Quite some time ago, I wrote about reading some of the romance novels one lover had lying around. I criticized their predictability; that they always ended, without exception, in a monogamous marriage, no matter how unlikely a candidate for marriage the main male character seemed in the beginning.
Now, I'll elaborate a bit -- romance novels are most definitely not the only culprit here. In mystery/crime/thriller novels, you know from the very beginning that the good guys will always win in the end and that the main character will not die, no matter how dire their circumstances become during the course of the novel. This also holds true for movies in both genres.
You also know that if they do something really stupid while looking for clues to solve the mystery, they'll nearly always get caught and temporarily captured by the bad guys, though they'll be rescued in the end. And they WILL do something foolhardy, never choosing to take the safer paths. Said bad guys will usually take the time to gloat, to confess to the good guy what they've done bad so far and what mayhem they have planned for the good guy, in order to waste time so that the cavalry can come save the day just in the nick of time.
As romances are always told from the female point of view, mysteries/thrillers are always told from the good guys' point of view, in the same way that history is nearly always recounted by the winners.
Where's the "thrill" in thriller if you know how it's going to end before you even read the first page? Why must the good guys always win? Mystery/thriller fiction is supposed to be just that; fiction, a make-believe tale of "what if". There shouldn't always be a morality, "crime doesn't pay" lesson in fiction, as fiction is mainly about entertainment, not a prescription of what "should" be.
I'd like to see some fiction told from atypical points of view -- romance from a male perspective that doesn't always end in a monogamous marriage and mystery/thrillers told from the "bad guy's" point of view. Indeed, I'd like to see more novels where the dividing line between good guys and bad guys is blurred; where the characters on both sides of an issue are multifaceted and each have points of views and agendas that make sense to them.
What would you like to see different in the types of fiction you read that you currently see very little of? And if you know of any authors who write less predictable plots, feel free to list them in the comment box.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
All Roads Lead to Rome
"Religion is like a pair of shoes.....Find one that fits for you, but don't make me wear your shoes."
--George Carlin
--George Carlin
Christianity is unique among the world's major religions in that many of its denominations place a strong emphasis on evangelism. That is, actively trying to "sell" their religion to non-believers and those of other religions, attempting to get them to convert and believe likewise. The more conservative the denomination, the stronger the focus is on evangelism. It is particularly strong among Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, both of which are considered by some to be offshoot derivatives of Christianity and not part of mainstream Christendom.
Other major religions do not actively seek to gain converts, for the most part. Converts are accepted and welcomed, but it is always the convert who seeks out knowledge and initiates the process of conversion. The attitude is "We're here, this is what we believe, ask questions, then decide for yourself". However, you'll never see a Jew or a Buddhist, going from door to door aggressively trying to sell their religion to others. They are apparently content to allow others to determine their own religious paths, if any.
In the Bible Jesus said, "'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me."
In other words, Jesus is waiting for people to come to him; he doesn't say, "Behold, I come to the door and break it down and come in". One doesn't need to "sell" Christianity, Christ's words are there for anyone to study and should stand on their own merits -- that's the "knock" part. Whether or not to "open the door" (study and/or convert) should be initiated by the would-be convert.
For myself, the only religion I need is expressed in the Golden Rule; to treat others as we would wish to be treated. I find it highly relevant that this sentiment is expressed in nearly every religion and ethical system on the planet. So, I think it matters little which religious tradition one chooses to practice, if any, as the essential ethics are universal. All roads lead to Rome and all that, you know.
Thoughts?
Monday, October 15, 2007
Acceptance or Patronization?
Once again, I'm posting a blog entry inspired by something I heard on the radio. This time, a listener called in to dedicate a song to her brother, who had Down's Syndrome. The caller went on about what a dear brother he was, about how everyone loved him just the way he was. All well and good. But then she said that she'd "not have him any other way"; that his disability had taught all those around him valuable lessons about life.
This didn't sit quite right with me.
To say that she and the rest of the family loved him just the way he was was appropriate, proper, and commendable. But to say that you wouldn't have him be any other way is quite another thing entirely. The first statement accepts and loves him the way he is, but still regrets that he'll never have an independent life of his own. The second, however, is more than a little thoughtless and presumptuous, in my opinion.
For one thing, he doesn't exist for his family's benefit; to provide life lessons for them. To not want him to be any other way is not to fully respect his humanity -- would they care to trade their lives for his? I think not. Nor do any parents expecting a baby hope that the child is born mentally or physically challenged.
Every parent wants the best for their children, even when circumstances don't make it possible. Love him just the way he is and accept reality, yes, but still think of what might have been.
Thoughts?
This didn't sit quite right with me.
To say that she and the rest of the family loved him just the way he was was appropriate, proper, and commendable. But to say that you wouldn't have him be any other way is quite another thing entirely. The first statement accepts and loves him the way he is, but still regrets that he'll never have an independent life of his own. The second, however, is more than a little thoughtless and presumptuous, in my opinion.
For one thing, he doesn't exist for his family's benefit; to provide life lessons for them. To not want him to be any other way is not to fully respect his humanity -- would they care to trade their lives for his? I think not. Nor do any parents expecting a baby hope that the child is born mentally or physically challenged.
Every parent wants the best for their children, even when circumstances don't make it possible. Love him just the way he is and accept reality, yes, but still think of what might have been.
Thoughts?
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Extremes
While I can appreciate all the work that went into creating these bodies, the idea of having sex with one of these women just doesn't put the lead in my pencil. I'm afraid one of them would go into "'roid rage" and flatten me.
Despite the fact that I'm a confirmed boob man, this photo shows that there can definitely be too much of a good thing. I think if I squeezed this pair too hard, they'd explode.
And this one is just plain ridiculous. This is a photo from a fashion show, not from a Halloween store catalog, if you can believe it.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Sexist Assumptions
While listening to the radio in the car the other night, the deejay played a song for a man whose wife had left him with their two children and had willingly given up custody of them.
The radio host couldn't keep from injecting her two cents into the matter saying that she couldn't understand how any woman could give up custody of her own children and that a woman just had to be either mentally ill or on drugs to do so.
Oh, where to begin.
Let's start with the obvious sexism. Men walk away from their kids without a backward glance all the time and while many people will agree that this is an unfortunate situation and that the guy is a bastard, no one would ever assume that he was necessarily mentally ill or on drugs. Nor does anyone wring their hands at the thought of a father relinquishing custody of his children, be it willingly, reluctantly, or compelled by the courts to do so.
The implication is that men either can't or don't care about their offspring as much as a mother can or should.
Bullshit. Both women and men give up custody for a variety of reasons, some of them selfish and shitty, and in other situations, with it being better for the children's welfare. Every situation is different and what's best for the child isn't always, without exception, having the mother being granted custody.
Sometimes, it's better for the children if the mother has custody; but in other instances, the father would make a better custodial parent. For many families, joint custody is what's best. It's ludicrous to have a "one size fits all" custody model that is deemed right for everyone and it's unfair to automatically make negative assumptions about those who don't follow the the most common pattern.
