I know I have blogged several times about the gun debate, so apologies if I am beating a dead horse at this point. But as I continue to exercise my brain on this topic the more confused and incensed I become at how polar opposite and equally wrongheaded both sides of the political spectrum have become over the issue, at least to my way of thinking.
As is usually the case with me, I like to get my thoughts out in the open. I do this primarily because it helps me keep my logical and ethical "filing cabinet" organized, but I also enjoy it when (occasionally) people respond with ideas that give me pause and make me think harder.
So with these ideas in mind lets dive in. :)
The tragedy of the Newtown massacre has collimated the overall political zeitgeist on the nature of violence. Or has it?
The drivel spewing out of both sides of the political spectrum here in America, at least insofar as I've seen, have had almost nothing substantive to say about the nature of violence. What we have seen is political talking points, that when taken by themselves (and grossly out of context) appear to be valid points.
- More than half of all gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides
- Gun involvement in domestic violence
- Accidental deaths of children
- Who needs an assault weapon?
- High rates of gun violence in inner cities
It doesn't take much in the way of research (or intellectual honesty) to come up with compelling counters to these types of points either.
- Suicide rates in the U.S. are lower than most of the rest of the world. A rest of the world with far less guns.
- Domestic violence incidents per capita are lower here than in most of the rest of the world.
- Infant and child mortality rates are much higher in most of the world (though not as low as most of europe)
- What is an assault weapon? The definition is murky and relates to aspects of a firearm that have nothing substantive to do with its lethality in any way whatsoever.
- Inner city violence has a clear correlation with poverty and not per-capita gun ownership.
- Gun violence is almost always statistically lower in cities where per-capita gun ownership is higher. But, this coorelates with income more strongly than gun ownership itself.
Granted, anyone who reads this who *IS* dedicated to some semblance of intellectual honesty can also see that *merely* making counter arguments is not enough. But the point I am trying to make is a deeper one than "guns are good" or "guns are bad".
That point being, that NONE of the debate seems to be focusing on violence at all. Not on the psychology of violence, the politics of violence, or the economics of violence. The proliferation of guns in America is a topic worthy of it's own blog (indeed of it's own encyclopedia), but I think we can at least grasp that the gun pointed at a fellow citizen, and not one pointed at a paper target, or a deer, is at the heart of the matter here. And thus we are really talking about violence and its nature.
A lot of people, most of them young children, died needlessly in Newtown at the hands of a maniac. People are assaulted and often killed in needless displays of gun violence every day. Suicides, drive-by's, domestic violence, mob turf wars. For us to be a country that incarcerates more of it's citizens per-capita than any country in the world, you would assume we had this licked by now. And it is abundantly clear that we do not.
Why?
I see the two sides of the political spectrum being equally naive about this topic. On the one hand you have those on the left who think that guns should be eliminated, that only law enforcement should have them, and that all of our violence problems will vanish. On the right you see abject fear and distrust of the government and its motives, and a fear that giving any ground on gun rights equates to the slippery slope of a police-state.
The left argument is horrendously flawed for quite a number of reasons. First, and perhaps most importantly, most of the argument stems from a near absolute paranoid denial of what a gun is, and what it isn't. I am still horrified by that now rather famous picture floating around the internet of Senator Feinstein brandishing an AK47 (and a fully automatic one which is already illegal) with her finger in the trigger guard. Such a gesture on a gun range will get you removed from said gun range for being both dangerous and stupid. This is basic gun safety 101. The first lesson you learn....assuming you have any credible expertise with one. I tend to discount the opinions of people who have no expertise upon which to base their opinions.
Those who believe only law enforcement should possess lethal weapons have a poor understanding of the nature of violence period, and a poor understanding of what law enforcement is legally obligated to do for the citizenry. The realities of violent attacks are that they are almost always without warning and occur quickly. Even those who say things like "if the worst weapon a person could have is a knife" are being stupid. Having studied martial arts and self defense for quite a number of years, I can tell you that the sobering reality is that almost nothing you can do weaponless will give you an edge of any kind on a knife wielding attacker. An attacker wielding a knife is not going to be kind enough to allow you to set up your favorite disarming technique. That's not to say that defense training is useless. But the only reliable way to defend ones life in such a situation is to shoot that person at range. Once that attacker is in range, someone is going to experience massive and perhaps fatal blood loss. That crazy shit Steven Seagal can do? Remember you are watching a movie.
And lets not forget that countless appellate court rulings and even a few rulings at the "big bench" have made it abundantly clear that law enforcement is under no legal obligation to protect you. NONE.
Most on the left who have these pie-in-the-sky views about violence and prefer to "let the government do its job and protect us" are likely just people well off enough and lucky enough to have not experienced a significant amount of violence in their lives. Moreso, given that most people regardless of belief or political affiliation are not violent, I imagine that more than a little perception bias is at play here.
......
Those on the right squawk the 2nd Amendment. And if you read that amendment carefully it is clear WHY the amendment exists.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
What the statement says, both clearly and eloquently, is that governments have a vested interest in having a standing army, and regardless of this the rights of the people to arm themselves cannot be taken away.
The comma is not an unambiguous pause, as some claim. And one need go no further than the personal writings of Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton or (insert name of founding father here) to realize that the amendment was written specifically to establish that the government absolutely cannot deny citizens the right to defend themselves or their liberties. And as with any freedom, there is a price to be paid.
Still, we are a couple of centuries and change removed from the drafting of this amendment. Drafted during a time when there were basically four weapons qualified as "arms". A musket, a pistol, a blunderbuss, and.....a canon! Clearly today we have far more advanced weapons technology.
Insofar as the "right of the people" is concerned, again one need only look at writings of some of our founders to find plenty of evidence that even revolutionary wacko's like Thomas Jefferson (who sadly would be an unelectable man in our modern climate) considered those rights only tantamount for those who were law abiding and decent. Even Justice Antonin Scalia (who is about as left leaning as I am a koala) found that constitutionally the right wasn't an open ended one.
Do I have the right to defend my home from invasion with my 15 round semi-auto pistol? The Supreme Court says I do. Do I have the right to own an RPG so I can reliably take out an attacker's armored vehicle before he gets to my house? The Supreme Court seems to think that having the ability to level a building is not covered by the 2nd Amendment. I tend to agree with this reasonable distinction.
Those on the right also squawk about the slippery slope of tighter regulation leading to national gun registries. And perhaps this is a real concern, but I think not given the nature of things.
On the one hand you have history lessons. One of the main reasons why the Nazi's (for instance) were able to so cleanly conquer Poland with next to no resistance movement forming during the entire war, was because Poland required gun registration. The Nazi's knew this and deliberately went after such records immediately after capturing Warsaw, and then proceeded to surgically disarm the citizenry.
