17400--Are They Lobbying for a Revolution?

Why do I seem to be asking that question so often?

You know those people who seem to inspire the query "Are you trying to start something?" almost every time they speak.  For me, those voices usually come from government.

The Supreme Court is said to be contemplating whether the search of an individual's phone should require a warrant or not.  I don't understand the controversy.  It sounds more to me like we're being lied to again and people are trying to screw with our rights...again.  Last I'd checked, there was already a law covering this issue.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Let's not pretend it's unclear just because it seems inconvenient or some people want to claim that new technology creates an unconsidered loophole.  My stuff is mine and I have the right to share it or not as I choose.  The Fourth Amendment was created to protect that right.  In that regard, my smartphone is no different than a briefcase.  It certainly offers no personal information in plain sight to be picked up and perused.

Just to be clear, stepping on my rights is picking a fight.  No, I'm not consenting to a search and you don't have a right to see my receipt.  If you have legitimate probable cause, get a warrant.  I'm not volunteering to bear witness against myself.  That doesn't mean I'm guilty or that I have anything to hide.  It means I value my rights and insist that others treat them with all the respect they are due.

Laws are intended to create a just code of conduct to protect us from abuses.  They are not meant to serve as weapons, nor inconveniences to be circumvented.  I can easily imagine the chaos that must erupt when government employees take part in family game nights.  I'd bet there are a lot of unresolved board games out there ending in angry frustration.

17231--Erotica: afterglow

Free expression is important to me. When it comes to words, images and music, I continue to stand by the opinion that if you don’t like them, don’t look or listen. Not liking them, though doesn’t give you the right to suppress someone else’s expression. One of the things I don’t like at present is Amazon’s current book listing procedure that makes a writer’s work subject to special scrutiny by the company’s personnel. Much like the motion picture rating process, there are parts of the system that remain mysterious to those of us attempting to use it. In this case, it means creators must pass the scrutiny of unknown eyes that have the capacity to literally judge books by their covers and reclassify them based upon image or title no matter what the writer has to say about the content. It means that self publishing writers are left without key controls over the marketing disposition of their own creations.

In theory, this seemingly subtle form of censorship can place a book on a virtual shelf where a writer never intended it to be. Having your deeply religious work end up labeled as philosophy or self-help and your scholarly documentary placed as a children’s book may not seem like much to someone who’s not a writer, but it’s a few exponential steps beyond any of those arguments you ever had with your parents those times when they were being arbitrarily unfair about anything you wanted to do. Fighting with Amazon personnel over it as an adult will leave you feeling about as impotent.

What seems to be the most extreme result of this is that Amazon has the power to relegate a book to the obscurity of a virtual pornography closet if it is deemed that any element of it is too dangerously adult unless it is changed. Again, to some it may not sound like much, but if you’ve been told by some government clerk that the carefully crafted name you’ve bestowed upon your love child (in honor of your beloved grandparents) has to be changed to something the clerk likes, you’re going to be upset. You could decide to stay with your original decision, but when it comes to a book that obscure placement can have a tremendous impact. Suppose that it had been decided that “Moby Dick” could only have been sold in adult bookstores because of its title because…come on, we know what that title means. No, it doesn’t matter what you say the story is about, just look at that title. Seriously? You want high school students reading porn? Now, imagine that “The Scarlet Letter” or “Lady Chatterly’s Lover” had been released under the name “Whore”. How many people would’ve found it on the shelf of the adult bookstores it was hidden in because they were the only places that could carry it? Should some disinterested functionary have had the power to change their titles to “A Small Town Scandal” because it sounded less offensive?

In the realm of independent publishing supposedly governed by free expression, the correct answer is “No.”

If you’re writing, take heed, because the righteousness of your fight is going to matter less than you’d like. Unfortunately, the reality of it all comes down to this: whether you’re pouring your heart into a tragic chronicle of a prostitute’s life on the streets or a passionate virgin’s sexual awakening, don’t name it “Whore”. Sure, you know it’s a biography or a romance or a literary adventure or even a religious redemption, but you may not like how it ends.

Sorry for the spoiler.

**************
How did this get started?  Where do pop culture and politics meet in scandal?  Why don't I watch MTV anymore?
For those answers, the prelude to this post (Erotica: Foreplay) can be read along with video of the historic controversy over at Tears of Crimson where my friend Michelle Hughes weaves her wicked writings about vampires, virgins, and strong men who don't spend a lot of money on shirts.

16516--Welcome to New America

Once upon a time, the world around us was dominated by entrenched dynasties and wealthy economic powers.  The masses worked and worked to the benefit of the ruling class, catching what crumbs they were given, praying for improvement in their status in life. A few managed to work their way up the status ladder through the right marriage or successful business dealings. Then, revolution came and the look of the world changed.

In our time period, the publishing world’s entrenched dynasties and traditional economic powerhouses are in trouble. The masses are tired of their crumbs and have begun questioning the standards they’ve long been told to accept as unquestionable. The revolution is underway in a virtual landscape and the masses are winning. Even though the dust of the revolution has yet to settle, a lot of people consider that the masses have already won. Whatever the case, the traditional publishing houses know (they have to know) that they’re in trouble.

The virtual battlefield is being shaped by entrepreneurial drive, by ambition, by trial and error. It is New America. It’s a place of Freedom of action and thought and commerce. It’s a place where new ideas are still welcome and have impact. It’s a place where the decrees of the old regime are being ignored by the upstarts who are remaking things for the future.

