Don't Confuse "Normal" With "Healthy"

In a recent Alternet article, Why Straight People Need to Get into the Fight for Marriage Equality , by Joshua Holland, the author wrote of why it's important for straight people to support same-sex marriage.

While reading the comments, I came upon one that irritated me. This comment follows below, with my reponse after it.

The original comment:

Is It Normal?

I wonder if children being adopted by gay couples will grow up in a normal way like other children ( Who's Mom and Who's Dad?).
I know a male child will learn a lot from his father, who's going to shape the character of the daughter (the other guy playing mom!).

My response:

Don't Confuse "Normal" With "Healthy"

Healthy families love and nurture their children by keeping them safe, seeing to their welfare, and educating them into being happy, responsible adults.

Good character is the same for both sexes -- honesty, compassion, responsibility, and so on. It's not necessary to teach a child how to be a good man or a good woman -- we teach them how to be good people. If you're a good person, then you are automatically a good man or a good woman as well. Thus, the number and type of parents involved is a moot point. It's not the form of the parents' relationship that matters, but it's how they treat their children that's important.

There are already adults who have grown up in households headed by same sex parents and they run the gamut of character, just as those raised in families headed by different sex parents do. I can't see how legalizing same sex marriage will change the nurturing of the children in such families from what they've been receiving all along.

It's also interesting to note that these same tired arguments were presented as reasons to oppose interracial marriage -- that it was unfair to bring biracial children into the world because they wouldn't know where they "belonged", that they'd be crushed under the inevitable prejudice, blah, blah, blah. This opinion was repugnant then and the same attitude applied to same sex relationships is repugnant now.

Personality Type and Political Orientation

An article on Alternet today, Can You Guess a Person's Politics by Their Personality? Psychologist Team Says Yes, by Maria Luisa Tucker, takes a look at how personality type relates to political affiliation: She looked at several gauges of personality, but oddly enough, did not include the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which is one of the oldest and more popular systems of personality assessment, used most widely in vocational assessments. My response to the article follows below:

For those of you familiar with the MBTI, the sixteen personality types that stem from personality difference combinations in four key areas also show personality differences between liberals and conservatives.

The four continua are Introvert/Extrovert, Intuitive/Sensing, Thinker/Feeler, and Perceiving/Judging.

In my opinion the Intuitive/Sensing continuum and the Perceiving/Judging cotinuum most clearly show these differences, varying somewhat depending on which of the other two continua they are combined with, particularly the Thinking/Feeling continuum. Thinking/Feeling and Extrovert/Introvert, on their own, are pretty well represented on both sides of the aisle, however.

In the Intuitive/Sensing continuum, Intuitives are the introspective people who think in shades of grey. Sensing people are more concrete, take-things-at-face-value, black and white thinkers. Intuitives, then, tend more to be liberal and Sensors tend more to be conservative.

Similarly, on the Perceiving/Judging continuum, Perceivers are the laid-back types, those who do things by the seat of their pants, and tend to be on the disorganized side. Judgers are the organized, fussy listmakers, and in their extreme forms are the bean counters of the world.

Combine the two, and NP will tend to be the most liberal of the four possible combinations of the two continua, and SJ will tend to be the most conservative.

I'm an INTP, by the way.

There's a lot more to it than this, but there's no room for me to write a novel in the comment box here.

Take the Myers-Briggs Test
--
As an aside, I've read that Barack Obama is an ENFP, which correlates with my observations.

How Many Ways Are You Going to Hell?

How many ways are you going to hell?

The creator of this amusing sign should count himself lucky that being a half-illiterate dumbass with bad grammar and bad spelling is not on the list of sins or he'd be down there right now serving drinks to Adolf Hitler and Joe Stalin.

Personally, I'd send him to hell just for the rampant apostrophe abuse. And what the hell is "fullutent"? Flatulent? If farting will earn you a one way ticket to hell, at least I'll see everyone I ever knew when I get there.

Out of this lists of "sins", the list below shows the ways I'll be going to hell. Feel free to list the ways you'll earn your ride on the handbasket to hell.

Democrat
Environmentalist -- I guess he thinks Jesus wants us to trash the planet
Abortionist -- I've never performed an abortion, but I'm pro choice
Feminist -- I'm not a misogynist, so I must be a feminist
I'm not gay, but I'm pro-same sex rights, so I guess I'm a "homo" enabler
Government Recipient -- I've collected unemployment and tax refund checks before, so I guess I qualify for this
Adulterer
Fornicator
Pervert
Pagan
Agnostic
Liar -- who hasn't ever lied?
Freeloader
Liberal

The maker of this sign obviously has no clue whatsoever of what Jesus is supposed to be all about:

Love Your Neighbor

Let's see your "sins".