On the other hand you have the nature of information in the modern world. I have blogged about this topic before, and about how parochial ideas of anonymity and privacy simply do not exist anymore (and about how this isn't quite the bad thing it seems to sound like). Suffice to say it is not rocket science, given modern data mining technology, for such information to already be easily available to law enforcement or the government without changing any laws. Indeed given the rise in social media and the internet in general, really effective work can be done with a PC and google for cryin out loud. In other words, this slippery slope is a relatively non existent one. That genie is and has been out of the bottle for some time already.
........
I suppose at the end of the day I'm most deeply trouble by the polarized nature of the discussion, and the sobering reality that NONE OF IT is focusing on the actual problems we should care about. Violence and human suffering are the most important of social concerns. But none of the discussion is about any of the real root causes of these problems. I will try to blog about THOSE in another post...
POVERTY
ECONOMIC DISPARITY
IDEOLOGICAL DIVISIONS
etc..... And to paraphrase an oft quoted line "Guns don't proliferate violence, Humans proliferate violence"
We *can* do better, but only if we honestly examine why we aren't.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Friday, January 18, 2013
The Gun Debate - Wrongheaded thinking on both sides
It often takes unfortunate (and rare and overly publicized) events to crystallize a controversial topic in the American collective conscience. This is primarily because most people spend their days earning a paycheck and living their lives, as opposed to caring in the slightest about things which do not directly effect them. It's a human trait to be this way.
We can be thankful that we live in relatively non violent times. Though this is not the impression many people have, perhaps due to that very lack of exposure coupled with sensory overload on the topic, it is nonetheless statistically true. As human beings we tend to focus on what we feel, and thus on what we think we know because of that. As anyone who has been through a divorce can tell you, this is a bad way to evaluate the merits of either things or people.
The ownership of firearms is a long standing and strong tradition in America. It is also one guaranteed by The Constitution. Gun ownership is an integral part of being able to exercise ones liberty, even for those who would never own one.
America has one of the highest homicide rates in the western world, at about 10,000 gun related homicides per year. The overwhelming majority of these homicides, according to the FBI, are committed by people who for one reason or another (clinically demonstrated mental instability, felons, and people subverting existing gun law) should have never had a gun in the first place. Why is this so?
Part of this is a sheer numbers equation. There are nearly 300,000,000 guns in the U.S. in private hands. Just as countries who have lower amounts of cars per capita than we do have less in the way of automobile accidents, the same is true of other nations where there are less guns.
It is interesting to note that though we have a high homicide rate, we have a MUCH MUCH lower rate of violent crime overall than most countries that ban or limit gun ownership.
In Australia for instance a woman is 4 times as likely to be raped as in America. You are nearly 5 times more likely to be physically assaulted in Ireland than America. These two are some of the more extreme examples, but in general violent crime is higher, and oftentimes significantly higher in countries where gun ownership is either difficult or prohibited.
The explanation as to why this is so should be obvious, but if it isn't I will spell it out for you. Human beings are often violent. And more to the point roughly 97% of those incarcerated for violent offences throughout the world (the percentages vary slightly) are men.
Men are often violent. It is in our biology to have a greater propensity for violence than females, and in our psychology collectively as a species to be in denial of this fact. A person simply with the willingness to *be* violent has an advantage over....ALL OF US. Someone who is physically stronger than you and willing to be violent can do as he pleases, and can more readily do as he pleases knowing full well the liklihood of you being able to defend yourself is nonexistent.
In other words a certain level of violence is endemic to our species and to think otherwise is just plain naive. Living in our safe little worlds where (thankfully) few of us actually experience violence in no way makes this not true.
I've had enough practical experience in the world to know how precisely true this is personally, and from both sides of the situation. I have been physically assaulted, robbed at gunpoint multiple times, and on more than one occasion been forced to defend my life. I have also had to use my understanding of human nature to bully and coerce people unwilling to behave civilly with not only the threat of violence, but actual violence to defend myself, my property, as well as employees and loved ones.
I've seen many people, in situations where I've had to "take charge" of a caustic situation, cower and panic. Not because they are weak people, but rather because they've had the privilege of enjoying a relatively violence free life and simply have no practical experience with understanding how to cope.
Not knowing something does NOT make one an expert on any subject. And this seems to largely be the case with those who think it's a realistic idea to somehow remove a quarter of a billion guns from the country.
We see colorful interpretations of language used to describe things in this debate as well.
Assault weapon for instance.
What exactly does this mean? The definition is so arbitrary as to be meaningless in any practical sense. The proposals to limit gun magazine capacity, as if this would have any appreciable effect, amuse me the most. Take a peek at this, and realize magazines with only six rounds in them are as deadly as ones with 16.
The skill required to do what is shown in the above video is an easily acquired skill. I can reload a semi automatic pistol nearly as fast, and unlike the presenter above I don't shoot guns every day.
The sad reality that most people are not facing here is this. Anyone with the motivation to maim and kill many people will always be easily capable of doing so. The fact that, from a legal standpoint, schools are considered "gun free zones" in no way makes schools free from gun violence. Violence is ILLEGAL, and no amount of laws passed anywhere will make it less illegal...or less tragic. Had schools not been legislated into becoming gun free zones, perhaps someone on campus might have been able to down an attacker.
It is no small surprise that all major shootings that have occurred successfully in America have taken place in precisely those places where guns are not allowed. As long as guns are available in America (and they always will be unless the country collectively develops the nerve to pass a Constitutional Amendment to the contrary) we have to accept the reasons WHY they are available.
The real crux of the argument is not guns. It is who is allowed to get them, and who gets to decide. The BATF (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) is not even allowed to enforce existing law, due to political maneuvering by a misguided NRA to minimalize and restrict the governments say so in these two areas. The BATF's own statistics show that around 97% of all guns that hit the street illegally come from less than 1% of licensed gun dealers. You'd think the BATF would be able to put a stop to this, but they can't. Their hands are tied by existing law that doesn't allow them to do obvious things. Things like a federal registry. Things like inventory level reporting. The BATF isn't allowed to audit gun dealers but once a year. What is worse, due to the BATF being so understaffed as well as their being a ridiculous amount of licensed dealers in the U.S., the real story here is that the BATF on average only gets to these audits about once every 17 years. There are over 51,000 gun stores in the U.S., more than there are grocery stores. Even weirder, there are around 129,000 licensed dealers. So where are these roughly 80,000 "dealers" selling guns? Out of their homes, trunks, and gun shows. There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole", but consider the BATF's inability to police and audit 129,000 dealers with 2500 employees. Legitimate brick and mortar dealers do background checks religiously. And background checks are seamless and quick. My last one took all of 20 minutes. But the current situation basically turns it into an honor system, and as such it is the "hole in the dike" that is feeding inexpensive guns to criminals who do not have to resort to a black market.
