that they were less likely to use condoms earlier could be why their STD rates remain high since they are less likely to be diagnosed. "Putting a condom on after getting an infection does not make the infection go away."

Pledging may lead some young adults to engage in alternative sexual behaviors in order to preserve their virginity. Among virgins—those who have not had v aginal intercourse—male pledgers are f ur times more likely to have anal sex; male an d female pledgers are six times more likely t have oral sex than non-pledgers. Condom use f r anal sex is very low; for oral almost no n-existent. Thus virgin pledger engagement in riskier behavior may be a factor in higher t an expected STD rates.

Pledgers who are ma rried have the same STD rates as no n-pledgers who are married. Marriage does no t cause STDs; unprotected sex does. Knowing h w to protect oneself from STDs is important. S nce most adolescents and young adults will ha ve sex, it is important that public health po licies are designed to help young people ga in the information they need to protect th emselves, and others

Hannah Bruckner can be reached at: 203-432-3793, or by email at ha nnah.brueckner@yale.edu. Peter Bearman can be reached at 212-854-3094, or by email at ps b17@columbia.edu."

WHY ARE WE SO ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT BEING FUCKED IN THE ASS AND INFECTED, I ASK YOU?


Ok, I am done ranting about that.

Another issue, this statement:

"We're filled with skanks!" (See Above Image)

NO WE ARE NOT.

IN CASE YOU GUYS DON'T KNOW IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE SEX WITH MULTIPLE PEOPLE TO ACQUIRE AN STD. ONE PERSON CAN GIVE YOU AN STD. YOU ARE NOT A SKANK IF YOU HAVE AN STD, YOU  ARE A VICTIM.

This really pisses me off because people seem to think it's ok to ridicule people with STD's like they deserve it or something. I'm sorry, but a person was infected to a potentialy terminal disease because they had trusted someone with their body in the most intimate form of contact ever.

Oh yeah, they got what was coming to them. Deffo.

I guess it's a rape victims fault that they were violated because they got a ride home from that classmate after getting drunk.

Or I guess we should treat lung cancer patients like shit too because they had a cigarette when they were 18.

I think these people haveenough to deal with, don't you? You know, without being branded as a skank.

I also notice that this was said about a study of teen girls instead of just teens in general.

Congratulations America: You've pushed your young female population to the edge of a cliff and are currently spitting on the ones who fell. I hope you're very proud of yourselves.

A few days ago I posted a journal titled  News Flash: Sex is Not Evil. Basically I said that having sex before you're married is not wrong and that society's view on sex is damaging and unhealthy. I used as a particular example the Pop Group The Jonas Brothers broadcasting to the world their decision to stay "pure" until they get married and not have sex and how people responded calling them role models for it. Now, me with my big mouth decided to say something. In regards to the Jonas Brothers I said that that choice did not make them role models and to say so implied that to stay a virgin until you get married is the "right" thing to do versus pre-marital sex, which is "wrong."

I also said this:

"Don't get me wrong, I don't look down upon people who wish to wait until they are married. If that's when you feel you will truly be ready, then I think that is what is best. For you. "

If that isn't clear enough for some people, let me put it this way: I don't think saving yourself until marriage is bad/stupid/wrong or any of those things and that if that is what works for you, go for it.

Yet, I get this comment:

"it really sucks for you to sit here and judge them and the people that like them for just going with a belief. If, to them, staying virgins is a way to honor God, then they, and all other people who think like them, have the right to do so."

Now, doesn't anyone find it strange that someone would claim I said this when I explicitly stated the opposite?

Hmmm... Strange, eh?

Then there was this comment:

"But I think-maybe here I'm the only one who thinks that way- that a relationship should not only be about sex because you're ready but also about love."

Alright, now I start to get offended because never did I say a relationship should only be about sex. Really I didn't. All I said was that sex was not evil and that I would not want to be around a guy who would leave me the second he got into my pants.

Let's move onto a different journal.

My blog on Miley Cyrus

Half that blog talked about how Miley Cyrus should not be considered a role model. Amoung my sentiments were these thoughts:

"Now, one of the arguments as to why Miley is a loathesome brat for these pictures is that she was 'supposed to be a role model.' Ladies and Gentlemen, when did it become ok to put fifteen year old girls up on the "role model" pedestal? Did it ever occur to anyone that the real problem here is not Miley's stupid behavior but the fact that everyone looked to this girl who is younger than I am, to be a person for young kids to look up to and emulate? This girl is barely post puberty and already this weight is being placed on her shoulders? Why? Miley Cyrus is an entertainer. That is all she is. Being good at entertaining people should not make them expected to act as flawless paragons of good behavior. Everyone makes stupid mistakes. Why should Miley Cyrus be an exception? She has basically zero life experience and has not even been independent. She has had no time to make her errors. Stuff like this is almost supposed to happen so people can learn from their missteps. The problem is she is under the limelight and is being judged and beaten down because 'she was supposed to be a role model'!"

"Did it ever occur to anyone than rather than look to famous fifteen year olds, parents and guardians should instead try to be role models for their kids? Or to surround them with positive role models? To teach kids that looking up to people like The Jonas Brothers as good examples of how to live your life and conduct yourself is completely wrong?"

