Fall Softly

It's raining hard outside as I write this, and it's a cool rain that announces the arrival of fall loud and clear. It's always been my favorite time of year, but this year it seems even more special than in years past.

There have been some disappointments throughout the year, but that seems stellar in comparison to so many years of my life where there were major catastrophes and devastating traumas. I'm grateful for some normalcy.

It looks like this is going to be one of those years where the first 3/4 of the year is taxi-ing down the runway, and the last three months are the takeoff. I'm looking forward to that.

Perhaps the biggest changes that have taken place this year are internal, both literally and figuratively.

My health hasn't been that great this year, but at least I haven't suffered from the "I-wish-I-was-dead-summer-flu" that I had while moving last year. I still am not sure how I managed to survive that.

I've done some refining of my political views as I uncover more information and reflect on ideology vs. reality. It has made for some stimulating debate, but the more red pills you take, the more alone you feel in a world full of people who are addicted to the blue pills.

Perhaps the biggest change in me has been that I have made room in my heart for true friends and family, and have accepted that some family will never truly be family in any sense other than genetic, while some who call themselves friends are not friends in any sense of the word at all.

Discernment. I'm learning it.

I've eliminated my tolerance for people who clearly do not care about me beyond whatever is in it for them. That's not easy, because I have a terminal sense of optimism that often deceives me into believing that people have better intentions than they often do, because my intentions tend to be good. Not everyone is like you and me. That's a hard lesson to learn.

It isn't easy to walk away from someone who treats you like a second-class citizen when there is something you feel you should be sharing with them, but sometimes it's for the best, lest they destroy that which would otherwise be shared.

I've found that there is room in my life for more than I thought possible now that I have eliminated some wasted space.

If all goes well, Booger will have a new brother or sister in the not-too-distant future, and the house will be filled with even more unconditional love. I'm excited about that.

Maybe I'm just mellowing with age, but I don't feel nearly as anxious as I used to about the future. Or maybe, it's just because I'm so tired all the time. ;-)

I'm not quite at the top of my game yet, but I'm on my way.

Leaves are falling softly with the rain, and I'm falling softly into place in the multiple roles life has called me to fill. Some were unexpected, but they all feel right, so I'm rolling in them like leaves and enjoying the hayride.

A.

The Best Birthday I Ever Had (Was In Jail)

September 13, 2005, my cell-mate was a bankruptcy attorney who was serving a short federal sentence for bankruptcy fraud. Her sentence was less than six months, so she didn't get sent to a prison, but was to serve out her sentence in a federally contracted detention center, in this case, a county jail.


She had three young children, (including a set of twins) and one of them was a "special needs" child with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other issues. Since she was a single mother, she was allowed to break up her sentence over two summers so that her sister could keep her kids while she was locked up and then she could be there to take care of them when school was back in session.


She and I became very close as we got to know one another. Like many who feel the walls of despair closing in on them while confined in a drab environment, she tortured herself with despairing thoughts, including that she was a bad mother (very few who have that fear are ever actually bad mothers) and I did my best to keep her focused on the positive things she had going for her.


She was a beautiful woman, very attractive, kind-hearted, intelligent... she was within a year of my age, and it was hard to imagine how she could end up in this situation. Of course, many people have said the same thing about me. I assure you, it can happen to anyone.

One thing I knew was that she would be fine once she got out. She took over the jail within a few weeks, teaching everyone from accused murderers to crack addicts new card games and making it clear to them that she wasn't going to be bullied. She always had the upper hand, and I was sure she would somehow maintain it throughout the rest of her life. (I should get in touch with her and verify that she has, though there is no doubt in my mind.)


The week before my birthday, she, knowing that I didn't have a steady source of funding with which to purchase items like shampoo and lotion from the commissary, had me make a list of items I wanted for my birthday. I was thrilled!


She was going to be going home in a couple of weeks, so she was planning a farewell party and also ordered about 35 Hostess cupcakes, one for every inmate in our pod. (This never happens. Ever. Nobody does this. Except Shannon.)


So, on my birthday, we were all released from our cells for breakfast. I went about my usual routine of taking my shower afterwards and returned to one of about ten four-person tables where several of us normally played cards until it was time to be locked back down. When I got to my usual spot at the table, I got the surprise of my life. Not only was there a Hostess cupcake waiting there for me, but there was also a birthday card, (you could purchase those from the commissary list to send to loved ones) signed by everyone, and a "candle" she had somehow managed to fashion out of paper. (Keep in mind, inmates have no access to scissors.)