It’s not a flying car and it hasn‘t toppled any governments, but this revolution that has come as a result of fusions of new technologies put into the hands of writers may be one of the most exciting changes since Johannes Gutenberg got his printing press going. I’m glad to be a part of it and I’m eager to see what it does in 2012.

16510--Down from On High

 When I was informed that we had calculated that the course of a big, nasty asteroid (Apophis) would bring it into our back yard in 2029 and possibly hitting us in 2036, I was...well, on the fence about whether or not we should be concerned.  I mean, we're in the 21st century and I still can't even get weather information I can count on for the same day.  Now they're trying to sell me on a prediction two decades out?  I checked a mirror.  I do not have "SUCKER" on my forehead.

The way they're telling it, our best case scenario has the rock passing between Earth and the moon (which is pretty close for that sort of thing); worst case says we're looking at quakes, tidal waves, floods, plague, famine, death, destruction...you see where this is going.  Be concerned if you want to be or don't (but so you know, we're looking at 99.9993% chance of a miss).  Either way, I'm not betting on the government to handle things.  The government really only seems to handle disasters well in fiction and even then the track record is shaky.

As that sort of thing goes, we'd be better off with Superman.  I know, a lot of people love to put all their stock in Batman and I don't want to take anything away from the Dark Knight's street cred, but playing head-kicker with serial killers is vastly different from changing the course of mighty rivers.  I've loved both these guys since childhood, but I've always considered Superman to be the superior role model and never had any question that when planes and giant rocks started falling from above, the Bat-signal wasn't going to get the needed help to the right place.  That's not a shortcoming on Batman's part (I won't even make a dig about searching the utility belt for a Bat-asteroid deflector).  Superman just brings a strong game to the playing field.

When problems pop-up, Superman is the superhero to go to.  I'm not talking about a Superman who falls back on some lame time-travel "solution", creating a paradox where he can just pretend bad things aren't happening.  I'm talking about a super man, who oozes noblesse oblige without even knowing it, gets hands-on and gets things done.  Superman came to us with not only compassion, but a passionate desire to help us find the best part of ourselves.

That has probably always been one of the most essential virtues of the heroic Kryptonian immigrant: he unselfishly wants to help everyone.  It's really sad to me that so many people have expressed some inability to relate to him.  I think it saddens me because it displays an inability to acknowledge the brighter virtues within ourselves.  If anything, Superman shouldn't seem unreal and alien, but an inspiration.  He should represent a standard to which we should aspire.  WWSD?  The right thing, of course.

 Superman has always been the champion of the people.  He's not from around here, so we all look alike to him.  He never plays favorites, he just helps people live their lives without interference from others.  He's a freedom fighter.  Even more than that, he wants everyone to have a chance to just get through their day.  When it struck him that a great many of Earth's people couldn't even count on having food every day, he made an effort to change that.  Unlike any other single person, his herculean effort to provide food for the hungry for a single day drew such attention that it inspired a tremendous outpouring of supplementary aid from other people.  He remains mindful of a hero's function as a role model, a status he holds probably beyond any other iconic figure.

Like many heroes before and after him, he's an orphan.  Still, he has always allowed the circumstances of his origin to add to his strength and his strength of character.  After the better part of a century, he has continued to spark the minds and souls of young and old alike.  We should expect nothing less from someone who has descended from a world of wonders to live and walk among us.  Even the appeal of innocent Billy Batson's transformation to the purehearted Captain Marvel takes a back seat to Superman's, whose virtuousness is that of an uncorrupted adult.  He is not a naive child in the guise of a man.  Superman has walked the Earth and seen what it has to offer.  He has made informed choices and refused to be led astray.

 Many believe that Superman's appeal lies in his power.  Some even feel that he wouldn't be a hero without his superhuman powers.  That's short-sighted, I say.  Predecessors to Superman such as Hugo Danner in Philip Wylie's Gladiator and pulp hero Doc Savage would certainly indicate otherwise.  Danner was born with powers similar to Superman's, but lived a miserable life in which he felt himself a misfit among humanity, never found a purpose for his special abilities and died alone, miserable and unfulfilled.  Doc Savage, closer to Batman than Superman, possessed wealth and drive, honed his body and mind to such extremes as to seem nearly superhuman and found his way in the world fighting the forces of evil.  He had no special powers, but he had a drive to be the best he could make of himself and to help others unselfishly.

Superpowers or not, I'd rather be in a world with people with the heart portrayed in these people of conscience, these people who seek only to help and ask nothing in return.  No matter who they are--Wonder Woman, Batman, Spider-Man, Doc Savage--or how many they come to number, Superman will ever stand steadfast at their forefront.  He is recognized around the world and knowledge of his mission has spread with him.  Superman fights for freedom and justice, possesses both power and humility of incalculable measure, all the while setting examples for us to emulate.  Like us, he's not perfect, but he also teaches us to never stop striving to become the very best of ourselves.


 

Bringing out the best in...*ahem* Moving along!

             

16364--Wait, the Jedi weren't the good guys?

Those of us who enjoyed George Lucas' little space sagas thrilled at the highs and lows of their conflict and drama, the politics and warfare, and the mystical struggle between the Sith and the Jedi.  We cheered for the Jedi when they won and felt sorrow for them when they fell.  I imagine most people did.  We were supposed to, after all, since they're the heroes of the stories.  They were the heroes, weren't they?