One must look at each situation individually on a case by case basis, and not give in to the temptation to make sweeping, sexist, moralistic judgements like this radio host did.
I speak from experience. My ex ran off and left me alone with our son who was less than a year old at the time.
Was it a shitty thing for her to do? Hell, yes. Would my son been better off with her? I would have to say no.
But I can state without hesitation that she was neither mentally ill, nor on drugs. In fact, other than her internal plumbing, she was little different than many of the men who abandon their families each year.
My son turned out fine and I'm guessing that the children of the guy on the radio have a good chance of doing so as well.
Thoughts?
The radio host couldn't keep from injecting her two cents into the matter saying that she couldn't understand how any woman could give up custody of her own children and that a woman just had to be either mentally ill or on drugs to do so.
Oh, where to begin.
Let's start with the obvious sexism. Men walk away from their kids without a backward glance all the time and while many people will agree that this is an unfortunate situation and that the guy is a bastard, no one would ever assume that he was necessarily mentally ill or on drugs. Nor does anyone wring their hands at the thought of a father relinquishing custody of his children, be it willingly, reluctantly, or compelled by the courts to do so.
The implication is that men either can't or don't care about their offspring as much as a mother can or should.
Bullshit. Both women and men give up custody for a variety of reasons, some of them selfish and shitty, and in other situations, with it being better for the children's welfare. Every situation is different and what's best for the child isn't always, without exception, having the mother being granted custody.
Sometimes, it's better for the children if the mother has custody; but in other instances, the father would make a better custodial parent. For many families, joint custody is what's best. It's ludicrous to have a "one size fits all" custody model that is deemed right for everyone and it's unfair to automatically make negative assumptions about those who don't follow the the most common pattern.
One must look at each situation individually on a case by case basis, and not give in to the temptation to make sweeping, sexist, moralistic judgements like this radio host did.
I speak from experience. My ex ran off and left me alone with our son who was less than a year old at the time.
Was it a shitty thing for her to do? Hell, yes. Would my son been better off with her? I would have to say no.
But I can state without hesitation that she was neither mentally ill, nor on drugs. In fact, other than her internal plumbing, she was little different than many of the men who abandon their families each year.
My son turned out fine and I'm guessing that the children of the guy on the radio have a good chance of doing so as well.
Thoughts?
Friday, October 12, 2007
Censorship Hypocrisy
A few weeks ago, I was watching TV in a search for new shows to follow. One night, I tuned into "Bones", which I've seen a few more times since. This is a medical/crime show that features a forensic anthropologist who works with an FBI agent in identifying murder victims whose bodies are in sufficiently poor condition as to be hard to identify by ordinary means.
Unlike similar shows in years past, very little is left to the imagination. I've seen the show less than a handful of times, but I've seen several graphic and grisly scenes of death. In one episode, a woman is killed when the minivan she is driving explodes from a planted bomb. When the two main characters arrive at the crime scene, the viewer sees a close-up scene of blackened hands attached to charred, jagged forearm bones, still holding the wheel. There is another scene at the lab where the title character cuts the victim's blackened finger off, then holds it up, before immersing it in a solution that will make it possible to get a fingerprint from the finger. In another episode, there is a scene where a child discovers a decomposing body, complete with a closeup of worms and other insects crawling out of the mouth and empty eye-sockets of the victim. I have no problem with the realism, and this is a show I'll likely keep watching, and I might even read the books it's based on as well.
The show comes on at 8 pm on Tuesday nights in my viewing area and after seeing several grisly scenes like those mentioned above, I thought that a lot of kids must be watching this show, considering what time it comes on. And while teens and adults should have no problem with the graphic nature of some of the scenes, I knew that these scenes would likely inspire nightmares for pre-teen children watching.
And I wondered where were all the fundamentalist censorship advocates who are so keen on protecting the innocence of children? These people, who raised so much hell over the brief appearance of Janet Jackson's nipple at the 2004 Superbowl and anything more sexual than a peck on the cheek, are strangely silent when it comes to shows with explicitly grisly or violent scenes.
Do fundamentalist censorship advocates really think that the sight of a bare nipple, a naked breast, or a naked couple in bed where the covers aren't pulled up tight to the armpits will cause children psychological harm, but seeing graphic violence and grisly scenes of burned, mangled, and/or decomposing bodies of people who died violent deaths will not?
I think they've got it ass backwards. As I said above, it's quite likely that young children seeing the more grisly scenes on "Bones" and other similar shows and movies will have nightmares -- but I'm absolutely certain that no kid would ever have a nightmare after seeing a naked boob.
My beef isn't with shows like "Bones" or the networks, other than recommending that such shows be shown later in the evening when fewer young children will be up to view them.
Rather, my ire is directed at the hypocrisy of censorship advocates with their misguided focus on what is most inappropriate for children to watch.
Thoughts?
Unlike similar shows in years past, very little is left to the imagination. I've seen the show less than a handful of times, but I've seen several graphic and grisly scenes of death. In one episode, a woman is killed when the minivan she is driving explodes from a planted bomb. When the two main characters arrive at the crime scene, the viewer sees a close-up scene of blackened hands attached to charred, jagged forearm bones, still holding the wheel. There is another scene at the lab where the title character cuts the victim's blackened finger off, then holds it up, before immersing it in a solution that will make it possible to get a fingerprint from the finger. In another episode, there is a scene where a child discovers a decomposing body, complete with a closeup of worms and other insects crawling out of the mouth and empty eye-sockets of the victim. I have no problem with the realism, and this is a show I'll likely keep watching, and I might even read the books it's based on as well.
The show comes on at 8 pm on Tuesday nights in my viewing area and after seeing several grisly scenes like those mentioned above, I thought that a lot of kids must be watching this show, considering what time it comes on. And while teens and adults should have no problem with the graphic nature of some of the scenes, I knew that these scenes would likely inspire nightmares for pre-teen children watching.
And I wondered where were all the fundamentalist censorship advocates who are so keen on protecting the innocence of children? These people, who raised so much hell over the brief appearance of Janet Jackson's nipple at the 2004 Superbowl and anything more sexual than a peck on the cheek, are strangely silent when it comes to shows with explicitly grisly or violent scenes.
Do fundamentalist censorship advocates really think that the sight of a bare nipple, a naked breast, or a naked couple in bed where the covers aren't pulled up tight to the armpits will cause children psychological harm, but seeing graphic violence and grisly scenes of burned, mangled, and/or decomposing bodies of people who died violent deaths will not?
I think they've got it ass backwards. As I said above, it's quite likely that young children seeing the more grisly scenes on "Bones" and other similar shows and movies will have nightmares -- but I'm absolutely certain that no kid would ever have a nightmare after seeing a naked boob.
My beef isn't with shows like "Bones" or the networks, other than recommending that such shows be shown later in the evening when fewer young children will be up to view them.