Despite all this, I got comments like these:

"' BUT she's a ROLE MODEL. How many little girls will copy her now? She shoulda made a better decision than that. And not put it on the internet. Idc, honestly, It just PISSES me off. Not just because I hate her, but that's not being the role model Disney claims she is and SHE says she is."

"dude
a million other girls might have done it
but theyre not like the #1 role model in america
for little 4 year old girls
IT IS DIFFERENT
shes a whore
deal with it"

BGKHJKIJUHYGDTYGHIUNRDTHSYDG^&FTYIUHYBCTCYHUF

I actually got a response when I asked one girl to actually read the journal before commenting. Her response was she had not had the time because her dad was yelling at her.

Ok.

Fine.

Fair enough.

But.

If you didn't read it

Why comment?

Seriously people, what makes you think that if you have no idea what a person said, that you can write an intelligent response to it? Let me give you a hint: you can't. You have no argument if you do not know what has been said. Because if someone makes a point of writing a page and a half  long journal in support of a particular viewpoint that means they probably have actually said something beyond the length of one dismissable sentence and therefore have given some sort of thought to this subject and probably have already covered certain points already.

Hate to tell all of you this, but you're not a super-genius. What probably occurred to you in a fleeting second is most likely not so complicated or inspired as to have not have been thought of before in the same amount of time by 60 million other people.

When you choose to just run your mouth supposedly in response to something but don't even take the time to discover what it is that you are responding to, then not only does your opinion mean nothing but you are marked out as an arrogant dweeb who has no idea what they are talking about who doesn't even care about anyone else's opinion but their own. No, seriously. If you think what you have to say is so IMPORTANT and BRILLIANT that you have to randomly make that comment on someone else's statement without bothering to find out what that statement was, that marks this type of attitude "What they said, whatever it was, was WRONG. And this is why: because I KNOW better than them, even if I don't know what they know or think anyways. I'm just that brilliant. I know what they were going to say anyways, even if I don't. Because whatever it was, can't possibly be as valid as MY statement because you know, I'm just so RIGHT about this."

Oh, that was not your intention?

Well then here is a tip: read the damn journal, listen to the damn statement. Think. Then come up with a decent answer. And if you don't have the time or patience to do so, then don't bother commenting.

Listen I know there all sorts of groups of peope who all say the same thing and yes, we all know sometimes people are just going to repeat the statements of other people that you already have countered. But you don't know for sure what people are going to say and if you're going to take the time write in a comment, you should at least show the writer and yourself the respect of knowing what is being said.

I personally don't write just so you all can repeat yourselves or make ridiculous assumptions about me. Part of the reason my journals have such length is because I believe in expressing myself as best I can and offering something new up for discussion so what I write is actually worthwhile to read.  When I get comments from people who clearly have not read it, that sends the message that all that effort means nothing. And let's face it, if I were to run my mouth off and not explain myself, that would not only be lazy but disrespectful and I have too much pride to do so. I think very carefully about all of my blogs because I believe whatever audience I have deserves that level of effort from me. So guys, please stop and take a second to read.

Ok, a lot of you are going to say I am ripping off Ashly or Sue with this post and maybe I am, I don't know, but I have to get this off my chest.

Recently browsing Perez Hilton with the same guilty feeling I always have when I look onto that site, I came across an post about how Teen Idols The Jonas Brothers "Made a promise to God to stay 'pure'" and not have sex until they are married. They wear rings to signify this and hope to "set a good example" by doing this.

Que sixty gazillion comments congratulating them on being good role models.

Pardon me, but I fail to see how practicing abstinence makes them good role models. Don't get me wrong, I don't look down upon people who wish to wait until they are married. If that's when you feel you will truly be ready, then I think that is what is best. For you.

(I'm not going to go into the whole "Britney said that too" thing because it's been said a dozen times before)

Here we come to a particular point in our discussion. What is right for one person is not what is right for someone else. There are people who are ready years before they get married and do it and live rich, happy fulfilling lives. It doesn't ruin their bodies, mess with their minds, or destroy their chances at romance. They simply gave in to one of their basic human needs. And you know what? There is nothing wrong with that.

Now you see, when you call The Jonas Brothers role models for "saving themselves", that implies that abstinence is good for everyone and to act in a different manner is bad. THEY are doing the right thing, and so you should do it too, because it's what's right! Do what they are doing and you'll be doing the right thing!

See, people, sex is not bad. Really it's not. It's not bad outside of marriage either. All you need is trust, good intentions, consent, effort, complete awareness of your actions,  (in most cases) a condom and it's a good thing. Seriously. You don't need to get married if you're ready. There is no point in denying the natural urges God gave you for half your life so you can get a ring.

I hate to break this to you but we're designed to have sex and enjoy it. That's why it feels good. If we were not meant to have sex for anything other than procreation then a)we would not get any enjoyment out of it and b) Homosexuality would be nonexistant. And no, other than what some shoddy translations done by rigidly biased and bigoted scholars wrote down hundreds of years ago, there is no evidence that sex outside of marriage is impure. No, seriously, it's true.