In other words, why is it easier to get a FFL license than it is to sell alcohol in most states. It's easier to get an FFL license than it is to get a drivers license in many states. Does this make sense?
Technology has made this a more complex problem than our founders could have ever envisioned nearly two and a half centuries ago. Should we ban "assault weapons"? Perhaps, but only if we can come up with a reasonable argument for this. I honestly do not think a reasonable argument exists, beyond banning automatic weapons.....which have been banned for 80 years already and are not a problem. We do keep citizens from owning tanks and RPG's, but such devices are clearly not for defending an individuals liberties. No building has ever abridged your freedoms, so there's no need for the capacity to destroy one. Keep me from owning a gun? Only if you plan on taking it from my cold dead hands, unless I have been deemed mentally incompetent or been classed as a felon.
We have the mechanisms in place ALREADY to limit the proliferation of guns illegally. What we lack is the political will to do so.
We can be thankful that we live in relatively non violent times. Though this is not the impression many people have, perhaps due to that very lack of exposure coupled with sensory overload on the topic, it is nonetheless statistically true. As human beings we tend to focus on what we feel, and thus on what we think we know because of that. As anyone who has been through a divorce can tell you, this is a bad way to evaluate the merits of either things or people.
The ownership of firearms is a long standing and strong tradition in America. It is also one guaranteed by The Constitution. Gun ownership is an integral part of being able to exercise ones liberty, even for those who would never own one.
America has one of the highest homicide rates in the western world, at about 10,000 gun related homicides per year. The overwhelming majority of these homicides, according to the FBI, are committed by people who for one reason or another (clinically demonstrated mental instability, felons, and people subverting existing gun law) should have never had a gun in the first place. Why is this so?
Part of this is a sheer numbers equation. There are nearly 300,000,000 guns in the U.S. in private hands. Just as countries who have lower amounts of cars per capita than we do have less in the way of automobile accidents, the same is true of other nations where there are less guns.
It is interesting to note that though we have a high homicide rate, we have a MUCH MUCH lower rate of violent crime overall than most countries that ban or limit gun ownership.
In Australia for instance a woman is 4 times as likely to be raped as in America. You are nearly 5 times more likely to be physically assaulted in Ireland than America. These two are some of the more extreme examples, but in general violent crime is higher, and oftentimes significantly higher in countries where gun ownership is either difficult or prohibited.
The explanation as to why this is so should be obvious, but if it isn't I will spell it out for you. Human beings are often violent. And more to the point roughly 97% of those incarcerated for violent offences throughout the world (the percentages vary slightly) are men.
Men are often violent. It is in our biology to have a greater propensity for violence than females, and in our psychology collectively as a species to be in denial of this fact. A person simply with the willingness to *be* violent has an advantage over....ALL OF US. Someone who is physically stronger than you and willing to be violent can do as he pleases, and can more readily do as he pleases knowing full well the liklihood of you being able to defend yourself is nonexistent.
In other words a certain level of violence is endemic to our species and to think otherwise is just plain naive. Living in our safe little worlds where (thankfully) few of us actually experience violence in no way makes this not true.
I've had enough practical experience in the world to know how precisely true this is personally, and from both sides of the situation. I have been physically assaulted, robbed at gunpoint multiple times, and on more than one occasion been forced to defend my life. I have also had to use my understanding of human nature to bully and coerce people unwilling to behave civilly with not only the threat of violence, but actual violence to defend myself, my property, as well as employees and loved ones.
I've seen many people, in situations where I've had to "take charge" of a caustic situation, cower and panic. Not because they are weak people, but rather because they've had the privilege of enjoying a relatively violence free life and simply have no practical experience with understanding how to cope.
Not knowing something does NOT make one an expert on any subject. And this seems to largely be the case with those who think it's a realistic idea to somehow remove a quarter of a billion guns from the country.
We see colorful interpretations of language used to describe things in this debate as well.
Assault weapon for instance.
What exactly does this mean? The definition is so arbitrary as to be meaningless in any practical sense. The proposals to limit gun magazine capacity, as if this would have any appreciable effect, amuse me the most. Take a peek at this, and realize magazines with only six rounds in them are as deadly as ones with 16.
The skill required to do what is shown in the above video is an easily acquired skill. I can reload a semi automatic pistol nearly as fast, and unlike the presenter above I don't shoot guns every day.
The sad reality that most people are not facing here is this. Anyone with the motivation to maim and kill many people will always be easily capable of doing so. The fact that, from a legal standpoint, schools are considered "gun free zones" in no way makes schools free from gun violence. Violence is ILLEGAL, and no amount of laws passed anywhere will make it less illegal...or less tragic. Had schools not been legislated into becoming gun free zones, perhaps someone on campus might have been able to down an attacker.
It is no small surprise that all major shootings that have occurred successfully in America have taken place in precisely those places where guns are not allowed. As long as guns are available in America (and they always will be unless the country collectively develops the nerve to pass a Constitutional Amendment to the contrary) we have to accept the reasons WHY they are available.
The real crux of the argument is not guns. It is who is allowed to get them, and who gets to decide. The BATF (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) is not even allowed to enforce existing law, due to political maneuvering by a misguided NRA to minimalize and restrict the governments say so in these two areas. The BATF's own statistics show that around 97% of all guns that hit the street illegally come from less than 1% of licensed gun dealers. You'd think the BATF would be able to put a stop to this, but they can't. Their hands are tied by existing law that doesn't allow them to do obvious things. Things like a federal registry. Things like inventory level reporting. The BATF isn't allowed to audit gun dealers but once a year. What is worse, due to the BATF being so understaffed as well as their being a ridiculous amount of licensed dealers in the U.S., the real story here is that the BATF on average only gets to these audits about once every 17 years. There are over 51,000 gun stores in the U.S., more than there are grocery stores. Even weirder, there are around 129,000 licensed dealers. So where are these roughly 80,000 "dealers" selling guns? Out of their homes, trunks, and gun shows. There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole", but consider the BATF's inability to police and audit 129,000 dealers with 2500 employees. Legitimate brick and mortar dealers do background checks religiously. And background checks are seamless and quick. My last one took all of 20 minutes. But the current situation basically turns it into an honor system, and as such it is the "hole in the dike" that is feeding inexpensive guns to criminals who do not have to resort to a black market.
In other words, why is it easier to get a FFL license than it is to sell alcohol in most states. It's easier to get an FFL license than it is to get a drivers license in many states. Does this make sense?