Rather, my ire is directed at the hypocrisy of censorship advocates with their misguided focus on what is most inappropriate for children to watch.
Thoughts?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
When You Gotta Go...You Gotta Go!
The city council for a town in my area has shown some common sense, which is becoming increasingly rare these days. Members of this council have proposed a city ordinance that would make public urination a misdemeanor, instead of being classified as indecent exposure. If the measure passes, public pee-ers will be charged with something similar to public disorderly conduct, which is an umbrella charge covering offenses such as public drunkenness and other types of relatively minor, obnoxious public behavior.
Currently, under state law, anyone caught urinating in public is charged with indecent exposure, which is a sex crime. Once convicted of that crime, that person would be required to register as a sex offender. At least 13 states require registration for public urination; of those, two limit registration to those who committed the act in view of a minor.
In at least one state that considers public urination as indecent exposure, a single conviction means the offender's name, and possibly his or her photograph, will be placed on the state's registry of sex offenders. But under a new federal law passed in an overzealous effort to protect children from sex offenders, states are required to include anyone convicted of indecent exposure twice within three years in the registry.
As one might imagine, being listed on a sex offender registry ruins lives, sometimes permanently. Many lose their jobs, and, in a growing number of cities, offenders have to move away from schools, parks and day-care centers, either uprooting their families or living apart from them.
I think it's a pretty harsh penalty for taking a leak outside. How many of us haven't taken a leak in an alley on the way home from a night of drinking when in college? And who hasn't answered the call of nature -- or whose kids have done so -- shielded between two open car doors on the side of the road, when the need is urgent and the "Next Exit" is 67 miles down the road?
People, especially as they get older, can have medical conditions and take medications that result in a frequent need to go, accompanied by an decreasing ability to "hold it" for any extended length of time. In many areas, public facilities are few and far between and many businesses permit restroom use by customers only. Indeed, I remember my father one time slipping behind a fence at the back of a convenience store because he simply couldn't wait until he got home or to drive somewhere where they'd let him use the restroom.
To be sure, public urination can be offensive, especially if the person makes insufficient effort to shield what they're doing, but it's totally ludicrous to group such people with pedophiles and other true sex offenders on a registry.
Let's face it -- just because I use the same equipment to fuck with as pee with doesn't make public urination a sex offense. What's next -- will mothers nursing their babies on a bench at the mall be charged with indecent exposure and have to register, too, because their breasts serve a dual purpose?
The enactment and enforcement of laws pertaining to sex offenses has often taken on a tone of near-hysteria in recent years. Instead of narrowly defining sex offenses to include violent rapists and those who prey on young children, for example, the "sex offender" umbrella has gotten absurdly wider to include teens having consensual sex, public pee-ers, and the like.
I can only see the actions of this city council and similar ones in cities across the nation as a good sign, as a return to the common sense of having punishments that actually fit the crimes.
Thoughts?
Currently, under state law, anyone caught urinating in public is charged with indecent exposure, which is a sex crime. Once convicted of that crime, that person would be required to register as a sex offender. At least 13 states require registration for public urination; of those, two limit registration to those who committed the act in view of a minor.
In at least one state that considers public urination as indecent exposure, a single conviction means the offender's name, and possibly his or her photograph, will be placed on the state's registry of sex offenders. But under a new federal law passed in an overzealous effort to protect children from sex offenders, states are required to include anyone convicted of indecent exposure twice within three years in the registry.
As one might imagine, being listed on a sex offender registry ruins lives, sometimes permanently. Many lose their jobs, and, in a growing number of cities, offenders have to move away from schools, parks and day-care centers, either uprooting their families or living apart from them.
I think it's a pretty harsh penalty for taking a leak outside. How many of us haven't taken a leak in an alley on the way home from a night of drinking when in college? And who hasn't answered the call of nature -- or whose kids have done so -- shielded between two open car doors on the side of the road, when the need is urgent and the "Next Exit" is 67 miles down the road?
People, especially as they get older, can have medical conditions and take medications that result in a frequent need to go, accompanied by an decreasing ability to "hold it" for any extended length of time. In many areas, public facilities are few and far between and many businesses permit restroom use by customers only. Indeed, I remember my father one time slipping behind a fence at the back of a convenience store because he simply couldn't wait until he got home or to drive somewhere where they'd let him use the restroom.
To be sure, public urination can be offensive, especially if the person makes insufficient effort to shield what they're doing, but it's totally ludicrous to group such people with pedophiles and other true sex offenders on a registry.
Let's face it -- just because I use the same equipment to fuck with as pee with doesn't make public urination a sex offense. What's next -- will mothers nursing their babies on a bench at the mall be charged with indecent exposure and have to register, too, because their breasts serve a dual purpose?
The enactment and enforcement of laws pertaining to sex offenses has often taken on a tone of near-hysteria in recent years. Instead of narrowly defining sex offenses to include violent rapists and those who prey on young children, for example, the "sex offender" umbrella has gotten absurdly wider to include teens having consensual sex, public pee-ers, and the like.
I can only see the actions of this city council and similar ones in cities across the nation as a good sign, as a return to the common sense of having punishments that actually fit the crimes.
Thoughts?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Shake, Ramble, and Rant
I'm not feeling inspired to write about any topic in particular today, though I do feel inspired to write. So, this will be another rambling monologue about whatever crosses my mind as I compose this entry.
After about a week of near-fall temperatures that teased those of us living in my area into thinking we would have an on-time arrival of fall this year, summer has returned in full force. Yesterday, the temperatures reached a humid 90 degrees that necessitated the wearing of shorts. Though the leaves showed early signs of color change weeks ago, the level of color change has stalled, with most trees still remaining 90% dressed out in green leaves. The stores are showing Halloween and even Christmas decorations, yet the weather would seem to indicate Fourth of July sales, instead. I'm just hoping that summer will not obdurately remain until the middle of December as it did last year.
Though I live in the foothills of the Appalachians, the weather screams "Florida!" It makes me wondering what Florida's weather is now screaming -- "Amazon rainforest!", perhaps?
The temperatures are supposed to drop like a rock tonight, but I'll believe it when I see it.
_____________________________________________________
Alternet had another article yesterday that got me into rebuttal mode and I ended up leaving two novel-length comments over there. I'm guessing I'd be very happy if I were a columnist full-time for Alternet.
I would have made the comments the subject of today's entry, but the first comment was a rehash of my Domestic Partnership entry of a few days ago, and the second was a rehash of a post I did about a year ago, so I didn't want to do another rerun over here. For those interested in what I had to say anyway, click here to read the article and comments.
_____________________________________________________
Vegetarians, you might want to look away from the screen now. If you read on, don't say I didn't warn you.
I admit it; I grab a lot of meals on the run at fast food joints. Some places are decidedly better than others, but I usually end up visiting them all on a rotating basis eventually.
One change that I've noticed in most of the fast food chains -- and it's not for the better -- is that they've gradually increased the amount of mayonnaise used on a burger. Don't get me wrong; I like mayonnaise, but, for me, a little bit goes a long way. I just want a little taste of it -- I don't want the sandwich drowning in it.