Before I even had a chance to react, the pod of about 35 women who had just been going about their business were suddenly all turned in my direction and the room swelled with the sound of everyone singing "Happy Birthday". That's when I realized that I was experiencing my first-ever surprise birthday party. In jail.


Growing up, I had enjoyed throwing my father a surprise birthday party just a couple of years before he got sick and died. Many surprise parties had been thrown in my family, and I was always enamored with the idea of sneaking around in order to bombard someone with expressions of love and happiness. The fact that someone would go to that kind of trouble  seemed to me to be the ultimate validation of the fact that the person being honored at such a party was deserving of love.


Like many who are in the black sheep role in their family, I struggled with feelings of unworthiness. I never thought anyone would go to that kind of trouble for me unless it was a matter of necessity, but there I was, turning 36 in jail, and experiencing the most amazing (and unexpected) surprise birthday party anyone could ever imagine, in the most unlikely of circumstances.

My brother and I always had nice birthdays growing up. My parents went out of their way to make it special with what little resources they had, and they always succeeded. I cherish those memories, but as birthday surprises go, nothing - not even winning the lottery on my birthday - could ever compare to what Shannon, a friend I had known for only a brief time, did for me. It really is true that it's the thought that counts, and the thought she put in will count for the rest of my life.


So there you have it, horrific, wonderful, and bizarre all rolled into one bittersweet, delicious experience with a paper candle on top. I challenge you to beat that combination in a true story. I just don't think it can be done.

A.

The Misogynistic Surge Of 2012

Throughout the history of humanity, misogyny has been an oppressive force against women. We've made some progress, but perhaps not as much as we would like to believe.

The most obvious evidence can be seen in recent comments made by many politicians of the right-wing variety and the more than 600 bills they have introduced in an attempt to take away a woman's right to control her body. Of course, there is also rape, the glass ceiling, inequities in pay between women and their male counterparts, and so on.

There seems to be a surge in misogynistic behavior in some of the most primitive males of the human species. Like a virus before it finally dies out, succumbing to the immune system of its host, there is a surge of feverish activity in a desperate attempt to continue its survival.

However, there is a less-obvious (and perhaps more insidious) source of oppressive behavior towards women by males that often gets overlooked, one that I have personally experienced with increased frequency over the past few years.

It goes something like this:

A woman has males with whom she interacts either in person or online who are casual acquaintances. Sometimes they are old classmates, others may be past or present work associates, friends of friends, or acquaintances from a variety of other sources.

As it goes between most humans, there are shared views regarding economics, politics, and religion, along with differing views regarding same.

Everything is fine until the differences become evident in a debate, and this is where things go south very quickly in a way that rarely occurs between two males or two females:

The male makes statements regarding his views, and the female counters with her own (or vice versa). There is an exchange between the two, but in cases where the female is just as persistent in defending her view as the male is in defending his (especially where the female is providing logic based on facts and the male is relying more on assumptions and an emotional attachment to his own views) the female becomes the enemy, and civility becomes something the male seems incapable of exercising.

I have seen this quite frequently here in "The Bible Belt" where I spend much of my time, but I have also seen it elsewhere. The message seems quite clear: "You're allowed to have different views than me, but you are not allowed to challenge my statements regarding mine, especially when I have not based them on sound information. My male ego is so fragile that I will make you my enemy if you point out logical fallacies, factual inaccuracies, or other information that shows my assumptions and statements to be in error."

A woman can be perfectly civil and never raise her voice or engage in rude behavior, but many men seem to think it is their right to be "right", even when they are wrong, and begin to personally attack the female with whom they are engaged in conversation when her challenge to his logic is as persistent as his refusal to be confronted with factual information to the contrary.

From there, we see ad hominem attacks, anecdotal fallacies, red herrings, and other pathetic attempts to distract the opponent (and perhaps themselves) from the fact that they are losing ground in the argument, debate, or discussion:

• ad hominem attack: an attempt to deflect an argument by inferring or outright claiming something derogatory (and unrelated to the discussion) about your opponent
• anecdotal fallacy: unverified stories given as "evidence"
• red herring: an attempt to deflect an argument by bringing up something else, but usually only after the one committing this act has had a chance to state their case, leaving the other party without the opportunity to do the same

If you're lucky, you learn that this is someone unworthy of your time and you simply stop associating with him. However, it doesn't always work out so smoothly.

There are some males who become so riled by the fact that a woman dares oppose him as persistently as he has opposed her that his ire doesn't end with her attempting to distance herself from him, and he aggressively pursues her with behavior that may range from bullying to stalking, either online, in person, or both.