Technology has made this a more complex problem than our founders could have ever envisioned nearly two and a half centuries ago. Should we ban "assault weapons"? Perhaps, but only if we can come up with a reasonable argument for this. I honestly do not think a reasonable argument exists, beyond banning automatic weapons.....which have been banned for 80 years already and are not a problem. We do keep citizens from owning tanks and RPG's, but such devices are clearly not for defending an individuals liberties. No building has ever abridged your freedoms, so there's no need for the capacity to destroy one. Keep me from owning a gun? Only if you plan on taking it from my cold dead hands, unless I have been deemed mentally incompetent or been classed as a felon.
We have the mechanisms in place ALREADY to limit the proliferation of guns illegally. What we lack is the political will to do so.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Sex And The Middle Aged Single Guy
Yeah that's right. I'm going there.
When you're a single middle aged male and you're trying to date somehow it always seems like sex is the elephant in the room. That one issue frought with danger to discuss. Or perhaps it just seems that way, given the nature of my mind and how I think about things. I still discuss it. I think it's vital to be discussed, but only because it is part of a larger process that HAS TO HAPPEN. This is probably also why I intimidate some, because I go there in a frank and candid way most females are not accustomed to. But meh, it's me.
Sex, sex, sex! It's one topic women reliably steer clear of. I don't get it at all.
Sex is one of the primary points of this though, isn't it? I have tons of good friends and quite a few really close ones. People whom I truly care about and love. And I'm not having sex with any of those people. They are just my friends. Granted this is true because many of those friends are guys and I'm not attracted to other guys. Many are women however. Some of these I'm not attracted to, but that's ok isn't it? Some of these are already in relationships with someone else so you don't go there. DUH? Are these things less than obvious?
Seeking someone to date, is seeking someone to reliably have sex with. If you don't look at it like this, not only do I not understand you at all, no one does or ever will. Do you just avoid making it clear you understand this? Why? Because it's a taboo? That's even weirder.
Granted, that's not all I'm seeking. But I'm also not seeking chess partner's or pen pal's either. I have friends that I game with, and anyone who knows me well enough knows what happens when I have a keyboard in front of me. Those things can and should be EASY for everyone. If not, then I'd say you have bigger problems than finding a significant other.
Why is it on women's personal profiles you often come across this specific phrase over and over again?
"I'm not looking for one night stands. If you're here for sex keep moving.." or words to that effect.
Very few men are looking for just a one night stand. I think the same is true of most women. If that's not your thing, then I feel it's appropriate to mention that. But the second sentence confuses the hell out of me.
"If you're here for sex keep moving."
EVERY SINGLE MALE ON EARTH is there for sex so if you're planning on this strategy working well for you I have some bad news.
It is what we're supposed to be there for. Dating is about finding a sexual partner. Sex is mandatory. It is a normal, natural, and necessary part of life. It's why we're all struggling to be with someone else. It's not the only reason, but it most certainly is the pivotal reason. To think otherwise is just strange.
How is this going to play out? I've seen it over and over and OVER again with my female friends over the years, and it always plays out the same way. They find some guy who's clever enough to not make sex an issue (at first at least), but smart enough to coerce her into thinking it was her idea to "go there". So she finds that this clever guy just manipulated her into getting what he wanted, and on his terms. And you bought into this strategy because you made sex into something that it is not (a prize to be won). At the end, it's another horrible guy, you're ability to trust is further damaged, and you wonder why shit happens like this to you every single time.
DUH!!!
People create so much grief for themselves by placing the incorrect amount of value on entirely the wrong things. Sex is way the easiest part of a relationship to get right. It's simple. No manuals or classes are required. We're all properly equipped by nature. And you can figure out fairly quickly if your sexually compatible with someone. Generally this isn't that hard either. All good sex takes is engagement and enthusiasm. By engagement I mean actually enjoying pleasing someone else sexually. Only utterly selfish unaware people can fuck this up. Enthusiasm should be self explanatory. :)
It's all the *OTHER* stuff in a relationship that requires you're immediate attention. And it's all that other stuff people are so reluctant to do. Talk to one another. Ask pertinent questions. Learn how one another live their lives. Ask the hard questions, the adult questions, and expect adult answers. Clarity is only achieved when one is clear, and that only happens if you seek it.
Everything of true value in a relationship comes from two things. Trust, and shared ethics. These two things require candor, frankness, and honesty. And not only honesty from someone else, but honesty from yourself. *THIS* is the difficult part that people are terrified to face.
These things have absolutely nothing to do with your vagina or my penis. So stop making those two things such a big deal.
p.s. Just so you're aware, my daughters read my blog. And I encourage them to think about this topic exactly this way. Why? Because I want them to have fulfilling lives free of drama and unnecessary taboo laden b.s.
Women get dumped on enough as it is, so why add to your grief? Own this issue and be free of the problems.
When you're a single middle aged male and you're trying to date somehow it always seems like sex is the elephant in the room. That one issue frought with danger to discuss. Or perhaps it just seems that way, given the nature of my mind and how I think about things. I still discuss it. I think it's vital to be discussed, but only because it is part of a larger process that HAS TO HAPPEN. This is probably also why I intimidate some, because I go there in a frank and candid way most females are not accustomed to. But meh, it's me.
Sex, sex, sex! It's one topic women reliably steer clear of. I don't get it at all.
Sex is one of the primary points of this though, isn't it? I have tons of good friends and quite a few really close ones. People whom I truly care about and love. And I'm not having sex with any of those people. They are just my friends. Granted this is true because many of those friends are guys and I'm not attracted to other guys. Many are women however. Some of these I'm not attracted to, but that's ok isn't it? Some of these are already in relationships with someone else so you don't go there. DUH? Are these things less than obvious?
Seeking someone to date, is seeking someone to reliably have sex with. If you don't look at it like this, not only do I not understand you at all, no one does or ever will. Do you just avoid making it clear you understand this? Why? Because it's a taboo? That's even weirder.
Granted, that's not all I'm seeking. But I'm also not seeking chess partner's or pen pal's either. I have friends that I game with, and anyone who knows me well enough knows what happens when I have a keyboard in front of me. Those things can and should be EASY for everyone. If not, then I'd say you have bigger problems than finding a significant other.
Why is it on women's personal profiles you often come across this specific phrase over and over again?
"I'm not looking for one night stands. If you're here for sex keep moving.." or words to that effect.
Very few men are looking for just a one night stand. I think the same is true of most women. If that's not your thing, then I feel it's appropriate to mention that. But the second sentence confuses the hell out of me.
"If you're here for sex keep moving."
EVERY SINGLE MALE ON EARTH is there for sex so if you're planning on this strategy working well for you I have some bad news.
It is what we're supposed to be there for. Dating is about finding a sexual partner. Sex is mandatory. It is a normal, natural, and necessary part of life. It's why we're all struggling to be with someone else. It's not the only reason, but it most certainly is the pivotal reason. To think otherwise is just strange.