Somewhere along the way, the noble Jedi began to lose their footing on the straight and narrow.  I guess Yoda noticed it when he realized that the Jedi were having difficulty being prescient.  When your psychic levels of awareness are suddenly all cloudy, it only makes sense that you'd want to know why.  Blaming the Sith seemed reasonable.  A sneak attack is so like them.  It made sense to send Qui-Gon Jin and Obi-Wan Kenobi to find Darth Maul for questioning.  When they found him, though, all they did was fight him.  What happened to "Only for defense.  Never for attack."?  I know Yoda drilled that in to those mavericks, but they never asked that snarly guy a single question.  It just didn't seem to be the Jedi way.

When the Separatist Movement began and an organized faction tried to split away from the Galactic Republic, the Jedi kept themselves out of the politics of the situation.  Good for them.  When pressed into fighting, though, they didn't seem to have any issues with putting a slave force of clones out on the front lines.  Maybe they were desensitized by the fact that the soldiers seemed to have less personality than most droids and were clad in robot-face armor, but let's face facts: the clone army was composed entirely of living men who were bred and trained to serve as soldiers.  They were never offered any other options for how they might choose to live and die and no one seemed to care.  Obi-Wan was told quite clearly that the clones were genetically modified to possess diminished will, making them quite pliant to having orders barked at them, and he didn't even pause to question it.  I suppose these legions of duplicates were never expected to have any sort of lives in the great republic beyond military service.  Assuming their survival beyond fighting separatists, being part of a standing army was all anyone ever intended for them.  Weren't the Jedi supposed to be fighting for everyone or maybe the Old Republic only advocated Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness for people who weren't test tube babies.  Come on, human trafficking and slavery? 

People may have raised many debates over the merits of Star Trek versus Star Wars, but the Federation certainly never condoned abuses like that.  The Federation actually takes things in the opposite direction by banning genetic modification and such, but they had that whole history with Khan Noonian Singh and the Eugenics Wars.  You can't really fault them for trying to learn from their history.  I don't even have a guess at how many people Kirk and Spock helped free from those sorts of oppressions.

Contrasted against another champion of the oppressed, a quick "What would Superman do?" should easily produce an answer of "Not send a hundred thousand slave soldiers into a war they know nothing about simply because it's convenient to the side I support."  Barring occasional encounters with red kryptonite, when you lose your way, Superman typically makes a fantastically unerring moral compass.  WWSD?  This particular issue would hold special meaning for him since among the many accounts of life on lost Krypton, one intriguing timeline (John Byrne's post-Crisis reboot) includes a society-changing war that was the culmination of a dispute over the rights of clones created solely to provide spare parts for citizens.  With the clones as an integral part of their life insurance system, the people were provided a buffer against the rigors of time, injury, etc.  Lucas' Galactic Republic used a variation of protecting the people with a buffer of clones by just sending them out to fight rather than letting them sleep and harvesting pieces from them.

We may find ourselves faced with such considerations soon as we advance from couples having second and third children to provide replacement parts for first child in need to growing new organs to bolster our own quality of life.  This leads to the ultimate debate of sparing our children and theirs the horrors of war and new parts by just sending clones to fight and suffer in their stead.  Strict adherance to economic theory says that first child is priceless and every one after is worth less, so what does that say about originals and clone meat?  Are we willing to risk our souls to save our lives?  When the mass production of military clones makes the whole thing cheap and easy, how long will it take for people to stop considering war to be horrible?  Without strict regulation, how long will it take for cheap and easy cloning to make its way into the civilian market, changing the face of labor and human trafficking?  We'll pay a steep price to descend into a mire of devalued life and overpopulation.  Some will say it's a complicated mess.  I say it's as clear as the Bill of Rights and refer to the aforementioned "WWSD?".

Back in a galaxy far, far away, with all that moral ambiguity Mr. Lucas has unleashed, who are we supposed to cheer for?  It's hard to support the protagonists when you're thinking that maybe they deserved what they got.

So for Anakin going to the Dark Side, the fall of the Jedi Order and the collapse of the Republic into a soul-sucking imperial power, the Jedi may have to accept a charge of contributory negligence.  Maybe we can have another set of movies where the clones develop individual personalities, assert Free Will and rise up against their oppressors...all of them.  Ah, sweet Freedom.  Long live the Clone Rights Movement!

It's something to think about.  WWSD?

Did you notice any other ways that the Jedi might have pushed themselves out of balance with the Force?

16337--And the Pursuit of Happiness

     Recently, I weighed in on the Earth-shaking issue of marriage legislation (see my earlier post "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility", in which I opened this can of worms).  It drew a lot of views, though no comments as of this posting.  Well, just when I thought I'd gotten away without drawing any return fire, some of my friends felt compelled to add their input to mine and I felt it was only right to share our exchange with others who might still be interested.  They're all opinionated and at least one of them may be gay, but I'll leave that labeling for you to figure out.  It also gives the chance to shine a light on some views other than my own.  So, on with the show.


William: "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility" was one of the best blog posts I've read from my friend Phoenix since I started following his stuff.  My only criticism, Phoenix, is that it's sometimes hard to see the letters on your blog when they get caught in the flame, but the fire is oh so cool.

Phoenix: Thanks.  Glad you liked it.

Jill:  I think taking the government out of marriage entirely is a legitimate philosophical position, and the post is an even-handed defense of that. We disagree about the fundamental roles of government. I would only add that much of the celebration came from feeling that our relationships were finally seen as legitimate by a society that had formerly condemned and belittled them.