The cyber-bullying, which has now been classified as a crime, usually involves making statements about the victim which are either false or unsubstantiated, and/or badgering the victim by repeatedly making derogatory statements about her publicly, either addressed to her directly or referencing her on social media platforms or other electronic means.

The cyber-stalking, also classified as a crime, often involves harassing or hunting her down online (finding as many ways to contact her as possible, including multiple social media venues, blogs, etc.) and sometimes even involves attempts to hack into her accounts and disrupt her ability to use them and/or commit crimes using them.

In some cases, the stalking becomes physical and the victim is physically hunted in an attempt to intimidate or terrorize her.

I have several friends in law enforcement who have witnessed some of this behavior toward me from males over the past couple of years and have expressed concern. There have been reports made in some cases and in others, I simply didn't feel it was warranted.

Nonetheless, it is a frustrating state of affairs at best, and a reminder of just how hostile the world still is toward women (especially intelligent, articulate women who do not cow down to arrogant, unsubstantiated proclamations made by emotionally immature males).

I have heard many stories from other intellectual women who hold their own well with their male counterparts, and it wasn't until I heard from so many others that I realized this wasn't just something resulting from my own refusal to back down from a few bullies, but a widespread attitude and set of behaviors from many men who, now that rape and physical assault are not options they can easily get away with, have learned to find other ways to make themselves feel powerful at the expense of women.

Fortunately, there are many males who are not like this. I am very grateful to have many of them in my life, which only makes the less-evolved males stand out even more as the troglodytes that they are.

So, my warning to all women is: don't get so distracted by the idiotic statements of GOP members on television that you fail to notice when someone right in front of you is engaging in the subtle behavior of undermining you psychologically. They may not be able to pass laws in an attempt to control your body, but they are desperately seeking to take up the same amount of space in your mind that they apparently have allotted in their own minds (such as they are) for you.

Evict them.

A.

Raping Your Wife: It's not nearly as bad as smoking pot. (According to Todd Akin)

Earlier this year, I blogged about the scientifically and medically illiterate Stacey Campfield and his ignorant statements about H.I.V. and A.I.D.S. regarding how it spreads and who can and (allegedly) can not get it. (Anyone can get it.)

Now, it's time for yet another blog post about another politician who is even more scientifically and medically ignorant than Stacey Campfield. (Who knew THAT was possible?) I'm referring to Republican Todd Akin, who represents Missouri's 2nd Congressional District.

For the record, his statement was, when asked if he would support abortions for women who have been raped:

"It seems to me first of all from what I understand from doctors that's really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

(Continuing with this blog post required a short break where I had to get a drink of water, as the cognitive dissonance created from typing that quote dehydrated my brain severely, and I'm pretty sure the "doctors" he was referring to must have a Ph.D. in voodoo.)

He also said that he would prefer that punishment for rape be focused on the rapist and not "attacking the child".

First of all, anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of reproduction knows that a fertilized egg and/or a developing fetus is not a "child". Using the word "child" to describe any pregnancy is nothing more than political and/or religious rhetoric stemming from the fear-reactive area of the brain known as the amygdala which, despite its primitive nature, continues to override common sense in many who do not recognize that the only real reason why they do not like the idea of abortion is that they are wired to favor reproduction of the human species for survival purposes.

Any other claimed reasoning for why there is any concern for the developing fetus is nothing more than a rationalization of an involuntary reaction caused by the way the human brain is wired. That includes religious rationalizations, humanistic rationalizations, or any other reason given by those professing concern for a fetus.

Despite the fact that there is no reason for us to fear that our species will not survive if everyone does not reproduce abundantly, the instinct to bring forth spawn is so strong that our species is obsessed with the activity that brings it about (sex) to the point where it almost seems to override any of our other basic needs, including sustenance. (Don't believe me? Ask any teenage boy to choose between eating for a week and having sex, either with another human or via masturbation.)

The instinct to give birth upon becoming pregnant is so strong in some of us that even I believe that if I were gang-raped and became pregnant with quadruplets, knowing that it would likely kill me to carry the pregnancy to term, I still do not think that I could bring myself to have an abortion. The unnecessary instinct for survival via reproduction really is that strong in me.

Luckily, having an above-average understanding of both science in general and medicine specifically, my logical and critical thinking skills are able to override my primitive survival instincts when it comes to respecting the boundaries of other people's bodies.