The two biggest offenders in this regard are Burger King and Wendy's, and Hardee's is beginning to catch up. They put on so much mayonnaise that it drips out the bottom when you pick up the burger.
And what's worse is that all this mayo makes the bun soggy and slimy, and the bun rapidly disintegrates after you take the first squishy bite. Feel free to barf now.
The other day, my son came over to the house with the DVD "We Are Marshall" and a bag full of Burger King small burgers. I opened the first one and saw the mayonnaise miasma all over the top bun. The lettuce, onions, etc on the bun had been totally drowned in mayo and had decomposed into a limp, slimy mess. But I was hungry, so I scraped everything off the bun, then tried to eat it.
But I couldn't. For one thing, the bun was still soggy, and the cheap, greasy mayo they'd used had contaminated the taste of the meat. I just put it aside, disgusted.
Let's just put it this way -- I've had prepackaged cardboard burgers out of vending machines that were more appetizing than this mess.
I know McDonald's gets a bad rap, but the one saving grace of their Quarter Pounder is that NO MAYO is used on them. For the rest of the fast food joints, I make sure to specify "no mayo" whenever I order from them. Saves my stomach and saves them money.
After about a week of near-fall temperatures that teased those of us living in my area into thinking we would have an on-time arrival of fall this year, summer has returned in full force. Yesterday, the temperatures reached a humid 90 degrees that necessitated the wearing of shorts. Though the leaves showed early signs of color change weeks ago, the level of color change has stalled, with most trees still remaining 90% dressed out in green leaves. The stores are showing Halloween and even Christmas decorations, yet the weather would seem to indicate Fourth of July sales, instead. I'm just hoping that summer will not obdurately remain until the middle of December as it did last year.
Though I live in the foothills of the Appalachians, the weather screams "Florida!" It makes me wondering what Florida's weather is now screaming -- "Amazon rainforest!", perhaps?
The temperatures are supposed to drop like a rock tonight, but I'll believe it when I see it.
_____________________________________________________
Alternet had another article yesterday that got me into rebuttal mode and I ended up leaving two novel-length comments over there. I'm guessing I'd be very happy if I were a columnist full-time for Alternet.
I would have made the comments the subject of today's entry, but the first comment was a rehash of my Domestic Partnership entry of a few days ago, and the second was a rehash of a post I did about a year ago, so I didn't want to do another rerun over here. For those interested in what I had to say anyway, click here to read the article and comments.
_____________________________________________________
Vegetarians, you might want to look away from the screen now. If you read on, don't say I didn't warn you.
I admit it; I grab a lot of meals on the run at fast food joints. Some places are decidedly better than others, but I usually end up visiting them all on a rotating basis eventually.
One change that I've noticed in most of the fast food chains -- and it's not for the better -- is that they've gradually increased the amount of mayonnaise used on a burger. Don't get me wrong; I like mayonnaise, but, for me, a little bit goes a long way. I just want a little taste of it -- I don't want the sandwich drowning in it.
The two biggest offenders in this regard are Burger King and Wendy's, and Hardee's is beginning to catch up. They put on so much mayonnaise that it drips out the bottom when you pick up the burger.
And what's worse is that all this mayo makes the bun soggy and slimy, and the bun rapidly disintegrates after you take the first squishy bite. Feel free to barf now.
The other day, my son came over to the house with the DVD "We Are Marshall" and a bag full of Burger King small burgers. I opened the first one and saw the mayonnaise miasma all over the top bun. The lettuce, onions, etc on the bun had been totally drowned in mayo and had decomposed into a limp, slimy mess. But I was hungry, so I scraped everything off the bun, then tried to eat it.
But I couldn't. For one thing, the bun was still soggy, and the cheap, greasy mayo they'd used had contaminated the taste of the meat. I just put it aside, disgusted.
Let's just put it this way -- I've had prepackaged cardboard burgers out of vending machines that were more appetizing than this mess.
I know McDonald's gets a bad rap, but the one saving grace of their Quarter Pounder is that NO MAYO is used on them. For the rest of the fast food joints, I make sure to specify "no mayo" whenever I order from them. Saves my stomach and saves them money.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Listening in Silence
Many people cannot abide silence, for whatever reason. They cannot drive their cars without the radio or some other noise...err...music device operating at all times. Similarly, there are those who have the TV on all the time, even if they are not sitting down actively watching it.
I've found that the older I get, the more I can tolerate silence and even appreciate it at times. Like most teenagers, I used to listen to music nearly all the time, the louder, the better, and I'd do my homework by it. I still like cranking up the music from time to time, but I find myself listening to talk radio more and more, and sometimes, even driving down the road in silence, alone with my thoughts. If I have a passenger in the car, I usually turn the radio off, as I usually prefer to engage in conversation.
But I've never been one who had to have a TV going all the time. I only turn the TV on if I'm going to sit down and actually watch. Otherwise, it stays off, saving me some electricity. I'm baffled by those who don't turn off the TV when they have guests, especially when the purpose of the visit isn't to watch TV together.
Sometimes, I will sit still, close my eyes, and empty my mind of busy thought, and be conscious of the silence. But it's not really silence, as in the total absence of sound, but rather, it's the small daily-life sounds no one notices in the usual cacophony of their typical days. It's the hum of a refrigerator, the whirring of a fan, the whoosh of cars passing in the street, the chirping of birds and crickets, the moan of a train's horn, the roar of a lawn mower, and so on.
I've found that engaging in this periodically will many times inspire me to write, and will even sometimes bring on a feeling of contentment that I can't quite explain.
Thoughts?
I've found that the older I get, the more I can tolerate silence and even appreciate it at times. Like most teenagers, I used to listen to music nearly all the time, the louder, the better, and I'd do my homework by it. I still like cranking up the music from time to time, but I find myself listening to talk radio more and more, and sometimes, even driving down the road in silence, alone with my thoughts. If I have a passenger in the car, I usually turn the radio off, as I usually prefer to engage in conversation.
But I've never been one who had to have a TV going all the time. I only turn the TV on if I'm going to sit down and actually watch. Otherwise, it stays off, saving me some electricity. I'm baffled by those who don't turn off the TV when they have guests, especially when the purpose of the visit isn't to watch TV together.
Sometimes, I will sit still, close my eyes, and empty my mind of busy thought, and be conscious of the silence. But it's not really silence, as in the total absence of sound, but rather, it's the small daily-life sounds no one notices in the usual cacophony of their typical days. It's the hum of a refrigerator, the whirring of a fan, the whoosh of cars passing in the street, the chirping of birds and crickets, the moan of a train's horn, the roar of a lawn mower, and so on.
I've found that engaging in this periodically will many times inspire me to write, and will even sometimes bring on a feeling of contentment that I can't quite explain.
Thoughts?