Out of the Mouths of Babes

Since 1940, the Scholastic Weekly Reader, read by schoolkids in classrooms nationwide has conducted an Election Poll every four years, with the poll also being available online since 2000, Students from elementary school on up have chosen the winning candidate all but two times, 1948 and 1960.

This year, a quarter of a million students participated in the poll and the results are in. With a margin of 57 to 39 percent, the vote went overwhelmingly to Obama.

Many people consider the children's poll to be significant, both because they've picked the winner so often and secondly, because their voting patterns tend to mirror what they're hearing at home.

I certainly hope the kids are right again this year.

Sometimes A Cigar is Just a Cigar

Once again, Alternet has provided me with blogging fodder. In the latest article, Caveman Sex: How Evolutionary Psych Pushes Sexist Stereotypes , the author makes the point:

The watered-down evolutionary psychology prevalent in pop culture enables some men to rationalize sexist double standards about relationships.

I found the article to be rather simplistic, so I made a comment, which is shown below:

I am one of those promiscuous males the author writes about. However, I don't consider myself "loutish", nor do I have sex with anyone who is not entirely willing.

I find the assertion that men like me are looking for the most fertile women to impregnate laughable at best. Believe me, I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in siring children. Rather, I take great pains to avoid doing so. In 30+ years of my active and varied sex life, I've managed to only sire one child -- and that was during the very brief time I was married.

Nor is my choice of partners dictated by what the media tells me I should find attractive -- I use ALL my senses when choosing partners, not just my eyes. I've been with women of all types: short, tall, fat, thin, in-between, stereotypically "beautiful", average, plain, and "homely". Essentially quite a few women between 18 and 65 are game to me. My ideal partner is open minded, intelligent, and, obviously has a healthy interest in sex.

Nor do I believe that women are necessarily "coy" and choosy. I've had several hundred lovers over the years and I think I'd have had a harder time finding willing women if the "coy" theory was uniformly true. I don't think women are any more naturally monogamous that men are, but rather, they've learned to be that way because they've traditionally been punished more severely for straying than men have been.

In conclusion, I'd say that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and that some people, male and female, are promiscuous simply because we like frequency and variety in our sex lives.

The Socialism Bugaboo

I've heard many Republicans say that they won't vote for Barack Obama because they believe he is a "socialist". Though I believe that he's more conservative than that, I have to wonder why such people have such horror and fear about socialism. From what I've read some conservatives consider it to be practically communism.

But is it really?

Let's take a look at the countries that have practiced socialism and those that have practiced communism. The "communist" countries, past and present, can't really be called "communist", using a pure definition of the word. Rather, they have all been dictatorships, totalitarian states.

The socialist nations, of which the Scandinavian countries are a prime example, are free societies with free elections. They all have a high standard of living and also boast the highest life expectancies on the planet (no doubt due to socialized medicine!). Doesn't sound too awful to me.

It seems as if there's not a whole lot of sameness when you compare communism to socialism, after all.

But conservatives have a long history in mixing things up, which is because of their tendency toward black and white thinking. They're the ones who are against gay people teaching young children, because they've got homosexuality mixed up with pedophilia, which is akin to saying that Arnold Schwarzenegger must be a Nazi because he was born in Austria like Adolf Hitler was.

Thoughts?

Monogamy Is Monotony

On Alternet this morning, I read an article, Why Relationship Sex is Boring, by Esther Perel, author of the book "Mating in Captivity". In this article, she makes the point:

The very things that nurture love -- comfort, stability, safety -- can extinguish sexual desire.

I pretty much agreed with what she had to say and my comment on the article follows below:

Monogamy is Monotony

I think the author pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I've found that once I get to know a partner completely and that there are no more surprises left, nothing new to learn about this woman, then boredom sets in and desire flies out the window and the sex becomes routine and mechanical. And all the sex books and new positions and new settings in the world don't change the fact that I'm having sex with the same old partner.

It's quite similar to what would happen if you decided to eat your favorite meal 3 meals a day, 365 days a year. What was once your favorite meal, quickly becomes "the same ol' thing", no longer anything special.

After a brief failed marriage in the 80s, I decided that marriage and monogamy were no longer for me, as it wouldn't be fair to me or to any woman I might marry. Since that time, my relationship/sex life is to have several "friends with benefits" relationships going concurrently, with the occasional one night stand thrown in for added variety. I live alone, maintaining my own space.

There's no domestic dailiness to kill the desire, living apart keeps us from knowing every small detail about one another, and having several relationships at once keeps excessive familiarity away longer. And when any one of these relationships runs its natural course(they typically run from one to five years), I tend to remain friends with them.

I only had the one child from the failed marriage and had no desire for more, so my life didn't upset the lives of children, as I've kept my relationship life separated from my role as a parent.

I can't advise anyone else how to conduct their lives, but I can say it works for me.