Here are a few facts which, once understood, help intelligent people to achieve the necessary objectivity in order to behave less like a primitive human and more like an intelligent human regarding this issue:

• There is no "certificate of conception" or "certificate of pregnancy" issued during a pregnancy because fetuses are not persons.
• There is no death certificate issued after a miscarriage, because fetuses are not persons.
• Between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 pregnancies usually ends in miscarriage, often before the woman realizes she is pregnant. This means that a pregnancy does not necessarily indicate a viable potential for human life.
• Claiming that the potential for development into a human life equals a "child" is the same thing as saying that an egg and a sperm which have not even been joined and are not even in the same body is a "child". It isn't. Potential does not equal existence.
• Not planting a seed for a tree is not the same thing as cutting a tree down, and not allowing a fetus to develop into a viable human being is not the same thing as killing a person.

Now that we have addressed the ridiculous statement that a "child" is being "punished" if a woman chooses not to allow a blob of cells to remain in her body, let's move on to the next point:

The only thing the female body can do to "shut that whole thing down" if she's raped and does not want to give birth as a result of that rape is walk into an abortion clinic and exercise her right to remove the cells which she does not wish to keep in her uterus. (An alternative would be for the female body to walk into a drug store and request a "morning after" pill.)

That's the ONLY thing the female body can do to "shut that whole thing down". There are no magical powers contained in the uterus or the vagina that suck an egg back into the ovary once it has been released during ovulation. There is no spermicide that is released that kills only the sperm that ejaculate from a rapist's penis.

I had to address the statements made by this arrogantly ignorant politician, simply because to not do so would be irresponsible just in case there might be others who have not been properly educated about these proven facts of life. However, this is not the most important point of this blog post.

(Also, I'd like to pause for a moment and recognize that many women who have been raped have experienced flashbacks triggered by these arrogantly ignorant comments spewed forth from the pie hole of Todd Akin, and if you need help, I recommend visiting rainn.org.)

The most disturbing thing isn't that there are people who don't understand these basic facts even after living in this country for 65 years and having access to every conceivable (no pun intended) necessary resource available at any public library which would allow them to know better.

The most disturbing thing isn't even that this same man thinks that it's a bad idea to criminalize raping your wife, as he claims it becomes a "legal weapon to beat up on the husband" during divorce proceedings. (He wouldn't vote to de-criminalize the use of marijuana, but he would vote to de-criminalize a man raping his wife. Note: This is the year 2012 and this is a Christian man who lives in America, not a Muslim living in Afghanistan.)

The most disturbing thing is that this man (if we can call him that... personally, I think "beast" would be more appropriate) holds public office with a considerable amount of power and authority attached to it, and was put there by American citizens who likely did not even know that he had these views.

Say what you want about "the media". Bitch about how inaccurate it often is, whine about how some things get way too much attention and others not enough, display your intellectual snobbery by claiming that anyone who pays attention to anything the media puts out is naive and "drinking the Kool-Aid", but do NOT tell me that the media always gets it wrong, and do not tell me that being able to watch the words come out of this idiot's mouth is not CRITICALLY important when it comes to understanding who exactly is in power in this country and why they shouldn't be there.

I propose that, in a country that requires any non-citizen wishing to become a citizen to pass a test showing a basic knowledge of this country and how it works which surpasses what even the average American-born citizen knows, we require that ANY political candidate pass a basic high school level science proficiency exam, including a test proving a basic understanding of sexual reproductive science and biology.

If you wonder how it is possible that any politician is against sex education in the classroom, including sex education and safe sex methods for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, it's only possible because they themselves do not have such knowledge, and therefore can not comprehend its importance.

The rest of us, however, know better, and if we don't start demanding that the people we pay to represent us in making policy in this country know what every high school student is required to know before walking across the stage to receive their diploma, we deserve whatever unpleasant results these ignorant people bring to our existence.

And to those who think it doesn't matter who they vote for or are considering not voting or voting for a candidate with no chance of winning because they can't decide which candidate they dislike and/or disagree with the most, understand that you are tolerating extreme ignorance in the leadership of your country by passively allowing it to continue, and you'll have no valid complaint about how unhappy you are with the state of our affairs if you make no effort to help bring about an outcome that promotes reason over superstition.

As a wise person once said:

You deserve what you tolerate.

Do you deserve to be represented by people who have less than a sixth-grade level understanding of reproductive science? Do you deserve to be represented by someone who thinks it's worse to smoke marijuana than it is to rape your own wife?

Vote accordingly.

A.

When I Was A Christian...