Monday, October 8, 2007
Good Riddance
James Dobson, head of the ultraconservative religious/political group, Focus on the Family, recently announced that if Rudy Guiliani won the Republican nomination for the 2008 presidential election, that he would sit out the election entirely, and would urge his followers (sheep) to do likewise. Dobson based his disapproval of Guiliani on the fact that the former New York mayor is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, is not overtly devout, and is twice-divorced, thrice married.
Likewise, Dobson has publicly stated that he could not support Fred Thompson or John McCain. About Thompson, he said, "Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S.?" Dobson also questions whether that Thompson is actually a Christian (as he defines it, of course), as Thompson is not known to be a regular church-goer. McCain ended up on Dobson's shit list because of the Arizona senator's opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Dobson and other extreme social conservatives have talked of encouraging Republican voters to either sit out the election entirely or to promote a third party candidate. I say, fine, go ahead and do it. Either road they take will mean a guaranteed win for the Democrats, if the fundamentalist rank and file heed Dobson's advice in large numbers.
It would also be good news for the Republican party, if the fundamentalists picked up their toys and went home, even if it means a loss for them in the 2008 election. Dobson and the other social conservatives have become increasingly out of step with what issues mean the most to Americans these days. While he and his ilk are obsessed with regulating the sex lives of Americans, the majority of American voters, Republican and Democrat, want a president who will address our health care system, the growing threat of Islamic terrorism, the economy/job market, immigration reform, the war in Iraq, global warming, the deficit, taxes, and so on.
The declining influence of the fundamentalists in the Republican party is obvious, considering the candidates for the Republican nomination, most of whom who are seemingly no longer are willing to adhere to the fundamentalist version of political correctness. Guiliani has taken a dismissive attitude to the concerns of Dobson and other fundamentalists:
"I'm working on one party right now — the Republican Party," Giuliani said. "I believe we are reaching out very, very well to Republicans. The emphasis is on fiscal conservatism, which brings Republicans together."
In the same vein, Thompson said, "I don't particularly care to have a conversation with him[Dobson]. If he wants to call up and apologize, that's ok with me. But I'm not going to dance to anybody's tune."
This is in sharp contrast to the 1980 election, where both Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr., both formerly pro-choice, flip flopped on this issue to appease the fundies, as they apparently felt they could not be elected otherwise. I find it an increasingly good sign that Guiliani and Thompson have not felt the need to do likewise.
Since 1980, the religious right has had an unhealthy stranglehold on the Republican party, bringing it closer and closer to the tinfoil hat brigade. It's time to bring the Republican party back to the sensible center; to be once again the party of Eisenhower, of Ford, and of Lincoln.
Why should I, a Democrat, care about the health of the Republican party? It's simple -- I believe America needs both parties, each to provide a different approach, and to provide balance in politics. We also need those in both parties to be able to work together, and actually get things done, instead of engaging in increasingly polarized politics.
Thoughts?
Likewise, Dobson has publicly stated that he could not support Fred Thompson or John McCain. About Thompson, he said, "Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S.?" Dobson also questions whether that Thompson is actually a Christian (as he defines it, of course), as Thompson is not known to be a regular church-goer. McCain ended up on Dobson's shit list because of the Arizona senator's opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Dobson and other extreme social conservatives have talked of encouraging Republican voters to either sit out the election entirely or to promote a third party candidate. I say, fine, go ahead and do it. Either road they take will mean a guaranteed win for the Democrats, if the fundamentalist rank and file heed Dobson's advice in large numbers.
It would also be good news for the Republican party, if the fundamentalists picked up their toys and went home, even if it means a loss for them in the 2008 election. Dobson and the other social conservatives have become increasingly out of step with what issues mean the most to Americans these days. While he and his ilk are obsessed with regulating the sex lives of Americans, the majority of American voters, Republican and Democrat, want a president who will address our health care system, the growing threat of Islamic terrorism, the economy/job market, immigration reform, the war in Iraq, global warming, the deficit, taxes, and so on.
The declining influence of the fundamentalists in the Republican party is obvious, considering the candidates for the Republican nomination, most of whom who are seemingly no longer are willing to adhere to the fundamentalist version of political correctness. Guiliani has taken a dismissive attitude to the concerns of Dobson and other fundamentalists:
"I'm working on one party right now — the Republican Party," Giuliani said. "I believe we are reaching out very, very well to Republicans. The emphasis is on fiscal conservatism, which brings Republicans together."
In the same vein, Thompson said, "I don't particularly care to have a conversation with him[Dobson]. If he wants to call up and apologize, that's ok with me. But I'm not going to dance to anybody's tune."
This is in sharp contrast to the 1980 election, where both Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr., both formerly pro-choice, flip flopped on this issue to appease the fundies, as they apparently felt they could not be elected otherwise. I find it an increasingly good sign that Guiliani and Thompson have not felt the need to do likewise.
Since 1980, the religious right has had an unhealthy stranglehold on the Republican party, bringing it closer and closer to the tinfoil hat brigade. It's time to bring the Republican party back to the sensible center; to be once again the party of Eisenhower, of Ford, and of Lincoln.
Why should I, a Democrat, care about the health of the Republican party? It's simple -- I believe America needs both parties, each to provide a different approach, and to provide balance in politics. We also need those in both parties to be able to work together, and actually get things done, instead of engaging in increasingly polarized politics.
Thoughts?
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Musical Urban Legend
While listening to the radio the other night, "Fortunate Son" by Creedence Clearwater Revival came on:
As I listened to this familiar tune from the late 60s, which implies a young man who evaded service in Vietnam because of his father's influence, I was reminded of a persistent Urban Legend associated with this song. Since Al Gore's rise to national prominence, the rumor going around has been that Gore, a Senator's son at the time this song was written, was the inspiration for songwriter John Fogerty to write this song. I can't say for sure, but I'd guess that the rumor was started by Republicans.
Indeed, George W. Bush was also a Senator's son at the time this song was released and the words fit him just as well, if not better.
In reality, however, neither man inspired Fogerty to write the song. The true inspiration was David Eisenhower, a President's grandson who ended up marrying one of Richard Nixon's daughters and who served three years in the Navy during the Vietnam years, yet never saw any action.
Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays hail to the chief,
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senators son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,
Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaires son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, lord,
And when you ask them, how much should we give?
Ooh, they only answer more! more! more! yo,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, one.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays hail to the chief,
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senators son, son.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no,
Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no millionaires son, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me; I ain't no fortunate one, no.
Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, lord,
And when you ask them, how much should we give?
Ooh, they only answer more! more! more! yo,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no military son, son.
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, one.
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no fortunate son, no no no,
As I listened to this familiar tune from the late 60s, which implies a young man who evaded service in Vietnam because of his father's influence, I was reminded of a persistent Urban Legend associated with this song. Since Al Gore's rise to national prominence, the rumor going around has been that Gore, a Senator's son at the time this song was written, was the inspiration for songwriter John Fogerty to write this song. I can't say for sure, but I'd guess that the rumor was started by Republicans.
