gay, straight or what

As to the question at hand, gender roles should be made to serve an individual's needs, rather than diminish what one feels and thinks. The main use of categories seems to be convenience; a mental classification that limits understanding and empathy. Once a person can be reduced to a label(or thing), the cognitive resources allotted for comprehension are much reduced. People are not so much gay or straight as they are desiginated as such; thus the squabbling over definitions produces much heat, if not much light.

Who we desire, and love depends the person, not the preconceived notions we try to impose.

Selective Morality

The current political season entertains as well as informs; and few aspects amuse me more than the selective morality displayed by the Republican presidential hopefuls. Many have donned the mantel of Christian values as their treasured wardrobe; a garment cut from the cloth of American heritage and aspirations. Somehow this cloak affords protection from the admonishment of others, while simultaneously obscuring the vision of those thus draped.

Newt Gingrich may therefore speak about valuing conservative principles, while ignoring his own serial adultery. Rick Santorum rails against the immorality of secular society while neglecting to mention his wife unmarried sexual relationship with an abortion doctor. Mitt Romeny pontificates about individual initiative, while hiding millions abroad earned by inheritance and vulture capitalism.

The accusations about the immorality of others prompt derision when uttered by those unable to claim the high ground; their capacity for self deception denigrates their aspirations to the Presidency. If you want to preach morality to others, first look to your own house.

Time to be drunken

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/americas-drinking-binge/

-------------------------

An article speaks about the binge drinking Americans; the prevalence on a massive alcohol inebriation wave sloshing through these United States surprises me not, in as much as it mirrors my own floundering. There are, of course, many types of intoxication and in this pernicious time and place the question has become one of naming your poison.

With fear seeping into the pores of our overabundant flesh, noxious fluids seem to have become the order of the day; whether a single glass of bourbon, a double shot of contempt or a six pack of bigotry. The liquid courage provides a coping mechanism for the dealing with dread marketed so deftly by the peddlers of apprehension; numbing our search for lasting solutions with the solace of short term incomprehension. From the whine of economic insecurities of an unstable and shrinking labor market, to the drone of international conflict and scrabbling for resources; the search for something to drown out the din has become ever more desperate.

Short of climbing on the wagon of fortitude, I see no other method of detox; switching spirits simply changes the nature of the buzz. Without a hand up of charity and understanding, the prospects of sobriety seem dim; but that may just be due to my own crapulence.

Cheers.

What love is this

There is a propensity of late to speak of love in terms of vengeance; as if our concern for the wellbeing of others is best demonstrated by the pain inflicted upon them. The idea of "tough love" displaying unbridled compassion by demeaning and debasing an individual for aberrant behaviors certainly has an appeal for many; as it allows us to vent animosity towards those variations of conduct which frighten and repel under the guise of charity.

What we find repugnant we frame in terms of immortality; thus giving our prejudice the mantel of divine wisdom. If we can not find the energy and responsibility to treat those we oppose with respect and empathy; resorting to degradation and dismissal is not a sign of love, it is merely the convenient contempt that prevents our own self evaluation and analysis.

True love creates an obligation, a duty to others that must not be overshadowed by egotistical selfishness and cowardice. If we can't take it upon our shoulders, best not to use the name.

Post hate

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/06/ny-post-no-to-same-sex-marriage.html

"George Orwell, on how to avoid thinking when you speak:

You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. they will construct your sentences for you -- even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent -- and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear...

It does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this, is that it is easy."

-----------------------------

Thus, using shopworn phrases serves the dual purpose of both obscuring the truth, and befuddling the speaker. The idea that marriage can only be preserved by not allowing people to use it, that exploiting one's neighbor best embodies the feeling of love, that expressing bigotry remains a matter of individual conscience; these exercises in holding contradictory views simultaneously serve well in producing the form of controlled insanity necessary to propagate hateful fanaticism.

As Orwell would indicate, I think, this kind of mental excrement flows trippingly from the orifices of the purposely thoughtless; not surprising then, to see it spew from wherever cognitive skills are disdained.

writing wrong

[quote="SarahElizabeth"]How is it that the so-called Religious Right always seem to be wrong?

You name the issue, they always seem to be wrong.

I suppose it is Old Testament stuff. Fire and brimstrone. An eye for an eye. And so forth.[/quote]

Actually, this observation, (although perhaps a tad sweeping), touches upon a problem that I find characteristic of fundamentalist thinking; the need for certainty outweighing the need for describing the complexities of social human behavior. Most of us, I think, understand the limitations in our ability to fully encompass reality in our internal conceptualizations; we realize that trade-offs must be made between how we see the world, and how it objectively exists.

Basically, our consciousness helps us survive through what I understand as modeling; that is, by creating a reproduction of reality within our minds, we can predict probable outcomes of various behaviors in new environments. Thus, when novel situations arise, I can guide my choices by the results of various scenarios already experienced within my internal framework of reality. Nowhere near a perfect system, but a useful and viable process, none the less.

However, this construct must serve the needs of the user, first and foremost. The level of certainty needs control, lest the apprehension of the unknown overwhelm and incapacitate the individual. Ambiguities may produce a level of unease unacceptable in daily living; in such instances, something must be sacrificed if cognitive dissonance is to be kept at a workable level.

I think most of us have experienced the realization that our understanding lacks the kind of clarity we suppose we possess; the distasteful shock of ignorance seems rarely pleasing to my palate. However, for some, this recognition borders on intolerable, and threatens the very foundation of mental stability.

What I sense in the most reactionary fundamentalist belief systems, (and in all honesty, some of my less irresponsible convictions) are the willingness to abandon external evidence that contradicts dearly held assumptions; rather than risk the disintegration of the cognitive construct, the senses are to be ignored.

Unfortunately, this propensity for denial, when taken to extremes, can create fanatics of a most virulent nature. Dehumanization, destruction and extermination can follow; sweeping aside all aspirations of charity in the wave of righteousness. Dead people tell no tales, and offer much less opposition to our assertions; even the "best" of nations and peoples have deeds that they would like hidden.

I'd like to believe that I hold the sword of truth, but I'd best temper that blade with the realization that my sight is too feeble to use it for more that defense.

Purging the evil

"We are doing a poor job of fighting the terrorists at home if we continue to allow Muslim immigrants, especially from Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, into America. We won't win this war if we permit the uncontrolled construction of mosques, as well as Islamic schools, some of which already have sown the seeds from which future terrorists will be cultivated. We won't win this war if we continue to permit the large-scale conversion to Islam of prison inmates, many of whom become radicalized and upon release enlist in al-Qaida's army. We must purge the evil from among us, or else. " -Cal Thomas

---------------------------------------------------------------

When war rages within ourselves , and will not be acknowledged; we require an external enemy to engage. The conflict between our simplistic worldview, and the complex reality that overwhelms our understanding creates a fear that torments; a fear that requires mitigation lest it destroy our will to live. The temptation to trade truth for certainity may engulf the best intentions, and, in a desperate bid to master the dread of unpredictability, lead to creation of straw demons; respositories of rage and revulsion.

Thus, the outside influences of evil loom eternally, shadowing our lives and darkening our minds and hearts. One adversary falls, and another rises up to cast the pall of menace; this dimness obscures the truth of inner dissonance and leads to an continual crusade against those who reflect the evil that eminates from ourselves.

We must first purge the evil within before we can hope to deal with the evil without.