Before anyone who reads this decides that this is "just another post from the atheist point of view" or that it's about me being "against religion", you need to know that I felt EXACTLY THE SAME WAY about the topic I am about to discuss when I was a devout Christian as I do now. EXACTLY. THE. SAME.

When I was a teenager, I was called to give sermons to the SOUTHERN BAPTIST congregation where I was a member in Ringgold, GA MORE THAN ONCE. I remember one of my sermons dealt with what message we sent as Christians with our behavior, and I posed the question: "If someone who knew nothing about Christianity observed us in our daily lives, what would they learn about being a Christian from us? What would be their understanding of what it means to be a Christian?"

I am now going to answer that question.

If *I* knew nothing about Christianity and were observing many Christians today, my impression of Christianity would be that it is mainly about making sure we made a huge show about praying in public before football games, before school started, and at government functions and political events. Also: a lot of whining about the fact that not everyone gives a Christian-specific greeting during seasonal holidays, even though most Christian holidays have pagan origins...

Forget the fact that the Christian holy book makes it VERY CLEAR that making a big show of praying in public is NOT what Christianity is about:

And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. (6) But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. (7) And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. (8) Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. – Matthew 6.5-8 NASB

The Christian holy book ALSO makes it very clear that mindlessly reciting prayers by rote is not meaningful Christian behavior, and yet that is exactly what goes on when "The Lord's Prayer" is recited at public events as some sort of obligatory ritual.

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. - Matthew 6:7 KJV

It's quite clear that both of the foundations on which all of this noise is being made about prayer before football games is based are discouraged in the Christian holy book. How ironic.

But perhaps the most sad aspect of this drama is that it sends the wrong message not only to non-Christians, who increasingly view Christians as political invaders who wish to force their religion on everyone else, but also to our children.

When your government denies you special privileges when you demand that they treat your religion as though it is the "official" religion of this country (which we do not have, since our forefathers, in their wisdom, made it clear that we were NOT to make an establishment of religion in our government), when they deny your request for special recognition over all of the HUNDREDS OF OTHER RELIGIONS practiced in this country, and you then behave by claiming that you are persecuted, you are teaching children to take on an attitude of entitlement... you are teaching them that if they do not get special treatment as Christians, they are somehow victims.

This is where bigotry begins, folks. It starts with indulging in the delusional behavior that not getting special privileges equals persecution, and it progresses to believing that you are superior because of your beliefs, and/or that your beliefs are superior to those of others.

From there, the attitude grows into the view that other religions are not only NOT entitled to the special privileges that you fancy YOURSELF to be entitled to, but that they are LESS entitled to EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

This is why Christians who view marriage between two people of the same sex as PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE (the same way many anti-gay-marriage Christians are FINE with eating shrimp, also listed as an abomination in the Christian holy book) are upset that some Christians are attempting to step on THEIR toes by disallowing THEM to legally marry gay couples in their churches.

And, even worse, the massive efforts and grandstanding that goes into "fighting for prayer" at football games, schools, and government assemblies does absolutely NOTHING to advance the cause of Christianity. In fact, it diminishes its true purpose and everything that it is supposed to stand for, which is practicing kindness and respect toward others, remaining humble in the expression and practice of your faith, (as opposed to loudly demanding that everyone wait while and take notice as you do so publicly) and helping those who are homeless, hungry, naked, and sick.

The only thing that comes from praying before these events is self-satisfaction of the Christian ego.

Now, if the same people who are congratulating themselves for "coming together" as Christians from multiple denominations with the common goal of making a huge drama out of praying before a football game were also putting the same amount of effort into collecting food for the homeless at said football games, it might not be such a vulgar display of selfishness on their part to demand that everyone wait while they recite a rote prayer before the game.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to pray anytime or anywhere, so long as they don't whine about not being allowed to do it over a loud speaker as part of an officially mandated activity on government or taxpayer-owned/funded property. I do, however, find it very sad that so many Christians show such a lack of respect for their own religion by ignoring the truly important aspects of practicing it in favor of superficial shows of power before football games.

I feel that way now, and I felt that way when I was a Christian.

Clearly, being an atheist hasn't changed me. It has merely revealed that my ability to tell right from wrong does not stem from religion, but comes from common sense which we all have the ability to exercise, if only we will shed the ego and focus on what really matters.

A.

The Lesser of Evils

I have a Twitter friend whom I once viewed as a wise person. Lately, many of our mutual friends have begun to wonder what's happened to him, as he seems to have lost all perspective and logical capabilities, and has begun sounding more like a schizophrenic than someone espousing wisdom.