Phoenix: I don't seek the validation of anyone who would belittle me. Which is good, I suppose, because it keeps me from trying to speak at KKK rallies.

Bill: Sadly, in order for gay couples to enjoy marriage rights such as inheritance, sharing insurance, etc., it requires governmental recognition of their marriage. I don't doubt that most reasonable people recognize a married couple when they see one. But it's not the reasonable ones who are creating this debate.

William: Jill, I too am often at loggerheads with you on the role of govt but thanks for reading Phoenix's post. Because you actually work within the court system it helps to hear your opinion even if we often don't agree. I do share your sentiment that it is a nice feeling to have others legitimize one's own choices that had formerly been condemned or belittled; however, this "realization" is always sweeter when it's arrived at voluntarily rather than through the force of law. If Phoenix is correct about the origins of "marriage licenses" in that it allowed whites to marry non-whites (and vice-versa), then I would propose that there were people in this country who were not paying attention. Constitutionally speaking, this should have never happened. The restriction over free-association between Americans is not something one should have to seek a license for. Technically, a license is something that gives permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal. My question is how in the world could any state make it illegal to interracially marry in the first place?

Phoenix: They've been doing it since before they were states, back in the colonies in the 1690s.  Some specified blacks, some blacks and Asians, some blacks and Native Americans.  A few others just targeted non-whites.  People are generally on the lookout for differences in others and are most comfortable around others who are like us.  That probably goes back to pre-human history and watching out for members of rival tribes.  The different and unknown are dangerous.  Ooooh...

William: Which of course would lead one to the next subject. Why stop at interracial marriage, what about gays? And now to Mr. Cross...
     Bill, I've given the subject of gay marriage much thought and have it neatly divided in my mind between the "legal aspects" and the "personal ones". First, I would speak of the "personal aspects". For the longest time I thought it was silly that gays where fighting so hard "to be married" in the same sense that hetero couples are. To borrow Phoenix's statement above and combine that with what I said to Jill about the voluntary nature of "realization" my question is this: Why in the heck would anyone want to seek the validation of those who only belittle gay marriage? Is it that important? Because I can safely guess that passing laws that say gays can be together and it will now be recognized as marriage isn't going to change the minds of the radical right one bit, who will still condemn it. This brings up a second point. If marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman ONLY, I find it odd and even a bit selfish to go to so much trouble to re-define a word that has already been established in meaning. It would be like me one day waking up and saying that the color red should now be called "otep". On one hand I feel that gay couples are on a personal mission to "validate" their lifestyle which has been condemned by most religions by "stealing" a word (marriage) that has been used since the beginning to define it as a relationship between a man and a woman. I can see how to some people it is the most "in your face" , "see!!---look at me my desires are normal" statement gays could make. By saying that gay couples can use the word "marriage" is not only the ultimate protest statement to hetero couples but it "legitimizes" an act that they want their opposition to see as normal. Again, it's a seeking of validation from those that are going to belittle gay relationships regardless. This is just silly to me. Which brings up your most excellent point and the "legal aspect" of my opinion. Are gay couples trying to legalize gay marriage because of a desire to show the world that they're "normal" and they have every right to use the word "marriage" just like straight couples despite established definitions of the word, OR are they seeking to use the word only because the legislation in place uses the word "marriage" in all of the various laws surrounding inheritance, insurance, power of attorney, OR is it a combination of both reasons? My personal opinion is that gays should be allowed to be in relationships, and have ALL the rights afforded to them that straight couples do. I'm personally against using the word marriage to accomplish this because I feel its definition has already been defined, unless it is truly the ONLY WAY to accomplish these most worthwhile goals that ALL Americans should have. Maybe I can get my friend Brad to chime in on this.

Phoenix: Hey, all comers are welcome into this free-for-all as far as I'm concerned.

William: You do realize, Phoenix, that in an ultimately free society not only should interracial marriage and gay marriage be allowed, but as a business owner I should also be allowed to discriminate and not serve gay or interracial couples at my restaurant if I should choose. This is not my personal belief as I'm no homophobe or racist. Just saying...

Phoenix: Well, of course. And that part still stands in our society. Business owners weigh their personal feelings vs the economic impact their policies would have from turning away select customers and anyone who might choose to join them in finding some other restaurant to patronize.  Why?  Did you think the right to shout, "Hey! Your droids! We don't serve their kind here!" was gone?  It's just not popular anymore to openly treat folks that way.  I feel a lot of people's attitudes really are that friendly. That is, I don't think that most people are harboring segregationist desires behind their smiles.  Likewise, businesses had covered a lot of the legal issues through Domestic Partnership policies and last I heard inheritances could be left to any heirs one chose. What's missing there is the automatic blanket of privileges and acceptance that come from the status of "Married". It's the sort of stuff that the Catholic church sought to thwart when it banned its clergy from marrying because surviving families of deceased holy men were starting to press the church for a piece of the parish. While the church might find poverty spiritually uplifting for its employees, for the church itself it's a definite downer. A church with no clout is just another cult and they sure didn't want to slide back into that status. Homosexuals probably don't want to have to go back into their closets and I don't feel that any of us should be living with a government that tells us what to do instead of doing what we tell it to do. One of the ways to avoid that is for us not to be tricked into asking them to pass legislation that they have no business passing.

Bill: There is no such thing as unlimited freedom in a stable society. If we want civility amongst our citizens, we must enforce laws that are often unpopular at the time of enactment. The freeing of the slaves and later the Civil Rights act are prime examples. The majority of the south would have liked to continue to keep slaves, but as an evolved society, we could no longer allow it. 