Indeed, George W. Bush was also a Senator's son at the time this song was released and the words fit him just as well, if not better.
In reality, however, neither man inspired Fogerty to write the song. The true inspiration was David Eisenhower, a President's grandson who ended up marrying one of Richard Nixon's daughters and who served three years in the Navy during the Vietnam years, yet never saw any action.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Domestic Partnerships -- Update
Yesterday's entry inspired several comments on my EFXblog, some of which indicated that I need to clarify some points. Responding as simply another comment was turning into a novel, hence this follow-up entry.
Mothman said:
...the point of marital benefits is to support the formation, and stability, of family (whatever that family makeup is) ... and the family is the cornerstone of society, in my opinion.
The point is that not all those benefits restricted to marriage have to do with marriage, per se, but rather to the practical considerations of sharing a household. And I don't believe in THE family -- one type of family being "proper" one -- but rather in FAMILIES, that come in all sorts of configurations. Surely, single parent siblings sharing a home, grandparents raising grandchildren, and so on, are every bit of a family worth supporting as a married couple is.
Except that I'm not religious, in the least, so where does that leave me?
If I were to have married my wife in a religious ceremony, I would be a hypocrite.
So who would you have carry out the union between my wife and I, if not the gov't?
The private part of a marriage, doesn't have to be a religious ceremony -- or any ceremony at all, if those involved so choose. If you want a public recognition of what you and your wife have already decided together privately, then any sort of ceremony that is meaningful to you would do; it need not involve religion.
Who would carry out the union between your wife and you? You've already done so yourselves once you decided to make that commitment. Your commitment existed from the moment you decided that it did and you don't have to have the government to tell you what you've already decided in your hearts.
You can't just leave it up to the individual to decide amongst themselves where the rules/benefits apply, and where they don't.
The rules and benefits part isn't the marriage -- it's the domestic partnership. The marriage is the commitment that you and your wife have decided among yourselves. One is about practical realities that apply to several different living situations, the other is about a romantic commitment. They are two separate things than can, but don't always have to, go together.
That would be anarchy, and the system would be bloated with people running scams.
Scams are not entirely unknown with marriage as it currently exists. A prime example is foreigners entering into sham marriages with American citizens with the sole purpose of getting green cards so they can remain in this country. Anything that involves government bureaucracy is going to be prone of scams of one sort or another.
I suppose maybe what you're saying is to not call what my wife and I did a "marriage" ? But that's just semantics, isn't it.
No, you missed my point completely. What I propose is to separate out the legal benefits that are relevant to matters pertaining to maintaining a household that are currently reserved for married couples only and extend them to those in other sorts of familial relationships that could benefit from such rights and to put them under the umbrella of domestic partnerships. The emotional commitment part of marriage would be something else entirely that would exist alongside your domestic partnership, but it would be a personal, private matter, not a legal one. The DP wouldn't replace your marriage; it would only exist beside it.
And not to beat a dead horse, but I still stand by my opinion that my legal marriage had/has nothing to with sex.... especially so as it was a civil marriage, and not a religious one....The fact is, my marriage was not based upon a sexual relationship between my wife and I. Your concern is with the gov't's role in marriage, and I say that the gov't is not concerned with the sexual relations between the two partners involved.
What I mean by marriage being "based on a sexual relationship" is not that you (or anyone else) gets married primarily to have a sexual partner. I'm sure that you got married mainly because you loved one another and wanted to spend the rest of your lives together. My point was that the practical household-related benefits are only available in marriage, where a sexual relationship exists or the possibility of one is there.
Obviously, for those in other types of familial relationships who could benefit from some of these practical benefits, there is not a sexual relationship or the potential for one. They are denied the domestic benefits that come with marriage because their relationship cannot be marriage because, marriage, by definition, includes a sexual relationship or the potential for one. In parts of California that offer domestic partnerships, these are available to homosexual couples and heterosexuals in marriage-clone relationships -- again, they are limited to those in relationships that presumably include sex. The point is simply that domestic household benefits should not be limited to marriage or marriage-clone relationships.
Laurie said:
I knew I was going to want to have kids and I wanted them to know their dad and I loved each other enough to sign that piece of paper.
And they could not know their dad without it? I don't get it. You and he made the commitment together and that would include being involved parents whether or not you got that piece of paper. Indeed, if you've been together that long and raised a family together, you would have been just as married de facto, whether or not you'd ever informed the government of the commitment you'd already made. And I'm guessing that it's not the piece of paper that's been keeping him by your side all these years.
Lisa said:
I too was married by the court and not in a church so if there was no government involved in marriage were would I go to get married? I didn't believe God needed to be a part of my marriage, it was just between me and my husband.
Your last phrase said it all -- it was just between you and your husband. The real marriage occurred the moment you decided to spend your lives together. You married each other -- you didn't need the government to approve of something you already felt in your hearts.
Jeremy said:
Something else that occurred to me is that a marriage is basically a 'promise' between two people who would otherwise be unobligated toward each other.
If you made the promise to one another -- do you really need the government to enforce it? I would say your obligation would exist because you committed to that. It would just be a personal obligation and not a legal one.
Aiel said:
However...other than a cohabiting couple, what reason would you have as siblings or family members who live together to have a marriage-like contract?
See Kinnigurl's comment -- she illustrated it much better than I could.
Eclectablog said:
But I tell you this: to suggest that marriage is something to be looked down on or to be disparaged crosses a big line with me. The intensity of emotions that surround my love and passion and commitment to my wife is profound and it the marriage ceremony was a public statement of that, one which I am entirely glad I took.
Whoa, hold on. To say that other kinds of relationships are as deserving of recognition and rights and marriage is not to look down on marriage. It may be a leveling, a removal of marriage from a lofty pedestal, but it doesn't look down on marriage, per se.
The intensity of your emotions and commitment to your wife is an intensely personal and private thing. A public marriage ceremony is statement to your friends and family that should be equally personal that I think is not enhanced by governmental bureaucracy in "one size fits all" marriage laws. You and she were married the moment you decided to make that commitment, and your ceremony was a public announcement of that fact. None of which required governmental regulations. You married each other -- the government didn't marry you.
In other words, I respect people's private decisions, even it it's not for me -- it's the government that I take a dim view of.
I just think the way you portray marriage neglects to recognize the intensity of bond that leads to it when it's Right.
No -- I think it's the government regulations that neglects to recognize the intensity of the many individual bonds with its one size fits all approach. Law is an impersonal and sometimes a dehumanizing business that I think has no business meddling in such intensely personal bonds.
Kinnigurl said:
My daughter and I live in a domestic relationship, which is a perfect example of what you are trying to get at. There is no sexual relationship obviously, but we are what I would consider a legal unit or household. We share all expenses and all assets and debts are split according to our percentage of the household income. However, we do not have any of the other benefits that a married couple have such as medical, dental,etc. We cannot file our taxes together and unless we have POA we have no legal rights with regards to banking etc., even though we have joint accounts. A domestic partnership would be beneficial to people that are in the same kind of situation as ours.