I was discussing the fact that, if I could vote, given the inevitability that either Obama or Romney will end up in office (barring something extremely unexpected taking place), I would choose Obama. When asked why, I cited the fact that, even though I do not agree with much of Obama's economic policy, I view human rights issues as a priority over the economy. After all, without human rights, no economic policy will be of much help to any of us.

That's when "Mr. T.", as I'll call him, broke in with a mostly incoherent diatribe on why Obama isn't worthy of being credited with having human rights as a priority, because he's a "mass murderer just like all the others" (including Romney).

Apparently, he's calling Obama a mass murderer because of the ongoing wars and additional potential warfare we are facing. While I do not agree with the general consensus that it is our country's responsibility to police the world, I think most reasonable people agree that it's a stretch to call it "mass murder". Death and destruction is an inevitability in any war, but murder is something one intentionally carries out as a goal, not something that comes with the territory of waging a war against a country based on a perceived threat (however misperceived) or any other basis.

Mr. T. proceeded to say that both Obama and Romney are mass murderers, and that I was "crazy" for saying that it made sense to vote for EITHER of them, and that supporting either of them was me condoning mass murder.

In an attempt to bring reason into the conversation, I laid it out like this:

If both candidates are equally guilty of mass murder, and it is inevitable that one of them will end up in office, it makes sense to choose the candidate that will bring less restriction of freedom. I can't control either candidate's decision on warfare or "mass murder", but if I am forced to choose only between two "mass murderers", I choose the one who is for marriage equality and doesn't think he owns my vagina.

He made several pathetic attempts to ridicule me for that statement, calling me selfish and claiming that I think my vagina is more important than the innocent lives of children whom he is accusing Obama of (apparently intentionally) killing. His logical fallacy is quite glaring to me, but to him, it's the most perfect logic ever known to humanity.

I think it's important to mention that there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama (or even Romney, for that matter) intends to murder innocent children. Do innocent children die in a war? Unfortunately, yes. To stretch and distort that into intentionally murdering them is not only inaccurate, it shows a lack of clarity and a very distorted thinking process.

But, just for the sake of argument, let's say that he's right and that both Romney and Obama are mass murderers. I don't agree, but let's just pretend for a moment that it's true.

He repeatedly claimed that voting for someone who is a "mass murderer" simply because they have other policies that I agree with somehow makes me a party to said "mass murder". That would be true if there were only ONE candidate guilty of mass murder and I chose the mass murderer based on my priority of wanting them to keep the hell out of my genitalia. However, if both parties are equally guilty of being mass murderers, and one of those two is guaranteed to end up in office, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it makes sense to go for the lesser of two evils.

Penn Jillette, someone who is good at coming up with great sound bytes that promote critical thinking, has been quoted many times as saying "If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you end up with more evil."

The glaring logical fallacy there is that voting for LESS evil vs. MORE evil somehow creates more evil. It doesn't. Yes, you'll continue to have evil, but you'll have less evil than you would otherwise have had if you voted for the greater quantity of evil over the lesser quantity of evil. The quote makes the assumption that there is at least one viable alternative to the two evils, and at this point in the campaign, there just isn't. Fan or not, that quote is just nonsense.

Ironically, Mr. T. is not a fan of Penn's, perhaps even an enemy, but seems to be saying the exact same thing in accusing me of being "crazy" for saying it makes sense to vote for the lesser of two evils. Somehow in his eyes, me voting for a candidate whom he views to be a mass murderer is the same thing as promoting mass murder. It's not... not unless there is a candidate who stands a chance to make it into the White House who is NOT a mass murderer and I pass them up in favor of my own civil liberties over the lives of innocent children.

In a fantasy world, things might be that simple. In the real world, we are almost always faced with voting for a candidate based on prioritized issues, since there will rarely ever be a candidate with whom we are in complete agreement on everything.

When bills get passed in Congress, there are always undesirable things embedded in them that we'd rather not pass. We aren't voting to pass those undesirable things simply because we view other things as important enough to pass despite the accompanying undesirables embedded within the bill.

Likewise, when I condone voting for a candidate who stands for marriage equality and women's rights over one who is the polar opposite, that in no way requires me to condone other political views or behaviors of those candidates.

If we follow the suggestion that we shouldn't vote at all unless there is a candidate we agree with 100% on everything, then we don't ever vote, and the few control who ends up in office. We still end up with one of two main candidates in office, but we have no say in whether the lesser or greater evils of the two reigns. That's asinine.