Phoenix: Weird as it may seem to us, despite abolitionist sentiments, freeing American slaves had less to do with a righteous crusade to end oppression than it did with complex political and economic issues.  I think the Civil War accelerated the whole thing and slavery would've gone on much longer otherwise.  It was a much different issue from that of the Civil Rights Act.  Like the marriage issue, the civil rights people were petitioning government to grant belong to the people naturally with the government's role being to protect those rights.  You don't ask your employee (government) to give you something that already belongs to you.  Doing that makes it seem to me that you're conceding that you don't have ownership of those rights and you're begging government to grant them to you like asking your parents for permission to do something.  That's just wrong.

Bill: In a completely free society, business owners could indeed decide who they do or do not serve, but what about businesses in isolated areas with small even insignificant minority populations? How would that be handled? If the only grocery store in town was owned by a racist, would the minority just starve? It would not be costly enough for him to be forced to serve that minority if it were small enought. Or would the citizens organize a system whereby purchases would be made for minorities and then transferred to them? Or would your solution be that they should just move to another town? That seems to be the conservative attitude towards gays. Not in our town. Move to New York if you want marriage rights. Or better yet move to France or Germany. Well, that's not realistic or fair. They contribute to our society and they should have all the rights attached to any contributing group. And societies and their institutions evolve. Marriage as a formal institiution has been around at least since Rome. And marriages were allowed for females as young as twelve. Luckily western society has evolved and 12 year olds are no longer considered marriageable. And if that is the origin of formal marriage, then it is not a Religious institution, unless you still worship Zeus. It is a societal one. And society must accomodate. Like it or not.

Phoenix: Point-by-point, marriage is older than Rome and I think I stated clearly that it wasn't a religious institution it has merely become associated with religions. It didn't start there and it still isn't exclusive to any religion. 
     Next, twelve-year-olds being ineligible for marriage only occurred in recent times with the general extension of life expectancy. 
     As to your other point, people leaving town wasn't my solution. It was your scenario. In it, you only painted the store owner as racist, so if the rest of the community pressured him, maybe he would cave and allow the sole minority resident to shop there. Maybe the others would shop for him. Or maybe he would move. Yes, these things are all possible. The fact remains, though, whatever community the store is in, management retains the right to refuse service to anyone. That means anyone he doesn't like or anyone who pisses him off or anyone he chooses on "No Soup for you Tuesday".  This isn't to imply absolute Freedom, but he does have some. Every person's rights end at the point that they infringe on someone else's. The families I mentioned who had their houses burned down did move away from those communities even though their persecution presumably came from a small, non-representative faction of the community. They made their choices. When I was a child, my own family received some racist attention when we moved into a new house in New York. We stayed put, faced down our persecutors, made friends and enjoyed our home for another dozen years until we chose to move to another state. Yes, someone else obviously preferred that we move.   No, that wouldn't have been fair. No, it isn't fair for anyone to try to pressure others to live or not live in certain places because they disagree with their ways or basic existence.   People don't usually try to impose their will upon others out of fairness. 
     We all have the right to be left alone to live our ways. The childhood cry of "I'm not touching you!" prevails, though.   As long as we're not infringing on each other, we can say what we like and fair isn't really a factor.   Freedom of speech isn't based on fairness.   We have rights to live and work and speak and defend ourselves and to be left alone, even when the ways we choose to exercise those rights may be unpopular.

Bill: I'm not saying you said anything that I stated specifically.   Just assessing where it leads in my view.   I didn't say marriage was invented in Rome, I said as a FORMAL institution it was likely one of the originators. And I was simply restating that it is not a religious institution more to firm up my point and due to William's comments.   And you're right, twelve-year-olds not marrying is fairly recent.   Still, a good example of the evolution of mores and behavior affecting the evolution of laws and institutions.  
     Greek Democracy was created by a slave-holding patriarchal society (that also thought sex with between a man and a boy was the height of love).   We have evolved, and so has our mode of governance.   Everyone gets the same rights.   Sadly, due to ignorance and prejudice, we have to pass laws to ensure that they do.   Laws aren't for what's easy, they're for what's hard.

Phoenix: The formal institution of marriage actually predates reliable recorded history.

Bill: So, religion has little to do with it. It's a social form, not a religious one. Which should remove the main objection to gay marriage.

Phoenix: Somehow I think it's going to take a little more than that.

Jill: States made inter-racial marriage illegal for the same reason that bestiality is illegal. The argument was that you might as well have white people marrying monkeys as marrying non-whites. Of course, that is exactly the same argument that people make against gay marriage today: Rick Santorum rather infamously wrote that if we allowed gay marriage then people would marry box turtles. I've had people make the argument to me, personally, saying that if I were allowed to marry Tamara it would be like me marrying my dog.

     Also, the stance that government should not be in the marriage licence business at all is not helpful to the millions of us who are not getting the rights that go with those marriage licences. These rights are particularly important when we are raising children and inheritance and custody are in play. I have no custody rights to my daughter, for instance, and Tamara's will stating that she wants our daughter in my custody if Tamara dies is useless in Oklahoma.
     One more thing and then I'll stop: Will, your reluctance to call it "marriage" is just avoiding the argument. Our opponents say, "A marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman." We respond, "We would like to broaden the definition." Our opponents reply, "A marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman" over and over and over again. That's not an argument, it's a tautology. What I believe you are saying is, a "real" marriage is between a man and a woman, and the you gays are just playing house. It's demeaning, and would be only insulting if it didn't have so many legal and practical consequences.