How is this going to play out? I've seen it over and over and OVER again with my female friends over the years, and it always plays out the same way. They find some guy who's clever enough to not make sex an issue (at first at least), but smart enough to coerce her into thinking it was her idea to "go there". So she finds that this clever guy just manipulated her into getting what he wanted, and on his terms. And you bought into this strategy because you made sex into something that it is not (a prize to be won). At the end, it's another horrible guy, you're ability to trust is further damaged, and you wonder why shit happens like this to you every single time.
DUH!!!
People create so much grief for themselves by placing the incorrect amount of value on entirely the wrong things. Sex is way the easiest part of a relationship to get right. It's simple. No manuals or classes are required. We're all properly equipped by nature. And you can figure out fairly quickly if your sexually compatible with someone. Generally this isn't that hard either. All good sex takes is engagement and enthusiasm. By engagement I mean actually enjoying pleasing someone else sexually. Only utterly selfish unaware people can fuck this up. Enthusiasm should be self explanatory. :)
It's all the *OTHER* stuff in a relationship that requires you're immediate attention. And it's all that other stuff people are so reluctant to do. Talk to one another. Ask pertinent questions. Learn how one another live their lives. Ask the hard questions, the adult questions, and expect adult answers. Clarity is only achieved when one is clear, and that only happens if you seek it.
Everything of true value in a relationship comes from two things. Trust, and shared ethics. These two things require candor, frankness, and honesty. And not only honesty from someone else, but honesty from yourself. *THIS* is the difficult part that people are terrified to face.
These things have absolutely nothing to do with your vagina or my penis. So stop making those two things such a big deal.
p.s. Just so you're aware, my daughters read my blog. And I encourage them to think about this topic exactly this way. Why? Because I want them to have fulfilling lives free of drama and unnecessary taboo laden b.s.
Women get dumped on enough as it is, so why add to your grief? Own this issue and be free of the problems.
Monday, July 23, 2012
The things that Facebook drives me to do...
Ran across a post by one of my friends on Facebook that I laughed at, and mostly agreed with....but much of it focused on irritations rather than facts. It's easy to knee-jerk react to things, especially given the state of the nation. But even the most jaded of us (me included) should be skeptical enough of "simple facts". So with that I'll offer some comments to his post, and add a few at the end. ;)
Sorry Dean....Not really picking on you...I just like it when people make me think and work for it. :)
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
•You can get arrested for expired tags on your car but not for being in the country illegally.
======================
(comment: You can get arrested for both, you just have to get caught. A tag has a clear date on it, but an illegal immigrant doesn't glow in the dark. I've had illegals arrested before, so it's fairly straightforward when you encounter the situation)
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
•Your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more of our money.
======================
(comment: This is a non-argument that assumes an economy is a simple first grade math problem. Of course you cant spend and money-print our way out of debt. But we MUST spend billions (and more) on our aging infrastructure. Here's a neat tidbit. We spent more on AIR CONDITIONING in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010 than we did NASA. Every economist worth their salt agrees the only way for our country to get itself out of debt is to grow the economy. It's the only way out. Investment in infrastructure and future technologies are vital. Think our 50 year old electric grid can handle a transition away from fossil fuel, given it can barely handle...summer??!?)
I LOVED THIS ONE.
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
•The Supreme Court of the United States can rule that lower courts cannot display the 10 Commandments in their courtroom, while sitting in front of a display of the 10 Commandments.
======================
(comment: The 10 Commandments are displayed nowhere in the Surpreme Court building. It is alluded to in artwork on and in the building, but so is the Code Of Hammurabi and the Magna Carta. Seperation of church and state is IMPORTANT, and a founding principle of our country. Ask Thomas Jefferson...and try to not take his utter dislike for Christians as an insult. )
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
•Children are forcibly removed from parents who appropriately discipline them while children of"underprivileged" drug addicts are left to rot in filth infested cesspools.
======================
(comment: No arguments here, though it's still "too simple". I have no love for DSS though, or the hell they put my kids through whilst feeling sorry for my irresponsible ex-wife and her now felon husband.)
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
•Working class Americans pay for their own health care (and the health care of everyone else) whileunmarried women are free to have child after child on the "State's" dime while never being held responsible for their own choices.
======================
(comment: and yet we refuse to teach our kids responsible sexual behavior. Any parent who thinks "just say no" is working is an idiot, and yet it's been a federal mandate in sex ed programs for decades....the decades where our teen pregnancy rates skyrocketed to the worst among western nations. Coincidence?)
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
•Hard work and success are rewarded with higher taxes and government intrusion, while slothful, lazy behavior is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid and subsidized housing.
======================
(comment: a sad fact to be true, but it's not the entire truth. Working in grocery retail almost 30 years I've seen government benefits skyrocket to now represent roughly 25-30% of our income in my business. And very few (VERY FEW) of these people are slothful lazy deadbeats. They're people who cannot survive on minimum wage. No one can, and yet more and more Americans are forced to settle for it, whilst CEO pay skyrocketed 725% between 1978 and 2011??)
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
•The government's plan for getting people back to work is to provide 99 weeks of unemployment checks (to not work).
======================
(comment: The government is providing 99 weeks of unemployment because the economy would stall without the spending power it gives people who cannot find a job. It's a bandaid for a far larger problem)
I LOVE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS, TOO
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
•Politicians think that stripping away the amendments to the constitution is really protecting the rights of the people.
======================
(comment: Most of that stripping in recent memory has been performed by a conservative dominated Supreme Court and the fear mongering after 9-11 that led to the evil Patriot Act)
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
•The rights of the Government come before the rights of the individual.
======================
(comment: Agree with this one. :D)
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
•Parents believe the State is responsible for providing for their children.
======================
(comment: though there are horror stories to be sure, the real issue in my experience (having spent 30 years trying to feed people) is that parents who cannot make ends meet and take care of their families will do ANYTHING THEY CAN. The other options are crime or starvation and we have shameful amounts of both.)
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...My personal favorite, plus declaring bankruptcy.
•You pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big screen TV while your neighbor defaults on his mortgage (while buying iphones, TV's and new cars) and the government forgives his debt and reduces his mortgage (with your tax dollars).
======================
(comment: many dumb and naive people bought into the "American Dream" idea of home ownership. It's a uniquely American concept, because home ownership isn't such a big deal pretty much everywhere else in the world. Deregulation of banking and securities industries drove us off this cliff. A lot of people got filthy rich, the entire world is stuck with trillions of dollars of fractional reserve leveraged debt (roughly 44 times the actual value of any of the property involved in the crash) in perhaps the worst financial rape of middle class and lower middle class Americans in history. And we've still not seen the bottom of it, not by a long shot.)
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
•Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you "safe".