Kinnigurl -- thank you. You got exactly what I was driving at.
Mothman said:
...the point of marital benefits is to support the formation, and stability, of family (whatever that family makeup is) ... and the family is the cornerstone of society, in my opinion.
The point is that not all those benefits restricted to marriage have to do with marriage, per se, but rather to the practical considerations of sharing a household. And I don't believe in THE family -- one type of family being "proper" one -- but rather in FAMILIES, that come in all sorts of configurations. Surely, single parent siblings sharing a home, grandparents raising grandchildren, and so on, are every bit of a family worth supporting as a married couple is.
Except that I'm not religious, in the least, so where does that leave me?
If I were to have married my wife in a religious ceremony, I would be a hypocrite.
So who would you have carry out the union between my wife and I, if not the gov't?
The private part of a marriage, doesn't have to be a religious ceremony -- or any ceremony at all, if those involved so choose. If you want a public recognition of what you and your wife have already decided together privately, then any sort of ceremony that is meaningful to you would do; it need not involve religion.
Who would carry out the union between your wife and you? You've already done so yourselves once you decided to make that commitment. Your commitment existed from the moment you decided that it did and you don't have to have the government to tell you what you've already decided in your hearts.
You can't just leave it up to the individual to decide amongst themselves where the rules/benefits apply, and where they don't.
The rules and benefits part isn't the marriage -- it's the domestic partnership. The marriage is the commitment that you and your wife have decided among yourselves. One is about practical realities that apply to several different living situations, the other is about a romantic commitment. They are two separate things than can, but don't always have to, go together.
That would be anarchy, and the system would be bloated with people running scams.
Scams are not entirely unknown with marriage as it currently exists. A prime example is foreigners entering into sham marriages with American citizens with the sole purpose of getting green cards so they can remain in this country. Anything that involves government bureaucracy is going to be prone of scams of one sort or another.
I suppose maybe what you're saying is to not call what my wife and I did a "marriage" ? But that's just semantics, isn't it.
No, you missed my point completely. What I propose is to separate out the legal benefits that are relevant to matters pertaining to maintaining a household that are currently reserved for married couples only and extend them to those in other sorts of familial relationships that could benefit from such rights and to put them under the umbrella of domestic partnerships. The emotional commitment part of marriage would be something else entirely that would exist alongside your domestic partnership, but it would be a personal, private matter, not a legal one. The DP wouldn't replace your marriage; it would only exist beside it.
And not to beat a dead horse, but I still stand by my opinion that my legal marriage had/has nothing to with sex.... especially so as it was a civil marriage, and not a religious one....The fact is, my marriage was not based upon a sexual relationship between my wife and I. Your concern is with the gov't's role in marriage, and I say that the gov't is not concerned with the sexual relations between the two partners involved.
What I mean by marriage being "based on a sexual relationship" is not that you (or anyone else) gets married primarily to have a sexual partner. I'm sure that you got married mainly because you loved one another and wanted to spend the rest of your lives together. My point was that the practical household-related benefits are only available in marriage, where a sexual relationship exists or the possibility of one is there.
Obviously, for those in other types of familial relationships who could benefit from some of these practical benefits, there is not a sexual relationship or the potential for one. They are denied the domestic benefits that come with marriage because their relationship cannot be marriage because, marriage, by definition, includes a sexual relationship or the potential for one. In parts of California that offer domestic partnerships, these are available to homosexual couples and heterosexuals in marriage-clone relationships -- again, they are limited to those in relationships that presumably include sex. The point is simply that domestic household benefits should not be limited to marriage or marriage-clone relationships.
Laurie said:
I knew I was going to want to have kids and I wanted them to know their dad and I loved each other enough to sign that piece of paper.
And they could not know their dad without it? I don't get it. You and he made the commitment together and that would include being involved parents whether or not you got that piece of paper. Indeed, if you've been together that long and raised a family together, you would have been just as married de facto, whether or not you'd ever informed the government of the commitment you'd already made. And I'm guessing that it's not the piece of paper that's been keeping him by your side all these years.
Lisa said:
I too was married by the court and not in a church so if there was no government involved in marriage were would I go to get married? I didn't believe God needed to be a part of my marriage, it was just between me and my husband.
Your last phrase said it all -- it was just between you and your husband. The real marriage occurred the moment you decided to spend your lives together. You married each other -- you didn't need the government to approve of something you already felt in your hearts.
Jeremy said:
Something else that occurred to me is that a marriage is basically a 'promise' between two people who would otherwise be unobligated toward each other.
If you made the promise to one another -- do you really need the government to enforce it? I would say your obligation would exist because you committed to that. It would just be a personal obligation and not a legal one.
Aiel said:
However...other than a cohabiting couple, what reason would you have as siblings or family members who live together to have a marriage-like contract?
See Kinnigurl's comment -- she illustrated it much better than I could.
Eclectablog said:
But I tell you this: to suggest that marriage is something to be looked down on or to be disparaged crosses a big line with me. The intensity of emotions that surround my love and passion and commitment to my wife is profound and it the marriage ceremony was a public statement of that, one which I am entirely glad I took.
Whoa, hold on. To say that other kinds of relationships are as deserving of recognition and rights and marriage is not to look down on marriage. It may be a leveling, a removal of marriage from a lofty pedestal, but it doesn't look down on marriage, per se.
The intensity of your emotions and commitment to your wife is an intensely personal and private thing. A public marriage ceremony is statement to your friends and family that should be equally personal that I think is not enhanced by governmental bureaucracy in "one size fits all" marriage laws. You and she were married the moment you decided to make that commitment, and your ceremony was a public announcement of that fact. None of which required governmental regulations. You married each other -- the government didn't marry you.
In other words, I respect people's private decisions, even it it's not for me -- it's the government that I take a dim view of.
I just think the way you portray marriage neglects to recognize the intensity of bond that leads to it when it's Right.
No -- I think it's the government regulations that neglects to recognize the intensity of the many individual bonds with its one size fits all approach. Law is an impersonal and sometimes a dehumanizing business that I think has no business meddling in such intensely personal bonds.
Kinnigurl said:
My daughter and I live in a domestic relationship, which is a perfect example of what you are trying to get at. There is no sexual relationship obviously, but we are what I would consider a legal unit or household. We share all expenses and all assets and debts are split according to our percentage of the household income. However, we do not have any of the other benefits that a married couple have such as medical, dental,etc. We cannot file our taxes together and unless we have POA we have no legal rights with regards to banking etc., even though we have joint accounts. A domestic partnership would be beneficial to people that are in the same kind of situation as ours.
Kinnigurl -- thank you. You got exactly what I was driving at.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Domestic Partnerships
Some people believe that legal marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples, with civil unions being reserved for homosexuals. Others believe that all legally recognized unions should be for heterosexuals only. And many people believe that marriage is for both straights and gays.