Phoenix: So much for states respecting each other's laws.  That really shouldn't hold up.  That is to say that your custody rights should hold up, just like when the courts decreed that Dred Scott didn't stop being a slave just because his master transported him into a free state.  Of course, I guess we shouldn't expect too much rationality from people who think that people are going to rush out to marry box turtles unless prohibited by law.  That sounds like someone with some odd brain wiring.  Whether he was right or not, though, it still sounds like the issue of people in government making lame excuses to infantilize the public as a pretext to usurp our rights.  Those people probably argued for your rights when you were in the womb and then turned on you when you got old enough to not use them "right".  I disagree with that, Jill, and I disagree with you or Tamara or anyone else having to go through any other source to declare that we are deserving of rights.  I was born with them and I have no intention of surrendering them to anyone without the best fight I can offer.

Jill:  Phoenix, I appreciate your response.  I don't believe that my rights originate from the majority of people agreeing on what my rights are. The majority of Oklahomans are just fine with me not being able to have rights to our daughter. But, my rights are federal, and i believe I should be able to have those rights even over the kicks and screams of the majority of my neighbors. In my experience, and my reading of history, "state's rights" are just another way of keeping a minority of people in their place, and that place is never of one of equality .

Phoenix: The governments are bankrupt, financially and morally. Without them, you still remain. Your rights are yours because you're a person. Government's job is to protect those rights, not to define them.  State or federal I don't trust either that's not respecting our rights and doing what we tell it.

William: Jill, I'm all for broadening the "definition" of marriage in the legal if that's the only recourse for gay couples to enjoy all of the rights that they should have just like anyone else. Please don't think that I'm against "gay marriage", cause I'm not. I'm not offended by the proposition at all. You know me: Mr. Legalize everything as long as it doesn't directly violate someone's Person, Property, or Liberty.
     Phoenix, good point.  Individuals are born with all the rights (unalienable) once they arrive here from the womb. Govt does NOT give us any rights and the Constitution is supposed to be a contract to define the boundaries of govt and is a reminder of rights we are BORN with. I know many people who MISTAKENLY think the Constitution GIVES them their rights......uh, uh. That's incorrect.

As you can see: not a group that will ever be accused of walking away from the negotiating table.  By all means, if anyone else has an opinion to add to this, do leave a comment.  Your voice is welcome.

16332--With Great Power Comes Great Instability

I haven't said much on this subject, contenting myself to sit quietly and let people catch on and make their own decisions.  The problem is that people are fighting the wrong fight.

This writing comes a few days after New York's recognition of same-sex marriages.  People are celebrating and making plans to take advantage of the new legislation.  I imagine there are also some people complaining about the legislation.  From my own standpoint, there's nothing to celebrate because it's a decision that doesn't belong to the government to make.

The problem I've had all along with the whole thing is that people have been arguing about which way the government should legislate the same-sex marriage issue and whether that legislation should occur at the state or federal level.  I'm likely to voice this sentiment a few times before the end of this, but this isn't something for the government to legislate in any way at all.  It is flatly ridiculous to me to weigh any input from legislative bodies that are only supposed to do what they're told by the people and can't even do that.

The United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights way back in 1948, insisting that all people had the right to marry and form a family with equal rights in marriage to be entered into freely and with informed consent.  Before the 16th century, even western churches recognized that people had all the authority in their own marriages. A couple simply saying that they were married was good enough for everyone else. How's that for recognizing a commonlaw marriage? Despite these oddities, there are over thirty countries that maintain pretty strict prohibitions against same-sex marriage. The USA isn't one of them, but it does seem to be an uphill roller skating trip for those on the ride.
Overseeing births, marriages, funerals and religious rites are all things We the People handle on our own and do best without adding government to the mix.  Granted, marriage licenses have been used for a great many years now, but they originated to permit people to wed that were otherwise forbidden by law to do so.  In this country, such outlaws have been defined along the whole ethnic/racial lines thing.  The licenses were initially used to permit whites to marry non-whites, a tradition which extended right on into the 20th century.  Racism in the Land of the Free?  Scandalous.  Even in the great nation of "created equal", the last couple of centuries have somehow been thick with persecution based on differences.

Back in the 1990s, popular TV series Quantum Leap lost sponsors over an episode in which time-traveling Dr. Beckett (Scott Bakula) assumed the identity of a young black man secretly dating a young white woman in the American south during the 1960s.  The sponsors were obviously confused and thought that they, too, were in the 1960s.  Still, that was in the ancient 20th century.  Back in 2006, in the more advanced and enlightened 21st century, my mother (a die-hard social activist) informed me of two families she was helping in central Indiana.  Both families, in separate incidents and communities, had been burned out of their homes over some nonsense about having the wrong skin color.  Apparently, brown clashed with the plan for a more limited local palette.  In one case, the family's son had the audacity to date someone's daughter of...the wrong shade.  In the more recent time of 2009, Louisiana justice of the peace Keith Bardwell refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple, again deciding for them that they had no idea of the proper way to behave.  2009?  Are you kidding me?  2009?  2009!  This is peace and enlightenment?