======================
(comment: I still have my weapons. No one has taken them away, and getting a CWP is childs play in South Carolina...not sure what this one is about)
LOVED THIS ONE TOO
You know you live in an Upside-down Land if...
•You have to have your parents signature to go on a school field trip but not to have your unborn baby MURDERED, aka; get an abortion.
(comment: 41 states require parental consent for an abortion. Though Roe vs. Wade is a Federal court decision, administering abortions is a states rights issue. So talk to the nine states that don't require it)
......
Some of my own points in closing...
You know you live in an upside-down land if
- You think increasing taxes on the lowest 50% of the population will have any effect on our debt, given that they only posess 2.5% of the wealth, whilst the top 1% control 42%
You know you live in an upside-down land if
- You think our healthcare system doesn't need a complete overhaul, given the fact that we're the most expensive system in the western world by far, with falling life expectancy rates and worse infant mortality rates than Brunei, Croatia, or Cuba....CUBA!!!?!?!??!?! Do nothing is hardly an option.
You know you live in an upside-down land if
- You forget that the largest economically expansive period in our history was marked with...far higher progressive taxes on wealth, strong labor unions, and proper health insurance (not the fee-for-service system we have now, thanks to Richard Nixon and his cronies).
You know you live in an upside-down land if
- You wonder why we have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the western world (and even higher than some impoverished nations), given that we have "Just Say No" mandated in all funded sex education classes, and are terrified to distribute condoms. Sex is not a moral issue, it is a quality of life issue and a health issue. A condom (even Cleopatra knew what birth control was) makes sex about as dangerous as eating ice cream in a room made out of Nerf®
Friday, February 10, 2012
Democrats vs. Republicans? Try Oligarchy...
During any election cycle is it any wonder that political discussion becomes keenly polarized? As it stands currently it seems as if we'll be facing a race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney for the 2012 Presidential Election. Granted, Rick Santorum has made quite a stir recently, but so did Newt and Herman Cain previously. Like it or not he who has the biggest war chest wins in politics, and on the republican side this puts Romney way out in front.
The "spin doctors" generally try to paint the sides in a political debate as polar opposite as humanly possible, which is why the republicans glom on to ridiculous statements about the ever looming socialist state around the corner. Democrat spinners are equally guilty of painting Republicans as greedy bastards who want to gut the government and let survival of the fittest take its course.
Neither view relates remotely to the reality. What they do relate to however is the insidious nature of politics itself. As Morpheus so eloquently puts it in "The Matrix", "It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth." As much as democrats make fun of "Tea Partiers" and republicans decry "Occupiers" as a bunch of socialist hippies, these groups have three vitally important things in common. They both are outgrowths of the respective party ideologies their followers adhere to, that have realized their ideals are not tracking the realities around them. They are both frustrated with the glaringly obvious failures of our current political and economic system. And they are both being used to polarize others....for votes.
There is a lot that is fundamentally broken in this country, but the most important thing broken is the political process. With it broken, fixing the rest of the mess we're in is basically impossible. As much of a libertarian as I consider myself to be, even I realize that we need a collective will to right a ship with 330 million passengers. And that collective will has to be a governing body, one that serves it's constituency. But we don't have that.
Lets have a history lesson. A lot began to fundamentally change in this country in the late 60's and early 70's. Very specific changes drastically altered the political landscape for both of our incumbent parties, and in ways most people fail to notice.
The Democratic parties demise began with the McGovern campaign against then incumbent Richard Nixon. Why is this such a pivotal point in the history of the Democratic party? Because it is when the party changed it's focus away from big labor. McGovern royally ticked off big labor and quite distanced himself and his campaign from labor. Granted he did have strong ideological reasons for this, but the end result backfired in then unforseen ways. As corrupt as big labor was back then (and oh boy was it), it was also what kept Democrats truly focused on THE WORKING MAN from a policy standpoint. This led to the current state of affairs when it comes to campaign finance. More on that in a bit.
Who was responsible for what we now consider socialist ideas, such as the WIC program or the out of control price fixing and subsidies in our agricultural sector? It wasn't a Democrat. It was Richard Nixon. Want to remove poverty and cyclical food pricing from the political debate? Throw government money at the problem. Thanks Tricky Dick! And this is precisely why such things were done, to remove genuine suffering and problems from the political debate, and we fell for it. He also spearheaded the beginnings of change to our healthcare system, which became a fee-for-service system thanks to his and his political cronies efforts, and which has led to us having one of the WORST and most EXPENSIVE healthcare systems among western countries. Seriously! Even Turkey whips our ass in this regard! TURKEY!!!
The push in the 80's and 90's for deregulation has been an abysmal train wreck. Not because over regulation is good, but because we did not remove over regulation from the actual entities that are grossly affected by it. Small business accounts for slightly more than half of ALL JOB CREATION, and yet we deregulated BIG BUSINESS. Now we have a banking system that makes most of it's money from....MONEY...and NOT FROM INVESTING IN REAL CAPITAL. Even businesses we don't think would be involved in this are.
The airline industry? They obviously make a large portion of their profit from flying people around right? WRONG. BECAUSE they are involved in flying large amounts of people around, they have a vested self interest in fuel pricing, and most airlines shore up their balance sheets by speculating in futures markets. Most make the bulk of their profit from this. The list is endless, but most large companies do this to one degree or another.
So here we have two parties with their hands out, like all political parties do. Who has the money to put in their hand? Big business. Big corporations are not "bad" or "evil" in the moral sense, but you have to realize what corporations actually exist for. They exist SOLELY to turn the best profit for shareholders. And they will do this to the best of their ability, simply because that is what a corporation is meant to exist for. But we now have an economic system that makes most of it's money from other peoples money, and not from anything tangible. And BOTH PARTIES are getting their hand outs from this system.
As bad as big labor was, it did at least keep the Democratic Party thinking about THE WORKING MAN. Now the Dems take their social agenda and focus on the NON WORKING MAN, with deleterious consequences.
And as much as the Republican Party has always been neck deep into the coffers of big business, it was a big business that wasn't as big as today's version. More importantly it was a big business that actually MADE THINGS, and BUILT THINGS. Now our big business does none of these things. Our biggest business interests now make money out of thin air from even more money. And this does NOTHING but extract capital from an economy, which anyone with a first year of an Economics degree under their belt will tell you.
As we know, any powerful system is interested in maintaining the status quo. And the current status quo is to keep allowing this nonsense.
Moral? Our two political parties are bought by large interests that haven't got a clue about what real Americans are concerned about, and care more about keeping us angry at one another so we'll stop paying attention to what the real problems are.
We have an Oligarchy, not a democracy organized as a federal republic anymore. And until we can collectively get the influence of limitless money out of politics, what you and I think doesn't matter.
AT ALL!