According to Mr. T., this view means I am insane. If that's the case, then I'm fine with being insane. Insanity is better than indulging in the foolishness of logical fallacy and hyperbole at the expense of what little influence we taxpayers have. I'll take my crazy ass insane opinion that we should vote for the lesser of two evils over the idea that we should passively allow the worse of two evils to take office just to play make believe that we are better people for "not voting for someone who is guilty of (fill in the blank here)" any day.

All things being equal, if Hitler # 1 wants to kill off entire segments of the population AND control your genitalia, and Hitler # 2 wants to kill off entire segments of the population but does NOT want control of your genitalia, logic dictates that you're a fool for not at least trying to prevent having BOTH evils inflicted on the populace. That doesn't make mass murder ok, and it doesn't mean you are condoning it. It simply means you are trying to avoid that evil which you may have SOME control over.

Yeah, I know. That's just fucking insane. We should all just sit passively by and hope that not voting for either inevitable candidate somehow works out for the best, because it's so much better to pretend we have the moral high ground for never voting for anyone with whom we are not 100% in agreement.

Somebody get me a straight jacket.


A.

Blast From The Past - Beware of Bigots

Most of you who follow my blogs know that my father, who died of brain cancer at age 38, was bi-sexual with a tendency toward being attracted to men more than women.


He was a public school music teacher in the 80's, and most people had some idea that he might not be heterosexual. And yet, it just wasn't safe to come out back then... not that it's much safer now more than 20 years later.


I miss my father and would give anything to have him alive today. Still, there's a part of me that is glad he isn't around to see just how poorly things have developed.


Sure, there's been progress made, but when fast-food restaurants owned by religious groups are donating millions of dollars to anti-gay organizations that exist solely to restrict the freedoms of those in the GLBT category, we can't be very proud of who we are as humans just yet.


I have quite a few former classmates from grade school who are religious zealots. They do not question where their religious holy book came from or whether it makes sense to blindly believe what it says (or what they are told that what someone else thinks it says means). It's bad enough that when they are part of any debate, they constantly cite their "Holy Bible" as why "being gay is wrong". (Forget that they are cherry-picking and ignoring the fact that working on the sabbath is listed as a sin that one should be killed for right next to "lying with a man as you would with a woman"...) but what they don't seem to understand is that their view that "being gay is wrong" does not entitle them to make decisions on what types of legal contracts they are allowed to enter into, and what our government should be allowed to call those contracts.


The idea that any religion should have a say in public policy is about as un-American as it gets. And yet, there are people who not only believe that their religious views give them the right to restrict the freedoms of others who do not share their views, they actually come up with some rather bizarre reasons why two people of the same sex should not be able to use the word "marriage" in their legally binding, non-religious, civil marriage contract.


(FYI: Marriage dates back more than 4,000 years, and there is evidence of homosexual marriage that far back as well. This means that Christians did not invent marriage, nor do they own the monopoly on the word.)


Covenant is another word that is used by both governments and religions. That doesn't mean that one has the authority to dictate how the other must define it.


In a social network debate with one of said religious zealots from my grade school years, I challenged his views. His response? That I just don't understand, and that the reason why gay people should not be legally allowed to marry is that it "forces him to redefine his view of  marriage".


No. It doesn't. He is still free to view marriage however he so chooses. How others view it, including how the law views it for the purposes of legal marriage contracts, does not have the power to force him to change his definition of the word at all.


To say otherwise would be like saying that the military practice of bringing back the remains of dead, non-Islamic soldiers in airplanes should not be allowed because it forces Islamic military people to redefine their definition of proper burial practices. No. It doesn't. Islamic people are still perfectly capable of maintaining their own burial practices, and my classmate is still perfectly capable of maintaining his view of marriage.


He then went on to tell me that even if he is able to maintain his definition of marriage, it is "offensive" to him because "the Christian view of marriage does not include gay marriage" and that it is therefore "stepping on his toes" and "forcing it on him" to allow gay people to enter into civil marriage contracts.


Really? How is allowing OTHER people who do NOT SHARE YOUR RELIGIOUS WORLD VIEW to enter into legally binding, civil marriage contacts, "forcing gay marriage" on anyone? No one is forcing you to get "gay married". They are simply not allowing you to control whether other people who are gay can enter into civil marriage contracts.


When these types of zealots realize that they've lost that debate, they then turn to insisting that gay couples should be relegated to having *their* civil marriage contracts be called "civil unions". The reason why that doesn't make sense is that the legally recognized form of marriage in the U.S. since the 1800's is already a civil union and has absolutely nothing to do with religion. (This is why getting married in a church does not make you legally married unless you have a civil marriage license from the courthouse. It is also why you can be legally married without a church wedding at all.)