What happened to recognizing commonlaw marriage?  What happened to the rights of the people?  Up until the mid-19th century, commonlaw marriages were commonly recognized, but then the state governments started crushing them underfoot.  Today, only 11 states and the District of Columbia still acknowledge this basic right of We the People.  The requirement for marriage licenses in the USA has been justified on the basis that the state has an overriding right, on behalf of all citizens and in the interests of the larger social welfare, to protect them from disease or improper/illegal marriages; to keep accurate state records; or even to ensure that marriage partners have had adequate time to think carefully before marrying.  So, it's for our own good because we don't know any better.  Our rights have been put into a blind trust because we can't handle them.

Oh, wait!  In the Supreme Court case Meister v. Moore (1877), it was ruled that "marriage is a common right" and that the state laws or statutes that have been created before or since are not legal constraints, but "are mere directives," thereby retaining the legal weight of recommendation only. Backed by this court decision, it is illegal for any state to mandate any form of license or ceremony and, technically, all states must recognize "common law" marriages of all citizens.

We don't need any state laws for or against same-sex marriages.  We certainly don't need to waste the effort of amending the US Constitution over this nonsense.  The government works for us and the protection of our rights.  The last I'd heard, there was a laundry list of better things that our governmental employees should be spending their time on. 

Stop getting misdirected by noise and colors.  We the People are responsible for our own lives and choices.  Back when I was seven years old, I had a conversation with mom about how I would go to college when I finished with grade school.  In that dialogue, I learned that I would have the power to decide which college I attended and what I studied.  I actually got excited (my mind turned to architecture for some reason).  I thought that that Freedom, the power of choice, was the coolest thing I'd ever heard.  I'm still pretty impressed by Freedoms and it baffles me that so many people blow them off.  Don't they see that there are people trying to take their Freedoms?  With all the effort, they must be worth something.  It's like those stories where the Devil's trying to weasel a deal to get someone's soul and you're just aghast at how blind the character is for not realizing that it must be a bad deal.

If you want to get married, go be married. 

If you don't, don't.  No one's forcing you into it just as no one's allowed to stop you.

If you feel threatened by someone else's marriage choices, seek therapy or a hobby to get your mind off it.  Either way, mind your own business.  Whether we actually respect each other's right to privacy or not, we all have the right.  Manage your own affairs.

Stop trying to foist your issues and responsibilities onto the government.  The people who work in government are bored and itching for things to do.  If you try to turn control of your life over to them, they'll gladly take it.  Don't expect them to stop where you expect, though.  Control over your life tastes good and they'll never never never stop at one bite.  Why?  Because with great responsibility comes great power.  Don't try to hand it off.  Deal with it.

Any questions?

16329--Still Making the Trade

Out and about in Nashville today, I saw a disturbing sight: a white SUV bearing the words "Homeland Security", "Federal" and "Police".  I'm sure this wasn't intended to bother me.  I'm sure the people responsible for the dispatch, etc. of this vehicle would much prefer that I paid no notice to it at all, went on about my business and kept my mouth shut.  I'm not likely to incite any revolutions here, but I still feel compelled to exercise what rights I have left by speaking out while I can.

My problem, for those of you scratching your head, is that the federal government isn't granted police powers by the US Constitution.  No, seeing the SUV driving around didn't make me feel any safer than I did before I saw it.  Instead, it just reminded me that there are people who continue to disregard the rules agreed upon and set down in the Constitution.  They're going to continue trading on public fear, getting people to trade away Freedom for security, overreaching their legislated authorities to implement as much control as they can over the people they're supposed to serve.

We have children failing classes and still being promoted through grades so they won't be "Left Behind", full-body scans at airports, people trying to convince us to get RFID chips stuck into us and troops trickling home from a war we were told was over years ago (there are more of our soldiers deployed now than when Obama took office).  We already have police.  They operate well enough in most municipalities without doublespeaking the public into submissive cooperation and actually answer to the people when called on the carpet.  We need Homeland Security policing us like we need FEMA after a disaster.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

14932-I guess we'll just have to keep beating this horse until it dies...

It was recently brought to my attention that a woman developed a graduate school project out of the use of what is politely referred to as "the N word" in America. When she made the presentation of her thesis proposal to a panel of white professors, way back in December of 2006, it was suggested that she needed to find a positive aspect of the word because it has been included in classic poems. The very notion of educators suggesting that some "positive aspect" be found to the word really made me snort a laugh. It would be easier to find positive application to "nazi" or "bitch" or "whore". Let's start up a survey to find all the nice and sunny ways to apply the word "cunt". Think of the target as a loved one, that should help, right?

We are dealing with a word and mindset that has come to target an easily identifiable group of people, kept at the lowest of social classes (during slavery, institutionally quantified as only three-fifths of a person), with a weapon whose use is to drive them even lower still in their own hearts and minds and in those of anyone within earshot. These are words that have grown from descriptive tools into weapons used to demean and insult. Unlike other words, with their fluid and complex definitions, challenging the choices that people make or don't make, the dreaded "N-word" strikes the nature of how a person was born. Whatever else you make of yourself, you're always either a star-bellied sneech or a plain-bellied sneech and that's the only way some people will ever want you to be seen. For a truly thorough oppressor, it's not enough for them to put you down. They want you to feel and believe that you deserve nothing else. It helps keep the oppressed in their place, otherwise they start getting uppity...and not in a positive way.