The "spin doctors" generally try to paint the sides in a political debate as polar opposite as humanly possible, which is why the republicans glom on to ridiculous statements about the ever looming socialist state around the corner. Democrat spinners are equally guilty of painting Republicans as greedy bastards who want to gut the government and let survival of the fittest take its course.
Neither view relates remotely to the reality. What they do relate to however is the insidious nature of politics itself. As Morpheus so eloquently puts it in "The Matrix", "It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth." As much as democrats make fun of "Tea Partiers" and republicans decry "Occupiers" as a bunch of socialist hippies, these groups have three vitally important things in common. They both are outgrowths of the respective party ideologies their followers adhere to, that have realized their ideals are not tracking the realities around them. They are both frustrated with the glaringly obvious failures of our current political and economic system. And they are both being used to polarize others....for votes.
There is a lot that is fundamentally broken in this country, but the most important thing broken is the political process. With it broken, fixing the rest of the mess we're in is basically impossible. As much of a libertarian as I consider myself to be, even I realize that we need a collective will to right a ship with 330 million passengers. And that collective will has to be a governing body, one that serves it's constituency. But we don't have that.
Lets have a history lesson. A lot began to fundamentally change in this country in the late 60's and early 70's. Very specific changes drastically altered the political landscape for both of our incumbent parties, and in ways most people fail to notice.
The Democratic parties demise began with the McGovern campaign against then incumbent Richard Nixon. Why is this such a pivotal point in the history of the Democratic party? Because it is when the party changed it's focus away from big labor. McGovern royally ticked off big labor and quite distanced himself and his campaign from labor. Granted he did have strong ideological reasons for this, but the end result backfired in then unforseen ways. As corrupt as big labor was back then (and oh boy was it), it was also what kept Democrats truly focused on THE WORKING MAN from a policy standpoint. This led to the current state of affairs when it comes to campaign finance. More on that in a bit.
Who was responsible for what we now consider socialist ideas, such as the WIC program or the out of control price fixing and subsidies in our agricultural sector? It wasn't a Democrat. It was Richard Nixon. Want to remove poverty and cyclical food pricing from the political debate? Throw government money at the problem. Thanks Tricky Dick! And this is precisely why such things were done, to remove genuine suffering and problems from the political debate, and we fell for it. He also spearheaded the beginnings of change to our healthcare system, which became a fee-for-service system thanks to his and his political cronies efforts, and which has led to us having one of the WORST and most EXPENSIVE healthcare systems among western countries. Seriously! Even Turkey whips our ass in this regard! TURKEY!!!
The push in the 80's and 90's for deregulation has been an abysmal train wreck. Not because over regulation is good, but because we did not remove over regulation from the actual entities that are grossly affected by it. Small business accounts for slightly more than half of ALL JOB CREATION, and yet we deregulated BIG BUSINESS. Now we have a banking system that makes most of it's money from....MONEY...and NOT FROM INVESTING IN REAL CAPITAL. Even businesses we don't think would be involved in this are.
The airline industry? They obviously make a large portion of their profit from flying people around right? WRONG. BECAUSE they are involved in flying large amounts of people around, they have a vested self interest in fuel pricing, and most airlines shore up their balance sheets by speculating in futures markets. Most make the bulk of their profit from this. The list is endless, but most large companies do this to one degree or another.
So here we have two parties with their hands out, like all political parties do. Who has the money to put in their hand? Big business. Big corporations are not "bad" or "evil" in the moral sense, but you have to realize what corporations actually exist for. They exist SOLELY to turn the best profit for shareholders. And they will do this to the best of their ability, simply because that is what a corporation is meant to exist for. But we now have an economic system that makes most of it's money from other peoples money, and not from anything tangible. And BOTH PARTIES are getting their hand outs from this system.
As bad as big labor was, it did at least keep the Democratic Party thinking about THE WORKING MAN. Now the Dems take their social agenda and focus on the NON WORKING MAN, with deleterious consequences.
And as much as the Republican Party has always been neck deep into the coffers of big business, it was a big business that wasn't as big as today's version. More importantly it was a big business that actually MADE THINGS, and BUILT THINGS. Now our big business does none of these things. Our biggest business interests now make money out of thin air from even more money. And this does NOTHING but extract capital from an economy, which anyone with a first year of an Economics degree under their belt will tell you.
As we know, any powerful system is interested in maintaining the status quo. And the current status quo is to keep allowing this nonsense.
Moral? Our two political parties are bought by large interests that haven't got a clue about what real Americans are concerned about, and care more about keeping us angry at one another so we'll stop paying attention to what the real problems are.
We have an Oligarchy, not a democracy organized as a federal republic anymore. And until we can collectively get the influence of limitless money out of politics, what you and I think doesn't matter.
AT ALL!
Thursday, November 3, 2011
What is a non theist, and why I am one...
Sometimes coming across a good book or three helps you find the language to explain things you already know about yourself. Literature, poised with the power to enlighten inform and change, can also serve the purpose of shining a light on that which you already knew and held dear.
Even my decision to call myself a non-theist (as opposed to using the word atheist) is a deliberate attempt to focus my thoughts and the thoughts of others back on to the meaning of the actual word, so that the taboo's and common misunderstandings of "that other word" are easier to avoid.
I probably owe the clarity of my thinking to three books I've read in recent history, though I preface this to make clear I've since adolescence thought of myself as a non-theist and a secular humanist, long before I ever fully understood what those words and phrases implied.
Lets start with Richard Dawkins. Though I had followed his work by initially reading excerpts of his two books on biology, "The Extended Phenotype" and "The Selfish Gene" (after which I did properly read his books) it was his book "The God Delusion" that helped me understand within myself better how others could believe in absurd things that I could not. Furthermore, that book helped me stop my "fence sitting" on the subject, making me realize that my placations and silence were serving no useful purpose for me or anyone else.
The next author would be Sam Harris. His is an interesting history, that I can perhaps relate to on some level. It appears he reached his state of epiphany after having studied eastern Buddhist practices for the better part of a decade. Though I never formally studied Buddhism myself, I was strongly exposed to it during the years I studied Aikido, so I was aware of just how enlightening this eastern view of the world and our place in it could be trans-formative to ones character. Though Sam wrote several books on the topic, his last full length work "The Moral Landscape" did much to codify my awareness of where he has been suggesting we go with his premises and arguments. He makes a compelling case for rational inquiry into the nature of suffering and its consequences that separates our need to cede this ground to men in pointy hats.
The final and most recent work that has helped me better understand myself and my own thinking in particular is Penn Jillette's latest book "God, No!" Full of wit, and a considerable dose of anecdotes about his crazy life, he distills what it is to be an atheist and humanist into such logical and coherent (and ridiculously simple) terms that it makes me think what this man could have done if he'd been writing books instead of drowning Teller all of these years. :)
All you have to say, to be an atheist, is to answer "I just don't know" to the whole epistemological question. And when you do, it automatically answers whether or not you believe, because you cannot believe if you don't know. These two sentences should get many agnostics (as I once thought I was) off the fence.