Here is what the real problem is: The demonization of sexuality. Especially when it's female. Words like "slut", "whore", "skank" and "Hussy" are frequently used as insults toward women. Even if they don't have sex but are doing something flirty or provocative. People look down on it, shun women for it. Meanwhile, it's the same old story: Girl gets pregnant so she's the slut. Or a girl gets raped because she got a ride home from a guy while wearing a crop-top (Not because he was a soulless shithead who cares nothing for another person's happiness, health or rights as a human being, but because she was wearing a crop-top and got a ride home from him). A teenage girl commits the foul unforgivable act of kissing a boy so she must be stoned to death.

Am I exaggerating? Being overly dramatic?

No.

I'm not.

Because these things happen every day. The father of the pregnant girl's baby just could not help himself. The raped girl was asking for it. The dead girl shamed her family (Her brother might be a rapist or at least kisses  girls periodically, but he's just becoming a man).

Now, I'm not going to go on about the girl thing, but those are some examples of how idiotic society's views on sexuality are.

Even if you're a guy though, there is this lesson that too often gets impounded into our heads that sex is just wrong. If you have sex, you're doing something dirty, you're violating the temple that is your body, you're impure. And though this discretion will nine times out of ten be blamed on the girl, the boy still will get that feeling of being seduced and therefore now  unclean. 

OK, now here is how damaging this could be: The boy might feel angry and bitter towards the girl afterwards and blame it on her (this happens a lot in cases of accidental pregnancy, we know that), and thus gain an unhealthy and at least somewhat chauvanistic view towards women as a whole, which could ruin their chances at a good relationship and overall happiness. Or maybe they will descend into a pit of self-loathing over what they did. Or they could develop unhealthy sexual habits. Or maybe they could destroy their relationship with God. Or any combination of these things.

Now, here's where it gets tricky: Would this happen because the boy had sex? Or is it not really the sex but because he thinks he did something wrong?

If you ask me, if he and the people around him view sex as a crime, than he would not "blame" his partner but rather appreciate her for what they did because let's face it, she trusted him in such an intimate act and awakened those sort of sensations? That's quite a nice gesture. His views on women would probably be more respectful and he'd probably have more confidence in himself for being able to handle such a mature act. And hey, sex is officially another thing you can thnk God for.

Now, it must be said that you definitely do it when you're ready and also you be careful. Just because it's not evil does not mean it should not be handled with care. And maybe you're not up to it until you walk down the aisle. That's fine.

And let's face it: promiscuity probably isn't a good idea. With tons of diseases out there you should take some care when picking your partners. And unwanted pregnancies are not good either. But the answer to that is not "So don't have sex" it's "Be careful and use a condom."

But you see, whether The Jonas Brothers made their decisions to remain abstinent based on instilled beliefs that sex is somehow dirty or based on their own comfort levels, staying abstinent does not make them role models (They should not be considered role models anyway for reasons I covered in my blog on Miley Cyrus).  Because what's right for them is not what's right for everyone else and to view it as such only achieves the wrong ends.

I'm writing a thesis paper on the Beat Generation writers for American Literature class (we have to do it on an author/subject/movement in American lit). My Teacher suggested Margaret Fuller for me but I wanted to do something different and more recent. I kind of get tagged with the "controversial" label in English because I've sparked debates about homosexuality and feminism in class before. My teacher actually asked me the other day, 'are you going to say something controversial again, Wendy?" I told him I didn't think most of the stuff I said was that controversial since those things have been a) Said before and B) I'm not taking any real risk in saying them. So I decided not to do Fuller and instead picked some people I thought are truly controversial even today. Ones whose words despite my own pretty creatively-stimulating and art-exposed upbringing still managed to make me gasp over the fact that guys IN THE 50s actually had the nerve to Go There, if you know what I mean. The problem: I wanted it to be really good and I wanted to understand this movement as best I could. It's hard because I've led a pretty sheltered life in terms of hardship and struggle, so how am I supposed to write something that fully analyzes the spirit and impact  of something like On the Road  or Howl? Well I tried to find some aspect I could write about. After agonizing hours of reading and researching (I keep having to re-read passages in Naked Lunch because most of the time I'm like, "What the fuck is he talking about now?") I finally think I have a decent thesis. Even though I did not grow up in the age of censorship in which these works were published, I could still learn enough to contrast what was written of the internal and external environs of the writers versus the standards and ideals of the time. So I am going to write about how tht created a revolution.

-----
Thesis Statement

In American Literature of the Twentieth Century, one movement in particular broke the boundaries of American Censorship and opened the doors to all art forms. The writings of the Beat Generation writers such as Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg consisted of revolutionary poems and novels that brought on rebellion and new reflection that had not yet been seen in American Literature. Their daring to explore the world’s taboos such as drugs and crime; unorthodox methods of both prose and verse as well as their vivid imagery and lifestyles set the stage for true free thought. The Beat writers revealed that you could truly go out and write about the world as you knew it without the fear of being stifled by society’s views of propriety and obscenity.

----------------------------

This is just the statement, but I think its pretty good. Questions, comments, criticisms?