Why should the same exact thing have two different names dependent on the sex of the parties to the contract? Should we start calling business partnerships that include gay people or same-sex business partners "civil business unions" instead of partnerships? It's absurd. It's neurotic. It's also un-American to single out a segment of the population to be treated differently under the law. Separating personal civil commitment contracts into two different names based on sexual orientation is no different than having separate schools or separate bathrooms for people of different races. If you wouldn't tolerate one, you shouldn't tolerate the other.


My classmate began to get extremely irritated with me as I continued to point out his logical fallacies, evening using "f-ing" at some point. (I'm always amused at how people think that leaving a few letters out makes a word any less profane, and really see no problem with profanity anyway when used as an exclamation point in a conversation, which is why it exists in the first place.)


I then pointed out to him that there are MANY CHRISTIAN SECTS that do NOT share his views and that they even perform marriages IN THEIR CHURCH. Why doesn't he have a problem with that? He can't force them to change, because their religion is protected under the law, just like the rights of gay people to enter into legally binding marriage contracts should be and increasingly is, as people evolve out of their bigotry and recognize that religion does not have the authority to dictate the civil rights of anyone.


He didn't have a response for that. Instead, he just kept on ranting about how offensive it was to him and "Christians" in general.


I pointed out that even the Episcopal church now recognizes gay married couples and even performs blessings on same-sex couples. They are Christians, too. I'm quite certain that they would be offended by any Southern Baptist's assertion that they should not be allowed to do that because Southern Baptist's find that "offensive".


My point is to demonstrate that anyone who attempts to restrict the freedoms of groups of people whom they do not view as obedient to their religion or even their version of any particular religion are, by nature, so self-centered that they actually believe THEIR rights are being infringed upon because they are not allowed to infringe upon the rights of OTHERS.


I have many Christian friends (including other former classmates) who are just as disgusted with this attitude from so many religionists as I am. It's disturbing that anyone could be so out of touch with American values of freedom (including religious freedom of those who do not agree with YOUR brand of religion) that they would resort to whining that their rights are lessened by allowing others to have the same rights that they enjoy.


I think what disturbed me most about learning of my former classmate's views was that I had always viewed him as an intelligent person capable of sound logical thinking skills.


However, as I remember back to our high school years, I recall a rather selfish move on his part that was very hurtful to me and which should have lessened my level of shock at his ability to let selfishness overrule decency and logic even as an adult.


You see, we dated for a short time one summer, and after school started back he informed me one day that he no longer wished to be involved with me. When I asked him why, he told me point blank that "I really like you, but I don't want the other kids to make fun of me for dating you."


I was not very popular back then. I was a nerd (still am) and kind of quiet (am not still quiet, at least not when confronted with something that needs a good dose of critical thinking skills and logic). I was very much an outcast. My mother was out of the picture at that time and, despite having a bi/gay dad, my fashion sense was awful and nobody was able to show me how to pull myself together. Many kids shunned me because I didn't know how to dress very well (still don't) and I was awkward, and then there were the bullies who gave me a hard time because Dad, whom they knew from having him as a music teacher, was gay. (Yep. Kids have a way of knowing things that adults either don't know or pretend not to know.)


Bigot is a word that many people who are accurately described by it find extremely offensive. They don't seem to understand that it applies to anyone who believes a segment of the population should be treated differently than them or have less freedom than they enjoy. It's not a nice word because it describes nasty behavior. I have no qualms about using the word when confronting people who have that attitude, because they need to understand that, while they have the right to have those attitudes, there are social consequences for holding on to them.


I can respect that people have different views than I do. I don't have to respect them for having those views, nor do I have to tolerate them attempting to restrict the freedoms of those with whom they disagree.


What's telling about the people who try to do those sorts of things, is that they pick only those things listed in their holy books as "abominations" that personally offend them, while ignoring other things that are listed as abominations that they themselves do on a regular basis (like wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, eating shrimp and lobster and other shellfish, and working on the sabbath, if they can even agree with one another on what day actually IS the sabbath). That is the perfect example of a hypocrite, and the word "bigotry" actually evolved from the French word "hypocrite".

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone who would break up with me to avoid being made fun of by other kids would have such a selfish attitude toward gay people and others who do not share his religious views as an adult, but I suppose the pollyanna in me had just assumed he'd grown out of it.

Clearly, some things never change.

A.