Archive for October, 2008

h1

What the Hell…?

October 31, 2008

I apologize for swamping this space with Prop 8 stuff.  But, there is just too much interesting fodder.  It’s almost finished, I promise.

I need to pass this on though.  Tomorrow there is a big Yes on 8 Rally in CA at the Padres baseball stadium.  Thousands of people are flocking to it, including all the big names on the Relgious Right.  It’s getting a lot of attention.

Here is the ad that they made to promote the event.  Ummm, can you say creepy?!?  Which marketing genius made the decision to include the deep, scary voice and thunderstorm sounds?

h1

They Are After Our Kids

October 31, 2008

The Yes on Prop 8 battle cry…

And I quote:

“They can’t reproduce, so they’ve got to recruit.  And they are trying to recruit our kids.  They are trying to promote their lifestyle to our kids.  And I say No.”

Damn, they’ve figured out our master plan to indoctrinate children.  I thought we had fooled them.

h1

Happy Halloween

October 31, 2008

Live it up  :)

h1

Prop 8: Saving the Country from Nazis

October 30, 2008

I know that I may have lost my objectivity on the Prop 8 issue.  It matters a great deal to me.  

But I think even a moderate would be stunned by the lengths that the Yes on 8 campaign is now going.  

Here’s a clip from their rally yesterday.

And I quote: “Adolph Hitler said, ‘the soul of Germany you can leave that to me,’ And they did.  And because they did bombs would not only fall on the nation of Germany but also upon the church [...]  Let us not make the mistake folks.  Let us hear the bell. Vote for Proposition 8.”

I’ll translate:

gay marriage = Nazism

gay marriage supporters = Hitler

gay marriage opponents = saving the world from evil

 

 

What’s ironic is that Hitler gassed homosexuals right along with gypsys and Jews.  It’s the origin of the upside, pink triangle symbol.

h1

The Real Prop 8 Issue

October 29, 2008

Watching the Yes on Prop 8 ads has been painful.  It’s painful because the arguments tossed about are so absurd that I’m baffeled as to why this is even close.  How on earth can it be?

It’s close because of the underlying message.  This is the real, unspoken argument made by the Yes of 8 campaign:

I think he means to say that if same-sex marriage remains a legal right, enshrined in state constitutional law, then homosexual relationships will come to be regarded as normal and good, and, consequently, anyone who objects to them will start to look like a bigot who should not be permitted to have his way. Thus, in order to preserve the right to discriminate against gay people and to keep schools from teaching children that gay couples are perfectly nice and so forth — all things Broyles wants — it’s important to outlaw gay marriage, because it will be a powerful force in changing perceptions about gay people and those who think gay people are doing something terribly wrong.

Bingo.  It all goes back to that.  Each measure that has anything to do with gay rights is never actually argued on the merits of the issues.  Instead, each is a referendum on whether homosexuality is moral or immoral.  As California Congressional candidate Tom McClintock, Prop 8 supporter said yesterday: “Lincoln asked, ‘If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? The answer is four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.  And calling a homosexual partnership a marriage doesn’t make it one.”  

That’s the real argument…homosexual relationships should never be considered as good as heteroseuxal ones.  Period.

As expected, Andrew Sullivan offers the best response.  He nails my own thoughts:

One reason I favor marriage equality is that the simple public fact of gay married couples will in itself teach something about the reality of gay people and our lives – without any school or parent having to say a thing. It gives us a way to talk about gay couples for the first time in human history without talking about sex acts. 

 To give one simple example. I have never sat down with my niece and nephew, who are nine and twelve, and told them I am gay. But they were both in our wedding, along with my husband’s family’s children. They see me and Aaron for who we are – all of us, defined by all we do and are. They know we are gay but we never had to say so. And there is nothing more moving than hearing my nephew talk of “uncle Aaron.” 

 

Exactly.  I will argue to the death that gay marriage should be legal on purely political grounds.  But, I’d be lying if I said that was enough.  It means much more than just getting the legal privileges of marriage.  