Trickle Down Economics: Pissing on the Poor

Conservative Republicans have traditionally been against the rich paying higher taxes, believing that tax breaks for businesses and corporations will ultimately help those further down the economic ladder. They believe that businesses receiving such breaks will presumably pass the good fortune on by creating more jobs, giving employees better pay and more benefits, which will in turn further stimulate the economy.

This sounds very nice on paper, but real life is quite a bit more complicated than that. The one essential factor left out of the trickle down fantasy is greed.

We must remember that businesses do not exist to help people to make a living. Businesses are started to help the business owners MAKE MONEY, period. Business owners consider the salaries paid and whatever benefits provided to employees as unavoidable business expenses -- and every business owner wants to minimize expenses, while maximizing profits. Thus, business owners seek to pay employees as little as they can get away with, as well providing the fewest benefits possible, all in the interest of minimizing expenses.

If anyone believes that corporate America actually cares about their employees' well-being, then I've got a bridge in Manhattan I'll be willing to sell to you.

As far as I'm concerned, trickle-down economics is just a euphemism for pissing on the poor.

Obama Quote of the Day

"My name, Barack, is Swahili. It means 'that one'. And I got my middle name from someone who obviously didn't think I'd ever be running for president."

Said by Barack Obama the other night at the Alfred E. Smith fundraiser dinner. I love it -- It's perfect.

Caption This Photo

Caption this photo in the comments.

Religious Freedom Doesn't Mean the Right to Dictate to Others

Today, an Alternet article, Conservatives Push Hard for Gay Marriage Ban, discussed California's Prop. 8, which seeks to rescind the right to same-sex marriage in that state, focusing on efforts by religious fundamentalists to see Prop. 8 passed.

My comment to that article follows below:

In this article Chuck Colson said:

"If sexual freedom is the ultimate liberty, then you have to rewrite the Bill of Rights. This vote on whether we stop the gay marriage juggernaut in California is the Armageddon. We lose this -- we're going to lose in a lot of other ways, including freedom of religion."

My response to him is:

Sexual freedom is very important, as it directly relates to the right to privacy and the right of free association.

I would also advise Colson that religious freedom has two components: freedom OF religion and, no less important, freedom FROM religion. He has every right to practice his religion as he sees fit, but he and others have no right to impose any aspect of religion on others.

The basis for all state and federal laws regulating consensual adult activity are religious in origin. Civil laws regulating American marriage are a place where religious ideas about the "proper" form of intimate relationships have been enforced as "secular" law.

Marriage was a religious institution until the evolution of civil law. Now, we must question whether it would be best to offer everyone the right to marry, or does our constitutional commitment to religious freedom actually require that the government get out of the marriage business altogether?

The First Amendment requires both the disestablishment of religion and protection for the free exercise of religion, which includes all religions and the right not to practice religion as well. If marriage is based on religion, it too, should be disestablished, thus protecting the free exercise of sexuality.

Sexual freedom also has parallels with religious freedom. That is, we aren't born any particular religion that we cannot change -- we choose what, if any, religion we will practice and the right to do so is protected by the Constitution. Likewise, gays and lesbians shouldn't have to justify why they're homosexual in order to enjoy the same freedom in regards to sexual practices. Whether or not homosexuality is a "choice", it should have no bearing on their rights.

The "Plight" of Rich People

Right wing talk show pundits are fond of wringing their hands about the "plight" of rich people having to pay higher taxes than less affluent people. They complain the loudest about tax money being spent on social programs that help the less fortunate, with health care reform being one of their pet peeves..

They rail againt not being able to "keep every dollar they make", viewing it as being no more than government sponsored "stealing" of their "hard earned dollars". They do this, conveniently ignoring the fact that even after paying taxes, they're still rich and still are living comfortable, privileged lives. The real issue is that it just grinds their gears that their tax dollars are going to actually (gasp!) help other people, whom they believe are all undeserving losers who lay around smoking pot all day.

I find it rather interesting, though, that they never complain about their tax money going to fund an increasingly expensive and unpopular war, for example, or other programs that do not assist underprivileged people. You didn't hear a word of complaint from them when the government spent more than $40 million for the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky investigations, to cite another example.

But taxes, like death, are inevitable and they're not going to go away, even if changes are eventually made in how they're collected. The government is going to get the money it needs to operate, regardless. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help less fortunate people; it's just a part of life when one lives in a civilized society -- part of what gives any given society the right to be called civilized. Given today's shaky economy, any one of us could one day (and sometimes suddenly) be one of the weaker members of society and need assistance.

Thoughts?

John McCain and Religious Fundamentalists

Religious Right fundamentalists are expected to go to the polls to vote for the McCain/Palin ticket in a few short weeks. Their support of John McCain is decidedly tepid; they are voting against Barack Obama more than they are voting for John McCain, if statements made by religious right leaders earlier this year are any indication.