The closest thing I've ever found to a positive aspect for this weighty word, was that it too seemed to start as a simple descriptive: "negger" is German for "plowman". With all the immigration going on way back when, German was as popular and common as Spanish is now.  In fact, when the time came to vote on it, German ran a very close second to English as our national language (if anyone was still wondering about some of the things that slowed our entry into WWI). Anyway, since it was still your great-great-grandfather's calendar on the wall, it should take little imagination to see how in America "plowman" could be tied so readily to "black man" a couple of centuries ago. The Germans apparently didn't think that way, though, or the name "Schwarzenegger" probably wouldn't exist. Why go to the trouble of a mouthful like that if you already associated "schwarze" ("black") with "negger"? I gather that it must've been uncommon, as there were probably not a lot of black plowmen in Germany or Austria at the time. There may be one in the California governor's ancestry, but probably one of the few.

Regardless, no I'm not a user. No matter how cool and en vogue the word becomes, it still sounds like a fight starter to me. I'd give a more positive reaction to someone throwing a rock at me, really. I don't check whether a belly is starred or not. I know the rock or the word came from a sneech and it stings the same. The weapon doesn't care who's wielding it. Maybe, just maybe, one day the whole sneech population (that being "We the People") will grow beyond the divisive level of fear-anger-hate mentality, both internally and externally that seems to have turned this word into a weapon and continues to fuel its use. Then, we can work on helping each other along, instead of trying to tear each other and ourselves down. It truly is important. Until we get to the point where we're all Free, none of us is.

Thanks for your time.

14886-Give me liberty or die

Awhile back, I was talking with my wife about health care. She related to me someone's proposal to nationalize America's medical care. I suppose this is an issue that's just not going to go away. It's certainly not the first time I've heard it and I doubt it will be the last. The federal government isn't supposed to be involved in this and doesn't have a track record that shows it'll be able to run such a program to our benefit. This isn't to say it can't be done. Many countries have excellent healthcare programs that are nationalized and their people are very happy with them. They do not live in our country. We have a government that once took control of a brothel (through the IRS) and mismanaged it out of business. I can't even begin to fathom the depths of ineptness required to mismanage running a brothel. That alone should make enough of my point, since medical care is supposed to be for the benefit of those receiving care, nationalizing it isn't likely to put it into the best hands.

Our federal government has an instruction book that defines how it's supposed to work. It's called the Constitution. It's the law of the land, but it gets ignored a lot. That's not the way the system is supposed to work. You don't sit down to a board game, play around the rules that everyone's agreed to and expect it to work right. If you don't like it, find another game. Oooh, listen to me, sounding all radical and conservative simultaneously. Face it, we have a lot of rule-breaking politicians in the game. Many seem to want to get into it just to see how much they can cheat the system.

Anyway, with our government being run that way (don't act like it's a surprise), the people who keep getting into it try to meddle in ever more areas outside the set boundaries. With more meddling comes more mess (classic red tape, price increases) and less of people taking care of their own affairs. Unfortunately, people receiving "free" stuff (actually, the stuff of others that's been legislated away from them in a Marxist redistribution of wealth), is one of the great lures of a governmentally run program. Under such relentless socialistic assaults, personal responsibility is very nearly dead. Once the ball gets rolling, people just keep asking the government to do more and more for them. "Somebody should do something!" "There oughta be a law!" Personally, I feel like we have plenty of laws already. I don't get up in the morning and phone a politician to ask how to get through my day. I wouldn't even ask one to hold my wallet for me, let alone housesit. I'm sure not going to ask them to babysit.

One of the ongoing battles involves the efforts to use legislation to protect children from internet and television content. The danger of tarnished innocence is just a click away they tell us, whether it's from a remote control or a mouse. These cries always smack of hyperbole to me and make my eyes roll of their own volition. Whether the dangerous content is on your TV or on your computer, the safeguard is a simple one. Follow: it's your television and your computer. What shows up on them is up to you. You have the right to make those choices. These are rights that have been fought for and it is of criminally tragic proportion to give them up without as much of a fight. If you don't like what's on, change the channel or turn the thing off, but never never ever abdicate your authority away to a bunch of people who can't even handle the things they're already assigned to do.

Likewise, the law and the nature of Freedom saddles you with the burden of making decisions for your children. Anyone attempting to change that should make any responsible adult spew forth bile like a geyser from the depths of his enraged innards. They're your kids watching whatever on your stuff in your home. Should a bunch of strangers you wouldn't let babysit really be responsible for what you can watch? No. The solution is (write this down) that you pay attention to what your kids are doing and watching. No, you don't get to cop out and tell me you're too busy. I pay attention to what my kids are watching on TV, whether we're watching something together or not. I know what's in their video games and sometimes play them with them. They ask for permission to use the computer and are subject to having their shoulders peeked over frequently and randomly.

Blame my parents. Yes, both my parents worked in demanding careers, but I still managed to have home-cooked, balanced meals so often that I barely remember the times it didn't happen. More impressively, that low-incidence of take-out meals occurred even with great New York pizza and Chinese food being readily available.  With such dedication came parents who knew what my favorite TV shows were, what music I liked and sometimes even watched Saturday morning cartoons with me. We were also known to actually talk with each other and they encouraged me to read and...Well, the point is, be in control, don't hand it away. Exercise self-discipline and taking charge of your home will be easy.

We have all the local cable channels available and high-speed internet. External media product is piped into our home daily and the only nakedness I see on a regular basis is my wife's. How is this possible? My choice. I click and click and click, yet I don't find myself accidentally staring at hours of erotica. Neither do the kids. Trust me on this. I don't sleep much, so I know. Maybe Congress is keeping me awake with all the noise they make. If only there were some way to keep those government guys under control. There oughta be a law.