Once you realize that the existence of deity is utterly unknowable, it gets such a huge and burdensome question out of the way for you, so you can focus on living your life and figuring out what that is all about. The precious gift of life is itself the reward and the point for me, negating any need to believe in ridiculous and divisive things. And contrary to those who might think otherwise, it is not a path to nihilism, rather it is for me a path towards true enlightened existence.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
From The Other Side
As I've blogged about my following of various transparency movements (those being #OccupyWallStreet #Anonymous #Wikileaks) there is perhaps one interesting tidbit I've left out. My older brother is a significant figure in South Carolina's #Teaparty.
Considering that we're family, naturally we don't let politics and philosophy interfere with being family. Or maybe that's not such a natural thing. Our family is unique in some regards. Our mother was an active participant in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's, so growing up with such a person made sure that philosophical debate about social issues, morality, ethics, and political systems was a given. As such I suppose my brother and I are simply well schooled in our ability to come to loggerheads over an issue and set it aside to eat dinner together, tell jokes, and just be family.
Our differences philosophically are significant. He is a devout christian, and I'm an atheist. He's quite the right leaning conservative whereas I'm far more libertarian/left in my social philosophy. Given my knowledge of other families with such sociopolitical divides, perhaps it is a small miracle we get along so well.
One thing I had to "wake him up" about was just how large #OccupyWallStreet is getting. He's still somewhat convinced that the likes of George Soros and others on the left are funneling tons of money and resources into the movement (and thus in control of it), but I think I did at least convince him that on some level #Occupy is sort of picking up where the #TeaParty left off. Even he begrudgingly admits that much of the #Teaparty steam has been borg'd by the Republican Party (thanks in no small part to the Koch brothers and Newt Gingrich). He met personally with Newt Gingrich a couple of months ago, which more or less convinced him and his fellow senior group members that their group wanted nothing to do with him.
Being a senior and founding member of one of the earliest #TeaParty groups in the country, we've naturally had quite a few discussions over the last few years and I have to admit that many of the things he and his group were claiming about how our economy seems to function were and are indeed largely correct. He does tend to buy into conspiracy theory far more than I do, but I've already blogged about my feelings there. Such conspiracies may be true, but proving them to me seems to be a waste of time and effort better spent on simply dismantling the apparatus around the process itself.
At any rate, after our discussions yesterday I found it quite surprising that a significant, if not major mover and shaker in the #TeaParty and I can agree on so much. Perhaps it's not so amazing though. The apparatus that are broken in our political system are the very ones in the way of real debate, discussion, compromise, and resolution. In other words we both realize, knowing full well we reside at times in near polar opposite ends of the political spectrum, that we can't even get down to the messy details if we don't fix the system first.
I would find it difficult to imagine a #TeaParty member or an #OccupyWallStreet occupier who would disagree with very little if any of the above as clear goals. The minutiae can be debated of course. We both differ on, for instance, precisely what we'd like to see happen to the Fed. And the Constitutional roots of our government? We disagree on the scope of what that means.
But look, here's a hardcore #TeaParty advocate and a rather staunch left leaning #OccupyWallStreet #WikiLeaks and #Anonymous follower who can AGREE ON SIGNIFICANT THINGS.
What this tells me is that once you get past the smoke and mirrors of the press and the plutocracy, we're largely on the same side on most every vital issue. This is the hidden progress in the social landscape of this country that shows perhaps America is waking up. I like that.
Considering that we're family, naturally we don't let politics and philosophy interfere with being family. Or maybe that's not such a natural thing. Our family is unique in some regards. Our mother was an active participant in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's, so growing up with such a person made sure that philosophical debate about social issues, morality, ethics, and political systems was a given. As such I suppose my brother and I are simply well schooled in our ability to come to loggerheads over an issue and set it aside to eat dinner together, tell jokes, and just be family.
Our differences philosophically are significant. He is a devout christian, and I'm an atheist. He's quite the right leaning conservative whereas I'm far more libertarian/left in my social philosophy. Given my knowledge of other families with such sociopolitical divides, perhaps it is a small miracle we get along so well.
One thing I had to "wake him up" about was just how large #OccupyWallStreet is getting. He's still somewhat convinced that the likes of George Soros and others on the left are funneling tons of money and resources into the movement (and thus in control of it), but I think I did at least convince him that on some level #Occupy is sort of picking up where the #TeaParty left off. Even he begrudgingly admits that much of the #Teaparty steam has been borg'd by the Republican Party (thanks in no small part to the Koch brothers and Newt Gingrich). He met personally with Newt Gingrich a couple of months ago, which more or less convinced him and his fellow senior group members that their group wanted nothing to do with him.
Being a senior and founding member of one of the earliest #TeaParty groups in the country, we've naturally had quite a few discussions over the last few years and I have to admit that many of the things he and his group were claiming about how our economy seems to function were and are indeed largely correct. He does tend to buy into conspiracy theory far more than I do, but I've already blogged about my feelings there. Such conspiracies may be true, but proving them to me seems to be a waste of time and effort better spent on simply dismantling the apparatus around the process itself.
At any rate, after our discussions yesterday I found it quite surprising that a significant, if not major mover and shaker in the #TeaParty and I can agree on so much. Perhaps it's not so amazing though. The apparatus that are broken in our political system are the very ones in the way of real debate, discussion, compromise, and resolution. In other words we both realize, knowing full well we reside at times in near polar opposite ends of the political spectrum, that we can't even get down to the messy details if we don't fix the system first.
- We both agree that banks too big to fail, should be too big to exist.
- We both agree that "financialization" is akin to Las Vegas gambling and should be illegal or tightly controlled.
- We both agree that our government must get back to its Constitutional roots.
- We both agree that money must be taken out of politics.
- We both agree in principal that the Federal Reserve must be changed.
I would find it difficult to imagine a #TeaParty member or an #OccupyWallStreet occupier who would disagree with very little if any of the above as clear goals. The minutiae can be debated of course. We both differ on, for instance, precisely what we'd like to see happen to the Fed. And the Constitutional roots of our government? We disagree on the scope of what that means.
But look, here's a hardcore #TeaParty advocate and a rather staunch left leaning #OccupyWallStreet #WikiLeaks and #Anonymous follower who can AGREE ON SIGNIFICANT THINGS.
What this tells me is that once you get past the smoke and mirrors of the press and the plutocracy, we're largely on the same side on most every vital issue. This is the hidden progress in the social landscape of this country that shows perhaps America is waking up. I like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)