And there are those who acknowledge the dual nature of marriage, civil and religious. They believe that the government should only be involved in the civil part and should be available to both hetero and homosexuals. A civil union would have no religious significance and a marriage would have no legal standing. Most couples would have both a legal union and a marriage, but both could exist without the other.
Anyone who has been reading this blog for any length of time knows that I take a dim view of legal marriage. The main reason is because I believe that it's not the government's place to define, legislate, or promote what a "legitimate" personal relationship is and what it is not between consenting adults.
Many people have agreed with me in principle, but point out that legal marriage bestows many legal rights and benefits currently unavailable to those in non-legal relationships of various forms, so they enter into legal marriages, for lack of a better alternative. Such rights are those that mainly involve practical benefits for those sharing a household in a longterm relationship, such as filing joint taxes, eligibility to be carried on the other's health insurance, and so on..
I understand this concern, which is a valid one.
What I can't understand is why such rights and benefits must be based on a sexual relationship, rather than being based on the practical logistics of sharing a household on a longterm basis, regardless of the nature of the personal relationship.
Instead of marriage or civil union, both predicated on a sexual relationship, the government could legalize domestic partnerships that would focus solely on the practical rights and benefits now limited to legal marriage that are related to sharing a household. Any sexual relationships that might exist, would be entirely irrelevant to the terms of the Domestic Partnership.
In addition to those in long term sexually-based partnerships, gay and straight, Domestic Partnerships could include adult siblings sharing a household, an adult child and elderly parent(s)sharing a home, two platonic friends living together, and so on. Just as with marriage, such relationships could be legally dissolved if those involved ceased sharing a household.
For those who object to this idea because of the concerns of any children born into a relationship, I would say that family law would be based on how a child relates to each of their parents, not on how the parents relate to each other. Indeed, domestic partnerships might provide stronger legal relationships between a child and other key family members -- a grandparent or an aunt/uncle could put a child in their household on their medical insurance, for example.
Marriage would still exist as a private, optional relationship of a religious or spiritual nature, but the government would play no part in it. Domestic partnerships and marriage would be two entirely different entities that might or might not co-exist in the same relationship. One would be a legal relationship; the other would be a strictly personal one.
Thoughts?
And there are those who acknowledge the dual nature of marriage, civil and religious. They believe that the government should only be involved in the civil part and should be available to both hetero and homosexuals. A civil union would have no religious significance and a marriage would have no legal standing. Most couples would have both a legal union and a marriage, but both could exist without the other.
Anyone who has been reading this blog for any length of time knows that I take a dim view of legal marriage. The main reason is because I believe that it's not the government's place to define, legislate, or promote what a "legitimate" personal relationship is and what it is not between consenting adults.
Many people have agreed with me in principle, but point out that legal marriage bestows many legal rights and benefits currently unavailable to those in non-legal relationships of various forms, so they enter into legal marriages, for lack of a better alternative. Such rights are those that mainly involve practical benefits for those sharing a household in a longterm relationship, such as filing joint taxes, eligibility to be carried on the other's health insurance, and so on..
I understand this concern, which is a valid one.
What I can't understand is why such rights and benefits must be based on a sexual relationship, rather than being based on the practical logistics of sharing a household on a longterm basis, regardless of the nature of the personal relationship.
Instead of marriage or civil union, both predicated on a sexual relationship, the government could legalize domestic partnerships that would focus solely on the practical rights and benefits now limited to legal marriage that are related to sharing a household. Any sexual relationships that might exist, would be entirely irrelevant to the terms of the Domestic Partnership.
In addition to those in long term sexually-based partnerships, gay and straight, Domestic Partnerships could include adult siblings sharing a household, an adult child and elderly parent(s)sharing a home, two platonic friends living together, and so on. Just as with marriage, such relationships could be legally dissolved if those involved ceased sharing a household.
For those who object to this idea because of the concerns of any children born into a relationship, I would say that family law would be based on how a child relates to each of their parents, not on how the parents relate to each other. Indeed, domestic partnerships might provide stronger legal relationships between a child and other key family members -- a grandparent or an aunt/uncle could put a child in their household on their medical insurance, for example.
Marriage would still exist as a private, optional relationship of a religious or spiritual nature, but the government would play no part in it. Domestic partnerships and marriage would be two entirely different entities that might or might not co-exist in the same relationship. One would be a legal relationship; the other would be a strictly personal one.
Thoughts?
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
A Different Perspective
This photo of Earth rising over the lunar surface was taken during Christmas 1968 by the Apollo 8 crew as they orbited the moon.
People viewing this photo then, as now, got a better idea of how small and fragile our planet really is and a different perspective on Earth's place in the universe.
I was ten years old when this photo was taken and I remember saying to my friends, "I'm in that picture!" and they'd reply, "So am I!"
To date, this remains the furthest photo ever taken of the Earth. May it not remain so much longer.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Liberal or Progressive?
I've noticed that some liberals have taken to calling themselves "progressives" rather than liberals.
I'm sure there are many reasons for this, but one is the incessant conservative demonization of this word, particularly on talk radio and in books. They constantly use the word "liberal" as an epithet; as a shorthand buzzword for everything that is wrong with this country. They've largely succeeded in obscuring the true meaning of the word liberal and turned it into a dirty word among many mainstream Americans.
It's Josef Goebbels' "Big Lie" propaganda technique in action -- repeat a lie often enough and loudly enough and, eventually, people will begin to believe it.
Some liberals have thrown up their hands in defeat and having started calling themselves "progressives", rather than liberal.
Not me. I'm not going to let conservatives define the terms of political discourse for me. I'm a liberal and I'm damn proud of it. I wear the label, "liberal", without apology or excuse.
Just what does "liberal" mean, anyway? Let's go to the dictionary:
Liberal
–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a free man.
–noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
There's nothing in that definition that should prompt anyone to believe they need to hide such beliefs under a euphemism.
I'll start using "progressive", instead of liberal, when conservatives start calling themselves "regressives".
Thoughts?
I'm sure there are many reasons for this, but one is the incessant conservative demonization of this word, particularly on talk radio and in books. They constantly use the word "liberal" as an epithet; as a shorthand buzzword for everything that is wrong with this country. They've largely succeeded in obscuring the true meaning of the word liberal and turned it into a dirty word among many mainstream Americans.
It's Josef Goebbels' "Big Lie" propaganda technique in action -- repeat a lie often enough and loudly enough and, eventually, people will begin to believe it.
Some liberals have thrown up their hands in defeat and having started calling themselves "progressives", rather than liberal.
Not me. I'm not going to let conservatives define the terms of political discourse for me. I'm a liberal and I'm damn proud of it. I wear the label, "liberal", without apology or excuse.
Just what does "liberal" mean, anyway? Let's go to the dictionary:
Liberal
–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a free man.
–noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
There's nothing in that definition that should prompt anyone to believe they need to hide such beliefs under a euphemism.
I'll start using "progressive", instead of liberal, when conservatives start calling themselves "regressives".
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