The real truth is that I DO want more than that.  I DO want to feel like I am on completely equal footing with every other couple.  I DO want children to grow up without being taught that I am perverse and dangerous.  I DO want my fellow Americans to believe that my relationship is just as important to our nation’s stability as theirs.  This does go beyond politics.  

That is the real Prop 8 argument.

h1

The Looks in the Family

October 28, 2008

My baby sister Tami is a senior in high school.  She’s a constant reminder of how old I’m getting.

Besides having a very solid head on her shoulders and being the best athlete in the family, she also took all of the looks.

As an act of shameless promotion from a proud brother, here are a few senior photos she got back today…



h1

I thought this was a joke…

October 28, 2008

I laughed out loud when I first saw this Prop 8 ad, because I thought it was satire.  It isn’t.  Wow.

 

h1

The Myth of Children

October 26, 2008

The same Atlantic article mentioned below continued with this unique thought:

Pretty much no matter how you test it, children make us less happy. The evidence isn’t just from diary studies; surveys of marital satisfaction show that couples tend to start off happy, get less happy when they have kids, and become happy again only once the kids leave the house. As the psychologist Daniel Gilbert puts it, “Despite what we read in the popular press, the only known symptom of ‘empty-nest syndrome’ is increased smiling.” So why do people believe that children give them so much pleasure? Gilbert sees it as an illusion, a failure of affective forecasting. Society’s needs are served when people believe that having children is a good thing, so we are deluged with images and stories about how wonderful kids are. We think they make us happy, though they actually don’t.

The ‘multiplicy of self’ theory would posit the following answer:

There is no inconsistency between someone’s anxiously hiking through the Amazon wishing she were home in a warm bath and, weeks later, feeling good about being the sort of adventurous soul who goes into the rain forest. In an important sense, the person in the Amazon is not the same person as the one back home safely recalling the experience, just as the person who honestly believes that his children are the great joy in his life might not be the same person who finds them terribly annoying when he’s actually with them.

Any thoughts?  I’m not so sure.

h1

Self-Binding

October 26, 2008

A long Atlantic article of the ‘multiplicity of self’ had an interesting section on a topic called self-binding.

 

The atricle’s topic is a familar one: we all have competing personalities.  It complicates the study if happiness, because different things make different parts of ourselves happy at different times.  The classic example is the internal battle between the dieter and the cake-eater.  The author explains…

…we can make sense of the interaction of these selves by plotting their relative strengths over time, starting with one (the cake eater) being weaker than the other (the dieter). For most of the day, the dieter hums along at his regular power (a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10, say), motivated by the long-term goal of weight loss, and is stronger than the cake eater (a 2). Your consciousness tracks whichever self is winning, so you are deciding not to eat the cake. But as you get closer and closer to the cake, the power of the cake eater rises (3 … 4 …), the lines cross, the cake eater takes over (6), and that becomes the conscious you; at this point, you decide to eat the cake. It’s as if a baton is passed from one self to another.

 

But what I found most interesting was what followed:  what we sometimes do to physically prevent one of our selves from taking control…

Self-binding means that the dominant self schemes against the person it might potentially become—the 5 acts to keep the 2 from becoming a 6. Ulysses wanted to hear the song of the sirens, but he knew it would compel him to walk off the boat and into the sea. So he had his sailors tie him to the mast. Dieters buy food in small portions so they won’t overeat later on; smokers trying to quit tell their friends never to give them cigarettes, no matter how much they may later beg. In her book on gluttony, Francine Prose tells of women who phone hotels where they are going to stay to demand a room with an empty minibar. An alarm clock now for sale rolls away as it sounds the alarm; to shut it off, you have to get up out of bed and find the damn thing.

 

I do these things.  Do you?  It’s bizzare to think about.  With all we are able to accomplish, we often cannot control simple things about ourselves.

h1

No on Prop 8 Response Ad

October 24, 2008

Here’s the ‘No’ campaign’s response to one of the ridiculous ads from the Yes campaign that I had previously posted….