In February, Focus on the Family's James Dobson said:

"I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country."

In a major flip-flop, Dobson made this statement a few days ago:

"It's probably obvious which of the two major candidates' views are most palatable to those of us who embrace a pro-life, pro-family worldview," Dobson said.

"While I will not endorse either candidate this year, (in fact, I've only endorsed one presidential nominee in my life) I can say that I am now supportive of Senator John McCain and his bid for the presidency."

Why the flip-flop, you might ask? It's very simple. McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate to appease Dobson and others of his ilk. She's one of them, a fundamentalist -- a "true believer".

And this brings me to the issue of John McCain's age and health. This is a reality that both Democrats and fundamentalist Republicans fully acknowledge and are concerned with. But the two groups approach this issue from different perspectives.

Both groups acknowledge that, if elected, there is a strong possibility that John McCain might be incapacitated or die because of bad health while in office, at which time Sarah Palin would become President of the United States.

The difference is that this is something that fundamentalists would secretly welcome, as it would elevate "one of their own" to the Presidency, removing the candidate they had to hold their noses to vote for. Democrats, on the other hand, would be praying for McCain's continued good health, should he be elected President, as he's a lot less scary and is more qualified to be President than his running mate.

Thoughts?

Bitchy Kitty

My female cat is twelve years old now. And the older she gets, the more crotchety she becomes.

She has a bad habit of perching on the narrow ledge of windows in the house; the place where the upper and lower windows meet. She's OK there, as long as she's awake and alert. However, she tends to fall asleep on that narrow ledge, contorted into a weird position. And no sooner than she fully relaxes and drifts off to sleep than she tends to fall from her perch, hitting the floor (or the kitchen counter if she's in that window) with a resounding thump.

You'd think she'd learn and find another place to sleep where she'd be more secure. But that is something you'd be wrong about. No matter how many times she falls out of the window, she goes right back to it, only to fall again a few minutes later. I've done all I can to persuade her to perch elsewhere, but she won't even consider it. If I move her somewhere else, she'll just run right back to the damned window.

The other day she fell out of the window and I suddenly heard her hissing and spitting. I looked to see if the tom was hassling her, but he wasn't even in the room. She's fallen from the kitchen window right into a half eaten borwl of soup I'd left on the counter and she was dripping wet. The bowl was a disposable cardboard bowl, so she'd not hurt herself with glass shards.

She was just royally pissed off at me for leaving the soup there and for getting all wet. When I approached her to make sure she wasn't hurt, she just gave me a look that could kill and hissed emphatically at me. If she could have spoke, she'd have told me to clean up the damned mess, already.

By this time, the tom came into the kitchen to see what the hell was wrong with her and she hissed at him, too, for good measure.

Have any of you ever had your cats to verbally complain at you in this manner before?

Political Double Standards

Since John McCain announced his choice of Sarah Palin as running mate, I've watched in both amazement and amusement as many Republicans have performed mental contortions in attempts to get on board with McCain's choice and support Palin. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.

For one thing, we all know that if Palin was a Democrat and Obama had chosen her for his running mate, the Republicans would have been gleefully eviscerating her, making short work of her Jack of All Trades; Master of None resume. Her lackadaisical approach to her education, followed by a resume that is the profile of a capricious dilettante, would have been roundly and rightly criticized. She's a dabbler, not a dedicated public servant.

For another, if Sarah Palin had been Samuel Palin, the same would have occurred, regardless of which party "he" belonged to. A man whose resume implied the bearer as having the attention span of a hummingbird wouldn't have made it as far as governor, let alone to Vice Presidential nominee.

Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and also John McCain all have one thing in common. Their entire careers have been devoted to public service of one sort or another, and have been appropriate preparation for the high office they seek. Sarah Palin's has not. The fact that she's a woman shouldn't mean voters should grade her on the curve; that would be the worst form of sexism -- they certainly didn't cut Hillary Clinton any breaks. And I'm appalled that Republicans who claim to love their country and their party are allowing their party to be dumbed down in this fashion.

Thoughts?

Useful Shit

San Antonio, Texas plans to be the first U.S. city to harvest methane gas from human waste on a commercial scale and turn it into clean-burning fuel. The main byproduct of human waste is methane gas, which will soon be converted into natural gas to burn in power plants.

The residents of San Antonion produce about 140,000 tons of shit (more euphemistically known as "biosolids") a year which will convert into enough natural gas to generate about 1.5 million cubic feet per day.

Methane gas, which is a byproduct of human and organic waste, is a principal component of the natural gas used to fuel furnaces, power plants, and other combustion-based generators.

It's just too bad we can't turn our shit into gasoline...